# Why don't we discuss how we could help men to want sex LESS?



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

It seems like there's so much talk about men not "getting" enough sex from their wives, and how to "get" more, and get their wives to want it more. 

Why is there no similar talk about how women can be more free from this pressure, and more free from having to deal with all the messy consequences and all the Dr. visits (that the men are always free from).

What do you guys think?

I mean, everyone wants to talk about how to get women to "want it more". What if we found solutions for men - so they want it less?!! 

We have pharmaceutical drugs for nearly everything these days. We have solutions to help people who are suffering from acid reflux, all kinds of pain, etc. 

If men are so tortured by their desires for sex, why isn't someone developing/selling a pill to HELP them with that? 

Why isn't anyone addressing this, and helping men here (to take responsibility for their own bodies and "desires"). And to decrease their suffering by other means besides making a woman responsible to pay the price (with her insides and her health). 

Especially in this day and age of women supposedly being worthy of equality, health and respect.

People could still have sex here and there, when they both genuinely WANT TO. But it wouldn't be some big high-pressure desperation situation all the time. That the woman is made RESPONSIBLE for.

Plus helping men to want it less seems like it would make everyone feel so much BETTER and enjoy life more! Doesn't it?!! Who wants to be tortured and at the mercy of some physical "craving" all the time? That sounds like an awful way to live, if you ask me.

What do you guys think?


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

What do you mean, 'pay the price with their heath?'

Sex makes you happier, healthier, and is pretty much the best thing ever. people are _supposed_ to want sex. It is GOOD FOR YOU. That is biology 101.

People who have low sex drives or are asexual need to get together and find each other so they can be happy together not having sex.

You get married, you have to make each other happy, which includes sex. As much sex as it takes for both to be happy. If this doesn't happen, there will be all kinds of problems. Don't like it - don't get married! It is a skill you learn that takes work, like communication or parenting or being handy around the house. 

ETA: Lots of anti-depressants can lower your sex drive. I'm sure there are some very sad people out there who take them for this reason. But why should it have to get to that point?


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

for every spouse that is anti sex, there is another one sitting out there just waiting and wanting a willing partner. attitudes like you have described only push an unfulfilled spouse to find it elsewhere.

and how you can state that this is a male only problem is beyond me. 

this opinion piece can easily be countered by stating there are medical fixes for low drive spouses as well.

what do i think? i think there are times when people seek validation for behavior they deep down know isnt normal.


----------



## Edge (Mar 30, 2011)

Right now I am sincerely thanking God you are not my wife.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

Because sex is intimacy and it is awesome. <3


----------



## e.p. (Jun 10, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> It seems like there's so much talk about men not "getting" enough sex from their wives, and how to "get" more, and get their wives to want it more.


I think it's fair to say in a committed, marital relationship sex (the full spectrum, from touching to kissing to the bedroom stuff) is not just healthy but a key fundamental tie that binds the marriage.



miss-understood said:


> I mean, everyone wants to talk about how to get women to "want it more". What if we found solutions for men - so they want it less?!!


There are plenty of women who want it more than men. I know a few in real life and there's plenty on the sex section here - should we be repressing their libidos or telling them to want it less? Does the knife slice both ways for you?



miss-understood said:


> If men are so tortured by their desires for sex, why isn't someone developing/selling a pill to HELP them with that?


For me an many other men it's not being tortured for that release, it's being tortured by not having a fulfilling sexual relationship with my wife. Especially when the other bonds and expectations (like me being a sole and stable provider, me being a good father, emotional rock, etc.) are non-negotiable. Why should sex be?

Honestly I'm sick of living in a world where everything should be cured by a pill to make other people feel more comfortable or abdicate their responsibilities. Kid acting up? Slap him with some Prozac. Wife feel melancholy? Slap her with some antidepressants. Husband too horny? Slap him with something to break his d*ck...

-e.p.


----------



## Married&Confused (Jan 19, 2011)

rather than your solution, how about a match.com-style questionnaire to gauge sexual compatibility before people get married?


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

nader, we women pay a high price for sex. 

In our current culture, it's the norm for us to be expected to "suck it up" and clean it all up, and not complain or burden the men with the details. we go to the doctor once a year to be cranked open to have our cervixes scraped with a brush. to monitor vaginal health (and to monitor the HPV that's spread via sexual contact, that does virtually nothing to men, but can cause deadly cervical cancer for us). We go in for cone biopsies, having our cervical cells cryo-freezed off, we go in for all the antifungals and antibiotics from BV, yeast infections and UTIs that are not sexually "transmitted" but come about from having sex (set off by having sex).

Modern men have been shielded from the messiness and everything that women do for sex. 

Men don't have to bear this expense (and itchiness, and pain from "procedures", and UTIs). And I haven't even mentioned pregnancy yet, and ectopic pregnancy (I have 2 friends who nearly died because of ectopic pregnancies) and abortions.

All because of sex. Which is fun and games for the men. And carries a high physical price for women. We've just been told to hide it, in our current culture. 

Men should at least respect these basic biological facts. And women's bodies. 

I mean, when was the last time a dude had sex and then worried about it for the next several days AFTER. Or got on the phone with his girlfriends the next day to say, "OMG, we had sex last night. And now it's itching and burning - I think I have UTI coming on from it, ugh". Or how often do dudes fret and look at the calendar, and wonder what they're going to DO because their period is late. (Married or not.)

Or how often do thy sniff and around for days after (when using the restroom) because they feel a BV infection coming on. 

No - they have sex and then feel like heroes! And feel great the next few days. They have nothing to clean up and look after. 

All I'm saying is - recognize it, and respect it. And ladies, stop pretending and hiding/downplaying it. Sex has some pretty serious negative affects on women's bodies, as well as some positive. Let's be honest about it.


----------



## magnoliagal (Mar 30, 2011)

I am a 45 year old woman. I've never had an UTI, a yeast infection, burning, pain, an STD, a biopsy, BV, nothing. Nada, zip, nothing. I've had none of the negatives on your list. Not one.

Not all women pay such a price for sex. I'm in perfect health and sex has had nothing but positive affects on my body. It reduces stress, connects me with my husband, gave me 3 beautiful children, and it's fun. What's not to like?


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

ep, you had said:

"Especially when the other bonds and expectations (like me being a sole and stable provider, me being a good father, emotional rock, etc.) are non-negotiable. Why should sex be?"

In my opinion, it's different because sex involves the INSIDE of her body, and you putting stuff INSIDE her body, stuff that comes with consequences to her, that you are free from. 

So it's very different from being a father, being an emotional rock, or even going to work (which happens out in the world, not inside an orifice of your personal physical body, your most personal physical boundary and self). 

I think we've lost all perspective and respect for women's bodies, and what sex is for women. We treat the female body these days like "objects for pleasure" more now, than back in the past. We even tell women that they're supposed to think of their bodies this way. And if they don't, we call them a "prude" or "hung up".

I mean, you don't have to agree with me, here. But just consider this CONCEPT, for a moment. And how much more imposing sex is for a women, than a man. How much more is at stake. Truly.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

Men can get their balls cut off if they want to go with your approach.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

magnoliagal, i wonder if times have changed at all? what i've seen is that it's very common for my women-friends (mid-20s to mid-30s in age) to discuss with one another their procedures, infections, and the worry. and the HPV issues (hence the "biopsies" and cervical dysplasia). ectopic pregnancy (emergency surgery). 

I have never had an abortion. But i'm the only woman i know, in my circle of female friends who hasn't had at least one (many without even telling the man - and thereby bearing the financial as well as the physical consequences solo). and/or at least one (if not more) "oops" babies. 

also, of all my male friends, and husband, included, every single one of them has a girlfriend who's had an abortion (due to him having sex with her). 

I don't mean to dismiss your experience, at all. I believe that what you're saying is true (about yourself). And I think that's great, for you, if you have not experienced the pain of UTIs, BV, the biopsies, dysplasia, etc. 

But for some of us (many of us), it's routine and recurrent if we have sex (but doesn't happen if we abstain). 

I think both situations are rather "normal" and common female situations, and need to be acknowledged. Your experience, included. Your experience is real and true, and just as important to consider.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

e.p. - oh and you know... i really do hear you - and with you, too - regarding being sick of just addressing everything with a pill. 

i know my previous (first) post might seem to suggest otherwise. 

but my thought was - geez, we throw a pill at everything ELSE. we're pill crazy as a culture. so why not create a pill for THIS (if we're so pill happy, to begin with).

does that make sense?

ultimately, though, i agree with you regarding all the drugs being thrown around for every little ailment in our culture. it's excessive, and no doubt damaging, too.


----------



## txhunter54 (Jul 4, 2010)

You won't get much from guys on how to want sex less. It's just not going to happen. A healthy male wants sex. Period.


----------



## magnoliagal (Mar 30, 2011)

miss-understood I have a theory. An UNproven theory that is. I think it does have to do with changing times and/or the number of partners you've had (or the number or partners your spouse has had). For example my sister is 40 and she has slept with LOTS of men. She has all kinds of female problems. Almost everything on your list except the ectopic's.

The women that I know that have these issues have slept with more people than me or my husband have. It's the lowest common denominator. Even if they are younger than me they've still had more partners than me.

I wholeheartedly believe there is a price to pay for multiple partners (either side meaning you could be a virgin but if you husband slept with a bunch of women you are now at risk).

Just my thoughts. Do not blast me it's just a personal theory of mine. I don't think our bodies were meant for multiple partners.


----------



## madimoff (Feb 17, 2010)

I don't know whether the OP was written with wooden spoon (or Magimix, perhaps) in hand, but notwithstanding the major oversight of assuming that sex is only for men's pleasure/release and not remotely of interest to women, I'd say one thing: 
Her core message. Think about it. Not saying I agree with more than maybe 0% of the detail of the whole post, but the idea that no-one gives much thought to the fact it's women's insides that more often pay the 'price' for sex? Just think about it is maybe all she should be saying.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

txhunter 54, I have a question. And I mean this in all seriousness...

but if men "want" it, and that wanting is such torture, why WOULDN'T they want to "want" it less. Would that make them more free and happy?

Do you know what I mean? 

I mean, I liken it to feeling STARVING all the time. That would be awful if there wasn't enough food. I'd rather be free from that awful feeling of hunger. And be able to just go about my day and be happy and free. 

Why do they WANT to want it, if it's always such an issue - "getting" enough of it? 

I'm serious, I need help understanding this. I flat out don't get it - the appeal.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> So it's very different from being a father, being an emotional rock, or even going to work (which happens out in the world, not inside an orifice of your personal physical body, your most personal physical boundary and self).


wrong. Your body has to go to work when it would rather be sleeping or catching some rays at the pool. Going to work causes stress.. stress can kill you over time. Everyone has a body. Men will put their bodies through hell for the women they love.

If you can't share this 'personal physical boundary' with the person you love, you had damn well better find someone who is ok with that. Unless you really just like to torture men. My heart goes out to Mr. understood, if there is one.

ETA: everything that can go wrong because of sex - rape, abortion, etc. - is not sex's fault. This is a forum about marriage and long term relationships built on love, trust, etc.



> but if men "want" it, and that wanting is such torture, why WOULDN'T they want to "want" it less. Would that make them more free and happy?


That would be a last resort. What men _really_ want is to feel loved and respected by women (or A woman), and have that love and respect expressed sexually. Men are actually just big teddy bears, deep down. Once you manage to reach them.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

madimoff, just acknowledging that fact (that you mentioned) minus all the other "details" (and maybe including how I presented them), makes me - personally - feel better about the topic overall. 

Not that it's all about me. Just sayin'...

I feel like we're resistant to even ADMITTING that basic fact these days. We want to insist that men and women are "the same" and that sex is the same for both genders. But we're not the same and IT is not the same. And is that so bad to admit, really?


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> nader, we women pay a high price for sex.
> 
> In our current culture, it's the norm for us to be expected to "suck it up" and clean it all up, and not complain or burden the men with the details. we go to the doctor once a year to be cranked open to have our cervixes scraped with a brush. to monitor vaginal health (and to monitor the HPV that's spread via sexual contact, that does virtually nothing to men, but can cause deadly cervical cancer for us). We go in for cone biopsies, having our cervical cells cryo-freezed off, we go in for all the antifungals and antibiotics from BV, yeast infections and UTIs that are not sexually "transmitted" but come about from having sex (set off by having sex).
> 
> ...


All I have to say is: what man whizzed in your cheerios?

There is more to the story here...you sound bitter about men and sex in general.

I couldn't disagree more - I'm a woman with a high drive and a husband who's drive has nose-dived. So I know "exactly" how these men feel.

It sucks to feel unloved, unwanted and undesired by the person who means the most to you.

Sounds like you "haven't" been there or you would know how we feel.

I feel sorry that your attitude is so sour towards something that is so important between committed people.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> madimoff, just acknowledging that fact (that you mentioned) minus all the other "details" (and maybe including how I presented them), makes me - personally - feel better about the topic overall.
> 
> Not that it's all about me. Just sayin'...
> 
> I feel like we're resistant to even ADMITTING that basic fact these days. We want to insist that men and women are "the same" and that sex is the same for both genders. But we're not the same and IT is not the same. And is that so bad to admit, really?


Sounds like you look at sex as a "burden".

Why?


----------



## MGirl (Mar 13, 2011)

Wow. If you feel so strongly about this, miss-understood, then don't have sex anymore. 

I've also never had any of the issues you describe here, either. And I am in my 20's. Then again, I've only ever been with my husband. 

A high physical price for women? Yes, there are things that can happen. I could also die in a car crash today. Doesn't mean I'll stop driving. But I will wear my seat belt and drive safely. 

Perhaps I need a pill to kill my sex drive as well. I want it as much as men do and I damn well enjoy it too.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

nader, that's all still the outside of your body. 

insulting me and saying you feel sorry for my husband doesn't improve the quality of the discussion.  that would be like me saying that i feel sorry for your wife, because I think badly of your views. 

Here's my main point: cknowledging that sex is different for men and women doesn't mean you "CAN'T share this personal physical boundary". it just means that you (as a man) SEE it and are aware of it as a boundary. versus treating your wife's insides as if they are "outsides" (they are not outsides).


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

magnoliagal, i'm not going to blast you for that theory! i think there's probably A LOT to that. 

some of us, however, do still experience repeated infections with ONE man - with our husbands. My doc even said that although my husband only had one other longtime girlfriend before me, he is no doubt introducing strains of HPV to me, that we will have to watch out for. and biopsy it occassionally when the pap comes back "abnormal".

I DO think there's something to the variety thing that you mentioned, though. how could that NOT stir things up and make it messier? i've thought that several times with some of my younger (and more promiscious) girlfriends. what bothers me too, is the pressure they seem to feel to be hypersexual. one told me recently that if you DON'T sleep with a guy by the 3rd date, it's considered "witholding" or "danging the golden p****". so she complies, so she won't "look bad" or be accused of using the guy. but if someone is dating casually (in an attempt to meet someone they want to be serious with), mandatory sex by the 3rd date could equal quite few different partners in one year! 

another reason i'm glad i'm married! it seems like a madhouse out there.


----------



## madimoff (Feb 17, 2010)

I'm guessing the OP enjoys her sex life just fine thankyou. I'm guessing she wanted to air something she'd been wondering about, possibly even having discussed it with her husband and thought of a way of canvassing others' views..... and chose a very successful way of getting people talking which unfortunately backfired so everyone thinks she's a man/sex-hating loon! (or am I having a charitable day)


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> nader, that's all still the outside of your body.
> 
> insulting me and saying you feel sorry for my husband doesn't improve the quality of the discussion. that would be like me saying that i feel sorry for your wife, because I think badly of your views.
> 
> Here's my main point: cknowledging that sex is different for men and women doesn't mean you "CAN'T share this personal physical boundary". it just means that you (as a man) SEE it and are aware of it as a boundary. versus treating your wife's insides as if they are "outsides" (they are not outsides).


Fair enough. But forgive me if I think there is alot more going on than this 'inside/outside' thing.

You come in here asking, 'why don't men just try to nix their libidos to make life easier?' To a casual bystander, this _might_, just might might, sound like kind of a loaded question.


----------



## magnoliagal (Mar 30, 2011)

See and that's just crazy. I never had sex by the 3rd date and if they demanded that then they could take a flying leap. Sex should only be done in my opinion within the context of a committed relationship something that's impossible to do by the 3rd date.

Are you sure your husband has only had one other partner?


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Some of you guys are just mean, in your replies. I didn't mean anyone any harm by posting how I feel about this. No one has to AGREE with my views. 

Telling me that how I feel about it is ridiculous, or insinuating that I'm a man-hater, or condescendingly saying you "feel sorry" for me thinking/feeling the way I do doesn't make me feel any better about the topic. 

It also doesn't really make for a very interesting discussion about the deeper overall ideas/concepts. 

I don't "feel sorry" for any of you having the views that you do. What the heck?


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

It is hard to see where you are coming from when you haven't really shared any of your experience. You've spoken as though sex is some sort of curse on women or tool for men to oppress them.. Others have pointed out that you seem bitter, which may very well be justified.

I apologize if my comments were insulting to you.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

magnoliagal, i'm very sure! he's as innocent as pie! but my doc said that with HPV, it almost doesn't matter if the other person is a virgin. because we ALL carry around tons of HPV strains inside us. so having sexual contact with just ONE person intruduces us to all the strains that they're carrying around. some have the potential to develop into cancer - many do not. 

that's how he described it to me, at least.

and the UTIs, BV, yeast, etc, isn't sexually "transmitted" from the guy. Like the BV (maybe you already know all this, sorry if i'm telling you stuff that you know) is an overgrowth of gardnerella bacteria that's already in the woman's body, but the overgrowth is "set off" by the activity of sex.

and UTIs we know, are from bacteria that came from either my body or his being shoved UP inside the urethra via the ACTION of sex. 

i don't know. it's a lot of info to keep track of... (sigh).


----------



## MGirl (Mar 13, 2011)

Miss-understood,

I believe you are indeed misunderstood. If you'd shared your own experiences upfront, it would have been helpful.

But you did come and make your first post here one that insinuates that men are flawed by nature to need sex and should be "fixed" If you want to start controversy, that's a great way to do it.

I'm very sorry you've had to worry about repeated paps, possible exposure to HPV. But you're using your experience as a broad generalization that sex in general is detrimental to women, which is not true.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

nader, i asked that question ("why isn't anyone talking about how to make men want it less") genuinely.

because i'm curious - why ISN'T anyone talking about that? the focus seems to so consistently be on what to do to make women want it MORE. 

I think the same topic (but flipped and taking a look at male dsire) deserves some thought/discussion. I meant it genuinely - "Yhy?" (why isn't it discussed?)

i'm not talking about eradicating it, but reducing it. 

Again, because we talk so freely about increasing female desire. Why NOT talk about reducing male desire in the same way. it's kind of logical, as a question to at least ponder. No?


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

To be brutally honest, who gives a f$*ck. Really, if you don't want sex then you can't care if I want sex. All you're talking about is being hassled. So every time you think he wants sex, just slap him in the balls. Even we stupid knuckle dragging apes will figure it out. 

I've got a wife like you and while I won't tell you to burn in hell, I'm not running for the fire extinguisher either.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Mgirl, wait a sec - I never said, nor insinuated, that men are flawed.

If we talk freely about how to increase female desire (and it's a very common and accepted board topic - men in dismay over their wives not wanting sex more), then why are we not allowed to suggest/discuss what we can do to decrease male desire. 

The ultimate point is to bring more balance between men and women. the common accepted (expected) focus is how to get women to want it MORE.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> Again, because we talk so freely about increasing female desire. Why NOT talk about reducing male desire in the same way. it's kind of logical, as a question to at least ponder. No?


I believe the answer very simple, but just not what you want to hear. It's already been explained, but I'll reiterate. It is because men WANT to have sex. And they WANT to want sex. It makes us feel youthful and healthy and alive. And in a good relationship it makes us feel loved, accepted and emotionally connected.

There probably are men who would be just fine with taking something that curbs their desire. But to me that seems really sad. I hope I don't ever get to this point in my life, but nobody can predict the future.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

white rabbit, i do agree with you. they don't want to see it or know that it exists. and hey, i'm not trying to dog out men, either. i just think it would go along way to acknowledge it. 

oh and speaking of jock itch commercials (your post made me laugh out loud by the way - not ridiculing what you were saying! i just mean your straightforward style made me laugh in the good say)... but all that jock itch powder is freaky too. this is diff. from why you even mentioned it - but guys slap talc on their balls and then want to have sex with us. and talc is known to be connected to - guess what - cervical cancer. that's that WORST place a guy could put it - on his privates - and then go shoving it up INSIDE Of us! ugh.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> nader, we women pay a high price for sex.


We DO????



> In our current culture, it's the norm for us to be expected to "suck it up" and clean it all up, and not complain or burden the men with the details. we go to the doctor once a year to be cranked open to have our cervixes scraped with a brush.


Which I hope you would continue to do even if you weren't having sex. 



> to monitor vaginal health (and to monitor the HPV that's spread via sexual contact, that does virtually nothing to men, but can cause deadly cervical cancer for us). We go in for cone biopsies, having our cervical cells cryo-freezed off, we go in for all the antifungals and antibiotics from BV, yeast infections and UTIs that are not sexually "transmitted" but come about from having sex (set off by having sex).
> 
> Modern men have been shielded from the messiness and everything that women do for sex.
> 
> ...


Honestly, my advice to you is don't get married. 


Your attitude is really unhealthy. That said, marriage is about intimacy, love AND sex. Men (and some women like myself) experience love and caring THROUGH sex. Viewing it as a messy inconvenience seems antithetical to marriage to me.


----------



## MGirl (Mar 13, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> Mgirl, wait a sec - I never said, nor insinuated, that men are flawed.
> 
> If we talk freely about how to increase female desire (and it's a very common and accepted board topic - men in dismay over their wives not wanting sex more), then why are we not allowed to suggest/discuss what we can do to decrease male desire.
> 
> The ultimate point is to bring more balance between men and women. the common accepted (expected) focus is how to get women to want it MORE.


So the point you're making is that men and women have mismatched libidos and that in itself is a flaw, correct?

You believe that because the mismatched libidos is a flaw, it should be corrected. The options? Decrease men's drive or raise women's drive. Because women carry a higher load of risk factors from sex, the overall libido level of men and women should match the women's. Hence decreasing men's drive. Do I have that right?

Here's what I'll say. Go find a bookstore or download this book if you have a Kindle:

Amazon.com: Women's Anatomy of Arousal: Secret Maps to Buried Pleasure (9780578033952): Sheri Winston CNM. RN. BSN. LMT: Books

Women's drives didn't used to be as low as they are today. In the past, women naturally had very high drives and it was celebrated. There's a great history lesson in this book.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

I think they are called anti-depressants.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

nader, okay, that's fine. 

but then what if i say (to a man who complains about his wife not "wanting" it more and trying to devise ways to GET her to want it more) "oh but she WANTS to not want it. she likes the way it makes her feel - the freedom from having that stress and worry imposed onto her".

I mean, okay, men "want" to have sex. and don't want to NOT "want" it. how is that all women's responsibility then.

to an extent, (this'll sound worse than i mean it), but children WANT candy, and want to want candy. it doesn't mean that parents are bad and something is wrong with them to say "no, enough candy". 

"wants" are important. but it's not right to allow men's wants categorically trump women's wants. especially when it comes to their most private intimate inside body parts! Don't you think?


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

mom6547, that's not cool.

my post is not regarding any decision on my part to get married or not get married, or to have sex or not have sex. it's about the larger topic of asking these questions and discussing them openly, with others.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> but then what if i say (to a man who complains about his wife not "wanting" it more and trying to devise ways to GET her to want it more) "oh but she WANTS to not want it. she likes the way it makes her feel - the freedom from having that stress and worry imposed onto her".


More than ever, women are free to take this route. You meet them every day. They are called single women.

It would be best if women to figure this out about themselves BEFORE they commit to a marriage. but women also want security and, in many cases, a father for their children. So they get married.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

I'm sure I'll offend you miss-understood. But, you just sound like a bitter misandrist commiserating with ****s about how mistreated you all are. STDs are spread by sex. The more sex you have, the higher your risk. The converse is also true. Abortions are really easy to avoid.

Men want sex. It's their fundamental nature. Maximum happiness doesn't occur when one partner forces the other partner to suppress his fundamental nature. Maximum happiness occurs when both partners accommodate the fundamental natures of the other.

And the inside/outside the body thing is fairly ridiculous. Saying that the pain of pregnancy/childbirth trumps 18 years of child support, at the threat of imprisonment, is nuts. How many women would rather serve prison terms than give birth? Probably not many.

To those who believe that there are too many tampon commercials and not enough viagra/men's hair dye/"male enhancement" commercials, I suggest you change the channel from Lifetime to literally any other channel. Oprah didn't get richer than God by catering to men by complaining about women.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Mgirl, I don't think *I'm* saying that men's and women's sex drives are mismatched and therefore flawed. I think our culture says that, and then looks to the women, specifically - and how to INCREASE it for her. 

it's the common topic (and common board post) that a man posts asking how to get his wife to want it MORE. I'm responding to what I'm seeing, reading, hearing from others, and what's "acceptable" to discuss in our culture. And I'm saying "hey, if you want to ask about the women, how about we also ask about the men?"

in the past, however, I DO think it was often more accepted that women didn't care much for sex. afterall, in times past, sex carried far MORE consequences for women (pregnancy with no option for contraception or abortion). women were much more fearful of sex, and they were allowed to be. not they're expected to act like men. 

but hey i'll check out that link you provided, and read that stuff too. because i DO want to consider other research/evidence! I do. And thank you for posting that.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> mom6547, that's not cool.
> 
> my post is not regarding any decision on my part to get married or not get married, or to have sex or not have sex. it's about the larger topic of asking these questions and discussing them openly, with others.


You say TomAto I say tomato. I stand by what I have written. The attitude that you present is REALLY unhealthy.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

nader said:


> More than ever, women are free to take this route. You meet them every day. They are called single women.
> 
> It would be best if women to figure this out about themselves BEFORE they commit to a marriage. but women also want security and, in many cases, a father for their children. So they get married.


Women's bodies are built to want sex too. We are socialized and religionized to not trust our bodies.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

When men discover a pill that kills their sexual drive, marriage will no longer be an issue. What would motivate a sane male to seek out and to cohabitate with a woman, to surrender 80% of all spending decisions to her? If mice quit liking cheese, mousetraps wouldn't be nearly as interesting to them.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

PHTlump - but i didn't say i was "mistreated"!

i'm not mistreated. 

and i agree that men want sex as part of their nature.

you're missing the point of the questions i'm posing. 

thanks for saying that what i think/feel is ridiculous, though! that makes for a really great discussion!


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Why have you surrendered your right to make spending decisions? You know you don't have to do that, right?


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

so if there was a pill to keep women from yapping continuously, all women should take it? or should they just find someone else that will willingly listen to them?


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Mom6547, you're missing the point of the larger discussion by getting bogged down in whether the ideas are "healthy" or "unhealthy".

they're ideas, and this is a group discussion. not a one-on-one therapy session.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> Mom6547, you're missing the point of the larger discussion by getting bogged down in whether the ideas are "healthy" or "unhealthy".
> 
> they're ideas, and this is a group discussion. not a one-on-one therapy session.


No I am not. I see what you are saying. I think the fact that you view sex as an inconvenience, messy and burden for women is just not true. So there IS no larger discussion.

There is no larger discussion because for men to want sex is a GOOD thing. Part of their nature that attracts us females.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care: 

•91% of New Homes
•66% PCs
•92% Vacations
•80% Healthcare
•65% New Cars
•89% Bank Accounts
•93% Food
•93 % OTC PharmaceuticalsAmerican women spend about $5 trillion annually…
Over half the U.S. GDP


----------



## MGirl (Mar 13, 2011)

Miss-understood,

How long have you been married?

Mom6547 is spot on. Always is.


----------



## txhunter54 (Jul 4, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> txhunter 54, I have a question. And I mean this in all seriousness...
> 
> but if men "want" it, and that wanting is such torture, why WOULDN'T they want to "want" it less. Would that make them more free and happy?
> 
> ...


Guys want it because it is the way we feel wanted and loved. Without it, we might as well live alone or with a roommate. A strong marriage has to include intimacy. Without it, we are not happy and the marriage is not a happy marriage.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

It's like when discussing physical spousal abuse, someone suggesting that instead of men learning not to hit, women learn to not bleed as much or bruise as easily.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

WhiteRabbit said:


> i like how defensive everyone gets when it is suggested that men should try to cater to a woman's sex drive every once in a while instead of it always being the woman who is expected to work hard to change her sex drive to suit the man's needs.
> 
> NOBODY gets defensive when it's a man complaining about needing more sex...it's accepted and considered normal.


It is my opinion that a person's not wanting to have sex with their partner is rarely about drive.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

Everyone pays a high price for anything they chose to do or chosen behavior.

Sex is on the list just like everything else.

Women get UTIs all the time that don't even have sex. Sex is NOT THE CAUSE of the UTIs, a contributing factor - sure, but so is going to the bathroom.

As far as pap smears, etc., these having nothing to do with sex and everything to do with taking care of yourself, just like prostate exams on men. 

I don't find it a chore to be a woman or a chore to have sex and all that goes with it.

Don't want to get pregnant or an STD - use birth control or abstain.

Sex is not MANDATORY - you don't have to have it to LIVE - it's an optional activity - don't want the hassles that go with it - then forgo it.

But, if you get married - it's an integral part - if it's not your cup of tea - then stay single - to subject someone else to the misery of a sexless marriage is selfish and unthinkable.

So you're entitled to your opinion like others.

But don't group ALL women into the same pot - I don't feel like you at all and I'm sure there are others that don't either.

To each his own...


----------



## surfergirl (Jan 27, 2011)

Miss_understood.....I'm pretty sure I understand where you are coming from and I think it's a fair enough question. It's so true that regarding the topic of differing sex drives, the discussion will almost always be about ways of upping the woman's drive, not vice-versa as you suggested.

I'm also pretty sure that the reason there isn't more information, advice (or even a pill to take) out there on "how to slow a males libido down" is because there is too much money to be made from men having a "healthy" sex drive.

The sex/porn industry would die in the ar$e....and the government would lose way too much tax money.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> Mgirl, I don't think *I'm* saying that men's and women's sex drives are mismatched and therefore flawed. I think our culture says that, and then looks to the women, specifically - and how to INCREASE it for her.
> 
> it's the common topic (and common board post) that a man posts asking how to get his wife to want it MORE. I'm responding to what I'm seeing, reading, hearing from others, and what's "acceptable" to discuss in our culture. And I'm saying "hey, if you want to ask about the women, how about we also ask about the men?"
> 
> ...


Personally - I think the reason that things are geared towards increasing a woman's sex drive is more women are guilty of the "bait and switch", then men.

So it's a bigger problem on the women's side. A lot of them don't see the importance of sex in a relationship (as much as men do), so it's more of a gender-focused issue.

Women (not all - but a lot) tend to use sex to get a man, keep a man or get something they want.

You very rarely hear of men doing the same thing.

We're our own worst enemy sometimes.


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

Why, on God's green earth would ANYONE, for any reason want to kill/slow someone's sex drive down?

Don't like the fact that men want sex all the time - then stay single or go ***** - problem solved!


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> Women (not all - but a lot) tend to use sex to get a man, keep a man or get something they want.
> 
> You very rarely hear of men doing the same thing.


Fraiser Crane said this once: Men can never be accused of using sex to get what we want. Sex IS what we want!

It's just a sad fact of like that both men and women have their own special ways of torturing each other.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

MarriedWifeInLove said:


> Why, on God's green earth would ANYONE, for any reason want to kill/slow someone's sex drive down?
> 
> Don't like the fact that men want sex all the time - then stay single or go ***** - problem solved!


*****? Lesbians like sex!


----------



## rider03 (Apr 7, 2009)

Edge said:


> Right now I am sincerely thanking God you are not my wife.


:rofl:


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

nader said:


> I think they are called anti-depressants.


It's the old joke "My doctor put me on Prozac and Viagra. But if either one works, I don't need the other one."


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

I would have more respect and compassion for women who refused sex if they also refused their husband's pay, refused to live in the house he helps pay for, refused to eat food purchased with his sweat. Marriage is a contract. A contract requires specific performance on both sides or it becomes a fraudulent, exploitative arrangement. If a woman wants a sexless marriage, let her make that clear to her intended before saying "I do". If the idiot goes ahead and marries her, he has lost the right to complain about the lack of sex. What moron would marry a woman who truthful admitted before the ceremony, "I intend to withhold sex and all other forms of affection from you for years on end." ?


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

MarriedWifeInLove said:


> Personally - I think the reason that things are geared towards increasing a woman's sex drive is more women are guilty of the "bait and switch", then men.
> 
> So it's a bigger problem on the women's side. A lot of them don't see the importance of sex in a relationship (as much as men do), so it's more of a gender-focused issue.
> 
> ...



:iagree:


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

I couldn't read this thread without thinking of this old article written 100 years ago. I guess this kind of thinking still exists. :scratchhead:

Sex As Dirty Only 100 Years Ago INSTRUCTION AND ADVICE FOR THE YOUNG BRIDE


----------



## surfergirl (Jan 27, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> ...and what's "acceptable" to discuss in our culture. "


With so many defensive posts, it appears that this topic is not something that's overly acceptable to discuss in our culture.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> PHTlump - but i didn't say i was "mistreated"!
> 
> i'm not mistreated.


You have repeatedly complained about natural and societal consequences for women regarding sex. I interpreted this as complaining about being mistreated.

Are you saying that the sexual expectations and/or consequences for women are fair or just? Your statements don't seem to be congruent.



miss-understood said:


> you're missing the point of the questions i'm posing.


You're questioning whether it would be expedient to suppress the fundamental desire for sex in men to accommodate the lower drive in women, right?



miss-understood said:


> thanks for saying that what i think/feel is ridiculous, though! that makes for a really great discussion!


You're welcome. I don't think that ridiculous statements make for good discussion. If we can weed out the ridiculous statements from a discussion, we will automatically improve the quality of the discussion. That's my goal.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Refusal and inability are different things. And neither of them are compassion. I actually did not pressure my wife for sex while she was undergoing chemotherapy. I can't really imagine what kind of screwed human being would. 

Marriage is compassion, not a contract.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

WhiteRabbit said:


> ASSuming that we're all watching lifetime network and Oprah is a perfect example of why so many men aren't getting any from their wives. attitudes like that don't exactly start the juices flowing.


If you find tampon commercials to be an example of misogyny, then you are truly confused. Besides, you stated that there weren't comparable commercials for men, which there obviously are. If you haven't seen them, you're either not paying attention or you're watching the wrong channel.


----------



## surfergirl (Jan 27, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> You're questioning whether it would be expedient to suppress the fundamental desire for sex in men to accommodate the lower drive in women, right?


I don't understand why the above situation is so hard for people to get their head around. The idea of the original question wasn't about stopping the male sex drive completely (heaven forbid!) - it was about bringing it down a notch or two if the women's sex drive was lower. Everyone is assuming that the male in the these hypothetical relationships is the one with the "normal" sex drive.

It would be the perfect solution for couples where the husband has a sex addiction to porn etc. - these men often say they can't help it, so why not have something he can do/take that would dampen his addiction down to normal?


----------



## MGirl (Mar 13, 2011)

surfergirl said:


> It would be the perfect solution for couples where the husband has a sex addiction to porn etc. - these men often say they can't help it, so why not have something he can do/take that would dampen his addiction down to normal?


An addiction is an entirely different situation from a normal, healthy sex drive. The OP was never referring to addictions, just natural drives.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

Okay - I will take the poster at face value and not assume this is about her, but just a topic she genuinely wants to discuss in general.

The better question would have been to make it gender-neutral, since there are many women who post on this board who are HD with LD husbands, so "how do we help HD spouses to want sex LESS?" You know what, if someone legitimately came on the board and asked for this advice, then I would give it - go the doctor and get some Prozac, immerse yourself in activity so you have no time to think about anything else. BUT, the HD spouses are not coming to the board asking this. Why? Well, being HD is not a disorder or a disease. There's nothing wrong with it. As well, believe it or not, being LD is also not a disorder or a disease. We are what we are. Sometimes we fluctuate between one and the other throughout the course of a marriage and a lifetime.

Marriage isn't just a legal contract, it's a contract that involves consummation - the merging of two bodies. For those who are religious, even the Bible has an entire book (Song of Solomon) that is nothing but sex from one end to the other. 

Marriage is also about compromise - each person trying to put their partner's needs above their own. Compromise usually means that each doesn't get exactly what they want, but enough that they are satisfied with it.

The other issue you have about the messiness of being female-yah, that is something all women can relate to in one way or another and that men are generally, if not totally unaware of, then seemingly helpless around. Every month I moan around the house and lament that "I can't stand this anymore, I just wish I was a man!" My H comes up to me, hugs me, and says he feels for my pain and frustration, but is SO glad that I am a woman, his woman. Living is a messy business - that's just life. Sex is a messy business - that's just the way it is. You can try and make it less messy - use a condom, for instance. Otherwise, it's basically like me howling to the moon wishing I were a man some of the month - pointless - because it is what it is. So, try and minimize the mess and try and minimize your risk the best you can, and then just get on with it.


----------



## surfergirl (Jan 27, 2011)

MGirl said:


> An addiction is an entirely different situation from a normal, healthy sex drive. The OP was never referring to addictions, just natural drives.


I know....I just added that as an afterthought.


----------



## madimoff (Feb 17, 2010)

Just to quote myself rather than trot it all out again: 



madimoff said:


> I'm guessing the OP enjoys her sex life just fine thankyou. I'm guessing she wanted to air something she'd been wondering about, possibly even having discussed it with her husband and thought of a way of canvassing others' views..... and chose a very successful way of getting people talking which unfortunately backfired so everyone thinks she's a man/sex-hating loon! (or am I having a charitable day)


There's more than a speck of truth in the observation someone made that there are countless threads about men wanting to UP their wives' libido so what gives with criticising someone for wanting to DISCUSS (note the word, it's a forum, folks!) the other side of the coin. If someone has a reason for posting, it's up to them if they give the reason or not. Sometimes you set out thinking you don't need to or it'll take too long... and it turns out you should have. And vice versa you tell the whole tale and no-one's interested. 
I'm not sure it's something I either agree or disagree with very strongly (the OP's notion) but to misquote someone very famous, 
I'll defend to the death her right to say it.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

surfergirl said:


> I don't understand why the above situation is so hard for people to get their head around. The idea of the original question wasn't about stopping the male sex drive completely (heaven forbid!) - it was about bringing it down a notch or two if the women's sex drive was lower. Everyone is assuming that the male in the these hypothetical relationships is the one with the "normal" sex drive.


Not at all. You can search these boards for men asking for advice on how to increase their sexual frequency to daily or even multiple times a day. These men aren't assumed to have the normal drive.

And, even in the situations where the wife is the LD partner, the advice is to generally increase the husband's attractiveness to his wife. The natural way to make her want more sex.



surfergirl said:


> It would be the perfect solution for couples where the husband has a sex addiction to porn etc. - these men often say they can't help it, so why not have something he can do/take that would dampen his addiction down to normal?


That's a more legitimate question. The answer is anti-depressants. SSRIs can frequently inhibit libido. The problem is that in some cases, that inhibition is permanent. It's like playing with dynamite.

However, the original question wasn't about a rare case where one partner has an abnormally high drive. It was about recognizing sex as an unfair burden on women and generally suppressing the natural drive of men to accommodate the lower drive of women. That's not a prescription for happiness. A happily married couple accepts each other and tries to love and care for each others' needs.


----------



## MGirl (Mar 13, 2011)

surfergirl said:


> I know....I just added that as an afterthought.


Gotcha


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Runs like Dog said:


> To be brutally honest, who gives a f$*ck. Really, if you don't want sex then you can't care if I want sex. All you're talking about is being hassled. So every time you think he wants sex, just slap him in the balls. Even we stupid knuckle dragging apes will figure it out.
> 
> I've got a wife like you and while I won't tell you to burn in hell, I'm not running for the fire extinguisher either.


You're killing me, I look forward to the daily episodes of the Runs Like Dog show. They distill the discussion down to a bitter- sweet essence. I wish you well, if your sense of the ridiculous and humor that you share is any indication, you should have more than you are getting. (more action and all).
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Why stop there? He runs too fast, put his legs in irons or cut his Achilles tendon. He looks at other women, put out his eye?

So you can see I'm really opposed to synthetically crippling someone.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

surfergirl said:


> I don't understand why the above situation is so hard for people to get their head around. The idea of the original question wasn't about stopping the male sex drive completely (heaven forbid!) - it was about bringing it down a notch or two if the women's sex drive was lower. Everyone is assuming that the male in the these hypothetical relationships is the one with the "normal" sex drive.
> 
> It would be the perfect solution for couples where the husband has a sex addiction to porn etc. - these men often say they can't help it, so why not have something he can do/take that would dampen his addiction down to normal?


Yah, I think the issue is that no matter who we are with we are likely to have differing drives. They can even fluctuate over the course of your life. All of it is NORMAL. You are not defective just because you are HD, you are not defective just because you are LD. We should not be looking at LD people as defective (hey, I AM one of those!) The key is that too many people, whether they are HD or LD, seem unwilling to see the pain they cause their spouse and choose not to compromise in some way.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

man commits his life and love to a woman who is his sexual equal, the game changes slowly for 20 years to little to no interest is sex from his spouse, take a pill it will be ok.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

okeydokie said:


> man commits his life and love to a woman who is his sexual equal, the game changes slowly for 20 years to little to no interest is sex from his spouse, take a pill it will be ok.


Yah, that is sad. That is NOT the way it should be!


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

I think sex is a hybrid of male and female sexuality in every sense. Men who in sex starved relationships or women in sexually frustrated relationships are not having normal sexual relationships because there is no murging. Purely me type sex would be brief penetration and purely female the would be hugging for an hour. I am being hyperbolic but you get my point.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

it has been said already, this isnt a gender specific issue (LD/HD), can happen to anyone, man or woman


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Catherine602 said:


> I think sex is a hybrid of male and female sexuality in every sense. Men who in sex starved relationships or women in sexually frustrated relationships are not having normal sexual relationships because there is no murging. Purely me type sex would be brief penetration and purely female the would be hugging for an hour. I am being hyperbolic but you get my point.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


those of us who make sure, damn sure, our partners are satisfied during sex are likely the most frustrated


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Runs like Dog said:


> Why stop there? He runs too fast, put his legs in irons or cut his Achilles tendon. He looks at other women, put out his eye?
> 
> So you can see I'm really opposed to synthetically crippling someone.


Stop it, my coffee came out of my nose. ; )
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> those of us who make sure, damn sure, our partners are satisfied during sex are likely the most frustrated


If I understand what you mean. Most women have quickies or give bj for just that reason. I like to give my husband a chance to relax and enjoy with out worrying about me. That's one way to handle that, I get to give to him and the skin to skin contact is deeply satisfying to me. Do you think I am doing all I can to limit his frustration . Just wondering from male point of view. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

madimoff said:


> Just to quote myself rather than trot it all out again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly. What's with the name calling and barrage of criticism? She posed a question that has been asked on this website countless times but in her case, it was in the reverse. 
She has just as much right to ask a question in A PUBLIC FORUM as everybody else does. Instead so much anger and calling her a b word is what she gets? 
Tone down the anger a bit. We know, you are mad about your sex lives but there is no need to project it all on to her. Jesus.

**Just so you know, I'm not advocating what she said but like Madimoff pointed out, she has the right to ask it and it does make for an interesting discussion provided people can set aside their sexual rage**


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Catherine602 said:


> If I understand what you mean. Most women have quickies or give bj for just that reason. I like to give my husband a chance to relax and enjoy with out worrying about me. That's one way to handle that, I get to give to him and the skin to skin contact is deeply satisfying to me. Do you think I am doing all I can to limit his frustration . Just wondering from male point of view.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


"most women", not mine, but kudos to you


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Exactly. What's with the name calling and barrage of criticism? She posed a question that has been asked on this website countless times but in her case, it was in the reverse.
> She has just as much right to ask a question in A PUBLIC FORUM as everybody else does. Instead so much anger and calling her a b word is what she gets?
> Tone down the anger a bit. We know, you are mad about your sex lives but there is no need to project it all on to her. Jesus.
> 
> **Just so you know, I'm not advocating what she said but like Madimoff pointed out, she has the right to ask it and it does make for an interesting discussion provided people can set aside their sexual rage**


unfortunately its not much different when the thread is reversed, alot of criticism.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Thereal - too right. It is a reasonable subject to discuss. There are probably people who never post but read and some may have posed the question albeit silently. If we fall into warring factions we get noplace. There is a solution, compromise, every partnership involves it, why should sex be exempt.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sawney Beane (May 1, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> If I understand what you mean. Most women have quickies or give bj for just that reason. I like to give my husband a chance to relax and enjoy with out worrying about me. That's one way to handle that, I get to give to him and the skin to skin contact is deeply satisfying to me. _Do you think I am doing all I can to limit his frustration _. Just wondering from male point of view.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You are. Most of my friends' wives would look at you like you had grown a second head if you suggested this to them.

Question: if we think some means of grinding one partner's sex drive down to meet that of the lower one is a good thing, would asking the partner who demands more affection to take something to dial this down be OK too?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> unfortunately its not much different when the thread is reversed, alot of criticism.


It's different. The guy gets go to the men's clubhouse, read a sticky, etc.
This woman got barbequed with insulting one liners.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> It's different. The guy gets go to the men's clubhouse, read a sticky, etc.
> This woman got barbequed with insulting one liners.


a sticky that contains information most women on here agree with, and isnt there a ladies section?

i think most people on here realize LD/HD can and does exist with either gender. the OP was aimed squarely at men as if all females are LD and all men are HD and sex is burdensome and unhealthy for women.


----------



## e.p. (Jun 10, 2011)

nader said:


> I think they are called anti-depressants.


Sadly I'm on an antidepressant (SNRI for migraine control) and still have too high a drive for my wife 

-e.p.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> a sticky that contains information most women on here agree with, and isnt there a ladies section?
> 
> i think most people on here realize LD/HD can and does exist with either gender. the OP was aimed squarely at men as if all females are LD and all men are HD and sex is burdensome and unhealthy for women.


So what if there's a sticky people agree with and there's a Ladies section, this is the Sex section and she came here to ask a question. 
So because two other forums exist and she chose to post here because, ya know, it's a sex related question people should be allowed to ridicule and call her a b!tch? 
As for LD/HD, she was speaking in generalities. Of course there are exceptions, me being one of them but did you see me insulting her for that?


----------



## e.p. (Jun 10, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> to an extent, (this'll sound worse than i mean it), but children WANT candy, and want to want candy. it doesn't mean that parents are bad and something is wrong with them to say "no, enough candy".


Because I am not a child, and my wife is not my mother.



miss-understood said:


> "wants" are important. but it's not right to allow men's wants categorically trump women's wants. especially when it comes to their most private intimate inside body parts! Don't you think?


Of course not. If you don't want to deal with your (boyfriend/husbands) sex drive, then move on and some other woman will...

-e.p.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Sawney that's where this discussion should be going. 

What is the reasonable corallary for women to shutting down the male sex drive. If he stops communicating with his wife, stops touching her nonsexually, stops accompanying her on social engagements. 

In my opinion, it is not withdrawal of - financial support, domestiic chores etc. The single bread winner, has a SAHM who is making the next generation and caring for them, keeping house, keeping social contacts, doctors appointments. All the things that allow the bread winner to concentrate on work. 

I believe if the person working thinks that he/she is doing something that has anything to do with the intimate relationships, he/she is likely to devalue the considerable contribution of sahm /d to the well-being of the family. 

Perhaps he feels the SAHM partner is taking a vacation on his dime which is insulting and disrespectful of the difficult job that SAHM's do. I think that these ladies get very little respect in our culture. For me, it is reflected in the comments about working in exchange for sex (I know that's not actually what is meant but very close to it). 

The bread winner is supporting his kids and if he stopped providing the support what happens to the kids? He is also living in the home and triving as a result of having a wife at home. If he stops working he lives on the street along with his innocent kids. This makes no sense, to me anyway.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> i think most people on here realize LD/HD can and does exist with either gender.



I don't! Sex is an important factor of biology. I think LD is a manifestation of some other problem whether socially or religiously caused inhibition, or a relationship problem or some such. The whole woman has a lot of sex early on then becomes less interested? Where did her drive GO? It just up and disappeared? Uh uh.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> Stop it, my coffee came out of my nose. ; )
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's just so sad. Here we are trying to get through a life with a modicum of dignity and everyone's running around trying not only to learn like being miserable, but dragging everyone else down too. I bet I just bet the archetypal LD wife is never going to find some mate who feels as sorry for them as they do. Nobody ever laid on their deathbed thinking "I wish I had less sex and it was bad sex too." This is the one idea I cannot pound into my wife's head.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Mom6547 said:


> I don't! Sex is an important factor of biology. I think LD is a manifestation of some other problem whether socially or religiously caused inhibition, or a relationship problem or some such. The whole woman has a lot of sex early on then becomes less interested? Where did her drive GO? It just up and disappeared? Uh uh.


yeah, likely is. its always someone elses fault, thats our society today


----------



## e.p. (Jun 10, 2011)

Mom6547 said:


> I don't! Sex is an important factor of biology. I think LD is a manifestation of some other problem whether socially or religiously caused inhibition, or a relationship problem or some such.


As a man, I agree, completely. I think many/most manifestations of LD are "fixable" in a sense that it isn't a hardwired change, but rather a change as a reaction to something in life/philosophy/relationship/etc. 

(and those are some pretty feet in your avatar. :awink

-e.p.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So what if there's a sticky people agree with and there's a Ladies section, this is the Sex section and she came here to ask a question.
> So because two other forums exist and she chose to post here because, ya know, it's a sex related question people should be allowed to ridicule and call her a b!tch?
> As for LD/HD, she was speaking in generalities. Of course there are exceptions, me being one of them but did you see me insulting her for that?


you brought up the other section and sticky. wth?

i dont condone over the top responses to anyones questions. i didnt see anyone specifically call her that name, but sometimes i skim through the good stuff.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

e.p. said:


> Sadly I'm on an antidepressant (SNRI for migraine control) and still have too high a drive for my wife
> 
> -e.p.


You could always stop Effexor cold and get in a shootout with a SWAT team. I'm on one (SNRI) and maaaaaan missing a dose is crazy time. Sex drive? I will go to the zoo and box a lion. Or eat it. Or mate with it. Or all three. And then cry for 3 hrs curl up on the floor and shriek in pain. 

Seriously though, it's not about you. It's never about you. Don't ever think it's about you or your fault. It's not. If I was in wheelchair dead from the waist down I'd still want to make love. But my wife 'LD?' never does and never will. You have to be ok with that thought - that it's not you.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Runs like Dog said:


> Seriously though, it's not about you. It's never about you. Don't ever think it's about you or your fault. It's not. If I was in wheelchair dead from the waist down I'd still want to make love. But my wife 'LD?' never does and never will. You have to be ok with that thought - that it's not you.


you cant be dead and.....well, nevermind


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

WhiteRabbit said:


> all this sex talk is making me realize how much i miss sex and intimacy.
> 
> lol time to step away from the computer before I start googling personals websites!


just take a pill


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

Mom6547 said:


> I don't! Sex is an important factor of biology. I think LD is a manifestation of some other problem whether socially or religiously caused inhibition, or a relationship problem or some such. The whole woman has a lot of sex early on then becomes less interested? Where did her drive GO? It just up and disappeared? Uh uh.


I'm LD - always have been. More so in recent years as I've gotten older and have thyroid issues. It's not been a manifestation of anything that I can figure out - didn't have any particular religious or social indoctrination, no abuse, no early childhood trauma, etc.

Drive in a woman has both a bioligic (physical) and emotional component. My biologic component seems to be lacking - that doesn't mean my emotional component is. My H and I still have sex at least 3 times a week. My LD simply means that I am not thinking about it all the time, nor am I particularly desirous for it. Yah, if something happened to my H or I had to move to a deserted island, I'd do okay by myself.  However, I'm willing, and my H can arouse me and everything works out fine. It's just a different perspective. Just because someone is LD does NOT mean they are defective in some way. The key for a LD spouse is WILLINGNESS. The key for a HD spouse with a LD spouse is often taking ownership of the arousal phase.

When a spouse's drive changes it can happen because of biological reasons (such as hormonal changes that happen after childbirth or during menopause) or emotional reasons (e.g. relationship issues with their spouse.)


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> yeah, likely is. its always someone elses fault, thats our society today


Wait a sec there. It MAY be somebody else's "fault", though for myself fault is irrelevant. A husband can directly kill his wife's desire for him.

Are you a Nice Guy killing her desire for you? Do you not take care of HER needs? Does she feel unloved? Disrespected? Taken for granted.

I don' mean you you. I mean one you.


----------



## incognitoman (Oct 22, 2009)

miss-understood said:


> I feel like we're resistant to even ADMITTING that basic fact these days. We want to insist that men and women are "the same" and that sex is the same for both genders. But we're not the same and IT is not the same. And is that so bad to admit, really?


I have not read all these pages and I am sorry if I say something that has already been said. When I was reading and saw this I just felt the need to comment.

Men and Women are not the same! Where did you get that idea? I don't think you will find many people who would say that we are the same. We are mentally different, we are physically different, we are emotionally different, we are different in almost every way possible. Would you really want to be with someone who is the same? Most people would not.

You might have been looking for the word equal. Equal in this does not mean the same. We have certain rights that all humans should have, we have needs that deserve to be met, regardless if they are physical or emotional. The need is there and we deserve a partner who will meet them. 

Please don't confuse these.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So what if there's a sticky people agree with and there's a Ladies section, this is the Sex section and she came here to ask a question.


Does asking a question require a universally positive response? Does a woman asking a question require a universally positive response?


Therealbrighteyes said:


> So because two other forums exist and she chose to post here because, ya know, it's a sex related question people should be allowed to ridicule and call her a b!tch?


Who called her that? Are you interpreting responses that aren't glowingly positive as personal insults?


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Mom6547 said:


> Wait a sec there. It MAY be somebody else's "fault", though for myself fault is irrelevant. A husband can directly kill his wife's desire for him.
> 
> Are you a Nice Guy killing her desire for you? Do you not take care of HER needs? Does she feel unloved? Disrespected? Taken for granted.
> 
> I don' mean you you. I mean one you.


i'll have to run off to the safety of the mens club and read the sticky......

why are we interjecting the nice guy stuff into this?


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Let me put this in foundational terms. Across the totality of Western Art there are only three things: Naked Women, Food, and War. Every painting since about 1300 if it's not the Virgin Mary, is nude women, still lives, and battle. 

That's it. That's as complicated as men get. Oh sure we might paint masterpieces and make great sculpture, build and destroy whole cities but stripped of its rhetoric its ****ing, fighting, eating. And if your partner isn't in sync with that, then your **** is broken.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

Runs like Dog said:


> Let me put this in foundational terms. Across the totality of Western Art there are only three things: Naked Women, Food, and War. Every painting since about 1300 if it's not the Virgin Mary, is nude women, still lives, and battle.
> 
> That's it. That's as complicated as men get. Oh sure we might paint masterpieces and make great sculpture, build and destroy whole cities but stripped of its rhetoric its ****ing, fighting, eating. And if your partner isn't in sync with that, then your **** is broken.


You forgot pictures of dudes in long robes in churches.

Oh, yeah - you forgot sleeping too! Lots of dudes do that really well (sorry guys - I couldn't resist.)


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> you brought up the other section and sticky. wth?
> 
> i dont condone over the top responses to anyones questions. i didnt see anyone specifically call her that name, but sometimes i skim through the good stuff.


This is from your post: "a sticky that contains information most women on here agree with, and isnt there a ladies section?"

I didn't bring it up.

And now back to your regularly scheduled program.....


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> It's different. The guy gets go to the men's clubhouse, read a sticky, etc.


:scratchhead:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> Does asking a question require a universally positive response? Does a woman asking a question require a universally positive response?
> 
> Who called her that? Are you interpreting responses that aren't glowingly positive as personal insults?


You did:
"I'm sure I'll offend you miss-understood. But, you just sound like a bitter misandrist commiserating with ****s about how mistreated you all are."

Is there anything there left to interpretation? 

Like I said, she came here with a question. Whether you like the question or not, you can chose to ignore it or answer it without being venomous.


----------



## Boogsie (Aug 24, 2010)

Why don't you just take your husband to your doctor and ask for a prescription of an anti-androgen drug, such as cyproterone or Depo-Provera?

Both are used for chemical castration and both are used today. Your drug is there. 

Beyond that, this whole topic is kind of moot. Any self-respecting man would DIVORCE before chemically castrating himself just as I'm sure any woman would DIVORCE before submitting to the will of a maniacal sex addict.

With that out of the way I want to cover two more things.

1) Marriage is about compromise. If your drive dictates twice a year and your spouses dictates every day, twice a year via "a pill" is not a compromise. 

2) I suspect that this question is coming from a spouse who is comfortable with the status quo who doesn't want their spouse coming around and ****ing up their comfortable life with a need for sex. Otherwise, if you really believed this you could easily be single and troll the bars or call up your friend with benefits the few times a decade that you get the "itch". I found out just how much of a sex drive my wife "didn't have" the day I told her I need sex more than once a quarter and that I was going to file for divorce. 

I will never opt to lower my drive because I can ALWAYS opt out.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Enchantment said:


> You forgot pictures of dudes in long robes in churches.
> 
> Oh, yeah - you forgot sleeping too! Lots of dudes do that really well (sorry guys - I couldn't resist.)


Oh yes, naked men too. That's for a different forum.

You know some there's something almost erotically creepy about Michelangelo's Pietà. It's supposed to be sacred and sublimely tragic but it's more like Romeo and Juliet. There's definitely a sexual undertone to it. I'm not Christian so I can say that and not specifically go to hell for that.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Exactly. What's with the name calling and barrage of criticism? She posed a question that has been asked on this website countless times but in her case, it was in the reverse.
> She has just as much right to ask a question in A PUBLIC FORUM as everybody else does. Instead so much anger and calling her a b word is what she gets?
> Tone down the anger a bit. We know, you are mad about your sex lives but there is no need to project it all on to her. Jesus.
> 
> **Just so you know, I'm not advocating what she said but like Madimoff pointed out, she has the right to ask it and it does make for an interesting discussion provided people can set aside their sexual rage**


I think the message got lost in the delivery, plain and simple. In the possibly hyperbolic, possibly overly-personalized examples, the more general question became buried.

As to the original question, here's my take on it (viewed from the general HD/LD stance, which is probably more accurate than the original male/female stance):

I think the reason the focus is more on increasing the LD spouse's desire rather than curbing the HD spouse's desire is that, generally speaking, many (most? I know it's not all) HD spouses already curb their own drives in some fashion to better accommodate their LD partners. Whether it be through masturbation or just plain trying to grin and bear it, the HD understands that there's an LD in the picture. That said, the HD *would* still like to have (and enjoy) sex with their LD partner (and have the LD enjoy it, too). Thus, most HD partners I've seen posting about wanting to increase their LD partner's drive/desire aren't necessarily trying to increase the LD's drive to the point that it's the same as the HD's, but to the point that the HD's reliance on other (or no) outlets is diminished *and* so that it's also enjoyed by the LD, instead of being mechanical "mercy sex." And, organically, most suggestions I see for increasing the LD's interest aren't artificial, but working to the core of what made the two partners attractive to each other in the first place.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WhereAmI (Nov 3, 2010)

The only thing that I find highly irritating is the statement that women are MORE guilty of the bait and switch. Men do the same thing just as often. Many figure they can stop the behaviors they exhibited to get their wives to fall in love/want to have sex in the first place. Those things ARE part of sex for a woman. If you take away her foreplay, how do you expect her to arrive at the main event? I wish men would examine their actions before claiming their wives are so cold and calculating.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You did:
> "I'm sure I'll offend you miss-understood. But, you just sound like a bitter misandrist commiserating with ****s about how mistreated you all are."
> 
> Is there anything there left to interpretation?


Evidently there is. The forum censored my original post. I didn't use the B word. I used the S word. And I wasn't using the word in reference to the OP, who stated that she's the only woman she knows who hasn't had at least one abortion. I was using it in reference to her friends who have all had at least one abortion. If my writing was unclear, then I apologize for the confusion.



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Like I said, she came here with a question. Whether you like the question or not, you can chose to ignore it or answer it without being venomous.


I don't think I've been venomous. Some here have interpreted her question as being, "Can a LD partner and a HD partner have a satisfying sex life without increasing frequency to that desired by the HD partner." That is a perfectly reasonable question.

But that's not the OP's question. Her question was more along the lines of, "Given that sex is an undue burden on women, can we devise a method to force the fundamental nature of men to conform to women's desires?" That is a perfectly unreasonable question.

Do you believe that castrating men for the convenience of women is a reasonable topic for discussion?


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> *****? Lesbians like sex!


I agree.

I meant - wouldn't have to worry about UTIs, getting pregnant, etc.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

isn't this the basic premise of the Lois Lowry's young adult classic, _The Giver?_


----------



## MarriedWifeInLove (May 28, 2010)

WhereAmI said:


> The only thing that I find highly irritating is the statement that women are MORE guilty of the bait and switch. Men do the same thing just as often. Many figure they can stop the behaviors they exhibited to get their wives to fall in love/want to have sex in the first place. Those things ARE part of sex for a woman. If you take away her foreplay, how do you expect her to arrive at the main event? I wish men would examine their actions before claiming their wives are so cold and calculating.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That was me. 

Stopping behaviors - sure men and women both are guilty of this after they have "caught you."

I'm specifically referring to "bait and switch" where it comes to sex.

It is far more prevelant in women to use sex as a bait and switch than men - far more.

JMHO.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> Evidently there is. The forum censored my original post. I didn't use the B word. I used the S word. And I wasn't using the word in reference to the OP, who stated that she's the only woman she knows who hasn't had at least one abortion. I was using it in reference to her friends who have all had at least one abortion. If my writing was unclear, then I apologize for the confusion.
> 
> 
> I don't think I've been venomous. Some here have interpreted her question as being, "Can a LD partner and a HD partner have a satisfying sex life without increasing frequency to that desired by the HD partner." That is a perfectly reasonable question.
> ...


I don't see where she suggested anybody be castrated. She was pointing out that so often, the LD person is being asked to put out, pony up, etc....whereas the HD person doesn't really have any similar expectations put in them.
We had a poster a week or so ago who had 6 children, was told that having more could kill her, devote Catholic and was not able to take bc. The advice given was she is selfish and if she doesn't put out then he will leave her. Would the flip side of that not be what this lady advices? That perhaps there is another side?
For the record, I AM the higher drive person.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> .
> We had a poster a week or so ago who had 6 children, was told that having more could kill her, devote Catholic and was not able to take bc. The advice given was she is selfish and if she doesn't put out then he will leave her. Would the flip side of that not be what this lady advices? That perhaps there is another side?
> For the record, I AM the higher drive person.


There's an inherent problem with following the religious doctrine at play in this situation, which also touches on the issue at hand. According to this Catholic ruling, no birth control is allowed because, as Monty Python put it so well, "every sperm is sacred.". In this particular case, having more children can literally kill her. Meanwhile, without birth control, ANY intercourse can potentially result in a life-threatening pregnancy. So we're not really talking about her needing to DECREASE her husband's drive, but to ELIMINATE it. Or to realize that the doctrine she's following has nothing to do with commands from the Sky Bully but from mortal men seeking to control their followers.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## incognitoman (Oct 22, 2009)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't see where she suggested anybody be castrated. She was pointing out that so often, the LD person is being asked to put out, pony up, etc....whereas the HD person doesn't really have any similar expectations put in them.
> We had a poster a week or so ago who had 6 children, was told that having more could kill her, devote Catholic and was not able to take bc. The advice given was she is selfish and if she doesn't put out then he will leave her. Would the flip side of that not be what this lady advices? That perhaps there is another side?
> For the record, I AM the higher drive person.


I disagree about the HD person not having expectations put on them. The HD person seems to be vilified as a selfish person who can't ever get enough and that the LD person is forced to endure while no consideration is given to the HD person who is is also forced to endure. 

I think that its a give an take situation just like most of marriage. The people need to work it out in their marriage. I don't even think this is really about Men vs Women.

Sex is just one aspect that should be talked about. If my W is on her period, or has a UTI I need to be understanding. No one should be forced to endure anything for too long. Or be put into uncomfortable situations.

I can also say as a man, that I like the feeling of wanting to be with my wife. I wouldn't want to take it away. I do not feel tortured by the need or desire. I can understand about the metaphor of feeling hungry but its different. The need is there but I will not die. I would rather wait and enjoy it with her than just get my rocks off. Besides fasting before a big meal can be enjoyable too.  

P.S. I should also add that it only works like this when you are being intimate and having sex. If there is no light at the end of the tunnel then I think that it could be overwhelming or at least feel that way. I wonder who told the OP that it felt like torture?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> There's an inherent problem with following the religious doctrine at play in this situation, which also touches on the issue at hand. According to this Catholic ruling, no birth control is allowed because, as Monty Python put it so well, "every sperm is sacred.". In this particular case, having more children can literally kill her. Meanwhile, without birth control, ANY intercourse can potentially result in a life-threatening pregnancy. So we're not really talking about her needing to DECREASE her husband's drive, but to ELIMINATE it. Or to realize that the doctrine she's following has nothing to do with commands from the Sky Bully but from mortal men seeking to control their followers.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well I did point out in that post that I will never understand those kind of teachings.
She wasn't trying to kill his sex drive. She said that there were only 3 safe times a month for her but he wanted more. She garnered no sympathy and was called selfish repeatedly by people. 
That kind of touchs on what this OP was talking about.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't see where she suggested anybody be castrated.


She suggested chemically lowering men's sex drives. That's commonly referred to as chemical castration.



Therealbrighteyes said:


> She was pointing out that so often, the LD person is being asked to put out, pony up, etc....whereas the HD person doesn't really have any similar expectations put in them.


I think she is unfairly generalizing a specific case. If the LD spouse wants sex unusually rarely (say monthly or less), then the LD spouse should accede to a higher frequency. Similarly, if the HD spouse wants daily sex, he should accept a lower frequency. Most of the time will involve compromise from both spouses by meeting somewhere in the middle of each person's desired frequency.



Therealbrighteyes said:


> We had a poster a week or so ago who had 6 children, was told that having more could kill her, devote Catholic and was not able to take bc. The advice given was she is selfish and if she doesn't put out then he will leave her. Would the flip side of that not be what this lady advices? That perhaps there is another side?


I didn't see that thread. I find it hard to believe that people here would suggest life threatening behavior. Fortunately, that situation is rare enough that it won't apply to 99.9% of couples.


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Grayson said:


> There's an inherent problem with following the religious doctrine at play in this situation, which also touches on the issue at hand. According to this Catholic ruling, no birth control is allowed because, as Monty Python put it so well, "every sperm is sacred.". In this particular case, having more children can literally kill her. Meanwhile, without birth control, ANY intercourse can potentially result in a life-threatening pregnancy. So we're not really talking about her needing to DECREASE her husband's drive, but to ELIMINATE it. Or to realize that the doctrine she's following has nothing to do with commands from the Sky Bully but from mortal men seeking to control their followers.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As a life long Catholic I think you will find few priests in the US that really push the birth control doctrine of the Vatican. By definition the rhythm method is birth control as one priest put it to me. And if the mother's life or health is put at risk, I don't think you'd find any priest pushing it. I found myself in no moral conflict by having my wife on the pill before, between and after we had kids. I had none when I got my vasectomy. I think that kind of thinking is very small minority of the clergy in the US. But maybe my thinking is skewed because I mostly interact with the Jesuits.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> She suggested chemically lowering men's sex drives. That's commonly referred to as chemical castration.
> 
> 
> I think she is unfairly generalizing a specific case. If the LD spouse wants sex unusually rarely (say monthly or less), then the LD spouse should accede to a higher frequency. Similarly, if the HD spouse wants daily sex, he should accept a lower frequency. Most of the time will involve compromise from both spouses by meeting somewhere in the middle of each person's desired frequency.
> ...


Would anti-depressants be in that category? :scratchhead: When you say chemical castration I think of what some states do to convicted sex offenders after release, so to me Prozac isn't quite the same but I am not terribly familiar with castration, contrary to popular belief around here. 

Totally agree with you that compromise should be involved, I think some people just aren't willing to. 

This OP did start an interesting thread though. Sure beats the one I wanted to start about cool Father's Day gifts.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't see where she suggested anybody be castrated. She was pointing out that so often, the LD person is being asked to put out, pony up, etc....whereas the HD person doesn't really have any similar expectations put in them.


That is actually not true. The HD person is by definition at the mercy of the LD.



> We had a poster a week or so ago who had 6 children, was told that having more could kill her, devote Catholic and was not able to take bc. The advice given was she is selfish and if she doesn't put out then he will leave her. Would the flip side of that not be what this lady advices? That perhaps there is another side?
> For the record, I AM the higher drive person.


The RIGHT answer to that is to beat the freaking Pope and second Vatican counsel for putting that woman in that position.


----------



## incognitoman (Oct 22, 2009)

Mom6547 said:


> That is actually not true. The HD person is by definition at the mercy of the LD.


:iagree:I can shamefully admit that in the heat of an argument I have said "Why am I the one that always has to wait?"


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> That is actually not true. The HD person is by definition at the mercy of the LD.
> 
> 
> 
> The RIGHT answer to that is to beat the freaking Pope and second Vatican counsel for putting that woman in that position.


Okay, remember I AM the higher drive person so bear that in mind. A higher drive person has other resources, do they not? A lower drive person doesn't have much to get them interested.
Right?


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

There are all kinds of resources for LD people to work through these issues. The question is how much they want to and how much they care about making the HD person happy.

If they can't have sex, any LD person is capable of giving mindblowing oral on a regular basis, if they really want to satsify the HD. In a normal relationship, this would not go unrewarded!


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Okay, remember I AM the higher drive person so bear that in mind. A higher drive person has other resources, do they not? A lower drive person doesn't have much to get them interested.
> Right?


It depends what your drive is FOR. If you just want to get off, then sure. But we are hearing that for a lot of people, men included, the drive is for something more than just an O.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Well I did point out in that post that I will never understand those kind of teachings.
> She wasn't trying to kill his sex drive. She said that there were only 3 safe times a month for her but he wanted more. She garnered no sympathy and was called selfish repeatedly by people.
> That kind of touchs on what this OP was talking about.


From where I sit, unless he's a LD person (which he clearly isn't) I'd say that limiting him to AT BEST three times a month, on a specific timetable, no less, IS effectively seeking to kill his drive. Not to mention that, by way of illustration, my wife and I had unprotected sex on a "safe" night...and nine months later, we were in the delivery room. I wouldn't go so far as to call her selfish, but BOTH of them have alternatives. Given her condition, any doctor worth his or her salt could make a solid argument that a tubal ligation or vasectomy is not birth control, but a necessary medical procedure, allowing them a loophole around the dogmatic, and in this case life- and marriage-threatening, demands of the Catholic church.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## surfergirl (Jan 27, 2011)

nader said:


> There are all kinds of resources for LD people to work through these issues. The question is how much they want to and how much they care about making the HD person happy.
> 
> If they can't have sex, any LD person is capable of giving mindblowing oral on a regular basis, if they really want to satsify the HD. In a normal relationship, this would not go unrewarded!


And there it is. The topic of the thread started off being about the idea of helping men want sex less but here we are with suggestions on how an LD person can "make the other person happy" by performing blowjobs regularly. 

As far as I know....blowjobs ARE sex - you can't perform one without genitals. 

So the onus is back on to the LD woman to step up...rather than the male to step down.

*walks out shaking head*


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Amplexor said:


> As a life long Catholic I think you will find few priests in the US that really push the birth control doctrine of the Vatican. By definition the rhythm method is birth control as one priest put it to me. And if the mother's life or health is put at risk, I don't think you'd find any priest pushing it. I found myself in no moral conflict by having my wife on the pill before, between and after we had kids. I had none when I got my vasectomy. I think that kind of thinking is very small minority of the clergy in the US. But maybe my thinking is skewed because I mostly interact with the Jesuits.


Im not in a position to say what the most or fewest US priests might or might not enforce. I would say, however, that, unless they go out of their way to indicate that it shouldn't necessarily be followed, the implication is that it should be. And, even if specifically stated as such, that doesn't prevent someone who's a hard-core believer from saying, "Pope/Church trumps priest. No birth control." People do and day downright crazy things in deference to what they're told the Sky Bully expects of them.

In this case, it sounds like someone who's had it so ingrained in her to follow the church's dogma that she's willing to endanger the well being of herself and her marriage rather than go against some asinine rule a group of old men handed down as a way of swelling the ranks of their congregations (and their offering plates).
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## incognitoman (Oct 22, 2009)

surfergirl said:


> And there it is. The topic of the thread started off being about the idea of helping men want sex less but here we are with suggestions on how an LD person can "make the other person happy" by performing blowjobs regularly.
> 
> As far as I know....blowjobs ARE sex - you can't perform one without genitals.
> 
> ...


While I agree that the OP did start this thread to talk about how to make men want less sex, however the reasons seemed to be around medial issues that *could* occur from having sex. So most of the issues brought up would be resolved with oral sex which is where I think Nader was going. In any case drugs to make a HD person into a LD person is just as absurd as giving drugs to all the LD people to make them into a HD person. 

Most people get to pick their partners, this is one of those taboo topics that isn't normally discussed. If it were I think we would have a lot fewer people in this situation. Open honest communication and discussion of needs is required for a healthy marriage, and I'm not just talking sex here.

I feel that if more marriages went through a premarital counseling stage there would be a lot fewer confused people getting married. Its a good place to learn about what to expect and what is not okay. Get it on the table before you say I do.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

surfergirl said:


> And there it is. The topic of the thread started off being about the idea of helping men want sex less but here we are with suggestions on how an LD person can "make the other person happy" by performing blowjobs regularly.
> 
> As far as I know....blowjobs ARE sex - you can't perform one without genitals.
> 
> ...


I have to agree with the basic concept, though. As i mentioned upthread, the HD partner (not always a male, BTW), often DOES "step down," recognizing that their partner is LD, by being willing to accept sex (of any kind) less frequently than they would prefer.

The onus is not on SOLELY the HD partner to "step down," nor on the LD partner to "step up.". It's on BOTH partners to step *forward* and find a middle ground that is satisfactory to them both.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> for every spouse that is anti sex, there is another one sitting out there just waiting and wanting a willing partner. attitudes like you have described only push an unfulfilled spouse to find it elsewhere.
> 
> and how you can state that this is a male only problem is beyond me.
> 
> ...


:iagree: Men should not be punished for having high sex drives. It is natural and normal. My sex drive is very high, so according to the OP, I must be male. 

If you do not want to have sex, do not get married.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

The problem with this discussion is that there was no parameters given. 

I don't agree with the Woman being told to always change. It depends on the degree. If the wife wants to have sex once a month, then she is encouraged to change. If the man wants to have sex 5 times a week then he is encouraged to change.

The other thing I don't agree with is that sex is so bad for the woman. I think the benefits of sex more than outweigh any negatives. Especially in a monogamous relationships.


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> nader, we women pay a high price for sex. So do men. It is called child support! :rofl:
> 
> In our current culture, it's the norm for us to be expected to "suck it up" and clean it all up, and not complain or burden the men with the details. we go to the doctor once a year to be cranked open to have our cervixes scraped with a brush. to monitor vaginal health (and to monitor the HPV that's spread via sexual contact, that does virtually nothing to men, but can cause deadly cervical cancer for us). We go in for cone biopsies, having our cervical cells cryo-freezed off, we go in for all the antifungals and antibiotics from BV, yeast infections and UTIs that are not sexually "transmitted" but come about from having sex (set off by having sex). I have cancer causing HPV and my then boyfriend sat with me at the gyno's office, so that I could get my copolscopy. It sounds like you are very angry about having HPV; it is not like some dude knowingly gave it to you! They do not test men for it, remember?
> 
> ...


----------



## incognitoman (Oct 22, 2009)

:iagree:


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

WhereAmI said:


> The only thing that I find highly irritating is the statement that women are MORE guilty of the bait and switch. Men do the same thing just as often. Many figure they can stop the behaviors they exhibited to get their wives to fall in love/want to have sex in the first place. Those things ARE part of sex for a woman. If you take away her foreplay, how do you expect her to arrive at the main event? I wish men would examine their actions before claiming their wives are so cold and calculating.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is true. 

The HD partner is far more likely to post on the forum than the LD. They are treated with sympathy, understanding and offered advice and help. When a LD person post, they are practically lynched. It is somewhat understandable that, given the audience. The LD partner should be welcomed they could offer valuable insight. 

I've read posts from LD spouses who found this forum and the post of their HD partners. The LD partner were all famale. The relationship problems were far more complicated than the HD partner either realized or was willing to admit. I have also noticed when the HD poster is gently questioned about relationship problems or his partners satisfaction with the quality of sex, the questions are dispached rapidly as not amounting to much. 

That cuts off exploring all of the possibilities of a complex problem. Maybe sex is simple to men but is is not to women. If women are expected to understand and accept the male sexuality then they have to do the same. This is not an attack or male bashing. I have learned a great deal about men and sex from this forum. It has helped my relationship enormously and for that I am greatful. 

It is my perception that there is some resistance in men to really exploring what women are like. In fact, some seem annoyed that women seem to be more complicated than men. It is common for women to lament "he does not listen" maybe they are right to some degree.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

White Rabbit, even with your unfortunate complications, you didn't abandon your husband. You still did what you could. My comment wasn't directed toward you or any other woman who actually acts like they give a damn.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Grayson said:


> I have to agree with the basic concept, though. As i mentioned upthread, the HD partner (not always a male, BTW), often DOES "step down," recognizing that their partner is LD, by being willing to accept sex (of any kind) less frequently than they would prefer.
> 
> The onus is not on SOLELY the HD partner to "step down," nor on the LD partner to "step up.". It's on BOTH partners to step *forward* and find a middle ground that is satisfactory to them both.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Too right
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

magnoliagal said:


> miss-understood I have a theory. An UNproven theory that is. I think it does have to do with changing times and/or the number of partners you've had (or the number or partners your spouse has had). For example my sister is 40 and she has slept with LOTS of men. She has all kinds of female problems. Almost everything on your list except the ectopic's.
> 
> The women that I know that have these issues have slept with more people than me or my husband have. It's the lowest common denominator. Even if they are younger than me they've still had more partners than me.
> 
> ...


All it takes is ONE infected partner. 
UTI's and yeast infections are common in women with very few partners. They are not STI's.
I caught HPV when I only had three partners. That was very few for a young woman of 21, in 2003.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 20, 2011)

Before I married my wife, I asked her how often she wanted to have sex. She told me she liked to have it in-frequently...... unfortunately I did not think to ask if that was one word or two.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> This is true.
> 
> The HD partner is far more likely to post on the forum than the LD. They are treated with sympathy, understanding and offered advice and help. When a LD person post, they are practically lynched. It is somewhat understandable that, given the audience. The LD partner should be welcomed they could offer valuable insight.
> 
> ...


That's what I was getting at that irked me so much about the responses. When a HD person says my spouse doesn't want sex they are met with alot of encouragement and hand holding yet when a LD person says they don't want sex they are called selfish, etc. The annoyance and finger pointing starts shortly thereafter, discounting possible reasons why the LD person feels the way they do. "He does not listen" is largely tossed out the window and the accusations continue. 
I am curious and would love my spouse to join in here and explain why he is the lower drive. I know the reasons, I caused many of them. If he, being a man, were to come here and say "The reason I don't want sex with my wife as much....." would he be met with he is selfish, lazy, controlling, etc? Or would he be met with how much does your wife weigh, what does she look like, is she boring in bed? It seems like from reading here, I know what the answers would be if everybody was being honest.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

For all the wishful thinking, we "HD" (as defined by wanting sex at all) partners have done a lot more than decreased our frequency. Most of us have dealt with getting nothing or next to nothing, some of us for several years. I'm cruising right now getting a little taste maybe once a month. I suppose I could back off my unreasonable expectations and settle for maybe a little something for Christmas each year. More patience? More room? I guess I could move to another state and we could be pen pals.


----------



## magnoliagal (Mar 30, 2011)

Mrs.G said:


> All it takes is ONE infected partner.
> UTI's and yeast infections are common in women with very few partners. They are not STI's.
> I caught HPV when I only had three partners. That was very few for a young woman of 21, in 2003.


True. For this I'm grateful I'm old. I was 21 in 1987 when HPV was not even mentioned.


----------



## magnoliagal (Mar 30, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> The HD partner is far more likely to post on the forum than the LD. They are treated with sympathy, understanding and offered advice and help. When a LD person post, they are practically lynched. It is somewhat understandable that, given the audience. The LD partner should be welcomed they could offer valuable insight.


As always you make a very good point. It's hard though very hard to have sympathy for the LD partner because they have all the power. I hate that.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Mephisto said:


> Before I married my wife, I asked her how often she wanted to have sex. She told me she liked to have it in-frequently...... unfortunately I did not think to ask if that was one word or two.


 very good


----------



## magnoliagal (Mar 30, 2011)

Mephisto said:


> Before I married my wife, I asked her how often she wanted to have sex. She told me she liked to have it in-frequently...... unfortunately I did not think to ask if that was one word or two.


Love this!!


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

magnoliagal said:


> As always you make a very good point. It's hard though very hard to have sympathy for the LD partner because they have all the power. I hate that.


As a LD person trying to make it with a very HD man, I can tell you that LD actually makes you feel very powerLESS - you feel very deficient and sometimes, yes, defective somehow.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> For all the wishful thinking, we "HD" (as defined by wanting sex at all) partners have done a lot more than decreased our frequency. Most of us have dealt with getting nothing or next to nothing, some of us for several years. I'm cruising right now getting a little taste maybe once a month. I suppose I could back off my unreasonable expectations and settle for maybe a little something for Christmas each year. More patience? More room? I guess I could move to another state and we could be pen pals.


I cruised for nearly 16 years of sex maybe 6 times a year. I understand the anger, the rage, the frustration, the hurt and the pain.
What I am saying is that on this forum, sexes get treated differently. 

If my husband were to come here and say "I only nail my wife once every two months", my looks, my sexual ability, my weight and my everything would be called in to question. If I on the other hand came here and said "I only bang my husband once every two months" I would be called selfish, lazy, pathetic, controlling, worthy of being cheated on....you name it. 

If he were to come here and say he is higher drive and what should he do, he would be lovingly ushered in to the Men's forum and hand held about setting boundaries, surviving fitness tests and making sure I noticed other women want him. 
If I were to come here and say I am higher drive and what should I do, I would be told that I need to hit the gym, dye my hair, not nag, wear lingerie and dress better. 

THAT is what the OP was getting at. That the typically "lower drive" woman is often asked to up the stakes, work on her appearance, be a sexual plaything and do it whenever he wants. The man on the other hand is told to stake his ground, barely budge and work on himself for himself. 

Lack of wife wanting sex = wife's fault. Lack of husband wanting sex with wife = wife's fault. 

Sad.


----------



## surfergirl (Jan 27, 2011)

Sad but true bright-eyes.


----------



## magnoliagal (Mar 30, 2011)

Bright eyes I've seen some cases where the husband is to blame but overall I think you are right. Women do seem to bear the brunt of the blame either way when it comes to lack of sex in a relationship.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Lack of wife wanting sex = wife's fault. Lack of husband wanting sex with wife = wife's fault.


There is a set of grumpy tools who just want to get laid and not think too much. Could it really be that your breath just stinks or you are not very nice to her? No way! She is withholding! *****!

But you are overgeneralizing the thoughts of the TAM thinking IMO. Those people are part of the group, but not the entire group.


----------



## e.p. (Jun 10, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Okay, remember I AM the higher drive person so bear that in mind. A higher drive person has other resources, do they not? A lower drive person doesn't have much to get them interested.
> Right?


Unless the LD person in the relationship does not approve of masturbation... then the HD person is kind of hamstrung.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

I don't if there's a difference in our respective expectations of men vs women. Maybe there is. I don't support the idea that everything is the wife's fault. That's just nonsense. But I can you what I observe from couples I know. 

Here's one. A couple, mid 50's both professionals. She makes more than he does, she's self employed. He's not. Two college or post college kids. 

Her: "He's sexually 'demanding'". Not entirely sure what that means but my sense of it is she's not a high frequency lover. 

Him: No comment on thus front but he's a lot more easy going than the wife, otherwise. Whatever issues they have in the bedroom he keeps in the bedroom.

Her: Tiny cute woman, dresses like a teenager, has recently started a bunch of cosmetic surgery: breast, nose, face, chin (I think), maybe some lipo, botox, collagen. 

Note: one child is an adorable girly-girl flirty flighty fashion horse type. Clearly is going to have to marry an orthodontist or plastic surgeon or something like that. 

Him: No cosmetic work, doesn't work out, pot belly, overweight, minor health issues, just doesn't care. Nothing serious. 

Anyway, she has started making complaining noises about him about how sick of him she is. Brush war grumbling stuff. I'm not sure if it's about the way he looks or 'demanding' sex or what. My guess all this new work is sublimation in part and just having fun with a lot of money as well. 

So she's replacing sex she doesn't want (with him) with looking sexy and younger. There could be some extramarital shenanigans going on, she has the time, the money and the schedule to do it. And also the will power. Which is key. 

But I can't see him doing anything about his unfulfilled demands. And it's a small close knit community so if anything was happening with him all the gossips would know ASAP. And he's too cheap to spend his way around it. 

Does he blame his wife? Could be. A little bit. But it's obvious that neither of them has done anything to accommodate each other. She doesn't blame her husband, on the surface, because she gets what she wants. 

What his demands are sublimated into, I don't know.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

magnoliagal said:


> Bright eyes I've seen some cases where the husband is to blame but overall I think you are right. Women do seem to bear the brunt of the blame either way when it comes to lack of sex in a relationship.


I marginalized my husband due to my own issues and he marginalized me due to his own. So painful.
Crap from childhood that just bites you in the butt and becomes a sticking point for too long. 
So in trying to get back on track and we are working on it, I just don't understand what many post here. 
I have always been highly sexual. Childhood issues about validation and sex was it for me.
My husband on the other hand had a terrible sexual experience with his first and has since viewed sex as being something that should be between two connected people. 
When our connection vanished, the sex disappeared. I longed for it, he hid from it. 
Neither of us was wrong. 
The canned responses here make me sad. It isn't always that a wife is fat or ugly and it isn't always that a husband is a doormat or less of a man. Sometimes it is about relationship dynamics. A wife who is resentful and a husband who is too. It all adds to the lack of sex.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Brighteyes I am LD so I can not say I understand the feeling. I have head the feeling described many times and in different ways, it seems hellish. . 

I think an infusion of testosterone would help understanding or a strong desire to please and most importantly love. I'd like to take a stab at the bait and switch thing and ask for feedback about personal experiences. 

The desire to please is difficult to maintain if there is reason to resentment. The bait and switch thing goes two ways, many men change in surprising ways (to women) after the wedding. There is usually no evil intent - for example when I got married my husband spent considerably less time with me than before we were married. 

His brother had a car he was restoring for some years and my husband was consumed with helping him. He worked more, we spent less time doing activities that we did together before marriage and he spent more time with his guy friends. To me he changed from my attentive friend to a busy man who spent left over time with me for sex.

Now I understand what happened, we got married and he worked more to provide for me and a future family. I was still in training and not working yet he naturally got back to hobbies and friends that he enjoyed before I interrupted his life. Things got bumpy for a while until he dropped the car thing. If he was the type of man that felt that I wanted to control him because I wanted more time, we would have had big problems. 

This is just an example of what may appear to be a bait and switch, I did not want to have sex with him in the little time he had for me - again he could have felt I was trying to control him by denying him sex. Luckily he understood what I needed and had no problem adjusting. 

I wanted to please him because he dropped something that was important to him to give me something I had come to expect and enjoyed - his time. He was not wrong in wanting to get back to the things he enjoyed but getting married limits the time for independant activities so something had to go. 

How many men made the mistake of spending less time with their wife, less time talking, not telling her you love her, being less attentive to the little things she was accustomed to during the dating period. If the response is that you married her and that should be enough well ...she may see it as a bait and switch. 

This is not a criticism. It is something to consider. An enthusiastic lover before the wedding is so because of the man she percieves him to be. If he becomes disrespectful, dismissive of things that are important to her, selfish, critical, considers her a maid and cook she may well lose her enthusiasm for the man he becomes after the wedding. 

I feel I have to be careful about what i say because the HD spouses are in distress and the LD spouses are fine.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

yeah, as a HD spouse, my desires arent actually getting me anymore, and i venture to guess thats the case for most. so it wisful thinking that LD up their game, cause it usually doesnt happen


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Going back on topic, is that the OP talked about sex and what is expected of both sexes. I have little doubt that on this forum, it is viewed as I stated as women being the withholders and men being the beggars and the posts being viewed vastly different. 
So let's have it men.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

WhereAmI said:


> The only thing that I find highly irritating is the statement that women are MORE guilty of the bait and switch. Men do the same thing just as often. Many figure they can stop the behaviors they exhibited to get their wives to fall in love/want to have sex in the first place. Those things ARE part of sex for a woman. If you take away her foreplay, how do you expect her to arrive at the main event? I wish men would examine their actions before claiming their wives are so cold and calculating.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is true too.

Men need to understand their role in all of this. 


> Originally Posted by Therealbrighteyes
> 
> Lack of wife wanting sex = wife's fault. Lack of husband wanting sex with wife = wife's fault.


I agree with this too, and that view really annoys me. There are a lot of double standards around here that is for sure.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

> Why is there no similar talk about how women can be more free from this pressure, and more free from having to deal with all the messy consequences and all the Dr. visits (that the men are always free from). What do you guys think?


Simple, F his brains out as much as possible to the point of getting him late for work, extending his lunch break and robbing him of his after work 'man-time' that a month without sex will become a blessing. There's only so much that our ballsacs can produce per day!


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I cruised for nearly 16 years of sex maybe 6 times a year. I understand the anger, the rage, the frustration, the hurt and the pain.
> What I am saying is that on this forum, sexes get treated differently.
> 
> If my husband were to come here and say "I only nail my wife once every two months", my looks, my sexual ability, my weight and my everything would be called in to question. If I on the other hand came here and said "I only bang my husband once every two months" I would be called selfish, lazy, pathetic, controlling, worthy of being cheated on....you name it.
> ...


He wouldn't get that response from me. LD spouses, whether male or female, need to take care of their partners. That is what they agreed to do. Their partners' needs are legitimate and only their spouses may take care of those needs. I may not feel hungry, but I still am obligated to feed my kids and my animals. They can't feed themselves. 
Marriage vows don't end because someone gains a few pounds, loses a job, experiences stress, illness, etc. The commitment is to be loving (not necessarily feel loving) to each other every day for the rest of your lives, not only when the planets are in perfect allignment, or when you're perfectly giddy happy with your spouse, there's nothing good on TV, etc. There are no vacations from marriage. Withholding is emotional abuse whether the abuser is male or female.


----------



## madimoff (Feb 17, 2010)

Well, until Random's above & unbelievable saying withholding is abuse (which, even if in some cases is true, is a whole other thread) I was beginning to think folk had started to actually debate OP's notions rather than pit pat back and forth haranguing her because she'd been a bit OTT in her choice of words bringing the subject up for discussion............


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Ladies rejoice. You now have your very own BigBadWolf.

Hell, maybe miss-understood IS BigBadWolf. :FIREdevil:


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Ladies rejoice. You now have your very own BigBadWolf.
> 
> Hell, maybe miss-understood IS BigBadWolf. :FIREdevil:


I don't understand how is she like BBW?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Catherine602 said:


> I don't understand how is she like BBW?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Makes some people think. Makes some people flip out.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

so back to the spirit of the original thread, it basically asks for MEN to make all of the concessions and sex down to the desired frequency of the WIFE.

i will restate, i have already done that without medicinal assistance. i think it only fair for her to expect me to be unhappy about it


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Interesting topic. I read through the thread and pretty much everyones bias bleeds through their posts and mine will too. The subject of lowering the sex drive (or appearance of sex drive) is discussed repeatedly. Take up hobbies, get out of the house for periods, hang out with friends, lower the thermostat,meditate, masturbate,etc. These suggestions come up within threads but there are no threads titled "How do I lower my sex drive". Also , there is a forum out there that is specific to this issue of mismatched libidos. There is a "High Drive" section and a "Low Drive" section and have suggestions on both. 

Years ago when I was dealing with being the "HD" in our marriage (Man am I glad those days are over) I looked into what I could medically do to lower my sex drive because I was tired of feeling like a sexual predator. There is really nothing out there but anti-depressants. Most of the other things mentioned are myths. After talking to my wife after we got through this issue, there were two reasons given as to why I suddenly became the "HD" spouse. She did not want to get pregnant again and she didn't feel attractive. I asked well why didn't you tell me these things when I asked what the problem is, she couldn't explain. I know there are other reasons to the issue, one being that I was hard on her as a homemaker at the time. There was no reason for me to lower my sex drive in that situation. It would not help the underlying factors that caused our libidos to become mismatched. Me becoming the "High Drive" spouse was a symptom of other issues in our life/relationship. Never treat the symptom. I suspect that mismatched libidos are a symptom in a large majority of relationships. I would also like to say that in cases where there is a health related cause for the "Lower Drive" or inability to have sex that most loving "High Drive" spouses will lovingly and almost automatically lower their drive out of concern. I mean I don't even think I could think of sex with my wife if she had a serious illness. I would be overcome with worry.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

surfergirl said:


> And there it is. The topic of the thread started off being about the idea of helping men want sex less but here we are with suggestions on how an LD person can "make the other person happy" by performing blowjobs regularly.
> 
> As far as I know....blowjobs ARE sex - you can't perform one without genitals.
> 
> ...


Yes, exactly. Assuming the HD man loves his LD wife and does all kinds of other things for her!! if it is a truly loving relationship, people take care of each other's needs.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

My problem is the original premise that a decent reason for a MALE to lower his drive is because of how awful, difficult and bad sex is for a woman. That is just sad.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Other than the unbridled bliss of watching them transfer oxygen into carbon dioxide, does a husband have the right to expect anything at all from the woman he marries?


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

Mom, you're saying all the same things I think but am just not eloquent enough to say.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

As much as some women avoid sex, you'd think it involved barbed wire and battery acid.


----------



## bill2011 (Feb 5, 2011)

It is sad that some women, and I say some (not all). Have no problem with sex to land a husband. Then once they have eveyrthing they want they feel no need to continue to nurture the relationship. Then they cry when their men leave them or cheat on them. I am not condoning cheating in anyway. Men marry women with the expectation that sex would continue. The same holds true that most men are the providers and the women expects him to provide for the family as well.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

In my opinion, after reading way too much of this, the real answer to the exact first question. Why don't we talk about lowering drive?

Because, by and large, even low drive people, are not interested in a relationship with a Low drive person.

M N


----------



## Boogsie (Aug 24, 2010)

It reminds me of that old saying.

_Men marry women hoping they won't change. Women marry men hoping they will._

Also, I've said before, there is a solution to the HD vs LD spouse issues as far as HD male and LD female. That solution is chemical castration. In most instances once the castration drugs cease to be taken the effects are reversed. So all you LD spouses have to do is go to your doctor and get your husbands put on Depo-Provera or cyproterone.

It is really that simple.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

There are a host of things my wife expects from me and I do my best to deliver, regardless of how I feel. If I miss her target by even a tiny inch, she makes sure I hear about it (for the rest of my life). If I express having even the slightest expectation of her, suddenly I'm an unreasonable, controlling Neanthderthal. Never seen a more unrealistic, unjustifiable sense of entitlement in my life.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

I'll take this one snippet out of your first post, which I don't think is taken out of context.



miss-understood said:


> I mean, everyone wants to talk about how to get women to "want it more". What if we found solutions for men - so they want it *less*?!!


Note the word I emphasized...

On the very first page you make this response:




miss-understood said:


> nader, we women pay a high price for sex.
> 
> In our current culture, it's the norm for us to be expected to "suck it up" and clean it all up, and not complain or burden the men with the details. we go to the doctor once a year to be cranked open to have our cervixes scraped with a brush. to monitor vaginal health (and to monitor the HPV that's spread via sexual contact, that does virtually nothing to men, but can cause deadly cervical cancer for us). We go in for cone biopsies, having our cervical cells cryo-freezed off, we go in for all the antifungals and antibiotics from BV, yeast infections and UTIs that are not sexually "transmitted" but come about from having sex (set off by having sex).
> 
> ...


In every one of those examples, that is a risk of ANY sex with a given man. More sex doesn't increase the risk of anything on that list.

The only way to avoid them is to have *NO* sex. I think that's why you're riling people up and don't realize what you are doing. Are you really advocating that men should want to have *ANY* sex with their wives?


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Mr. Nail said:


> In my opinion, after reading way too much of this, the real answer to the exact first question. Why don't we talk about lowering drive?
> 
> Because, by and large, even low drive people, are not interested in a relationship with a Low drive person.
> 
> M N


Hmmm Mr. Nail hits it one on the head :smthumbup:


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

I think in many, if not most of the cases, sex isn't the only thing being withheld. It's just one part of a much larger issue of withholding affection, intimacy,nurturing, respect, and sometimes even just basic human decency. Can't excuse that with any medical condition.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> As much as some women avoid sex, you'd think it involved barbed wire and battery acid.


You normally have to pay more for that.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Mr. Nail said:


> Because, by and large, even low drive people, are not interested in a relationship with a Low drive person.
> 
> M N


interesting, and what if the HD becomes a NO drive, does the LD become the HD and the situation is now reversed :scratchhead:


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Mom6547 said:


> My problem is the original premise that a decent reason for a MALE to lower his drive is because of how awful, difficult and bad sex is for a woman. That is just sad.


As I just noted, she didn't open with that strongly, but quickly went to that position. Honestly I feel I'm glad I'm not her husband, he has my sympathy. 


I'd encourage her to seek some professional help. People will rile up at that, taking it to mean I think she's mentally ill. No, she just seems to be very unhappy with what should be a loving part of her marriage. A good therapist could help.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

okeydokie said:


> interesting, and what if the HD becomes a NO drive, does the LD become the HD and the situation is now reversed :scratchhead:


That is a common dynamic. Being told no too many times causes the HD spouse to withdraw to avoid more rejection. The HD person is that you're under the control of the other spouse, and the only way not to be under their control is to to be the one that cares less.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Honestly? For the tiniest moment, I actually thought the OP was my ex 

Not because I think she's horrible, but because all of the physical issues she outlined ... literally all of them ... were factors in our relationship. Sex was bad. Because it made bad things happen. Which made me feel bad, because what was supposed to be fun and enjoyable came to be associated with pain and infections. I loved my wife. Had no desire to harm her. But that didn't make my love and desire for my wife go away. We tried to adjust. Frequency backed off ... way off. However, when the prospect of intimacy (not even intercourse) with the woman you love, once a month ... becomes once a month TOO frequent for her; things have skewed a little too far in the other direction. OP ... if these are your circumstances, I'm sorry. Truly. It sucks. For both of you. I was extraordinarily understanding. My request was that she try to be extraordinarily understanding as well, and together we work it out. That was not the choice she made. She chose instead to paint me as unreasonable ... which in itself was unreasonable. 


Someone raised this in another thread some time ago and it was soundly decried.

However, in consideration of OP's postulate regarding the emotional harm men cause themselves and their partners for wanting sex more than the unknown variable of X than their female companion, coupled with the physical harm to women that copulating can cause ... help is on the way. I think it could be the answer to every mismatched sex drive relationship. Roxxy for him, Rexx for her ... Sex Robot Roxxy Looking For Action

Oh ... and note, although I am not entirely serious about the sex-bot, I have no doubt in my mind that the concept and it's market IS entirely serious.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> Why is there no similar talk about how women can be more free from this pressure, and more free from having to deal with all the messy consequences and all the Dr. visits (that the men are always free from).


Seriously, the solution is right before your eyes if sex is such a chore, and you don't wish to address the disfunction in the relationship: Do you have an available brother? If yes, buy a house with him. If no, then buy a house with a sister, or alone. 

Somehow, it just seems that a salient point is missed in the original post: marriage is supposed to be about a shared connection. Intimacy. Not too many of us can get to a real feeling of intimacy if sex is not a desired part of it. If sex is something that is thought of ouside of this context of intimacy(by either), then this is the big issue that would justify a post. 

I'm not an animal. If I cherish her in the best way that I can, and she still detests intimacy with me, then it becomes an issue where she chose wrongly by choosing me. I can deal with it. Either work on it through counseling, or if she isn't willing to work on it with me, then call the marriage a parody and end it.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> Other than the unbridled bliss of watching them transfer oxygen into carbon dioxide, does a husband have the right to expect anything at all from the woman he marries?


The word "expect" doesn't even belong in a marriage.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Oh ... and note, although I am not entirely serious about the sex-bot, I have no doubt in my mind that the concept and it's market IS entirely serious.


Roxxy and Rexx sound okay. Trenton/Amp's Robobbitt does not.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

bill2011 said:


> It is sad that some women, and I say some (not all). Have no problem with sex to land a husband. Then once they have eveyrthing they want they feel no need to continue to nurture the relationship.


THAT dynamic is a two ways street. Guy stops ever bringing flowers sits on his fat, lazy ass and watches football.

As soon as you even open this way, you are in a blame game and are doomed.


----------



## Boogsie (Aug 24, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> The word "expect" doesn't even belong in a marriage.


Do you "expect" your spouse to maintain employment?

Do you "expect" your spouse to not be out carousing all night?

Do you "expect" your spouse to remain faithful to you?

Or does "expect" still not belong in marriage. If you don't expect those things, then you should bear no malice toward your spouse if they happen.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

Mom6547 said:


> The word "expect" doesn't even belong in a marriage.


wait, what?

Can you unpack that for us a little?


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> I think in many, if not most of the cases, sex isn't the only thing being withheld. It's just one part of a much larger issue of withholding affection, intimacy,nurturing, respect, and sometimes even just basic human decency. Can't excuse that with any medical condition.


There is that word withheld again. I wonder what she thinks is being "withheld" that he doesn't want to give?


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Boogsie said:


> Do you "expect" your spouse to maintain employment?
> 
> Do you "expect" your spouse to not be out carousing all night?
> 
> ...


No. No to any of them. I expect to work hard and give thought to how to make my husband happy. In so doing, I gain the strong desire for him to do the same.

I can rely one our common values for him not to fly to coop at the first sign of dissension. But I don't think either one of us would choose to remain married based on mere expectation without the love, caring and cherishing to which we have become accustomed.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> No. No to any of them. I expect to work hard and give thought to how to make my husband happy. In so doing, I gain the strong desire for him to do the same.


So expect is a part of your relationship.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

nader said:


> wait, what?
> 
> Can you unpack that for us a little?


I think expecting is putting the cart before the horse. When we are expecting, we are looking for THEM to do something for US. It would be nice. And in the context of things going well will often work. 

If things are NOT going well, it would still be nice. But it just doesn't work that way. Should you EXPECT your wife to have sex with you? Where is that going to get you? (The you I am referring to is not YOU per se, but the you who feels he is not getting enough sex.) That is going to get you intermittent, grudging sex. What you really want is desire and passionate sex.

The problem with MOST of these sex conversations is that THEY AREN'T ABOUT DRIVE.

In as much as women need to understand what sex MEANS to a man, a man needs to understand what love language, emotional security and safety and attraction MEAN to a woman.

Or you can expect and whine when you only sometimes get a pittance of what you expect.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Kobo said:


> So expect is a part of your relationship.


No. Reading comprehension problem? I got lucky and married an awesome guy.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> I think expecting is putting the cart before the horse. When we are expecting, we are looking for THEM to do something for US. It would be nice. And in the context of things going well will often work.
> 
> If things are NOT going well, it would still be nice. But it just doesn't work that way. Should you EXPECT your wife to have sex with you? Where is that going to get you? (The you I am referring to is not YOU per se, but the you who feels he is not getting enough sex.) That is going to get you intermittent, grudging sex. What you really want is desire and passionate sex.
> 
> ...



To me expecting is about what you are looking for in a relationship. If a woman requires a man to meet her "love language" then she is expecting that he does. We all have expectations in a relationship. Which is why when the "love language" isn't met then the lady builds up resentment. How can you build up resentment for something you didn't expect to get anyway?


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> No. Reading comprehension problem? I got lucky and married an awesome guy.


From you:
" I expect to work hard and give thought to how to make my husband happy. "

You are part of your relationship. You expect to work hard and give thought to make your husband happy. As you can see expectation is part of your relationship. Now you can sit here and say that you don't expect the same in return from your husband but I don't believe you and no logical thinking person will.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Kobo said:


> To me expecting is about what you are looking for in a relationship. If a woman requires a man to meet her "love language" then she is expecting that he does.


As Doc Phil says, how is that working for you?

Again, I think you are putting the car before the horse. It is not USEFUL to worry about what to expect, not because it is wrong, but because it doesn't WORK.



> We all have expectations in a relationship. Which is why when the "love language" isn't met then the lady builds up resentment. How can you build up resentment for something you didn't expect to get anyway?


Who cares. Get rid of the resentment and get happy. In my relationship, I chose to change the dynamic. It only takes one. (Though sometimes you wind up finding out that you married a jerk.)


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Kobo said:


> From you:
> " I expect to work hard and give thought to how to make my husband happy. "
> 
> You are part of your relationship. You expect to work hard and give thought to make your husband happy.


No, I am expecting of ME. If the result was not a relationship of my liking, I would leave.


----------



## magnoliagal (Mar 30, 2011)

Bright eyes my story is similar to yours. Husband needed the connection - it was lost - sex went away. I'm tiny, dress nice, look 10 years younger than I am so my appearance had nothing to do with it. 

I'm trying to rebuild that connection and it's working albeit slowly but he also makes lots of excuses to I think push me away. I thought I feared intimacy but I now think he's more scared than I am.

It's complicated and canned responses won't work in my case either.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> As Doc Phil says, how is that working for you?
> 
> Again, I think you are putting the car before the horse. It is not USEFUL to worry about what to expect, not because it is wrong, but because it doesn't WORK.
> 
> ...


Why do you think I have problems in my relationship because I don't agree with you? It's not about worrying about what to expect. It's about what you require in your relationship. If no one had expectations then there wouldn't be any divorce. Why would you divorce you don't expect/require anything specific so then what's the problem.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> No, I am expecting of ME. If the result was not a relationship of my liking, I would leave.


What would you leave for? You don't have any expectations on what a marriage should be so what could be the problem?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What I am saying is that on this forum, sexes get treated differently.


Given that men are different from women, I think that it is appropriate and helpful to treat them differently.



Therealbrighteyes said:


> If he were to come here and say he is higher drive and what should he do, he would be lovingly ushered in to the Men's forum and hand held about setting boundaries, surviving fitness tests and making sure I noticed other women want him.
> If I were to come here and say I am higher drive and what should I do, I would be told that I need to hit the gym, dye my hair, not nag, wear lingerie and dress better.
> 
> THAT is what the OP was getting at. That the typically "lower drive" woman is often asked to up the stakes, work on her appearance, be a sexual plaything and do it whenever he wants. The man on the other hand is told to stake his ground, barely budge and work on himself for himself.
> ...


You're misunderstanding the advice that is given.

Let's take the typical case of a LD spouse that is willing to have sex once or twice a month and a HD spouse that desires sex 1-3 times a week. The standard advice I've seen here is to confirm that the LD spouse doesn't have some sort of reason (hormonal, past abuse) for the low drive. If not, then the HD spouse needs to make himself/herself more attractive to the LD spouse.

In this case, should we advice a HD man to dye his hair, wear lingerie and heels, stop nagging, and become more sexually adventurous? Not unless he married a lesbian. We should advise him to start passing fitness tests, work out, set boundaries. You know, the things that make men more attractive to women.

So, stop focusing on the fact that different words are written depending on the sex of the HD spouse and understand that the advise is the same.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> In this case, should we advice a HD man to dye his hair, wear lingerie and heels, stop nagging, and become more sexually adventurous? Not unless he married a lesbian. We should advise him to start passing fitness tests, work out, set boundaries. You know, the things that make men more attractive to women.
> 
> So, stop focusing on the fact that different words are written depending on the sex of the HD spouse and understand that the advise is the same.


Of course it would be ridiculous to tell a guy to wear heels. My point was that there seems to be a very different tone anger wise, depending on who the LD spouse is. That was what I was saying.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Mom6547 said:


> No. Reading comprehension problem? I got lucky and married an awesome guy.


Glad good fortune shined down on you. However, what are you going to do if awesome guy decides to flake out?

You are expecting him to remain awesome. You presume he will. 

This is all well and good.

I expected my wife to remain a faithful and decent wife. I presumed that based on the behavior she exhibited to me and others--all the while she was acting differently than she presented.

If your husband started boozing, spending all the cash, had a floozy on the side, gave you an STD, are you saying that you're fine with that because you have no expectations?

Like I said, I am glad you are happy with an awesome guy. some of us THOUGHT we were in similar situations and EXPECTED them to remain as presented to us.

There is a baseline of what is expected in a marriage. Those expectations are spoken in a marriage vow.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Kobo said:


> Why do you think I have problems in my relationship because I don't agree with you?


I did not mean you YOU. I meant "you" one who finds himself in this dillema. I had said that a couple times in this thread and had hoped it stood.



> It's not about worrying about what to expect. It's about what you require in your relationship.


Yes, I see. You first had said Do you expect your SPOUSE to x, y, z. Yes I have expectations of the RELATIONSHIP. I attempt to about them without focusing in requirements and expectations of HIM. They are demotivators.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

michzz said:


> Glad good fortune shined down on you. However, what are you going to do if awesome guy decides to flake out?
> 
> You are expecting him to remain awesome. You presume he will.
> 
> This is all well and good.


No, actually I don't. How many times have you seen me say on this board, you set limits / engender cooperation. If it doesn't work, you leave. You can lead a horse to water...



> I expected my wife to remain a faithful and decent wife. I presumed that based on the behavior she exhibited to me and others--all the while she was acting differently than she presented.
> 
> If your husband started boozing, spending all the cash, had a floozy on the side, gave you an STD, are you saying that you're fine with that because you have no expectations?


I have expectations! I expect I would LEAVE. 



> Like I said, I am glad you are happy with an awesome guy. some of us THOUGHT we were in similar situations and EXPECTED them to remain as presented to us.


THAT I certainly do not expect, that over the course of a lifetime neither one of us will change.



> There is a baseline of what is expected in a marriage. Those expectations are spoken in a marriage vow.


Not for me there isn't. If there had been, when he has said gee honey, I would like more playful sex, I would have been stuck in my prude-like beginnings. I LIKE change especially when it leads to GROWTH.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Mom6547 said:


> I LIKE change especially when it leads to GROWTH.


This alone is an expectation.

Expectations are like boundaries. You mention leaving if what I had written down occurred. Why? Because your expectations were not being met. Boundaries crossed.

A person doesn't have to have a laundry list of things they expect out of their spouse, petty or important.

I just don't think people why marry do so with ZERO expectations. 

Maybe it is a semantic difference.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

michzz said:


> This alone is an expectation.
> 
> Expectations are like boundaries. You mention leaving if what I had written down occurred. Why? Because your expectations were not being met. Boundaries crossed.
> 
> ...


 Maybe, maybe not. But one thing I DON'T agree with is that each and every marriage vow stands forever. OBEY was in my marriage vows. Yah, um not so much.

The INTENT of the commitment is more important than the words of the vow. In my opinion.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

michzz said:


> There is a baseline of what is expected in a marriage. Those expectations are spoken in a marriage vow.


If you really think about this statement and what is REALLY said in the vows, I think you will see that you are arguing for the same thing as Mom.

In the marriage vow, you pledge to do certain things. The focus is your expection for yourself. What you will do. You don't say, "I expect you to do this for me." 

Simply put, its healthier to focus primarily on what you do, and your actions, and let your mate do the same thing. Over time, if your mate doesn't meet your needs, thats when counseling needs to happen. Marriage problems really begin when our default position is to worry more about what our mate does or doesn't do from the beginning.

Not to put words in the other poster's mouth, but I think this was what she was saying. Keep the horse before the cart. Follow your marriage vow. Think about what you are doing.

It does become a huge issue when all of the emotional support runs one way in the relationship, to just one person, but thats why they created lawyers and therapists. 

It's probably one of the risks of a site like this that the default posts (mine included) is more about what the mate is doing to us.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

It's all specious in the end, no? Argue the polemics all you like, you can't make someone like having have sex with you. Most of the voices here are arguing 'rights', 'entitlements'. There are no rights and entitlements when it comes to lovemaking. There is only lovemaking. Your lover loves loving you or he or she does not. And at best, at the very best you can come to some accommodation where he or she agrees to sexually service or be serviced by you, slightly more than they wish and in exchange you are slightly less sexually satisfied than you originally desired. 

Or did I stumble into Torts class by mistake?


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Runs like Dog said:


> It's all specious in the end, no? Argue the polemics all you like, you can't make someone like having have sex with you. Most of the voices here are arguing 'rights', 'entitlements'.


Yes.



> There are no rights and entitlements when it comes to lovemaking. There is only lovemaking. Your lover loves loving you or he or she does not. And at best, at the very best you can come to some accommodation where he or she agrees to sexually service or be serviced by you, slightly more than they wish and in exchange you are slightly less sexually satisfied than you originally desired.


OR you can say gee why DOESN'T my wife want to make love with me? Do I take her for granted? Am I a Nice Guy who has lost my sexy edge? 

When she says you don't listen, what does she MEAN. If you are anything like my husband and I, we never stopped to really THINK what the other person MEANT. I do TOO listen to you! We fought to defend ourselves, not to HEAR.

If she used to love you and love making love to you, then why doesn't she now?

What can I DO? Because I think we have seen often enough that complaining never works. Just increases the feelings of pressure.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

The problem for me is that the words don't match the actions. and yes, the vows are what you say that you will do. However, the expectation is that the vows are a mutually agreed upon thing. BOTH say the say thing.

Who would get married if they bared their soul and expressed their love only to have their intended, say, "thanks bunches" in response?

I don't think intimacy is to be a transactional arrangement, btw.

I just keep getting back to the idea that there are no expectations as not a fully thought out comment. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Runs like Dog said:


> Or did I stumble into Torts class by mistake?


:lol:


----------



## Cherry (Sep 23, 2009)

WhiteRabbit said:


> If my husband had a pill to take when I was having complications from my hysterectomy,maybe he wouldn't have cheated.
> 
> just sayin...sometimes a pill might come in handy for those crisis moments in life when the sex isn't happening...more of a crutch for those weak willed men so they don't cheat while their wives are unable to fulfill their physical need.A temporary fix until the sex starts flowin again...


Haven't read the entire thread, but in my opinion this is an excellent example of when a pill would be useful. 

For me, it's not my husband constantly wanting sex (which he does), it's the times where I CAN'T do anything and he still wants it. My gyn suggested a few times in the past few years that if I'm unable to do vaginal intercourse (for various reasons), that I should consider at least "taking" care of him by other means.... I mean come on... When your just getting home from getting a biopsy on your cervix with confirmed pre-cancerous lesions that actually may of come from your husbands past sexual history, who the hell feels like sucking on that same penis right then and there? Give me a day or two to relax, let it sink in, etc... The last thing on my mind is enjoying the same thing at that moment that may have been the cause of the pre-cancerous situation... I don't give a crap if my husband needs to feel loved right then, so do I in another way... He can wait a day or two. Just my thoughts on it.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Mom6547 said:


> If she used to love you and love making love to you, then why doesn't she now?


That's not about sex. That's about everything except sex. That's about the dynamics of change in relationship over time. People's emotions burn out a lot faster than their sexual plumbing. 



> What can I DO? Because I think we have seen often enough that complaining never works. Just increases the feelings of pressure.


I really don't know. Maybe it's wiser to explore why and how people make love instead of trying to decode why they can't, won't, don't, forgot how.....

Women aren't naturally less-sexed than men. Men and women engage in intimacy for different reasons. And not to put too fine a point on it, women can fake it, men, not so much or not in the same way. So could it be that women, being able to fake it, resent faking it? A woman who lays there and can't climax is a bore but a man who can piston away for 20 minutes without cumming is a porn god. But really? Maybe he's just not that into it. Maybe he just has the dumb luck to be able to stay hard while he thinks about doing the taxes.

In any case, I think the whole 'Let's communicate our way through this' is overrated. I think endlessly talking about talking about how you feel about feeling about talking about it is a waste. And I think that in and of itself is the key to the problem. Too much analysis and enough trying to understand your lover's body. Too much process and not enough pleasure. Too much 'now what did I read in this book?'' And not enough paying attention to the sounds your lover makes as you make love. The way he or she moves, what they respond to, what they recoil from. Do I go down on her some more or is she urging me to mount her and ride her like pony? Instead of dwelling on whether pulling her hair is 'appropriate', pull her hair a little and see what happens. Do you know if he gets off when you put his balls in your mouth? Try it. He might speak in tongues for all you know. 

But for god's sake stop intellectualizing everything.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Cherry, I think there's a difference between suggesting (and rightly so) that there are times that Partner A just isn't into ANY form of sex so expecting Partner B to understand and respect that and the type of more generalized situation that I took the original question to be about (underneath all the other..."stuff"...that got attached to it). That original question, then, dealing with a CONSISTENTLY LD partner wanting to find a way to decrease the HD (or, at least highER D) partner's drive as opposed to what the OP seems to perceive as the norm, which is for the LD partner to try to increase their drive. It has to do with day-to-day relations and desires, as opposed to the extraordinary occurrences.

I still stand by my opinion...it's not up to just one or the other to move up or down the desire road, as the case may be. It's up to both to make that journey and find a mutually agreeable point in between those two extremes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Grayson said:


> I still stand by my opinion...it's not up to just one or the other to move up or down the desire road, as the case may be. It's up to both to make that journey and find a mutually agreeable point in between those two extremes.
> 
> 
> When only that element of the topic is considered, who does the moving, I agree with this.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Mom6547 said:


> Grayson said:
> 
> 
> > I still stand by my opinion...it's not up to just one or the other to move up or down the desire road, as the case may be. It's up to both to make that journey and find a mutually agreeable point in between those two extremes.
> ...


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Of course it would be ridiculous to tell a guy to wear heels. My point was that there seems to be a very different tone anger wise, depending on who the LD spouse is. That was what I was saying.


I think the anger is confined to a few posters evenly distributed among both sexes. I've seen just as many misandrist posts as I've seen misogynist ones.

The advice that I have seen on this forum has generally been to focus on one's self. If you are the HD partner, increase your attractiveness to your LD partner. If you are the LD partner, try some exercises (physical and/or mental) to increase your drive. If the LD partner just can't increase his/her drive, then that person should still have sex at a reasonable frequency in order to meet the needs of the HD partner. I think this advice applies regardless of which sex is HD or LD.

I think the fact that the LD partner is generally a woman is skewing your analysis.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> There is that word withheld again. I wonder what she thinks is being "withheld" that he doesn't want to give?


I withhold nothing as long as I'm aware of what she needs. I give whatever is in my power. I thought that was the idea.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> I think the anger is confined to a few posters evenly distributed among both sexes. I've seen just as many misandrist posts as I've seen misogynist ones.
> 
> The advice that I have seen on this forum has generally been to focus on one's self. If you are the HD partner, increase your attractiveness to your LD partner. If you are the LD partner, try some exercises (physical and/or mental) to increase your drive. If the LD partner just can't increase his/her drive, then that person should still have sex at a reasonable frequency in order to meet the needs of the HD partner. I think this advice applies regardless of which sex is HD or LD.
> 
> I think the fact that the LD partner is generally a woman is skewing your analysis.


I think you have a healthy way of giving advice, encouragement, etc I have seen alot of that in others too. I have also seen some really nasty stuff that seemed one sided.
Well, hopefully we can move towards balanced advice for both sexes. :smthumbup:


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

With no expectations, no obligations, and love determined solely by one's emotions at any given moment, marriage makes positively no sense. I can visit any bar and emerge with a woman who will do what she feels when she feels only as long as she feels. Such an arrangement requires no commitment, no trust, no sacrifice and it certainly isn't worth the price of a marriage.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> With no expectations, no obligations, and love determined solely by one's emotions at any given moment, marriage makes positively no sense. I can visit any bar and emerge with a woman who will do what she feels when she feels only as long as she feels. Such an arrangement requires no commitment, no trust, no sacrifice and it certainly isn't worth the price of a marriage.


**** SORRY BAD DAY -RANT COMMING THROUGH ******

If i read this one more time i think my head will explode. I have seen this in one form or another literally thousands of time on this forum, --- women are either sexually useless or waiting around to worship the penis of any random dude regardless of looks, charm, age, cleanliness, or worthiness. In fact, if i did not know better, i would think that women are like blow up dolls, waiting to be masturbated into by any man with junk longer than a cigarette and thicker than a cigar. 

What world do I live in that I don't see this as reality?? Why is it that I know for certain that women have standards, autonomy and are smart enough to know that the average man is looking for a warm hole he does not need to work too hard to get. Granted, I don't hang out in bars or clubs, I go occationally and I have friends, relatives and students who do a fair amout of partying.

This is my observation of real life, it is contrary to the media hype as are most things. Women in clubs are not there looking to be used by random men. Men seem eternally hopeful that all those stories about drunk women eeffing in parking lots are true. The women seem to manipulate the young men into buying them drinks and running their game. 

As far as I know, they don't follow these guys home they go home and tell their stories of the nights adventures of guys trying to run a game on them. They seem to stay clear of older men because they are too obvious and usually married and looking for a hot young thing to poke. Viagra, porn and the possibility of sex makes fools of many men. 

Women are really people it may be hard to see that when sex is involved but try hard. Think of females that you know and love but have no interest in sexually. Think of their emotions, capacity of feelings, ability to feel pain, think of the joy and love they bring to your life and to those around them that have nothing to do with their sexual utility to you. Try to remember that. I understand men think of sex constantly but honestly, sometimes it is distressing to think that so much time is wasted with this one aspect of life. I think of that Wiener guy and wonder WTF is wrong with him. 

I will tell you from my standpoint - I feel pressure and I feel as if I can't be myself around men lest any word or action be taken as a come - on. It happens, some men think that a women being friendly means that sex is just a moment away. I'd like to take a week off, go to a monastery near the ocean and contemplate. 

The end . I feel better but I probably made everyone else mad. :{{.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

That was awesome
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Catherine602 said:


> The end . I feel better but I probably made everyone else mad. :{{.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not angry,very understandable but many men feel offended by such generalizations. We are not mindless zombies with hard-ons wandering the earth moaning "sex, sex, sex " instead of "brains, brains. brains". We desire love, to be valued, to be respected in many of the same ways our counter parts do. I have had sex with plenty of women before I married and with the exception of one drunken 1NS, all were women I cared for and had a relationship that was measured in months or years. Not one happy hour to the next. Yes there are the total hounds out there, but I believe they are the exception not the rule.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Any relationship (especially marriage) includes expectations. My boss expects me to work. My neighbor expects me to keep my lawn mowed. Fellow motorists expect me to drive on the proper side of the road. The notion that there are no expectations in marriage or that somehow expectations are a bad thing just completely flogs my sense of logic. The only people of whom nothing is expected are those who are dead and even they are expected to decompose.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Catherine602 said:


> **** SORRY BAD DAY -RANT COMMING THROUGH ******
> 
> If i read this one more time i think my head will explode. I have seen this in one form or another literally thousands of time on this forum, --- women are either sexually useless or waiting around to worship the penis of any random dude regardless of looks, charm, age, cleanliness, or worthiness. In fact, if i did not know better, i would think that women are like blow up dolls, waiting to be masturbated into by any man with junk longer than a cigarette and thicker than a cigar.
> 
> ...


catherine, you write this as if there is some sort of a requirement for women to comply with these guys desires, and believe me ther obviously isnt. in fact, women have been known to exploit this behavior throughout history, which isnt very becoming either


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> It seems like there's so much talk about men not "getting" enough sex from their wives, and how to "get" more, and get their wives to want it more.
> 
> Why is there no similar talk about how women can be more free from this pressure, and more free from having to deal with all the messy consequences and all the Dr. visits (that the men are always free from).
> 
> ...


I'm a guy, and I can honestly say I have not read every response in this thread. My x wife seemed to share your view. She always acted like I was a sex maniac for wanting to make love frequently. However, I agree with those whole believe sex in a marriage is a normal, natural, great thing. If someone thinks they won't want sex in life, then consider themselves not the marrying type, or find someone who also dislikes sex, and save the rest the agony.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

I don't think Unbelievable was suggesting that he could do this, I think what he was getting at was that unless there is some expectation in marriage, love and obligation, then relations would boil down to meaningless encounters and what would be the point of getting married then.
I agree with him on this. I also think tone is often difficult to understand on forums.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Amplexor said:


> Not angry,very understandable but many men feel offended by such generalizations. We are not mindless zombies with hard-ons wandering the earth moaning "sex, sex, sex " instead of "brains, brains. brains". We desire love, to be valued, to be respected in many of the same ways our counter parts do. I have had sex with plenty of women before I married and with the exception of one drunken 1NS, all were women I cared for and had a relationship that was measured in months or years. Not one happy hour to the next. Yes there are the total hounds out there, but I believe they are the exception not the rule.


Totally agree. Most men seek love, appreciation, loyalty, companionship, respect, honesty and intimacy. In fact I think we all do. 
There are a few here that have suggested that they are chick magnets and that women would just flock to them if they were single so perhaps that is what she was getting at. I also think she is getting tired of the old men are valued no matter what age and women not so much. 
When it all boils down though, most men want a meaningful and lasting relationship. Actually, I take that back. All of us do.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

I know that Amp. I don't mean to insult - i know better than many women that men get a bad rap. It makes me sad when i read that men think that they can walk around for 5 min tops and some woman will offer them sex. If she is working the streets yes but the average mentally healthy woman is not like that. I can not take full responsibility for the perception though - I have seen more than one post of men bragging about how many women he pumps and dumps and not once did any man take him to task. 

I doubt very much that such an angry bitter man can hold it together long enough to pick up someone and maneuver her into sex nor would he have the confidence to approach the number of women it would take to yield one person who is intrested in him. But just reading the anger and bitterness; the motivation to harm as many innocent woman as possible and the pat on the back the guy gets from other men is enough to make me sick. 

This goes against what men are trying to do i think. Men want to be loved and cherished just like women. Be they seem tolerant of the buttonholes among them. If this guy manages to meet 5 women over the next year that he sexually uses these 5 tell their friends. They all will eventually find someone to marry. 

How many wives have had bad experiences with men? How does that effect the relationship with the husband, the good guy who committs? It has a very big effect. Those women who are abused, used, seduced end up being someones wife. The sins of one man is visited upon the other. . 

It is difficult as hell to keep in mind that men are people with the capable to love as great if not greater than women. It should not be so difficult. I am surrounded by good men!!! The triggers are difficult to deal with - media stories about men who you would think were too smart to do such stupid things and frankly I look at the men around me and wonder when they are going to snap and spiral into a testosterone storm. 

I am not kidding. I really get the feeling that some men have very little control over themselves when they get into certain situations. Perfectly loving men will move haven and earth to run off to Brazil with a 23 yo beauty. 

That's how the media pundits explain these men doing such humiliating painful things to their wives. That has an effect on the picture I have of what makes men tick. I think to myself why do i have to try so hard - when he is 45 he may luck out and meet a girl who looks like me when i was 20 and fall madly in love. Who knows. You can be sure many women have taken note. 
Back to regular program. Sorry love you all. Especially you Runs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Amplexor said:


> Not angry,very understandable but many men feel offended by such generalizations.


Like the generalizations like the one she responded to that left to our own devices we would be out who'ing at the first opp?

There are nice people, and less nice people. There are bitter people, and less bitter people. World takes all kinds.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> I know that Amp. I don't mean to insult - i know better than many women that men get a bad rap. It makes me sad when i read that men think that they can walk around for 5 min tops and some woman will offer them sex. If she is working the streets yes but the average mentally healthy woman is not like that. I can not take full responsibility for the perception though - I have seen more than one post of men bragging about how many women he pumps and dumps and not once did any man take him to task.
> 
> I doubt very much that such an angry bitter man can hold it together long enough to pick up someone and maneuver her into sex nor would he have the confidence to approach the number of women it would take to yield one person who is intrested in him. But just reading the anger and bitterness; the motivation to harm as many innocent woman as possible and the pat on the back the guy gets from other men is enough to make me sick.
> 
> ...



There are plenty of guys here who call out those types of men! 
Niceguy, Michzz, Trey, Rob, Amp, and Deejo. They all sit back and observe and when they smell bs, they speak up. Some might do it more directly than others but they all say something. 
The problem is that you have bitterness on both sides. As of late, it seems to be en vogue to be a he/she kind of site. I am guilty of this as well as I bring my own issues to the table. I am having issues with one man, not the men on this site but I often color my posts to imply all men behaves the way my husband does. I think some men here do this as well. They are in sexless marriages, hurt and angry and they take it out on women. We are BOTH guilty of this. 
This site brings together people who are in happy marriages, unhappy marriages, miserable marriages and those just trying to further understand the male/female dynamic. Let's try to remember that. I promise I will try harder.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> Like the generalizations like the one she responded to that left to our own devices we would be out who'ing at the first opp?


'cept that's not the message that I took away from unbelievable's post. The message that I took away was that, without some degree of expectations within a committed relationship, there's not really much of a commitment to that relationship, after all...that it's ultimately no different than a bar pick-up resulting in a one night stand.

Now, if you'd like to see a gross generalization tied into his statement, I'll give you one. It's born of admitted ignorance of the "bar scene." (See, I can't stand the taste of alcohol, so I don't drink. Resultingly, I find drunk people to be obnoxious and annoying. Thus, left to MY own devices, I don't go to bars. My generalization is based purely on stereotype and anecdotal evidence.). I would say that unbelievable's statement isn't terribly outrageous, as I feel that many unattached women who go to a bar solo or with a group of women are more likely to be looking to - in the vernacular - "hook up." They may hope that it might lead to a long term relationship, or just be looking to scratch a proverbial itch. But, at the end of the day, they're either there not just to consume alcoholic beverage, but to look for Mr. Right...or at least Mr. Right Now.

However, I also think the same concepts hold true for many unattached men who go to a bar solo or with a group of men.

The environment and nature of the interactions there, assisted by the so-called "social lubricant" of alcohol, lend themselves to the very kind of scenario that unbelievable put forth.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> **** SORRY BAD DAY -RANT COMMING THROUGH ******
> 
> If i read this one more time i think my head will explode. I have seen this in one form or another literally thousands of time on this forum, --- women are either sexually useless or waiting around to worship the penis of any random dude regardless of looks, charm, age, cleanliness, or worthiness. In fact, if i did not know better, i would think that women are like blow up dolls, waiting to be masturbated into by any man with junk longer than a cigarette and thicker than a cigar.
> 
> ...



You make perfect sense, then I can go to Online Dating | Everyone Has A Price. WhatsYourPrice.com and offer money for a first date


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Grayson said:


> 'cept that's not the message that I took away from unbelievable's post.


Yah I know. I was making backhanded comment to the notion that you can speak about people on TAM as if there is any one majority outlook.



> The message that I took away was that, without some degree of expectations within a committed relationship, there's not really much of a commitment to that relationship, after all


That's the point that was so damned hard for me to get but was so useful in the end. What one expects and from whom is about action plan, not what you would choose to put up with in a relationship. I do expect my relationship to be within certain parameters or I would walk.

But that is not the vast majority of the usage of the word expect. Most often it is used to rant frustrated at what CAN one EXPECT from their spouse. The proof is in the pudding. You can complain about what one SHOULD be able to EXPECT until you are purple. That at a five spot might get you a Starbucks.

Or you can learn. 

... The bar scene of considerably less interest to me.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Kobo said:


> You make perfect sense, then I can go to Online Dating | Everyone Has A Price. WhatsYourPrice.com and offer money for a first date


You proved her point. Not alot of women circling their wagons around angry men unless you pay them.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You proved her point. Not alot of women circling their wagons around angry men unless you pay them.


Nothing to prove/disprove except the fact that women are active participants in the behaviors she dislikes.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Perhaps not the best analogy and it wasn't written by a trained, dispassionate counselor, but just some guy, who after dealing with this mess for 8 years, doesn't even know how he's supposed to act in this world anymore. I'm not an asexual, unromantic robot but I'm supposed to behave like I have no sexual interests at all and that rejection doesn't bother me. I'm sure my rants do sound like those of a selfish woman-hater. That's not the "real" me, but I haven't been able to actually be "me" in so long, who knows what "me" is anymore. Anyway, guess I stirred the stink pot sufficiently, so my work here is done.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> Perhaps not the best analogy and it wasn't written by a trained, dispassionate counselor, but just some guy, who after dealing with this mess for 8 years, doesn't even know how he's supposed to act in this world anymore. I'm not an asexual, unromantic robot but I'm supposed to behave like I have no sexual interests at all and that rejection doesn't bother me.


I sure as hell hope you don't get that message coming from ME. I am curious if you are willing to try to do something different. I wonder if there is too much water under that bridge.



> I'm sure my rants do sound like those of a selfish woman-hater. That's not the "real" me, but I haven't been able to actually be "me" in so long, who knows what "me" is anymore. Anyway, guess I stirred the stink pot sufficiently, so my work here is done.


There was a guy on the last board I was on who was claiming about the lack of intimacy with his wife for something like 20 years. He still claimed unwillingness to tolerate it. But he WAS tolerating it. He was certainly doing nothing different to change it. Or at least nothing that he had not been doing for 20 years without success.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Kobo said:


> Nothing to prove/disprove except the fact that women are active participants in the behaviors she dislikes.


She wasn't talking about paid women, she was talking about this notion that hot women are just fawning over these guys because of their sparkling personalities and quick wit. 
You did prove her point.


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

magnoliagal said:


> True. For this I'm grateful I'm old. I was 21 in 1987 when HPV was not even mentioned.


That was when AIDS made it's big debut in society. 

HPV is so common that children are vaccinated for it at age twelve here. You only need to be having oral sex or skin to skin contact to get it. 

There are hundreds of strains and most of them are harmless and go undetected. Some strains cause herpes (genital warts) and others unfortunately make a woman more likely to develop cervical cancer.

The OP and I have cancerous strains. I am very lucky that I have not had procedures such as LEEP or biopsy. I have only had the "closer look" copolscopy. So far so good...HPV doesn't guarantee cancer; it just requires a great deal of supervision.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> She wasn't talking about paid women, she was talking about this notion that hot women are just fawning over these guys because of their sparkling personalities and quick wit.
> You did prove her point.


Her story also addresses views by some men that women are sexual objects to be pursued for that purpose only which is why I say the link shows that women play a major part in this idea.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Kobo said:


> Her story also addresses views by some men that women are sexual objects to be pursued for that purpose only which is why I say the link shows that women play a major part in this idea.


The motivation of those women isn't sex, it's money. 
Comparing women whose motivation isn't money to women whose is, is like comparing apples to Q-tips.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Mom6547,

That's the rub. There's nothing I can do short of divorce, suicide, chemical castration, or take overseas employment. I'm too old for the first, not desperate enough for the next two, so that leaves getting deployed. Her extremely low libido and her bipolar existed long before she even knew my name. I've tried being patient, tried "manning up", offered to attend counseling. I took her on a nice marriage retreat. I haven't tried painting my butt bright purple but if it would work, I'd be off to Home Depot.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The motivation of those women isn't sex, it's money.
> Comparing women whose motivation isn't money to women whose is, is like comparing apples to Q-tips.


Doesn't matter what their motivation is as they perpetuate the notion that women should be treated as sex objects. We can say the same about comparing men who view women only for sex and those who don't but the fact is there are men that perpetuate that idea.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> I doubt very much that such an angry bitter man can hold it together long enough to pick up someone and maneuver her into sex nor would he have the confidence to approach the number of women it would take to yield one person who is intrested in him. But just reading the anger and bitterness; the motivation to harm as many innocent woman as possible and the pat on the back the guy gets from other men is enough to make me sick.


Unless you're discussing rape, which I don't think you are, the women being bragged about were willing participants. Let's be frank. If a woman goes to a bar, meets a man, and has sex with him within a few hours, that woman really shouldn't expect the man to praise her virtue to his friends.

If you don't want men to discuss how easy you are, don't sleep with men who aren't committed to you. It's really very easy (so to speak).



Catherine602 said:


> Those women who are abused, used, seduced end up being someones wife. The sins of one man is visited upon the other. .


I am also a victim of abuse. I ate fast food tonight. Of course, I knew it wasn't good for me. I knew I would be sorry I ate it. But, I drove myself to the restaurant, ordered a #4, and ate every bite. Those bastards.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Kobo said:


> Doesn't matter what their motivation is as they perpetuate the notion that women should be treated as sex objects. We can say the same about comparing men who view women only for sex and those who don't but the fact is there are men that perpetuate that idea.


Hookers don't perpetuate the notion that women should be treated as sex objects. They do it because they have little options and are getting paid. Come on. 

So back to the original thread....is there a drug that can give some men a dose of reality?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Kobo said:


> Nothing to prove/disprove except the fact that women are active participants in the behaviors she dislikes.


Umm how does a website apparently of older men with money buying young women and young women willing to be brought by older men say anything about what the average women walking into a bar with a bunch of gf will behave? 

The web site is a virtual wh*re house, what does that have to do with real live women? Do you really think that 18 yr old girls need to look on a web site for a 60 yr old man to pay her car note. She does not need to bother - she could amass 20 old geezers in 5 days to pay her enough money for two semesters at Yale. Pointing the way to that site confirms my argment rather than weakens it. To think this represent the way the average women conduct herself is misguided at best. 

You are not thinking clearly when it comes to sex. The reason the site is appealing to men is that it plays off the notion that if you have enough money you can have anything you want even a hot young thing who will have sex with you. That why all of those politicians get into trouble. 

The site is prostitution and unfortunately it is cleverly presented so that it seems legal but it is prostitution none the less. those are not your average women participating on a web site those women if they are real they have just come from off the street. 

I promise you that what I describe is actually the way most women really are. Think about it - how many contacts do you think an ok looking 20 yr old girl signing up on that site would get? Within an hr of posting her profile - about 1000. 80% with pictures of errect penises. If she wanted she could write a paper on "the variation of the male sex organ among men seeking sex with young girls online". No reasonably sane young woman would go about finding a man to pay her bills that way. Why would she want to wade through pics of all of those penises they are not that interesting. 
. 
Do you have anything else you want me to explain?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

miss-understood said:


> txhunter 54, I have a question. And I mean this in all seriousness...
> 
> but if men "want" it, and that wanting is such torture, why WOULDN'T they want to "want" it less. Would that make them more free and happy?
> 
> ...


I want to take a stab at this question. Miss-understood , once you have stepped into the shoes & walked a few miles in a higher testosterone sexually craving body & tasted of it’s passionate fruits, feeling the sheer exhileration & RUSH of erotic arousal with someone you deeply love, this pretty much overtakes your mind, it floods you with a longing to go their again & again, because it IS unspeakable joy, when you "make love" & cum with that person, there is a intimate bonding (or should be) that is from Heaven itself . Sex is the most pleasurable experience under the sun. You long for this to happen again & again & again & again & again , there is no more powerful force in this universe for some ~~and if physical touch is their # 1 love language- you would be better to take a gun to their heads -than ask them to take a pill to lower this force within their souls. It is in essence WHO they are. 

I have been on both sides of this issue.....

Once a sexually repressed wife who cared more about her husbands sperm than his pleasure or mine, I simply had other things on my mind. (infertility, then 5 children in 9 yrs) :banghead: I was ALWAYS sexually fullfilled, so I never experienced this intense LONGING, this hunger as HE was feeling it. When I felt it coming on-I went to him -HE JUMPED. It probably would have served him well to let ME suffer a bit- and talk to me, make me beg , so my eyes could have been opened earier! 

I married one of those "Nice Guys" who put me on a pedestal & never pushed any limits, even if it hurt him, he cared so little for himself -it was always ABOUT ME. We rarely talked about sex for most of our marriage, it is about the only thing we didnt talk about. What a shame.  If HE felt I was more interested in reading a book, he took it as rejection, he FELT it 10 times worse than I realized was going on in his head, he took it internally & silently suffered.  He says he loved me that much. *I say he didn't love himself ENOUGH *! 

Would you want your man like this? Not many have MY experience here. So just trying to give another perspective to the "silent male sufferer". What the rest of you see is their "acting out" but internally, I know they can all relate, some are more outright angrier than others though. 

It was not until I opened up the sexual dialog a few yrs ago -that I come to realize HOW MUCH my dear husband suffered. I learned he would wake up in the mornings HARD, but layed there just wanting it to go down, feeling his desire was a scourge, as I was always holding our babies. (He didnt complain about that either- but should have). He came to a point of just letting me initiate half of the time. I NEEDED it once a week- He never badgered me or started a fight over sex, he patiently waited for me, the man LOVED when I came onto him. 


And because of this, I was oblivious to his pain. I recall ONE TIME in our marriage he asked me to "service him" and I was happy to do this. I didn’t know at the time how difficult that was for him- to ask. Just putting him in that situation, I could KICK myself NOW. My head was somewhere in the clouds, like you- I did not see "the allure", I was not feeling it -as I took his DESIRE for granted, it was always at my beck & call. Even though I was not badgered, if I wanted it, it was there for the taking. 

Then suddenly, I wanted him MORE than he could perform . I swear I stepped into the body of a hormonally raging male - My craving for sexual intimacy was SO intense, it even frightened me a little, I realized I am WEAK in this area - but at the same time I was LOVING this, I felt more ALIVE & vibrant than I have ever in my life -like I just discovered something that had been veiled for my entire marraige, it was magnificent, I was soaring on the clouds of erotic passion, I could not get enough --there is no way in this world I would have given up that FEELING. And I know this sounds BAD, but had my dear husband not been on board, pushing me away, not caring about my hunger for him in this glorious thing I was experiencing, feeling this with every fiber of my being. Had he NOT wanted me In return, I really believe it would have destroyed me, I could have even left him ! And let me just say, we have always had a beautiful marriage, one of the best we personally know, we are like GLUE, we never tire of each other. 

BUT still, I simply would NOT have given up this part of myself . It was me finally coming into my sexual self, so very long overdue ! It was something I needed, I craved, I fantasized about and NOTHING ON THIS EARTH made me feel more loved. I was married! FINALLY, this is how I am supposed to feel !! I wanted to shout from the rooftops! 

So you see, I can totally relate to men now -and all high drivers out there. I can never go back, this is a part of who I am. My drive has calmed but the memories will remain, I will forever want to hold onto & re-create that passionate lust that overtook me in those months. 

Having THIS experience has enhanced our marriage in ways that we will forever hold dear >>> He will NEVER HIDE himself from me again or put himself down (I yelled at him, I cried, it was not fair to either of us)- he is more vulnerable with his feelings now, trusting I will NEVER reject him again. When we are sexually intimate, me wanting him, expressing my need, & him doing the same, there is no force on this earth more beautiful, more fullfilling, at least that is how I personally feel. 

That love, that bonding, that God given intimacy in sexual desirous expression (doesn't have to be intercouse, many ways!). This is what marraiges are made of, God intended. I thought we was blessed before, but our last 3 years have been better than our 1st 19 because I came to UNDERSTAND what my husband was feeling, I CRIED when I learned he suffered in this way. Since he KNOWS what it is like to suffer, he would NEVER NEVER NEVER allow me too. This is LOVE. He happily went to the Encronologist to get his Test checked for me, got a perscription of Viagra to keep up with me, he would do anything to please me. The sad thing is -I believe I would have too- -had he shared his heart with me in the past. Those years were wasted years. I reget this. 

I can assure you , from being on both sides of this - to be the more sexually wanting craving spouse who questions their Lovers desire for them, this can be a form of mental torture . FOR the majority of us, once you have tasted what I just described --you simply will NOT want it to go away, you will do anything in your power to RE-awaken your spouse , because for us, this IS the only answer that is acceptable. 

Any man or women who purposely castrates themselves to remain in their marriage, I feel very sorry for this person, they have more self-less love than the great majority, and any spouse that would allow them to do it - what does this say about them ? How can such a union even come to the heights they are capable of - giving freely lovingly and honoring of each others "needs". 

KNOWING WHAT WE ARE GIVING UP , in order to please the other, would only result in mental anguish of wishing you had what you still do not have (in the mind, even if the hormones subside, you would have to destroy memories also--is this not cruelty I ask? ). To anyone sane, this would only lead to a form of resentment and eventually depression. 

Being sexually compatable is Life Giving. Find a way or cut ties if it is paramount to the sufferer, everyone deserves to be able to express their sexuality and be enjoyed. I realize not every marriage is a good one, it sounds as though the original poster has many friends who have been used & abused by careless men. Not all people have good intentions, many USE sex to get off, for cheap thrills, a release & nothing more.  What I talk about here is NOT that, but a loving marital union. 

I think it does us all well be careful who we allow in our lives, learn of others reputations, do not give in to sex without a commitment, actions behind the words, take sufficient time. A GOOD man will wait. My husband waited longer than most could imagine for me. It spoke volumes. Never rush carelessly into sex, it is too precious , it is life giving. 

But highly honor your commitment to sexual intimacy-if you choose to marry another, Fight the good fight to please the one you have chosen. Every other act on the face of this earth is permissable outside of marriage except this 1 intimate act, it is sacred before God, we are at the mercy of this one special person we have chosen & trusted to love us in this way. 

Just think about that. If you have a GOOD man, do right by him.


----------



## Longtime Husband (Dec 14, 2009)

WhiteRabbit said:


> wow then I guess before I said I DO i should have told my husband, hey honey in a few years I will explode into a world of female problems and we won't be able to do much more than oral sex for several months...oh and then I'll be in the hospital for nearly 2 months with severe complications from hysterectomy and you won't be getting any at all during that time...if you agree to this,we can still be married and you can just cheat on me to get your jollies since you can't control that need for sex no matter what the circumstances.


You really shouldn't confuse a character problem on the part of the man you married with with the general male (human) need for sex.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

Kobo said:


> Her story also addresses views by some men that women are sexual objects to be pursued for that purpose only which is why I say the link shows that women play a major part in this idea.


If you understood the way society worked, the poverty and desperation some women find themselves in and the way young women are often conditioned sexually, and the overwhelming pornification of women in the media, and the glorification of porn, then it's little wonder some women see this type of thing as a good and sometimes their best option. 

Fancy buying into something that is rammed down your throat every day and seen as a norm in the media and obviously by many men (sadly).

However as the majority of the worlds power rests with men, they are actually the ones who have created this problem and continue to contribute to it.

If you treat women like their self worth is only tied in their sexuality and looks, then don't be surprised if they do too and behave accordingly.

Stop having such ridiculous, bitter and twisted double standards.

Women are real people, just like men, treat them as such and you may be surprised at the outcome.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> Umm how does a website apparently of older men with money buying young women and young women willing to be brought by older men say anything about what the average women walking into a bar with a bunch of gf will behave?
> 
> The web site is a virtual wh*re house, what does that have to do with real live women? Do you really think that 18 yr old girls need to look on a web site for a 60 yr old man to pay her car note. She does not need to bother - she could amass 20 old geezers in 5 days to pay her enough money for two semesters at Yale. Pointing the way to that site confirms my argment rather than weakens it. To think this represent the way the average women conduct herself is misguided at best.
> 
> ...


LOL. They are not off the street. If you consider prostitution money for a first date then by all means call it prostitution. They are women that perpetuate the idea that women are sex objects and can be had for a price. If you go to AFF or casual encounters then you see that women their do the same except it's for free. Funny how women with low morals can be tossed away as not real women but men with low morals are considered just your average man.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Hookers don't perpetuate the notion that women should be treated as sex objects. They do it because they have little options and are getting paid. Come on.
> 
> So back to the original thread....is there a drug that can give some men a dose of reality?


LOL. Yup they're hookers. OK. How about a pill that give women an ability to think logically?


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Syrum said:


> If you understood the way society worked, the poverty and desperation some women find themselves in and the way young women are often conditioned sexually, and the overwhelming pornification of women in the media, and the glorification of porn, then it's little wonder some women see this type of thing as a good and sometimes their best option.
> 
> Fancy buying into something that is rammed down your throat every day and seen as a norm in the media and obviously by many men (sadly).
> 
> ...



Great points that can be possible reasons for women perpetuating these ideas but does not change the fact that they do. Which is what I have been saying. I don't have any double standards, in fact I think of women in equal respect as I do men. I have worked for as many women managers as men. I've supervised more women than men. Both Genders have been great and horrible in those roles. My experience hasn't given me a bias to one or the other gender in the work place. Being that I do treat women equally I see no reason to pretend that they don't have their faults just as men do. The continuous men bad, women goo mantra is just tiring.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> Mom6547,
> 
> That's the rub. There's nothing I can do short of divorce, suicide, chemical castration, or take overseas employment. I'm too old for the first, not desperate enough for the next two, so that leaves getting deployed. Her extremely low libido and her bipolar existed long before she even knew my name. I've tried being patient, tried "manning up", offered to attend counseling. I took her on a nice marriage retreat. I haven't tried painting my butt bright purple but if it would work, I'd be off to Home Depot.



Sucky. How about HONEST outside involvement? Does she KNOW how this affects you? She must. And her answer is sorry can't? Anyway I am sure you have been all over this before. Too bad you did not take care of this in year two, bc and before you were "too old" for divorce. I don't know what two old for divorce is. If you are young enough to be deployed...


Yah tenacious to the point of fault.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

What's the difference between a working prostitute, a contestant on "who wants to marry a millionaire", and a woman who feigns sexual interest only long enough to get married? I submit the primary difference is that the first woman is honest about what she is.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

unbelievable said:


> What's the difference between a working prostitute, a contestant on "who wants to marry a millionaire", and a woman who feigns sexual interest only long enough to get married? I submit the primary difference is that the first woman is honest about what she is.


I would say some people here need to take a lesson in science and biology and sexual attraction and understand that with many people in the beginning of relationships their sex drive is much higher. this is true for men and women, and often settles back down to their normal pattern if the *two* people do not work at keeping the lust alive.

There would be some men and women who never have a sex drive, and a low sex drive in the beginning should be alarming to most people.

Thirdly to assume women marry primarily for money is wrong, most I know marry for love and companionship, because they want to make a family together etc...

Really the venom towards women needs to stop, it's old and tiring and very unattractive.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

now this thread has become the "women are victims of men" thread. again i will state, no woman is forced to submit to porn, prostitution, bikini photos, , or the sexual whims of their committed husbands. you are bashing men because you percieve that we are all sex craved maniacs. you control your actions, you are intelligent and thinking, living human beings. you are not slaves to anything, yet you want to continue to portray yourselves that way.


----------



## Star (Dec 6, 2009)

Syrum said:


> I would say some people here need to take a lesson in science and biology and sexual attraction and understand that with many people in the beginning of relationships their sex drive is much higher. this is true for men and women, and often settles back down to their normal pattern if the *two* people do not work at keeping the lust alive.
> 
> There would be some men and women who never have a sex drive, and a low sex drive in the beginning should be alarming to most people.
> 
> ...


Syrum, I agree with you, but remember there are a fair number of unhappy, unfulfilled men who frequent this board and post replies which are heavily influenced by the marital situation they are in (i.e. the wife has zero interest in them sexually) so therefore their posts tend to be on the bitter side, you gotta feel sorry for them really, it must be pretty bad having a lousy love life.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

okeydokie said:


> now this thread has become the "women are victims of men" thread. again i will state, no woman is forced to submit to porn, prostitution, bikini photos, , or the sexual whims of their committed husbands. you are bashing men because you percieve that we are all sex craved maniacs. you control your actions, you are intelligent and thinking, living human beings. you are not slaves to anything, yet you want to continue to portray yourselves that way.


I think you need to learn a lot about sociology, how gender, place of birth, parents, family support system, community, income etc, all effect your life chances opportunity and choices in life. No one has completely free choice we are all constrained by society.

Also if you look up info on sex traffic victims, you will find that many of them end up in forced marriages and the sex industry, including stripping prostitution and porn. So what you are stating is in fact not true.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/about/fact_sex.pdf



> Victims of trafficking are forced into various forms of commercial sexual exploitation including
> prostitution, pornography, stripping, live-sex shows, mail-order brides, military prostitution and
> sex tourism.


Almost all women in the sex industry do not participate because they just love sex with lots of different men, it is because they are lacking in choices. This is why stats show the majority of women in the sex industry are more likely to be poorly educated, living in poverty, to have been or are being sexually abused, have a substance abuse problems, are young. 

If women were really freely choosing it, we would see a far wider variety of women lining up to make porn.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> Sucky. How about HONEST outside involvement? Does she KNOW how this affects you? She must. And her answer is sorry can't? Anyway I am sure you have been all over this before. Too bad you did not take care of this in year two, bc and before you were "too old" for divorce. I don't know what two old for divorce is. If you are young enough to be deployed...
> 
> 
> Yah tenacious to the point of fault.


I totally don't get your question about HONEST outside involvement. Guess I'm just slow.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

Star said:


> Syrum, I agree with you, but remember there are a fair number of unhappy, unfulfilled men who frequent this board and post replies which are heavily influenced by the marital situation they are in (i.e. the wife has zero interest in them sexually) so therefore their posts tend to be on the bitter side, you gotta feel sorry for them really, it must be pretty bad having a lousy love life.


I would agree, and I am very sympathetic to any man or woman not having their needs met. I give men and women the same advice, - Give it one last huge shot, and if they don't change move on. (Unless I see the circumstances as dire or absolutely too awful).

This constant women are privileged and cunning rulers of the universe and either "*****s" or "virginal prudes" is quite annoying to say the least.

I certainly don't view men as two types of people. I mean there are at least 3 types...


----------



## Star (Dec 6, 2009)

Syrum said:


> I would agree, and I am very sympathetic to any man or woman not having their needs met. I give men and women the same advice, - Give it one last huge shot, and if they don't change move on. (Unless I see the circumstances as dire or absolutely too awful).
> 
> This constant women are privileged and cunning rulers of the universe and either "*****s" or "virginal prudes" is quite annoying to say the least.
> 
> I certainly don't view men as two types of people. I mean there are at least types...


I hear you, the thing that I a bit sick of hearing is the the amount of sex women have with their partners before marriage, then when married it all of a sudden stops as if it's done on purpose to trap him, lol, well believe it or not guys, sex stops for a reason and it's not usually because of a piece of paper and a band of gold, IMO there is normally something else going on.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Syrum said:


> I think you need to learn a lot about sociology, how gender, place of birth, parents, family support system, community, income etc, all effect your life chances opportunity and choices in life. No one has completely free choice we are all constrained by society.
> .


yes, i am constrained by society. if i divorce my wife, i will be completely broke and destitute because society dictates that i give our amassed fortune to her. has a great deal to do with me sticking around and dealing with her lack of interest in being a willing participant in our marriage, not just sexually


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

okeydokie said:


> yes, i am constrained by society. if i divorce my wife, i will be completely broke and destitute because society dictates that i give our amassed fortune to her. has a great deal to do with me sticking around and dealing with her lack of interest in being a willing participant in our marriage, not just sexually


Great then I guess you will be able to explain why women on average are still usually far worse off after divorce and far more likely to end up in poverty then men. I certainly know why, just wondering how you would explain that?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> yes, i am constrained by society. if i divorce my wife, i will be completely broke and destitute because society dictates that i give our amassed fortune to her. has a great deal to do with me sticking around and dealing with her lack of interest in being a willing participant in our marriage, not just sexually


Forgive me for being naive as I have never been divorced but doesn't the laws state 50% of the marital assets for both parties? Lifetime alimony has gone the way of the dinosaur and most states cap it at 20% for 3 years. How is that giving it all to her? You both would walk away with half of everything that was accrued. 20% alimony maxes out at 3 years. Broke, destitute? What am I missing here?


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Longtime Husband said:


> You really shouldn't confuse a character problem on the part of the man you married with with the general male (human) need for sex.


:iagree:

I'm not going to cheat. A lot of men don't.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So back to the original thread....is there a drug that can give some men a dose of reality?


What original thread was *that* question posed in?

Because even with all the extraneous "because women capitulate to men's desire for sex, they are forced to undergo medieval torture techniques in the name of health" business that quickly muddied the original question, I don't see how that equates to a "dose of reality."

In fact, I'd say that, the way it's presented, the original question proceeds from a few false conclusions:
1) That men are always the HD partner.
2) That a HD partner's desire for their LD partner to have an increased drive always exists without the HD partner already having made concessions and accommodations for their partner's lower drive.
3) That the HD partner's desire for their LD partner's drive to increase is born of a desire to simply "get off," not from a genuine desire for their partner and intimacy between them.
4) That the (relative) HD partner's drive is always the abnormal drive, while the (relative) LD partner's drive is always the normal drive. (I include the term "relative" here specifically, but it can also apply to the other points, as well. Relatively speaking, if one partner has an extraordinarily low drive, the partner perceived as HD may, in fact, have an "average" drive, desiring sex no more than the average person or maybe even a little less. But, to that LD partner, it may seem insatiable.)

As long as a dose of reality is desired, it may be prudent to keep thoughts like these in mind.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Kobo said:


> Nothing to prove/disprove except the fact that women are active participants in the behaviors she dislikes.


The owner of the company where I worked before looked like Shrek. Bald, fat and big ears. His wife was 20 years younger and one of the most beautiful woman I've ever seen.

I'm sure it wasn't the mansion, nice cars and 20 million in cash that attracted her, but his personality.

He was an A-hole BTW....


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Hookers don't perpetuate the notion that women should be treated as sex objects. They do it because they have little options and are getting paid. Come on.


Sadly many girls start down this path because they were used as sex objects by dad or another man in their family.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> What original thread was *that* question posed in?]


I shouldn't have written "original thread". The topic has gotten off course and somebody here posted that there are plenty of young attractive women who want old men for their sparkly personality. My reality comment was directed at that.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

I do think the OP has a valid solution. We could even expand upon it to solve other problems. Rather than feeding starving people in Dafur, we could pass out appetite suppressants! Problem solved!


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Forgive me for being naive as I have never been divorced but doesn't the laws state 50% of the marital assets for both parties? Lifetime alimony has gone the way of the dinosaur and most states cap it at 20% for 3 years. How is that giving it all to her? You both would walk away with half of everything that was accrued. 20% alimony maxes out at 3 years. Broke, destitute? What am I missing here?


Just as an aside...I just don't get the concept of alimony, at any rate, for any length of time. A divorce is intended to make a couple's lives separate. How, exactly, are they separate if one continues to financially support the other? The argument might be made that a divorce comes out of the blue for one half of the marriage who is unprepared for the additional living expenses. But, I can't say I've heard of any cases among "average" couples (discounting celebrity couples, etc) in which the wife springs a divorce on her husband and has to pay him alimony for the unexpected change in lifestyle. It's almost universally the man who ends up paying the woman, regardless of who initiates the divorce. I freely admit that I don't peruse all divorce decrees, so maybe it happens. But, I'd imagine that if I were commonplace, it wouldn't seem so out of the ordinary.

And, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I fully understand and agree with the concept of CHILD support. That's a wholly different kettle of fish than "SPOUSAL" support. (Heck...it's right there in the name...that person isn't a spouse any longer, so why support them financially?)

We now return to the "let's give men meds so they want sex less" thread, already in progress. ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Forgive me for being naive as I have never been divorced but doesn't the laws state 50% of the marital assets for both parties? Lifetime alimony has gone the way of the dinosaur and most states cap it at 20% for 3 years. How is that giving it all to her? You both would walk away with half of everything that was accrued. 20% alimony maxes out at 3 years. Broke, destitute? What am I missing here?


With no kids that is true. Add kids to the mix and child support enters in.

Child support is set based on what the two are earning at the time. If the income drops later, too bad. A buddy makes over 100K but he's living in a shack because he was earning 150K when he divorced. He can't get the payments reduced.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Just as an aside...I just don't get the concept of alimony, at any rate, for any length of time. A divorce is intended to make a couple's lives separate. How, exactly, are they separate if one continues to financially support the other?


What if she works and puts him through college and then he dumps her?

What if she gives up a career to raise kids? 10 or 20 years out of the job market makes a HUGE dent in what her income is.


----------



## madimoff (Feb 17, 2010)

Alimony, support, divorce, men vs women..... ***sigh*** 
the OP may have worded her thread to get things going but we are a tad off topic now, don't you think?

remaining off topic, 


Star said:


> I hear you, the thing that I a bit sick of hearing is the the amount of sex women have with their partners before marriage, then when married it all of a sudden stops as if it's done on purpose to trap him, lol, well believe it or not guys, sex stops for a reason and it's not usually because of a piece of paper and a band of gold, IMO there is normally something else going on.


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


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Syrum said:


> Great then I guess you will be able to explain why women on average are still usually far worse off after divorce and far more likely to end up in poverty then men. I certainly know why, just wondering how you would explain that?


cant agree to that, have seen men i know virtually starve after divorce, sleeping on buddies couches, sleeping in their car, eating off the dollar menu once a day, staying at the YMCA. Are all divorces another example of the woman submitting to what the man wants? is this yet another dynamic they bear no responsibility in?


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Forgive me for being naive as I have never been divorced but doesn't the laws state 50% of the marital assets for both parties? Lifetime alimony has gone the way of the dinosaur and most states cap it at 20% for 3 years. How is that giving it all to her? You both would walk away with half of everything that was accrued. 20% alimony maxes out at 3 years. Broke, destitute? What am I missing here?


you left off child support. way more than 50% of total after that. ya see, there is incentive to compromise but unfortunately it just gets to the point where both parties would rather struggle alone than together.

edit: i would literally starve so my children could have the best life possible, in spite of the problems with my spouse, they simply would not suffer no matter what i had to do


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

sorry, i see some of my comments got covered whilest i was typing


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

larry.gray said:


> What if she works and puts him through college and then he dumps her?
> 
> What if she gives up a career to raise kids? 10 or 20 years out of the job market makes a HUGE dent in what her income is.


Or in my case used an inheritance to put my husband through grad school who now makes 5 times what I earn.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Syrum said:


> Great then I guess you will be able to explain why women on average are still usually far worse off after divorce and far more likely to end up in poverty then men. I certainly know why, just wondering how you would explain that?


one other comment, and this is just for my case only, with the prospects so dim for women after divorce, why wouldnt that be incentive to at least come to the table and help things get better? i just dont see that in my situation, too stubborn


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> you left off child support. way more than 50% of total after that. ya see, there is incentive to compromise but unfortunately it just gets to the point where both parties would rather struggle alone than together.
> 
> edit: i would literally starve so my children could have the best life possible, in spite of the problems with my spouse, they simply would not suffer no matter what i had to do


So purely based on finances, 20% for 3 years alimony and 20% child support until 18. That leaves 60% for him and 40% for her. Again, what am I missing here? I don't see it.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Star said:


> I hear you, the thing that I a bit sick of hearing is the the amount of sex women have with their partners before marriage, then when married it all of a sudden stops as if it's done on purpose to trap him, lol, well believe it or not guys, sex stops for a reason and it's not usually because of a piece of paper and a band of gold, IMO there is normally something else going on.


Anecdotally, there at least seems to be something to the most basic germ of the concept, though.

For instance, when my wife (with whom pre-marriage/child sex was quite frequent, full of variety, and quite satisfying) lost virtually all of her drive, accompanying reasons and causes were quite apparent (a new child, a layoff, an extended period of unemployment for her, all feeding an extended down cycle of her bipolar). As her drive returned, though, while our sex life has expanded in some areas, it has contracted in others, which wouldn't seem to be connected to her earlier loss of drive and its reasons.

Example: (and fair warning, TMI territory) Before her loss of drive, it was nothing for her to perform oral sex to completion and swallow. Since getting married almost 10 years ago, it doesn't even take an entire hand to count the number I'd times that has happened. It's not a dealbreaker for me. But, a month or so ago, while talking and working on our reconciliation following her EA and PA, the subject came up. She commented that she hadn't realized she'd stopped doing it.

So, anecdotally speaking, it may not be a *conscious* change in performance after marriage, but just like the "once we got married, he stopped bringing me flowers" type stories we hear, it seems to be an unconscious shift of mindset that one's partner no longer needs to be "wowed" to the same degree, because they've already signed up for the long haul. BOTH halves of a marriage can be equally guilty of this kind of behavior. Men seem tomanifest it in the romance category, while women seem to manifest it through sex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So purely based on finances, 20% for 3 years alimony and 20% child support until 18. That leaves 60% for him and 40% for her. Again, what am I missing here? I don't see it.


20% times 3 kids?


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> I totally don't get your question about HONEST outside involvement. Guess I'm just slow.


You have basically accepted that lack of sex is your lot in life. You have no choice. How about Dear Love, you don't want to give it to me, how about I get it elsewhere? 

**** maybe it would be a wake up call. As I say, I don't know your scene. But if you ACCEPT this lot, what possible reason does she have to look at it anew?

And how old is too old to divorce anyway? You gonna live the rest of your life like this? Knowing it is the only one you have?


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Lifetime alimony has gone the way of the dinosaur and most states cap it at 20% for 3 years.


No, in California and in New York, there is no cap on spousal support. it can be for life for longterm marriages (10+ years).

A divorce lawyer told me Texas is a good place to be if you want to avoid paying alimony endlessly. California? Not so much.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Star said:


> Syrum, I agree with you, but remember there are a fair number of unhappy, unfulfilled men who frequent this board and post replies which are heavily influenced by the marital situation they are in (i.e. the wife has zero interest in them sexually) so therefore their posts tend to be on the bitter side, you gotta feel sorry for them really, it must be pretty bad having a lousy love life.


So if a person disagrees on the position that women perpetuate the idea that they are to be looked at as sex objects then they have to be in a lousy relationship? So can I say that a women that disagrees with a position I take must have a horrible monster of a husband at home?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> 20% times 3 kids?


Surely it doesn't go up to 60%. That's not possible. Isn't it capped at like 30?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

michzz said:


> No, in California and in New York, there is no cap on spousal support. it can be for life for longterm marriages (10+ years).
> 
> A divorce lawyer told me Texas is a good place to be if you want to avoid paying alimony endlessly. California? Not so much.


Notice I said MOST states. Here in Texas it is 3 year max and 1 year is the norm.


----------



## Star (Dec 6, 2009)

Kobo said:


> So if a person disagrees on the position that women perpetuate the idea that they are to be looked at as sex objects then they have to be in a lousy relationship? So can I say that a women that disagrees with a position I take must have a horrible monster of a husband at home?




The point I was making is that sometimes when people post, they can sometimes post in a way where their current relationship/situation has a great bearing on the way they write and view the world and that this should be taken into account and to not take some replies too personally.

I do genuinely feel bad for people whose relationships/love lives are not what they could be, I’ve been there, BUT I actually got off my a$$ and instead of whining and moaning I actually did something about it, to change it.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Star said:


> I do genuinely feel bad for people whose relationships/love lives are not what they could be, I’ve been there, BUT I actually got off my a$$ and instead of whining and moaning I actually did something about it, to change it.


and i for one sincerely applaud you for that. i too have tried many different approaches to improve my marriage (not just sex), but i do get tired of it being one sided and with zero positive result. it is difficult to generalzie when every situation has so many pieces


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

larry.gray said:


> The owner of the company where I worked before looked like Shrek. Bald, fat and big ears. His wife was 20 years younger and one of the most beautiful woman I've ever seen.
> 
> I'm sure it wasn't the mansion, nice cars and 20 million in cash that attracted her, but his personality.
> 
> He was an A-hole BTW....


If I were 23 and some strega nona with 30 million dollars one foot in the grave and the other on banana peel needed me to knock the cobwebs out once a day, I am so there. Write a check to the SPCA after she buys it.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

michzz said:


> No, in California and in New York, there is no cap on spousal support. it can be for life for longterm marriages (10+ years).
> 
> A divorce lawyer told me Texas is a good place to be if you want to avoid paying alimony endlessly. California? Not so much.


In NY they like to go after pensions you haven't even accrued yet.


----------



## Star (Dec 6, 2009)

okeydokie said:


> and i for one sincerely applaud you for that. i too have tried many different approaches to improve my marriage (not just sex), but i do get tired of it being one sided and with zero positive result. it is difficult to generalzie when every situation has so many pieces


Believe me when I say I know what it is like to try many different things, I’ve been there, done that, but in the end I had to take it to the absolute extreme and I mean extreme to get things to where they are now and I realise that every situation/relationship is different but with perseverance and hard work it can be done. Just don’t give up and accept the status quo.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Star said:


> The point I was making is that sometimes when people post, they can sometimes post in a way where their current relationship/situation has a great bearing on the way they write and view the world and that this should be taken into account and to not take some replies too personally.
> 
> I do genuinely feel bad for people whose relationships/love lives are not what they could be, I’ve been there, BUT I actually got off my a$$ and instead of whining and moaning I actually did something about it, to change it.


On a relationship message board every post is going to have some bearing on someone's mindset when posting and IMO your last comment shows more directly what your post to Syrum was about. What post makes you believe someone hasn't gotten off their a$$ and done something about their relationship? I genuinely want know because I didn't see that. If you ask me, a post about social and ecomonic situations limiting someones ability to make correct choices comes off more as whining and pretending to be helpless. Even though I can see what the poster is getting at it still does not take away a persons ownership of their actions.


----------



## Star (Dec 6, 2009)

Kobo said:


> On a relationship message board every post is going to have some bearing on someone's mindset when posting and IMO your last comment shows more directly what your post to Syrum was about. What post makes you believe someone hasn't gotten off their a$$ and done something about their relationship? I genuinely want know because I didn't see that. If you ask me, a post about social and ecomonic situations limiting someones ability to make correct choices comes off more as whining and pretending to be helpless. Even though I can see what the poster is getting at it still does not take away a persons ownership of their actions.



I think there is a bit of confusion going on here, Just for the record, this thread has gone somewhat off topic and my replies were to Syrum with regards to a reply from another member so my post are not in relation to the OP and their situation, just to clear that up.

When I say I got off my back side to make a change, I mean that I really took things to the extreme, probably more extreme than most would consider doing that’s all, it appears you do not know my story but I pushed so, so hard to get to where we are today and make my marriage work, so I am not saying that people don’t try and make things work, just don’t give up, get up and do everything you can to make things work, if it’s worth fighting for, then fight for it, that’s what I did and that's all I'm getting at.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> You have basically accepted that lack of sex is your lot in life. You have no choice. How about Dear Love, you don't want to give it to me, how about I get it elsewhere?
> 
> **** maybe it would be a wake up call. As I say, I don't know your scene. But if you ACCEPT this lot, what possible reason does she have to look at it anew?
> 
> And how old is too old to divorce anyway? You gonna live the rest of your life like this? Knowing it is the only one you have?


As tempting as it is to find another female to feast on the last few remaining shards of my dignity, I believe I'll pass. I'll stick with the evil I'm familiar with. I'm turning 50 next month. Several contractors would be happy to send me to the crap. After 30 years of marriage, terrorists really aren't all that scary.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Syrum said:


> However as the majority of the worlds power rests with men, they are actually the ones who have created this problem and continue to contribute to it.


I thought we were discussing the issue of women in singles bars in the USA. The fact that Sharia law mistreats women, or some African cultures force girls to have cliterectomies has literally no bearing on American girls engaging in casual sex. American culture treats women very well.



Syrum said:


> If you treat women like their self worth is only tied in their sexuality and looks, then don't be surprised if they do too and behave accordingly.


I don't discount the fact that many, or most, prostitutes/strippers/porn actresses are maximizing their earning potential by doing degrading things. But you can look at any college campus (where women outnumber men) to see women with great options and earning potential willingly engaging in "hook up" sex.



Syrum said:


> Stop having such ridiculous, bitter and twisted double standards.


Physician, heal thyself. Sex trafficking and young, middle class, well educated women having casual sex are not the same thing.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> As tempting as it is to find another female to feast on the last few remaining shards of my dignity, I believe I'll pass. I'll stick with the evil I'm familiar with. I'm turning 50 next month. Several contractors would be happy to send me to the crap. After 30 years of marriage, terrorists really aren't all that scary.


Unbelievable, I don't know if this is helpful. But lest you don't know, this looks an awful lot like victim, Eeyore, boo hoo hoo, poor me. 

When people won't try to change by voting, we generally tell them to STFU. 

Do you feel lovingly dope slapped?


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Star said:


> I think there is a bit of confusion going on here, Just for the record, this thread has gone somewhat off topic and my replies were to Syrum with regards to a reply from another member so my post are not in relation to the OP and their situation, just to clear that up.
> 
> When I say I got off my back side to make a change, I mean that I really took things to the extreme, probably more extreme than most would consider doing that’s all, it appears you do not know my story but I pushed so, so hard to get to where we are today and make my marriage work, so I am not saying that people don’t try and make things work, just don’t give up, get up and do everything you can to make things work, if it’s worth fighting for, then fight for it, that’s what I did and that's all I'm getting at.


Maybe the lines got crossed.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> I thought we were discussing the issue of women in singles bars in the USA. The fact that Sharia law mistreats women, or some African cultures force girls to have cliterectomies has literally no bearing on American girls engaging in casual sex. American culture treats women very well.
> 
> 
> I don't discount the fact that many, or most, prostitutes/strippers/porn actresses are maximizing their earning potential by doing degrading things. But you can look at any college campus (where women outnumber men) to see women with great options and earning potential willingly engaging in "hook up" sex.
> ...


I think you'll find that some you recognize using messageboards take an all-or-nothing view on such matters. They believe that, because SOME women are mistreated within certain scenarios that it follows not only that ALL women in those scenarios receive the same mistreatment, but any man who participates in those scenarios is complicit in and guilty of said mistreatment personally.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

alot of people grossly mistreat themselves, and dont even know it


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I shouldn't have written "original thread". The topic has gotten off course and somebody here posted that there are plenty of young attractive women who want old men for their sparkly personality. My reality comment was directed at that.


Fair enough. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

larry.gray said:


> What if she works and puts him through college and then he dumps her?
> 
> What if she gives up a career to raise kids? 10 or 20 years out of the job market makes a HUGE dent in what her income is.


None of which impacts my question: how are their lives separate if one ex-spouse is still financially supporting the other?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

There is of course a widely used solution that many individuals take advantage of, when confronted with a spouse that makes the 'wrinkled-nose-face' when it comes to sex. 

Sadly, despite it's overwhelming popularity, there doesn't appear to be a great deal of support for that solution either.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> There is of course a widely used solution that many individuals take advantage of, when confronted with a spouse that makes the 'wrinkled-nose-face' when it comes to sex.
> 
> Sadly, despite it's overwhelming popularity, there doesn't appear to be a great deal of support for that solution either.


Cruising for new chicks using the name Lorenzo Von Matterhorn?

Spill it Burgundy.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Infidelity.

Which should be evidence enough stated by many of the individuals here that have NOT made that choice ... that this isn't simply about selfishly just wanting to get off.

Oooo ... and thanks for my new Match.com username.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Infidelity.
> 
> Which should be evidence enough stated by many of the individuals here that have NOT made that choice ... that this isn't simply about selfishly just wanting to get off.
> 
> Oooo ... and thanks for my new Match.com username.


Agreed. Many don't take that route for a variety of reasons. Integrity I think is high up there.

Be careful about using that user name. Lorenzo is well known to have a genital affliction and penis reduction surgery is not an option. Ya might scare off the ladies.


----------



## Boogsie (Aug 24, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Surely it doesn't go up to 60%. That's not possible. Isn't it capped at like 30?


It is capped, but in PA it is capped at 50%.

My youngest graduated last year so I'm all up on paying child support.

For many years my ex didn't work. The way the support system works in PA is they say it takes X number of dollars per month to raise a kid (2 in my case). They take both spouses incomes and figure out what percentage each spouse makes and then you pay that percentage that X number.

In my case, for two kids I was paying $850 per month in child support over the last 5 years. Now, since I was offered family benefits through my employer I was forced to carry them. That added $800 / month. For me alone, they are free, for the family plan, it is $800 a month. 

My gross salary when this went into effect was $3750 per month and I was paying 1650 per month out of that for support and health insurance. That left me $2100 before taxes to live on.

So, my ex had her full time job and all of that money, plus the 800 a month in cash from me (tax free) and I had to cover the insurance and pay 80% of all uncovered medical expenses beyond $250 per year per child.

I lived for years practically destitute. Now, with both of my kids out of school and my support obligations gone I've gone from DESTITUTE living in a mobile home to home owner in less than 12 months. One of my kids not lives with me and since support ended I was able to save almost $20,000 in cash in a single year.

My ex always had a nice home, new cars, vacations every year. This year will be the first year that I've been able to take a vacation IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. A real vacation.

My ex took me to court EVERY SINGLE YEAR for an increase in support. Every time I went to court I had to borrow money from my parents to cover attorneys fees.

I sucked it up and did what I had to because it was my responsibility to see my kids educated and grown.

At one time the family law system in this country was terribly biased against women. No argument from me there, but today it is tremendously biased in the other direction.

My effective income after support was less than HALF of my ex's effective income with the support, but the courts claim that $1500 a month after taxes is more than enough to live on.


----------



## sofie (Mar 20, 2011)

A bit slow replay in the thread, but this is something men often say:
"Men marry women hoping they won't change. Women marry men hoping they will."

Me and my husband were both HD when we met. We were together for two years before we married.
3 weeks after we married he went LD and it never came back up again.
No....... I didn't want my husband to change.
Did I have money before I married? Yes.
Do I have it now? No.
Do I want to divorce him? No.
Do I know "hunger"? YES
Did I learn to live with less sex? Yes, and it still hurts every day.
So yes, I think LD could try to up a bit, after all the HD already have to hold back..... even if the LD would have a more frequent urge!
.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Boogsie said:


> It is capped, but in PA it is capped at 50%.
> 
> My youngest graduated last year so I'm all up on paying child support.
> 
> ...


Wow! That's pretty extreme and very uncool for you. 
I'm on the opposite side of that, should I divorce. He'd be living like a king.


----------



## Boogsie (Aug 24, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Wow! That's pretty extreme and very uncool for you.
> I'm on the opposite side of that, should I divorce. He'd be living like a king.


No, that's not extreme. That is TYPICAL of the percentages that you see. Two of my closest friends growing up are paying support for kids out of wedlock from their younger days. The percentages they pay are in line with mine.

I'm on my second marriage and things are very rough. Should this one end, I will certainly engage in long term relationships, but I will NEVER EVER EVER be married again. As a man, there is NOTHING to be gained in marriage. It wasn't too long after I married my 2nd wife (we were together 9 years before we married) things changed. The sex frequency died along with her desire to work. Now she is "retired", isn't much of a homemaker (more like a professional facebooker) but a divorce means losing my house, maybe my car, and alimony.

For the last 3 years, her income has been $635 / month, mine is just north of 4K per month. The only thing she does at home is Dinner, Laundry, dishes (though I do dishes 3-4 days a week). I realized my mistake shortly after we bought the house when I realized that should we divorce my credit will once again take a nose dive and I'll be back in a cramped apartment while giving my money to someone else. I was stupid.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Boogsie said:


> No, that's not extreme. That is TYPICAL of the percentages that you see. Two of my closest friends growing up are paying support for kids out of wedlock from their younger days. The percentages they pay are in line with mine. .


Not sure I understand this part. It doesn't matter if the kids are out of wedlock or not, child support is a percentage of income based equation. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Eh, like I said, in my situation he would walk away with 1 year of alimony paid to me if I am lucky and 5 years child support for one child since our other is 18, yet lives at home. My husband makes 5-6 times what I do and that continues to rise with each passing year. My standard of living would be in the toilet and I would not be able to afford our house, but he could. 18 years and I would be starting over without financial security but he sure would have it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

WhiteRabbit said:


> why only 1 year of alimony? makes me wonder how my husband's ex managed to pull of 13 years worth of alimony when they were only married for 14 total.


Texas caps at 3 years and most are lucky to get 1 year. Been married nearly 18 years too.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Texas caps at 3 years and most are lucky to get 1 year. Been married nearly 18 years too.


I think part of it here in TX depends on whether or not it's no-contest, or if a lawyer gets involved. And, if the latter, how ferociously they go after the other spouse.

Have a friend who's currently going through a divorce. Granted, he cheated and I - based on my own experiences of the past year - can't condone that, have to say that his was a marriage that should have been put out of it's misery years ago. The agreed to be amicable and sit down to hammer out mutually agreeable terms for child support, etc. Then his wife's parents got involved, an sent her to a lawyer. Just a few days after they agreed to divorce and he left the house, he was served with divorce papers at work, with the numbers for child support higher than they'd initially discussed, with alimony layered on top, PLUS wanting him to pay the attorney fees for the lawyer he didn't know would be involved. Her reply to him when questioned was, "Well, you said you wanted to do this quickly, so I got it started." They were able to set the lawyer aside and come up with more realistic, agreeable terms. Had they not, though, by his calculations, after child support, alimony, rent (approximately the same as his half of rent in their place together), utilities, gas (significantly reduced cost, going from being about 50 miles from work to about 1-2), food (generic brands and inexpensive "bachelor" type food), car payment and insurance...he'd have about $40 per month (split between 2 paychecks) pocket money.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

The lawyer I talked to told me I really blew it by moving back to CA from TX if divorce was in the cards.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Boogsie (Aug 24, 2010)

Grayson said:


> I think part of it here in TX depends on whether or not it's no-contest, or if a lawyer gets involved. And, if the latter, how ferociously they go after the other spouse.
> 
> Have a friend who's currently going through a divorce. Granted, he cheated and I - based on my own experiences of the past year - can't condone that, have to say that his was a marriage that should have been put out of it's misery years ago. The agreed to be amicable and sit down to hammer out mutually agreeable terms for child support, etc. Then his wife's parents got involved, an sent her to a lawyer. Just a few days after they agreed to divorce and he left the house, he was served with divorce papers at work, with the numbers for child support higher than they'd initially discussed, with alimony layered on top, PLUS wanting him to pay the attorney fees for the lawyer he didn't know would be involved. Her reply to him when questioned was, "Well, you said you wanted to do this quickly, so I got it started." They were able to set the lawyer aside and come up with more realistic, agreeable terms. Had they not, though, by his calculations, after child support, alimony, rent (approximately the same as his half of rent in their place together), utilities, gas (significantly reduced cost, going from being about 50 miles from work to about 1-2), food (generic brands and inexpensive "bachelor" type food), car payment and insurance...he'd have about $40 per month (split between 2 paychecks) pocket money.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And that is exactly how I lived for almost 18 years. My kids know, and understand that now that they are adults, both turned down my free ride through school, that it is my time now and time for them to grow up. I really wish both would have gone to college, though.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

michzz said:


> The lawyer I talked to told me I really blew it by moving back to CA from TX if divorce was in the cards.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yeah, and here's a real gut buster. I moved from CA to TX. Lifetime there, 1 year here. 
Eh, at least we all get to own guns out here.


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

So am I to understand from this thread that LD wives who want to throttle down their HD husbands' unreasonable libido can do it by threatening divorce and high alimony, but it doesn't fly in Texas because they don't put up with that crap there?

Oh, and that old men in BMW's need not worry at all because they can just get hookers off the Internet.

Got it, thanks!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> I think part of it here in TX depends on whether or not it's no-contest, or if a lawyer gets involved. And, if the latter, how ferociously they go after the other spouse.
> 
> Have a friend who's currently going through a divorce. Granted, he cheated and I - based on my own experiences of the past year - can't condone that, have to say that his was a marriage that should have been put out of it's misery years ago. The agreed to be amicable and sit down to hammer out mutually agreeable terms for child support, etc. Then his wife's parents got involved, an sent her to a lawyer. Just a few days after they agreed to divorce and he left the house, he was served with divorce papers at work, with the numbers for child support higher than they'd initially discussed, with alimony layered on top, PLUS wanting him to pay the attorney fees for the lawyer he didn't know would be involved. Her reply to him when questioned was, "Well, you said you wanted to do this quickly, so I got it started." They were able to set the lawyer aside and come up with more realistic, agreeable terms. Had they not, though, by his calculations, after child support, alimony, rent (approximately the same as his half of rent in their place together), utilities, gas (significantly reduced cost, going from being about 50 miles from work to about 1-2), food (generic brands and inexpensive "bachelor" type food), car payment and insurance...he'd have about $40 per month (split between 2 paychecks) pocket money.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So in other words after all his bills/obligations were paid he still had something leftover. So many people are much much worse off.
Sorry, not a lot of sympathy from me for a cheater.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Amplexor said:


> So am I to understand from this thread that LD wives who want to throttle down their HD husbands' unreasonable libido can do it by threatening divorce and high alimony, but it doesn't fly in Texas because they don't put up with that crap there?
> 
> Oh, and that old men in BMW's need not worry at all because they can just get hookers off the Internet.
> 
> Got it, thanks!


Hopefully your post is tongue and cheek. I am the HD spouse and no I am not threatening divorce and yes men in BMW's can get hookers off the internet but the women are with them because they are Casanovas in the sack.

Did I sum it up for you?


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Hopefully your post is tongue and cheek.


Aww, come on TRBE, you ought to know me well enough by now.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Amplexor said:


> Aww, come on TRBE, you ought to know me well enough by now.


It was a fitness test!

:rofl:


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> It was a fitness test!
> 
> :rofl:


Guess I failed.

(Skulks out of the office to step into his 2003 Honda Accord)


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Amplexor said:


> Guess I failed.
> 
> (Skulks out of the office to step into his 2003 Honda Accord)


It really wasn't. That term gets attached to just about everything around here so I figure why not trot it out once again since it hasn't been overused at all.


----------



## incognitoman (Oct 22, 2009)

Amplexor said:


> Guess I failed.
> 
> (Skulks out of the office to step into his 2003 Honda Accord)


:rofl::lol::rofl::lol:


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So in other words after all his bills/obligations were paid he still had something leftover. So many people are much much worse off.
> Sorry, not a lot of sympathy from me for a cheater.


Believe me, I don't have sympathy for that, and he knows it.

I DO, however, have sympathy for anyone living that close to the financial edge, especially when it's due, in part, to continuing to support someone whose well-being they are no longer responsible for as well as getting to keep 100% of their own paycheck plus a decent percentage of their former spouse's. Let's assume, for the sake of illustration, that a couple divorces, and, if kids are involved, pay equally for child support. Why, if they are no longer responsible for one another, is Spouse A only entitled to, say, 80% of the pay they earned, while Spouse B is entitled to that missing 20% AND 100% of their own paycheck?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Believe me, I don't have sympathy for that, and he knows it.
> 
> I DO, however, have sympathy for anyone living that close to the financial edge, especially when it's due, in part, to continuing to support someone whose well-being they are no longer responsible for as well as getting to keep 100% of their own paycheck plus a decent percentage of their former spouse's. Let's assume, for the sake of illustration, that a couple divorces, and, if kids are involved, pay equally for child support. Why, if they are no longer responsible for one another, is Spouse A only entitled to, say, 80% of the pay they earned, while Spouse B is entitled to that missing 20% AND 100% of their own paycheck?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Because in most situations one partner has primary custody of the children. i.e they have to buy them food, clothing, extra electricity expenses, water bills, etc. etc. That 20% was designed to cover that. It is literally to pay for raising the child not some sort of windfall that people make it out to be. 20% in my situation wouldn't even come close to paying for our 13 year old let alone his older brother who I would receive zero support for. These two eat me out of house and home, go through clothes like they were raining from the sky, one drives with all the extra insurance fees, college tuition for the older one, sports fees, uniforms, the list goes on and on. 
I'm positive my husband would rather pay 20% than what we currently pay for those two!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Believe me, I don't have sympathy for that, and he knows it.
> 
> I DO, however, have sympathy for anyone living that close to the financial edge, especially when it's due, in part, to continuing to support someone whose well-being they are no longer responsible for as well as getting to keep 100% of their own paycheck plus a decent percentage of their former spouse's. Let's assume, for the sake of illustration, that a couple divorces, and, if kids are involved, pay equally for child support. Why, if they are no longer responsible for one another, is Spouse A only entitled to, say, 80% of the pay they earned, while Spouse B is entitled to that missing 20% AND 100% of their own paycheck?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ah, I read you wrong....you meant alimony. Eh, that's a toughie. I don't believe in lifetime AT ALL but I do think some should be in order. This might sound unpopular but I worked just as hard as he did to get where we are today. He has a fantastic career and I put him through grad school, literally (inheritence). I make under $50k and let's just say he doesn't. Shouldn't I get some support?


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> He has a fantastic career and I put him through grad school, literally (inheritence). I make under $50k and let's just say he doesn't. Shouldn't I get some support?


I think you could make a case for enough to pay for your own grad school at this point.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Because in most situations one partner has primary custody of the children. i.e they have to buy them food, clothing, extra electricity expenses, water bills, etc. etc. That 20% was designed to cover that. It is literally to pay for raising the child not some sort of windfall that people make it out to be. 20% in my situation wouldn't even come close to paying for our 13 year old let alone his older brother who I would receive zero support for. These two eat me out of house and home, go through clothes like they were raining from the sky, one drives with all the extra insurance fees, college tuition for the older one, sports fees, uniforms, the list goes on and on.
> I'm positive my husband would rather pay 20% than what we currently pay for those two!


That's CHILD support. That's completely understandable. I'm talking about so-called "SPOUSAL" support. I may not have communicated my question well on my last post. Spouse A and Spouse B divorce. If we assume Spouse B has custody of the kid(s), and B's contribution to their upbringing is equitable to the child support A provides, let's take those amounts out of the picture. Post-kid(s), both A and B, at this point, have 100% of their take-home pay. With "spousal" support, A suddenly has only 80% take-home pay, while B not only has 100%, but that missing 20% of A's. Why, if they are no longer spouses, must A continue to financially support B? Not the kid(s), but the former spouse?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

WhiteRabbit said:


> H pays 100k a year in alimony...his sentence is 13 years.
> he pays an additional 36k in child support bc md has a max amount that can be paid for cs.he pays the max.
> he'll be paying alimony til around 4 years after his child turns 18...
> 
> he says he could have hired a chef,gardener,maid,and live-in hooker for less and gotten more out of it than he did being married to his ex.


Good Lord. A hitman may be in order...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> That's CHILD support. That's completely understandable. I'm talking about so-called "SPOUSAL" support. I may not have communicated my question well on my last post. Spouse A and Spouse B divorce. If we assume Spouse B has custody of the kid(s), and B's contribution to their upbringing is equitable to the child support A provides, let's take those amounts out of the picture. Post-kid(s), both A and B, at this point, have 100% of their take-home pay. With "spousal" support, A suddenly has only 80% take-home pay, while B not only has 100%, but that missing 20% of A's. Why, if they are no longer spouses, must A continue to financially support B? Not the kid(s), but the former spouse?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I reread your post and realized you meant spousal support. You ask some interesting questions and I whole heartedly agree that in a divorce, sacrifices are made and you split. Now, what about the case of the lower income earner who made sacrifices so the spouse could achieve their dreams? Shouldn't they be given some consideration financially for a certain period of time so that it might be attainable for them?


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Ah, I read you wrong....you meant alimony. Eh, that's a toughie. I don't believe in lifetime AT ALL but I do think some should be in order. This might sound unpopular but I worked just as hard as he did to get where we are today. He has a fantastic career and I put him through grad school, literally (inheritence). I make under $50k and let's just say he doesn't. Shouldn't I get some support?


(Last reply was on the works before I saw this one. Oops. It happens.  )

Not to sound harsh, but...well...no. You both worked hard to get where you're at, most certainly. *While married* you both reap the rewards of the *married* lifestyle that you have built. Upon the dissolution of the marriage, there is no longer a married lifestyle that either of you are entitled to. He is entitled to the lifestyle he can afford on his resources, and you're entitled to the lifestyle you can afford on yours. As for the issue of the tuition you covered, its a tough call. there are equally valid arguments to be made for writing it off or being reimbursed for it. On the one hand, you covered that tuition for the betterment of the marital lifestyle, so you did get a benefit from it. By the same token, though, it could be seen as a gift contingent on that marital lifestyle, which no longer exists. From a dispassionate standpoint, though, I'd lean towards it being a loss...just because, for example, I gave my ex-girlfriend an extravagant gift, our breakup doesn't entitle me to be compensated for that gift.

Not to be a jerk...we're just specifically using you as an example. If you were separating your lives, why would you even want him to continue supporting you? Why would you want part of your continued existence rely on someone that you don't want to be associated with any longer? What, in fact, would be the point of separating your lives if he is to still be legally bound to be - even partially - financially responsible for you?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> (Last reply was on the works before I saw this one. Oops. It happens.  )
> 
> Not to sound harsh, but...well...no. You both worked hard to get where you're at, most certainly. *While married* you both reap the rewards of the *married* lifestyle that you have built. Upon the dissolution of the marriage, there is no longer a married lifestyle that either of you are entitled to. He is entitled to the lifestyle he can afford on his resources, and you're entitled to the lifestyle you can afford on yours. As for the issue of the tuition you covered, its a tough call. there are equally valid arguments to be made for writing it off or being reimbursed for it. On the one hand, you covered that tuition for the betterment of the marital lifestyle, so you did get a benefit from it. By the same token, though, it could be seen as a gift contingent on that marital lifestyle, which no longer exists. From a dispassionate standpoint, though, I'd lean towards it being a loss...just because, for example, I gave my ex-girlfriend an extravagant gift, our breakup doesn't entitle me to be compensated for that gift.
> 
> ...


See and that's the rub. Yes, I directly benefited from his education. He did too. Yes, I freely gave him the money because he is brilliant, wanted to get his MBA and I knew it would help us both out and it has. If we divorced, I would absolutely want to support myself, no question about that. Having said that, I would want to better myself with a college degree....one that I never got as I got knocked up with said 18 year old. Shouldn't some consideration be given that alimony for say 4 years would be warranted? The passionate side of me would want to say to hell with his money but the logical side of me would say without it, my earning ability is limited while his continues to grow. Am I making sense? :scratchhead:


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

What Unbelievable! how are you two old for divorce. Stop visiting those pay for women sites, you are starting to believe that love has some kind of age restriction and you need to buy it.. Boy men are so much more nuanced than I ever knew.

There is a member on the forum who does not post frequently now - he met a women with whom he formed a satisfying emotional and sexual connection. I don't remember his name. He is about 60 yrs old and has a chronic illness that affects his ability to walk long distances. His wife had a personality disorder that he helped her with for many yrs but she would not help herself. He got tierd and took a chance at a new life by divorcing. That's just one example that I remember but there are others. 

Would you really rather go to war than take a chance that you can find love, if you want. I thought only women thought these self-defeating things. 

Sometimes i write thinks that i know are less than helpful when i see post from men that are descourging critical and unfair to women. Both genders have an equal chance at love and happiness, women too. Not just young women and men of all ages but everyone. When one gender puts limits on the other we pit limits on our eelves because we dont own our fears. 

I have a fear that in 10 years my husband will leave me for a new model that happens and it may happen to me. I would be desperately unhappy if it happened. But i know that after healing i will find some one to love and who will love me back just as i am. I know it will not happen if i think that i have a shelf life. If thrre are some women who are meeting men at the ripe old age of 40, 50 or 60 i will be one of them. So will you but women of course. Pick carefully next time, you need someone who will take care of you as well as you take care of them. 

I hope you will give due considerstion to how you can change your life for the better. Use you obvious bravery to rescue yourself.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> See and that's the rub. Yes, I directly benefited from his education. He did too. Yes, I freely gave him the money because he is brilliant, wanted to get his MBA and I knew it would help us both out and it has. If we divorced, I would absolutely want to support myself, no question about that. Having said that, I would want to better myself with a college degree....one that I never got as I got knocked up with said 18 year old. Shouldn't some consideration be given that alimony for say 4 years would be warranted? The passionate side of me would want to say to hell with his money but the logical side of me would say without it, my earning ability is limited while his continues to grow. Am I making sense? :scratchhead:


Sorry, but I'd have to say that, no...no consideration for past situations should impact how you proceed forward, beyond possibly being a factor in - to use that college degree as an example - applying for financial aid or grants for tuition. Simply put, while it may sound harsh, once the marriage is over, your betterment of yourself is neither his concern nor his obligation. And, vice versa. Reverse the situation...suppose that, while going through the divorce, he gets laid off and is out of work for an extended period. As the higher wage earner now, should you be responsible for helping him through this rough patch financially?

While not a marriage (although an argument could be made for us having been common-law), when my ex-girlfriend and I were in college, she convinced me that, for what I wanted to do (become a writer of fiction and/or movies & tv), school could teach me form, but not talent...I either have it or I don't, and going to school was just spinning my wheels. So, I quit and began working full time. Now, almost 20 years later, I wish I had that degree. Your degree "what if..?" involves a pregnancy...mine involves listening to bad advice. Working full time, while she was a full-time student, that afforded us a lifestyle many of our friends didn't have. When we split up, should I have received financial consideration for giving up my degree path in response to her advice?

Maybe I'm seeing grays in black and white, but my feeling is that, if you're separate, you're separate. If you're going to want him to continue supporting you in any way, why divorce?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> yes, i am constrained by society. if i divorce my wife, i will be completely broke and destitute because society dictates that i give our amassed fortune to her. has a great deal to do with me sticking around and dealing with her lack of interest in being a willing participant in our marriage, not just sexually


A man agrees with his bride that she should stay home to care for their kids and they are both pleased with the arrangement. she is a good mother, housekeeper, social organizer, keeper of the many duties to facilitate the running of a good family home. He is free to concentrate on work and is successful over the years. For some reason they decide to part ways after 20 yrs. The relationship problems are owned 50/50. The 3 kids are middle school to high school. 

It comes to the monitary settlement - what is fair. Should the man get the full control and give what he want to his wife and kids because he no longer has her services so to speak or does he see the wisdom in supporting his children and his wife until she can support her self and then lower his share of the alimony. 

If he feels that her bearing his children, running the house and in so doing, concentrated on success, was a luxury that he was entitled to as the breadwinner then he scoffs at "paying" her when her services are no longer needed.

It is like any employment relationship. No work no compensation. If he feels that they had a partnership and her role was valuable, and the children he brought into the world are still his responsibility then he has no problem coming to a fair split of funds. This is more like the coppration model of marriage. If there is a great deal of anger heat not want to be fair and that is why there are statutes governing such things. 

Coporate splits are challenging but one partner keeping all of the assets by low balling the valuation of the other would be considered fraud. 

I am interested to hear how you value your wife and children's contribution to your life. Did you have anytime in the breakdown of the partner ship or it it all her fault? If she were a perfect wife would she still be beat out of a share of the assets just because you wanted to split. 

Maybe there is a reason that women peruse careers so vigorously and are give less energy to marriage these day. Keeping some control pays off since there is an even chance that the partnership will fail. She protects herself and her kids and is not vulnerable to being low- balled with the monetary settlement is a split. 

those feminist were right afterall. Being a SAHM is very risky, these women get little respect or credit for the sacrifice tgeyake in service to their family. It is an imense pity. If the so called feminist were worth anything, they would be championing the cause of this backbone of our society. But they are out of touch with the plight of the average American woman . Let start a movement. I digress.

Being a lawyer or at lest savvy in the logistic of finances and knowing how to get one is good insurence of a fair and equitable split.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Sorry, but I'd have to say that, no...no consideration for past situations should impact how you proceed forward, beyond possibly being a factor in - to use that college degree as an example - applying for financial aid or grants for tuition. Simply put, while it may sound harsh, once the marriage is over, your betterment of yourself is neither his concern nor his obligation. And, vice versa. Reverse the situation...suppose that, while going through the divorce, he gets laid off and is out of work for an extended period. As the higher wage earner now, should you be responsible for helping him through this rough patch financially?
> 
> While not a marriage (although an argument could be made for us having been common-law), when my ex-girlfriend and I were in college, she convinced me that, for what I wanted to do (become a writer of fiction and/or movies & tv), school could teach me form, but not talent...I either have it or I don't, and going to school was just spinning my wheels. So, I quit and began working full time. Now, almost 20 years later, I wish I had that degree. Your degree "what if..?" involves a pregnancy...mine involves listening to bad advice. Working full time, while she was a full-time student, that afforded us a lifestyle many of our friends didn't have. When we split up, should I have received financial consideration for giving up my degree path in response to her advice?
> 
> ...


I understand where you are coming from and yes it gets dicey. Alot of what ifs, etc., etc. Like I said, the emotional part of me would want nothing more to do with his money but the logical side of me would say "hey, wait a minute". 
So you bring up a good point, if marriages should just part ways in the event of a divorce and everybody walks away with 50% of the assets and nothing more, then what would be the incentive for a woman to be a SAHM? Giving up a career or perhaps not having one at all due to staying home with children. Why on earth would any woman want to put herself in that sort of financial Russian Roulette? 
People have blamed feminism for this, saying that women no longer wanted to stay at home because they wanted to storm the castle but I would suggest that since the laws have changed so drastically with regards to alimony, many women woke up and saw the reality of what could happen to them. 
In my case, I was a SAHM for 6ish years and then went to work because we needed the money to meet our goals. Fast forward a few years and I still stayed working but it wasn't due to finances. I stayed employed because I knew that I would be on my own financially and the risk of leaving my financial future up to someone else was too great. There is no doubt in my mind that my kids lost out in some part, due to me being away from home. How is this beneficial to a family?


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I understand where you are coming from and yes it gets dicey. Alot of what ifs, etc., etc. Like I said, the emotional part of me would want nothing more to do with his money but the logical side of me would say "hey, wait a minute".
> So you bring up a good point, if marriages should just part ways in the event of a divorce and everybody walks away with 50% of the assets and nothing more, then what would be the incentive for a woman to be a SAHM? Giving up a career or perhaps not having one at all due to staying home with children. Why on earth would any woman want to put herself in that sort of financial Russian Roulette?
> People have blamed feminism for this, saying that women no longer wanted to stay at home because they wanted to storm the castle but I would suggest that since the laws have changed so drastically with regards to alimony, many women woke up and saw the reality of what could happen to them.
> In my case, I was a SAHM for 6ish years and then went to work because we needed the money to meet our goals. Fast forward a few years and I still stayed working but it wasn't due to finances. I stayed employed because I knew that I would be on my own financially and the risk of leaving my financial future up to someone else was too great. There is no doubt in my mind that my kids lost out in some part, due to me being away from home. How is this beneficial to a family?


Don't consider it somehow wrong to want a measure of a husband's success for a decent transitionary period, if you were to divorce someone with your husband's career potential. You were invested in his life, and thus, the career. Alot of people don't understand the exponential income growth in jobs like that once a person reaches a upper management milestone. With one handshake, he effectively becomes a guaranteed millionaire (sadly, the corporation owns his butt too, which causes more than one troubled night's sleep).

You're not gouging an ex if you simply want something fair. Gouging would be more like the case of a friend, who left my state for a position on the east coast, where alimony was much more agressive. He lived there a few years before divorcing, and instead of costing him about $30k per year in alimony for a few years, it cost him about $50k per year for a long, long time, plus half his pension and 401k after a 20 year marriage.


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> What's the difference between a working prostitute, a contestant on "who wants to marry a millionaire", and a woman who feigns sexual interest only long enough to get married? I submit the primary difference is that the first woman is honest about what she is.


:iagree: Damn straight! All men indirectly pay for sex; dates, gifts and weekend getaways are not free. A man courting a woman does not do such things just to be nice.

I would not wear the lovely rings pictured in my avatar, if I never put out.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Well one difference is that most working prostitutes are trannies. I'm pretty sure my wife, however cold and angry does not have a penis. She may want one as only a Freudian could explain, but as of now, no Chas Bono going on down there.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

^^^^^. : > } ^^^^
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Halien said:


> Don't consider it somehow wrong to want a measure of a husband's success for a decent transitionary period, if you were to divorce someone with your husband's career potential. You were invested in his life, and thus, the career. Alot of people don't understand the exponential income growth in jobs like that once a person reaches a upper management milestone. With one handshake, he effectively becomes a guaranteed millionaire (sadly, the corporation owns his butt too, which causes more than one troubled night's sleep).


Transition period is the key phrase. 
If we did divorce, in my case, the law here is on his side. 
Legally, he would be obligated to pay child support for 4 1/2 years for our youngest and nothing for our oldest, despite him living at home. Legally, he would be obligated to give me 20% alimony for the next year. Nothing after that.
Again, that is legally. 
Morally? There is no way on Earth he would screw me over like that. Not a doubt in my mind. He's a great man but what if he wasn't? I would have zero protection.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Halien said:


> Don't consider it somehow wrong to want a measure of a husband's success for a decent transitionary period, if you were to divorce someone with your husband's career potential. You were invested in his life, and thus, the career. Alot of people don't understand the exponential income growth in jobs like that once a person reaches a upper management milestone. With one handshake, he effectively becomes a guaranteed millionaire (sadly, the corporation owns his butt too, which causes more than one troubled night's sleep).
> 
> You're not gouging an ex if you simply want something fair. Gouging would be more like the case of a friend, who left my state for a position on the east coast, where alimony was much more agressive. He lived there a few years before divorcing, and instead of costing him about $30k per year in alimony for a few years, it cost him about $50k per year for a long, long time, plus half his pension and 401k after a 20 year marriage.


Let's define "fair," though. Can't we also say that a single person who's doing the right thing and supporting his/her kid(s) getting to keep all of their take-home pay and not being legally obligated to financially support another single person is also "fair?"



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Transition period is the key phrase.
> If we did divorce, in my case, the law here is on his side.
> Legally, he would be obligated to pay child support for 4 1/2 years for our youngest and nothing for our oldest, despite him living at home. Legally, he would be obligated to give me 20% alimony for the next year. Nothing after that.
> Again, that is legally.
> Morally? There is no way on Earth he would screw me over like that. Not a doubt in my mind. He's a great man but what if he wasn't? I would have zero protection.


Outrageous illustration time: What if aliens snatched him off the planet tomorrow? More realistically, what if he just disappeared? The victim of foul play...running off to some distant tropical island...what have you. What sort of "transition period" would you have?

Excepting any child care/support and related issues, by divorcing, you're making your lives separate...basically disappearing from one another's personal worlds. Why would you expect a "transition period" in such a case?

It's similar to the time, shortly before our wedding, when my department closed at work. There wasn't a lateral management position open, so I was offered a two-week severance package or a bump down in position (but not pay) out of management. My response to them was that there was no guarantee that I'd be able to find something within two weeks, so I'd take the demotion, thank you very much (while continuing to look for something else). I bring this up not because there's a similar option in a divorce, but that there's no guarantee that your "transition period" will result in getting the proverbial ducks in a row. So, what then? Petition to extend the alimony period? What if you're still in the same position at the end of the extension? Another extension? When does the "transition period" end? And, if you don't try to extend it if conditions still aren't any different, then what real impact did that "transition period" make? You're in the same position, after 4 weeks (in this example) of being subsidized by someone you've said, on paper, that you want nothing more to do with.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Let me also just say that I love this board!

Where else can a sustained (mostly) civil discussion start off with "Let's dope up men so they don't wanna screw!" and lead into a discussion of the merits and fairness (or lack thereof) of alimony?


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I am a Stay at home Mom by choice, I am not worried at all about my husband leaving me. I have many worries in this life, but this is not one of them. I married a good man, a faithful man, he may not be the most exciting guy around the block, but he is one in a million, I know he will stand beside me & love me till he takes his final breath. 

If I ever dared even think of leaving him, I would not expect to be given half of what we have together. I would consider the break up MY FAULT and I would not want his life ripped apart because of my selfishness (cause that is what it would be blatenly). I could not destroy him like that. I have no idea what the courts would "legally" give me , someone without a career , etc but morally, I could not live with myself -to take anything from him. Only child support -never a penny of alimony. 

But if a good wife is left by a man who was selfish, I can see why he should be paying this Alimony. I guess, in my mind it comes down to who is at fault. 

Generally both are to some extent, probably why the courts don't get involved, or whoever has the best lawyer wins. I think too few do what would be "morally" right given the circumstances of the breakdown, we just take all we can get, fighting to the death, all about the $$.

A shame really.


----------



## Scannerguard (Jan 26, 2010)

Well, I read the first post and the last couple so I don't know where this thread went askew. . .but yeah, I had actually considered asking the doctor for something to make horniness go away.

It *is *a nuisance at times and actually I still have that ingrained in my head from my ex-wife. I still find myself holding back initiating with girlfriends because I was made to feel like a libido is a nuisance, a curse of guy adulthood.

I heard saltpeter takes away libido. . .not sure it's true.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

If two people marry and one sacrifices education and career advancement to either birth children and or raise them, then yes they are entitled to half of everything and alimony. This is fair.

Men and women usually both want families, and if this board is to be believed the men want sex sex and sex, and sex sometimes results in little people who need a lot of attention and care.

Saying women are just as valued as men, yet placing a higher value on the men because they earned the money and no where near as much on the woman because well she just took care of the house and children, is hypocritical, to say the least.

If people really valued women they would recognize the efforts many women make in the lives of their children and husbands and it is invaluable.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Let's define "fair," though. Can't we also say that a single person who's doing the right thing and supporting his/her kid(s) getting to keep all of their take-home pay and not being legally obligated to financially support another single person is also "fair?"
> 
> .


I certainly understand your point, but there is a large percentage of couples where the wife chooses to support her husband's career to the detriment of her own potential career in order to do what is right for their children. If this didn't happen, there is no reason to suspect that her earnings potential would not be equal to his otherwise. This is, I believe, the basis of some alimony laws in certain states. That and the belief that a trasition time should be allowed for independance. 

Some of us agree to this, and some don't. When we look at it, it is usually compared to some preconceived notions that we bring in to it. If you are struggling to make ends meet already, it wouldn't seem fair. For me, to give my wife an amount equal to her current annual salary would only mean signing over my annual merit check, and I already try to live without it anyway (it goes to my 401k). Hey, we voluntarily gave them up for the last two years to keep people from being laid off anyway. In my state, these two situations usually mean that the other woman gets next to nothing, but my wife gets something.

I'm probably oversimplifying it, and I've heard of states that have extreme views. In the end, the nanny state does what it wants to do anyway, and we're all just left with trying to find something we like about it.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am a Stay at home Mom by choice, I am not worried at all about my husband leaving me. I have many worries in this life, but this is not one of them. I married a good man, a faithful man, he may not be the most exciting guy around the block, but he is one in a million, I know he will stand beside me & love me till he takes his final breath.
> 
> If I ever dared even think of leaving him, I would not expect to be given half of what we have together. I would consider the break up MY FAULT and I would not want his life ripped apart because of my selfishness (cause that is what it would be blatenly). I could not destroy him like that. I have no idea what the courts would "legally" give me , someone without a career , etc but morally, I could not live with myself -to take anything from him. Only child support -never a penny of alimony.
> 
> ...



I agree it should depend on who is at fault, or who wants it. In my state, divorce may as well have a drive-through window. Two people can just list "ireconsilable differences," which could boil down to the most petty things, and with a few signatures, both are good to go. 

I think if one asks for the divorce for silly reasons, that person doesn't deserve sqaut, but they usually get it.


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

Catherine602 said:


> A man agrees with his bride that she should stay home to care for their kids and they are both pleased with the arrangement. she is a good mother, housekeeper, social organizer, keeper of the many duties to facilitate the running of a good family home. He is free to concentrate on work and is successful over the years. For some reason they decide to part ways after 20 yrs. The relationship problems are owned 50/50. The 3 kids are middle school to high school.
> 
> It comes to the monitary settlement - what is fair. Should the man get the full control and give what he want to his wife and kids because he no longer has her services so to speak or does he see the wisdom in supporting his children and his wife until she can support her self and then lower his share of the alimony.
> 
> ...


you misunderstand, i am not saying its unjust, im saying it largely enters the decision to stay or go, along with not seeing the kids as much


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

I've spent nearly 30 years in the military, basically evenly split between Active Duty and Reserves. My current wife has never had to move, never had to leave her career. I have been deployed a few times but not since we've been married (yet). She does without me for a weekend a month and for a couple weeks in the summer and she gets to spend at least an equal share of whatever I earn from my pay. Still, when we've been married 10 years, she's entitled to HALF of my military pension! Where's the logic or fairness in that?
Now, trust me, if a woman marries an Active Duty service member and endures frequent relocations to foreign countries, frequent job changes, etc, I completely understand how she'd deserve half of her spouse's military pension. Marriage to a National Guard or Reserve Soldier isn't the same deal as being married to a full time Soldier.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

unbelievable said:


> I've spent nearly 30 years in the military, basically evenly split between Active Duty and Reserves. My current wife has never had to move, never had to leave her career. I have been deployed a few times but not since we've been married (yet). She does without me for a weekend a month and for a couple weeks in the summer and she gets to spend at least an equal share of whatever I earn from my pay. Still, when we've been married 10 years, she's entitled to HALF of my military pension! Where's the logic or fairness in that?
> Now, trust me, if a woman marries an Active Duty service member and endures frequent relocations to foreign countries, frequent job changes, etc, I completely understand how she'd deserve half of her spouse's military pension. Marriage to a National Guard or Reserve Soldier isn't the same deal as being married to a full time Soldier.


Yes and we were talking about essentially the situation where the spouse moves around endlessly. In my case it wasn't a move per se but in giving up my own opportunities so he could achieve his. 
Dicey topic for sure and Grayson is right, this topic has moved around quite a bit. Should we talk about fighting in Syria next?


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Syrum said:


> If two people marry and one sacrifices education and career advancement to either birth children and or raise them, then yes they are entitled to half of everything and alimony. This is fair.


Really? I understand an equal division of the existing assets.

But, being required to continue to support an ex-spouse financially is "fair?" Why even get divorced if one must continue to support the other?



> Saying women are just as valued as men, yet placing a higher value on the men because they earned the money and no where near as much on the woman because well she just took care of the house and children, is hypocritical, to say the least. If people really valued women they would recognize the efforts many women make in the lives of their children and husbands and it is invaluable.


I've gone out of my way to remain gender neutral in this conversation, despite ex-wives being forced to pay alimony to ex-husbands being an incredibly rare circumstance. Division of "value" for what has been done in the relationship doesn't factor into my views on alimony. Simple logic does. And that logic is this: One unmarried adult should not be legally obligated to directly financially support another unmarried adult.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Halien said:


> I certainly understand your point, but there is a large percentage of couples where the wife chooses to support her husband's career to the detriment of her own potential career in order to do what is right for their children. If this didn't happen, there is no reason to suspect that her earnings potential would not be equal to his otherwise. This is, I believe, the basis of some alimony laws in certain states. That and the belief that a trasition time should be allowed for independance.


And yet, in many (if not most) cases both parties must make such a transition to financial independence. The average person doesn't have the luxury of receiving a bonus equal to someone else's annual salary. Why is one party held legally responsible for subsidizing the other's "transition time" but the reverse is not true? If A must direct cash in B's direction so B can "transition," why isn't B doing the same for A?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> And yet, in many (if not most) cases both parties must make such a transition to financial independence. The average person doesn't have the luxury of receiving a bonus equal to someone else's annual salary. Why is one party held legally responsible for subsidizing the other's "transition time" but the reverse is not true? If A must direct cash in B's direction so B can "transition," why isn't B doing the same for A?


If I was the higher earning spouse and he gave up so much of his life to help me with that, you bet I should be paying him alimony for a transition period so he could get on his feet. I am in no way suggesting it is the obligation of a man to do so, both genders should in certain circumstances.


----------



## greenpearl (Sep 3, 2010)

Scannerguard said:


> Well, I read the first post and the last couple so I don't know where this thread went askew. . .but yeah, I had actually considered asking the doctor for something to make horniness go away.
> 
> It *is *a nuisance at times and actually I still have that ingrained in my head from my ex-wife. I still find myself holding back initiating with girlfriends because I was made to feel like a libido is a nuisance, a curse of guy adulthood.
> 
> I heard saltpeter takes away libido. . .not sure it's true.


About 10 years ago I went to a Chinese doctor to ask her to give me something to lower my libido, ex was in Mainland China, I had no man to satisfy me sexually, I was masturbating three times a day! She did give me some Chinese medicine, but it was too difficult to take, every time I gagged when I took it, I only took it for a few days. 

Last year I was horny 24/7 again, I wanted sex more than I wanted meals. I was working and I was horny, it was very distracting. My husband's sex drive is usually lower than mine, but he is very happy and amused to see me horny like that, he lets me take him at any time I want to! He loves it that his wife is horny like hell! 

Last night I brought a box home for him, he was looking for a box to mail something, I pointed to the box and told him: I deserve a good fu*k for finding this box for you! He laughed and said: You are very masculine, very crude, only my wife will say such a thing! :rofl:


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

WhiteRabbit said:


> you and H would be best friends. Everytime he writes a check for his ex he mumbles about how he wanted her to work n she chose to sit on her butt all day(letting her degree rot) while their kid was in school,not cook dinner,not clean the house(they had a maid),not have sex w him,and barely be around when he was home...he had enough of it and divorced her.now he's paying her 100K a year for a total of 13 years.not including cs.
> 
> she chose to take a job where she makes a little more than minimum wage rather than using that expensive degree she holds.their kid is raised by playdate parents and activities while mom goes on dates just about every night of the week.
> 
> ...


And, believe me, I agree with that side note, too.

This story put in my mind the phrase that we sometimes hear in such situations: "maintaining the lifestyle to which he/she has become accustomed." Here's the thing, though...to me, that lifestyle to which he/she became accustomed was part and parcel of the marriage. Marriage no longer exists, and someone wants to maintain that lifestyle, it's up to them...it's not up to their ex-spouse to bankroll it.

An extreme example (since I made a point earlier of not going to celebrity examples as the money and public profiles are WAY outside the average) that I clearly remember that phrase being used was Johnny Carson's divorce from his second wife, Joanna. She got quite a large divorce settlement to "maintain the lifestyle yada yada yada." But that lifestyle came with being Johnny Carson's wife. Once she wasn't any longer, maintaining that lifestyle should have become her responsibility.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> If I was the higher earning spouse and he gave up so much of his life to help me with that, you bet I should be paying him alimony for a transition period so he could get on his feet. I am in no way suggesting it is the obligation of a man to do so, both genders should in certain circumstances.


That's very fair & even-handed of you.

But my view has nothing (well, very little, I guess  ) to do with gender lines, and more to do with what I see as simple logic: upon divorce, neither of you is responsible for the other. It sounds harsh, but it's the only phrasing I can think of, but...why should you care about his "transition period" or getting on his feet? He's a grown, now-single man. If he ends up needing help, he can ask for it (or have it volunteered) from someone who's still invested in his well-being. If, under the circumstances, _you're_ still invested in his well-being...why the divorce?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> And, believe me, I agree with that side note, too.
> 
> This story put in my mind the phrase that we sometimes hear in such situations: "maintaining the lifestyle to which he/she has become accustomed." Here's the thing, though...to me, that lifestyle to which he/she became accustomed was part and parcel of the marriage. Marriage no longer exists, and someone wants to maintain that lifestyle, it's up to them...it's not up to their ex-spouse to bankroll it.
> 
> An extreme example (since I made a point earlier of not going to celebrity examples as the money and public profiles are WAY outside the average) that I clearly remember that phrase being used was Johnny Carson's divorce from his second wife, Joanna. She got quite a large divorce settlement to "maintain the lifestyle yada yada yada." But that lifestyle came with being Johnny Carson's wife. Once she wasn't any longer, maintaining that lifestyle should have become her responsibility.


I in no way said I needed my current lifestyle maintained. I said point blank that with a divorce, both parties sacrifice and give up parts. I have zero expectation/nor desire in having someone else fund my future. I do however feel the right thing to do would be for him to help me on my feet for a few years. Mind you, we aren't divorcing, I am simply talking about what if's here. 
Like you said, this topic has taken some strange twists. Shall we talk about board shorts vs. Speedos next or are we moving on to Boston winning the Stanley Cup.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Grayson said:


> And yet, in many (if not most) cases both parties must make such a transition to financial independence. The average person doesn't have the luxury of receiving a bonus equal to someone else's annual salary. Why is one party held legally responsible for subsidizing the other's "transition time" but the reverse is not true? If A must direct cash in B's direction so B can "transition," why isn't B doing the same for A?


If I'm understanding what you are saying, it does work this way in my state, or so I've been told. A former coworker (a guy) left our company to go into a business he built. His wife stayed, and I knew her. His business failed. He and his wife divorced soon after, but he said it was because she cheated. He got alimony.

Just keep in mind that we all come at this from different perspectives. My mother never got a dime of child support from my father, and the concept of alimony was laughable there. Started out my career as an hourly machinist, so I'm simply giddy with the money I make. I just wouldn't want my wife to have to make the kind of decisions my mother had to face. I completely respect your opinion, because it is based on fairness, while mine is based my preference.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Shall we talk about board shorts vs. Speedos next or are we moving on to Boston winning the Stanley Cup.


Turning the subject, a new one potentially appears. How about boxers vs jockey shorts? The whole boxer preference just makes me feel stupid because I don't like dangling participles, if you get my drift.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Halien said:


> Turning the subject, a new one potentially appears. How about boxers vs jockey shorts? The whole boxer preference just makes me feel stupid because I don't like dangling participles, if you get my drift.


Boxer briefs. Period.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

WhiteRabbit said:


> you and H would be best friends. Everytime he writes a check for his ex he mumbles about how he wanted her to work n she chose to sit on her butt all day(letting her degree rot) while their kid was in school,not cook dinner,not clean the house(they had a maid),not have sex w him,and barely be around when he was home...he had enough of it and divorced her.now he's paying her 100K a year for a total of 13 years.not including cs.
> 
> she chose to take a job where she makes a little more than minimum wage rather than using that expensive degree she holds.their kid is raised by playdate parents and activities while mom goes on dates just about every night of the week.
> 
> ...


As a woman, I could not agree more with white rabbits husband & Grayson . I am not totally with Southbound on this point


> I agree it should depend on who is at fault, or who wants it.


 the WHO WANTS IT PART may be totally in the right (too many dire situations for that) ex: if a woman is married to a an abuser , or husband wants rid of a cheater who had a baby to another man, some really do NEED OUT OF THE MARRIAGE for the better of their very own souls. 

But if one moves EASILY ON to another man -had an affair while married and seriously hurt the GOOD-GIVING less at fault spouse who didn't deserve this pain, while he is left alone wondering what hit him - but lets say the woman chooses to keep seeing this affair man -just so they can get the husband's alimony. NO way. Shouldnt be. If I was a man, this would enrage me something fierce. He has every right to be steaming and furious in my book. 

These pathetic financial "not fair" complications , I believe , are why many many many good men get screwed. Being able to snag a rich man, then take half of what he has-plus get alimony on top of this!! (when 1/4 of that half could put up another woman for 20 years maybe)- when they decide they are bored with him (if they even loved him to begin with) -the way these laws are written BREEDS gold diggers , in my opionion. 

To say this NEVER happens is not realistic , such situations definetly exist. But then again, I also feel the men who fall for these tyes of women are pretty stupid too. Always looking at their looks and not what is within.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

And where does commando fit into the scheme of things? ;-)

(Counting down til the reports from downtown advise that the Mavericks' victory parade has turned into Let's Break Stuff, Steal Stuff and Beat People Up Day.)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

WhiteRabbit said:


> Boxer briefs. Anything else just makes me giggle...not in the sexy come hither way either...more like the 'u look like throwback from 1990' kinda way



Boxer briefs? Long leg briefs? They creep up. Silk boxers are nice but hard to wash w/o ruining them. Polyester/spandex 90/10 are great.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

reading all this makes me kind of glad I don't make very much money. We make roughly the same. Far from destitute, but not exactly getting ahead either.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

I think I need to back out of this thread. The implication that a woman who divorces and get's half plus a few years of alimony is somehow a gold digger just chaps my a$$. This "gold digger" met my husband when I was 9. 30 years I have known him, longer than some of you have been alive. 
When we got married he came with mountains of student loan debt and I came with a trust fund from my Grandfather. I paid off his loans and paid for him to go to graduate school and have stood by this man and propped him up and worked behind the scenes so that every dream in life was at his fingertips.
Yup, I'm a gold digger. Wow.

Can we get back to the boxer conversation? I need a distraction while I hatch my plan to steal all my husband's money.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

I have a much more sanguine approach to it. I'd rather have half my stuff than all of you.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Therealbrighteyes, I doubt you did the things I said in my post, so this was surely NOT directed to you or anyone like you. Did you do these things - 

.....


> "had an affair while married and seriously hurt the GOOD-GIVING less at fault spouse who didn't deserve this pain, while he is left alone wondering what hit him - but lets say the woman chooses to keep seeing this affair man -just so they can get the husband's alimony."


I doubt many women who did this are ON this forum, but they do exist. Most who are hurting, have been hurt, are the ones who come here. Not the ones taking advantage. Come on now, nothing is black & white. Your husband likely was the "bad guy" in your breakup. I never meant to imply alimony is NOT needed, if the man was the one at fault, the destroyer, da** sure he owes it !

You totally misunderstand my point. Totally, I am always on the side of the hurting , the one who got the UNFAIR screwing.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Boxer briefs. Period.


No way. Not all men's butts can handle boxer briefs. If it can't then boxers are the way to go. But to frame a nice butt? Boxer briefs. Tighty whities NEVER.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> No way. Not all men's butts can handle boxer briefs. If it can't then boxers are the way to go. But to frame a nice butt? Boxer briefs. Tighty whities NEVER.


Well he has a nice butt so boxer briefs it is. 
Tighty whities is sexual insecticide.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Can we get back to the boxer conversation? I need a distraction while I hatch my plan to steal all my husband's money.



According to the guys secret code book - where I come from, we call boxer briefs jockey shorts, as in short pants. Whitie tighties are just called jockeys, because of what they only cover. Use of other terms makes the sales lady say, "You're not from around here, are you?"


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Im still young enough where I'm not required to wear either :FIREdevil:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Kobo said:


> Im still young enough where I'm not required to wear either :FIREdevil:


Being older means you have to wear underwear? Can't everybody go commando?


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

boxer briefs for me, and my butt looks terrific in em


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Being older means you have to wear underwear? Can't everybody go commando?


Yeah...by that yardstick, I did it backwards. Underwear younger, adopting commando as I got older.

What? TMI? ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Yeah...by that yardstick, I did it backwards. Underwear younger, adopting commando as I got older.
> 
> What? TMI? ;-)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


**Snicker** You said yardstick.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> **Snicker** You said yardstick.


I did. Sooooo many punchlines. So little time. ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> I did. Sooooo many punchlines. So little time. ;-)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You don't need underwear, you need a scabbard.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Being older means you have to wear underwear? Can't everybody go commando?



Depends on how much time you want to spend shaking at the urinal....


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Kobo said:


> Depends on how much time you want to spend shaking at the urinal....


Uh, toilet paper doesn't serve that function?!


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Uh, toilet paper doesn't serve that function?!


No TP at urinals.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Uh, toilet paper doesn't serve that function?!


Er... you'd embarrass some guys if you walk across the room to the stalls, where they keep it.

Which reminds me. While this thread goes around the world, did you know that you can statistically model the choices of which urinals men will choose in a large restroom, based upon the number of occupants already there? I like to upset the apple cart and just choose the empty one between a couple of guys even when three or more are empty down the row.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> No TP at urinals.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Eww. Well I guess all that extra shaking gives the other guys a chance to look. Remember that. 

:rofl:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Halien said:


> Er... you'd embarrass some guys if you walk across the room to the stalls, where they keep it.
> 
> Which reminds me. While this thread goes around the world, did you know that you can statistically model the choices of which urinals men will choose in a large restroom, based upon the number of occupants already there? I like to upset the apple cart and just choose the empty one between a couple of guys even when three or more are empty down the row.


Oh $hit that was funny!!!
My husband said that any guy who doesn't leave at least one urinal in between another (provided there is space) is breaking the man code. 

:rofl:


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)




----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Oh $hit that was funny!!!
> My husband said that any guy who doesn't leave at least one urinal in between another (provided there is space) is breaking the man code.
> 
> :rofl:


It is also poor etiquette to introduce yourself and offer to shake hands.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You don't need underwear, you need a scabbard.


That's what she said.

ba-DUM-bum

Thank you, thank you. I'm hear all week. Tip the veal. Try your waitress.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Amplexor said:


>


I am DYING over here!!!!!

The OP has left as we have twisted this from chemical castration, divorce, alimony, yard stick size penises and now urinal etiquette. If she is still here, she thinks we are all psychos and too afraid to respond. 


:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Oh $hit that was funny!!!
> My husband said that any guy who doesn't leave at least one urinal in between another (provided there is space) is breaking the man code.
> 
> :rofl:


And when your son asks why the tall guy is using the urinal for short people, don't tell him that its just wishful thinking. Gets dicey after that.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> That's what she said.
> 
> ba-DUM-bum
> 
> ...


Or as we say in Texas, Save a Horse.....ride a Cowboy.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

You get the up-nod too?


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Amplexor said:


>


Guy goes to Jamaica after having just gotten married to his wife Wendy. Honeymoon. Before getting married, he had her name tattooed on his penis. He arrives in Jamaica and goes to the bathroom. Stands next to guy at the urinal. Hey! You have a Wendy, too? Jamaican guy looks at him and says, what? You have Wendy tattooed to your penis.

No man, it says "Welcome to Jamaica, man. Have a nice day."


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

All I can say is I am thankful Amp is on Mod duty this fine afternoon. If Deejo were here, he'd doom us all.


----------



## Prometheus Pyrphoros (Jun 16, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> It seems like there's so much talk about men not "getting" enough sex from their wives, and how to "get" more, and get their wives to want it more.
> 
> Why is there no similar talk about how women can be more free from this pressure, and more free from having to deal with all the messy consequences and all the Dr. visits (that the men are always free from).
> 
> ...


None of us would be here if it wasn't for strong urges and desires of us men throughout human history. This is normal and natural. It is not unreasonable.
Pardon me for saying, but could there be some other frustration inside you manifesting this way? No offence intended.
It should not be torture if partners are at least somewhat compatible and reasonable. It should be a be a beautiful thing enriching the relationship and strenghtening the bond, and understood as such.
Thank you.

--
Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Or as we say in Texas, Save a Horse.....ride a Cowboy.


Well, I'm in Texas and don't say that. But then, I'm far from a cowboy and don't wanna give my wife any (more) ideas.... ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Halien said:


> Er... you'd embarrass some guys if you walk across the room to the stalls, where they keep it.
> 
> Which reminds me. While this thread goes around the world, did you know that you can statistically model the choices of which urinals men will choose in a large restroom, based upon the number of occupants already there? I like to upset the apple cart and just choose the empty one between a couple of guys even when three or more are empty down the row.


Do I work with you? I was just thinking of this very subject recently. Went to the restroom at work, guy walked in right before me, and went to the center urinal out of three.

That was you, wasn't it?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Well, I'm in Texas and don't say that. But then, I'm far from a cowboy and don't wanna give my wife any (more) ideas.... ;-)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes, but you also ruin steaks with sauce.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Mom6547 said:


> Guy goes to Jamaica after having just gotten married to his wife Wendy. Honeymoon. Before getting married, he had her name tattooed on his penis. He arrives in Jamaica and goes to the bathroom. Stands next to guy at the urinal. Hey! You have a Wendy, too? Jamaican guy looks at him and says, what? You have Wendy tattooed to your penis.
> 
> No man, it says "Welcome to Jamaica, man. Have a nice day."


Didn't the Pamdroid tell a similar story shortly after marrying Tommy Lee? Asked about truth to the story that he had "Pam" tattooed on his Johnson, she replied that, sometimes it said "Pam," but when they were together, it said, "Pamela Anderson is a beautiful woman and I love her very very much." :-D
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes, but you also ruin steaks with sauce.


Lol...no I don't. No steak sauce for me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Lol...no I don't. No steak sauce for me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Whoops, I thought you were the guy who posted yesterday he tosses A-1 on to every steak AND he was from Texas! I told him he should be forced to ride a mechanical bull all night. Ha ha. 
Well cool. A steak should not be ruined with glorified barbecue sauce.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Do I work with you? I was just thinking of this very subject recently. Went to the restroom at work, guy walked in right before me, and went to the center urinal out of three.
> 
> That was you, wasn't it?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Depends. I have offices in two buildings. Think of an office restroom with 18 urinals. And I'm the guy who looks like a skinny linebacker. Sound familiar?


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Nope. Nowhere near that many urinals in our office restroom. Three high, one low.

Must be someone you trained at some point. ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

So where exactly do we go from urinals....cavity searches?


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So where exactly do we go from urinals....cavity searches?



No, Stall Etiquette. 

Don't tap your foot, you might get "friended"!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Amplexor said:


> No, Stall Etiquette.
> 
> Don't tap your foot, you might get "friended"!


You mean "Craiged".


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You mean "Craiged".


Naw, he was just a big guy that needs a wide stance.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

It really irks me the guys who bathe in airport bathrooms.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Runs like Dog said:


> It really irks me the guys who bathe in airport bathrooms.


But the women are okay, right?


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

If there were unisex bathrooms in airports it would be horrifying. It would be a refugee camp.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Runs like Dog said:


> It really irks me the guys who bathe in airport bathrooms.


Oops! There's another one I offended. But the plane broke and all the hotels were full.


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Oh and ya.

Restroom stalls are not modern day phone booths. HANG UP AND POOP!!!


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Jumping back a topic or six....

Did the _Friends_ episode "The One Where No One's Ready" coin the phrase "going commando" or just (help) popularize it? I'm trying to recall if I'd ever heard it before then, and for the life of me, I can't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

I don't care that you're all flopping about. But then the water gets everywhere. It's a pain in the ass, especially since the janitors are always in there and they never do **** except block the door.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Amplexor said:


> Oh and ya.
> 
> Restroom stalls are not modern day phone booths. HANG UP AND POOP!!!


Freaking word! Or worse, two women carrying on a conversation in the stalls while doing their business. Just shut it already.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Jumping back a topic or six....
> 
> Did the _Friends_ episode "The One Where No One's Ready" coin the phrase "going commando" or just (help) popularize it? I'm trying to recall if I'd ever heard it before then, and for the life of me, I can't.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes, young grasshopper. That is what popularized it.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes, young grasshopper. That is what popularized it.


Is that the origin of the term, or just where it got it's widespread exposure, though? Joey's line about "not going commando in another man's fatigues" regarding the rented tux sounds so perfectly composed...it's almost like it HAS to be the origin.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Never mind. A quick search shows reference to the phrase well before the 1996 episode in question. So the writers just turned a phrase wonderfully.

And Rachel was going commando, too. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Holy Bajeezus. I've been working doubles the past 2 days... came back here just now to check on this thread... as you can imagine I'm shaking my head and wondering how 31 pages later the topic is underwear???

Ha ha ha!!!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

So let's tie it back in to the thread. Men who wear underwear that is not supportive will have a lower sex drive? Back on track.....


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

TRBE - is that all it takes?

Finally, someone has a tangible solution. 

It's all about the underwear, I guess.

LOL.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Can you guess the right urinal?

The Urinal Game - Men! Test your level of bathroom etiquette within the casino! - Free online games


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

This thread has quite clearly gone right into the toilet.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> TRBE - is that all it takes?
> 
> Finally, someone has a tangible solution.
> 
> ...


So, after I share this incredible secret to lowering your man's sex drive, the other guys are going to gang up on me and get me banned. I mean, it works. Thinking of sex makes me shriek. So, give me a moment to put it into its proper context.

My wife and I are 45. Her sis says I look 30, but she looks 50. She's getting pretty desperate and has even been known to growl at me when I notice a new zit on my face. I swore that I had a gray hair once, but it was lint. She's almost completely gray.

I thought her recent remedy was only a 1950's comedy gig, but she actually bought this stuff that hit my debit card at about $200 a month. Its a hideous mask thing that she concocts in what surely must be a witches cauldron based on the smell, and puts on just before bedtime. I was sitting on the upstairs deck, and came into the room feeling a little fiesty, and ... I screamed like a girl. And the smell... Two days later, I still have nightmares just thinking about it. Seriously, I lock the bathroom door when I go in during the night.

I don't know if it was my shock, or that my shriek hurt her feelings, but the bed is awfully cold since.


----------



## HelloooNurse (Apr 12, 2010)

I have one word to say to all of you and that is this: ANTIANDROGENS!

It is the cure to all your sexual problems, it will fix all the unmet needs that you have, it will take away all your longings, it will immediately stop all the sex related arguments in your relationships, and it will make your marriage bigger, better, and stronger. It will stop all the fighting and hate in your relationships once and for all! And you will notice that suddenly you have a lot more free time on your hands to enjoy!

Look into it today!


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So let's tie it back in to the thread. Men who wear underwear that is not supportive will have a lower sex drive? Back on track.....


Commando Cody disagrees.... ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

And here I thought I'd found the new digression track on my way home last night:

Socks with sandals: WTF?!?!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

How about polygamy?


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

Runs like Dog said:


> How about polygamy?


Ad Polandry for the women.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Polyandry for women... that would be like a physical hell for a lot of women! I'll take the polygamy. More ladies to help one another with 24/7 childcare, too!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Halien said:


> So, after I share this incredible secret to lowering your man's sex drive, the other guys are going to gang up on me and get me banned. I mean, it works. Thinking of sex makes me shriek. So, give me a moment to put it into its proper context.
> 
> My wife and I are 45. Her sis says I look 30, but she looks 50. She's getting pretty desperate and has even been known to growl at me when I notice a new zit on my face. I swore that I had a gray hair once, but it was lint. She's almost completely gray.
> 
> ...


Oh not cool! She's trying to look good.  We women often use stuff that smells weird and what not in an effort that the end result will be worth it.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Nurse the consequences of anti-androgens - hot flashes, man boobs, loss of muscle mass, fat gain, shrinking balls, fatigue, depression, loss of drive to conquer on the job. The up side, he loses his sex drive so I am certain any man would be absolutly estatic, if too tierd to celebrate. Alternatively, he could keep his out-sized libido and use it - cheat, or just walk out and find another woman. decisions decisions
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Catherine602 said:


> Nurse the consequences of anti-androgens - hot flashes, man boobs, loss of muscle mass, fat gain, shrinking balls, fatigue, depression, loss of drive to conquer on the job. The up side, he loses his sex drive


Sounds like mid-life crisis in a bottle.


----------



## alphaomega (Nov 7, 2010)

I just got here. But the title of this thread doesn't make any sense at all. Tha would be like telling a woman we need to cuddle less.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Syrum said:


> Ad Polandry for the women.


So I watch Big Love and I think this is really a show about the women's relationships with one another. A kind of weird post-feminist sorority. I can't for the life of me ever imagine in a thousand years men having this kind of relationship with one another in some matriarchal polyandrous society.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Runs like Dog said:


> I can't for the life of me ever imagine in a thousand years men having this kind of relationship with one another in some matriarchal polyandrous society.


RLD - Totally! I can't imagine that either.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

alphaomega said:


> I just got here. But the title of this thread doesn't make any sense at all. Tha would be like telling a woman we need to cuddle less.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


AlphaO - There is one big difference. "Cuddling" doesn't involve sticking something INSIDE another person's body (with life and death consequences). Cuddling occurs completely on the OUTSIDE. It's innocuous. 

Hey I'm not even dissing sex by saying that! I'm not saying it's bad. Just noting the big differences in action ---> reaction. 

The outcome of cuddling is comfort. The intended outcome of sex is procreation (the creation of new human beings -that grow INSIDE one person but not the other).


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

Runs like Dog said:


> So I watch Big Love and I think this is really a show about the women's relationships with one another. A kind of weird post-feminist sorority. I can't for the life of me ever imagine in a thousand years men having this kind of relationship with one another in some matriarchal polyandrous society.


I'm a big fan of this show! It's like crack rock.

I saw a feature on polyandry on 'Taboo' on NatGeo. it is extremely rare but does happen in some isolated villages. There's this tradition somewhere in rural India where a woman can marry several brothers; it is a way for the brothers to share their inheritance/farmland, as this would have been the only way for them to survive. Everyone (on TV) seemed happy enough with the arrangement.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

This sounds awesome. Then we can be like best girlfriends, and watch Lifetime together and scream like school-girls when we see spiders, and we could both complain when the other partner isn't romancing us. 

Although ... I have always said, one way to address all of these bullsh!t issues between the sexes, would be to make the sexes more like one another.

I like Runs idea best. Polygamy. I'm moving to Utah ...



HelloooNurse said:


> I have one word to say to all of you and that is this: ANTIANDROGENS!
> 
> It is the cure to all your sexual problems, it will fix all the unmet needs that you have, it will take away all your longings, it will immediately stop all the sex related arguments in your relationships, and it will make your marriage bigger, better, and stronger. It will stop all the fighting and hate in your relationships once and for all! And you will notice that suddenly you have a lot more free time on your hands to enjoy!
> 
> Look into it today!


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

As the OP... I like Deejo and RLD's ideas the best. Forget making men and women more like one another (That would be sad, really. I don't think I'd dig that). Polygamy might be the way to go.


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

miss-understood said:


> Polygamy might be the way to go.



Polygamy and monogamy can both have the same meaning. One too many wives.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

gain a bunch of weight ,quit brushing your teeth, act mean and nasty,shave your head,quit showering............just to name a few would make me want less sex for my wife.

the bottom line is some people just are not compatible in sexual frequncy.

as soon as you find this out you should hit the road a running instead of trying to change the other person (this goes for both genders)

wish i did 18 yrs ago!

I'll say it again people don't change. So a big WARNING to anybody that is newly married if you find yourself in this situation early on in your marriage get out and cut your losses.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

To be fair I know a woman who is an ex-third wife of a Muslim man in Lebanon. Culturally it's a bad deal for mideast women. The first wife or primary wife is treated very well. But there's distinct pecking order and the younger wives really are treated like crap. Slaves and maids for the 3rd or 4th wife. And make no mistake, 3rd and 4th wives ARE married off as children. We're talking barely 12-14 years old and expected to not only sexually service the patriarch but to wait on the senior wives hand and foot, and their children, often under regimen of beatings. 

Most cultures treat women pretty terribly. I've always said, if you wanted to end radical fundamentalist Taliban-style ideologies, hand out 20 million M-16's only to the women. It would be over in 60-70 days tops.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> This sounds awesome. Then we can be like best girlfriends, and watch Lifetime together and scream like school-girls when we see spiders, and we could both complain when the other partner isn't romancing us.


Deejo in addition to watching Lifetime, Oxygen and We and screaming like little girls at insects, we routinely dress up in lingerie and have tickle/pillow fights with our "besties" while sucking on lollipops. Then we get reduced to a pile of tears because we just caught a glimpse of our cellulite and decide to comfort eat with a 1/2 gallon of Chunky Monkey.

Hey it happens at my house every Friday night.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

How to make your man want you less.. Let's see, so many options so little time. Oh yes, here's one; you be you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Prometheus Pyrphoros (Jun 16, 2011)

Runs like Dog said:


> How to make your man want you less.. Let's see, so many options so little time. Oh yes, here's one; you be you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Where have the good times gone? Just resentment poking it's ugly head now it seems. Alas, if one could have another life ahead.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

It's all well and good to swing back around to the original question, but...

Socks with sandals, people!!

Won't SOMEone think of the children?!?!?!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> It's all well and good to swing back around to the original question, but...
> 
> Socks with sandals, people!!
> 
> ...


And the non-blind.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

You know what would totally suck?

Achieve your Big Love polygamy dream in a Utah compound, then find out that all your wives eventually get on the same PMS frequency cycle and end up all super irrationally annoyed with you at the same day and you ask the last question of your life:

"What's the matter, are you all on your period or what?"


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

michzz said:


> You know what would totally suck?
> 
> Achieve your Big Love polygamy dream in a Utah compound, then find out that all your wives eventually get on the same PMS frequency cycle and end up all super irrationally annoyed with at the same day and you ask the last question of your life:
> 
> "What's the matter, are you all on your period or what?"


Ah forgot that in my pillow/tickle fight/sucking on lollipops post. Yes, we all become irrational and b!tchy one week out of the month.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

It seemed like an insanely weird question 481 posts ago.


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Ah forgot that in my pillow/tickle fight/sucking on lollipops post. Yes, we all become irrational and b!tchy one week out of the month.


Three weeks of fratboy fantasy, one week of bunnie boiler.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

michzz said:


> Three weeks of fratboy fantasy, one week of bunnie boiler.


Sure, sure. In the words of my husband "You're about to have your period? Really?". Meanwhile he craves chocolate and cookies at 11:00 pm about every third day.


----------



## annagarret (Jun 12, 2011)

Alright, hopefully I will end this post. Let's wives give our DH all the sex they want for um....atleast six months and see how happy they are. They will be in heaven and will be deeper in love with us and then there will be no more sex deprivation threads!!!! Plus everyone will be to busy having sex to be on the computer!!!


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Started a List of top ten statements on the thread:
1. then find out that all your wives eventually get on the same PMS frequency cycle and end up all super irrationally annoyed with at the same day and you ask the last question of your life: "What's the matter, are you all on your period or what?"

2. It seemed like an insanely weird question 481 posts ago.

3. ???
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Sure, sure. In the words of my husband "You're about to have your period? Really?". Meanwhile he craves chocolate and cookies at 11:00 pm about every third day.


Questions like that cause dishes to go flying in my house. Only slightly less offensive than asking, "since when do you skip the manic phase and go straight to crying non-stop?" I was only about 25 when I learned that it was far more appropriate just to buy some chocolate, kleenex, and rent a Cary Grant movie and pretend that I really want to watch it.


----------



## annagarret (Jun 12, 2011)

Ok just everyone end this topic all together and have sex with each other!!!hubbies and wives... no complaints.... finally.... whew...


----------



## annagarret (Jun 12, 2011)

you are out of the sexual loop.........


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> AlphaO - There is one big difference. "Cuddling" doesn't involve sticking something INSIDE another person's body (with life and death consequences). Cuddling occurs completely on the OUTSIDE. It's innocuous.
> 
> Hey I'm not even dissing sex by saying that! I'm not saying it's bad. Just noting the big differences in action ---> reaction.
> 
> The outcome of cuddling is comfort. The intended outcome of sex is procreation (the creation of new human beings -that grow INSIDE one person but not the other).


You posted that you went away for a few days so you missed out on my posts about your first and follow up posts.

You open the thread with a post about how to make me want sex *LESS?*

You didn't say *NEVER.*

You state the reason you feel this way is because of the consequences of sex. To avoid what you fear, you have to *NEVER* have sex with your husband. In a committed marriage none of these should be concerns. 

In my opinion, you have some rather unhealthy hang ups about sex. If you value your marriage, seek out a counselor. Otherwise I don't see this ending well for you.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> 1. then find out that all your wives eventually get on the same PMS frequency cycle and end up all super irrationally annoyed with at the same day and you ask the last question of your life: "What's the matter, are you all on your period or what?"


A wife and two daughters doing this is bad enough.

It really sucks when it hits on your birthday 
In hindsight I should have said "see ya later, I'm going to my parents."


----------



## madimoff (Feb 17, 2010)

Runs like Dog said:


> It seemed like an insanely weird question 481 posts ago.


But one worthy of a discussion. As hijacks/off topic veerings away from the highway, this thread has been taken on one humungous diversion. 
No wonder, as someone observed ? posts ago (I gave up after page 19 on my thread browser and just looked today to see if it was worth reading again - it wasn't) the OP has disappeared. She's probably discussing it with someone else right now and actually having an intelligent debate about it. 
Hmph. THREAD CLOSED, anyone?


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Sure, sure. In the words of my husband "You're about to have your period? Really?". Meanwhile he craves chocolate and cookies at 11:00 pm about every third day.


I turned DH down the other day (REALLY unusual). He was kind of hurt. I was asking myself what the hell was going ON. It dawned on me. For years I bled for 1/2 to 3/4 of the month. My cycle was AFU. He got used to some No times. Now I don't bleed at all. Hysterectomy. But I still have my ovaries! I was having my period! Just could not tell!

Weird.


----------



## Mom6547 (Jul 13, 2010)

Grayson said:


> It's all well and good to swing back around to the original question, but...
> 
> Socks with sandals, people!!
> 
> ...


FUNNY! I told my son, hey dude take off the socks with the sandals. You look like a dork. He looked at me, at his feet. Said I am 10. It is still ok for me to look like a dork. I will worry about that next year.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

larry.gray said:


> You posted that you went away for a few days so you missed out on my posts about your first and follow up posts.
> 
> You open the thread with a post about how to make me want sex *LESS?*
> 
> ...



Hey larry.gray! Thanks for reposting. I read all the posts here (yep, all!). There are so many... so I gave up on replying to all! Not to be dismissive to anyone... I feel bad not replying. But where do I begin! 

So again, thanks for reposting.

To clarify: I never opened with a thread about HOW to make men want sex less. My question was: "Why don't we talk about this?". As a concept. One idea of many for what seems like a distressing problem for quite a few people - many friends of mine, included.

Secondly, I agree with you - to avoid/eradicate all consequences of sex, one would have to avoid sex entirely. But I never said "eradicate", either. Frequency counts for something; increased exposure increases the possibility of consequence (and also tends to increase the frequency of actual consequence). 

Reduction of the frequency unpleasant consequence is often considered more desirable than a higher-frequency of unpleasant consequence.

No matter where we all stand on the various ideas, I definitely disagree with that idea that "in a committed marriage none of these should be concerns". If children are not desired - this needs to be a concern for both partners. Also, when a man loves a women, it often happens that he becomes concerned for her well-being. I know that my husband is concerned about doing what he can to avoid me getting UTIs that frequently occur as a result of us having sex. It hurts him to see me in pain and making trips to the doctor. Marriage makes some people more concerned about their partner, not less.

Lastly, what's with the comments about me having "unhealthy hang-ups about sex"? This isn't one-on-one therapy about me - and my marriage, personally. This is a discussion board.

My post was me posting an overall idea - a concept. For discussion. Regarding a topic related to widespread distress in relationships between men and women. 

I did bring in some personal info, to give some evidence as to why the idea could be beneficial to some. But some is related to what friends have experienced, or their wives. 

Some of my motivation for posting the overall topic/question is due to distress that both male and female friends have discussed with me, what they're struggling with in their relationships. 

I'm quite certain that I never said/insinuated that this was a problem in my marriage. My husband is one of the really cool guys who does care about the consequences to women, and is willing to admit that it's a different ballgame for women than for men. This is something I see lacking in the culture at large - so many men AND women seem to not want to talk about how different sex is for women, than it is for men. 

I think this has caused a lot of misunderstandings and profound pain in modern relationships. The focus these days is often on the women to gloss over her reality and be more like the man, to please the man. How archaic, is this, really? 

But I don't mean that to make it sound like women are being victimized (we've been very complicit in all of this. I think, in part, because we have believed that acting like men - in the boardroom and in the bedroom - will make us equal with men, and we'll be powerful and "independent"). 

My point is not to say that women are victims here. My point is: I don't think this advice (for women to act like men, and for women and men to gloss over women's physical reality when it comes to sex) is ever going to solve this distressing sex issue that we're seeing so much of today in modern marriage.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Mom6547 said:


> FUNNY! I told my son, hey dude take off the socks with the sandals. You look like a dork. He looked at me, at his feet. Said I am 10. It is still ok for me to look like a dork. I will worry about that next year.


Mom6547, LOL!!! I can't believe he said that - that's sooooo funny!


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

larry.gray said:


> You posted that you went away for a few days so you missed out on my posts about your first and follow up posts.
> 
> You open the thread with a post about how to make me want sex *LESS?*
> 
> ...




larry, I'm shooting off another quick reply - because there's something I forgot in my previous reply to you.

I'd said that thing about how I think it's been misguided that we (women) have thought that acting like men in the boardroom and the bedroom would earn us "equality".

The thing that really stinks (in my opinion) - is that the outcome has had some unintended bad effects. Again, this is not a statement about women being victims. I'm saying: We are not only are we denying women's physical realities when it comes to sex these days (trying to act like men). We're also emasculating men in the process. It's not like the outcome has been so great for men, and only sucks for women.

Both genders are reporting high degrees of distress/confusion/dissatisfaction in the sex realm - both women and men.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

A little bit of snippage here....



miss-understood said:


> To clarify: I never opened with a thread about HOW to make men want sex less. My question was: "Why don't we talk about this?". As a concept. One idea of many for what seems like a distressing problem for quite a few people - many friends of mine, included.


As I pointed out earlier, though, you opened with what appears to be a false conclusion. Namely, that the partner with the high(er) drive is always the man and the partner with the low(er) drive is always the woman.

That same assumption also seems to dismiss the notion that the high(er) drive partner is likely already displaying a willingness (even if grudgingly) to accept sex less frequently than he/she finds ideal because they are cognizant that their partner has a lower drive. The ideal resolution is not for one partner to adjust his or her drive up or down as the case may be with the other not budging, but for both partners to adjust to an agreeable middle ground.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Grayson said:


> A little bit of snippage here....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Grayson - if I said that the partner with the higher drive is always that man, then I misspoke. I know that it's not always the man. You are so right. Sorry about that, if I misspoke in that way.

It seems fair to say that it tends to be the man more often than the woman, though. Would you agree with that? Not "always", but as the more frequent situation?

Also, it's a different ballgame if a woman is pressuring a man for more sex. She's bearing the brunt of the consequence, so it's different than the man wanting more "access" to a woman's insides. I'm not even judging any of it - I'm just saying it's different, biologically. Can you agree with that?

I definitely agree with you that the ideal resolution is for both partners to adjust to an agreeable middle ground! Definitely. 

That is part of why I posted the question/idea. This may be a very unfair generalization, but in my experience (take this as just my personal experience for right now) I've been a part of so many conversations with people experiencing this conflict in their relationships digging into how to "get" their wife (or themselves, as the wife) to want to have sex _*more*_. I have not experienced an honest conversation about how to get men to want sex less (as part of that overall idea of adjusting to a middle ground). It's more often a case of the HD husband to (like you said) "accepting sex less often" (than he wants). 

But that's not the same as finding ways for them to literally "_*want *_it less". 

Back to the flip side, I've talked to men who are not satisfied with their wives merely "having sex more". They want to find ways to make her "*want* it more". 

So there seems to be a big push to alter not just the frequency, but to alter the women's (typically the women's) actual level of desire. 

That sounds like a good thing to discuss. Similarly, we can discuss altering the HD person's level of desire. To be fair -but also to examine all the various _*possibilities*_ available here. 

Sorry, I definitely slipped back into generalizing in terms of gender. I admit it! I agree with you though, it's not always the case that the woman is LD and the man is HD!


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> Grayson - if I said that the partner with the higher drive is always that man, then I misspoke. I know that it's not always the man. You are so right. Sorry about that, if I misspoke in that way.
> 
> It seems fair to say that it tends to be the man more often than the woman, though. Would you agree with that? Not "always", but as the more frequent situation?
> 
> ...


I think that many of the issues posted on the board are built on unhealthy assumptions, and personally, it would be nice if some level of acceptance were to be brought into the disussion so it can turn into a helpful discussion for those who have problems in the sex area. I'm not talking about this thread, but actually agreeing with you in saying that we need to redefine the whole discussion.

I know my marriage is not the norm. In fact, I didn't come to this site for the sex issue. My wife just has psychological problems that make it almost impossible for her to trust people, and so she often feels something akin to hate for me, yet this never affects our sex life. Once she realized that I had not done the things that should justify those feelings to a mentally healthy person, she settled into a depression that has dominated her life for fifteen years or more. When I asked why her feelings never affected our sex life, she said, "because you are doing it for me and us, and not just for you."

We never recall an instance of turning sex down after our first year of marriage. Its always decided before the first touch happens. Once she touches me in that way, I would never dream of stopping. If my body doesn't go along with the ride, it'll still be a very intimate time. If I send the signals that I'm interested through touching hours before, and she doesn't respond to it, then I would never dream of initiating sex. Sometimes, I'll touch her lower back, and she'll say, "I started," and we know that intercourse is off the menu. Just means that she needs even more touching.

I admit that I'm not like many guys. We turned the subject into a discourse before we were married. It was the area that we wanted to get right because we had both been sexually abused as children. Also, on a lighter note, we were married by a Comanchee who is protestant who happened to require that we take a course on the subject of sexual compatability. A long, drawn out course that he taught. He was harder on me because my grandmother was Creek.

My point is that the sex life revolves around your assumptions that you bring into it, and unhealthy assumptions seem to rule this board sometimes.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Halien said:


> I think that many of the issues posted on the board are built on unhealthy assumptions, and personally, it would be nice if some level of acceptance were to be brought into the disussion so it can turn into a helpful discussion for those who have problems in the sex area. I'm not talking about this thread, but actually agreeing with you in saying that we need to redefine the whole discussion.
> 
> I know my marriage is not the norm. In fact, I didn't come to this site for the sex issue. My wife just has psychological problems that make it almost impossible for her to trust people, and so she often feels something akin to hate for me, yet this never affects our sex life. Once she realized that I had not done the things that should justify those feelings to a mentally healthy person, she settled into a depression that has dominated her life for fifteen years or more. When I asked why her feelings never affected our sex life, she said, "because you are doing it for me and us, and not just for you."
> 
> ...



Halien, oh my goodness, I love your post! I especially like what you said about "redefining the whole discussion" and how the assumptions that we all bring into it play a primary role. Wow!

I have 2 questions. 

1. You'd said "We never recall an instance of turning sex down after our first year of marriage." --- does this mean that during the first year you DID turn one another down?

2. You'd said (regarding the Comanchee) that "He was harder on me because my grandmother was Creek." --- is that a typo? or... what is "Creek"?


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> So there seems to be a big push to alter not just the frequency, but to alter the women's (typically the women's) actual level of desire.
> 
> That sounds like a good thing to discuss. Similarly, we can discuss altering the HD person's level of desire. To be fair -but also to examine all the various _*possibilities*_ available here.


I think it is interesting to note that in the last month that I have been posting on this board, I have only noted a handful of cases where a LD partner asked for help in increasing their own libido (as opposed to them asking how to decrease the libido of their HD partner), while the majority of posts have been cases where a HD partner asks for help in increasing their partner's libido (as opposed to asking how to decrease their own.) This seems to imply that somehow, for some reason, a LD partner is seen as being the partner that is deficient/defective, and therefore, needs help. I typically take umbrage and bristle at this, as I am the LD person in my marriage, and don't consider myself defective. I also question the definition of LD - as it is entirely relative. If I want sex once a week, but my partner wants it two times a day, then I am the LD. But if my partner goes to only wanting it once a month, then I have become the HD.

We are all different. I do agree with Grayson's comments - in that I think any committed long-term relationship like a marriage is more likely to have variances over time between partners' desire levels, and if we want to talk actual solutions, then we need to realize that BOTH partners will need to work at compromising to mitigate the differences between them. It might be more beneficial to try and educate people that there are differences in drive levels amongst people (hard to understand in this hyper-sexed world we live in that says everybody needs to be having lots and lots of sex right now), and that commitment to and compromise with your spouse and marriage is most important.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Creek is another Native American.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> Also, it's a different ballgame if a woman is pressuring a man for more sex. She's bearing the brunt of the consequence, so it's different than the man wanting more "access" to a woman's insides. I'm not even judging any of it - I'm just saying it's different, biologically. Can you agree with that?


Indeed it is a different ballgame for women than for men. While my husband may not know what it feels like to have PMS, morning sickness, childbirth, menopause, or innumerable other things associated with the extra parts that are female, he has certainly been able to develop an understanding and compassion for the issues those differences cause. He also has learned to celebrate those things that are inherently female and has shown himself to be somewhat in awe and reverence of them at times.

As a woman, likewise, I really do not understand what it is like for him as a man (although I do admit to envying him the lack of monthly hormonal fluctuations he enjoys!). Instead, we both try to be understanding of and inspired by the differences between female and male.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

The stronger your sense of entitlement the lower your sex drive. You view yourself as the most perfect of all perfect beings and the hell with anyone who thinks you should change. That's the complication. I as the spouse who actually likes lovemaking, am viewed as little more than a rutting beast while she, freshly stepped from a golden cloud on high is disdainful of anything which takes time away from my duties as temple servant to the goddess. 

"Sex? Dear me, I don't even poop. A white dove comes to carry it away."

Or, you could have a 2 cylinder spouse in a V-8 world. And their excuse is "I don't HAVE 8 cylinders, I only have 2. There's nothing to be done about it!"

Honestly I think there's no point. No more so than trying to get your spouse to change their eye color. Just give up. That harder you struggle the more you choke.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Enchantment said:


> I think it is interesting to note that in the last month that I have been posting on this board, I have only noted a handful of cases where a LD partner asked for help in increasing their own libido (as opposed to them asking how to decrease the libido of their HD partner), while the majority of posts have been cases where a HD partner asks for help in increasing their partner's libido (as opposed to asking how to decrease their own.) This seems to imply that somehow, for some reason, a LD partner is seen as being the partner that is deficient/defective, and therefore, needs help. I typically take umbrage and bristle at this, as I am the LD person in my marriage, and don't consider myself defective. I also question the definition of LD - as it is entirely relative. If I want sex once a week, but my partner wants it two times a day, then I am the LD. But if my partner goes to only wanting it once a month, then I have become the HD.
> 
> We are all different. I do agree with Grayson's comments - in that I think any committed long-term relationship like a marriage is more likely to have variances over time between partners' desire levels, and if we want to talk actual solutions, then we need to realize that BOTH partners will need to work at compromising to mitigate the differences between them. It might be more beneficial to try and educate people that there are differences in drive levels amongst people (hard to understand in this hyper-sexed world we live in that says everybody needs to be having lots and lots of sex right now), and that commitment to and compromise with your spouse and marriage is most important.


enchantment, what a thoughtful post. And I like what you said re: "commitment to and compromise with your spouse and marriage is most important". 

You make a good point about how relative the the whole HD and LD thing is. (It becomes an issue relative to our particular partner.)

I wonder how much cultural attitudes play a part. You mentioned our hyper-sexed world that says everyone should be having lots and lots of sex right now. And I've mentioned similar thoughts in previous posts.

I mean, no one would've accused our great-grandmothers of being "LD". Wasn't it often the case that women, by nature, were expected to find sex very distasteful?

Now I'm not suggesting that we should go back to that. I'm just saying - I think these overall cultural notions about sex seem to greatly affect our perception of what is "normal" for our partners to think/want/feel. And it kinda goes back to what Halien said - about the "assumptions" we bring into our relationships.

Not to get too off topic - but seems like there might be a correlation, too, between how we've removed so many sex boundaries in our modern world, and have also removed so many food boundaries, too. It is so often assumed that over-indulging in both is the "norm" and just naturally what everyone wants to do, at all times (and should have the inalienable right to do). 

It's great that we've removed a lot of shame from sex and food. But it seems like we've swung the pendulum to the complete opposite side, where it's an ingrained assumption now that everyone "should" be wanting to screw and stuff their faces - at all times. Without boundary or penalty. And if someone is nonplussed or not really all that interested, we wonder if something is wrong with them, or wonder where they're hiding all the voracious "desire" for sex and food. 

Sorry to get off-topic and throw in that food thing. Something sparked a thought for me - of how I'm often harassed for not really enjoying fast food and heavy foods like pasta with cream sauce. It makes me feel bloated and ill to eat stuff like that, but occasionally people will try to force it on me saying, "Oh come on, you know you really want it! Live a little!". (To which I reply, "Honestly, I really really don't.") 

There are times when it seems like some people seriously can't fathom the idea that REALLY I don't "want" to eat it, because I know it will make me feel barfy. But the assumption is that I'm not following my personal authentic "desire". It's assumed that I "desire" the food, but am exhibiting enormous "self-control". (Incorrect assumption.)


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Enchantment said:


> Indeed it is a different ballgame for women than for men. While my husband may not know what it feels like to have PMS, morning sickness, childbirth, menopause, or innumerable other things associated with the extra parts that are female, he has certainly been able to develop an understanding and compassion for the issues those differences cause. He also has learned to celebrate those things that are inherently female and has shown himself to be somewhat in awe and reverence of them at times.
> 
> As a woman, likewise, I really do not understand what it is like for him as a man (although I do admit to envying him the lack of monthly hormonal fluctuations he enjoys!). Instead, we both try to be understanding of and inspired by the differences between female and male.


Enchantment - that's as good as it gets, I think! Awareness, appreciation, the attempt to try to understand one another frame of reference, compassion, and even celebration of differences!

"Inspired", too. I like that you said that. I'm going to add that to my list of overall desired objectives!


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Runs like Dog said:


> Creek is another Native American.


Thanks RLD! I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't know that.  I hope it wasn't offensive that I said the "typo" thing. I should've taken the initiative and googled before posting...


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> It seems fair to say that it tends to be the man more often than the woman, though. Would you agree with that? Not "always", but as the more frequent situation?


I'm not even sure I can agree with that particular conclusion.

I can agree that it appears to be more likely for the man to speak up about it, be it to their partner or on a forum such as this one.



miss-understood said:


> Also, it's a different ballgame if a woman is pressuring a man for more sex. She's bearing the brunt of the consequence, so it's different than the man wanting more "access" to a woman's insides. I'm not even judging any of it - I'm just saying it's different, biologically. Can you agree with that?


In the strictest, most clinical of terms, I can 100% agree. But, again, taking your later posts into account, you seem to be proceeding from another false conclusion that such overly frequent invasive, painful procedures and reactions to sex are the norm for women. Responses in this very thread have indicated that this is not so.

Please note, no one is suggesting that such consequences don't happen, nor the possibility that some (from anecdotal evidence, a very small percentage) women do have more extreme biological reactions.



miss-understood said:


> That is part of why I posted the question/idea. This may be a very unfair generalization, but in my experience (take this as just my personal experience for right now) I've been a part of so many conversations with people experiencing this conflict in their relationships digging into how to "get" their wife (or themselves, as the wife) to want to have sex _*more*_. I have not experienced an honest conversation about how to get men to want sex less (as part of that overall idea of adjusting to a middle ground). It's more often a case of the HD husband to (like you said) "accepting sex less often" (than he wants).
> 
> But that's not the same as finding ways for them to literally "_*want *_it less".


And here you do go into an unfair generalization, that once again appears born of that very first false conclusion, going right back to a "horny man vs. pressured woman" view of and approach to the situation.

Generally speaking, myself, it's easier for someone with a larger appetite to curb that appetite. Thus, there is less need for the partner with the higher drive to need to "want it less," as everyone learns from an early age that "want" does not always lead to "have." A child may want a toy every time the family walks into a store, but that doesn't mean the parents will buy one. Likewise a higher drive partner may want sex (for example) daily, but is aware that his/her partner has a lower drive, and thus, knows how to read the proverbial signs that indicates their partner is interested and/or when to take "no" for an answer.

Which is a perfect segue to....



miss-understood said:


> Back to the flip side, I've talked to men who are not satisfied with their wives merely "having sex more". They want to find ways to make her "*want* it more".
> 
> So there seems to be a big push to alter not just the frequency, but to alter the women's (typically the women's) actual level of desire.


Again with the "man vs. women" approach. As I've done so far, I'm going to discard the gender portion of the argument, as it continues to proceed from the false conclusion that you say you didn't intend to imply.

Such a situation makes perfect sense, if you consider it. The higher drive partner is not desiring sex with their partner just to "get their rocks off," but as part of intimacy in their relationship; they're not after the mechanics of sex, but the intimacy. It's supposed to be enjoyable for both, so they want it to be enjoyable for both, not a grudgingly accepted chore for one.



miss-understood said:


> That sounds like a good thing to discuss. Similarly, we can discuss altering the HD person's level of desire. To be fair -but also to examine all the various _*possibilities*_ available here.


Again, there would appear to be less of a need (for want of a better term) to decrease the HD partner's level of desire, provided that they, like so many, are aware and accepting that their partner's drive is lower. In such situations, the logical conclusion is that seeking to increase the lower drive partner's level of desire to allow for both partners to fully enjoy themselves at that mutually agreeable middle ground is the better course of action.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Hi Grayson,

Help me to understand something you said here.

How is me saying that something that is true (in my personal experience) the same as "drawing a conclusion". 

In my personal experience and circle, I've seen men pressuring for more sex. And women being not nearly as interested (some outright averse). I (personally) have not seen the reverse. Personally.

I mean this as an expression of my experience - as part of a conversation. And not a decided "conclusion". Do you know what I mean, and am asking? 

I can accept if someone else's experience is different. 

I'm not being facetious, I really want to know more to understand how to better phrase my personal thoughts - that are honestly not intended to be "conclusions". 

Secondly, you'd said "... the logical conclusion is that seeking to increase the lower drive partner's level of desire to allow for both partners to fully enjoy themselves at that mutually agreeable middle ground is the better course of action."

If we're talking about a true middle ground - then it would be logical to also (concurrently) seek to lower the HD person's drive, to also allow for both partners to more fully enjoy NOT having sex. Wouldn't it? 

I mean, if we're talking about a true "middle ground", here. And both people learning to more fully enjoy what the other enjoys.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> Grayson - if I said that the partner with the higher drive is always that man, then I misspoke. I know that it's not always the man. You are so right. Sorry about that, if I misspoke in that way.
> 
> It seems fair to say that it tends to be the man more often than the woman, though. Would you agree with that? Not "always", but as the more frequent situation?


In my anecdotal experience it isn't even close. 

Maybe I'd agree if you said it is more often for the man to be HD when a couple is in their 20's who weren't trying to make babies, I'd agree. Many 45 y/o women have high drive, but they can't hold a candle to a 23 y/o woman who wants to get pregnant.

As soon as they are older I know a lot more women who wish for more.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> In my personal experience and circle, I've seen men pressuring for more sex. And women being not nearly as interested (some outright averse). I (personally) have not seen the reverse. Personally.


That's the opposite of my experience. I suspect part of it may be that a man who is still committed won't ***** about his wife to other men. When you do hear about it is when they divorce. Even then, it is only a few cases that I can recall.

What I have heard more from men are comments about feeling bad about not being able to keep up. Given a man's psyche, that's a tough thing to admit so I'm sure more speak out.

I've known several women who've divorced over not enough sex. One would freely admit that it was because he wanted in her words "only missionary once a week and no oral either way." That plus plenty of comments to me and even more that my wife has shared with me from her friends / acquaintances. In our circle of friends, we are the only couple where the man has a higher drive. Even then, it is barely higher.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

larry, I completely respect your experience here. And I believe what you're saying. It's just so far from my personal experience. 

I hear you though, and believe you. Not that you need MY approval or to prove it to me. I'm just saying - I think our experiences are probably both very real and true. 

Also, I have a slight side-note reaction. And this may also give insight to my previous comments, who knows. Me and a few of my girlfriends from college have divulged to one another that we worked really hard back then at pretending to be more into sex than we really were, because we were young and insecure at the time - and acting like we were very sexual was a surefire way to get men to like us and say we were "the perfect woman" (hypersexual - willing to do anything) they'd "always dreamed of". And so much "more fun" than their last girlfriend. It gave us an edge over the competition, so to speak. But it was motivated by a desire for approval - not motivated by an actual desire for sex, itself. 

If you would've asked us - back then - we would've vehemently insisted that the hypersexual behavior was due to personal desire for sex. That was the "right" answer back then. It made us hip and cool, and independent "take charge" women. Now... we're older, more secure, and have admitted to one another that it was a big act. To get male attention and approval. (But also to avoid criticism for being "hung up".)

This is not everyone's story. So please don't think that I'm saying that every female shares it. They don't!

However, I still occasionally run into men these days who knew me "back then", who comment on it. One said to me recently, "I always thought you were so cool - because you were so confident in your sexuality and unashamed of pursuing your own pleasure". I was like "Pleasure? Ha! Dude, that was all a big act, to get you guys to like me and think I was so super-cool. Obviously, it totally worked."

My point is not that all women are inauthentic. But that there is a lot of social pressure on young women, especially. Acting super sexual gets us women a lot of praise. Sometimes we (as women, especially young and insecure women) are addicted to the praise, and have done this without even realizing that the true motivation was never sexual in nature - until much later. 

The desire to "please", and fear of being rejected, runs so deep. Especially in our youth...

Just some thoughts to consider. Not representative of all young women's experiences!


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> Halien, oh my goodness, I love your post! I especially like what you said about "redefining the whole discussion" and how the assumptions that we all bring into it play a primary role. Wow!
> 
> I have 2 questions.
> 
> ...


Our first year of marriage was was rocky, and she was diagnosed as bipolar. We both realized that we had to compromise and focus on the things we learned in counseling.

And, contrary to what some in the area believe, not all lower Creek were absorbed into the Seminoles or Cherokee in their westward expansion. In addition to my grandmother, my father's grandmother was also Creek. You would never know that she was native amercian by looking at me, other than a permanent tan and not much body hair. Our pastor was a transplant who left his part of the country when he married a white woman, due to predjudices, and moved to a new part of the country, where I lived after marrying. He could tell that I had mixed ancestry, so he picked on me in a good-hatured way.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

miss-understood: That is EXACTLY why I think the feminists have royally screwed women. They're not wired to behave that way, no matter what they try to tell themselves.

That's not what I want for my daughters. I'm trying hard to help them see things that way. I don't want repression either.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> larry, I completely respect your experience here. And I believe what you're saying. It's just so far from my personal experience.
> 
> I hear you though, and believe you. Not that you need MY approval or to prove it to me. I'm just saying - I think our experiences are probably both very real and true.
> 
> ...


I don't doubt that the observations you have made about your youthful experiences could also apply to women who are much older.

I am in my forties, and I have a dear friend who is the same age as me and who got divorced two years ago. She claims that she feels the same pressures to "perform" in order to get men to "come back" that you mentioned. My response to her has been that men who are like that are not worth it, and to simply move on! 

But I am sure there are a lot of insecure women who fall in to this trap, much to the detriment of both the woman and the man.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

larry.gray said:


> miss-understood: That is EXACTLY why I think the feminists have royally screwed women. They're not wired to behave that way, no matter what they try to tell themselves.
> 
> That's not what I want for my daughters. I'm trying hard to help them see things that way. I don't want repression either.


Who is not wired to behave this way, women? Women aren't wired for sex? I don't understand this. ALL species are wired for sex, females being no different. I love sex. It's pleasurable, fun, connecting, burns calories and just all around awesome. How did feminism screw up women in this department? 
I'm a feminist and I have sex with my husband because of all the reasons I mentioned above. It wasn't/isn't me pretending and I certainly didn't become sexual to somehow hook a dude. 
I honestly don't know a single woman who doesn't have a sex drive. They might not want it with their husbands but they do indeed have sexual feelings. If a woman doesn't want sex, there is something else at play. For all those women out there who tell their husbands they just don't have a sex drive, I guarantee you they all secretly masturbate. They have a drive for sure.
I am not sure I understand your post about feminism screwing things up for women. If anything, women were allowed to openly be sexual and not lie there and think of England. Curious as to your thoughts on this. :scratchhead:


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

miss-understood said:


> However, I still occasionally run into men these days who knew me "back then", who comment on it. One said to me recently, "I always thought you were so cool - because you were so confident in your sexuality and unashamed of pursuing your own pleasure". I was like "Pleasure? Ha! Dude, that was all a big act, to get you guys to like me and think I was so super-cool. Obviously, it totally worked."
> 
> My point is not that all women are inauthentic. But that there is a lot of social pressure on young women, especially. Acting super sexual gets us women a lot of praise. Sometimes we (as women, especially young and insecure women) are addicted to the praise, and have done this without even realizing that the true motivation was never sexual in nature - until much later.
> 
> ...


I am accually glad to see a woman ourtight admit this with honesty. It proves the whole "bait and switch" thing men talk about -to snag them. 

I personally never felt pressured to act this way at all in my youth, peer pressure never affected me. Most of my girlfriends started having sex, living wilder but I remained firm in my convictions. I would not lie about who I was, what I wanted, what I believed, if someone didn't like me, my attitude was it was their loss. I outrightly told the men I met who tried to get more , they would have to marry me to get me in bed, talk about a turn off, they never lasted long. My husband was the only one who stuck around. My test was pretty "in your face" I guess, I weeded them ALL Out- I was somewhat of a prude. 


I don't want my daughter to ever feel pressure to act a certain way to get a man. I feel strongly about this & will have many open talks with her. I was a bit TOO prudish back then. I hope to teach my daughter a better way, a more balanced way to deal with her boyfrirends and their lust for physical attention when dating. 

This will be a dilemma I am sure. A question for TAM insight in the parenting section. I got a # of years yet to go.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am accually glad to see a woman ourtight admit this with honesty. It proves the whole "bait and switch" thing men talk about -to snag them.
> 
> I personally never felt pressured to act this way at all in my youth, peer pressure never affected me. Most of my girlfriends started having sex, living wilder but I remained firm in my convictions. I would not lie about who I was, what I wanted, what I believed, if someone didn't like me, my attitude was it was their loss. I outrightly told the men I met who tried to get more , they would have to marry me to get me in bed, talk about a turn off, they never lasted long. My husband was the only one who stuck around. My test was pretty "in your face" I guess, I weeded them ALL Out- I was somewhat of a prude.
> 
> ...


There are plenty of women like you. As a young cat once you realize that you move on to the woman that's giving it up. Pigs, I know


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

larry.gray said:


> miss-understood: That is EXACTLY why I think the feminists have royally screwed women. They're not wired to behave that way, no matter what they try to tell themselves.
> 
> That's not what I want for my daughters. I'm trying hard to help them see things that way. I don't want repression either.


larry, I know what you mean. I do not have daughters, but I sometimes wonder how I would handle this. 

The key, I think, it to encourage honesty and _*authenticity*_. When I was younger, I felt shamed for my TRUE desires for love and commitment. So I hid them so far away, I forgot that I'd ever felt them in the first place.

I'm 40 and happily married now (to a really awesome guy - seriously the greatest man I've ever met - ever.). But you know, I nearly missed out on his sincere love and devotion, because even in my 30's I was still afraid of admitting that I wanted a commitment, and to be committed.

Enough about me, though. My point in replying was to say to you: I know what you mean about your daughters, and I applaud your commitment to helping them be _*true to themselves*_ (whatever that means - for them!).


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Enchantment said:


> I don't doubt that the observations you have made about your youthful experiences could also apply to women who are much older.
> 
> I am in my forties, and I have a dear friend who is the same age as me and who got divorced two years ago. She claims that she feels the same pressures to "perform" in order to get men to "come back" that you mentioned. My response to her has been that men who are like that are not worth it, and to simply move on!
> 
> But I am sure there are a lot of insecure women who fall in to this trap, much to the detriment of both the woman and the man.


Enchantment - I know what you mean! 

Does your friend believe your advice? Or does the potential rejection cause her anxiety?

I have 2 really dear friends who are our age (40's) both out on the dating scene and giving me updates. One said to me awhile ago (and I think I mentioned this in another way earlier post, just in passing) that she was accused of "dangling the golden p*$$y" recently because she didn't sleep with a guy she'd just met (and barely knew) _*by the 3rd date*_! Apparently, according to my friend, that's the current "standard". Gotta put out by the 3rd date, or you're obviously using the man. (Using? I thought it was called dating?)

She's confused and conflicted right now, about how she's supposed to behave. And if she has a "right" to date without putting out asap. (A "right"... to "date". There was a time when the purpose of dating was to get to know the other person, slowly, over time. I think?)

My other friend has pretty clear standards regarding not sleeping with men she's just met - even if this leads her to be rejected (and it has). Her policy is that she doesn't feel it's right to do something so intimate with another human being (sex... exchanging bodily fluids and "bonding" with them in that way) until you know them well enough to exchange ATM card PIN numbers. After all, money is replaceable, she says. Your body and _*your heart*_ is more precious than dollars even.

If you can't trust someone with your PIN #... why entrust them with your body and heart? 

That's her philosophy, anyway...


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Who is not wired to behave this way, women? Women aren't wired for sex? I don't understand this. ALL species are wired for sex, females being no different. I love sex. It's pleasurable, fun, connecting, burns calories and just all around awesome. How did feminism screw up women in this department?
> I'm a feminist and I have sex with my husband because of all the reasons I mentioned above. It wasn't/isn't me pretending and I certainly didn't become sexual to somehow hook a dude.
> I honestly don't know a single woman who doesn't have a sex drive. They might not want it with their husbands but they do indeed have sexual feelings. If a woman doesn't want sex, there is something else at play. For all those women out there who tell their husbands they just don't have a sex drive, I guarantee you they all secretly masturbate. They have a drive for sure.
> I am not sure I understand your post about feminism screwing things up for women. If anything, women were allowed to openly be sexual and not lie there and think of England. Curious as to your thoughts on this. :scratchhead:


Hey TRBE - I know what you mean! I think larry and I were both trying to say something a little different from how you read it. 

We were referring to the ways in which the sexual revolution caused a backlash _*repression*_ of a different sort - where women began to be pressured to act like men in many areas of life (including the bedroom), and pressured to deny the full scope of their true desires. Instead of being shamed for being promiscuous, as we were in the past, we're now often shamed out in the dating world if we admit to wanting a committed relationship. So many of us have subsequently spent years repressing and hiding our true desires (for love and commitment - in addition to the sex part). Out of fear of judgment and scorn. That really sucks. That's not really sexual freedom. 

I think larry had mentioned in his post about his daughters - that he doesn't want them to fall prey to this pressure to deny their true desires - any of their true desires, this includes not wanting them to repress sexual desire either. 

So neither of us is saying that women don't want sex. Obviously, women do. And that's a good thing. 

That was what I was saying, anyway. 

I am also not begrudging any women who truly does want more casual sexual relationships. To each their own. The trouble is when there is intense social pressure that says certain desires are "wrong". It doesn't make the desires go away. People just start hiding them and feeling ashamed, I think?


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am accually glad to see a woman ourtight admit this with honesty. It proves the whole "bait and switch" thing men talk about -to snag them.
> 
> I personally never felt pressured to act this way at all in my youth, peer pressure never affected me. Most of my girlfriends started having sex, living wilder but I remained firm in my convictions. I would not lie about who I was, what I wanted, what I believed, if someone didn't like me, my attitude was it was their loss. I outrightly told the men I met who tried to get more , they would have to marry me to get me in bed, talk about a turn off, they never lasted long. My husband was the only one who stuck around. My test was pretty "in your face" I guess, I weeded them ALL Out- I was somewhat of a prude.
> 
> ...


SimplyAmorous - I applaud your conviction and your (ultimately) great weeding-out process! I have a girlfriend who has always been like you. She really set me straight awhile ago - I was so afraid to be authentic. Luckily I wised-up, before missing out on marrying my husband - a truly great man. I was so afraid of rejection - it took me awhile to learn that the ones who would do the rejecting were the ones that weren't right for the long term anyway. 

Hey, all the best to you with helping your daughters with all this. I have a strong feeling that you are going to provide them with some truly great insight and guidance!


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Who is not wired to behave this way, women? Women aren't wired for sex? I don't understand this. ALL species are wired for sex, females being no different. I love sex. It's pleasurable, fun, connecting, burns calories and just all around awesome. How did feminism screw up women in this department?


I need to be more specific. I'm referring to serial sexual partners where she jumps into the sack early in the relationship. I don't think it is healthy for men, but women pay FAR more consequences for this behavior. In a committed long term relationship that attitude is wonderful.



Therealbrighteyes said:


> I'm a feminist and I have sex with my husband because of all the reasons I mentioned above. It wasn't/isn't me pretending and I certainly didn't become sexual to somehow hook a dude.


Good for you. But you're not too much of a feminist because you married a man 



Therealbrighteyes said:


> I honestly don't know a single woman who doesn't have a sex drive. They might not want it with their husbands but they do indeed have sexual feelings.


Feelings are one thing. Carousing regularly, having abortions and catching diseases are another.



Therealbrighteyes said:


> If a woman doesn't want sex, there is something else at play. For all those women out there who tell their husbands they just don't have a sex drive, I guarantee you they all secretly masturbate. They have a drive for sure.


There is a spectrum out there no doubt. Just as there are with men.



Therealbrighteyes said:


> I am not sure I understand your post about feminism screwing things up for women. If anything, women were allowed to openly be sexual and not lie there and think of England. Curious as to your thoughts on this. :scratchhead:


The part that is screwed up is not the ability to enjoy sex. It is telling them the lie that there is no-consequence casual sex. Sorry, it doesn't exist for either gender.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Kobo said:


> There are plenty of women like you. As a young cat once you realize that you move on to the woman that's giving it up. Pigs, I know


Even in my early teens, I was wise enough to recognize this. I learned years later, even my dad used to tell my mom before they married -he was going to "die" if he didn't get it. I found that pretty funny. 

Although I did have a little fun with a neighbor boy that was pretty naughty, and once on the Space Mountain ride when a group of teens took a trip to Disney, I don't regret a little bit of playfulness down the pants in my teens, but I knew if I gave my WHOLE SELF in that intimate way to some guy & he threw it away casually, I would be devestated beyond imagination. 

The fish I caught, who stuck around & waited patiently for me -was never the Piggish type, although I wish he was MORE SO these days, that is some mud I like rolling in now .  Back then, I used to get annoyed with all the flirting, didn't believe a word out of any guys mouth. My husband didn't act like that so I found him more "true" -- Now I am the Pig who wants to flirt all day - and relive some of that "youth" I didn't indulge in. 

I don't regret waiting for intercourse or who I married, so all in all, my prudishness hooked me up with a good loving man that has never done me wrong. But I still have some regrets , they are just different than many others. 




miss-understood said:


> SimplyAmorous - I applaud your conviction and your (ultimately) great weeding-out process! I have a girlfriend who has always been like you. She really set me straight awhile ago - I was so afraid to be authentic. Luckily I wised-up, before missing out on marrying my husband - a truly great man. I was so afraid of rejection - it took me awhile to learn that the ones who would do the rejecting were the ones that weren't right for the long term anyway.


 Well now you have something to teach your daughter(s) too -dont be afraid to be honest about your past either, just like you are here. I meet so many Mothers 
who are afraid to admit what they did before their older daughters- when they have "the talk". WHY - teach them, help them avoid the same pitfalls in their youth, let them learn from you, even if it was something you regret, We ALL have some things we regret, it is the human experience. 

I regret how I went into marraige with a "sex is dirty" mindset cause of too much guilt & shame for having a "little" fun. 

I dont' want my daughter to walk that road. 




miss-understood said:


> Hey, all the best to you with helping your daughters with all this. I have a strong feeling that you are going to provide them with some truly great insight and guidance!


I only have 1 daughter -she will get more than an ear full from this MOM, I have endless books on sex, relationships, Men, women, hormones, etc -She'll know more than anyone in her school ! She will likely be able to explain to the guy why hormonally he is going out of his mind, can't concentrate & has an obsessieve inclinatin to flirt with her. Ha ha. 

I already talk to my sons about many many things other mothers would BLUSH over.  Even my oldest 2 , by their own choice & convictions, want to save it till marraige, they wear their purity rings proudly. Social pressure has had no effect on them , they even seem to ENJOY going against the grain. My 3rd son is shyer, quieter, so we'll see how that goes. 

Thank you for your words Miss-understood.  

With this thread, I wasnt sure how you felt about your husband, kinda assumed he was badgering you for sex, but you say here in this post -you married a "truly great man". So you don't desire to LOWER this great man's drive


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> We were referring to the ways in which the sexual revolution caused a backlash _*repression*_ of a different sort - where women began to be pressured to act like men in many areas of life (including the bedroom), and pressured to deny the full scope of their true desires. Instead of being shamed for being promiscuous, as we were in the past, we're now often shamed out in the dating world if we admit to wanting a committed relationship. So many of us have subsequently spent years repressing and hiding our true desires (for love and commitment - in addition to the sex part). Out of fear of judgment and scorn. That really sucks. That's not really sexual freedom.


You're expressing what I was trying to say very well. I don't claim that women _should_ feel shame, but that it is a reality for so many women. 



miss-understood said:


> I think larry had mentioned in his post about his daughters - that he doesn't want them to fall prey to this pressure to deny their true desires - any of their true desires, this includes not wanting them to repress sexual desire either.


Again, nailing it exactly. I want them to have a happy, fulfilling life. That would include a good sex life, and that really only comes from a true, loving, committed bond.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

miss-understood said:


> My other friend has pretty clear standards regarding not sleeping with men she's just met - even if this leads her to be rejected (and it has). Her policy is that she doesn't feel it's right to do something so intimate with another human being (sex... exchanging bodily fluids and "bonding" with them in that way) until you know them well enough to exchange ATM card PIN numbers. After all, money is replaceable, she says. Your body and _*your heart*_ is more precious than dollars even.
> 
> If you can't trust someone with your PIN #... why entrust them with your body and heart?
> 
> That's her philosophy, anyway...


I guess this was the friend you was talking about . Boy do I ever agree with this! This is a great example, I am going to remember this -for talking to my daughter someday. 

I think with Dating when you get older, ALOT of these men may have come from sexless marraiges though and they do not want to be stuck with another woman who doesn't like sex,-who could blame them (not me!) -they had enough of that misery. 

I think if I found myself single again, if something happened to my husband, I would still not JUMP as quickly as men would like but I sure wouldn't be afraid to talk about how much I LOVE & crave the act & what I may be worth if they hold on. I would likely be seen as a major D*** tease - but I still would make them wait--for genitals touching sex anyway. We could do plenty of other things in the mean time. Even though I am older, I would still NOT be ok with casual no commitment sex -without love & meaning. I would still be crushed if they walked away. 

I wonder how your friend comes off to these men -I wonder if they look at her as prudish -does she allow any kind of intimate touching or does she let them know even talking about sex is a turn off to her and not her values? 

Curious is all. I think it is a fine line to be a good woman in this society, one who LOVES sex but isn't too loose , so she can hold out for her Prince who has her best interests at heart.


----------



## Syrum (Feb 22, 2011)

SA and Miss understood.

I agree with the idea of not giving something so precious as your self away to just anyone.

I have only had a few sexual partners, all of them long term relationships.

I think men need to be taught to value women, value the act of sex, (part of the reason I can't stand porn, makes women disposable creatures), and also be taught that they shouldn't be giving it away to just any one either.

I will teach my son the same thing as my daughter. 

Sex is awesome and wonderful, just make sure the person you have it with someone who really really values you and shows through their actions how much you mean to them.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Syrum said:


> SA and Miss understood.
> 
> I agree with the idea of not giving something so precious as your self away to just anyone.
> 
> ...


You are right. In my opinion, many young women enable young men to treat them like a commodity, but mostly out of insecurities of their own. My son recently went to public school, and we were saddened to learn how many young women were offering BJs as freely as candy. Fortunately, he eventually came to his senses and remembered our teaching, admitting this to us and promising to do better at respecting the girls in his life.

Why do so many people miss the implications of so many guys saying that they will never marry again? They can get what they want without emotional investment, but the actions ultimately hurt those in their lives. My biggest regret was that my son was apparently mesmerized by my own past, and didn't completely believe what we had worked so hard to teach him until his own careless attitude began to hurt the girls who had deep insecurities that led to their offers.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

SimplyAmorous said:


> With this thread, I wasnt sure how you felt about your husband, kinda assumed he was badgering you for sex, but you say here in this post -you married a "truly great man". So you don't desire to LOWER this great man's drive


SimplyAmorous - This is a partial reply. I mean no offense by replying to only one part of your post. (Busy day! I'm jotting off a couple of quick replies now, and I'll write more later.)

But yes... when I posted this initial thread I really meant it as an overall question for discussion/consideration: "Why are we so averse to discussing this _*idea*_?" 

I wasn't posting because I, personally, am being badgered at home for more sex.  Ha ha ha.

But secondly, although _*my*_ husband's sex drive isn't an issue... something you suggested ruffled my feathers slightly. Because lets say he DID have a higher sex drive... would that make him _*not*_ a great man? I'm pretty certain that I'd still consider him a really great man.

And maybe I would also contemplate how "lowering his sex drive" might help him. But _*only*_ if _*he*_ was saying that he was experiencing major distress over it.

I'm not saying that I would _*seek*_ to lower his drive as the end-all solution. I'm just saying that the _*idea *_would only ever become relevant to consider _*if he was expressing distress*_. 

It would also not be the first - or only - idea that I'd ponder. 

Does that make sense?

I mean, I don't know for sure what I'd do. But I'm pretty sure that it would upset me for him to be in distress, and that I'd be motivated to think up a bunch of different ideas and try different things out.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

larry.gray said:


> You're expressing what I was trying to say very well. I don't claim that women _should_ feel shame, but that it is a reality for so many women.
> 
> 
> Again, nailing it exactly. I want them to have a happy, fulfilling life. That would include a good sex life, and that really only comes from a true, loving, committed bond.



Larry, thanks! It's funny you said this stuff because when I read your reply (clarifying the feminism/sexual revolution questions) I thought, "larry is expressing this much better than I did". And I was going to post to you and tell you that.

And really, we came in from slightly different angles, I guess. You mentioned more of the "lie of no-consequence casual sex" part. And I mentioned more of the pressure on girls to repress their relationship desires. But these are both really big pieces of the overall pie! 

I do have one more comment. And I don't know what you think about this one. I agree with you regarding how destructive it is to promote that lie of "no-consequence casual sex". 

I think that the lie goes a little bit further. Into us thinking that there is ever no-consequence sex. Even loving married sex sometimes has some neg consequences (in addition to the positives). I know you probably already know that I think this! No big newsflash! Ha ha ha.

But here's the thing: my view is that acknowledging consequences doesn't have to be bad. (Does it?) To accept reality, respect one another's differences, and truly take care of one another, in body/mind/spirit seems realistic and truly intimate/loving to me. And who said any sex (even between married people) was supposed to ever be consequence-free anyway? That's so unrealistic. 

I have a friend who had an abortion without telling her husband. She didn't want to "upset" him or burden him with the messiness, so she took it on herself, in isolation. This is extreme, I know. And obviously, I'm not suggesting that there aren't other issues there in their relationship. But she's bound and determined to make sex as burden-free for him as possible. I've spoken with her before about this, and she seems to firmly believe that sex "should" be fun and consequence-free. As if it's his "right" and she messed up the "consequence-free fun" with that burdensome "getting pregnant" thing that she pulled. I mean.. what?

Extreme example, I know.

But my underlying point is: I think sex can still be great despite acknowledging the downsides (the pain that it sometimes causes, and usually at the expense of the woman's body more so than the man's... it's just biological reality) and getting real about the consequences. Some may argue that it can even be better with all that awareness and honesty! 

That's what I think. What do you think?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

I agree that random sex is bad for both sexes. Women do get shamed for it much more often than men. There is literally no derogatory term for a man who screws around alot but there are plenty for women.

Now, on to sex being dangerous to a woman's body. There are so many ways to prevent pregnancy, STD's, UTI's, etc. I just don't see the logic in lowering a man's sex drive in an effort to prevent the above stated risks. I see the risks as being minimum at best. With the risk of STD's, if you are in a committed relationship and therefore not using condoms, STD's are no risk at all. If they are, then that's a totally different kettle of fish.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> Hi Grayson,
> 
> Help me to understand something you said here.
> 
> ...


Hey there. Was out most of the day for the ol' birthday. Sorry it took a bit to get back.

What I mean by saying you're "drawing a conclusion" is that you appear to be taking a small sampling - your personal experience, and assorted specific others' experiences - and determining that those circumstances are the norm. (For example, the notion that sex always and inevitably leads to frequent, regular, painful and invasive procedures and examinations. Or, in your initial question, the notion that men, and men only, require a lowering of sex drive.)




miss-understood said:


> Secondly, you'd said "... the logical conclusion is that seeking to increase the lower drive partner's level of desire to allow for both partners to fully enjoy themselves at that mutually agreeable middle ground is the better course of action."
> 
> If we're talking about a true middle ground - then it would be logical to also (concurrently) seek to lower the HD person's drive, to also allow for both partners to more fully enjoy NOT having sex. Wouldn't it?
> 
> I mean, if we're talking about a true "middle ground", here. And both people learning to more fully enjoy what the other enjoys.


As I've said, I don't see it as a necessity to lower the higher drive partner's drive, but (as they tend to do, anyway), their expectations (for want of a better term). Like I said in my previous post, most people learn at an early age that "want" does not always lead to "have." That kid in my earlier example won't *always *get a toy at the store. It's equivalent to understanding and curbing one's appetite: it's not that you don't get hungry, or hungry as often, necessarily, but you do know that you can't always stuff food in your mouth when the fancy strikes you.

In the larger sense, I'm also not all that sure what you mean by "fully enjoy(ing) NOT having sex." What I mean is that, like the axiom that one "can't prove a negative," I'm not sure that it's possible to "enjoy NOT doing anything." I may, for example, frequently watch TV, but one night decide to listen to music, instead. It's not that I'm "enjoying NOT watching TV," but rather that I *am *enjoying listening to music. It's more about enjoying what you *are *doing, instead of what you're *not *doing. Equivalent to the lower drive partner's situation, I don't drink. No reason beyond that I just never developed a taste for alcohol. I don't "enjoy NOT drinking." I just don't drink.

From that perspective, the ideal path to finding the middle ground remains exploring the possibility of increasing the lower drive partner's drive.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I agree that random sex is bad for both sexes. Women do get shamed for it much more often than men. There is literally no derogatory term for a man who screws around alot but there are plenty for women.


Hi TRBE - Well this is the thing that larry and I were mentioning though. These days it's not so much that girls get shamed for casual sex. Now they're pressure into casual sex and shamed for wanting a commitment. That's part of the downside that we were mentioning (of the sexual revolution). And the reverse repression.



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Now, on to sex being dangerous to a woman's body. There are so many ways to prevent pregnancy, STD's, UTI's, etc. I just don't see the logic in lowering a man's sex drive in an effort to prevent the above stated risks. I see the risks as being minimum at best. With the risk of STD's, if you are in a committed relationship and therefore not using condoms, STD's are no risk at all. If they are, then that's a totally different kettle of fish.


I think my initial points have gotten muddied up. The initial point of asking why we're not willing to discuss the idea of lowering a man's sex drive... I brought that up as something to discuss related to alleviating distress for men who are upset/"tortured" (or whatever) by sexual desire. The point was: how do we help men out?

The stuff about neg consequences to the female body... I'm pretty sure I brought those up as considerations specifically because in our current culture, we automatically jump to the assumption that the "solution" to a man _*wanting *_more sex is for a woman to supply it, to fulfill that "want". 

The other current cultural assumption is that sex is always great, always consequence-free (especially if you're married, somehow we think that erases all consequence). 

Preventing consequence was never intended to be the main focus of my initial thought. 

However, I think it makes sense to consider the greater consequences to the female body (than to the male body) especially when we're automatically jumping to the conclusion that the solution to men _*wanting *_more sex is for women to *provide* more sex. 

I think we need to look at all the various aspects.

Does that make sense?


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

miss-understood said:


> although _*my*_ husband's sex drive isn't an issue... something you suggested ruffled my feathers slightly. Because lets say he DID have a higher sex drive... would that make him _*not*_ a great man? I'm pretty certain that I'd still consider him a really great man.


Oh my No, not sure how you got that out of my sentence exactly but I would NEVER NEVER NEVER suggest a man is not "GREAT" if he is HIGH DRIVE and FAITHFUL, in fact He would be exceptionally GREAT in my eyes if he was HD and faithful, in comparison to a LD and faithful if I had to compare. 

And this is why --- it is "easier" for a LD man to restain his fantasy & sex drive, less of a chance of infidelity. You know statistically --Higher Testosterone men have more affairs than lower Test men. So if a woman can keep him at bay -she must really be doing her job!

Accually my husband is lower Test (not the antsy intense drive of other men), sometimes I think to myself, well this is why he never cheated on me, like big deal, doesnt say anything great about me- he just doesn't "need" much ! As you can tell, I "think" too much. I would never want to be married to a man too LD, it would upset me. What saves my husband is he still loves sex & "Physical touch" has always been his Primary Love Langauge. 



miss-understood said:


> And maybe I would also contemplate how "lowering his sex drive" might help him. But _*only*_ if _*he*_ was saying that he was experiencing major distress over it.
> 
> I'm not saying that I would _*seek*_ to lower his drive as the end-all solution. I'm just saying that the _*idea *_would only ever become relevant to consider _*if he was expressing distress*_.
> 
> ...


Good to hear ! I think SOME women would love to jump to a pill to stop it though -without any other considerations, so that just makes you an exceptional wife -to NOT do that, and come up with other solutions so all would be happy. 

Nothing wrong with asking intreging questions! You set this thread on fire girl !:FIREdevil:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Happy Birthday Grayson!!

Miss,
Yes, what you wrote makes sense and I do think you started a very interesting discussion. I think you got unfairly attacked for starting this. 

For me, as a product of the sexual revolution, sex has never been about being inauthentic and trying to prove myself as a "man". It was about recognizing that women could be sexual and be open about it. Not sleeping around, rather that we could say this turns us on, a little more the left, stop that, don't stop that, that kind of thing. Being secure enough with our sexuality that we weren't ashamed of being sexual. I don't equate being sexual with sleeping around. Far from it. In fact, if you sleep around, the person you are with will never get to discover what it is sexually that makes you tick because you are on to the next person. That isn't what the sexual revolution was about. 

In today's world though, young women have taken it to new heights and think they are being "feminists" by having casual sex. That is the furthest thing from what the original feminist movement was about. Girls as young as 13 wearing bracelets announcing what sex acts they are willing to participate in, all in an effort to be "popular". Blowing a guy in the back of a movie theatre in the hopes that he will ask her out again. That isn't feminism! That is the sick by-product of a society who has taught girls that having a boyfriend is important and there is only one way to get one. Girls kissing each other and pretending to be lesbians because a guy thinks it's hot. Girls wearing the lowest cut jeans to expose as much as possible. This is NOT what the women before me marched for. It is a backlash on feminism after years of it being distorted and now young women feel the need to become something they are not. 

When I say I am a feminist around these parts, I am automatically viewed as the enemy. I guess it is because feminism has come so far tilt. If all a man sees is a women proudly announcing that they can raise children by themselves "they don't need no man" (heard that), women acting like hookers in the name of feminism, whining that they don't get paid as much for less work done and expecting an acceptance letter from a university solely based on their anatomy, yes I can see the anger. But that isn't what feminism was about. That is nothing more than a bunch of losers latching on to a cause and sherking (spelling?) personal responsibility. 

At it's origins, feminism was a good thing. The right that women should have equal access to higher education, equal access to jobs, equal access to own assets, equal access to be in politics. 

Woman wanted and deserved to be treated as equals for the same performance. The key words here is "same performance". If a woman wants to be a firefighter, she better darn well be able to haul 70 lbs of gear on her back while running up 20 flights of stairs and carrying out whoever is in there, not working behind a desk at the fire station moaning that she doesn't get paid as much. Equal work should be paid equally. That is what my fellow sisters fought for. 

All I know is that the women of the past who worked so hard to get women where they are today would roll over in their graves in disgust at what the word "Feminism" has become. It is now viewed in a very negative term and it saddens me. It is the furthest from what its origins was about.


----------



## Prometheus Pyrphoros (Jun 16, 2011)

On the funny side, I remember a long time ago when my friend was troubled with growing desire for women. He was so desperate that he applied to voluntarily have his amygdala removed and studied at the Mayo clinic. Maybe we should make this standard operation for men at the age of, let's say - 14? Would this be to the OP's liking?:smthumbup:

--
Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> Hi TRBE - Well this is the thing that larry and I were mentioning though. These days it's not so much that girls get shamed for casual sex. Now they're pressure into casual sex and shamed for wanting a commitment. That's part of the downside that we were mentioning (of the sexual revolution). And the reverse repression.


There is also the self esteem issues that comes from casual sex. There are some women who can do it, but for many they feel used.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I agree that random sex is bad for both sexes. Women do get shamed for it much more often than men. There is literally no derogatory term for a man who screws around alot but there are plenty for women.


The reason **** doesn't work for men is because it is redundant. We're all ****s :rofl:


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Prometheus Pyrphoros said:


> On the funny side, I remember a long time ago when my friend was troubled with growing desire for women. He was so desperate that he applied to voluntarily have his amygdala removed and studied at the Mayo clinic. Maybe we should make this standard operation for men at the age of, let's say - 14? Would this be to the OP's liking?:smthumbup:
> 
> --
> Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis


Pro Pyr - The _*discussion*_ of this topic would be very much to the liking of the OP! The institution of the practice (and making it "standard")...? Not so much.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Hey there. Was out most of the day for the ol' birthday. Sorry it took a bit to get back.
> 
> What I mean by saying you're "drawing a conclusion" is that you appear to be taking a small sampling - your personal experience, and assorted specific others' experiences - and determining that those circumstances are the norm. (For example, the notion that sex always and inevitably leads to frequent, regular, painful and invasive procedures and examinations. Or, in your initial question, the notion that men, and men only, require a lowering of sex drive.)


Grayson! I apologize - I've posted a few replies here today, but I've run out of time. I want you to know that I'm not ignoring your thoughtful reply!

To you (and to everyone else to whom I've not replied today), I may not be able to catch up until tomorrow night. But your posts have not gone unread.

You guys are all so interesting and informative. I almost just automatically typed "love you guys!" just now. (That was instinctively how I wanted to of sign off just now.) 

So maybe I'll just go and type it...

Love you guys! More tomorrow,
-MU


----------



## annagarret (Jun 12, 2011)

and we are all done with this thread cause we are having sex.....right?


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

It was so good the neighbors wanted a cigarette.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

annagarret said:


> and we are all done with this thread cause we are having sex.....right?


*Admires man-boobs. Thinks about logging off TAM and turning on "The View"*


----------



## OhGeesh (Jan 5, 2010)

Deejo said:


> *Admires man-boobs. Thinks about logging off TAM and turning on "The View"*


Ha ha!!! To the op in its simplest terms I think the question is valid 
I know as good as our sex life is 2-4 times a week I often want more and the wife is really "full" at 4 times a week,,,,,,,we were all different every couple needs to communicate and find out what works for them
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbj1971 (May 29, 2008)

You know, it occurred to me as I was reading the posts in this thread...

The clitoris is the only part of the human body whose sole function is purely sexual stimulation. Women's bodies are structured in a way to enjoy sexual stimulation, and if to enjoy it, then by reasoning, to want it. Other things get in the way of the "want to," such as incorrect teaching, abuse, drugs, etc.

It would be good if people of the same libido would get matched up with each other. If you don't want to have sex as much, then don't get with someone who really wants it often. It may be one of their primary "love languages," but not yours. It will be a constant source of grief if left unresolved. And a pill won't fix it; someone who wants/needs sexual touch from the person they love will still miss it even if their actual physical urge is repressed. I know this from experience.

Another thing.. I grant you that women have more possible stigma to put up with for their sexual actions, but the flip side is that men have to put up with so much, so often, just to get any at all. I mean, sometimes all our stars just align just right, and we have to hope not one thing goes wrong to derail the woman's mindset or else the guy's whole night of romance and passion gets shot to bits. We men are able to put aside our work problems, the lousy ride home, bills, our favorite team lost the championship, etc. while we're being intimate with you. People say men have a one-track mind, when really we are just able to block out all the other stuff of life and give you the fullness of our presence and time, without distraction. I know that generally women are not able to compartmentalize like that, but a man could have sex with his wife at 3 am with little or no sleep, if she wants it, and with whatever worries on my mind about everything else, but the man has to always wonder if tonight or next week she'll be in the mood. The woman's desire to have sex seems so transitory and fickle, sometimes. It's like our time together is at the mercy of a million other things going just right (or not going wrong) or else we lose out and we're supposed to be understanding, giving the women her needs while ours are not being met. So, maybe that's the tradeoff so to speak. Imagine being a man with this great need and desire, with the expectation of being the initiator, but also facing high probabilities of rejection many times over the course of time. It starts to wear on you after awhile. I can see being cautious when having sex with mutliple partners or with someone new, but I'm speaking of sex with a committed, long-time partner such as a spouse. 

If you really understood the true role that sex has in a relationship and how good it is for that relationship, you would not be talking about some magic pill to make the urge go away. Sex is where we reveal our most intimate self and where we are most vulnerable to another human being. So, maybe that's the underlying problem with many people -- their subconscious fear to really let go to another person, even temporarily during sex. That could start a whole new, long thread, in itself.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

It always comes back to the clitoris ...

Could be worse ... it could have been located in the palm of a woman's hand. Then we'd have to wine, dine, and romance them before even getting the opportunity to 'shake hands'.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Well said, dbj1971.

I can fully relate to much of what you said.

For example, when we first started seeing one another, my wife and I both had strong drives. After our son was born, that and other factors combined to drastically lower her drive, while mine remained high. In the past year or so, her drive has started to rebound, but it's nowhere near what it once was.

And, as far as the stars and planets having to align just right...sometimes that's so true it's not even funny. Take Saturday night for example. It was my birthday, we had a fun night out, and the plan when the evening started was for quite a bit of...fun...when we got home. While out, though, something got in and/or scratched her eye, causing enough pain that the bedroom shenanigans quickly came off the agenda. Was I looking forward to it? Of course, did I pout about it, try to pressure her into it anyway, or make her try to feel guilty in any way? Absolutely not. If she's not enjoying it, too, then I'm not enjoying it, either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

dbj1971 said:


> You know, it occurred to me as I was reading the posts in this thread...
> 
> The clitoris is the only part of the human body whose sole function is purely sexual stimulation. Women's bodies are structured in a way to enjoy sexual stimulation, and if to enjoy it, then by reasoning, to want it. Other things get in the way of the "want to," such as incorrect teaching, abuse, drugs, etc.
> 
> ...


Hey dbj - as the original poster of this thread... *I* certainly never said anything about a "magic pill" nor making the urge go away entirely.

My question is/was: Why are we not willing do discuss how to help men to want sex less. (And specifically if sexual desire is causing the man _*personal unhappiness and distress*_.)

For some of the very reasons you mentioned. 

You had said, "Imagine being a man with this great need and desire, with the expectation of being the initiator, but also facing high probabilities of rejection many times over the course of time."

Exactly! I'm imagining it. And I'm not liking it! Ugh. That doesn't sound so great. 

So my point was in being willing to discuss the many possible ways we could ease this distress for men, if this is such an issue.

On a different note, you had had said that if we "...understood the true role that sex has in a relationship and how good it is for that relationship...(etc.)" - but who has the right to say what role is "true"? it's different for different people. And "how good" it is for a relationship depends on the people and their approach, and how/why they're being sexual. 

For example, you had also said, "...men have to put up with so much, so often, just to get any at all." - that kind of attitude (as a woman) would freak me out! If my husband referred to sex in our relationship as "getting any" (or something to "get"), I think I would feel a little ill. That does not sound like part of what I feel the "true role" of sex is in any relationship I'd want to be a part of. 

Does that make any sense, the way I'm describing it?

I agree with you about people with matching libidos. That usually changes for many people, throughout life though. So how could anyone ever predict what things will be like in 10 or 20 years? Isn't that one of the points of marriage? (Promising to stand by our spouse, knowing that we can't predict the future, and despite all the other unknowns, we'll stick it out with them, by their side.)


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Well said, dbj1971.
> 
> I can fully relate to much of what you said.
> 
> ...


Grayson and dbj1971 - I might sound like a broken record here. So please forgive me if I'm being annoying (okay???).

The stuff you guys are saying about "the stars and planets having to align just right"... I get what you mean. For sure. 

I really think that this directly correlates with the fact that sex occurs inside our bodies. I know I've said this before (and I fear that you'll think I'm "harping on it"!). But I really think that this fact is continually overlooked. And then confusion and frustration ensues. 

You guys interpret this aspect of our sex-psychology as everything having to align just right. I can see why you would. Especially if you are thinking of sex in the way that men go about it. Imagine that sex involved something being put into the inside of your body. It's a very different experience, physically and psychologically. 

I'm not saying it's bad. I'm saying - that makes sex a whole different ball of wax for the female. The need for things to line up is not superficial - and not separate from our biology. No matter how much we love you, and no matter how much we do, indeed, enjoy having sex with you, it is still a different ball of wax, and a different thing for us. We are allowing you inside the confines of our personal body. That is no small matter, in my opinion. Even though it's minimized in our current culture and popular modern assumptions regarding men/women/and sex.

My aim is not to egregiously harp on that fact. (Sorry to bring it up again!) My aim is to ask people to consider the possibility of it's effect on women/men/sex - especially when they're confused/frustrated over the frequency of sex in their relationships. or the fact that it seems like everything needs to "line up just right" for women. 

In my opinion, there's a psychological, biological, and evolutionary reason why we women think/feel the way we do. And much of it is protective in nature. Respecting that often leads us to trust you and open up more. We may even not be thinking of this consciously, but it's deeply embedded into our psychological makeup. Specifically - because sex happens on the inside of our bodies, not the outsides. 

I could be wrong, but I really think that this under-acknowledged biological fact is at the root of a lot of sexual confusion, hurt and dissatisfaction in modern marriage and relationships. 

If people weren't so hurt and distressed over sex confusion in their relationships, I would not think of this as any sort of "issue" (in and of itself). I hope that makes sense???


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Hey there. Was out most of the day for the ol' birthday. Sorry it took a bit to get back.
> 
> What I mean by saying you're "drawing a conclusion" is that you appear to be taking a small sampling - your personal experience, and assorted specific others' experiences - and determining that those circumstances are the norm. (For example, the notion that sex always and inevitably leads to frequent, regular, painful and invasive procedures and examinations. Or, in your initial question, the notion that men, and men only, require a lowering of sex drive.)


Grayson, I think I get what you mean here. I honestly never meant to say -nor imply - that "sex always and inevitably" leads to frequent invasive procedures, etc. Whether I expressed it this way initially or not, I'd say that it's the norm for sex to lead to those things. While also being the norm for it not to.

Part of my saying it this way is due to discussing this with my doc once, _*she*_ said to me that UTIs (and other vag infections) from sex are a "normal" occurance - as in, many women get them frequently. She went on to say that many never getting them ever, at all. And so it is also "normal" to never be affected at all - many women never get them at all. So both circumstances are "normal". 

She didn't say "all" women get them. She didn't even say that "some" do, while "most" do not. Nor that "some" do not, while "most" do. 

She said "many" do. And "many" do not. Thus both circumstances are "normal". 

I understand what you mean about taking a sampling, and then drawing a conclusion such as "all women" or "always" or "never". 

It was not my intention to do that. 

I also understand what you mean about drawing the conclusion regarding men (and men only) requiring a lowering of drive. I think I *did* inaccurately draw that conclusion! I see your point on that.




Grayson said:


> As I've said, I don't see it as a necessity to lower the higher drive partner's drive, but (as they tend to do, anyway), their expectations (for want of a better term). Like I said in my previous post, most people learn at an early age that "want" does not always lead to "have." That kid in my earlier example won't *always *get a toy at the store. It's equivalent to understanding and curbing one's appetite: it's not that you don't get hungry, or hungry as often, necessarily, but you do know that you can't always stuff food in your mouth when the fancy strikes you.


Yep, I see what you mean regarding the difference between "wanting" and "having". My initial question, however, regarding a discussion of lowering the intensity of any kind of sex "want" is only relevant, in my opinion, if the person experiencing the "wanting" feels tortured because some kind of intense "wanting" is causing them _*distress*_. The operative words there are "if" and "distress". Distress is very difficult, painful - and destructive. So that's the main reason, that I see, for even considering the notion of lowering the level of "want". 



Grayson said:


> In the larger sense, I'm also not all that sure what you mean by "fully enjoy(ing) NOT having sex." What I mean is that, like the axiom that one "can't prove a negative," I'm not sure that it's possible to "enjoy NOT doing anything." I may, for example, frequently watch TV, but one night decide to listen to music, instead. It's not that I'm "enjoying NOT watching TV," but rather that I *am *enjoying listening to music. It's more about enjoying what you *are *doing, instead of what you're *not *doing. Equivalent to the lower drive partner's situation, I don't drink. No reason beyond that I just never developed a taste for alcohol. I don't "enjoy NOT drinking." I just don't drink.
> 
> From that perspective, the ideal path to finding the middle ground remains exploring the possibility of increasing the lower drive partner's drive.


Yeah, I hear you. For me, it goes back to the question of distress. You don't drink. And it's not that you "enjoy not drinking", per se. You just don't drink.

You also don't seem to be experiencing distress and pain over not drinking.

But imagine if you felt a gigantic desire to drink, and felt tormented and tortured by that desire. That would cause you to feel pain and distress while not drinking. That would lead you to (quite literally) "not enjoy" not drinking. Does that make sense the way I'm saying it???

Sure, you could work on yourself to reduce your distress and agony. And "tolerate" not drinking. But "tolerate" is not the same as "enjoy". What if you could get to an even better state of "enjoying" (and in this case I mean enjoy in a comfort sort of way) "not drinking". 

I mean this in a "comfortable" versus "distressed" kind of way. 

What do you think???


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Hey there. Was out most of the day for the ol' birthday. Sorry it took a bit to get back.


Grayson - happy belated birthday, by the way!


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> Hey dbj - as the original poster of this thread... *I* certainly never said anything about a "magic pill" nor making the urge go away entirely.
> 
> My question is/was: Why are we not willing do discuss how to help men to want sex less. (And specifically if sexual desire is causing the man _*personal unhappiness and distress*_.)


Not to split hairs, but I wouldn't say that sexual desire is causing anyone "personal unhappiness and distress." I would, however, say that _not having an outlet_ for said sexual desire may cause some form of unhappiness & distress.



miss-understood said:


> You had said, "Imagine being a man with this great need and desire, with the expectation of being the initiator, but also facing high probabilities of rejection many times over the course of time."
> 
> Exactly! I'm imagining it. And I'm not liking it! Ugh. That doesn't sound so great.


Here's how I see it: It's not the lack of sex in and of itself that causes any problems...it's the outright rejection of intimacy by one's partner, with whom intimacy is part and parcel of that bond, that causes problems.

Let me illustrate, and maybe venture into the realm of TMI (again) :rofl: When my wife's drive took a nosedive - and by "took a nosedive" I mean sex 4-6 times a *year *- I would attempt to initiate, and be rebuffed. Knowing that her drive had declined significantly, I wouldn't try too terribly often, but I would still test the proverbial waters. And, as indicated by that frequency I just mentioned, as you might guess, I was turned down far more often than not. I tried not to hold it against her, but more than once, my thoughts to myself weren't, "I didn't get sex!" because if an orgasm was all I was after, I could (and frequently did) take care of that on my own. No...my thoughts were, "Heaven forbid I should want to touch my wife." It felt like, not a rejection of sex, but a rejection of me, personally. There were also occasions during that period that she didn't turn me away...but she clearly wasn't interested, which made for a less than pleasurable experience for me, as well. Likewise, there was many a time that I'd be "in the mood," could tell that, without a doubt, she was nowhere near the mood, and I wouldn't bother. I'd either let the feeling pass, or self-serve again. In those instances, I wouldn't tend to have the reaction noted above when rejected, because I wasn't putting myself out there...wasn't offering or seeking that ultimate intimacy and being turned away.



miss-understood said:


> So my point was in being willing to discuss the many possible ways we could ease this distress for men, if this is such an issue.


And, after that long response portion, I separated this for emphasis. Altering the higher drive partner's sexual desire, in and of itself, as I've suggested before, isn't the issue. A purely sexual desire can be sated with the partner or by oneself. To avoid the distress, you would need to lower the higher drive partner's desire for *intimacy*. And do we _really _want to do that?



miss-understood said:


> On a different note, you had had said that if we "...understood the true role that sex has in a relationship and how good it is for that relationship...(etc.)" - but who has the right to say what role is "true"? it's different for different people. And "how good" it is for a relationship depends on the people and their approach, and how/why they're being sexual.


Although there are those who would argue that the only "true" role for sex is procreation (poor devils), I think that we can reach a consensus here on the board that the principal role of sex in a committed relationship is bonding and sharing intimacy with the person you've pledged your life and heart to. It's terribly good for the relationship in that the participants' guard is fully down...they're exposed to one another, literally and figuratively, joining bodies, hearts and minds together.



miss-understood said:


> For example, you had also said, "...men have to put up with so much, so often, just to get any at all." - that kind of attitude (as a woman) would freak me out! If my husband referred to sex in our relationship as "getting any" (or something to "get"), I think I would feel a little ill. That does not sound like part of what I feel the "true role" of sex is in any relationship I'd want to be a part of.


I wouldn't read so much into the phrase "getting any." It's just use of a common phrase, and works in context of what dbj was saying. Although I've gone to great lengths to remain gender neutral in this discussion, this is one element where gender inherently plays a role: at the end of the day, women hold the power when it comes to sex. Although it's often said somewhat jokingly, there's some truth to the point of view that (generally speaking) women who want sex can and will "get some." For the most part, though, men have to put forth more effort (that sounds like it's meant as a bad thing, as opposed to just not really knowing any other way to say it) and follow more "ritual," if you will, in order to have their overtures accepted. In situations like we're discussing in the larger overall topic, that can lead to some frustration when frequently rejected.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> Grayson and dbj1971 - I might sound like a broken record here. So please forgive me if I'm being annoying (okay???).


That's ok. A lot of my responses here would be some of the same points in my last reply, so pay no mind if I just refer back to pertinent points in it. 



miss-understood said:


> The stuff you guys are saying about "the stars and planets having to align just right"... I get what you mean. For sure.
> 
> I really think that this directly correlates with the fact that sex occurs inside our bodies. I know I've said this before (and I fear that you'll think I'm "harping on it"!). But I really think that this fact is continually overlooked. And then confusion and frustration ensues.


I really don't think that it has to do with internal vs. external sexual physiology. I think it has to do with the (for want of a better term again) mating/courting rituals we all undertake. As noted in my previous reply, with the sexual "power structure" our societies have developed, women hold the "veto power," and so it falls to men to set the stage, spark the woman's interest in an intimate encounter and (re-)establish the woman's acceptance of him as a sexual partner. In short, men must re-earn the privilege of sex with their partners. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily...but, if continually rejected, it can leave an impression that the effort and work of continuing to validate the intimate relationship is resulting in lessened intimacy.



miss-understood said:


> You guys interpret this aspect of our sex-psychology as everything having to align just right. I can see why you would. Especially if you are thinking of sex in the way that men go about it. Imagine that sex involved something being put into the inside of your body. It's a very different experience, physically and psychologically.


No...in terms of "everything having to align just right," we're interpreting a rejection as not having met her needs or wants to spark desire for us. It's also as much a matter of, as dbj said, "nothing going wrong" as it is "everything going right." Going back to my example of Saturday night, if you'll pardon my sounding a bit crude about it, all roads were leading to sex...everything was, indeed, aligned just right. Until that tiny speck of dust...that eyelash hair...whatever it was that got in my wife's eye. I'm not discounting the discomfort that she was in...I know it was genuine. But, it's a perfect metaphor for the idea of "everything having to align just right"...the intent for sex has been confirmed by both parties, and one tiny little thing derails it. With women having that "veto power," if one tiny little thing frequently happens to derail an intimate encounter that has been on the horizon, it certainly stands to reason that the rejected partner may begin to take it personally.

And, what if I told you that, for some men...sex does involve something being put into the inside of your body? Many do enjoy prostate stimulation during sex, after all. I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> Grayson, I think I get what you mean here. I honestly never meant to say -nor imply - that "sex always and inevitably" leads to frequent invasive procedures, etc. Whether I expressed it this way initially or not, I'd say that it's the norm for sex to lead to those things. While also being the norm for it not to.


Well, yeah...that is how it sounded.



miss-understood said:


> Part of my saying it this way is due to discussing this with my doc once, _*she*_ said to me that UTIs (and other vag infections) from sex are a "normal" occurance - as in, many women get them frequently. She went on to say that many never getting them ever, at all. And so it is also "normal" to never be affected at all - many women never get them at all. So both circumstances are "normal".
> 
> She didn't say "all" women get them. She didn't even say that "some" do, while "most" do not. Nor that "some" do not, while "most" do.
> 
> She said "many" do. And "many" do not. Thus both circumstances are "normal".


See, when I hear a doctor say something is "normal," what I hear is, "This is something that isn't life-threatening. It's not unheard of, and it's easily treated. It's nothing to be terribly concerned about."



miss-understood said:


> Yep, I see what you mean regarding the difference between "wanting" and "having". My initial question, however, regarding a discussion of lowering the intensity of any kind of sex "want" is only relevant, in my opinion, if the person experiencing the "wanting" feels tortured because some kind of intense "wanting" is causing them _*distress*_. The operative words there are "if" and "distress". Distress is very difficult, painful - and destructive. So that's the main reason, that I see, for even considering the notion of lowering the level of "want".


As I indicated earlier, I don't think it's the "wanting" that leads to any sort of distress. I think it's frequent, repeated rejection by one's partner. And, in my case, the key words are "frequent" and "repeated." I firmly believe that a partner with a higher drive, aware that their partner has a lower drive, understands the nature of their mis-matched drives, and finds it much easier to accept less frequent (mutually enjoyable) sex to reach the middle ground we've mentioned a few times.



miss-understood said:


> Yeah, I hear you. For me, it goes back to the question of distress. You don't drink. And it's not that you "enjoy not drinking", per se. You just don't drink.
> 
> You also don't seem to be experiencing distress and pain over not drinking.
> 
> But imagine if you felt a gigantic desire to drink, and felt tormented and tortured by that desire. That would cause you to feel pain and distress while not drinking. That would lead you to (quite literally) "not enjoy" not drinking. Does that make sense the way I'm saying it???


I think so, but if I'm understanding correctly, you're making my point for me. 



miss-understood said:


> Sure, you could work on yourself to reduce your distress and agony. And "tolerate" not drinking. But "tolerate" is not the same as "enjoy". What if you could get to an even better state of "enjoying" (and in this case I mean enjoy in a comfort sort of way) "not drinking".
> 
> I mean this in a "comfortable" versus "distressed" kind of way.
> 
> What do you think???


I think, rather than getting all wordy again, I'll just refer back to my previous points, re: the source of "distress." :smthumbup:



miss-understood said:


> Grayson - happy belated birthday, by the way!


Thanks!


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Not to split hairs, but I wouldn't say that sexual desire is causing anyone "personal unhappiness and distress." I would, however, say that _not having an outlet_ for said sexual desire may cause some form of unhappiness & distress.



Hey Grayson! You've given me a lot of good stuff to reply to. I might need to reply in bits, okay? 

I can understand what you're saying here (quote above). But this is the part that kinda creeps me out - it's seems accepted these days to place pressure on another human being to provide "an outlet" (this is especially creepy to me, when it's a man - insisting that needs to "get inside" the woman - so he can have a physical "outlet" to alleviate his physical need). If the person is desperate for an "outlet" and has pushed away his/her spouse (possibly because of this issue), and feels that self-servicing is _*inadequate*_... then what?

If my husband ever considered me an "outlet", ugh. I'd probably run for the hills. 




Grayson said:


> Here's how I see it: It's not the lack of sex in and of itself that causes any problems...it's the outright rejection of intimacy by one's partner, with whom intimacy is part and parcel of that bond, that causes problems.


I bet that is totally true for many people! I hear you. However, part of why I began to think of this overall topic of reducing desire is because many men recently (friends... well, and their wives) have literally described to me a problem they have of primarily physical distress. Of physical "pressure" building up. Maybe this is not representative of humans at large. I am only discussing my personal experience. And a couple of men in particular expressing to me that this is "how it is for men" and that these desires are torturous to them.

I'm not saying that this makes it true for all men! (Just because specific men have "said" to me that it is). I'm just saying: this is what I've been told by some men (who've said to me, essentially "please try to understand how horrible this is for us"). And that's where I'm getting the notion from. 




Grayson said:


> Let me illustrate, and maybe venture into the realm of TMI (again) :rofl: When my wife's drive took a nosedive - and by "took a nosedive" I mean sex 4-6 times a *year *- I would attempt to initiate, and be rebuffed. Knowing that her drive had declined significantly, I wouldn't try too terribly often, but I would still test the proverbial waters. And, as indicated by that frequency I just mentioned, as you might guess, I was turned down far more often than not. I tried not to hold it against her, but more than once, my thoughts to myself weren't, "I didn't get sex!" because if an orgasm was all I was after, I could (and frequently did) take care of that on my own. No...my thoughts were, "Heaven forbid I should want to touch my wife." It felt like, not a rejection of sex, but a rejection of me, personally. There were also occasions during that period that she didn't turn me away...but she clearly wasn't interested, which made for a less than pleasurable experience for me, as well. Likewise, there was many a time that I'd be "in the mood," could tell that, without a doubt, she was nowhere near the mood, and I wouldn't bother. I'd either let the feeling pass, or self-serve again. In those instances, I wouldn't tend to have the reaction noted above when rejected, because I wasn't putting myself out there...wasn't offering or seeking that ultimate intimacy and being turned away.


I don't want to dismiss your feelings, nor your experience. I think it is troubling, for many women, though - that men mix up and intertwine emotional intimacy and sex so much. Also, it seems (to me - this is my personal interpretation!) that men so often put women in a very tricky no-win position. if we are not up for sex (again, you're shoving something inside of us - sometimes that's just a little too much or we aren't up for it) so many men have expressed that they take this as a _*personal rejection*_. Pardon my French, but that really sucks for the person with the "innie". It's not fair. But more damaging, is that it causes greater relationship rifts. I've seen this emotional confusion with so many of my girlfriends. Their insides should be their insides, and respected as their insides, but their husbands feel _*personal rejection*_ if they're not up for having sex. Rejection! Hence the feelings of obligation and invasion ensue. The frequency of sex declines, and continues to decline. And what can (or used to be) a very intimate, loving, act now becomes negative, invasive, frought with guilt and obligation. 

A wife is not a possession - like a car that you get in and drive. To make you feel good about yourself. 

Again, if my husband took a "no" as a _*personal rejection*_ - we'd definitely be having sex a whole lot less. I'd feel disrespected, and that my sexual freedom had been taken away. It would twist me up inside, emotionally. And would make sex very unpleasant for me. 

Frequency (and my enthusiasm) would decline immediately.

I'm not saying that my feelings are representative of all women. I'm saying - to anyone who's having issues with not enough sex with their wife, maybe consider what I'm saying _*as a possibility*_. Just a possibility. (And only if there's a _*dissatisfaction problem *_- if there's no problem, then there's no problem!)




Grayson said:


> And, after that long response portion, I separated this for emphasis. Altering the higher drive partner's sexual desire, in and of itself, as I've suggested before, isn't the issue. A purely sexual desire can be sated with the partner or by oneself. To avoid the distress, you would need to lower the higher drive partner's desire for *intimacy*. And do we _really _want to do that?


I'm not convinced that lowering a person's sex drive would lower their desires for intimacy (nor their capacity). It may, in fact, open up pathways to other avenues. Human beings seek intimacy in many ways. Some people even believe that the modern-day focus on seeking it through sex is actually a little superficial and self-centered. Humans will always find ways to be close and intimate. We do not have sex with our children, our siblings, our parents - yet we feel deeply connected to them in a way that is far more lasting and powerful than fleeting "romance". We hug them and have skin-to-skin loving contact with them, we'd throw ourselves in front of a bus for them, we have meaningful conversations with them. None of this requires having sex with them in order to have a very deep and powerful connection and feel very close and connected (and cherished/love).

This is just an idea - but couples who are experiencing a lack of action in the bedroom might in some cases be able to increase the frequency by separating out the "connection/closenss" needs a little bit more, and not placing so much of the emphasis on sex providing that. Takes some of the pressure off. 




Grayson said:


> Although there are those who would argue that the only "true" role for sex is procreation (poor devils), I think that we can reach a consensus here on the board that the principal role of sex in a committed relationship is bonding and sharing intimacy with the person you've pledged your life and heart to. It's terribly good for the relationship in that the participants' guard is fully down...they're exposed to one another, literally and figuratively, joining bodies, hearts and minds together.



I agree with you, that it's great when the participant's guard is fully down! Women often have a hard time doing that (and we often aren't even clear on why). You know what I think - it's biology. 

Here's my main point: 
_*If*_ a couple is having an issue, and* if* it's that the man wants more sex, and the woman is pulling away (I'm saying "if", here - not that this is the only circumstance) - but *if* this is the case, then I believe that it _*may*_ be helpful to consider that this may be a factor. "Joining bodies" means something very different to a woman than to a man. It has had to, for us to have continued to survive over the millenia. 





Grayson said:


> I wouldn't read so much into the phrase "getting any." It's just use of a common phrase, and works in context of what dbj was saying. Although I've gone to great lengths to remain gender neutral in this discussion, this is one element where gender inherently plays a role: at the end of the day, women hold the power when it comes to sex. Although it's often said somewhat jokingly, there's some truth to the point of view that (generally speaking) women who want sex can and will "get some." For the most part, though, men have to put forth more effort (that sounds like it's meant as a bad thing, as opposed to just not really knowing any other way to say it) and follow more "ritual," if you will, in order to have their overtures accepted. In situations like we're discussing in the larger overall topic, that can lead to some frustration when frequently rejected.


My aim is not to "read too much" into it. Take my comment as relevant - only if you (or anyone) is having an issue with your wife not being as interested in sex as you would like/want. It may be a common phrase - but it communicates an assumption about sex that will push some women away. 

In fact, everything I'm saying about women's bodies, and biology - take it into account if you (or anyone) is experiencing frustration with your wife not being as into sex as you wish she was. They're just ideas. For consideration. I think they're very relevant in a lot of these cases. 

That doesn't make me "right". It doesn't make what I'm saying "true". But for people experiencing frustration and a problem in this area (specifically with their wife not being interested in sex), it's maybe worth considering??? 

Maybe?


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Grayson said:


> I really don't think that it has to do with internal vs. external sexual physiology. I think it has to do with the (for want of a better term again) mating/courting rituals we all undertake.


Hmmm, well... why did the mating/courting rituals come about the way they did?

Was it just random, and just a coincidence that sex involves the outside of the man, and the inside of the woman? 



Grayson said:


> As noted in my previous reply, with the sexual "power structure" our societies have developed, women hold the "veto power," and so it falls to men to set the stage, spark the woman's interest in an intimate encounter and (re-)establish the woman's acceptance of him as a sexual partner. In short, men must re-earn the privilege of sex with their partners. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily...but, if continually rejected, it can leave an impression that the effort and work of continuing to validate the intimate relationship is resulting in lessened intimacy.


Call me crazy, but I think women have had to have the veto power - to survive - over the ages. Because of biology. Sex has the capacity to leave them in a different physical condition (life and death), on the_* inside*_. It can literally create new life. And can literally kill them (and did, in the past way more than today). Women died via pregnancy and childbirth much more frequently than today. Knowing that's a possible outcome of sex is deeply embedded in our psychology. Not the case for men. It's all "outside" and pleasure.

I'm not out to judge any of that. I mean these as biological facts, only. Facts that are dismissed and overlooked, but are still (in my opinion) wreaking havoc under the surface of relationships in this modern day. 




Grayson said:


> And, what if I told you that, for some men...sex does involve something being put into the inside of your body? Many do enjoy prostate stimulation during sex, after all. I'm just sayin'.


That's considerably different (though, a good point and useful for some discussion). I'm glad you mentioned it. 

However, a finger is not going to make a man pregnant and change his life forever. Also, it's for his pleasure. It's not like the woman would have a burning pent-up desire to put her finger inside of him and move it around - so _*she*_ can feel personal physical pleasure feelings, sexual "release", and "close" to him. She might generally enjoy pleasing him. But that's not actual sexual "pleasure" for her.

What if she felt that she *had to* get her finger in there 3 times a week, and move it around, for _*her*_ pleasure and personal needs. And that whenever he said "no" to her finger up there, she took it as a personal rejection of her? And it hurt her feelings and lead her to feel less loved?

What happens on a day when maybe there's something going on up there for him, some issue, or things aren't feeling right. And he still totally loves her, but really just isn't up for her finger up there today. What then? Maybe since he's a guy, he wouldn't get all twisted up about it emotionally (feeling obligated, and guilty for not giving her the access to the inside of his you-know-what). 

I don't know. 

But then... I also don't know any men who've faced this dilemma, personally. 

Doesn't mean it hasn't happened! Ha ha ha.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Well, yeah...that is how it sounded.
> 
> See, when I hear a doctor say something is "normal," what I hear is, "This is something that isn't life-threatening. It's not unheard of, and it's easily treated. It's nothing to be terribly concerned about."


"Terribly concerned", no. 

But who are you to say that they are "nothing to be concerned about" when it's not your body affected? Do you see the turn-off disrespect in what you're saying there? (Emphasis on the word "turn-off", because if my husband ever said something like that to me, my legs would firmly clamp shut! No way, pal!)

Maybe they're "easily treated" - but they're still painful, itchy, smelly and gross. If you had one ever other month - no, you probably wouldn't "fear for your life"! Ha ha ha!

But you might get really really annoyed. And when your partner suggested sex, you might eventually stop and think, "hmmm, what do i have going on this week? Do I have time to go to the doctor if I start getting smelly and itchy in 48 hours".

And if they said "Oh that's not life threatening, that's nothing to be terribly concerned about" (or even had that kind of attitude running beneath the surface), you might then think, "Oh, okay - decision made then! Hey what's on TV?"

Do you know what I mean? Biology can make the act affect more than just the actual hour in the sack.

It's totally *not* the end of the world, okay? Don't misunderstand me.

But a man dismissing this (and the fact that sex instigates consequence for women - but _*not*_ for him) would definitely prevent me from letting my guard down with him. I've become really aware of my feelings about this (in part because my husband is so aware and compassionate, and really amazing). How many women are routinely saying "no" but not even really knowing _*why*_ they never "feel interested"?

My overall initial point with all of that, is to say: there may be benefit to having the courage to acknowledge reality and differences in biology and the consequences of sex. 

Acknowledging that reality doesn't mean less sex. My point of view is that in many cases, I honestly think it would mean women "letting their guard down" with their men a lot more. Feeling safe and respected.

And that would translates into _*more*_ love, trust and sex. More openness. Less other hoops to jump through (that are really sideline issues that never even really get to the heart of where the "no" and lack of interest is really coming from). 

I have never "turned my husband down". Now I'm not saying that I have it all figured out, and have the prescription for everyone (I do not have it!). But some of the things that I hear men saying about sex, and about their wives (and things my girlfriends tell me their husbands say - and how they barely have sex together anymore at all) makes me stop and think. Because with a lot of that stuff, I hear it, and I feel awful and a little sick inside. I feel like - if my husband said any of that dismissive stuff to me about my body or about sex, I'm pretty sure I'd _*start*_turning him down ASAP.

Does that make sense at all???

My outlook is not "sex is bad" and "let's all have sex less because look at all the consequence it causes."

My outlook is: "What is up that there's all this dismissiveness and denial of biology? And so many resulting rifts? And *not as much *sex going on (as their could be)?"


----------



## madimoff (Feb 17, 2010)

I haven't had time to check back when the thread 'turned' but congrats on actually being involved in a discussion about the original subject! Well done MU, I thought it was a good topic from the word go....


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

madimoff said:


> I haven't had time to check back when the thread 'turned' but congrats on actually being involved in a discussion about the original subject! Well done MU, I thought it was a good topic from the word go....


Aw, thanks madimoff. 

I feel bad because there are so many really interesting comments and ideas that people posted throughout this thread. So many I didn't reply to.

Not that everyone needs *me* to reply and give my 2 cents on everything, ha ha ha! But I just mean, so many people had really interesting things to say, and I feel bad that some have gone unacknowledged. I've read every single person's comments and have loved the ideas/responses/input and really thoughtful discussion!


----------



## dbj1971 (May 29, 2008)

Grayson has made some excellent points, and expanded on much of the line of thinking in my last post. One thing I keep seeing from miss-understood's posts is that she keeps using the phrase "inside the body." Well, I truly respect that the woman is the "receiver" and takes a man into her body in the act of sex, but at the same time, we men are putting a part of our own body into another person. We don't have the same types of problems ladies have with their gynecological health, but that doesn't mean it should be completely dismissed that we are allowing ourselves to enter another person. Anyway, it all sounds so sterile and clinical to me, to keep putting it that way.

I believe one fundamental problem is that some people attempt to separate the purely physical (biology) of sex from the many-faceted, emotional and relational aspects of it. Like Grayson said, it's not the physical frustration of denied sex that really gets to men and women (there are many frustrated ladies on the other end, let's not ignore them), it's the thinking that the person we love does not want to relate to us in that way. Fundamentally, it sends off alarms in our minds. There are many reasons a woman may go off sex, and a lot of them are really bad (like affairs, not respecting the man, not being sexually attracted to him, etc.). Ask yourself, why wouldn't a person NOT want to be totally open and intimate with the person with whom they've committed themselves? The only reasons are either psychological issues or actual clinical ones, both of which can be helped many times with proper therapy or medical care. 

Another thing... the analogy of the husband-wife and parent-child does not hold up. True, there can be touching and caring without any sexual overtones, but this completely overlooks the basic fact that the husband-wife (ie, romantic) relationship is fundamentally different from a parent-child relationship, or any other relationship. I could say more about that, but I'll leave that comment to stand on its merits.

Miss-understood, you made my next point when you said a wife or any woman is not a possession. I could not agree more with you. We agree 1000% on that. :smthumbup: Grayson and myself and others who are making similar points are making precisely that point; we don't consider women objects. That's why if the wife would have sex with us every night, providing biological release (what a monumental turnoff to put it that way LOL) for us men, but the woman did not get excited and we knew she wasn't really opening up to us with her heart and mind and enjoying the experience herself, well, I can certainly speak for myself when I say that would not be any type of fulfilling experience at all, and would be just as bad (no, worse) than no sexual contact at all. 

If you are in a relationship where you consider sex as the biological invasion of your body by another person, that's the wrong outlook from the start. If you consider sex a duty, a chore, a "man's need," etc., these are all symptoms of other issues. If I married a woman who really loved physical (nonsexual) affection, like hugs, and I was not a touchy-feely guy, would I be wishing for a magic pill to reduce her desire for touch? You know, maybe a pill that would make her sensitive to touch or that would make her more lethargic so she wouldn't want to reach out to me as much? Would that be the solution? Or, would I be honest and take a good look at myself to see what hangups are there, with me, that I have such a view of physical affection?

Men and ladies, the solution is to not be the way we are, without trying to change, and attempting to deal with relational issues by trying to make the other person change so they can match up with our own level. It takes both people moving toward each other. This means before I ask you to swallow a pill, I first take a good, hard look at myself.

A man's or woman's desire to be sexually intimate will not disappear. A pill won't make it happen. So ask ourselves how we're going to handle it? Maybe, as I stated in my first post, the problem is that some people don't want to be vulnerable or open to the other person, which is what true love-making requires. It could be due to fear, past trauma, loss of respect for the partner, resentment toward the partner (which makes us not want to give ourselves completely in the sexual union), etc. You could probably think of a lot of other things. 

I submit to you that people don't cheat because of a purely biological urge for sexual release. It's because of things like not feeling wanted, appreciated, loved; it's due to a lack of intimacy that they crave, where the other person really wants them and (yes) needs them, and where what they have to contribute is truly appreciated and desired. Men want to have deep relationships with women who give their hearts totally to him. If you can't open to me completely, then I think you don't really love me or trust me, or you might have deep scars that need therapy (for which I have the utmost compassion, where that's the true case - such as past sexual abuse, rape, etc.). I mean no disprespect to anyone whatsoever.

It seems to me that people who get the whole "desire for sexual intimacy" thing, the true total connection of it, not just biology 101 in evolutionary or medicinal terms (how utterly unromantic), are trying to explain to everyone what they really mean, while the people who are happy with sex once in a blue moon don't seem to get what all the fuss is about. You cannot have a truly happy relationship, on all its levels, if the sexual aspect is not right. Don't kid yourselves. Someone once said, sex is a barometer of a relationship. There is a lot of truth in that.

One more thing... I think it's important that we keep this from being a "man's" thing, because there are a lot of women who are frustrated and sad at being denied deep love-making connections with their men. Maybe it's human nature to want others to adapt to us, and not have to make any effort ourselves. We are a certain way, or have a certain level of desires, so we want to make other people closer to our level, to make things more comfortable, more manageable, instead of moving a little ourselves. Marriage or a committed romantic relationship is the one place, if nowhere else, where compromise and give-and-take are absolutely essential.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> I don't want to dismiss your feelings, nor your experience. I think it is troubling, for many women, though - that men mix up and intertwine emotional intimacy and sex so much. Also, it seems (to me - this is my personal interpretation!) that men so often put women in a very tricky no-win position. if we are not up for sex (again, you're shoving something inside of us - sometimes that's just a little too much or we aren't up for it) so many men have expressed that they take this as a personal rejection. Pardon my French, but that really sucks for the person with the "innie". It's not fair. But more damaging, is that it causes greater relationship rifts. I've seen this emotional confusion with so many of my girlfriends. Their insides should be their insides, and respected as their insides, but their husbands feel personal rejection if they're not up for having sex. Rejection! Hence the feelings of obligation and invasion ensue. The frequency of sex declines, and continues to decline. And what can (or used to be) a very intimate, loving, act now becomes negative, invasive, frought with guilt and obligation.
> 
> A wife is not a possession - like a car that you get in and drive. To make you feel good about yourself.
> 
> ...


See, it seems like you just have a problem with _the way men are._ It's not like we want someone to go snowboarding with. To those of us in committed relationships, sex and intimacy is intertwined, period. We know that whining only makes it worse. But understand that when the rejection becomes a pattern, it will inevitably take a toll on us emotionally, because that's the way we are. It doesn't matter if you are mad about something, tired, or you just don't want anyone messing with your hoo-ha for no particular reason, the outcome is the same for the man - not getting any. If you are giving it more than you are withholding it, it won't be as bad. It's when the *rejection becomes the norm*, to the point where the man doesn't even want to bother anymore - that's where the problem is. A healthy relationship should never, ever get to this point, imo.

It is a legitimate need that you are only supposed to get from and give to your spouse. Most people _do_ consider this to be an obligation that comes with being married. When we get married, we _are supposed to_ share our bodies with one another, freely and generously, out of love for each other. There is scriptural basis for this in Corinthians. Whether or not you are a Christian, it is something that is engrained into Western society, so it doesn't just come out of nowhere.

I don't think the anatomy really enters into it as much as you are saying; all this would be true in the reverse, if the woman was the one with the higher drive.

If your HD spouse feels rejected, you don't whine because you don't think he should be taking it so personally. He can't help it! If you have the lower drive, unless you have a serious illness that prevents you or unless your hd spouse is being a complete tool, you need to try to step it up *out of love for your spouse.* 'Just do it,' as much as you can manage and try to get into it. Your high drive spouse will appreciate the effort, feel more loved and secure in the relationship, and things will be better.

Because it's a two way street, the HD is not completely off the hook either; HD has the responsibility of doing everything he can to make it easier and more desirable for LD to be more sexually open. HD should also be doing his/her best not to whine or act childish when things don't go their way, because this will only make it worse.

It is basic maintenance for a relationship; without it there will be feelings of rejection, resentment, etc from both ends. It's pretty much unavoidable. It may not seem 'fair,' or what have you - that sometimes when you get married you might have to *- gasp - do something you don't feel like doing! - * but it's what you sign up for when you get married.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

A lot more than I can efficiently and clearly reply to from my phone. But, I do want to touch briefly on your focus on the internal biology bs external biology, miss-understood.

What I'm taking away from your most recent posts is the idea that men, specifically, should want sex less because intercourse MAY result in medical issues. But in quite a few things we do daily, without even thinking about it, everyone - man and woman alike - runs the risk of their actions impacting their health. Even the simple act of helping my stepfather drain and clean their pool which had gotten kind of...well...swampy MAY result in some form of infection to me. If we stop doing something because it MAY have a negative impact on our health for any period of time...well, what, exactly is left for us to do?

And, I don't think a higher drive partner (or a lower drive partner, for that matter) is going to begrudge their partner for occasionally having to say, "Not tonight, dear...I'm not feeling well.". It happens. What several of us are saying is that, when rejection becomes the norm, regardless of the reason, it's going to impact the rejected partner. He/she will begin to wonder what it is about them that makes their partner turn away from them time after time. THAT's when the problems begin.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

LBJ Love what you have written. This is exactly what I feel but could not express it as well as you have. thanks!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

Grayson said:


> I do want to touch briefly on your focus on the internal biology bs external biology, miss-understood.
> 
> What I'm taking away from your most recent posts is the idea that men, specifically, should want sex less because intercourse MAY result in medical issues.


No! I'm absolutely not saying that a man should "want sex less because intercourse MAY result in medical issues"! 

How are you getting that from what I've said?

I've repeatedly said that the idea to consider reducing his "want" is only relevant IF he is experiencing distress. (if)

The responsibility for relieving his distresses should not be put on the woman, and her insides - as her responsibility to "relieve" this for him. 

Additionally, what I've also said repeatedly (using my own marriage as the foundation for why I believe this) that respecting these biological differences (versus downplaying or denying them) seems to make sex more plentiful. 

These are just my views. You don't have to believe them, you don't have to even consider them if you don't want to. 

I'm just saying - for men who are experiencing a deficit of sex with their wives, just consider these possibilities. If you happen to want more sex and are perplexed as to why she has little or no interest.

I'm sharing what I believe to be valuable insight as to how you can experience MORE sex! Not less! 

And how underlying attitudes create an environment where the woman saying "no" becomes the norm. 

If you have not complaints in that area, then no big deal. This does not apply to you then.

If you (or anyone) are having problems in this area, my suggestion is to consider how biology (and/or your dismissal of it) is contributing to this deficit and the culture in your home of "no".


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

nader said:


> See, it seems like you just have a problem with _the way men are._


nader, I don't have "a problem" with the way men are.

I'm saying - _*if *_the man himself is experiencing unhappiness, and if he is saying there's a problem (with sex in his marriage), then there is a problem. 

but it's not my problem, even then. it's his unhappiness and dissatisfaction that is the problem.

if his wife is not that interested, and if this is upsetting _*to him *_, then all i'm saying - is hey, consider how biology and unchecked assumptions or dismissals of biology are possibly contributing to the wife's disinterest. 

I also admit, that personally - I'm imagining how I'd feel if my husband ever said the things about sex and women that I'm reading here. 

I would lose a lot of interest. Real fast. 

Take that for whatever it's worth. Maybe that doesn't matter to you... who knows.

And if you have no issues in this area and have a really satisfying sex life that's fulfilling, then that's great. and there _*is*_ no "problem".

This is only meant as insight that could possibly be helpful - _*if*_ you're looking to have more sex with your wives, and/or confused/frustrated over being turned away and not welcomed in, and not knowing why, or how you may be contributing to making it that way, and further cutting off your options and opportunities. 

if a man feels happy and fulfilled with his sex life with his wife - there's no "problem" and nothing here to discuss.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

nader said:


> See, it seems like you just have a problem with _the way men are._ It's not like we want someone to go snowboarding with. To those of us in committed relationships, sex and intimacy is intertwined, period. We know that whining only makes it worse. But understand that when the rejection becomes a pattern, it will inevitably take a toll on us emotionally, because that's the way we are. It doesn't matter if you are mad about something, tired, or you just don't want anyone messing with your hoo-ha for no particular reason, the outcome is the same for the man - not getting any. If you are giving it more than you are withholding it, it won't be as bad. It's when the *rejection becomes the norm*, to the point where the man doesn't even want to bother anymore - that's where the problem is. A healthy relationship should never, ever get to this point, imo.
> 
> It is a legitimate need that you are only supposed to get from and give to your spouse. Most people _do_ consider this to be an obligation that comes with being married. When we get married, we _are supposed to_ share our bodies with one another, freely and generously, out of love for each other. There is scriptural basis for this in Corinthians. Whether or not you are a Christian, it is something that is engrained into Western society, so it doesn't just come out of nowhere.
> 
> ...


I guess the bottom line, for all you guys - is that if these beliefs and attitudes you're holding about women and sex are working for you guys (and your wives) and you're happy and fulfilled in the sex realm of your marriages - then that is great. *And there is no problem*, nor any reason to consider _*any *_alternative ideas and beliefs. Carry on, with vigor and zeal - as is.

For me, I read what you're writing about women and sex, and I cringe. I know I've already said this: But if I heard (at home) the stuff I'm hearing you guys say here, I'd clamp my legs shut tightly! That might sound dramatic. But that's how "ew" and "yuck" I feel reading these most recent posts - the presumptous and dismissive/entitled attitudes. And all the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". The "expectations" - that (in my opinion) tend to squelch sexual freedom and authentic giving and receiving. 

If these attitudes/beliefs _*don't*_ turn your wives off and they are *not *turning you away sexually, then much of what I'm saying doesn't apply to you. And it then also really doesn't matter what I think or what I "would do". 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter anyway. I'm just a gal posting to some discussion board. So whatever.

If your wives aren't turning away and aren't disinterested, then maybe this topic is irrelevant and not in need of discussion anyway. 

And/or maybe I'm completely off-base here in my thinking, in the first place. Maybe I don't have the capacity to offer any insights that could help others to improve their sex lives, and experience more of a satisfying sex life, with greater frequency. Who knows. 

Maybe you're right - maybe biology and respect for biology is irrelevant when it comes to a happy marital sex life.

I feel that it's mattered enormously (and made things great) in my marriage. But maybe that's just me, and not anything that would be relevant to other women/men and their marriages.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> For me, I read what you're writing about women and sex, and I cringe. I know I've already said this: But if I heard (at home) the stuff I'm hearing you guys say here, I'd clamp my legs shut tightly! That might sound dramatic. But that's how "ew" and "yuck" I feel reading these most recent posts - the presumptous and dismissive/entitled attitudes. And all the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". The "expectations" - that (in my opinion) tend to squelch sexual freedom and authentic giving and receiving.


Such as...?



> And/or maybe I'm completely off-base here in my thinking, in the first place. Maybe I don't have the capacity to offer any insights that could help others to improve their sex lives, and experience more of a satisfying sex life, with greater frequency. Who knows.


But your original premise wasn't about increasing frequency...it was about *de*creasing desire (specifically, men's desire).



> Maybe you're right - maybe biology and respect for biology is irrelevant when it comes to a happy marital sex life.
> 
> I feel that it's mattered enormously (and made things great) in my marriage. But maybe that's just me, and not anything that would be relevant to other women/men and their marriages.


With all due respect, I think you may be in a "can't see the forest for the trees" position. I haven't seen ANYone wholly discount biology. I have seen several of us attempt to put biology and emotion into the context of intimacy, while including other elements that might combine to contribute to this "distress" you mention, while also taking into account the "prevention through avoidance" approach to potential health issues that you seem to support. That is, rather than looking SOLELY at biology, as it seems you're doing (the message coming through from your posts can be distiller down to "women want sex less frequently than men because sex is internal, and thus, more hazardous"), we're looking at biology in conjunction with other emotional, psychological and social aspects of marital sexual relations, how they combine, interact, and impact the intimacy that is normally inherent within a committed adult relationship.

Biology alone, it would not seem, does not lead to most imbalances in a couple's sexual dynamic. Normally, if a factor at all, it would appear to be only one of several.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

Call me old fashioned. In marriage there is an _obligation to give freely_ of yourself to your spouse. 

It is a paradox, but a beautiful one.

If it's going well it shouldn't and won't feel like an obligation. If it does, there is work to be done.

I am doing fairly well in my marriage, and lately I am _very_ well taken care of. But it's not because I beat this idea into the ground or make some kind of court case for why I should be getting laid more! It's because I treat her the best way I know how to treat her, and I make it known in as many ways possible that I love her to pieces and would do just about anything for her, and for our son. That, and try to do things to make myself more attractive to her. And also, because I just happened to marry an amazing woman!



> And/or maybe I'm completely off-base here in my thinking, in the first place. Maybe I don't have the capacity to offer any insights that could help others to improve their sex lives, and experience more of a satisfying sex life, with greater frequency. Who knows.


Maybe you are. I haven't heard you say much of anything whatsoever about helping anyone improve their sex life. It would be easier if we just took a pill so as not to inconvenience anyone with our natural urges.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

I don't think this is a gender issue, in the past (and sometimes the present) I've had a lot of issues with the missus' nymphomaniac tendencies. To be honest I felt raped and used, ballsacs emptied out to the point I felt like I was milked like a damn cow.

However, what others said here is correct, even though I'm not christian I do believe in this:


> When we get married, we are supposed to share our bodies with one another, freely and generously, out of love for each other.


 But that's more of an ideal than a rule - I believe that.

Nonetheless I don't really get what is being argued here btw =/


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

miss - what DO you think is appropriate for sex in a marriage. Do you think women should have all the say in when/how often sex is initiated? 



> I'm saying - if the man himself is experiencing unhappiness, and if he is saying there's a problem (with sex in his marriage), then there is a problem.
> 
> but it's not my problem, even then. it's his unhappiness and dissatisfaction that is the problem.


See, this is where you and I differ. With sex there is no your problem or my problem. it is OUR problem. That's just the nature of marriage. if my wife lets me know that she is unhappy with our sex life, it is OUR problem, and I am damn well going to do everything in my power to make it better for her. What you might be missing is that *most men (men worth their salt) want their wives to be fulfilled sexually*, and they themselves will not be completely fulfilled if this is not happening. 



> if his wife is not that interested, and if this is upsetting to him , then all i'm saying - is hey, consider how biology and unchecked assumptions or dismissals of biology are possibly contributing to the wife's disinterest.


This is your solution? Men who are sexually frustrated should take a good hard look at their assumptions about women and biology, and then maybe they would understand?? So if their wife doesn't want sex, they should just try harder to understand, and maybe take a pill?



> This is only meant as insight that could possibly be helpful - if you're looking to have more sex with your wives, and/or confused/frustrated over being turned away and not welcomed in, and not knowing why, or how you may be contributing to making it that way, and further cutting off your options and opportunities.


I've gotten MUCH better insight from men on this forum who have been there and who are now (probably) getting as much from their wives as they can handle.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

nader said:


> miss - what DO you think is appropriate for sex in a marriage. Do you think women should have all the say in when/how often sex is initiated?


I don't have any opinion on what's "appropriate". I think that's for each person/couple to decide for themselves. But I think I do believe that if the people in the marriage are not satisfied with the sex part of the marriage, there is _probably_ something going on there that's not appropriate _for them_. And if the woman is disinterested and saying "no" is the norm, there may be some biological/psychological reasons to consider, and that by merely recognizing them (perspective change) carries the *potential* to transform a culture of "no" into a culture of enthusiastic "yes".




nader said:


> This is your solution?


It's not a _*solution*_. It's an idea - to consider. If you want to. You don't have to.




nader said:


> Men who are sexually frustrated should take a good hard look at their assumptions about women and biology, and then maybe they would understand?? So if their wife doesn't want sex, they should just try harder to understand, and maybe take a pill?


Nope, i'm not saying "should". And I'm not saying "try harder" to "understand". I'm saying - it's an option to consider: that a shift in perspective regarding biology could possibly change things, and open the door to an increased amount of enthusiasm and an increased frequency of "yes". 




nader said:


> I've gotten MUCH better insight from men on this forum who have been there and who are now (probably) getting as much from their wives as they can handle.


I don't have "answers" or prescriptions. I only have ideas - to consider - and add to the overall mix. That's one of the great things about discussions with others (in my opinion). Lots of ideas exchanged. You can take what you think is interesting, consider it, keep what works, toss what doesn't, change your perspective if you want to, refrain from changing perspectives if you don't feel so moved - and then carry on and move forward.

I'm not declaring with certainty that I'm "right". And no one here is forced to agree with me.

Again - I have only ideas to consider. Not "answers".


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> I don't have any opinion on what's "appropriate". I think that's for each person/couple to decide for themselves.


but I'm asking what has worked for _you_, since my ideas however conventional, are so repulsive to you.



> I don't have any opinion on what's "appropriate". I think that's for each person/couple to decide for themselves. But I think I do believe that if the people in the marriage are not satisfied with the sex part of the marriage, there is probably something going on there that's not appropriate for them. And if the woman is disinterested and saying "no" is the norm, there may be some biological/psychological reasons to consider, and that by merely recognizing them (perspective change) carries the potential to transform a culture of "no" into a culture of enthusiastic "yes".


Do you have any specific anecdotes to illustrate this? I'm all for being more understanding/empathic.. hell, I have a 4 month old so I would know.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

nader said:


> See, this is where you and I differ. With sex there is no your problem or my problem. it is OUR problem. That's just the nature of marriage. if my wife lets me know that she is unhappy with our sex life, it is OUR problem, and I am damn well going to do everything in my power to make it better for her. What you might be missing is that *most men (men worth their salt) want their wives to be fulfilled sexually*, and they themselves will not be completely fulfilled if this is not happening.


If this is true - that the men posting here today want their wives to be fulfilled sexually and will damn well do anything to make it better for them - then why all the resistance here to merely *considering* the biological differences and how they may impact desire and female fulfillment?

Could something that has dictated _*so much*_ of human culture, ritual, and standards (up until only recently, in our modern era of supposed "equality") really be that inconsequential in the area of marriage and that act of _*sex*_ itself?


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

I am not resisting the notion of understanding biological differences so much as your general attitude that sexual frustration is the man's cross to bear, or "not your problem," as you said earlier, and that it would be in any way, shape or form a good idea to chemically lower a man's desire.

Taking a workshop in female anatomy or women's studies, however enlightening, is not going to make me any less horny. A good roll in the hay with my gracious and obliging wife _*who loves me and wants to take care of me*_ most certainly will!


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

> as you said earlier, and that it would be in any way, shape or form a good idea to chemically lower a man's desire.


Huh? What what? How about chemically lowering a nympho's desire?
Would save me a lot more time during a day! Heh, sorry I can't take this discussion seriously...


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Nader if I thought that by getting married I was committing to having sex when I did not feel it was appropriate to do so, it I think I would have remained single. "Just do it is" abhorrent to me. The scriptural reference is less that convincing as it amounts to cherry picking from a complex document that also has a lot to say about the duty of men for their wives.

I really don't think quating scipture and expecting the wife to just do does not solve the problem. Moreover, if she just did it should she fake excitement too? That is a lot to ask and love will not make her do it. Just like men can separate love from sex women do the same so your should understand. LBJ has nailed exactly. 

You may be sick of hearing it but if there is no emotional connection, sexual frustration due to lack of orgasms and the partner is not responsive to the others needs, lack of nonsexual communication, disrespect, lack of appreciation I think a women is justified in not having sex. These things don't seem to bother men but it greatly decrease the desire for many women to have sex. It is not always a low libido and sex but many other issues.

The argument that a man shoulders his burden to support the family, fix things around the house do chores. It is wrong headed to think this way. If a man lives in a house is he not responsible for it upkeep. If a women is bearing his children, caring for the kids and all of tge other small but important things does that not offset his arduous support duties? I think this notion inflates the man's contribution and devalues the womens contribution. 

Some common complaits by women is that the husband is consumed with online video games, porn, sports and hobbies. He has time for his wife only when he wants sex. A husband who refuses to apologize whe appropriate, is critical and impatient. He may consider resasonable requests from his wife as controlling. Some of the men garnering sympathy may have these problems that they do not address. 

If these issues can be discussed in the context of this discussion by men, it would help. LBJ's post was excellent and there have been many post by women supportive of men but I seldom see the same support from men. It is simply the womans fault she is cold, a prude evil, unloving and so on. The fact that there are problems in the relationship are dismissed as immaterial to the man getting sex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

nader said:


> but I'm asking what has worked for _you_, since my ideas however conventional, are so repulsive to you.





nader said:


> I think I might feel that your ideas are more "modern" than historically "conventional". (I think it's a modern thing to dismiss biological differences.)
> 
> Do you have any specific anecdotes to illustrate this? I'm all for being more understanding/empathic.. hell, I have a 4 month old so I would know.


I'm admittedly getting kinda confused regarding who has said - in which posts. So for example, I have some things swirling around my head right now - and I can't remember if you said them, or Grayson or dbj. So if i give an example, and compare to something that someone here said - please don't think that i'm directly attributing the statement to you, okay?!!! 

A couple of things stand out to me. And these are not specific anecdotes. 

I will think up some and post again. 

But what strikes me is the overall tone of dismissing the biological (instead of acknowledging and respecting it). And all the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts". As I read the posts I feel that there's and undercurrent of denying the women of their femaleness, and stripping away their sexual freedom of expression. That might sound wild to you, if this is totally different from how you see things. 

I need to think of actual examples I can give.

Here's something. Maybe not the best reply I could give you, but something for now. A gentleman posted in another thread here the other day that he had sex with his wife last week and she wasn't really all that into it, kinda just laid there (but she was fine with it and thought the sex was fine by her). He TOLD HER that it wasn't okay - that it was BAD. And that he "expects" that she be more enthusiastic. 

Now that might not be exactly what you guys are talking about when you're talking talking about all the "shoulds". But for me - if my husband didn't give me the *sexual freedom* to be real and to even _*not be very enthused*_ (if that's how I'm feeling at that moment), I'd feel caged and stifled. And very resentful. I mean, hey - there are going to be some times when I'm going to essentially just lay there (half asleep). If I was _* criticized *_for that (for being real) or told that he didn't "enjoy it enough" and I need to put on an act _*for his enjoyment*_ - I bet there would soon be a time when I'd be completely unenthusiastic *all of the time*. Versus being really enthusiastic a lot of the time, but mellow, unphased, or even half-asleep other times. 

Does this even make sense and in any way answer what you were asking? (Or am I just rehashing what I've already said??????)


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> Nader if I thought that by getting married I was committing to having sex when I did not feel it was appropriate to do so, it I think I would have remained single. "Just do it is" abhorrent to me.


I've read the same advice in any number of women's magazines or forums about sex.. this is actually pretty common in sex therapy, when low drive is the issue. The idea is 'use it or lose it;' it gets better/easier the more you do it, and tougher the less you do it. I'm not saying women need to just roll over and put out every time; but at the same time they can't just sit around waiting until they decide they want to have sex, or it might not ever happen.



> The scriptural reference is less that convincing as it amounts to cherry picking from a complex document that also has a lot to say about the duty of men for their wives.


I am well versed in these passages as well, and they most certainly fit into what I am saying here. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself sacrificially, etc. It is a two way street. I can play Bible ping pong all day, if you want.



> You may be sick of hearing it but if there is no emotional connection, sexual frustration due to lack of orgasms and the partner is not responsive to the others needs, lack of nonsexual communication, disrespect, lack of appreciation I think a women is justified in not having sex. These things don't seem to bother men but it greatly decrease the desire for many women to have sex. It is not always a low libido and sex but many other issues.





> Some common complaints by women is that the husband is consumed with online video games, porn, sports and hobbies. He has time for his wife only when he wants sex. A husband who refuses to apologize whe appropriate, is critical and impatient. He may consider resasonable requests from his wife as controlling. Some of the men garnering sympathy may have these problems that they do not address.


The main issue in this thread seems to be low or mismatched libido. Obviously there are millions of possible scenarios that would merit their own discussion. we aren't trying to solve every possible problem at once.



> If these issues can be discussed in the context of this discussion by men, it would help. LBJ's post was excellent and there have been many post by women supportive of men but I seldom see the same support from men. It is simply the womans fault she is cold, a prude evil, unloving and so on. The fact that there are problems in the relationship are dismissed as immaterial to the man getting sex.


I agree that we often fall into the trap of hearing one side of the story. The OP hasn't really shared much of her experience.. she just started a discussion asking why can't there be a pill to lower a man's desire.

Believe me, I am not some caveman, and I probably get laid much more than these cavemen husbands you are describing! I haven't been posting in this thread to complain about my wife; only the general premise of the thread.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

> there have been many post by women supportive of men but I seldom see the same support from men. It is simply the womans fault she is cold, a prude evil, unloving and so on. The fact that there are problems in the relationship are dismissed as immaterial to the man getting sex.


I dunno Catherine, to be honest this thread reminds me of the negative views I received when I was complaining about the missus' high sex drive. 

A woman can complain about a man in this manner but not the other way round - as the man should be thankful he's getting some. However, I don't see how one can exactly be thankful when confronted with duty 3x a day. Luckily the issue is solving itself over time this year. All this talk about 'biological' difference in terms of sex drive levels is laughable knowing my wife.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> Now that might not be exactly what you guys are talking about when you're talking talking about all the "shoulds". But for me - if my husband didn't give me the sexual freedom to be real and to even not be very enthused (if that's how I'm feeling at that moment), I'd feel caged and stifled. And very resentful. I mean, hey - there are going to be some times when I'm going to essentially just lay there (half asleep). If I was criticized for that (for being real) or told that he didn't "enjoy it enough" and I need to put on an act for his enjoyment - I bet there would soon be a time when I'd be completely unenthusiastic all of the time. Versus being really enthusiastic a lot of the time, but mellow, unphased, or even half-asleep other times.


Yes, that makes perfect sense. Most men understand you can't just have mind blowing porn sex all the time, and that _sometimes _it's ok to just get it over with. In my own marriage I am coming to terms with this myself! But at the same time I've made it clear that I _much prefer_ when she is fully engaged and having a good time herself. It is interesting that you describe this as 'sexual freedom' because up until this point I wasn't really clear on what you mean.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

BTW notion of lowering a mans libido I find repugnant. Men are not animals to be neutered. Men are what they are and I love the way they are even the most exasperating traits. I can't see how you can improve Gods creation. I hate to read of their distress and I think most are legitimate due to a sad lack of understanding and demonizing male sexuality and tge shaming of woman. 

Inhibition of female sexuality is encourage in this society. The inhibition is expected to disappear when tge husband or bf will benifit. The cinicisim of tha does not escape many women even if it is on a subconscious level. Man and women are rrsponsible for this. If male sexuality is demonized in this culture womens sexuality is shamed. Both problems need to be addressed with equal vigor. 

My husband said things about women in the news who made sex films for their bf and women who "sleep around". He has never criticized men who are hoes. I took issue with this. why the double standard is female sexual expression bad? I said if he thinks it is bad what does he think of me. He said it was different I am his wife. To me if you feel that way about women it is the same for all women even if it subconscious. He vehmatly disagreed

. I don't think men should make stupid comments about women and sex in front of their inhibited wife. It reinforces their fear of being too sexual and losing their husbands..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

nader said:


> I am not resisting the notion of understanding biological differences so much as your general attitude that sexual frustration is the man's cross to bear, or "not your problem," as you said earlier, and that it would be in any way, shape or form a good idea to chemically lower a man's desire.


I didn't mean "not my problem" in an uncaring way. 

I think i had said that in response to you saying that it seemed that I have just "have a problem with the way men are".

And I replied that my focus is men's _*distress*_. My qualm is over distress, if men are feeling it. IF.

But that ultimately, yes, each person's sexual desire is their own responsibility to manage. It's not a woman's job to provide this, with her insides. Married or not!

The irony being that a husband who acknowledges this and sees his wife's insides as *her own*, and sacred (and a priviledge to share), probably gets more (and more genuine/loving) access and care than the husbands who view their wives bodies as "no big deal" and "just like me but her junk is on the inside", and "she's SUPPOSED to do this and she's SUPPOSED to like it all the time". 

I mean, everyone's feelings and desires are ultimately their own cross to bear. Sex is no different. We often opt to team up and share. But each person's DESIRE is their own desire to manage. Don't you think?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Random I remember that thread some men said you should be happy but if I remember many said she was treating you like a d/I/c/k on a stick.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

> BTW notion of lowering a mans libido I find repugnant. Men are not animals to be neutered. Men are what they are and I love the way they are even the most exasperating traits. I can't see how you can improve Gods creation. I hate to read of their distress and I think most are legitimate due to a sad lack of understanding and demonizing male sexuality and tge shaming of woman.


See, this is where I've been coming from all along. I just have a different angle.


----------



## miss-understood (Jun 13, 2011)

nader said:


> The OP hasn't really shared much of her experience.. she just started a discussion asking why can't there be a pill to lower a man's desire.


No, I have NEVER said "why can't there be a pill to lower a man's desire". 

I asked why we are not _*willing to discuss *_how we could help men to lower their desire - IF that desire is tormenting them.

If - and only if - they are in distress.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

@Catherine

From what I remember the men were saying I should be happy yes, some even saying they wish they had my problem (funny -.-), some women mentioned that I should 'man up', be appreciative, how I was an inconsiderate jerk (funny...), or how I simply 'can't handle it' which was quite interesting as I'm sure those women themselves wouldn't be able to handle forced sex 3x a day. Not one acknowledged that she was treating me like a d/i/c/k on a stick. But past is past, she's better now really. 

Anyways I just wanted to give my two cents here because this seems to be more a 'male vs female' thing instead of examining how to solve the issue of mismatched sex drives. I can't take this thread seriously as a result.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

miss-understood said:


> No, I have NEVER said "why can't there be a pill to lower a man's desire".
> 
> I asked why we are not _*willing to discuss *_how we could help men to lower their desire - IF that desire is tormenting them.
> 
> If - and only if - they are in distress.


This is from your O.P., from way back when!



> We have pharmaceutical drugs for nearly everything these days. We have solutions to help people who are suffering from acid reflux, all kinds of pain, etc.
> 
> *If men are so tortured by their desires for sex, why isn't someone developing/selling a pill to HELP them with that?*


That's where the discussion comes from.. I knew I wasn't just imagining it! The truth is, it was probably easy to miss the main point you were trying to make, due to everyone's knee jerk reaction at how awful this sounds.

Whatever your views are on men, women, sex, marriage, etc. I'm pretty sure that 99% of us will agree that mismatched libido is better helped by open communication and compromise, than by some pill.


----------



## nader (May 4, 2011)

nader said:


> This is from your O.P., from way back when!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


RandomDude:

That must have sucked. It is hard to imagine what that would have felt like and I'm glad you've worked through it.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

I think we would discuss how to get men to want sex less. 

If a man was to post that he has to have sex twice a day and that his wife isn't happy about it, then the advise would be centered around helping him to want it less. Probably same advice if it was once a day. Maybe the same advice for every other day. As soon as we see a post like this, I am sure we will see this advice (reduce your sex drive sir).

At a certain frequency the advice would start to change to helping the woman to want sex more. This is typically when the man is complaining about once or twice a month.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

592 posts on why men love sex so much versus 318,432,717 why women don't.

You win.


----------



## MGirl (Mar 13, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> BTW notion of lowering a mans libido I find repugnant. Men are not animals to be neutered. Men are what they are and I love the way they are even the most exasperating traits. I can't see how you can improve Gods creation. I hate to read of their distress and I think most are legitimate due to a sad lack of understanding and demonizing male sexuality and the shaming of woman.
> 
> Inhibition of female sexuality is encouraged in this society. The inhibition is expected to disappear when the husband or bf will benefit. The cynicism of that does not escape many women even if it is on a subconscious level. Man and women are responsible for this. If male sexuality is demonized in this culture women's sexuality is shamed. Both problems need to be addressed with equal vigor.


:iagree::iagree:


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Runs like Dog said:


> 592 posts on why men love sex so much versus 318,432,717 why women don't.
> 
> You win.



I'm not even going to question the math.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 6, 2010)

Runs like Dog said:


> 592 posts on why men love sex so much versus 318,432,717 why women don't.
> 
> You win.


No, we all lose.


----------



## Kricket (May 10, 2011)

What pharmaceutical company would want to spend the money to develop a pill that no man would willingly take? 
It would be similar to creating a pill or us discussing a solution that would lower your intelligence so you can have a more compatable IQ with your spouse. 

Maybe they can make a pill to make my husband like to go shopping with me


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Going back and TRYING to hit some of the other points while using the phone, so they don't get lost in the shuffle....



miss-understood said:


> Hey Grayson! You've given me a lot of good stuff to reply to. I might need to reply in bits, okay?
> 
> I can understand what you're saying here (quote above). But this is the part that kinda creeps me out - it's seems accepted these days to place pressure on another human being to provide "an outlet" (this is especially creepy to me, when it's a man - insisting that needs to "get inside" the woman - so he can have a physical "outlet" to alleviate his physical need). If the person is desperate for an "outlet" and has pushed away his/her spouse (possibly because of this issue), and feels that self-servicing is _*inadequate*_... then what?
> 
> If my husband ever considered me an "outlet", ugh. I'd probably run for the hills.


Come on, now, miss-understood. I think you know that, since we're trying to remain civil (and, in my case, generally gender-neutral) and logical about the subject, I'm trying to use dispassionate terminology to discsuss a subject that is inherently passionate. "Outlet" is clearly used in this manner. Trying to turn language used to foster rational discourse into an attitude towards a member of the opposite sex (and, it would appear that you're continuing to go gender-specific and see it as a male bias against women) is disingenuous.



> I bet that is totally true for many people! I hear you. However, part of why I began to think of this overall topic of reducing desire is because many men recently (friends... well, and their wives) have literally described to me a problem they have of primarily physical distress. Of physical "pressure" building up. Maybe this is not representative of humans at large. I am only discussing my personal experience. And a couple of men in particular expressing to me that this is "how it is for men" and that these desires are torturous to them.
> 
> I'm not saying that this makes it true for all men! (Just because specific men have "said" to me that it is). I'm just saying: this is what I've been told by some men (who've said to me, essentially "please try to understand how horrible this is for us"). And that's where I'm getting the notion from.


I'll see your personal anecdotal evidence and raise with my own: In face-to-face and online conversations, I've only heard men using the terms you're using in a metaphorical sense. That said, since you're focusing strictly on the biological, there is a biological basis for the metaphorical pressure. The male reproductive system manufacures sperm and semen 24/7. With finite storage space, once max capacity is reached, some of that volume must be released, or medical issues may ensue. This is achieved through sex, masurbation, or - in the absence of either - so-called "nocturnal emissions" or "wet dreams." 






> I don't want to dismiss your feelings, nor your experience. I think it is troubling, for many women, though - that men mix up and intertwine emotional intimacy and sex so much. Also, it seems (to me - this is my personal interpretation!) that men so often put women in a very tricky no-win position. if we are not up for sex (again, you're shoving something inside of us - sometimes that's just a little too much or we aren't up for it) so many men have expressed that they take this as a _*personal rejection*_. Pardon my French, but that really sucks for the person with the "innie". It's not fair. But more damaging, is that it causes greater relationship rifts. I've seen this emotional confusion with so many of my girlfriends. Their insides should be their insides, and respected as their insides, but their husbands feel _*personal rejection*_ if they're not up for having sex. Rejection! Hence the feelings of obligation and invasion ensue. The frequency of sex declines, and continues to decline. And what can (or used to be) a very intimate, loving, act now becomes negative, invasive, frought with guilt and obligation.


Once again, it appears that you're taking the occasional and applying it universally. As I've tried to express many times, any reasonable higher drive partner is aware that their lower drive partner isn't going to feel like having sex EVERY time the higher drive partner is in the mood. Be it this alleged innate fear of penetration you describe, not feeling well, or just plain having a lousy day so they're not in the mood...among any other number of reasons. The higher drive partner gets that. It's (once more, with feeling) *when the rejection becomes the norm, and is car more frequent than not* that the higher drive partner begins to take it as a personal rejection.



> A wife is not a possession - like a car that you get in and drive. To make you feel good about yourself.


And I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise. Have I missed it?



> Again, if my husband took a "no" as a _*personal rejection*_ - we'd definitely be having sex a whole lot less. I'd feel disrespected, and that my sexual freedom had been taken away. It would twist me up inside, emotionally. And would make sex very unpleasant for me.


See above. Again, those of us who have mentioned feelings of personal rejection in the thread are not talking about the occasional, "Not tonight." but rather a frequent, repeated pattern of one partner turning down the other's overtures.



> This is just an idea - but couples who are experiencing a lack of action in the bedroom might in some cases be able to increase the frequency by separating out the "connection/closenss" needs a little bit more, and not placing so much of the emphasis on sex providing that. Takes some of the pressure off.


Wow...after so many years of hearing generalized complaints that far too many people have sex too casually, ignoring the intimate aspects of it, it's surprising to see someone suggest the opposite...that TOO much emphasis is being placed on the intimacy of sex. I've been mulling this point over for the hours I've been working on this reply, on and off in slow moments at work, and...honestly...I'm still at a loss for words in reaction.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

miss-understood said:


> If this is true - that the men posting here today want their wives to be fulfilled sexually and will damn well do anything to make it better for them - then why all the resistance here to merely *considering* the biological differences and how they may impact desire and female fulfillment?


That thumping sound you hear is me banging my forehead against the wall.

Let's try this once more, with feeling....

We are not discounting biology as *A* contributing factor. We are also, however, taking other contributing factors into account on *both* sides of the equation...both the higher drive and lower drive partner, regardless of which partner is male or female. You, however, appear to be focused solely not just on biology leading to a lower drive, but specifically female biology alone inherently leading to a lower drive. Since biology alone does not influence such matters in a vacuum, we are not looking at it in a vacuum.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

RandomDude said:


> Anyways I just wanted to give my two cents here because this seems to be more a 'male vs female' thing instead of examining how to solve the issue of mismatched sex drives. I can't take this thread seriously as a result.


The OP does seem to keep trying to bring it back to a "male vs. female" perspective. Despite my own best efforts to remain gender-neutral and keeping things to a mismatched libido perspective, I'll freely cop to replying to some points that called for going into a direct male/female dynamic.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Longtime Husband (Dec 14, 2009)

I cannot believe all of this bantering about what is quite possibly the most ridiculous idea anyone could come up with since I don't know what.


----------



## Pandakiss (Oct 29, 2010)

i dont know if anyone answered the question or not...but....if men could take a pill or get a shot to curb their sex drive, they would freak out...husband said..think of all the things he could get done, and the prob he could work out, if only sex wasnt on his mind 24/7.

no he is no sex maniac...he also said he would be to scared it would never work again...so better than safe than sorry, and skip this procedure.

and its easier to warm up than to cool off.


----------



## COGypsy (Aug 12, 2010)

I've been working my way through this thread and just thought I'd throw out a few of my thoughts from a different perspective. 

First off, I was initially drawn into the thread because I really do understand the premise. Back when I still had hope/interest/investment in any sort of a physical relationship with my husband, there were literally times when I prayed that I would just quit wanting sex. That maybe if I could just quit wanting it, then things could be okay. Or at least better. Or tolerable. Or whatever marriage is supposed to be. If there were some pill or exercise or meditation I could have done that would have de-libido'd me, I'd have been in, back in the day. So I completely get the idea of looking for something that would just make it okay to be with someone who didn't want you like you wanted them. So I can see where the original topic was going, in theory.

I think that perhaps I can maybe explain where there's a line between, "not tonight babe" and the feeling of "personal rejection" when the whole "cuddling" thing just doesn't cut it anymore. It's simply a matter of time. Sure, in any relationship there are ups and downs and stress and feeling cruddy or whatever. But when overture after overture again and again is brushed off, ignored or you're flat out told to "quit that" or "leave me alone"....the questions start to build in your mind and it starts to feel very, very personal, and very, very rejected, believe me. I really don't think that until you're the one that hears "no" repeatedly in one form or another that you can have an understanding of exactly where that line is. It's not after one night, or one week or even a month....it's more pervasive than that. But you're right, it does ultimately erode the intimacy completely.

And I can also say too that as a woman with a sex drive that is high enough to rival nearly any man's, that these issues are by no means gender specific. While it may be far less common for women to still admit to wanting or enjoying sex, especially more than their partners, I can tell you that at least in my case, it's all too real on both sides of the gender gap. 

In retrospect, I'm sure that there would be some kind of communication trick or emotional intimacy building thing that's out there that might have helped, but it really came down to that....not biology, not medicine or sublimated traumas...just mismatches and miscommunication.


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Grayson said:


> That thumping sound you hear is me banging my forehead against the wall.


We have an emocon for that G.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Amplexor said:


> We have an emocon for that G.


Yeah, but I can't see the menu of 'em when posting from my phone, as I was then.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

This thread is a scratches the head or pokes the head kind of icon for me.

Why would we want to help men end a part of their biology for their partner's pleasure? That would indeed be the actual feminization of men.

The only solution is to have the two people find different partners all together that are more compatible (there are high drive women for sure...but maybe women shouldn't pretend to be more interested in sex then they are to begin with so that a good sex drive match can be made) -or- the two in the marriage both compromise and explore to find a medium that works for both.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Miss-understood , you said this


> I think it is troubling, for many women, though - that men mix up and intertwine emotional intimacy and sex so much.


Many women feel this way also. I believe this is HEALTHY and life giving - marriage building, happiness enhancing. It is when we miss this or don't view marital sex in THIS light -that it is the most damaging to each other. MEN who use sex just to get off, no connection needed (high test bad boy types tend to be like this), this leaves a women feeling used, a woman likely will start to separate in her mind these 2 things to continue to have "sex", or the pain would be too great. But it was never meant to be this way!! 

A man who deeply cares for his wife's pleasure is a man seeking intimacy with someone he loves. If he gets frustrated cause she does not "want" him, and shows this now & then (even to her dismay) , it is only human, he speaks out of HIS hurt, his pain, his weakness -I would forgive such a man and be thankful he wants me and looks at sex in the way it was intended by God above,even if he shows anger at times. 

Although I have masterbated many times in my life, it is SO HOLLOW in comparison to being with my husband. He does not even look at it as "sex"- he tells me, it has always only been "making love"-to him. It is this intimacy Grayson so gracefully described earlier -this is what we crave deeply. Once you feel this so profoundly with another person, you will never want to let it go but build upon it. It is something to climb mountains for. 



Grayson said:


> Although there are those who would argue that the only "true" role for sex is procreation (poor devils), I think that we can reach a consensus here on the board that the principal role of sex in a committed relationship is bonding and sharing intimacy with the person you've pledged your life and heart to. It's terribly good for the relationship in that the participants' guard is fully down...they're exposed to one another, literally and figuratively, joining bodies, hearts and minds together.


 
Love this song by Brayan Adams YouTube - ‪PLEASE FORGIVE ME....BRYAN ADAMS‬‏

, take a moment & listen to the words, I feel it is so fitting for the cry of so many men who just WANT thier wives in this way & sometimes they loose it, get a little pushy, a little too verbal in this "making love" thing, even in ways that may turn thier wives in the other direction --this is so very unfortunate. Hear his words........
"So if I love you a little more than I should
Please forgive me, I know not what I do
Please forgive me, I can't stop loving you
Don't deny me, this pain I'm going through
Please forgive me, if I need you like I do"

Understand what is lying underneath that drives some men to come to this place. It stings to be rejected, to not have the wife feel the connection or want it, It can maime, causes great frustration and hurt. All because we FEEL. This song expresses a GOOD man's heart so well ! 

Couldn't agree more with this >>>


dbj1971 said:


> A man's or woman's desire to be sexually intimate will not disappear. A pill won't make it happen. So ask ourselves how we're going to handle it? Maybe, as I stated in my first post, the problem is that some people don't want to be vulnerable or open to the other person, which is what true love-making requires. It could be due to fear, past trauma, loss of respect for the partner, resentment toward the partner (which makes us not want to give ourselves completely in the sexual union), etc. You could probably think of a lot of other things.
> 
> I submit to you that people don't cheat because of a purely biological urge for sexual release. It's because of things like not feeling wanted, appreciated, loved; it's due to a lack of intimacy that they crave, where the other person really wants them and (yes) needs them, and where what they have to contribute is truly appreciated and desired. Men want to have deep relationships with women who give their hearts totally to him. If you can't open to me completely, then I think you don't really love me or trust me, or you might have deep scars that need therapy (for which I have the utmost compassion, where that's the true case - such as past sexual abuse, rape, etc.). I mean no disprespect to anyone whatsoever.
> 
> It seems to me that people who get the whole "desire for sexual intimacy" thing, the true total connection of it, not just biology 101 in evolutionary or medicinal terms (how utterly unromantic), are trying to explain to everyone what they really mean, while the people who are happy with sex once in a blue moon don't seem to get what all the fuss is about. You cannot have a truly happy relationship, on all its levels, if the sexual aspect is not right. Don't kid yourselves. Someone once said, sex is a barometer of a relationship. There is a lot of truth in that.


To take Romance & this incessant drive for sexual intimacy out of the equation, life would loose the majority of it's Passion, even purpose, it would surely become less colorful, less flavorful, less enthusiastic, less of many beautiful things.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

I have not read the 41 pages of this thread.

It seems more than ludicrous and naive to me. If I did not have a sex drive I would not be seeking the dopamine that helps make me have a feeling of well being. Or maybe I am taking drugs now that give that rush and lower my sex drive. Well those exist, but there are some real serious side effects.

I don't think there is a reason to have a marriage as it is today without a sex drive. 

I actually go out of my way as part of being healthy to do things that will maintaiion / increase my sex drive. It is in my diet and the type of exercise that I do. My sex drive is a big part of who I am. It is called, being a man. 

Without it I would be very passive indeed or maybe just a cranky old woman. Shoot me now please I would not want to live.

I love my wife but she would just be a nice roommate. We would never have married in the first place without the sex drive. No kids. No reason to get together and go through those tough times and good times together so no reason to bond. She does not play chess so there you go. Would I even like chess? I would have no reason to have the extra time in my job because I would not care enough to push ahead and achieve. Why?

So I see no nirvana / utopia on not having a sex drive. To become a eunuch if you will. Wow, is that radical feminism? 

I guess if I was taking this pill and others were not I would be completely trampled by the world as a little child. No way to defend myself.

Why on earth would I want to castrate myself? My sex drive is a huge part of who I am. If you do not believe this you are being completely naive.

Nope. I would have no reason to be married to one person. I think it would even take the edge off of being a monk. Monks have a sex drive.

This would change everything in our lives in ways we can only imagine. This discussion is akin to the radical feminism that advocates the removal of the male from the species. No point in having two genders.

Men would lose their jelaousy which is really their innate programming to protect the female. I guess she does not want or need to be protected any more. 

I suppose if such medication were mandated by the government for some perverse reasons there would be a rebellion by some outcasts who wanted to keep their libidos. They would be dangerous people with animalistic tendencies. This just gets too warped. Just get your nads cut off.

I think if a woman wants a marriage partner who is not really a man, they should consider marrying another woman. I mean why would a woman want a man who has no sex drive? He is not a man then.

The real kicker would be that the man is taking this castration pill and then finds out his wife is banging some dude that is not taking his pills. 

In the female body agenda the scenario would be that 1% of all the male population would be selected to service 100% of all women when the women were in the mood. These of course would be the top Alpha males It is what women are hard wired to seek out. The male with the best genes. I guess they would "father" all of the children.

The remaining 99% of men would take the pill and be drones / slaves. Maybe the pill is engineered to increase pure Beta behavior in these men. They work and take care of the children. Women would be free to do whatever interests them. They would not worry about thier Beta man. He worships her of course. She would never have to actually have sex with him. She would not want to. He might as well be castrated. Women with higher libido could go to the sex clubs every week or nightly or all day for that matter and mingle with those Alpha males until dawn. Women would have the best Alpha males. No settling for the Nice Guy.

So pressing onward here. Why would I take such a pill then? Why not divorce my wife and live with a woman who appreciates living with a healthy man. Then my ex wife would not have to deal with my sex drive. She would not have to worry about sex any more so she would have more time to pursue a career and would not need anything from me. She could learn chess.

*MEN --- Take the freakin Red Pill. Not this one.*


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

"So if I love you a little more than I should
Please forgive me, I know not what I do
Please forgive me, I can't stop loving you
Don't deny me, this pain I'm going through
Please forgive me, if I need you like I do"

Yup


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

*"We hold each other closer, as we shift to overdrive
And everything goes rushing by, with every nerve alive
We move so fast it seems as though we've taken to the sky
Love machines in harmony, we hear the engines cry.

I'm your turbo lover
Tell me there's no other
I'm your turbo lover
Better run for cover"*

Judas Priest, Turbo Lover.

I wanted this for my wedding song ....
We compromised on Shania Twain's "From This Moment" ... you can see how that worked out for Shania and myself.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

So this pill seems a nightmare to me.

I would not have a song for my wife / for us in such a nightmare.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Actually my song for my wife is :


I don't wanna miss a thing

I could stay awake just to hear you breathing
Watch you smile while you are sleeping
Far away and dreaming
I could spend my life in this sweet surrender
I could stay lost in this moment forever
Well, every moment spent with you
Is a moment I treasure

I don't wanna close my eyes
I don't wanna fall asleep
'Cause I'd miss you, babe
And I don't wanna miss a thing
'Cause even when I dream of you
The sweetest dream will never do
I'd still miss you, babe
And I don't wanna miss a thing

Lying close to you
Feeling your heart beating
And I'm wondering what you're dreaming
Wondering if it's me you're seeing
Then I kiss your eyes and thank God we're together
And I just wanna stay with you
In this moment forever, forever and ever

I don't wanna close my eyes
I don't wanna fall asleep
'Cause I'd miss you, babe
And I don't wanna miss a thing
'Cause even when I dream of you
The sweetest dream will never do
I'd still miss you, babe
And I don't wanna miss a thing

I don't wanna miss one smile
I don't wanna miss one kiss
Well, I just wanna be with you
Right here with you, just like this
I just wanna hold you close
Feel your heart so close to mine
And stay here in this moment
For all the rest of time

Don't wanna close my eyes
Don't wanna fall asleep
'Cause I'd miss you, babe
And I don't wanna miss a thing
'Cause even when I dream of you
The sweetest dream will never do
'Cause I'd still miss you, babe
And I don't wanna miss a thing

I don't wanna close my eyes
I don't wanna fall asleep
'Cause I'd miss you, babe
And I don't wanna miss a thing
'Cause even when I dream of you
The sweetest dream will never do
I'd still miss you, babe
And I don't wanna miss a thing

Don't wanna close my eyes
Don't wanna fall asleep, yeah
I don't wanna miss a thing


----------



## dbj1971 (May 29, 2008)

Much of what I was going to say next was said so well by Entropy3000. I second his point that a man's sex drive is an essential part of who he is as a person, and is a great deal of what makes him a man. I know there are people who may not like hearing that, but that's the way it is. If you artificially alter his sex drive (such as with a pill), you take away some of who he is as a man. Now, don't get me wrong, sex and sex drive is not all that a man is, but other things that Entropy2000 mentioned are tied in with a man's drive, such as his motivation in other important areas of life. 

I think the only pill you could give a man to lower his sex drive, if it would even work, (and even then, as I said before, it would only possibly reduce his physical drive but not his need for closeness and intimacy on that level), is either an antidepressant or something to reduce his testosterone (male hormone) and/or inject estrogen into him. Either way, you'd get undesirable results, such as lethargy, secondary female characteristics (loss of facial hair, loss of manly physical characteristics) that you wouldn't want. So be careful what you wish for. Other posters, some of whom may be doctors or medical professionals, could say much more about that. 

I would like to say that if I came across in any way as harsh toward Miss-understood, it was not intentional. I concede her point that she is genuinely suggesting a means to alleviate some of the problems and frustration that exist between a man and woman with vastly different sex drives. The problem with that approach, though, and respectfully speaking, is that it seeks to attempt to change another person, to alter who they are, so that they are brought closer to our own level, with no action or effort required on our part. What if a man married a woman who is really energetic and likes to have company over for socials, and the man is extra-laid-back and somewhat antisocial? Should he ask her to take a pill that would make her tired and somewhat lethargic, to make her more like his own level? Or, should he take a look at himself and ask what he could do to at least meet her somewhere close to half-way?

I will repeat that this is not a male-only issue, as there are women with higher drives who are frustrated, but the original post was phrased in the context of directing it toward men, so I have taken that approach in this post, above.

I think the deeper issue and question that needs to be asked is not how do we lower one person's drive so that it more closely matches another's, but why is one of the partners desiring lovemaking either not at all or so much less? Is there a problem in the relationship? Are there other issues? Is the mutual respect diminished? Is there dullness in the approach? Is the man or woman not caring enough to bring the other person to satisfaction (including orgasm, if desired)?

Another deeper issue in all this, perhaps subtly under the surface but not explicitly stated is that somehow men's high sex drives (or women's for that matter) are a problem that needs to be fixed or medicated to make it more acceptable or "normal." It's like we have to apologize for our strong sexuality, or restrain it so that we don't risk being seen as being like animals or having one-track minds or whatever. 

These kinds of topics are going to continue, because people of widely-differing sex drives are going to find themselves in a relationship. Now, either their drivers were vastly different from the outset, or something happened to cause one of them to change. That is the type of self-reflection and analysis of the relationship itself that I'm advocating, before jumping to a pill or some other magic potion. I will give you the flip-side of this whole thread: There are commercials that focus on male enhancement and making the woman want sex more (lotions, creams, pills); now, is that treating the symptom (low sex drive) when really the problem is that the man acts like a jerk to his wife and that's why she doesn't want sex with him? That's why we must be careful in boiling everything down to mere biology. There are all kinds of issues with sexuality that have nothing to do with body parts and physical functioning. For example, they say the most important sex organ for a woman is between her ears (her brain). I'd say it's really true of men too. Until someone makes the decision that they're going to open up to you and let you into the sanctum of their inner world (heart, soul, and mind, not just body), then you really have two people using each other to get off, not really connecting and "making love." 

It is sad that these discussions even have to take place. It also strikes a very big nerve in people, hence the huge amount of response to this thread. There are strong feelings on both sides of the fence, but I'd be willing to wager you that the vast majority who are frustrated and aggravated are those who have high drives and are being denied, not those who have the lower drive and hold the "yes, no" key in their hand and feel they are being "nagged" for sex and wish there was a magic pill to fix it all.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

I don't write my woman no more.

I can't eat.
I don't sleep.
I ain't got no enthusiasm.
I don't write my woman no more.
I'm supposed to get out next year but I don't care whether I do or don't.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

If you want to be happy the rest of your life get yourself an ulgy wife.


now theres a marriage or love song!


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

chillymorn said:


> If you want to be happy the rest of your life get yourself an ulgy wife.
> 
> 
> now theres a marriage or love song!


That was our cake cutting song! Everybody howled.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Mine should have been "Delia's Gone" by Johnny Cash

Delia, oh, Delia Delia all my life
If I hadn't have shot poor
Delia I'd have had her for my wife
Delia's gone, one more round Delia's gone

I went up to Memphis
And I met Delia there Found her in her parlor
And I tied to her chair
Delia's gone, one more round Delia's gone

She was low down and trifling
And she was cold and mean
Kind of evil make me want to Grab my sub machine
Delia's gone, one more round Delia's gone

First time I shot her I shot her in the side
Hard to watch her suffer
But with the second shot she died
Delia's gone, one more round Delia's gone

But jailer, oh, jailer Jailer,
I can't sleep 'Cause all around my bedside
I hear the patter of Delia's feet
Delia's gone, one more round Delia's gone

So if you woman's devilish
You can let her run
Or you can bring her down and do her
Like Delia got done
Delia's gone, one more round Delia's gone


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

chillymorn said:


> If you want to be happy the rest of your life get yourself an ulgy wife.
> 
> 
> now theres a marriage or love song!


I was singing that very song yesterday reading the thread on GNOs. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NF5XU-k2Vk

If you wanna be happy
For the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife,
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you.

If you wanna be happy
For the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife,
So from my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you.

A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall.
As soon as he marries her
Then she starts to do
The things that will break his heart.
But if you make an ugly woman your wife,
You'll be happy for the rest of your life,
An ugly woman cooks her meals on time,
She'll always give you peace of mind.

.........


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Ruby don't take your love to town

Another classic

or 

Lyin Eyes


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

I never realized that sex had so many negative health connotations for some women, because my wife treats it differently (at least as much as she admits). Also, we went into marriage sith the understanding that both of us had needs, and intentionally denying these was justification for ending the marriage. That means that it is my responsiblilty to make her head spin, and leave her short of breath even twenty years later. 

But what many are forgetting is that sex is a vital part of testosterone balance, which defines a man. I'm high testosterone because I'm an agressive male. Or, maybe I'm an agressive male because of the high testosterone. Regardless, my income has quadrupled in the last ten years because of who I am. Rebuilt two home in the same time frame, and continued a side career that won a couple of awards. Its funny, but many of the guys who sit on the sidelines are the ones who can't remember the last time they had sex. I'm sure it sounds degrading to some, but the love of a good woman drives us to levels we never thought possible, if we are the kind of man who is willing to do the same for her. Maybe having a grandmother who was native american influenced me, but I don't see these things as being possible if my life surrounded a heart of negative energy. 

Even guys who are more beta will live life with a steady keel if all is well in the intimacy area of their lives. Yes, I know there are exceptions, but to me, the discussion should be a restart, discussing how to make the love life a mutually fulfilling aspect, so that our relationships can have a firm foundation.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

The good o' days...

YouTube - ‪Pat Benatar - Love is a Battlefield [LYRICS]‬‏

....

We are young *heartache to heartache we stand*
no promises no demands love is a battlefield

We are strong noone can tell us we're wrong
searching out hearts for so long
both of us knowing love is a battlefield

You're begging me to go then make me stay
why do you hurt me so bad
it would help me to know do I stand in your way
or am I the best thing you've had

Believe me believe me I can't tell you why
but I'm trapped by your love and I'm chained to your side

We are young heartache to heartache we stand
no promises no demands love is a battlefield
we are strong noone can tell us we're wrong
searching our hearts for so long
both of us knowing love is a battlefield

We're losing control will you turn me away
or touch me deep inside
and before this gets old will it still feel the same
there's no way this world dies

But if we get much closer I could lose control
and if your heart surrenders you'll need me to hold

We are young heartache to heartache we stand
no promises no demands love is a battlefield
we are strong noone can tell us we're wrong
searching our hearts for so long
both of us knowing love is a battlefield

...

Or are the good 'o days current? Marriage spins me out like hell fellas!


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I feel better about this thread already. And oddly? I don't feel compelled to divide, conquer, invade, and infect anyone at all ...

Win/Win.

I'm not angry about the thread. To me quite simply, the topic says something about the person posting it ... generally. In truth, it sounds like miss-understood is doing A-ok in the sex department with her husband ... I ain't never going to knock that. But I guess I am curious if he feels equally at peace with their sex life, or if he would agree with his wife's premise about reducing an overactive, male libido in an effort to demonstrate love and respect for his better half, or if he would fall over laughing.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the 'question'.

However, the circumstances and reasoning that were provided in framing the question were ... well ... distracting. Overly so.

In my opinion, I see it as the equivalent of asking; "Are women more emotional than men because their brains are smaller?"

Wondering about the reasons why women are more apt to express strong emotions may be a worthwhile conversation. Framing it from a flawed, or inflammatory presumption creates distraction and diversion ... which is ok too, but not if you want to have some serious social intercourse.

Carry on?


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I feel better about this thread already. And oddly? I don't feel compelled to divide, conquer, invade, and infect anyone at all ...
> 
> Win/Win.
> 
> ...


LOL


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I feel better about this thread already. And oddly? I don't feel compelled to divide, conquer, invade, and infect anyone at all ...
> 
> Win/Win.
> 
> ...


I don't think she was emotional. It was an interesting question and she got torched for asking it. Sad. 

Oh and the reason our brains are smaller is because our boobs are bigger. Can't have both, right?


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Halien said:


> I never realized that sex had so many negative health connotations for some women, because my wife treats it differently (at least as much as she admits). Also, we went into marriage sith the understanding that both of us had needs, and intentionally denying these was justification for ending the marriage. That means that it is my responsiblilty to make her head spin, and leave her short of breath even twenty years later.
> 
> But what many are forgetting is that sex is a vital part of testosterone balance, which defines a man. I'm high testosterone because I'm an agressive male. Or, maybe I'm an agressive male because of the high testosterone. Regardless, my income has quadrupled in the last ten years because of who I am. Rebuilt two home in the same time frame, and continued a side career that won a couple of awards. Its funny, but many of the guys who sit on the sidelines are the ones who can't remember the last time they had sex. I'm sure it sounds degrading to some, but the love of a good woman drives us to levels we never thought possible, if we are the kind of man who is willing to do the same for her. Maybe having a grandmother who was native american influenced me, but I don't see these things as being possible if my life surrounded a heart of negative energy.
> 
> Even guys who are more beta will live life with a steady keel if all is well in the intimacy area of their lives. Yes, I know there are exceptions, but to me, the discussion should be a restart, discussing how to make the love life a mutually fulfilling aspect, so that our relationships can have a firm foundation.


This post is dead on and pure Gold. All good. :iagree:


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't think she was emotional. It was an interesting question and she got torched for asking it. Sad.
> 
> Oh and the reason our brains are smaller is because our boobs are bigger. Can't have both, right?


Men develop MOOBS if we don't keep our hormones right.
In theory then that could become bigger that their wife's. 

If she floats she is a witch.

By the way women with brains are hot.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

Entropy3000 said:


> By the way women with brains are hot.


:lol:

Yah, that's good. Because if she didn't have one, she'd be, I don't know - dead and cold - literally.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

I think of my husband when I listen to Van Morrison's Someone Like You
YouTube - ‪Van Morrison - Someone Like You‬‏

Runs that is a wicked funny choice


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Enchantment said:


> :lol:
> 
> Yah, that's good. Because if she didn't have one, she'd be, I don't know - dead and cold - literally.


There are a lot of zombie women for sure!!! 

But seriously I find women who are good to look at and are very intellligent way more sexy than the ones that are all physical.
Women can up their physical sex appeal just with the way they dress and smile and so on. 

It is like the comment from the movie Bull Durham. In the show, all the women have long legs and brains.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Entropy3000 said:


> By the way women with brains are hot.


I know... hence I love everything that I hate about the missus. SHES A F--KING HEADSPINNER :scratchhead:


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't think she was emotional. It was an interesting question and she got torched for asking it. Sad.
> 
> Oh and the reason our brains are smaller is because our boobs are bigger. Can't have both, right?


Ah ... but you're proving my point. I don't think *she* was emotional. I didn't say that ... but you are inferring that I did.

Kind of like why she got torched for being associated with the view that sex is invasive and fundamentally is a negative for women. Therefore if their men really loved them, they wouldn't want struggle with sexual angst and rejection, instead they would find other forms of joy in their relationship and stop thinking about knocking boots.

See ... that's what it sounds like she said. But she said that that's not what she said. What she said was something other than what men said she was saying she said. Do you see what I'm saying?

Besides ... I have very credible examples of my point of view.

Small Brains


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Big Brains -- despite lack of blood flow to the brain


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Ah ... but you're proving my point. I don't think *she* was emotional. I didn't say that ... but you are inferring that I did.
> 
> Kind of like why she got torched for being associated with the view that sex is invasive and fundamentally is a negative for women. Therefore if their men really loved them, they wouldn't want struggle with sexual angst and rejection, instead they would find other forms of joy in their relationship and stop thinking about knocking boots.
> 
> ...


I misunderstood then. You mentioned her by name and then segwayed in to women being emotional. If anything, she was very calm in her explanations and the guys amplified things. 

It all comes back to Burgundy, doesn't it?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Are there ANY other movies you people watch?!


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Office Space

Two chicks
Oh Face
Like a Record


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

I give up.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Are there ANY other movies you people watch?!


It's a phase ... I'll work through it.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Deejo said:


> I feel better about this thread already. And oddly? I don't feel compelled to divide, conquer, invade, and infect anyone at all ...
> 
> Win/Win.
> 
> ...


Questioning why mankind would like to make women less emotional or discount women's emotions is akin to this topic really as it is the masculinization (haha new word and as my five year old said to me during Scrabble...if I can say it, it's a word) of women.

Seems the sexes will always be enraptured, enthralled, confused and annoyed by one another.

There was a time when sex was considered the cure for a woman's hysterics. Be thankful women never got to castration as a cure for a man's abundant need for sex.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Trenton said:


> Questioning why mankind would like to make women less emotional or discount women's emotions is akin to this topic really as it is the masculinization (haha new word and as my five year old said to me during Scrabble...if I can say it, it's a word) of women.
> 
> Seems the sexes will always be enraptured, enthralled, confused and annoyed by one another.
> 
> *There was a time when sex was considered the cure for a woman's hysterics. * Be thankful women never got to castration as a cure for a man's abundant need for sex.


It's not!?


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Entropy3000 said:


> It's not!?


I know...right?

No worries, brighteyes and I are developing the RoboBobbit for a non-gender robot way to take off men's penises if they try to have sex one to many times in a week. Us women don't like to do messy work ya know.


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Trenton said:


> No worries, brighteyes and I are developing the RoboBobbit for a non-gender robot way to take off men's penises if they try to have sex one to many times in a week. Us women don't like to do messy work ya know.



*RO-Bobbit!!* Come'on Trent, get it right or we'll never get it through the patent process. Sheesh!


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Trenton said:


> Questioning why mankind would like to make women less emotional or discount women's emotions is akin to this topic really as it is the masculinization (haha new word and as my five year old said to me during Scrabble...if I can say it, it's a word) of women.
> 
> Seems the sexes will always be enraptured, enthralled, confused and annoyed by one another.
> 
> There was a time when sex was considered the cure for a woman's hysterics. Be thankful women never got to castration as a cure for a man's abundant need for sex.


Subject intended for purposes of example only. I don't want to talk about women being emotional. It was a red herring.

I have no views or emotions attached to the sample statement made.

Even if you cry about it ...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Trenton said:


> I know...right?
> 
> No worries, brighteyes and I are developing the RoboBobbit for a non-gender robot way to take off men's penises if they try to have sex one to many times in a week. Us women don't like to do messy work ya know.


Hey T, keep my out of your Robot Wars. Don't you know as a feminist I already use my chain saw for that? That's the whole purpose to be a feminist/lesbian, remember?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Amplexor said:


> *RO-Bobbit!!* Come'on Trent, get it right or will never get it through the patent process. Sheesh!


What terrifies me is that you both would probably make a friggin' fortune.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Hey T, keep my out of your Robot Wars. Don't you know as a feminist I already use my chain saw for that? That's the whole purpose to be a feminist/lesbian, remember?


Feminist, chain saw wielding, lesbian? Go on ...


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Amplexor said:


> *RO-Bobbit!!* Come'on Trent, get it right or we'll never get it through the patent process. Sheesh!


D'oh! I have a new tagline...blame it on my head trauma. :banghead:


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Subject intended for purposes of example only. I don't want to talk about women being emotional. It was a red herring.
> 
> I have no views or emotions attached to the sample statement made.
> 
> Even if you cry about it ...


Red herring, eh? I'm more of a fluke girl myself.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Deejo said:


> Feminist, chain saw wielding, lesbian? Go on ...


Black patent leather stillettos and red lipstick? Not sure where you want this to go.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Hey T, keep my out of your Robot Wars. Don't you know as a feminist I already use my chain saw for that? That's the whole purpose to be a feminist/lesbian, remember?


If RO-Bobbit wielded a chainsaw and recorded the entire process would this be enough to appease your feminist/lesbian side? We can work to cater to all varieties of psychotic/AKA emotional women. The gentle RO-Bobbit who flirts before detaching and the more sadistic RO-Bobbit who terrifies before severing.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Trenton said:


> If RO-Bobbit wielded a chainsaw and recorded the entire process would this be enough to appease your feminist/lesbian side? We can work to cater to all varieties of psychotic/AKA emotional women. The gentle RO-Bobbit who flirts before detaching and the more sadistic RO-Bobbit who terrifies before severing.


No, no, no. It needs to be total world domination. I will not be a true feminist until I round up every man and throw him in a dungeon and not the good kind either.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No, no, no. It needs to be total world domination. I will not be a true feminist until I round up every man and throw him in a dungeon and not the good kind either.


Can we keep them as reproduction slaves at least and milk them like cows? I think we have the beginnings of a great sci-fi/horror flick :rofl:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Trenton said:


> Can we keep them as reproduction slaves at least and milk them like cows? I think we have the beginnings of a great sci-fi/horror flick :rofl:


Milk them like slaves? Uh oh, you just opened this up to every man's fantasy. :rofl:

Damnit T! I really WAS talking about world domination. Now why you have to go and do that?


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Milk them like slaves? Uh oh, you just opened this up to every man's fantasy. :rofl:
> 
> Damnit T! I really WAS talking about world domination. Now why you have to go and do that?


No - please don't milk us like slaves!!! And also, don't do it while wearing black leather nursing uniforms with white stockings and high heels!!!

And please don't throw us in the briar patch!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

nice777guy said:


> No - please don't milk us like slaves!!! And also, don't do it while wearing black leather nursing uniforms with white stockings and high heels!!!
> 
> And please don't throw us in the briar patch!


Trenton,

See?!


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Trenton said:


> Can we keep them as reproduction slaves at least and milk them like cows? I think we have the beginnings of a great sci-fi/horror flick :rofl:


See, 1975's A Boy and His Dog. Slightly different premise but it literally does involve a milking machine for that purpose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9fESAlGc4


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Hmmmm googled it Amp and all I can say is...Wow! Finally! Something worth watching!


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Milk them like slaves? Uh oh, you just opened this up to every man's fantasy. :rofl:
> 
> Damnit T! I really WAS talking about world domination. Now why you have to go and do that?


I typed milk them like cows gosh darn it! Not slaves! You have such a dirty feminist mind. :rofl:


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

Trenton said:


> I typed milk them like cows gosh darn it! Not slaves! You have such a dirty feminist mind. :rofl:


Your mind says cows, but your fingers say slaves...

:smthumbup:


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

And really, you can milk me like a cow or a slave...its cool either way!


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Trenton said:


> I know...right?
> 
> No worries, brighteyes and I are developing the RoboBobbit for a non-gender robot way to take off men's penises if they try to have sex one to many times in a week. Us women don't like to do messy work ya know.


Oh my. Don't even jest about that ...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

nice777guy said:


> Your mind says cows, but your fingers say slaves...
> 
> :smthumbup:


So if we are milking them like cows you really mean we are giving Purple Nerples, right?


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

nice777guy said:


> Your mind says cows, but your fingers say slaves...
> 
> :smthumbup:


Haha yeah. Ummmm...that's the brain trauma again? Wonder how long I can use this as my fallback. lol


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Trenton said:


> Can we keep them as reproduction slaves at least and milk them like cows? I think we have the beginnings of a great sci-fi/horror flick :rofl:


Milk them like cows ............

I think per the Urban Dictionary this is milking the bull


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

Trenton said:


> Haha yeah. Ummmm...that's the brain trauma again? Wonder how long I can use this as my fallback. lol


Just remember - you may have had this lesion all along!!!

You'll come back from the doctor as a subservient porn-loving June Cleaver!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Yeah she said milk them like cows. She said keep them as reproduction slaves. Between milking 'em like cows and using them for reproduction value, she meant something sexual for sure. Ha ha.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

nice777guy said:


> Just remember - you may have had this lesion all along!!!
> 
> You'll come back from the doctor as a subservient porn-loving June Cleaver!


Wowza, that's it...you're the first to get milked!


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yeah she said milk them like cows. She said keep them as reproduction slaves. Between milking 'em like cows and using them for reproduction value, she meant something sexual for sure. Ha ha.


Who me?


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Entropy3000 said:


> Milk them like cows ............
> 
> I think per the Urban Dictionary this is milking the bull


Why am I not surprised it's actually a coined phrase in Urban Dictionary?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Trenton said:


> Why am I not surprised it's actually a coined phrase in Urban Dictionary?


Why am I not surrpised that you just told NG you would milk him? Aren't you supposed to be batting for the other team? :rofl:


----------



## Amplexor (Feb 13, 2008)

Trenton said:


> Hmmmm googled it Amp and all I can say is...Wow! Finally! Something worth watching!


It really is.....after 7 or 8 bong hits. Well it was in 1975 anyway!


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Why am I not surrpised that you just told NG you would milk him? Aren't you supposed to be batting for the other team? :rofl:


Someone needs to take Trenton's keyboard away!!!


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Too bad Harlan Ellison in person is a world class a-hole.


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Mmmm Milk it does a body good?


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Trenton said:


> Mmmm Milk it does a body good?


Now, is that "Milk, it does a body good" or "Milk it, does a body good?" ;-)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton (Aug 25, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Now, is that "Milk, it does a body good" or "Milk it, does a body good?" ;-)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:lol:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Grayson said:


> Now, is that "Milk, it does a body good" or "Milk it, does a body good?" ;-)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Trenton said:


> Why am I not surprised it's actually a coined phrase in Urban Dictionary?


LOL


----------



## dbj1971 (May 29, 2008)

Well, I was wondering if this lengthy thread, with all its lively and interactive discussion, would continue for awhile longer or run out of steam. 

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it has officially de-railed.

For at least the past five pages of posts, the subject has pretty much completely been switched, and meanwhile there has not been one new post by the original poster (miss-understood). We were going pretty strong there, with our give and take, and now it's degenerated to the point where we're talking about moobs and milking.


----------



## mary35 (Jul 18, 2010)

I have not had time to read through all of this - but I was listening to a talk show yesterday and the topic was on sex and marriage. They were talking about the problems of high sex drive spouses that are married to low sex drive spouses - non gender specific. The sex therapist on the show (I didn't get her name) basically said that while this issue causes a lot of problems in marriages - it can be overcome. In order to do so, she said the low drive spouse will have to learn lessons on generosity AND (not or) the high drive spouse will have to learn lessons on patience. BOTH have lessons they have to learn to make it work. BOTH have to work at meeting the others needs!

In my mind this sums up this topic perfectly! Marriage is all about give and take - working compromises so that EACH spouse's needs are met in the best way possible for BOTH spouses. It's not about only one in the marriage making changes to fit the other spouses needs. Its not about the male vs the female. It's not about who is invaded or who is doing the invading. Instead, it's about coming together with love, respect, and communication. It's about working together to have a healthy, happy, and satisfactory UNION for both partners.


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

To briefly touch upon the original subject - I would think it would only be in very rare cases that you would try to lower your spouse's libido.

If they want more sex, they can masturbate.

When I came to this board, I was surprised by the number of women over 30 who were complaining that while their drives had increased in recent years, their husband's had naturally gone down.

So - imagine finding some way to lower your H's libido - only to find in five years that now YOURS is higher than ever.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

> When I came to this board, I was surprised by the number of women over 30 who were complaining that while their drives had increased in recent years, their husband's had naturally gone down.


Oh hell no! I swear if the missus' drive increases even more when she hits 30 and mine ends up dropping...
DEATH TO THE MAN... DEATH...
BY SNOO SNOO!

=/


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

RandomDude said:


> Oh hell no! I swear if the missus' drive increases even more when she hits 30 and mine ends up dropping...
> DEATH TO THE MAN... DEATH...
> BY SNOO SNOO!
> 
> =/


Snoo Snoo??? Is THAT what YOU call it???


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

^

YouTube - ‪futurama what are you gay‬‏

:rofl:


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

Sorry Random - got no youtube access here at work. And quite frankly, I'm kind of afraid to check it out as I've NEVER heard it called Snoo Snoo!


----------



## Well_Spouse (Feb 2, 2011)

mary35 said:


> I have not had time to read through all of this - but I was listening to a talk show yesterday and the topic was on sex and marriage. They were talking about the problems of high sex drive spouses that are married to low sex drive spouses - non gender specific. The sex therapist on the show (I didn't get her name) basically said that while this issue causes a lot of problems in marriages - it can be overcome. In order to do so, she said the low drive spouse will have to learn lessons on generosity AND (not or) the high drive spouse will have to learn lessons on patience. BOTH have lessons they have to learn to make it work. BOTH have to work at meeting the others needs!
> 
> In my mind this sums up this topic perfectly! Marriage is all about give and take - working compromises so that EACH spouse's needs are met in the best way possible for BOTH spouses. It's not about only one in the marriage making changes to fit the other spouses needs. Its not about the male vs the female. It's not about who is invaded or who is doing the invading. Instead, it's about coming together with love, respect, and communication. It's about working together to have a healthy, happy, and satisfactory UNION for both partners.


:iagree:

Although in regards to the OP. If you really want to I believe Anti-Andogens such have been used on Sexual Predators for just this purpose. And have read that in combination with Estrogen it can wipe out a mans libido. Assuming one isn't bothered by the resulting growth in his assets.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

nice777guy said:


> When I came to this board, I was surprised by the number of women over 30 who were complaining that while their drives had increased in recent years, their husband's had naturally gone down.


It was no shock to me. My sister admits that was a large part of her divorce, and that was before she was 30. I also had a co-worker who divorced shortly after 30, again stating that it was due to a LD husband.


----------



## nice777guy (Nov 23, 2009)

larry.gray said:


> It was no shock to me. My sister admits that was a large part of her divorce, and that was before she was 30. I also had a co-worker who divorced shortly after 30, again stating that it was due to a LD husband.


Almost like a cruel joke of nature!

I also thought mostly of balding men driving sportscars when I heard the phrase Mid-Life Crisis. Not anymore. I think of women married to good, decent men who feel like they've missed some part of life because they never hooked up with that "bad boy" they admired from afar in high school or college.

Be much easier if the women just bought the sportscar too.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Maybe that has more to do with simmering anger. After all, she's the one who clearly turned her husband DOWN for a decade up to that point. Now all of a sudden she wants a command performance every day?


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

Runs like Dog said:


> Maybe that has more to do with simmering anger. After all, she's the one who clearly turned her husband DOWN for a decade up to that point. Now all of a sudden she wants a command performance every day?


:iagree: This is why spouses should give each other as much sex as possible.


----------



## moo (Nov 22, 2010)

nader said:


> What do you mean, 'pay the price with their heath?'
> 
> Sex makes you happier, healthier, and is pretty much the best thing ever. people are _supposed_ to want sex. It is GOOD FOR YOU. That is biology 101.
> 
> ...


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## moo (Nov 22, 2010)

You said , enough sex to make BOTH happy, not just the man. All I ever hear is I am cramping his sex life. I am willing to meet half way but he thinks I should be ready for sex every time he is (which is always). If I'm not, than I get the cold shoulder or he doesn't speak to me. He tells me I act like sex is chore, well if you have to do something you don't feel like doing then I guess it is a chore! Don't get me wrong, I like sex just not everyday. Two or three times a week is enough!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## okeydokie (Sep 10, 2008)

moo said:


> You said , enough sex to make BOTH happy, not just the man. All I ever hear is I am cramping his sex life. I am willing to meet half way but he thinks I should be ready for sex every time he is (which is always). If I'm not, than I get the cold shoulder or he doesn't speak to me. He tells me I act like sex is chore, well if you have to do something you don't feel like doing then I guess it is a chore! Don't get me wrong, I like sex just not everyday. Two or three times a week is enough!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


for most of the men on here, i would venture to say 2 times a week would be xanadu. if he expects it everyday, i would personally say thats very unreasonable. 2-3 times a week is you more than meeting him halfway.


----------



## fhg1893 (Jun 25, 2011)

Hi. Reading this thread made me register, and write this lengthy post. It is my hope that this will answer a number of questions, and address the original issue.

First thing first. 

Male sexual drive, male libido, is something that few females understand, and may actually be incapable of understanding. This is not to state that there are no high drive females, there certainly are. However male sex drive is something a whole order of magnitude different. 

From an early age, young boys quickly realize just how powerful their hormones really are. An erection is possible for a baby boy, even before birth! What's more, an erection alone, even in the absence of stimulation feels pleasurable. Sue Johanson, Canadian sex-educator has stated that it takes all of about five minutes or so for a newborn baby boy to discover his penis, and the pleasurable sensations that come with it. This probably isn't far from the truth at all.

TL/DR so far: erections feel good. Just 'cause. You don't even have to touch it, it just feels good. Every time. Unless it goes for too long, but that's something else.

Second, from an alarmingly early age, boys notice fully grown women. They notice their curves, their hair, their legs, their hips. It's impossible to hide these things, and exposure to provocative images, media, and even our own mother's sexualities very quickly establish the link between female, and penis-pleasure. So, take a young male child from the age of oh, 5 or 6 years old, and repeat this several times a day, every day, every week, every month, every year, after year.

Add that erection at this age is largely involuntary, and all it takes is the mere sight of female flesh to arouse a young man. An attractive woman in a bikini is almost a guaranteed erection. 

Life its self is creating a reward impulse in male brains concerning sexuality and females. It's so powerful, that by the time the hormones really start to flow, looking at females means pleasure. 

Sight alone = pleasure.

Now add the other four senses. Sound, especially "sexy" sound brings pleasure because it causes erection. Touch certainly applies, just the brush of a bare arm can bring on erection. Taste and smell are a little more illusive, but, if all the other senses are always sending pleasure signals through an erection, then doesn't also follow that a young male will be overwhelmingly driven to experience the taste of a female, especially given the pleasure that everything else brings? 

You're damn right it does! 

The teenage years could be renamed the years of perpetual erection, and that wouldn't be an inaccurate descriptor. And of course, this is where something like 99% of males discover the pleasure of masturbation. So combine the pleasure of erection, the pleasure of touching on a penis, and the pleasure of orgasm, and maybe, the pleasure of seeing female flesh in the way of pornography. 

Is it any wonder that many Islamic countries compel women to dress ultra-modestly? Male pleasure is something they've understood extremely well, to the point that in those societies, even the sound of a woman's heels clacking on the pavement is enough to drive a male to sexual violence. Suddenly male sexuality takes on a darker turn.

But back to the point, males condition themselves to love sex. Our culture "understands" this to such a degree, because it has largely been built by men, that it goes without saying. Because it goes without saying, we don't talk about it, which gives rise to the op's question.

Some time ago, the op asked, "Wouldn't it be nicer to be free of all this pressure? Isn't it a bit like starvation to want all the time?"

There's the rub. Starvation doesn't feel good. Male sexual desire on the other hand feels good in its own sake. Ladies, imagine if starving made you feel good in a way so intense and overpowering that nothing else in the world actually came close. Starving feels so good that the mere sight, smell, imagining of food makes you feel sick because starving feels so good. You'd all be razor thin right? Well, flip that around, and that's a bit what male sexual drive is like. We're all high as a kite on sexual desire, and that's more or less why we don't ask about lowering male sexual desire. In its own peculiar way, male sexual desire is pleasurable for the male experiencing it. 

That's why pornography is so popular.

But this does little to address the problem of libido mismatch. It does however give a good understanding of the problem.

What we don't know however, is how to deal with this, and there's a potential goldmine out there for the patented pill that makes women horny. This is a band-aid, it won't deal with the root causes of our sexual dysfunction, and we all know it. There are a few cultural problems that we're reluctant to deal with. If we did, a lot of these problems would probably look after themselves.

One of the very valid issues that the op mentions is that women bear a very disproportionate amount of risk in sexual relations. HPV, pregnancy, UTIs, etc. I've even seen radical feminists speculate that males experience a sexual thrill when thinking about the damage that we can do to women just by having penis-in-vagina intercourse.  Ouch!

There are several cultural issues that I believe are preventing us from getting together in the bedroom. I'll try to deal with a few.

*Nutrition*

I'm going to estimate that the vast majority of people in the west are malnourished. This is related to starving, but isn't exactly the same, rather this is about the quality of our food, not the quantity. 

Here's where anecdotal evidence comes in. I've been married to a lovely woman for 8 years, and we just hit a new stride in the bedroom. We've had difficulties between the sheets on and off for most of those years, I'm the high drive partner, she's generally the low. In that time, we've had two children, one three years old, the other is now 8 months. We've never seemed to be able to get it right, outside of those first few feverish months. 

In that time, as is the way with most men, my libido has waned gradually, until last month or so. 

Now, it's like we're both 18 again!

But lets go back a few months.

My wife has had various health problems over the years. Elevated liver enzymes, irritable bowel syndrome and a few others. Nothing serious, but enough to be concerned. Her complaints to the doctor went unheeded. A year or two ago, she discovered the Weston A. Price Foundation, a California-based group that advocates for nutrient-dense foods. We've been gradually incorporating these nutritional principles into our lives, and the effects, while gradual, have been mostly pleasant. About a month ago, we really made the choice to do eat nutrient-dense foods as much as possible, and get rid of most of the junk. 

The first thing I noticed was that I stopped being hungry. Most of us have felt the urge to eat after eating a large meal, but we can't understand why. It's because the diet of most Westerners is nutrient poor. Change to nutrient dense foods, and hunger goes away, because the body is given enough building material to work with; we are what we eat! 

We've also noticed more subtle changes. Our complexions have improved. Our skin tone seems more vibrant, and radiant.

And our libidos have both gone up. Sex is now once a day, every day if possible. Even five years ago, I wouldn't have thought that we'd ever have sex this often, this regularly. And my wife has begun initiating sex, she's started coming to find me!

We can only attribute this being properly nourished. It stands to reason that people who have proper nutrition would naturally want to reproduce, since their bodies feel equipped to do so.

I suspect that most couples would report similar findings, if they would switch to a nutrient dense diet. 

Further, I suspect that many marriage counselors, when dealing with sexual problems don't address nutrition as a possible cause. They'll emphasize social negotiation, getting a more equal division of labor, sexual planning, and other strategies. But if we have a high drive male, and a low drive female, what's the best a couple can hope for, once or twice a week? Is anybody going to be happy in such a relationship, or is it just, manageable? Tolerable? Enough to keep the union together, but not enough to create conditions for true happiness and fulfillment perhaps? Rather, who wouldn't want to create the conditions where both of you want sex fairly often? Who wouldn't want to match mismatched libidos if they could, all without pills of any kind!

*Circumcision*

I am an intact male, and I'm very thankful that I am. 

There seems to be some evidence that male foreskin acts as a kind of stimulator for the interior walls of a vagina. If true, this means that circumcision is tantamount to condemning a young boy to a possible lifetime of sexual frustration, for reasons that I'll partially touch on later, and any partners to an inadequate experience at best, and a lifetime of sexual boredom at worst. 

From my own experience, I know that my wife absolutely loves penis-in-vagina intercourse. Me too of course, but this might have everything to do with the fact that I'm an intact male. I'm also aware that many women report do not enjoy penis-in-vagina intercourse, and I suspect that problem is that male circumcision has robbed them of experiencing to full pleasure of man's penis. This isn't to mention the thousands of nerve endings that are cut when a male is circumcised, denying him pleasure as well. Penn & Teller did a show on this, and the interview with the woman who described sex before and after foreskin restoration seemed most telling. She described it as the difference between being penetrated by a broom stick, and being penetrated by a well oiled piston. 

They also mentioned that the foreskin is linked to the male ejaculatory trigger. For many men, ejaculation is the end of sexual intercourse. The average length of intercourse is from what I understand, extremely short. I've heard 7-12 minutes, which isn't really much time when you think about it. Strange, when I can go for a solid 30 minutes, simply by monitoring my own ejaculatory response. I wonder, if I was circumcised would I be able to know when I'm about to ejaculate? 

Oh, and think about this. We haven't used contraception other than "pulling out" since before we've been married, and we've only ever conceived children when we wanted to. Neither of our children have been "accidents." How did we manage to control our reproduction using a method that medical science claims does not work? Or is it that it doesn't work for circumcised males? If a male can judge his ejaculatory trigger, and know when he reaches the point of no return, well, doesn't it stand to reason that it can work for circumcised males? I seem to be living proof that circumcision could be devastating. 

Oh, and quality? Well, if I had to put a percentage, I'd say that my wife has an orgasm at a rate of between 80%-90% of the times that we have sex. Those few times she doesn't, it's not because I ejaculate too quickly, it's typically because there's some other factor effecting our copulation. And what's even better, it's an orgasm I'm giving to her, because I can last long enough to give her one, something which many men seem incapable of doing for many women. :smthumbup:

This, as always is a very individual choice. However, if we want better sex, and more frequent sex, might I politely ask anyone reading this to hold off circumcising any young babies until they can decide whether or not to do it for themselves? 

And if you're circumcised, check out Penn & Teller's Bull****. There's a non-surgical way to restore the foreskin, if you're so inclined. Might never get back some of what you lost, but your wife might love it.

*Cultural conditioning* 

Okay, so we know about what helps to develop the male sex drive, but cultural conditioning really does shape male sexuality.

First, there's an assumption that male sexuality is violent and needs to dominate women. This is, I believe, patently false!

Men are biologically inclined to want to produce orgasm in women. Women are probably inclined in a similar fashion. Our sexual pleasure is actually linked with the pleasure our partner experiences. 

However, culturally, we have problem in this regard.

Related to my other two topics, pornography especially produces an impression that sex is just about satisfying male desire. From comedy, how often is it suggested that females are left unsatisfied and disappointed with sexual intercourse? Isn't our cultural impression that the male just rolls over and goes to sleep, while the female is left awake and ready to go, but can't because of him? It certainly was for me, for the most part. 

But pornography is especially telling, ask yourselves, who in pornography is more vocal, the male, or the female? Almost without exception, the answer is the female. And it doesn't take much - if she's preforming oral sex on him, why is she groaning and moaning, unless her clitoris has somehow magically been moved to the back of her throat? These sounds are to stimulate men, because pornography tends to lose its appeal if the female isn't shown enjoying the experience. 

This speaks to essential male sexuality - we like female pleasure. If we don't why is it that lesbian pornography is so popular? 

Go into your spam-box and count the number of advertisements you get for penis-enlargement scams. Why do men want larger penises? A larger penis can be a source of frustration. It gets in the way. It's harder to hide when erect which can make for awkward social situations. Clothing must be selected with care. It can hurt like hell if you sit the wrong way, or if it gets bunched up in your boxers. It can rub more against clothing which can produce uncomfortable chafing and itching. 

Yet, men will shell out hundreds of dollars for the mere chance of having a bigger one, even though everybody says these scams don't work! We do this because we subconsciously believe that a larger penis will produce more pleasure in the receiving partner. This is so strongly ingrained that even well-endowed men, 8+ inches, will try to enlarge their penises, and this is despite the very real possibility of injuring our partners, or causing sex to become painful. Check out Thunder's place for natural penis enlargement (it can be done!), some men will do penis enlargement and keep going until they hit 8, 9, 10 inches. I remember one member (no pun intended, but feel free to laugh anyway) who joined, already 8 inches long, and wanted to make it longer! 

Even now, someone reading my previous point is going to be convinced that I must be magnificent in the trouser department. They'd be wrong. I'm very much average at best, and I've personally struggled with feelings of having an inadequate penis. Ask my wife about that one now... :rofl:

But getting back to culture. Take a group of sexually unsatisfied, and unsatisfying men and let them shape everything we do for a thousand years. Then add religious sex-negativity. Is it any surprise that we've only just begun understanding female sexual response, even though we've known for thousands of years that men are stimulated and respond positively to female sexual pleasure? In other words, our culture only "understands" male sexual response. But because it's so ubiquitous that we don't really talk about it. Every man "knows" this stuff, but try getting him to say it. He doesn't know that he knows it, it's just assumed that everybody knows it! But unless we can say it, teach it, we don't know it, we just think we do. And so our culture in response assumes that the whole point of sex is male pleasure. 

Because we don't talk about it, and because male sexual drive is so overwhelming, many men draw incorrect conclusions about what they want in the bedroom. Pornography further muddies the waters. How many men who've watched pornography wonder why their partner doesn't moan like a wild animal at the slightest touch? We conclude as a culture, and incorrectly that sex is all about the man. 

Now thankfully, this attitude is changing, and quickly. Of the three, I expect that it will be completely gone in a generation or two.


In closing, I realize that I've gone far beyond the scope of the original question, but I think I've answered it. Male derive a lot of pleasure from sex, and from their sex drive. There's something to be said for the thrill of the hunt. This is of course a double-edged sword, because the overwhelming power of male libido can cause us a lot of problems. But as alluded to in my first issue, it seems to me that a lot of the problems related to sexual mismatch can be corrected, simply by proper nutrition. Healthy happy people tend to have healthy happy sex. Trying to constrain male sexual desire isn't a solution, any more than trying to find some chemical means of increasing female sex desire. Rather, we should be focusing on feeding ourselves properly. Proper nutrition I believe is one of the precursors for matching sexual desire in long-term monogamous couples. I'm reasonably confident that these results are demonstrable scientifically. Put people on a nutrient dense diet, and I'm pretty sure that libido will go up every time vs. a control group. 

So, if you've made it this far, thanks for reading, and here's to a better sex-life for all.


----------



## BrazilianBill (Jun 25, 2011)

This is an important issue to women. I was loosing too much time thinking in sex, going out with other partners or one night flings, and wife worried and got angry at me for thinking too much of only sex.

I started my self on Depo provera, and was the best thing I have ever done. Some physical side effects, which wife loves, but best one is emotions changed, thinking got so much better, less time wasted, and for sure, got much better prostrate health. 

I say a husband should try it, 50 mg or Mesigyna (safer) every week, for a couple of months. Once on, I do not think that a man would want to go off of it. And you can go off it, takes several months to return to normal. That I did, and after a year, did not like my self (loosing too much time think of crap), and went back on to stay.


----------



## annagarret (Jun 12, 2011)

As a woman, I am soooo very tired of woman complaining about this issue.. For goodness sake, a man, seriously is made this way, he is completely different from us, and I am glad. He needs sex just as much as he need food, water and air, and I get that. I didn't always get it. I think the feminist movement screwed a lot of things up for men...they really did. Besides, us women MARRIED a MAN, not a woman. Our Men love us and forsaked all others to be loyal, faithfull and put their hope in us to also be SEXUALLY FULFILLED. Why withhold?


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

fhg1893 said:


> Male sexual drive, male libido, is something that few females understand, and may actually be incapable of understanding. This is not to state that there are no high drive females, there certainly are. However male sex drive is something a whole order of magnitude different.
> 
> From an early age, young boys quickly realize just how powerful their hormones really are. An erection is possible for a baby boy, even before birth! What's more, an erection alone, even in the absence of stimulation feels pleasurable. Sue Johanson, Canadian sex-educator has stated that it takes all of about five minutes or so for a newborn baby boy to discover his penis, and the pleasurable sensations that come with it. This probably isn't far from the truth at all.
> 
> ...


WOW fhg1893 !! That was some opening post there ! Hope you stick around here & share your wisdom. I so agree with you, most women do not "get it", I am one of those "few" females who understand men, their urge, what they need - although I did not always "get it" - just coming into this about 3 years ago. Plus driven to devour books on sex, Men's sexuality, the workings of the penis, I probably know more about men than some men do! I have many sons so this will only help me raise them & understand their battles as they hit their teens & beyond. 

I very much regret not studying & learning more about men, their needs & sex back in the day. As you termed it -the "religious sex-negativity" hurt ME much. Hindered many of our years in the bedroom. 

MY husband is circumsized though, I guess without him knowing what it feels like to be uncircumsized, neither of us can compare. But I sure know how much pleasure he derives from his penis and I sure know how much I do -and we aren't complaining !  Heck, he had a very hard time holding out for my orgasm in his youth , to the point of a few pumps & he BLEW so if the pleasure was any higher or more pleasurable, I think we might have had problems in the bedroom! Even now in his 40's, he sometimes has trouble holding it back -so I guess I don't feel we have missed out . 

What we can not compare will not hurt us. I circumsized all 5 of my sons also. I read much about the debate & still felt it was the right thing for this family to do. I just wanted to say, We personally never felt we lacked anything in the pleasure department because of his being "cut". 

Never heard of a "Nutrition dense diet" - sounds good though! Wonderful this helped your wife so much in this area with her health issues. Even though I agree with you, I believe nutritian is SO VERY important, I watch my husbands diet so much more than my own, I have always been pretty undisciplined in this area unfortunetly, but I feel fantasitc , loads of energy, my sex drive is very high, I would almost be afraid to start a diet like that -if it increased my drive, my husband would want to take me off of it ! ha ha 

We all need to see what works for us to move us along in a healthy happy happening sex life to keep the sparks flying & the pleasure alive.


----------



## Mrs.G (Nov 20, 2010)

okeydokie said:


> for most of the men on here, i would venture to say 2 times a week would be xanadu. if he expects it everyday, i would personally say thats very unreasonable. 2-3 times a week is you more than meeting him halfway.


Hey now, I would have sex everyday if I could.  My husband simply cannot manage daily sex, so I have learned to be happy with four times a week. I could not live with only twice weekly. I only get daily sex if we are on vacation. 

Some ladies have sex drives that could rival any teenage boy's. Women are told to be sexy, but not sexual in this society. Older female relatives always tell me that I "love sex too much for a woman." :rofl: I know that part of the reason my husband married me was my sexual enthusiasm. I hate the assumption that only men need sex to be happy. 

I think that spouses who constantly refuse sex are stupid and don't deserve to be married. Sex is a very important part of marriage and spouses only have each other to get it from. It doesn't make sense to withhold from a husband or wife. No sex, no happy marriage.

Personally, the look of an uncircumcised male disgusts me. I noticed that all of the uncut kocks I've had were stinky; the men often forgot to pull the skin down and wash the area under the skin. I LOVE how clean my husband's kock is...always smells like Irish Spring Soap. :smthumbup:


----------



## fhg1893 (Jun 25, 2011)

SimplyAmorous said:


> WOW fhg1893 !! That was some opening post there ! Hope you stick around here & share your wisdom. I so agree with you, most women do not "get it", I am one of those "few" females who understand men, their urge, what they need - although I did not always "get it" - just coming into this about 3 years ago. Plus driven to devour books on sex, Men's sexuality, the workings of the penis, I probably know more about men than some men do! I have many sons so this will only help me raise them & understand their battles as they hit their teens & beyond.


Thanks for the welcome.

You're almost certainly going to make an excellent mother! We need more women like you. A lot more.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I very much regret not studying & learning more about men, their needs & sex back in the day. As you termed it -the "religious sex-negativity" hurt ME much. Hindered many of our years in the bedroom.


Why does it seem like "the good life" is something we get only by slaughtering our sacred cows? Our religious baggage is supposed to be helpful to us, but it seems that the more time goes on, the more that religion gets in the way of our happiness. 

If I was to propose a new guiding principle for healthy living, then it stands to reason that it would be that the religion which is creating difficulties for you needs to be re-evaluated. If a religion isn't guiding you towards happiness, then can it be said that it's doing what it's supposed to do? 



SimplyAmorous said:


> MY husband is circumsized though, I guess without him knowing what it feels like to be uncircumsized, neither of us can compare. But I sure know how much pleasure he derives from his penis and I sure know how much I do -and we aren't complaining !  Heck, he had a very hard time holding out for my orgasm in his youth , to the point of a few pumps & he BLEW so if the pleasure was any higher or more pleasurable, I think we might have had problems in the bedroom! Even now in his 40's, he sometimes has trouble holding it back -so I guess I don't feel we have missed out .


I meant no offense, and my evidence is experiential and very subjective. And I don't want to ruin anybody's sex-life. 

Rather, I've seen some evidence to suggest that circumcision could be negatively impacting people's experience in the bedroom. And I do mean, suggest. Certainly some are perfectly happy with what they have, and far be it for me to rain on that parade.

Some however, are clearly not. And since I'm aware that much of the research suggesting that women can't orgasm, and have all kinds of sexual problems come from the United States, which is one of the few western countries which continues to have an extremely high rate of male infant circumcision, I can't help but suspect a more functional link than is readily apparent. 

So, my comments were meant more to suggest that there could be a relationship between male circumcision and female sexual dysfunction. 

On the other hand, nutrition would seem to be a much more important factor, and so, it seems more appropriate to stress that. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> What we can not compare will not hurt us. I circumsized all 5 of my sons also. I read much about the debate & still felt it was the right thing for this family to do. I just wanted to say, We personally never felt we lacked anything in the pleasure department because of his being "cut".


Heh. :rofl: That's why I tried to emphasize asking, and politeness, rather than simply make my proclamations ex cathedra as some most definitely would.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Never heard of a "Nutrition dense diet" - sounds good though! Wonderful this helped your wife so much in this area with her health issues. Even though I agree with you, I believe nutritian is SO VERY important, I watch my husbands diet so much more than my own, I have always been pretty undisciplined in this area unfortunetly, but I feel fantasitc , loads of energy, my sex drive is very high, I would almost be afraid to start a diet like that -if it increased my drive, my husband would want to take me off of it ! ha ha
> 
> We all need to see what works for us to move us along in a healthy happy happening sex life to keep the sparks flying & the pleasure alive.


Agreed. I strongly recommend the Weston A. Price foundation. And yes, we've observed increased libido, but this is really a secondary benefit, the goal of a nutrient dense diet is HEALTH, not sex, even though the two go hand-in-hand. Many of the current medical ailments plaguing the West, heart disease, obesity and cancer spring to mind immediately, seem to be preventable by adopting a nutrient dense diet as recommended by the Weston A. Price foundation. Imagine reaching an old age that was virtually guaranteed to be totally free of cancer, and heart disease. That's what nutrient dense diets are all about! And there are huge benefits for children. Imagine if your children never had cavities. EVER. No dental work required. No more ADHD. And no more autism. No more pills, puffers, inhalers, asthma. But you've got to change your diet in ways that aren't accepted by the medical establishment, or our culture. Of course, it will drive the government crazy, but as a libertarian, that's kind of my hat.

If that's sounds good to you, I urge everyone reading this to research the findings of Dr. Weston A. Price, which have been preserved by the Price-Pottenger foundation, and the Weston A. Price foundation.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

fhg1893 said:


> Thanks for the welcome.
> 
> You're almost certainly going to make an excellent mother! We need more women like you. A lot more.


 I only have one daughter and let me tell you, her husband will be happy that I am the mom , I plan to be a fine mentor to educate her, I wish I had that in my youth. 



> Why does it seem like "the good life" is something we get only by slaughtering our sacred cows? Our religious baggage is supposed to be helpful to us, but it seems that the more time goes on, the more that religion gets in the way of our happiness.
> 
> If I was to propose a new guiding principle for healthy living, then it stands to reason that it would be that the religion which is creating difficulties for you needs to be re-evaluated. If a religion isn't guiding you towards happiness, then can it be said that it's doing what it's supposed to do?


 I could write a book on all the problems I have with religion. 

Taken from another post on here -this is where I am at >>


> I was a Christian (or thought I was) most of my life, but I was always a doubter - comparing myself to Doubting Thomas. My Mother says I have been asking questions since I come out of the womb. I used to enjoy reading books on Cults to know what was wrong with everyone else, then graduated to Hermeneutics, books on Christian apolgetics trying to overcome the problems I had with the faith, but I never got there.
> 
> Some things I was being taught in church troubled me, or even more so the things in the Bible that AREN'T taught in church -I had issues with. My Pastor told me I was "too cerebral" once. (gotta love that). Eventually I set out on a mission to uncover where these Doctrines came from, a study in Christian History, I came to learn I agreed more with some of the So -called Heretics & what they taught, so this was the beginning of my loosing my religion.
> 
> ...





> Some however, are clearly not. And since I'm aware that much of the research suggesting that women can't orgasm, and have all kinds of sexual problems come from the United States, which is one of the few western countries which continues to have an extremely high rate of male infant circumcision, I can't help but suspect a more functional link than is readily apparent.
> 
> So, my comments were meant more to suggest that there could be a relationship between male circumcision and female sexual dysfunction.


 Interesting, I didn't know that. I am glad I am not one of those women. I am in the 1/3 minority so they claim that can easily orgasm though intercourse, but strange as it may be -Oral is hard for me! We are all so very different. 



> Imagine reaching an old age that was virtually guaranteed to be totally free of cancer, and heart disease. That's what nutrient dense diets are all about! And there are huge benefits for children. Imagine if your children never had cavities. EVER. No dental work required. No more ADHD. And no more autism. No more pills, puffers, inhalers, asthma. But you've got to change your diet in ways that aren't accepted by the medical establishment, or our culture. Of course, it will drive the government crazy, but as a libertarian, that's kind of my hat.


 I looked up Weston Price, seen he was a Dentist - I know there is some truth about your teeth not being taken care off enough & leading to heart disease as one of my son's friends dad died of this in late 50's & they said it was related to his oral health. 

But come on --Nothing we do is a guarentee in life, wish it was. The cavity thing makes me laugh related to diet though. I will tell you why..... I got 6 kids, oldest 20, Not a cavity in one of them, and I rarely if ever take them to the dentist - I am a mad STRICKLER for them brushing and they do not stay away from sweets by any means. I think their greatest memories of mom will be me yelling "Go brush your teeth"!! If parents did their job , dentists would be out of business. I am 44 & have only 1 cavity (at the age of 14, I vowed to never get another! ), my husband had about 4 when he met me & never got another after I was by his side. Just gotta put that tooth brush to business is all. It has never been our diet to keep them at bay. And we are a pretty big family so I think it speaks something. 

I am not saying this wouldn't help others but I see the brushing being more paramount in regards to tooth decay. Now Health disease, cancer, yeah our foods is very very important. Sounds like the Weston Diet is about Raw milk, butter, grass fed beef, getting away from processed foods & pesticides . I am sure some truth there! 

My grandfather is still living at age 94 , he always drank raw milk-visited a farm to get it , tapped maple syrum from the trees, tended his own garden, still has his mind, plays his guitar, He ate off the land. 

I must admit you are sounding a little out there with believing an astha sufferer may be able to throw this inhaler to the wind though -through diet alone. 

Some claims are just TOO much, bells would be immediately going off in my head "snake oil saleman"!


----------



## fhg1893 (Jun 25, 2011)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I only have one daughter and let me tell you, her husband will be happy that I am the mom , I plan to be a fine mentor to educate her, I wish I had that in my youth.


:iagree: The nod animation on the I agree emoticon isn't vigorous enough for this statement.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I could write a book on all the problems I have with religion.
> 
> Taken from another post on here -this is where I am at >>
> 
> Interesting, I didn't know that. I am glad I am not one of those women. I am in the 1/3 minority so they claim that can easily orgasm though intercourse, but strange as it may be -Oral is hard for me! We are all so very different.





SimplyAmorous said:


> I looked up Weston Price, seen he was a Dentist - I know there is some truth about your teeth not being taken care off enough & leading to heart disease as one of my son's friends dad died of this in late 50's & they said it was related to his oral health.


I'll try to do the short version. Weston A. Price was born in the Ontario, Canada town of Newburgh, in 1870 which is also sometimes known as Rogue's Hollow. We don't know a whole lot about his early life, we do know he began practicing as a dentist in Cleveland in 1893. During his practice he began to notice a number of children coming into his practice with what he termed "dental deformities." These were things like crowded teeth, occlusions, missing teeth cavities etc. Some time between then and 1939 or so, Price traveled the globe looking for an indigenous culture, still eating its traditional foods, that relied on mostly plants for subsistence. He discovered that every culture he visited which was still eating their traditional foods had basically no troubles with their teeth, they only needed a cleaning. He also found that they were subsisting primarily on animal fats, and the meat of fish and other animals. Not one culture was subsisting on mostly plants as he originally theorized. He also discovered that whenever the people with perfect teeth ventured into civilization, they would typically develop teeth problems within a few months. Price believed that this was due to the consumption of highly processed and refined foods that were starting to become popular in western civilization at the time. Grains are an especially interesting case. In each culture, grains were always prepared very elaborately. It would be unthinkable for any of these traditional cultures to pour hot-water on freshly cut oats the way we do today. Rather, they'd soak them for a few days, dry, and pound them before they'd think of eating them, or do something equally intensive to them. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> But come on --Nothing we do is a guarentee in life, wish it was. The cavity thing makes me laugh related to diet though. I will tell you why..... I got 6 kids, oldest 20, Not a cavity in one of them, and I rarely if ever take them to the dentist - I am a mad STRICKLER for them brushing and they do not stay away from sweets by any means. I think their greatest memories of mom will be me yelling "Go brush your teeth"!! If parents did their job , dentists would be out of business. I am 44 & have only 1 cavity (at the age of 14, I vowed to never get another! ), my husband had about 4 when he met me & never got another after I was by his side. Just gotta put that tooth brush to business is all. It has never been our diet to keep them at bay. And we are a pretty big family so I think it speaks something.
> 
> I am not saying this wouldn't help others but I see the brushing being more paramount in regards to tooth decay. Now Health disease, cancer, yeah our foods is very very important. Sounds like the Weston Diet is about Raw milk, butter, grass fed beef, getting away from processed foods & pesticides . I am sure some truth there!
> 
> ...


The difference between the claims of Price and snake-oil salesman is that there's no magic bullet in the case of Weston A. Price. You have to cut basically everything processed out of your diet. Further, you need to always present your fruit with some kind of fat. And it must be a purely natural fat, such as unpasteurized cream. Refined oils and fats tend to be toxic. You need to eat eggs that come from chickens which are living outside. The ones raised inside are no good because the yolks don't develop the proper vitamins. You need to consider that anything, and everything you find in the breakfast cereal aisle is POISON. 

What I'm saying is that it's a lot harder than it sounds! 

But if you have people in your family who could benefit, try it out for a few months. You've got nothing to lose. And hey, if you die, at least you'll be banging out orgasms the whole time! 

You need raw milk, that is, milk that's not pasteurized. My personal diet these days is a raw milk smoothie in the morning, along with two big glasses of raw milk. The smoothie is usually a lot of fresh fruit, namely wild blueberries, avocado, strawberries, bananas. If we have some raw milk yogurt around, I'll throw some of that in as well. Under this diet, lunch becomes strictly optional - I'm often not feeling particularly hungry at lunch time if I eat this way. Also, I'm not hungry throughout the day, so the temptation to eat between meals is zero. 

Lunch is typically a few eggs over-easy on the griddle, which we source from a local farmer. Dinner is typically primarily some kind of pastured meat, either chicken, beef, or pork which we also get from a farmer. When fish is called for, I stop by the fish market and get wild caught, not farmed. 

If you can get the raw milk, try it out for a few weeks, or better, get your husband on it. If I'm correct, he'll suddenly find his appetite for you has mysteriously increased. Plus he'll "feel younger" and feel like he has more energy. :smthumbup:

If you try it, let me know how it works out.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

fhg1893 said:


> You have to cut basically everything processed out of your diet. Further, you need to always present your fruit with some kind of fat. And it must be a purely natural fat, such as unpasteurized cream. Refined oils and fats tend to be toxic. You need to eat eggs that come from chickens which are living outside. The ones raised inside are no good because the yolks don't develop the proper vitamins. You need to consider that anything, and everything you find in the breakfast cereal aisle is POISON.
> 
> What I'm saying is that it's a lot harder than it sounds!
> 
> But if you have people in your family who could benefit, try it out for a few months. You've got nothing to lose. And hey, if you die, at least you'll be banging out orgasms the whole time!


I don't doubt that many of this is a fine why to eat or choose a diet - getting away from processed foods is one of the best things we can do, most of my cooking is from scratch BUT other than not buying eggs from the store (husband could easily build a coop & we get our own chickens, we have many acres out in the boonies), my family could NEVER NEVER "afford" to live like that. I would literally have to give up staying at home & get a job to afford a budget with these special pesticide free foods. My husband only makes $50,000 a year & we are a family of 8. We are debt free and I am VERY VERY frugal but it would literally slaughter our budget to buy all those organic foods, they are DOUBLE the cost as regular. 12 Organic or Pesticide-Free Foods Worth Buying (maybe) | Squawkfox

We spend so much on food to begin with having 5 hungry boys, plus their friends are always spending nights here, sometimes I have 10 kids here for 3 meals in a row. (like this past weekend)

If it was just the 2 of us, sure. I guess I am not too worried about this, I think you can take these beliefs as strong as a religion and I would find myself *worrying about an untimely death.* Don't care to go back to a ton of worrying or fretting over -last time it was my thought life needing to repent, this time it would be everything I put in my mouth ! Ha ha . 

Lots of people, depending on their FAMILY GENES seem to live a very long time despite thier american diet. And really, it just isn't fair if you was handed a bum deal in that department, you have to vigorously fight against what will almost inevitably come upon you -just to live another so many years. While the next guy seems to eat anything he wants, sometimes even smokes, etc and he soars into old age without even needing to go to the Docs. It happens. I've seen it. 


And keep the cavities away through a ton of brushing. That father of my sons friend, his DENTIST is the one that sent him to a specialit about his heart, something about bacteria getting into his system and causing heart disease. Never heard of anything like that but looked it up -- and it can happen. Our oral health is vital ! My kids will thank me one day. Decent article about this here : http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/features/periodontal-disease-heart-health


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Hey fhg1893 (I see now where you get the 1893 - from Weston Price). Consider thinking about starting your own thread with your marital journey/story and the changes it directly had in your wife's sex drive -through this changing of diet. Others may be helped- if their issues are related to health. Ours was other things -- My inhibitions/"sex is dirty" mindset & his feeling rejected & passivity. 

We all have a story to tell .

IF you & she has an "*overcoming*" story , it could be beneificial to share with others -under a specific thread topic - even if it is a rarer situation (although low drive seems pretty common), you never know who may grace these forums ! 

Sorry for getting so off topic Miss Understood, where did you go !??


----------

