# If you HAD to choose between one of the two?



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

(See poll)

Technically speaking I know this poll may somewhat violate TAMs policy against querying other people's desires/fantasies, but I do not intend for it to be that way. My intentions are to advocate a discussion about the pros and cons for these two options as a way to help people and myself appreciate different points of view. 

It is somewhat of a continuation of my previous thread, but I am trying to better focus the discussion. 

Some people might argue that there are obviously more options that this possible. But that is not the point of this discussion.

I also do not intend to hurt anyone's feelings if this thread indicates one option is better than the other. Both options would seem to have equal advantages but are just very different from each other. 

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## Cat Lady (May 7, 2019)

Where is your previous thread? I'd be interested to read it first.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

badsanta said:


> (See poll)
> 
> Technically speaking I know this poll may somewhat violate TAMs policy against querying other people's desires/fantasies, but I do not intend for it to be that way. My intentions are to advocate a discussion about the pros and cons for these two options as a way to help people and myself appreciate different points of view.
> 
> ...


I would not choose to engage in a relationship with such a totally linear view of relationship/sexuality/etc.. Both options present a wildly inaccurate representation of anything in reality.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Depends on more details
By "unable to reach orgasm" do you mean unable during sex, or unable ever even by themselves. I have a little trouble picturing a high libido person who never ograsms at all. 

Still I'd say that high libido / no orgasm is much better than low libido / easy orgasm because the low libido person won't *want* to orgasm, at least only very rarely. 

Or another way to put it - top priority is that the other person enjoy their sex life. (orgasm or no). Sex with someone who doesn't enjoy it is no fun at all.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Cat Lady said:


> Where is your previous thread? I'd be interested to read it first.


https://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/433229-marital-desire-driven-lust-love.html


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> I would not choose to engage in a relationship with such a totally linear view of relationship/sexuality/etc.. Both options present a wildly inaccurate representation of anything in reality.


I absolutely agree with you that the two options are wildly inaccurate of reality for most people. But I have often read scenarios in which a couple finds themselves unexpectedly having to deal with one of these two situations. It is almost always insurmountable. 

An example might be that a required medication causes loss of libido or anorgasmia. So if you must imagine that you find yourself in a healthcare situation in which you only have two options for a prescription that your partner needs in order to stay alive. The doctor asks the two of you to discuss which one works better given that one causes total loss of libido and the other causes 100% anorgasmia. 

If you do not wish to answer, I am OK with that. I understand that many refuse to accept one of those two scenarios. Just don't Debbie Downer all over this thread. Try to provide some meaningful discussion that might actually help. 

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## 23cm (Dec 3, 2016)

Living with the woman behind door #2. No sex since Aug. 26, 2018. Yet she can orgasm at the drop of a pair of drawers.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

I suppose either would be preferable to the all too common low libido + difficulty w/orgasm.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

I posit that #1 only exists for a limited time period. Not a valid long term option, sorry


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I'd chose the other option as I am sick of the one I have. Even if it is "a wildly inaccurate representation of anything in" (someones rather inaccurate view of) "reality."


----------



## Cat Lady (May 7, 2019)

Well, since I am a woman, I would rather be married to someone who couldn't have an orgasm but could still perform and wanted to do so a lot. I would rather that than someone who had no interest in performing. And yes, I realize that is a selfish point of view.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Cat Lady said:


> Well, since I am a woman, I would rather be married to someone who couldn't have an orgasm but could still perform and wanted to do so a lot. I would rather that than someone who had no interest in performing. And yes, I realize that is a selfish point of view.


Same answer. Same reasons. No apologies. >


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I think many men need to be a little less obsessed with the female orgasm. I appreciate that so many want their partners to enjoy themselves but it is quite possible for us to enjoy it and even look forward to it without orgasm.

I don't always orgasm but I enjoy the intimacy, and I do still have nerve endings that feel good


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

Since option #2 A partner with a no libido but always able to reach orgasm, wouldn't be afforded the opportunity to be my partner for very long. All that is left is #1.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

badsanta said:


> (See poll)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Isn’t the second option a bit of an oxymoron?
Who’d want that?
Also is it for the partner, or for yourself?
For my partner, I would choose option 1. For myself, option 2  I would hate it not being able to come! For wife, where there’s a will, there’s a way 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

MJJEAN said:


> Cat Lady said:
> 
> 
> > Well, since I am a woman, I would rather be married to someone who couldn't have an orgasm but could still perform and wanted to do so a lot. I would rather that than someone who had no interest in performing. And yes, I realize that is a selfish point of view.
> ...


Same here. At my age and after everything I have gone through with the ex.....yeah I'm a selfish biatch .


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Cat Lady said:


> Well, since I am a woman, I would rather be married to someone who couldn't have an orgasm but could still perform and wanted to do so a lot. I would rather that than someone who had no interest in performing. And yes, I realize that is a selfish point of view.




Interesting. So women describe high libido in men as ‘performing’. But men will (usually) describe a high libido in a woman as ‘wanting’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Do you think if you partnered up option 1 with option 2, they could self-correct each other by constantly performing/wanting while the other partner would be constantly coming?  problem solved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SecondWind (May 10, 2019)

InMyPrime said:


> Interesting. So women describe high libido in men as ‘performing’. But men will (usually) describe a high libido in a woman as ‘wanting’.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I dislike the term performing too. It's not as if the man's role in sex is a show or a competition!

If vote for #1. I'm not usually so selfish, but hey, this is a hypothetical situation anyway!


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

InMyPrime said:


> Do you think if you partnered up option 1 with option 2, they could self-correct each other by constantly performing/wanting while the other partner would be constantly coming?  problem solved.


OMG!!!!

Interesting idea compared with your earlier comment that you would choose #2 to be yourself. Correct me if I am wrong, but that would essentially give you all the power in the relationship, you would be highly desired by your partner, and you would be sexually pleased unexpectedly and overwhelmingly so on a regular basis. 

Would you consider yourself happy in that marriage as long as your partner was also happy?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

InMyPrime said:


> Interesting. So women describe high libido in men as ‘performing’. But men will (usually) describe a high libido in a woman as ‘wanting’.


I was thinking the exact same thing and scratching my head. Perhaps there is something to that we are missing! Libido in my mind has nothing to do with sexual performance. Is it that women view sexual performance as all the things that happen prior to intercourse...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

badsanta said:


> OMG!!!!
> 
> Interesting idea compared with your earlier comment that you would choose #2 to be yourself. Correct me if I am wrong, but that would essentially give you all the power in the relationship, you would be highly desired by your partner, and you would be sexually pleased unexpectedly and overwhelmingly so on a regular basis.
> 
> Would you consider yourself happy in that marriage as long as your partner was also happy?


I think my relationship is already_ a little bit_ like that....Not the non-orgasm part, she has no problems with that. But I am generally more adventurous and perhaps passionate (or obsessive) about certain things. Can't keep my hands off her (most of the time) and always try to work out what makes her sexuality tick....

So it's like a never-ending journey of discovery for me, with her. Ok, some things I probably DO imagine a little bit too much in my head (apparently, she really does NOT want to be surrounded by random men in a circle, hosing her down...at least in real life). But it's infectious and fun (as long as I don't force or pressurise her into anything, when she doesn't want to be forced...; she is actually up for most things because of this).
I took it your poll to be a bit of a metaphor. I think identical drives and desires could be counterproductive? I think it would be boring otherwise if we both were exactly the same in that regard.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

When I started this poll, I had the following description in my mind of each hypothetical person:



*A partner with a high libido but unable to reach orgasm.* In my opinion this is a needy person that can never be pleased. Most commenters thus far would however describe this as an individual motivated to please and perform his/her spouse. 
*A partner with a no libido but always able to reach orgasm.* In my opinion this is not a needy person that is easy to please. Most commenters this far would describe this as an individual that is problematic due to no libido. 

So many marriages that describe a partner with a responsive desire also tend to describe those with little or no libido having a serious ability to respond very well once things happen. But yet in these marriages the person with a responsive desire is often described as if that person is the most difficult and impossible to please due to a lack of desire. 

Is that description a projection from the HD person? Is it not the HD person that is usually the one that is very difficult to please? 

Regards, 
Badsanta


----------



## I'mAllIn (Oct 20, 2011)

badsanta said:


> I absolutely agree with you that the two options are wildly inaccurate of reality for most people. But I have often read scenarios in which a couple finds themselves unexpectedly having to deal with one of these two situations. It is almost always insurmountable.
> 
> An example might be that a required medication causes loss of libido or anorgasmia. So if you must imagine that you find yourself in a healthcare situation in which you only have two options for a prescription that your partner needs in order to stay alive. The doctor asks the two of you to discuss which one works better given that one causes total loss of libido and the other causes 100% anorgasmia.
> 
> ...


I actually don't think this is as wildly inaccurate as "most people" might think, it just isn't usually talked about. I am a VERY HD person, but because of medication I take, I have a very hard time coming to orgasm. However, I still enjoy sex, A LOT! My husband on the other hand is much lower drive, but has no problem having an orgasm. I wouldn't trade places with him.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

ImAllIn said:


> I actually don't think this is as wildly inaccurate as "most people" might think, it just isn't usually talked about. I am a VERY HD person, but because of medication I take, I have a very hard time coming to orgasm. However, I still enjoy sex, A LOT! *My husband on the other hand is much lower drive, but has no problem having an orgasm.* I wouldn't trade places with him.



A big part of me thinks that those with a lower drive or a responsive drive actually have a normal sex drive. Perhaps it is just that they experience a higher level of nonconcurrence than normal (erection for no obvious reason, or arousal with no erection) that interferes with one's ability to understand oneself.


----------



## I'mAllIn (Oct 20, 2011)

badsanta said:


> A big part of me thinks that those with a lower drive or a responsive drive actually have a normal sex drive. Perhaps it is just that they experience a higher level of nonconcurrence than normal (erection for no obvious reason, or arousal with no erection) that interferes with one's ability to understand oneself.


I'm just not sure about that. My husband honestly seems not to even think about sex the vast majority of the time. It seems not even to occur to him, doesn't even cross his mind. We can be snuggling on the couch together, or laying in bed naked, or watching a movie with attractive people in sexy clothes or a couple having sex, and NOTHING. I am lucky that if I'm willing to always initiate and sometimes make it obvious that I really really want to have sex he will usually cooperate, and when he does it's usually good. I could be wrong about the nonconcurrence thing though. We did have some strange ED issues a few years ago, and things were a little hot and cold, so anything is possible.


----------



## leon2100 (May 13, 2015)

Do both!


----------



## leon2100 (May 13, 2015)

Do both!


----------

