# Is LD a myth?



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

Or is it an excuse?

I genuinely wonder how often it happens that an LD man or woman finds themselves alone at some point in their lives (post divorce for example), and it hits them "Oh. Crap. That's all I had to do." Yet when they're married, they take it for granted that somebody wants them more than once or twice a month, and they focus so much on their spouse being the one with the "problem".

I genuinely wonder why sex (ESPECIALLY in marriage) is so complicated for so many people.

I genuinely wonder at what point in human history sex turned from being as basic and simple as eating and sleeping to what it is now?

I understand the laws of attraction, and if you aren't attracted to somebody, you won't want to have sex with them.

So is that what LD really is? You've either lost attraction for your mate, or you're not fully capable of being attracted to anybody?

Am I the only one who finds the labels "LD and HD" to be thrown around a lot here at TAM? That maybe it's time to not use those terms every single time one person wants less sex than their partner? It almost excuses the fact that two people have ended up like that. "Oh, well (s)he's LD, so we can work on it."

I'm coming from the angle that there are two types of people when it comes to sex. Those that need it, and those that want it. When you get the two types together, you have a higher probability of things going south at some point.

Those that need it: "HD". Those that want it: "LD".

The people who need it tend to be less discriminatory, and I don't mean they'll sleep with anybody. I mean they'll sleep with their husband or wife even if they're not highly attracted to them, or at all. Or only in one way. Maybe they're angry at them, or resentful about something, but they still need sex, and they'll still go to their spouse for sex.

The people that want it are the opposite. If the attraction isn't there, then no deal. Or the time has to be right. One thing is "off", and it isn't happening. But if everything is "on", then it's a "want", and it'll happen.

Mental or physical issues aside, I genuinely believe everybody falls into one category or the other, and they're being mis-labelled as either HD or LD. I suppose you could have some category overlap, but I think everybody at least sways in favor of one or the other.

Thoughts?


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

yes, these are just labels to help understand relationship dynamics, they are not traits that define anyone. Sex is a relationship need but not a physiological one. however I do not mean to imply that relationship needs are somehow less fundamental than basic physical ones. Everybody has a certain need, and a certain want for sex.


----------



## Muse1976 (Apr 25, 2015)

I haven't been posting for very long, but I have lurked for a while.

I think HD and LD both define places on an overall scale. I believe that not only is their a reference between two people, but also a reference to everyone else. Just because a person is HD in one relationship does not mean that they might not be Lower Drive in another, and still be in a mismatch.

I kind of see the way you describe it as a person being able to separate emotional intimacy from sex(HD). And needing the emotional intimacy to have sex(LD).
Heck, I might be wrong.

Hope I explained that so I didn't confuse. 
Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Alex, it is definitely true that someone can be LD for their spouse but HD for other people, whether specific other people or a whole lot of other people or whatever. People lose their attraction for each other due to changes. Also, the new relationship chemicals wearing off sometimes reveals that there really wasn't a strong sexual attraction for one or both partners.

I have said recently that I haven't ever heard any women talking about "oh I wish my husband would stop chasing me around the bedroom"...but I have heard plenty of them saying "ugh, I wish sex with him wasn't a turn off". There is a myriad of reasons WHY it could be a turn off, some reasons are physical and others are more emotional or mental. It is not always the other spouse's "fault" that the attraction waned, in other words.

But is this the case in every case? No way. There are plenty of people who simply don't want alot of sex EVEN IF they would want it in the beginning of a relationship, or for a few romps, as in an affair. It really doesn't mean there is a hiding, sustained high libido. It just means that periodically, even LD people have hormonal rushes based on the chemistry they feel with another person. 

Like you said, for those who are HD, they can either feel this chemistry all the time or they can always manufacture it. Naturally LD, they can't, they can only have it when there is a boost once in awhile but it won't be sustained on its own.

Even natural HD's can become LD for a specific person, though.


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

My wife fits the naturally LD that you talk about in the last paragraph, FW.

I still honestly believe that sex urges are connected to emotions, you either feel a certain way for someone or you don't? My wife always argues that this isn't the case with her, but I don't buy it. I can't wrap my head around the fact that someone can possess no sex drive, except when they get the boosts, that FW mentioned?

Like I've said in previous posts, if you have no sex drive or no interest in developing one, don't marry someone under false pretenses. Be roommates with someone else and give us a chance and don't tell us 19 years later.

I am a clear example of an HD becoming an LD. I can flip it on and off like a switch, but mostly it stays off, to match my wife's.


----------



## Muse1976 (Apr 25, 2015)

woundedwarrior said:


> My wife fits the naturally LD that you talk about in the last paragraph, FW.
> 
> I still honestly believe that sex urges are connected to emotions, you either feel a certain way for someone or you don't? My wife always argues that this isn't the case with her, but I don't buy it. I can't wrap my head around the fact that someone can possess no sex drive, except when they get the boosts, that FW mentioned?
> 
> ...



:iagree:

What happens when one of these days you can't turn it back on?


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Humans are I think, the only mammals who don't go into heat. That's significant from a biological perspective and an evolutionary one.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Runs like Dog said:


> Humans are I think, the only mammals who don't go into heat. That's significant from a biological perspective and an evolutionary one.


Women are essentially in heat all time, particularly during estrus (which is why they are hornier during ovulation)


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

My ex is a naturally LD man. The hard part for me was that he was HD for me in the early years but after some time he balanced back out to his natural level and as the resentment built in me the frustration set into out relationship.
He would have stayed married forever and been happy simply to have me as his wife.

His issues stem from his upbringing mostly but I would class his as naturally LD. It has been 5 years post the end of our relationship and he has only dated 1 woman and it was for 2 months. He seems very happy.


----------



## Tbnez (Jun 27, 2013)

Its been scientifically proven to be a myth through the Librido drug research. The vast majority of women that are LD are actually bored. Most women have a "headache" when they think about having sex with their husband but their panties would be on the floor if Brad Pitt showed interest..

As a bartender for over a decade i can say from experience that women are not what men think they are. It's amazing what a women will say to her friends when she has a had a few drinks and forgets a bartender is two foot away...Womens conversations are WAY worse than men's and yes they tell ALL to their friends.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Right, because nearly everyone feels more sexual in the beginning of a new relationship. Natural LD's are more sexual at first. Then it dies down to their natural state. This is confusing to the HD when it happens, but it is actually normal and natural.

Also, a lot of guys believe that an LD wife will turn into a porn star for the right guy to cheat with him....that may be true, but if they run off together, the same thing will happen to her sex drive again after a few years.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> *Right, because nearly everyone feels more sexual in the beginning of a new relationship. Natural LD's are more sexual at first. Then it dies down to their natural state. This is confusing to the HD when it happens, but it is actually normal and natural.*
> 
> Also, a lot of guys believe that an LD wife will turn into a porn star for the right guy to cheat with him....that may be true, but if they run off together, the same thing will happen to her sex drive again after a few years.


This is such an important point. I was so uneducated in sexual drives and sadly it has taken till my 40's to really understand.

It is harmful to suggest that LD is a myth. The better path is to seek understanding that all people are different, no one is better or worse but society looks down on people that are at the extremes of what others think we all should be. It is ok to be LD, it is ok to be HD, what is not ok is the lack of understanding of just how destructive a mismatch can be.
It is not ok to be inflexible with whatever your desire/drive level is if it greatly impacts an already established relationship. Both LD and HD people should be able to compromise a little without being made to feel bad or making their partner feel bad.

It is not ok to refuse to learn about yourself and what your sexual needs and wants are. It is seriously wrong to not be honest with yourself and current/future partners about your true level of desire/drive.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holland said:


> It is not ok to refuse to learn about yourself and what your sexual needs and wants are. It is seriously wrong to not be honest with yourself and current/future partners about your true level of desire/drive.


I think it is particularly hard for male LD's, because other people are so harsh on them. I think being an HD female is also hard, but not as hard. Sure, a lot of people will scoff at me when I suggest my sex drive is on par with most highly sexual mens...but they won't do it as hard as they will to a man who suggests that he understands why some wives just wish they could catch a break and not be chased around the bed all the time. Jesus, a man says this and the next things he hears is "What?!?! YOU ARE GAY!!!"

Along with all the shaming and abuse that goes along with any such hateful statement.

With me, they typically just don't think I'm being honest. And even if they do, they just assume I must be a sl*t...which is bad enough (because just being HD doesn't mean indiscriminate or a high partner count), but at least they wouldn't also assume I was gay, and paint that in a negative light to boot.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

Holland said:


> This is such an important point. I was so uneducated in sexual drives and sadly it has taken till my 40's to really understand.
> 
> It is harmful to suggest that LD is a myth. The better path is to seek understanding that all people are different, no one is better or worse but society looks down on people that are at the extremes of what others think we all should be. It is ok to be LD, it is ok to be HD, what is not ok is the lack of understanding of just how destructive a mismatch can be.
> It is not ok to be inflexible with whatever your desire/drive level is if it greatly impacts an already established relationship. Both LD and HD people should be able to compromise a little without being made to feel bad or making their partner feel bad.
> ...


There's obviously a bit of confusion with my statement (and I'm not directing this at you, Holland, just quoting the above because it fits).

My theory, if you can call it that, is that everybody HAS a sex drive, period. The variables are what increase or decrease it.

What one calls "HD" is the type of person who likes SEX. The physical aspect of it, primarily, but also the emotional (but not in all cases). They don't need a, b or c to all be present and accounted for in order to want to have sex. One is usually sufficient enough.

What one calls "LD" requires a set parameter of items in order to have, or enjoy sex. A, b and c must all be present. And if they are, then game on.

The most common and visible form of "LD" is when a partner loses interest over time. At the beginning of a relationship, all parameters are present and have been met, therefore interest in sex (ie. the "drive") is present. Over time, as with most relationships, things tail off, and then all of a sudden a, b or c is missing. With "HD" people, a or c could be gone, but b is still there, so no difference.

Which is why I think the terms "high desire" and "low desire" are misnomers. Low implies one simply doesn't want it as often as High, for no particular reason, other than it's not on their mind. What I'm trying to say is that it CAN, and often HAS been on their minds at one point in the relationship or another - usually based upon their feelings towards their partner.

I think it's safe to say that everyone who has come to TAM and posted in regards to HD/LD did not have that problem at the outset of their relationship. Generally speaking, one can't tell if their partner is LD during the "honeymoon period". So why is this? Is the LD person really doing a bait and switch? Or are they actually HD for that time frame?

I honestly think they are HD at that time, the desire is there, and it's not just for the sake of landing a partner. But once the lustre wears off their new partner, the desire wanes. With "HD" people, it does not. Perhaps it's as simple as HD people understanding that things will not always be the same as they are the first 3 or 6 or 9 months, so they don't require that all the pieces be present in order to be sexually attracted to their partner.

So yes, I do think there are two types of people out there, but it's much more complicated (or perhaps less so?) than simply "HD" and "LD", and that those two labels are much too simplistic or too black and white for what it really is.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

alexm said:


> My theory, if you can call it that, is that everybody HAS a sex drive, period. The variables are what increase or decrease it.


So you never looked into asexuality then? You did not go and read the hundreds and hundreds of stories at AVEN written by people who have NEVER had a sex drive? 

Doubting their existence really doesn't help anyone, it hurts us all.

You are so confused by this stuff because you refuse to believe the truth about it, methinks.

It is really astounding how many HD people claim this, too by the way. Since they cannot imagine NOT having a sex drive, they assume those who really don't have one are lying or are repressed. They simply don't believe them.

This is sad and harmful and it means you are straight up calling some people liars, about THEIR own experience. Just because you don't have the same experience.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Why is it that folks accept without question the 'normal' distribution that describes almost every single human attribute:
- size
- athletic prowess
- charisma
- intelligence 
- beauty 
- sense of humor

But when it comes to sex drive. Raw sex drive. They don't believe it. 

Especially odd given that the drive to procreate is completely separate. Folks who lack much drive and/or don't much like sex - will gladly have procreative sex for short periods of time - to produce a child. 






Faithful Wife said:


> So you never looked into asexuality then? You did not go and read the hundreds and hundreds of stories at AVEN written by people who have NEVER had a sex drive?
> 
> Doubting their existence really doesn't help anyone, it hurts us all.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> Why is it that folks accept without question the 'normal' distribution that describes almost every single human attribute:
> - size
> - athletic prowess
> - charisma
> ...


Because there are so many factors, like alexm points out, that affect what each and every one of us does with our sex drive and the shape it comes to take. Having a sex drive is like having the urge to pee, but you don't see people with higher or lower pee drives. When you gotta go you gotta go, and as long as you have access to somewhere to do your business you will grow up with a healthy attitude about it. Conversely when you don't gotta go you just don't.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Lon,

That isn't a valid analogy. There are plenty of folks who rarely have a sexual urge. They aren't ashamed of sex, or of self pleasuring. It's just a lack of raw desire. 

Having to eat, drink or pee - that's about physics. 

That said, your baseline 'raw' drive can be UP regulated by:
- Positive lifestyle, exercise and diet
- Pharmaceuticals - T supplements 
- A partner you find hot, really like having sex with 

And DOWN regulated by the same factors plus negative emotional issues like depression, anxiety, etc...






Lon said:


> Because there are so many factors, like alexm points out, that affect what each and every one of us does with our sex drive and the shape it comes to take. Having a sex drive is like having the urge to pee, but you don't see people with higher or lower pee drives. When you gotta go you gotta go, and as long as you have access to somewhere to do your business you will grow up with a healthy attitude about it. Conversely when you don't gotta go you just don't.


----------



## MarriedToTheOne (Apr 22, 2015)

IMO.....

How To Schedule Sex, For Skeptics | Samantha Rodman PhD


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> Lon,
> 
> That isn't a valid analogy. There are plenty of folks who rarely have a sexual urge. They aren't ashamed of sex, or of self pleasuring. It's just a lack of raw desire.
> 
> ...


My point is that at some point EVERY able bodied person has had a sexual urge that is at least as strong as the urge to urinate. The act itself is not as physically urgent, and doesn't result in acute illness if ignored, but it's all the factors that surround what they do repeatedly over time with that urge which is what we classify as sex drive. Some have been conditioned to associate the urge with shame and likely try to repress it, some have possibly always had a willing partner available to satisfy their urge and never had to even think about repressing anything, some have sought to satisfy that urge but are often unable to have a partner. And it's quite scientific that the outcome of our circumstances feeds back into our general reward centers of the brain that influences our next choice. It's not that I think anyone lacks raw desire, is just that everyone experiences raw desire completely differently.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Do you believe there is a wide variance/normal distribution of raw drive just as there is for height, IQ, temper, ambition, etc? 






Lon said:


> My point is that at some point EVERY able bodied person has had a sexual urge that is at least as strong as the urge to urinate. The act itself is not as physically urgent, and doesn't result in acute illness if ignored, but it's all the factors that surround what they do repeatedly over time with that urge which is what we classify as sex drive. Some have been conditioned to associate the urge with shame and likely try to repress it, some have possibly always had a willing partner available to satisfy their urge and never had to even think about repressing anything, some have sought to satisfy that urge but are often unable to have a partner. And it's quite scientific that the outcome of our circumstances feeds back into our general reward centers of the brain that influences our next choice. It's not that I think anyone lacks raw desire, is just that everyone experiences raw desire completely differently.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

What I think we are seeing is our species regulating itself. Some of us don't have a sex drive because as a species, it is quite clear we do not need more babies and when any species hits that point, it starts cutting off the desire to make babies.

We also see this in captive or stressed out animals. All is fine and dandy and everything is natural and healthy about these animals, but put them in a cage (which basically tells them they are going to die without freedom) and they refuse to bring any babies into this cage with them.

So as it is with other animals, such as the most overpopulated one, us. There is nothing unnatural about a change in sex drive to match current conditions. Every new generation could have an entirely different sex drive compared to the last one, based on the current needs. How often do you think pioneers crossing the country in covered wagons had sex, how important do you think it was to them, how monogamous were they, etc? Why do we only look at what is in front of us to try to figure out what is going on, as if what is current right now is the only way any of it has ever been?

I think truly LD people and zero drive people exist in response to our culture. They balance out all the overly sexual people, who also popped up in response to our culture. 

Totally, completely natural.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> What I think we are seeing is our species regulating itself. Some of us don't have a sex drive because as a species, it is quite clear we do not need more babies and when any species hits that point, it starts cutting off the desire to make babies.
> 
> We also see this in captive or stressed out animals. All is fine and dandy and everything is natural and healthy about these animals, but put them in a cage (which basically tells them they are going to die without freedom) and they refuse to bring any babies into this cage with them.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure about this FW. My ex as an eg wanted kids so had sex until we had them. 
It is also very natural for people that don't want kids or more kids to remain very sexually active well after child rearing days are over.


----------



## another shot (Apr 14, 2015)

The terms LD and HD are useful for the purpose of expressing the point of mismatched sex drives in a specific relationship. 

Eliminating them is very unproductive because they are easy terms to use to express which spouse has the higher and lower drive relative to their spouse. 

They don't have a hard definition that means something very specific other than when relative to the other. They are terms to be employed only as comparators to a spouse on a continuum. 

If one spouse has a lower drive than the other they are the LD which stands for LOWER DRIVE THAN THEIR SPOUSE. HD means the opposite. There is no hard rule about frequency for either. The terms should be employed only to express the situation relative 

For example, I like sex more than every third day and that is not enough for me more than half the time. Every other day is too much for me but every third day is too little. My wife is a twice a week girl. Even though we have more sex than many couples on TAM our mismatch cause most if not all of the same issues as those having less sex than us. 

In our case I am HD and she is LD but we close the gap most of the way most of the time to a satisfying degree by being reasonably balanced with each other now that we understand how the HD and LD feel about their side of the issues meeting in the middle taking turns being the flexible understanding lover for each other. 

It seems to me in the last two months or so TAM has made huge strides in developing understanding about this topic. I wish someone would compile the finding in a quality way in ebook form that can be updated often as the knowledge develops rapidly.

I have considered doing this myself as I have written several book lengths works on entirely different subjects that were well received by the reading audience

The subject of mismatched sex drives putting a huge strain on marriage crushing the enthusiasm to be married needs much more development. I think the "Sex Starved Marriage" is a thin read that needs to take the subject much much farther than it has thus far.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> So you never looked into asexuality then? You did not go and read the hundreds and hundreds of stories at AVEN written by people who have NEVER had a sex drive?
> 
> Doubting their existence really doesn't help anyone, it hurts us all.
> 
> ...


I'm not HD, myself, and I'm also not calling anybody a liar.

I didn't say there aren't people out there who have no interest in sex and never have. They're obviously out there. As you know, I know all too well about asexuality, FW. But it's an outlier, and statistically irrelevant to what I'm saying. Off the top of my head, asexuality is something like 1% of the population. It does not apply to this discussion.

What I AM saying is that "LD" is a misnomer; a label that has been created to explain away otherwise normal behaviour.

For the third time - some people will have sex without having conditions placed upon their partner. Others require conditions in order to want to have sex. I will have sex with my wife pretty much any time I can. Whether I'm in a bad mood, or she is, whether she's showered and clean, or not, whether she's in baggy sweats or a hot skirt, whether I have to get up early in the morning, or not. etc etc etc. Whereas her desire is predicated upon me meeting certain parameters.

As far as actually wanting sex, I don't believe her and I are all that far apart, or different. If I met her parameters on a daily basis, we'd be having sex on a daily basis. I truly believe that. And I believe it would be the same for most couples. I believe it IS the same for most couples at one point (particularly at the beginning of a relationship).


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

another shot said:


> The terms LD and HD are useful for the purpose of expressing the point of mismatched sex drives in a specific relationship.
> 
> Eliminating them is very unproductive because they are easy terms to use to express which spouse has the higher and lower drive relative to their spouse.
> 
> ...


Ironically, this is kind of making my point for me.

Your wife wants it twice a week. You want it 3 times a week. That's not a significant difference.

To call yourself HD and her LD isn't accurate. Frankly, your desire levels match. If there's an issue, perhaps it's that she will reject sex, whereas you will not. Therefore, we tend to view any person who rejects sex as "LD".

My whole issue with the HD/LD thing is that it's used as a blanket label for people, and it doesn't accurately describe most people individually, nor the relationships one is speaking about.

I mean, if somebody wants sex twice a day, and their partner has sex with them once a day, but rejects them the second time, then most folks here will say one is HD and the other is not. Perhaps within the confines of THAT relationship, but as a general term, hell no.


----------



## another shot (Apr 14, 2015)

alexm said:


> What I AM saying is that "LD" is a misnomer; a label that has been created to explain away otherwise normal behaviour.
> 
> For the third time - some people will have sex without having conditions placed upon their partner. Others require conditions in order to want to have sex.


You are personalizing the use and definition of LD specifically to your situation. The terms LD and HD are a catch all for many different situations like and unlike your own. 

Mismatched sex drives and whether or not conditions effect drive are but a subset of the mismatch scenarios. 

I agree with your point that you reiterated three times but I don't agree LD as a term ought to be tossed because you find it lacking because it does not complete the job. 

I suggest you run with it as a subset label and add to it rather than toss it out. 

For example, a subset of LD issues is yours that we could call 

LD via preconditions for drive

It seems a bit selfish to toss a useful label others find useful because it hardly fits your situation without expanding it with further details. 

Again, it's a catch all label that needs further details to raise the level of meaning to what you wish for


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Lon said:


> Women are essentially in heat all time, particularly during estrus (which is why they are hornier during ovulation)


But there is no biological or evolutionary imperative to breed at any one time. It could be now or next week or next month. Doesn't matter.


----------



## alexm (Nov 29, 2008)

Lon said:


> My point is that at some point EVERY able bodied person has had a sexual urge that is at least as strong as the urge to urinate.


I wouldn't go that far, Lon. Not everybody has a sex drive, but yes, the vast, vast majority do. I understand what you're saying, but care has to be taken with wording  MOST people have had sexual urges, or do. It's just that some people embrace it, while others do not. There are a thousand and one reasons for either/or.

And honestly, many of those reasons are perfectly fine and acceptable and normal, whichever direction they go.

Yet, I believe strongly that, taking the outliers out of the equation (ie. asexuality), everybody has a drive, an urge, and yes, even a need, for sex. But many do not embrace it as others do.

As the saying goes, some people need the stars to align in order to have sex with their partners. What happens if the stars align every day?


----------



## another shot (Apr 14, 2015)

alexm said:


> Perhaps within the confines of THAT relationship, but as a general term, hell no.


Exactly

The terms LD and HD are used relative to each other in a specific relationship and that is how they are useful. You make my point for me. They are not general terms. they must be used in pairs to describe each spouse in a specific relationship. 

Your definition is too personalized to your specific situation. You are trying to take their definition and use too far instead of coupling them with other information such as the type of LD because there are clearly many causes where only one or all can be present. 

That is not how they are useful except to express mismatch in drives HOWEVER slight causes very similar if not identical issues. 

I am not seeing your quarrel with the personalized use of these labels accurate.

LD does not stand alone without furthering that with the subset cause(s)

For example

Emotional, Physical, Bio-chemical, Situational, Faith-based, Psychological, Abuse caused, Etc are all types of LD. Each has it's own set of issues and solutions but ALL are LD relative to their spouse that simply has a drive higher than theirs.

Not all LD's reject sex either. Some offer up starfish sex. 

Rejection is not always a component. That assumption is false. That is a large subset but is not always the case just because it's a majority. 

LD is no more a myth than some people spouses like sports oro video games or animals or socializing more than the other and that causes issues too. It's R-E-L-T-I-V-E comparison to the other spouse. 

THATS IT. NOTHING MORE

And then the issues and details follow


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Do you believe there is a wide variance/normal distribution of raw drive just as there is for height, IQ, temper, ambition, etc?


Normal distribution is not the same as wide variance, so Lon could both agree and disagree with you on this. It could be, for example, that we are all quite tightly clustered around a mean, such that the curve looks a whole lot more like a spire than a bell.

That said, the gamut definitely runs from people who don't really want sex at all to people who want sex multiple times a day, every day, and that is pretty wide variance, no matter how you slice it. The question is whether we take this range seriously, or just dismiss the outliers.

Like you, I'm inclined to take the range seriously. 

I agree with those that are pointing out that many factors affect drive, and where someone falls on the curve. We see this when we compare genders, for example, and where women fall relative to men. Now that there is a whole lot less stigma against women for being sexual, the distributions look more and more the same. It is no longer "obvious" that women as a group are less sexual than men.

What I don't agree with is the presumed defectiveness of those with LD. Yes, it may be true that some LD people are taught to be so, or made to be so through damage. But some hyper-sexual people are equally following a cultural script and/or damaged. Neither group gets to claim greater health or adjustment, IMHO.

Just because the mean is something like 2-3 times per week doesn't mean this is "normal" or some baseline biology.


----------



## another shot (Apr 14, 2015)

always_alone said:


> presumed defectiveness of those with LD


I don't think the beef with LD is that they don't have a matched drive as their spouse so they are flawed. 

The beef is the way they handle that mismatch that includes a lack of effort to discover why and if there is anything that can be done to approach middle ground and a lack of honesty with their HD so they can address their end of the issue to resolve. 

There is a bog difference between a natural desire or lack of it and refusing to be honest about it or put forth any effort to do what they can to alleviate some of the suffering of their HD spouse. 

The flaw is not the condition. Its the lack of effort and honesty.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

alexm said:


> For the third time - some people will have sex without having conditions placed upon their partner. Others require conditions in order to want to have sex. I will have sex with my wife pretty much any time I can. Whether I'm in a bad mood, or she is, whether she's showered and clean, or not, whether she's in baggy sweats or a hot skirt, whether I have to get up early in the morning, or not. etc etc etc. Whereas her desire is predicated upon me meeting certain parameters.
> 
> As far as actually wanting sex, I don't believe her and I are all that far apart, or different. If I met her parameters on a daily basis, we'd be having sex on a daily basis. I truly believe that. And I believe it would be the same for most couples. I believe it IS the same for most couples at one point (particularly at the beginning of a relationship).


Your new categories do not map neatly on to the HD /LD distinction, IMHO. Lots of HD people have plenty of conditions for having sex. This, for example, might be when you hear someone complain about starfish or duty sex, and how it's not worth it. This is also when you will see people choose solo sex over other options, because those options are distasteful or come with too much drama.

Indeed, very rare is the person who has no conditions for having sex, and probably those are the most damaged of all.

The "conditions" you speak of for LD are really just attempts at explanations to satisfy someone else's incessant need to know "why". Or rather, why not.

As for your last paragraph, I have to say everything I've read from you so far indicates that you bend over backwards to meet all your wife's conditions, and are finding that it still isn't enough.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

another shot said:


> The flaw is not the condition. Its the lack of effort and honesty.


Then why is it always framed in terms of their "loss" of drive, or their trauma, or their repression? 

I understand the this does happen. But you don't hear anyone complaining about HD being hyper sexual because of trauma, CSA, or inability to for healthy emotional bonds. Yet this is very often the case.

You also don't really hear about HDs needing to compromise. Usually it's "having to" because they are "held hostage" and "have no say".


----------



## another shot (Apr 14, 2015)

always_alone said:


> Then why is it always framed in terms of their "loss" of drive, or their trauma, or their repression?
> 
> *Because the lack of effort and honesty forces the HD spouse to speculate while frustrated and in terms of loss, in most cases the LD cooled off from a former higher frequency after normalizing after a new love spike which seems very odd to HD spouses*
> 
> ...


Again, it is said here daily. There is a credibility gap when an LD says it is not discussed when I read it daily. The angry stuff is from the frustration.

FWIW it seems that LDs are more sensitive and HDs more demanding. I will admit that I OPERATE differently than my slightly LD wife. I am a problem solver and she is a problem acceptor. I don't like her way and she doesn't like mine but we worked it out beyond that.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Holland said:


> I'm not sure about this FW. My ex as an eg wanted kids so had sex until we had them.
> It is also very natural for people that don't want kids or more kids to remain very sexually active well after child rearing days are over.


I'm not talking about conscious, individual decisions to have or not have kids. I'm talking about the bigger picture of our species and a regulation that is happening via subconscious decisions that are best for the whole.


----------



## Big Dude (Feb 24, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Then why is it always framed in terms of their "loss" of drive, or their trauma, or their repression?
> 
> *It is not always framed this way. In many cases, it is explained as the consequence of an initial deception where the LD partner presents themselves as non-LD during the courtship phase of the relationship. This is the case with me, Doobie, and others on TAM.*
> 
> ...


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Big Dude said:


> For those of us who were chumped into a sexually mismatched marriage this attitude can seem far from reasonable.


I hear what you're saying, but again it's a deficit model.

The LD in this case is a liar, a bait-and-switcher, one who turns the HD into a chump.

Yet, fact is that pretty much everyone's drives and interest wax and wane over time, depending on age, health, circumstances, stress, as well as personal proclivity. And even knowing whether or that one is LD/HD requires a certain level of self-awareness that not everyone shares.

So again, I do very much understand why it is frustrating to be in a sexually mismatched relationship. I do not think that demonizing or chastizing people for not matching up to what you hoped they would be is very helpful. 

If you really feel like you've been chumped into marriage, then the solution is right there before you.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

MEM11363 said:


> Do you believe there is a wide variance/normal distribution of raw drive just as there is for height, IQ, temper, ambition, etc?


I think the peak level of raw desire that everybody experiences at some point falls within a very small distribution - it becomes the number one urge that dominates our thoughts - burning desire is the same for Austin Powers as it was for Mother Theresa.

How a person entertains, holds, nurtures and acts on this raw desire varies incredibly widely, and due to personal beliefs and external circumstance (like FW suggests about captive animals for instance) that sex drive gets shaped into what it is. For some it becomes prowess, for others depravity and for others still it just goes cold.

I personally align close to what alexm states. I would likely fall under the LD label, because even though I still have raw burning desire, it does not drive me to pursue sexual activity with my partner or anyone else. I would also say that largely because my raw desire has not led to deep fulfillment of my sexual relationship needs, a part of me does largely quench the fires, I just refuse to put it out. In the past it burned hotter but seemed to do me no good, my hope is that it can stay burning cool as is and that I can still stoke it from time to time if need be - my sexual thoughts are as frequent and as thorough as they ever have been, I salivate and quiver at the sight of a sexy women just as most men do, however my urge to pursue sex doesn't really seem there. When I pursue sex it comes from a desire to please and also just the enjoyment of the activity and sharing an experience with someone I love. There is nothing wrong with this, and I think it's also perfectly normal for people to voraciously consume sex. My biggest disappointment is seeing people judge one another in all other areas because of this, or thinking one way is better than the other. It's a pity the chemistry that many people could have but turn away from because of their specific target in the opposite sex.


----------



## Big Dude (Feb 24, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I do not think that demonizing or chastizing people for not matching up to what you hoped they would be is very helpful.
> .


I also hear and respect what you are saying. But in reality, I think holding sexual manipulators accountable for their deceptions *is* potentially helpful. Just as a young women ought to be warned that there are pigs in the world that will deceptively promise love and commitment just to get laid, potential HD newlyweds ought to know that there are manipulative LD's out there who will reverse this scenario. I cannot imagine an HD person playing a similar game, but I guess I could be educated on that.

I wish to God that somebody had suggested this concept to me before I spent years working very hard to fix that which cannot be fixed. I really had no idea that people actually did stuff like this. Then I would have felt justified in doing what I have to do a long time ago. I can't speak for others, but I consider it good form to advise struggling HD's in a frustrated marriage that contrary to the dominant ethos of TAM, their sexual problems might just not be their fault. That sometimes a person will feign sexual enthusiasm just to get a ring on their finger. This message needs to be heard even if some LD's are offended by it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Big Dude said:


> I also hear and respect what you are saying. But in reality, I think holding sexual manipulators accountable for their deceptions *is* potentially helpful. Just as a young women ought to be warned that there are pigs in the world that will deceptively promise love and commitment just to get laid, potential HD newlyweds ought to know that there are manipulative LD's out there who will reverse this scenario. I cannot imagine an HD person playing a similar game, but I guess I could be educated on that.
> 
> I wish to God that somebody had suggested this concept to me before I spent years working very hard to fix that which cannot be fixed. I really had no idea that people actually did stuff like this. Then I would have felt justified in doing what I have to do a long time ago. I can't speak for others, but I consider it good form to advise struggling HD's in a frustrated marriage that contrary to the dominant ethos of TAM, their sexual problems might just not be their fault. That sometimes a person will feign sexual enthusiasm just to get a ring on their finger. This message needs to be heard even if some LD's are offended by it.


As in actually, in a calculated way, feign a sex drive the person has? If your wife did this to you, that's pretty unconscionable, and I am sorry to hear this happened to you.

And yes, we do all need to be aware that there are selfish, manipulative a$$holes in the world.

But do you truly think that no HD person has ever thought to him/herself that they would just "overlook" sexual mismatch because "things would get better"? Or that they were so enamored that they thought something like "oh, well, sex isn't everything, I can make this work"?

If so, think again.

Also, who do you suppose are the "pigs" who lie about love and commitment to get sex? Surely not the LD's?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lon said:


> I personally align close to what alexm states. I would likely fall under the LD label, because even though I still have raw burning desire, it does not drive me to pursue sexual activity with my partner or anyone else. I would also say that largely because my raw desire has not led to deep fulfillment of my sexual relationship needs, a part of me does largely quench the fires, I just refuse to put it out. In the past it burned hotter but seemed to do me no good, my hope is that it can stay burning cool as is and that I can still stoke it from time to time if need be - my sexual thoughts are as frequent and as thorough as they ever have been, I salivate and quiver at the sight of a sexy women just as most men do, however my urge to pursue sex doesn't really seem there. When I pursue sex it comes from a desire to please and also just the enjoyment of the activity and sharing an experience with someone I love. There is nothing wrong with this, and I think it's also perfectly normal for people to voraciously consume sex. My biggest disappointment is seeing people judge one another in all other areas because of this, or thinking one way is better than the other. It's a pity the chemistry that many people could have but turn away from because of their specific target in the opposite sex.



I disagree that your personal experience defines that of all others.

I also think it is an open question whether you have a "normal" drive that you are actively repressing/ignoring or are actually fairly LD, but are following your cultural script. The quivering and salivating, for example, is exactly what men are taught to do over the sexualized and objectified depictions of women.


----------



## Big Dude (Feb 24, 2013)

always_alone said:


> As in actually, in a calculated way, feign a sex drive the person has? If your wife did this to you, that's pretty unconscionable, and I am sorry to hear this happened to you.
> 
> *Not as sorry as I am!*
> 
> ...


*Touche! But to be fair, I rarely see these people defended anywhere, let alone on TAM.*


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I disagree that your personal experience defines that of all others.
> 
> I also think it is an open question whether you have a "normal" drive that you are actively repressing/ignoring or are actually fairly LD, but are following your cultural script. The quivering and salivating, for example, is exactly what men are taught to do over the sexualized and objectified depictions of women.


You think lust is a learned behavior?


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

always_alone said:


> I disagree that your personal experience defines that of all others.
> 
> I also think it is an open question whether you have a "normal" drive that you are actively repressing/ignoring or are actually fairly LD, but are following your cultural script. The quivering and salivating, for example, is exactly what men are taught to do over the sexualized and objectified depictions of women.


I think when I refer to "repressing" what I mean is not allowing your desire to have power over your actions or behaviors. For me I got to the point of letting that desire just flow around and past me, because continuing to let my mind dwell on it without it translating into actual sexual activity with an attractive partner was just too painful. So the lust, desire and attraction is there is just doesn't move me towards taking any kind of risks anymore.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Lon said:


> I think when I refer to "repressing" what I mean is not allowing your desire to have power over your actions or behaviors. For me I got to the point of letting that desire just flow around and past me, because continuing to let my mind dwell on it without it translating into actual sexual activity with an attractive partner was just too painful. So the lust, desire and attraction is there is just doesn't move me towards taking any kind of risks anymore.


And the salivating/quivering/tingling in my loins isn't anything I put on for show, it's a genuine physiological and psychological response. It could be the result of cultural conditioning, but if so that is very powerful stuff which affects my brain and blood flow very deeply.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> You think lust is a learned behavior?


Well no, I think lust transcends culture and is a natural part of our psychology and physiology.

But I also think that we are deeply, both psychologically and physiologically affected by the culture that we live in.

To give two stereotypical examples:

If a woman is raised to believe that girls don't like sex or want sex, that their sexuality is shameful and that they are dirty for having fantasies, for wanting sex, that they must only endure sex for the sake of their husbands and only for the sake of procreation, then this will deeply affect both their psychological and physiological reactions to sexual stimuli. 

Simlarly, if a man is raised to believe that he is fundamentally sexual, that there is something wrong with him if he isn't drooling and salivating over every hot body, that it is shameful for him to be emotional and sensitive, and lives in a pornified culture with hyper-sexualized women constantly dangled in front of him, this too will deeply affect his psychological and physiological reactions to sexual stimuli.

Don't you think?


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Well no, I think lust transcends culture and is a natural part of our psychology and physiology.
> 
> But I also think that we are deeply, both psychologically and physiologically affected by the culture that we live in.
> 
> ...


You think it's porn that hypersexualizes men? I had much stronger lust and insanely acute awareness of what I found attractive long before the prevalence of porn and even before I was ever really exposed to it all that much. When I did happen to stumble upon a skin mag to flip through I quite clearly remember that out of dozens of playmates there were usually only a couple that had the "it" factor of physical traits that did it for me personally. I actually see more women out and about wearing normal clothes that make me stop and say wow to myself than I ever have in porn. Of course, seeing an image of just about any reasonably attractive naked woman engaged in sexual activity is instant arousal, but the lust I tend to refer to is not necessarily all that sexually charged at first. I personally think it's testosterone and the way we're wired that causes us to lust just from visuals alone.

Edit: I also was raised with a deep shame of lust, sinful sex and any kind of objectification of women by a family and extended family of very conservative Christian followers. I had a lot of guilt about the sexual thoughts I carried around in my head, and those thoughts went far beyond whatever was ingrained into me by the media or culture, despite the feelings of shame for harboring lustful thoughts I still couldn't help myself from indulging there anyway.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> You think it's porn that hypersexualizes men? I had much stronger lust and insanely acute awareness of what I found attractive long before the prevalence of porn and even before I was ever really exposed to it all that much. When I did happen to stumble upon a skin mag to flip through I quite clearly remember that out of dozens of playmates there were usually only a couple that had the "it" factor of physical traits that did it for me personally. I actually see more women out and about wearing normal clothes that make me stop and say wow to myself than I ever have in porn. Of course, seeing an image of just about any reasonably attractive naked woman engaged in sexual activity is instant arousal, but the lust I tend to refer to is not necessarily all that sexually charged at first. I personally think it's testosterone and the way we're wired that causes us to lust just from visuals alone.


I felt exactly like this, about any naked person male or female, as a child. All the time. My body would light on fire at the sight of anyone naked or even partially naked. Long before I ever found porn, real live naked bodies (or those in film, such as tribal people) gave me a raging boner.

Then as soon as I did find porn, I couldn't get enough of it. I snooped through every drawer and closet of every adult's house I was ever left alone in for more than an hour (which was frequently enough). I don't feel it replaced my body's natural lust, but it did shape it.

I also sometimes had simple raging lust (ie: incredible urge to have an orgasm) without seeing any body or porn. 

While growing up, I heard men talking about these kinds of feelings and I intuitively understood why men were always chasing women (I wanted to do it too, but I also wanted to chase the men). I also separately enjoyed and had orgasms that were completely devoid of the idea of any other person at all.

I think men assume we do not have these types of feelings or lust, but we do. We have just been conditioned to NEVER talk about it (those above a certain age anyway). Whereas men are constantly encouraged as being "normal" to have raging boners at the swimming pool and to pass porn around and to have to get off every day.

Well, that describes my teen years as well, but men don't understand that this is the case because most of us were told to STFU about sex and our bodies and to keep our legs shut.

When I was very young this commercial haunted my body for ages....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdP5eNr_a9o

I understood exactly why men drove into buildings and traffic stopped. I felt the same way about her.

It is possible that I have more testosterone than other women, or maybe I did when I was very young. But I'm talking VERY young. At what age do men become flooded with testosterone, or is it always there?


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> I felt exactly like this, about any naked person male or female, as a child. All the time. My body would light on fire at the sight of anyone naked or even partially naked. Long before I ever found porn, real live naked bodies (or those in film, such as tribal people) gave me a raging boner.
> 
> Then as soon as I did find porn, I couldn't get enough of it. I snooped through every drawer and closet of every adult's house I was ever left alone in for more than an hour (which was frequently enough). I don't feel it replaced my body's natural lust, but it did shape it.
> 
> ...


I get what you are talking about, except as a guy I was never conditioned to do what you saw in other guys, I was never comfortable with the chase, I wanted to be chased but that never ever happens, so often I got most of my thrills alone. I was never once encouraged by anyone to act on my sexual thoughts, my mother actively tried to discourage it, however I was smart enough to recognize she was very overprotective in this way, I was just left alone to guess what I was supposed to do or not do.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lon said:


> I get what you are talking about, except as a guy I was never conditioned to do what you saw in other guys, I was never comfortable with the chase, I wanted to be chased but that never ever happens, so often I got most of my thrills alone. I was never once encouraged by anyone to act on my sexual thoughts, my mother actively tried to discourage it, however I was smart enough to recognize she was very overprotective in this way, I was just left alone to guess what I was supposed to do or not do.


I hear you. I WANTED to chase boys, and girls. When I chased girls it was immediately apparent that some girls aren't down for that. When I chased boys, women everywhere freaked out on me (teachers, the mothers of said boys, my mother, whoever). I don't now and never understood then why it was ok for boys to let their tongues hang out but not for girls. Girls have these feelings, too!

But mostly I posted that because you had speculated that testosterone is what is behind those lustful thoughts and feelings.

How young are you talking about? At what age do boys become filled with testosterone, or are they always? Because I felt that way from early childhood on.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I hear you. I WANTED to chase boys, and girls. When I chased girls it was immediately apparent that some girls aren't down for that. When I chased boys, women everywhere freaked out on me (teachers, the mothers of said boys, my mother, whoever). I don't now and never understood then why it was ok for boys to let their tongues hang out but not for girls. Girls have these feelings, too!
> 
> But mostly I posted that because you had speculated that testosterone is what is behind those lustful thoughts and feelings.
> 
> How young are you talking about? At what age do boys become filled with testosterone, or are they always? Because I felt that way from early childhood on.


There was a study done recently that mapped the brain neuron paths of males/females from about age 8 to 22. What they found was that up till about age 13 male/females had the same paths. Between the ages of 13-18 the paths dramatically changed and by 22 the paths were completely different for males/females.
The conclusion is that while there are differences in the male/female brain it is more due to nurture than nature, young girls and boys are conditioned to behave a certain way at this critical age. Boys don't cry and nurture, girls are not sexual or into science. Very generalised but it was interesting to see.

I do not believe that men are more sexual than women, just that they have been allowed to be more sexual.

ETA
http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/428901443532/Is-Your-Brain-Male-Or-Female?cid=od:v2:1

link to the show for you FW. There was a part on testosterone as well.


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

Muse1976 said:


> :iagree:
> 
> What happens when one of these days you can't turn it back on?


That would most likely be a good thing. Sex, although it shouldn't, does nothing but cause problems in a marriage. Nobody's drives will ever stay the same, feelings will always be hurt, resentments, self esteem loss etc.

The only iron clad way to stay sexually fulfilled in a marriage, is to divorce & re marry every 10 years, that way sex drives won't play a part, everyone is horny for the "honeymoon period".

I personally don't believe in LD or HD, they are only mindsets, no person is born that way. You can convince yourself to enjoy and want sex or you can talk yourself right out of it, the choice is yours.

If you're looking for a way to not have sex, you will jump on the first excuse you can find, to justify it to yourself, for guys, the flavor of the month is "low T", which is rare, just ask a doctor?

Sex goes with wanting to be intimate with your spouse. The spouses that don't would rather use a made up condition to let them off the hook and forgo any responsibility.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lon said:


> You think it's porn that hypersexualizes men? I had much stronger lust and insanely acute awareness of what I found attractive long before the prevalence of porn and even before I was ever really exposed to it all that much. When I did happen to stumble upon a skin mag to flip through I quite clearly remember that out of dozens of playmates there were usually only a couple that had the "it" factor of physical traits that did it for me personally. I actually see more women out and about wearing normal clothes that make me stop and say wow to myself than I ever have in porn. Of course, seeing an image of just about any reasonably attractive naked woman engaged in sexual activity is instant arousal, but the lust I tend to refer to is not necessarily all that sexually charged at first. I personally think it's testosterone and the way we're wired that causes us to lust just from visuals alone.
> 
> Edit: I also was raised with a deep shame of lust, sinful sex and any kind of objectification of women by a family and extended family of very conservative Christian followers. I had a lot of guilt about the sexual thoughts I carried around in my head, and those thoughts went far beyond whatever was ingrained into me by the media or culture, despite the feelings of shame for harboring lustful thoughts I still couldn't help myself from indulging there anyway.


I'm not saying that porn causes men's (or women's) lust at all. But I do think that our pornified culture shapes it.

I experienced sexual urges and inclinations long before I had any clue what they actually were. No one talked about sex, ever, and I was "way too young" to be told about such things. So I had to find out the hard way, and the lessons I ended up learning about my sexuality, well, let's just say they have had a profound effect on me.

There's no doubt in my mind that humans are naturally sexual, and will be so in whatever society can be dreamed up. But how it is expressed, what is deemed attractive, how people are viewed and treated is most certainly shaped by the wider society around us. This is not one-to-one direct causation, as different people will react to it in different ways: some will be compliant, some will rebel, some will push boundaries. And we all have different personalities and experiences. To my mind, it is more a matter of defining roles and boundaries, the expectations and limitations of acceptable behaviour.

By way of an analogy: Imagine a toddler, just learning to walk, falling down. Pause. Toddler looks up, looks around to see the reaction. Pause. If Mom or Dad get all fussy and concerned, toddler bursts into tears. If they laugh and help him up with no fuss, he smiles and carries on.

We pick up the perceptions, emotions and judgments of others whether we want to or not. Not always, and not always in the same way, but humans do learn through imitation and seeking acceptance. In your case, for example, do you think the deeply conflicted messages you received as a youngster might be part of why you are so deeply conflicted today? 

In the case of what I'm calling a pornified culture, what I see is a world where shame of sexuality has turned into glorification of it. But not a healthy glorification, rather one that demands that we become plastic and fantastic, extreme and exciting ... And dismissive, or ashamed, or judgmental of our ordinary human selves. 

Women end up molding and contouring themselves to become 10s, and it's so bad that girls as young as 8 feel the need to sex it up in their outfits. Boys end up measuring their worth by penis size and conquests, and it's so bad that more and more are deciding that since women won't line up and bend over for them, that they are better off and happier with the endless compliance of naked on the internet.

Surely this has a huge impact on our expressions of and reactions to lust?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

woundedwarrior said:


> That would most likely be a good thing. Sex, although it shouldn't, does nothing but cause problems in a marriage.


It does not have to as is evidenced by many people on this forum.



> Nobody's drives will ever stay the same, feelings will always be hurt, resentments, self esteem loss etc.


You find hurt and resentment to be forgone conclusions rather than acting to prevent them? That strikes me as a self defeating attitude. If you assume this is the case, what would motivate you (rhetorical you) to act otherwise?


> The only iron clad way to stay sexually fulfilled in a marriage, is to divorce & re marry every 10 years, that way sex drives won't play a part, everyone is horny for the "honeymoon period".


"Iron clad"??!?! Is that what you want? Some kind of contract that you can sign for a quid pro quo, something in exchange for sex? There is an institution for that. And it isn't marriage. It is far easier. It is called prostitution.

No it is far, far easier to whine and blame "marriage". Or "drive". 

It is funny how many guys you hear on here saying "I shouldn't have to do anything. We got married. We took vows." So not growing, learning, getting better, more truly intimate is ok for you? Not only should it NOT be ok for her. It should not be ok for you either. 

Twenty years where the sex just keeps getting better and better here. Must be that marriage thing failing again.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> I hear you. I WANTED to chase boys, and girls. When I chased girls it was immediately apparent that some girls aren't down for that. When I chased boys, women everywhere freaked out on me (teachers, the mothers of said boys, my mother, whoever). I don't now and never understood then why it was ok for boys to let their tongues hang out but not for girls. Girls have these feelings, too!
> 
> But mostly I posted that because you had speculated that testosterone is what is behind those lustful thoughts and feelings.
> 
> How young are you talking about? At what age do boys become filled with testosterone, or are they always? Because I felt that way from early childhood on.


I can tell my 8 year old is testosterone filled and I can sense the buildup of hormones itching to burst out into pubescent chaos. I have sensed it since he transitioned from infancy to toddlerhood.


----------



## anonmd (Oct 23, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> At what age do men become flooded with testosterone, or is it always there?


Puberty, somewhere between say 11 and 14 or 15. It varies.


----------



## tbk (Apr 22, 2014)

anonmd said:


> Puberty, somewhere between say 11 and 14 or 15. It varies.


This is correct.


----------



## MarriedToTheOne (Apr 22, 2015)

As I have noted a tendency in many Threads by certain individuals (who I guess would have an association with the Marriage Builders Program) to enthusiastically endorse certain books (in some cases books focused very significantly on strictly affairs - whether that's the problem or not - and then to offer, IMO, some suspect advice), I felt that it might be a good idea to offer a number of suggestions as to several books, and by multiple authors.

These books are offered as based on a combination of reviews in general, my own reading and studying of each one, and feedback that I have received from a number of non connected experts.

I would note that these books specifically are oriented towards intimacy, desire, and passion within marriages and other significant and serious relationships.

By David Morris Schnarch: Resurrecting Sex, Passionate Marriage, Intimacy & Desire

Dr. Sandra Scantling: Extraordinary Sex Now

Laurie Watson: Wanting Sex Again

Christopher McCluskey: When Two Become One 
(Caution - while some VG advice at times, know that it has a Christian response theme of such that may be troublesome for some)

Shmuel Boteach: Has a number of books out but can get somewhat repetitive and (as a caution) does have a strong Orthodox Judaic background), but Kosher Sex and Kosher Adultery have some good points.

Mort Fertel: Marriage Fitness

Barton Goldsmith: Emotional Fitness for Couples

Michele Weiner-Davis: The Sex Starved Marriage

Barry W. McCarthy: Rekindling Desire (Expanded 2014 Edition)

David Richo: Daring to Trust 
(Caution: Richo's later books tend to blend in - or attempt to - Eastern religious and philosophical practices with Western psychological practices and as a result the content quality drops dramatically)

Dr. Kevin Leman: Sheet Music 
(Later books - many on other subjects - interject Christian philosophies into material, tend too get lower reviews)

Lucy Sanna: How to Romance the Woman You Love 
(Very good if you - the male partner - aren't getting intimacy because you aren't meeting your SO's needs as listed - but not so good if you are or are trying to but resisted).

Edward M. Hallowell: Married to Distraction

Laurie Puhn: Fight Less, Love More

Marnia Robinson: Peace Between The Sheets, Cupid's Poisoned Arrow

Robert Firestone: Fear of Intimacy, Sex and Love in Intimate Relationships

Ellen Kriedman: 10-Second Kiss

Holly Hollenbeck: Sex Lives of Wives 
(More so for women of low passion / libido who wish to address that situation)

Anita Clayton: Satisfaction 
(Pretty much like the Hollenbeck book as being more oriented towards women)

David Zinczenko: Men, Love, and Sex 
(Definitely for the Woman who realizes problems that need to be fixed... though men would likely find interesting)

Shaunti Feldhahn: The Surprising Secrets of Highly Happy Marriages

Laura Doyle: First, Kill All The Marriage Counselors


(Please stay away from John Gray, Gary Chapman, and Willard Harley....IMO they are, though in different directions, cultish and provide illogical advice - plus I have concerns as to "experts" who pump out repeated books with the same basic, hardly unchanged message and / or with agendas that supersede YOUR problem... 

(And ANY book - or Program - that emphasizes the concepts taught by the New Age "Self Love Culture" that pushes the concepts of "learning to love yourself first" and "love yourself first, foremost, and always" and similar such claptrap... my advice is to RUN, not walk, away from those as fast and far as possible. The Self Love Culture as part of SHAM - as started in the 1970s and really accelerated seriously since the 1980s - is IMO a large part of what is ruining this country).


----------



## MarriedToTheOne (Apr 22, 2015)

Lon said:


> I can tell my 8 year old is testosterone filled and I can sense the buildup of hormones itching to burst out into pubescent chaos. I have sensed it since he transitioned from infancy to toddlerhood.



Absent a SERIOUS medical problem which should be checked out immediately (and would constitute parental neglect otherwise), there are NO 8-year olds "flooded" with testosterone..In fact, at age 8, a boy's testosterone should be barely registering on any scale!

Testosterone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Testosterone Levels by Age

Puberty and Bodybuilding - Scooby's Home Workouts


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

MarriedToTheOne said:


> Absent a SERIOUS medical problem which should be checked out immediately (and would constitute parental neglect otherwise), there are NO 8-year olds "flooded" with testosterone..In fact, at age 8, a boy's testosterone should be barely registering on any scale!
> 
> Testosterone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


I know... But it's brewing.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MarriedToTheOne said:


> (Please stay away from John Gray, Gary Chapman, and Willard Harley....IMO they are, though in different directions, cultish and provide illogical advice - plus I have concerns as to "experts" who pump out repeated books with the same basic, hardly unchanged message and / or with agendas that supersede YOUR problem...
> 
> (And ANY book - or Program - that emphasizes the concepts taught by the New Age "Self Love Culture" that pushes the concepts of "learning to love yourself first" and "love yourself first, foremost, and always" and similar such claptrap... my advice is to RUN, not walk, away from those as fast and far as possible. The Self Love Culture as part of SHAM - as started in the 1970s and really accelerated seriously since the 1980s - is IMO a large part of what is ruining this country).


Great list of books! I've read several of them. Though I disagree with your end paragraphs, people will be drawn to certain books and not others, and the Mars/Venus stuff is old and certainly doesn't have an active "cult" anywhere. (If they do it is definitely no threat to anyone here). A lot of it was really great.

Also I do agree with loving yourself first. Why? Because Ru Paul.


----------

