# Interesting Article: Why (and How) Sex is Important to Men



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

Source:

Why (and How) Sex is Important to Men

Article content removed. Please use link above to read the article.

I think this is a good one, at least it gives the general ideas why chronic rejection won't do any good. Well, maybe some of you sexless husbands could ask your dear wives to read this article. Maybe it will do the trick. If not, tough luck.

:smthumbup:


----------



## hawx20 (Jan 10, 2013)

I totally agree. I've told my wife that me wanting sex is just about being horny. Having sex is about being close to her and one of the few things we can do where its just me and her and nothing else for as long as we do it.

That being said, last night she walked out of the shower in a little towel and that really turned me on. I told her I wanted her and she told me no, she was tired and wait till next weekend when we go on vacation.

That seriously pissed me off. You know what pissed me off even more? The fact that she wasnt to tired to stay up later than usual to finish watching the oscars. Needless to say, i'm not a happy man right now.


----------



## mildlyperplexed (Feb 3, 2013)

I think sex is very important but if thats what it took to get my husband to treat me with a bit of respect I wouldn't have any respect for him.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

mildlyperplexed said:


> I think sex is very important but if thats what it took to get my husband to treat me with a bit of respect I wouldn't have any respect for him.


Mrs. Mildly,

Interesting thought!

Care to explain further? I believe this type of reaction usually happens if there were not much respect given at the first place. In what way(s) do you think your husband has disrespected you, or not giving you enough respect?

I think no amount of sex would solve the problem of being disrespectful, if there are no mutual respect within a marriage.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

hawx20 said:


> I totally agree. I've told my wife that me wanting sex is just about being horny. Having sex is about being close to her and one of the few things we can do where its just me and her and nothing else for as long as we do it.
> 
> That being said, last night she walked out of the shower in a little towel and that really turned me on. I told her I wanted her and she told me no, she was tired and wait till next weekend when we go on vacation.
> 
> That seriously pissed me off. You know what pissed me off even more? The fact that she wasnt to tired to stay up later than usual to finish watching the oscars. Needless to say, i'm not a happy man right now.


Mr. Hawk,

I understand why you're upset, and rightfully so,

Why don't you e-mail this article to your wife, and see how she reacts?

If her reaction are negative, at least by then you will know her opinion about her priorities.

If her reaction are positive, and she's making better efforts to make you happy (and vice versa), surely you'd feel better.


----------



## walkingwounded (May 7, 2011)

I handed my H the laptop the other night to read this article.

He handed it back after he read it. I asked if he could relate to it, he said no, and not to believe all the stuff I get "fed" on here.

He did not offer any other thoughts at the time and I did not get chance to ask so I don't know how he actually feels apart from little bits he has said in the past which contradict each other.

I guessed he would not relate because I am the higher drive spouse rather than him.

No point asking because he says one thing then the next week he will say he did not mean it, and feels the opposite.

*shrugs*


----------



## committed4ever (Nov 13, 2012)

walkingwounded said:


> I handed my H the laptop the other night to read this article.
> 
> He handed it back after he read it. I asked if he could relate to it, he said no, and not to believe all the stuff I get "fed" on here.
> 
> ...


I asked my husband a few weeks ago that if sex is an emotional need then why do men feel a physical need for it when they are not emotionally involved with anyone. He stared at me for a minute and asked if that was a trick question.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

committed4ever said:


> I asked my husband a few weeks ago that if sex is an emotional need then why do men feel a physical need for it when they are not emotionally involved with anyone. He stared at me for a minute and asked if that was a trick question.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's both a physical and emotional need. It certainly starts out as purely a physical need in puberty, with zero emotional component. That physical urge is what turns boys' attention to girls. 

And, just my opinion, I think because their interest in girls starts out as physical and then they discover emotions when they get involved with girls, they learn to associate getting their physical urges met with getting their emotional needs met.

Men (and women) don't masturbate to fill an emotional need. That's just physical. 

And sex is not the only way men's emotional needs are met. 

So sex = filling emotional needs is not the only equation; it's one of many.


----------



## LoriC (Feb 18, 2013)

I believe it is an emotional need for both men and women. It is how we feel that close bond that we share. For a man sex is the way that his wife or SO shows their love for them. Come on everyone, show the love....


----------



## MrMan88 (Feb 28, 2013)

Just be glad you're not in my situation. We were having sexual issues/lack of sex before I become unemployed. Six months with only a few freelance jobs, despite all of my best efforts to land full time work, and I'm in no position to make any demands, or even requests. 
I remember a year ago I realized why being sexually rejected hurt so much. (we were at a point when even a gentle touch would cause her to look at me in complete and utter disgust) It felt like such a deep, primal rejection of who I am as a person. Even though I would put on a strong face, inside it was as if I was being stabbed. This article clarifies what's going on with that. 
I know it's going to be a long climb back to a healthy physical relationship, even when I do get work. I just hope my future job covers therapy, because I'm really going to need it.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

MrMan88 said:


> Just be glad you're not in my situation. We were having sexual issues/lack of sex before I become unemployed. Six months with only a few freelance jobs, despite all of my best efforts to land full time work, and I'm in no position to make any demands, or even requests.
> I remember a year ago I realized why being sexually rejected hurt so much. (*we were at a point when even a gentle touch would cause her to look at me in complete and utter disgust*) It felt like such a deep, primal rejection of who I am as a person. Even though I would put on a strong face, inside it was as if I was being stabbed. This article clarifies what's going on with that.
> I know it's going to be a long climb back to a healthy physical relationship, even when I do get work. I just hope my future job covers therapy, because I'm really going to need it.


Mr. 88,

I am sorry to hear about your situation, and how your wife treat you.

If her behavior caused you deep resentment, there are possibilities that you won't be able to forget about it, even after you're getting a better job.

Indeed, you need counselling and therapy.

It's also not good if you are basing your self-worth in your work, or lack thereof. In a marriage, respect should be mutual. 

If you're unemployed, and just sitting your ass doing nothing, earning nothing, making no efforts...it is understandable that your family's respect towards you will be lessened. 

But the fact is that you are actually making serious efforts to get a job, even freelance jobs. Therefore you wife should be giving you a little more credit for that.

I think, a marriage where there are no mutual respect, is a failed marriage, and should be treated accordingly.


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho (Dec 16, 2012)

john_lord_b3 said:


> Source:
> 
> Why (and How) Sex is Important to Men
> 
> ...


I've read this before. Passed it on to my wife. Didn't help us but she passed it onto a friend who was in a separation and she took it to heart ... she is no longer separated.


----------



## mildlyperplexed (Feb 3, 2013)

john_lord_b3 said:


> Mrs. Mildly,
> 
> Interesting thought!
> 
> ...


I was responding to the end of your article:



> Things start to happen. He becomes more apt to ask you how your day has been, or to offer to cook dinner. He becomes more inclined to romance you a bit more (in your way, rather than his, which is unsurprisingly probably sexual). You might stop having to ask four or five times for him to take out the trash (he might do it on the first request now!).


I would not be at all happy if sex was a prerequisite for my husband to make small talk or do a few small chores in a *shared* house without nagging. I think it would show he had no respect for me as a person. I am not just a vessel to service his physical needs and I would not put up with being treated that way.


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

mildlyperplexed said:


> I would not be at all happy if sex was a prerequisite for my husband to make small talk or do a few small chores in a *shared* house without nagging. I think it would show he had no respect for me as a person. I am not just a vessel to service his physical needs and I would not put up with being treated that way.


:iagree::smthumbup:

Indeed! If sex is a requirement before respect is given, then it is not right! Mutual respect should always exist from the beginning!


----------



## Rags (Aug 2, 2010)

Although perhaps being sexually satisfied makes a man feel naturally more mellow, and hence inclined to notice these things that need doing, as he's no longer quite so inwardly focused ...?

And he might feel more loved as well?

Just a thought


----------



## romantic_guy (Nov 8, 2011)

committed4ever said:


> I asked my husband a few weeks ago that if sex is an emotional need then why do men feel a physical need for it when they are not emotionally involved with anyone. He stared at me for a minute and asked if that was a trick question.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Maybe it is my warped sense of humor but I found this really funny. I guess it is because guys sometimes find themselves thinking to themselves...ok...how do I answer this one. You know, like the question, "Does this make me look fat?"


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

His Needs her Needs does a good job in explaining this IMO. Emotional needs for men may be typical for men. The same for women. Women can have similar needs but they may be in a different priority.

Not all men, but typically men's top two needs are :

1) Sexual fullfillment

2) respect / admiration

There are other needs but realisitically they do not make up for the lack of these. 

Most men need sex to connect. Most women need to connect to have sex. Typically.


----------



## romantic_guy (Nov 8, 2011)

mildlyperplexed said:


> I was responding to the end of your article:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not be at all happy if sex was a prerequisite for my husband to make small talk or do a few small chores in a *shared* house without nagging. I think it would show he had no respect for me as a person. I am not just a vessel to service his physical needs and I would not put up with being treated that way.


I think you are missing the point here. Sex is not a prerequisite for me to make small talk of do chores. However, when a man, or anyone, feels rejected he (or she) tends to close down emotionally. When that happens, there is no intimacy, translated the guy shuts off communication. When he feels loved and appreciated, he is more likely to become a better husband. 

I am going to turn the tables here. I have read in multiple articles something like this: women spell intimacy T-A-L-K and men spell intimacy S-E-X. So if a man does not tend to the emotional needs of his wife she will likely not desire physical intimacy with him. So does that mean that if talking or doing chores was a "prerequisite" for getting my wife to have sex with me, that would be disrespecting me?

This has nothing to do with respect. It is about both partners seeking to meet the needs of the other so they feel loved and appreciated. For me, sex is huge in my feeling emotionally close to my wife. In fact, I just could not see myself having sex with my wife, or anyone for that matter, without a deep emotional connection. I know I may be different, but if I am really upset with her about something (which is extremely rare) I can't make love with her until it is resolved. But then again, I have no idea what it is like to have casual sex since she has been my only sex partner.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

mildlyperplexed said:


> I was responding to the end of your article:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not be at all happy if sex was a prerequisite for my husband to make small talk or do a few small chores in a *shared* house without nagging. I think it would show he had no respect for me as a person. I am not just a vessel to service his physical needs and I would not put up with being treated that way.


Women don't seem to understand that this works both ways. 

Small talk and doing chores are important to YOU, so he should do them because he wants to be a good partner in the relationship and not just to allow him to use you as a 'vessel'.

Sex is important to HIM, so you should do it with him because you want to be a good partner in the relationship and not just because you want to use him as a ''insert need here" (wallet, carpenter, psychologist, etc.).

Bottom line is both have to be good partners. Your analogy only works if you believe that talking and sharing chores are part of a relationship that is a given and that sex isn't.


----------



## mildlyperplexed (Feb 3, 2013)

SadSamIAm said:


> Women don't seem to understand that this works both ways.
> 
> Small talk and doing chores are important to YOU, so he should do them because he wants to be a good partner in the relationship and not just to allow him to use you as a 'vessel'.
> 
> ...


Its polite to announce yourself when you come in, make at least a few sentences of small talk and to tidy after yourself. I expect this of *anyone* I live with whether I'm sleeping with them or not. It is absolutely a given for sharing a house.

BTW I'm not getting any ATM so should I stop cooking, cleaning, listening to his boring work stories... ?


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

The reason to have sex with your husband isn't because he'll open up and "share" or do the dishes, or whatever. It's your job to take care of his needs and it's his to take care of your's. You made your choice at the alter. Now, keep your word and be what you pretend to be or admit you're a fraud and leave the marriage. The only thing you need to understand is he's your husband and he's expressed a need that's reasonable and important to him. When my wife needs something, I don't try to figure out what's in it for me or decide if she deserves it. She's my wife and I agreed to take care of her. The whole idea of promising to have sex with only one person for the rest of one's life implies that the intended partner will take care of those needs. If you're pushing your wife or your husband away for weeks and months, maybe even years at a time, you're no longer married. At some point, you decided to quit your job and break your promise. You just haven't taken the time to get a piece of paper that says you're divorced. You're just hanging around for the paycheck or for some other reason. If you're a wife, function like one. If you're a husband, function like one. If taking care of your spouse isn't your job, who's is it? Naturally, those who just physically can't have some excuse. They should do what they can and their spouse just needs to be appreciative and accept the limitations.


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

mildlyperplexed said:


> Its polite to announce yourself when you come in, make at least a few sentences of small talk and to tidy after yourself. I expect this of *anyone* I live with whether I'm sleeping with them or not. It is absolutely a given for sharing a house.
> 
> BTW I'm not getting any ATM so should I stop cooking, cleaning, listening to his boring work stories... ?


Why would you stop working? Would it be fine for him to quit his job if you aren't meeting his needs.

The answer isn't to stop doing anything. The answer is to start doing things. And to make sure he knows what you want from him.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

If there is no sex there is no marriage. The only caveat is medical. But even there it changes the realtionship.

Doing chores is not a marriage. You do chores so you can enjoy life together. If sex is a chore then basically there is no marriage.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

SadSamIAm said:


> Why would you stop working? Would it be fine for him to quit his job if you aren't meeting his needs.
> 
> The answer isn't to stop doing anything. The answer is to start doing things. And to make sure he knows what you want from him.


What does one do when they keep doing 'things' but their spouse refuses to do their part in the marriage? How many months, years, does a person just keep doing before they are justified in just giving up?


----------



## MrMan88 (Feb 28, 2013)

I keep reading this article and feeling heart broken. How could she do this to me? OK, I've had a bad run with finding work this year, but after all we've been together, wouldn't she want to be supportive, and add to my strength when I need it for finding work, rather than diminishing me by her rejections, which really hurts both of us?

Today I remembered that she had a brief fling with a woman before we met years ago. I always figured it was just youthful experimentation, but now I'm wondering if there's more to it. Maybe I'm just digging for some reason to explain why she's had no interest in me physically FOR YEARS, and acts like I'm repulsive, even though I'm attractive, and often other women flirt with me and appear interested. But then I have to disregard those encounters because I do believe in being faithful, even though I'm dying inside for hot, intimate, soulful sex.

FWIW, I'd much rather my W want me to **** her brains out, rather than just offering to 'take one for the team.' But I feel like with this, I'm dreaming the impossible dream.


----------



## HappyHubby (Aug 16, 2012)

Yes but it doesn't fill any emotional need if the woman is not showing the man love and affection and desire. When a woman is into it and makes him feel BIG SEXY STRONG MAN, its boost to his self-esteem and enhances the love he feels for his woman.

Also, it generally requires the man to have an already established emotional connection with her for it to have that kind of meaning... but women aren't the only ones who can 'fall in love' after passionate sex with a first time lover either.

Also, there is some truth to the resentment thing. I get an immediate emotional reaction to being rejected by my wife (doesnt happen often, we have lots of sex). I get slightly angry and annoyed. Even when I know its illogical because we have sex all the time and its genuinely late... I still cant help but have that inner response.. lol...


----------



## mildlyperplexed (Feb 3, 2013)

SadSamIAm said:


> Why would you stop working? Would it be fine for him to quit his job if you aren't meeting his needs.
> 
> *The answer isn't to stop doing anything*. The answer is to start doing things. And to make sure he knows what you want from him.


That was my point

BTW housework != womens work. I have a job too


----------



## MrDarkDream (Jan 12, 2013)

To me is not so much about connection it's about feeling manly and boosting my ego. If I'm feeling good about myself I am more willing to do things for her. Men's egos are more fragile than what most women think.


----------



## Everyday Miracles (Jan 7, 2014)

While I appreciate that several of you seem to have gotten something out of my article, shared here, I wish to make it known that as the original author of this article, I did not in any way authorize for its publication on this site and have requested that it be removed immediately.

*Please do not post full articles on forums: Use a link to the article. This is a violation of copyright law!*

Thank you!


----------



## happy as a clam (Jan 5, 2014)

unbelievable said:


> If you're pushing your wife or your husband away for weeks and months, maybe even years at a time, you're no longer married. At some point, you decided to quit your job and break your promise. You just haven't taken the time to get a piece of paper that says you're divorced. You're just hanging around for the paycheck or for some other reason.


Kudos! Couldn't have said it better myself. When you stop attending to the other's needs, SEX included, you aren't fulfilling your marriage vows. You aren't really "married" (two become one), you're just joined in a legal union by the State. I lived that for 20 years before getting out.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

MrDarkDream said:


> To me is not so much about connection it's about feeling manly and boosting my ego. If I'm feeling good about myself I am more willing to do things for her. Men's egos are more fragile than what most women think.


So are females. 

Ego's are fed and maintained, even Michael Jordan or high politicians or public figures can be smashed if their ego is not supported by those around them.


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

hawx20 said:


> I totally agree. I've told my wife that me wanting sex is just about being horny. Having sex is about being close to her and one of the few things we can do where its just me and her and nothing else for as long as we do it.
> 
> That being said, last night she walked out of the shower in a little towel and that really turned me on. I told her I wanted her and she told me no, she was tired and wait till next weekend when we go on vacation.
> 
> That seriously pissed me off. You know what pissed me off even more? The fact that she wasnt to tired to stay up later than usual to finish watching the oscars. Needless to say, i'm not a happy man right now.


If she only knew what was going through your mind when she said no then watched the damn oscars.

It brings up a good point. At what point does the woman giving into desire from us to have sex mean that she is doing something she does not want to do and it becomes duty sex??
Kind of like asking us over and over to clean that garage.

The only answer I know for the above is to be in a relationship where you both WANT to have sex often and feel that bond. Meaning we all need a woman with HD. Good luck with that one eh?

Or is there some magic potion (besides expensive purses and a perfectly clean house!) that brings out that drive in a woman? Because truthfully I could have sex 2 times a day without any issue. But if I was having it with someone I knew did not want i and was forcing themselves to do it I would not enjoy it.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Everyday Miracles said:


> While I appreciate that several of you seem to have gotten something out of my article, shared here, I wish to make it known that as the original author of this article, I did not in any way authorize for its publication on this site and have requested that it be removed immediately.
> 
> *Please do not post full articles on forums: Use a link to the article. This is a violation of copyright law!*
> 
> Thank you!


Well, so much for "I understand that this topic is so crucial to men that I wanted to give this article the most exposure possible".


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Cyclist said:


> If she only knew what was going through your mind when she said no then watched the damn oscars.
> 
> It brings up a good point. At what point does the woman giving into desire from us to have sex mean that she is doing something she does not want to do and it becomes duty sex??
> Kind of like asking us over and over to clean that garage.
> ...


If someone could find this they would be very wealthy.

What can we do to maintain a high sex life? ( Not get married? ) ( Not be too accomidating? )


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

treyvion said:


> So are females.
> 
> Ego's are fed and maintained, even Michael Jordan or high politicians or public figures can be smashed if their ego is not supported by those around them.


Heard an interesting quote not long ago. 

The most important thing a woman can say to a man...besides she loves him...is I am PROUD of you. Daily. Like her need to hear she is beautiful, we need to hear they are proud of us.

And I think its true. They say behind every good man is a good woman. I bet that woman says she is proud of her man.


----------



## DesertRat1978 (Aug 27, 2013)

I agree with the article. During the last 3 years when sex has been rare and usually empty and meaningless, I have began to not feel connected. I have felt like a bill that has to be paid. Once a month or so, she has to endure it and so let's make it quick and easy. Being deprioritized like that is pretty rough. I used to think that sex is purely a physical act but as I have aged, it has became more emotional.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Cyclist said:


> Heard an interesting quote not long ago.
> 
> The most important thing a woman can say to a man...besides she loves him...is I am PROUD of you. Daily. Like her need to hear she is beautiful, we need to hear they are proud of us.
> 
> And I think its true. They say behind every good man is a good woman. I bet that woman says she is proud of her man.


She says and shows it. It brings value to both of their lives.

Many of us cannot be kind to another, and it almost feels like ripping a pound of flesh out to issue a positive complement.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Everyday Miracles said:


> While I appreciate that several of you seem to have gotten something out of my article, shared here, I wish to make it known that as the original author of this article, I did not in any way authorize for its publication on this site and have requested that it be removed immediately.
> 
> *Please do not post full articles on forums: Use a link to the article. This is a violation of copyright law!*
> 
> Thank you!


He did actually link the article as well as copy the body of it.


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

treyvion said:


> If someone could find this they would be very wealthy.
> 
> What can we do to maintain a high sex life? ( Not get married? ) ( Not be too accomidating? )


not getting married basically says all relationships have an expiration date. That once that initial fervor calms that all decent relationships have you get out. Tough gig for the long term but it certainly is doable. Great for those with commitment issues.

I think it has to be an understanding going in. Just like "Please dont ever cheat on me" is the rule in most relationships.

"Please make sure you are sexually engaged, have an open mind about it, are secure in your sexuality, and understand my sexual needs"

There...I just changed the marriage vows for the better.....


----------



## ChargingCharlie (Nov 14, 2012)

hawx20 said:


> I totally agree. I've told my wife that me wanting sex is just about being horny. Having sex is about being close to her and one of the few things we can do where its just me and her and nothing else for as long as we do it.
> 
> That being said, last night she walked out of the shower in a little towel and that really turned me on. I told her I wanted her and she told me no, she was tired and wait till next weekend when we go on vacation.
> 
> That seriously pissed me off. You know what pissed me off even more? The fact that she wasnt to tired to stay up later than usual to finish watching the oscars. Needless to say, i'm not a happy man right now.


Yep, love this. Go out to dinner, wife looks good. Get home - "I'm so tired". Next week go out again, we even talk about sex when we get home, get home - "I have really bad cramps". Next time just tell me that you don't want sex.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

committed4ever said:


> I asked my husband a few weeks ago that* if sex is an emotional need then why do men feel a physical need for it when they are not emotionally involved with anyone*. He stared at me for a minute and asked if that was a trick question.


That is exactly what I was thinking as I read this article...


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> That is exactly what I was thinking as I read this article...


Nora explained it pretty well. Sure, the physical component can't be denied, but for my part I rarely feel emotionally closer to my wife than during sex. Repeated rejection starts to feel like a refusal to bond with me emotionally, besides a "mere" rejection of me physically.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Some men (not all) have learned that sex is the only time they are "allowed to feel". There is no other time when a man is allowed and encouraged to be in touch with his emotions (this doesn't apply to all men, but does to some).


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

GTdad said:


> Nora explained it pretty well. Sure, the physical component can't be denied, but for my part I rarely feel emotionally closer to my wife than during sex. Repeated rejection starts to feel like a refusal to bond with me emotionally, besides a "mere" rejection of me physically.


How much closer can you be other than being "inside" of her with her being possibly vulnerable to you.

It IS closeness.


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> That is exactly what I was thinking as I read this article...


I believe it is a need both ways.

Sure I have a physical need. A caveman need....to just take someone purely physically. I could do that and not be in a relationship. Prostitution is a billion dollar a year industry.

But if I am with the one I most care about, the woman I am in love with, then its more than physical. It becomes emotional and I long for that connection. I think about it during the day, when I get home, and look forward to that bonding time together. If more woman understood that thought process then they would initiate more and rarely turn their spouses down.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Cyclist said:


> I believe it is a need both ways.
> 
> Sure I have a physical need. A caveman need....to just take someone purely physically. I could do that and not be in a relationship. Prostitution is a billion dollar a year industry.
> 
> But if I am with the one I most care about, the woman I am in love with, then its more than physical. It becomes emotional and I long for that connection. I think about it during the day, when I get home, and look forward to that bonding time together. If more woman understood that thought process then they would initiate more and rarely turn their spouses down.


I think it's hard for a lot of women to understand that thought process because men do express that caveman need UNTIL they fall in love. And then if they don't express it openly (that NOW it's an emotional need) with the women they love, it's hard for them to understand that their men aren't acting only on their caveman needs.

If it's always caveman need until it isn't, it's hard to know that it isn't just caveman need anymore.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cyclist said:


> But if I am with the one I most care about, the woman I am in love with, then its more than physical. It becomes emotional and I long for that connection. I think about it during the day, when I get home, and look forward to that bonding time together. If more woman understood that thought process then they would initiate more and rarely turn their spouses down.


You may be right about this, but I find it hard to believe, as what I see mostly is the caveman side. Just today perusing TAM, I read one man advocating lying about all the hot girls who turn him on, so the wife doesn't get mad, a few basically saying that as long as the parts are female, they're good to go, one saying that men basically think everything's hunky dory as long as they get a regular filling of sex, and have no idea why a woman might be unhappy because she's lacking emotional connection.

My h never complains that I don't initiate enough or turn him down because I have a higher drive than him. But I am still easily and often substituted by a porn star. And have been told by men here that my higher interest in sex is probably a turn off.

So what was that about emotional connection again?


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

norajane said:


> I think it's hard for a lot of women to understand that thought process because men do express that caveman need UNTIL they fall in love. And then if they don't express it openly (that NOW it's an emotional need) with the women they love, it's hard for them to understand that their men aren't acting only on their caveman needs.
> 
> If it's always caveman need until it isn't, it's hard to know that it isn't just caveman need anymore.


I agree. 

Probably went through a bit of that in my marriage with my ex wife.

Open communication is key but open UNDERSTANDING is also just as important. I would imagine a lot of men do not think they can talk to their spouses the way they would like and be open with them as they are afraid of the reaction.

This relationship stuff is tough.....:scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

norajane said:


> If it's always caveman need until it isn't, it's hard to know that it isn't just caveman need anymore.


I'm sure I'll get blasted for saying this, but my current hypothesis is that men for the most part just don't want to be alone. So they say what they think necessary to keep the peace, while the caveman carries on his merry way.


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

always_alone said:


> You may be right about this, but I find it hard to believe, as what I see mostly is the caveman side. Just today perusing TAM, I read one man advocating lying about all the hot girls who turn him on, so the wife doesn't get mad, a few basically saying that as long as the parts are female, they're good to go, one saying that men basically think everything's hunky dory as long as they get a regular filling of sex, and have no idea why a woman might be unhappy because she's lacking emotional connection.
> 
> My h never complains that I don't initiate enough or turn him down because I have a higher drive than him. But I am still easily and often substituted by a porn star. And have been told by men here that my higher interest in sex is probably a turn off.
> 
> So what was that about emotional connection again?


We talk a lot on here about perfect scenarios. "if this then that" etc.

I want my GF to have a higher drive. To show me she wants me. We have talked about it. It does not happen. I have often thought what would it be like if she did have a higher drive, to initiate. Not just once in a while say something about having sex but once in a while come in the room with heels on and something sexy and freaking do me! In a perfect world it would happen. That all said I do not know how your high drive would be a turn off in my book.

In your world you are sexually driven but your husband still enjoys watching other woman. Why? Only he knows. Only if he communicated that need with you openly would you find out. Maybe he is scared of your response?? Maybe he does not know it offends you?? Maybe you should enjoy it together??? 

I don't know.

I do know that everyone's viewpoint on all these issues is different. It seems that on TAM very few have figured it out and those that have seem to have a relationship that has open communication, they have a matching sex drive, they have sex often, and they are a bit more laid back about the smaller issues surrounding their relationship.

As far as being caveman all the time? Some men just have not experienced a deep relationship that also involves the emotional aspect and are still just "pounding away" thinking its ok. They have not grown up yet. Then 10-20 years in their wives realize they have no emotional support and its to late with 2.3 kids and a mortgage.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

Many men aren't being honest with their wives imo. Sex for emotional connection sounds like BS when he's off having an affair with his hand. Sex just seems like a way for him to not have to do it for himself, probably more fun as well, but just about shooting off another load. He says he needs sex but then he satisfies himself, well, that's sorted that then, right? He's frantically pumping away all that could finally help her understand what he really needs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> And have been told by men here that my higher interest in sex is probably a turn off.


Seriously? Who said that? High drive women are HOT and they make a guy feel like a stud.

At any given level of physical attractiveness, I think a more sexual woman is more appealing than a less sexual woman.


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

breeze said:


> Many men aren't being honest with their wives imo. Sex for emotional connection sounds like BS when he's off having an affair with his hand. Sex just seems like a way for him to not have to do it for himself, probably more fun as well, but just about shooting off another load. He says he needs sex but then he satisfies himself, well, that's sorted that then, right? He's frantically pumping away all that could finally help her understand what he really needs.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Your right. That is much more of an issue. 

While I do not know a guy in this world that does not have some sort of relationship with his hand when it gets in the way of being intimate with his spouse than it is an issue. If used to enhance your relationship than I believe its ok.

Again you have more of a caveman there


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Seriously? Who said that? High drive women are HOT and they make a guy feel like a stud.
> 
> At any given level of physical attractiveness, I think a more sexual woman is more appealing than a less sexual woman.


I don't remember exactly, but I've read it here more than once.

It would seem that many a man wants to be the caveman/hunter and prefers the woman to be his submissive prey. 

Besides, didn't you once call easy women "low hanging fruit", and not worth your while? What's the difference between high drive hot and easy low-hanging fruit?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I'm sure I'll get blasted for saying this, but my current hypothesis is that men for the most part just don't want to be alone. So they say what they think necessary to keep the peace, while the caveman carries on his merry way.


I wouldn't put too much emphasis on that. Men don't want to be alone just as much as women don't want to be alone.

When we "say what is necessary", I think that's our version of trying to speak your language... not necessarily a bad thing.

Bottom line, I need sex... for whatever reason I care to say; maybe I don't even understand the reason. It doesn't matter. I need it. Why do you need to feel appreciated? Why do you have any needs at all? I'm not sure the why really matters much in the end. We all need what we need and we'll be unhappy if those needs go unmet.

Each would do best to try to meet the needs of the other. That's a large part of why we choose intimate relationships at all no?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cyclist said:


> In your world you are sexually driven but your husband still enjoys watching other woman. Why? Only he knows. Only if he communicated that need with you openly would you find out. Maybe he is scared of your response?? Maybe he does not know it offends you?? Maybe you should enjoy it together???


Why? Because they're hot and he can. And yes, he knows it offends me, and that I would prefer that he put that (or at least most of that) energy towards improving our sex life.

But he's not interested in that, nor is he interested in sharing, or in anything new I bring to the table. To him, it's all good, and apparently all the same.

I even tried out the zombie starfish style that you see so many men here complain about, and even that is "all good".


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

Cyclist said:


> Your right. That is much more of an issue.
> 
> While I do not know a guy in this world that does not have some sort of relationship with his hand when it gets in the way of being intimate with his spouse than it is an issue. If used to enhance your relationship than I believe its ok.
> 
> Again you have more of a caveman there


My HD DH refused to masturbate. Sometimes I honestly wished he would, being LD myself, lol. I now appreciate his extreme honesty with me. I can honestly say he really is an extaordinary man. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Why? Because they're hot and he can. And yes, he knows it offends me, and that I would prefer that he put that (or at least most of that) energy towards improving our sex life.
> 
> But he's not interested in that, nor is he interested in sharing, or in anything new I bring to the table. To him, it's all good, and apparently all the same.
> 
> I even tried out the zombie starfish style that you see so many men here complain about, and even that is "all good".


so he is not in touch with himself, selfish in bed, a bad communicator, and not willing to make changes.

Sounds like an MC needs to come into play before your resentment grows to the point of no return.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I'm sure I'll get blasted for saying this, but my current hypothesis is that men for the most part just don't want to be alone. So they say what they think necessary to keep the peace, while the caveman carries on his merry way.


I'm always glad when you share your perspective, because I think it is important for other people to see how these issues affect some women.

But having said that...my experience doesn't match yours even slightly, and all the men I've been with have a deep need for emotional connection.

Clearly, you're with the wrong man and if you weren't, you might not see things the same.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> When we "say what is necessary", I think that's our version of trying to speak your language... not necessarily a bad thing.


Only bad when it's a lie to keep the peace. Nothing like lies to shatter intimacy, IMHO.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I don't remember exactly, but I've read it here more than once.
> 
> It would seem that many a man wants to be the caveman/hunter and prefers the woman to be his submissive prey.
> 
> Besides, didn't you once call easy women "low hanging fruit", and not worth your while? What's the difference between high drive hot and easy low-hanging fruit?


I like the hunt. I also like female sexual aggression. Makes me feel pretty damn desirable.  When I've spoken previously about it, it was probably in a singles context. There aren't that many healthy women who are sexually aggressive up front with a man. I think that line of discussion was about approaching, and like I said, I do all the approaching. By preference or not... that's just the reality. I'm not sure I've ever been overtly approached and I think I'm a pretty good looking guy with some presence.

I did use the "low hanging fruit" reference, but you must have misunderstood my usage. When I spoke of that I was referring to women who throw their bodies at men because they're starved for attention or lack self-esteem. They are very easy to differentiate from the healthy. The attention needy woman (and don't think I'm picking on women, a lot of men are like this too) has a giant hole in her sense of self that must constantly be filled by male attention. They have to be the center of attention. This isn't just high drive sexuality. It is a damaged woman.

In the dating scene, the high drive healthy woman is generally still quite discerning. The unhealthy one is an attention wh*re (again, not disparaging women... plenty of guys are too). They prop themselves up by being alluring.

In a marriage context, the unhealthy women are likely to stray in my opinion. Even though they have someone, they still need heaps of male attention to keep them feeling good about themselves. Since the primary motivation for her isn't truly sexual, she might not even be having much sex with hubby.

The sexually assertive healthy woman doesn't need gratuitous attention from all the men to fill a whole in her self-esteem. She simply wants sex and isn't afraid to pursue it.

She is not low-fruit but the cream of the crop imo. Unfortunately, most of the overtly sexual women a single man is going to meet on a night out, are of the unhealthy variety. Its not really sex they want, its attention.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

norajane said:


> I think it's hard for a lot of women to understand that thought process because men do express that caveman need UNTIL they fall in love. And then if they don't express it openly (that NOW it's an emotional need) with the women they love, it's hard for them to understand that their men aren't acting only on their caveman needs.
> 
> If it's always caveman need until it isn't, it's hard to know that it isn't just caveman need anymore.


Personally, I found it hard to figure out because it happened gradually. I did not understand what was happening, only that the rejection was altering how I viewed our relationship. Because I could not explain what was happening, I certainly could not explain to her how it was now emotional as well.


----------



## ChargingCharlie (Nov 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> You may be right about this, but I find it hard to believe, as what I see mostly is the caveman side. Just today perusing TAM, I read one man advocating lying about all the hot girls who turn him on, so the wife doesn't get mad, a few basically saying that as long as the parts are female, they're good to go, one saying that men basically think everything's hunky dory as long as they get a regular filling of sex, and have no idea why a woman might be unhappy because she's lacking emotional connection.
> 
> My h never complains that I don't initiate enough or turn him down because I have a higher drive than him. But I am still easily and often substituted by a porn star. *And have been told by men here that my higher interest in sex is probably a turn off.*
> So what was that about emotional connection again?


Wonder who told you this. I know that's not the case for me. Wife has a friend that's average to somewhat above average in the attraction department, but she's a total horn dog, and if I had the opportunity, I'd surely rather hit it with her than some other women my wife knows that could be classified as hot. Just knowing she's always ready to go is a major turn-on.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I even tried out the zombie starfish style that you see so many men here complain about, and even that is "all good".


 What is the zombie starfish style? Lay there and spread eagle?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> You may be right about this, but I find it hard to believe, as what I see mostly is the caveman side. Just today perusing TAM, I read one man advocating lying about all the hot girls who turn him on, so the wife doesn't get mad, a few basically saying that as long as the parts are female, they're good to go, one saying that men basically think everything's hunky dory as long as they get a regular filling of sex, and have no idea why a woman might be unhappy because she's lacking emotional connection.
> 
> My h never complains that I don't initiate enough or turn him down because I have a higher drive than him. But I am still easily and often substituted by a porn star. And have been told by men here that my higher interest in sex is probably a turn off.
> 
> So what was that about emotional connection again?


So ... that's it ... just like that. You ain't buyin' it?
Always, you need to stop reading and talking to the wrong men.


----------



## DesertRat1978 (Aug 27, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Why? Because they're hot and he can. And yes, he knows it offends me, and that I would prefer that he put that (or at least most of that) energy towards improving our sex life.
> 
> But he's not interested in that, nor is he interested in sharing, or in anything new I bring to the table. To him, it's all good, and apparently all the same.
> 
> I even tried out the zombie starfish style that you see so many men here complain about, and even that is "all good".


You bring up some good points. There is some truth to what you say. Sex is not purely an emotional act with men that are married.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ChargingCharlie said:


> Wife has a friend that's average to somewhat above average in the attraction department, but she's a total horn dog, and if I had the opportunity, I'd surely rather hit it with her than some other women my wife knows that could be classified as hot. Just knowing she's always ready to go is a major turn-on.


I don't know your situation at all, but I read this and think: What about your wife? Do you want to hit that? More than her friends? Or less?

Hearing this kind of talk (and I'm not trying to single you out here, as I see it all the time on TAM) only reinforces my view that h is perfectly normal in his desires for every other woman.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> So ... that's it ... just like that. You ain't buyin' it?
> Always, you need to stop reading and talking to the wrong men.


Well, I'm still interested -- but also still skeptical of the value for investment. 

But you're right that I haven't yet mastered these interwebs, and keep forgetting that the person I'm listening to might very well be exactly the kind of person I would normally avoid IRL.


----------



## ChargingCharlie (Nov 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I don't know your situation at all, but I read this and think: What about your wife? Do you want to hit that? More than her friends? Or less?
> 
> Hearing this kind of talk (and I'm not trying to single you out here, as I see it all the time here on TAM) only reinforces my view that h is perfectly normal in his desires for every other woman.


Absolutely, I want to hit it with my wife, more so than anyone else. I was comparing the friend to my wife's hottie friends, and making the point that although this friend may not be considered a hottie, the fact that she has a very high sex drive makes her very appealing to me (in a passive way, as I have no intent to seduce her or anything like that) in a way that women that maybe look more attractive are not.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Well, I'm still interested -- but also still skeptical of the value for investment.
> 
> But you're right that I haven't yet mastered these interwebs, and keep forgetting that the person I'm listening to might very well be exactly the kind of person I would normally avoid IRL.


Why do I imagine you looking me right in the eye and raising one eyebrow as you say that?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I don't know your situation at all, but I read this and think: What about your wife? Do you want to hit that? More than her friends? Or less?
> 
> Hearing this kind of talk (and I'm not trying to single you out here, as I see it all the time here on TAM) only reinforces my view that h is perfectly normal in his desires for every other woman.


There's no real sugar coating that. Yep, I think most of us still feel lust for other women even when we're in love... but its more like observing art than having intent. Who knows why? It doesn't mean we love the one we're with any less or want her any less. Hard to explain, but those thoughts are quite different than our motivation/need to have sex/intimacy with our spouse.

I've complained to an older friend of mine about something like that recently... that it would be nice to be able to turn it off. He says it didn't go away, but did ease down a bit as he got older.


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I don't know your situation at all, but I read this and think: What about your wife? Do you want to hit that? More than her friends? Or less?
> 
> Hearing this kind of talk (and I'm not trying to single you out here, as I see it all the time here on TAM) only reinforces my view that h is perfectly normal in his desires for every other woman.


It proves to me that relationships in themselves are flawed.

Unless two people are completely made for each other, which happens very rarely, then relationships take a lot of work from both parties.

Many of us go into them starry eyed, way to young, and as the people in the relationship mature or change they either grow together or apart. 

I read on here that only 17 percent of marriages are happy. That does not surprise me. Over half end in divorce. 83 pct are in trouble in some way.

Unfortunately far to many are in that position.

It takes a wake up call for most to seriously consider making the changes necessary to make it work. Pack up and move out. Bring in counseling. Ultimatums that are not only taken seriously but you stand behind. It sucks that it has to come to that with so many relationships.

Truthfully the more I think about it being single is not so bad.


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

ChargingCharlie said:


> Absolutely, I want to hit it with my wife, more so than anyone else. I was comparing the friend to my wife's hottie friends, and making the point that although this friend may not be considered a hottie, the fact that she has a very high sex drive makes her very appealing to me (in a passive way, as I have no intent to seduce her or anything like that) in a way that women that maybe look more attractive are not.


what your saying is given the choice between a woman who is a 10 (i hate the scales but for this purpose stick with me) and has a low drive and an 8 who has a high drive you would choose the 8

I believe most men below the age of 80 would.

so Always Alone he is giving you a compliment for being more attractive because of your HD!!


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

I believe the reason for much of the problems is the hookup culture and its priorities and also people wanting immediate gratification.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

I don't have any issue with the knowledge that my husband would like to have sex with other women on a physical level. Why wouldn't he? 

He doesn't actually do it though, and we've been together more than 20 years. 

I also don't see why it's so hard to accept that sex is both a physical and an emotional need. I asked my husband what was it that made him feel especially close to me. He said, sex, talking and non-sexual touch. It's not that having sex itself each time is fulfilling an emotional need. It's that regular, frequent sex makes him feel bonded and close to me over the longer term. The physical desire is the impetus and the emotional connection is the result.

To say that men aren't looking for emotional connection is a ridiculous generalisation. When my husband and I went through a very bad time in our marriage and lost almost all of our emotional connection, he because suicidally depressed. He couldn't communicate it verbally to me though. It was a good shaking wake up call that just because he can't/doesn't say it, doesn't mean he doesn't feel it.


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

treyvion said:


> I believe the reason for much of the problems is the hookup culture and its priorities and also people wanting immediate gratification.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You can get all that from being single though.

I think it more lies on how easy it is to get out of a marriage instead of stay, that actual lack of communication and understanding people have. Part of that is past experience, part upbringing. 

There are few "schools" about marriage. Your entering one of lifes most important journeys and yet many are uneducated about the path to get it right. 4 years in business school for a BS and a weekend retreat for a marriage?? Probably takes more than that.

Forums like this are good to a point. A lot of information on here . Some good some bad. 

Common thread is communicate. Find their needs. Meet them. 

Complicated aint it?? lol


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Cyclist said:


> You can get all that from being single though.
> 
> I think it more lies on how easy it is to get out of a marriage instead of stay, that actual lack of communication and understanding people have. Part of that is past experience, part upbringing.
> 
> ...


I think it was alot of the people were "young", married because he/she was "hot" or the sex was good and it felt like the natural next step.

Marriage isn't hard work at all, you just have to consider someone elses needs. If you been able to navigate all these years without thinking about others, it's all not going to change just because you got married.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Why do I imagine you looking me right in the eye and raising one eyebrow as you say that?


Because I did.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cyclist said:


> Truthfully the more I think about it being single is not so bad.


Being single is grand! You can do whatever, whenever, and no one to answer to.

The downside, IMHO, is the difficulty in finding decent sex. Yeah, sure, it's easy to hook up--but to find an actual real connection with someone, and not just be someone's plaything for the day is very, very hard.

And get last thing I need in my life these days is meaningless sex.


----------



## Horizon (Apr 4, 2013)

Sex? hmmmm....remind me, what is that all about?


----------



## ChargingCharlie (Nov 14, 2012)

Cyclist said:


> what your saying is given the choice between a woman who is a 10 (i hate the scales but for this purpose stick with me) and has a low drive and an 8 who has a high drive you would choose the 8
> 
> I believe most men below the age of 80 would.
> 
> so Always Alone he is giving you a compliment for being more attractive because of your HD!!


Yep, totally agree. For example, one of our friends would be considered about a 10 to most men on here. Very attractive woman (and she's very nice as well), but the lust switch doesn't turn on for me when I see her. The HD friend is probably about a 6 or 7 at best, but I'd be all over her.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Horizon said:


> Sex? hmmmm....remind me, what is that all about?


I guess you forgot. Start having some, and remember you should have never allowed it to be stopped in the first place.


----------



## ChargingCharlie (Nov 14, 2012)

Cyclist said:


> It proves to me that relationships in themselves are flawed.
> 
> Unless two people are completely made for each other, which happens very rarely, then relationships take a lot of work from both parties.
> 
> ...


Also agree with this as well, especially your last sentence. Knowing what I know now, being single wasn't that bad. Right now, I have to leave for home, and as my wife has been home all day with the kids (her work got called off today due to weather), I'm sure she'll be in a fine mood when I get home, and even if I was horny, forget about sex (of course, we also forget about sex the other 364 days of the year, but I digress).


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

ChargingCharlie said:


> Also agree with this as well, especially your last sentence. Knowing what I know now, being single wasn't that bad. Right now, I have to leave for home, and as my wife has been home all day with the kids (her work got called off today due to weather), I'm sure she'll be in a fine mood when I get home, and even if I was horny, forget about sex (of course, we also forget about sex the other 364 days of the year, but I digress).


Nope single isn't all that bad now after going through these situations, if you are sexless it's your fault. Because as a single sex is EVERYWHERE.

I also attest it's your fault if you are sexless in marriage, because you still have options and not all of them or moral or nice.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Lyris said:


> I
> To say that men aren't looking for emotional connection is a ridiculous generalisation. When my husband and I went through a very bad time in our marriage and lost almost all of our emotional connection, he because suicidally depressed. He couldn't communicate it verbally to me though. It was a good shaking wake up call that just because he can't/doesn't say it, doesn't mean he doesn't feel it.


Thanks for separating this out again. It makes much more sense to me this way. Emotional connection is valuable in its own right. And while anyone can give you sexual gratification, not just anyone can provide that emotional connection.

That, to me, is why a relationship is worth the work. 

Otherwise, what's the point? If sex itself is the connection, well you can get that anywhere from anyone.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Because I did.


----------



## Everyday Miracles (Jan 7, 2014)

Thank you very much for removing the article. I appreciate your willingness to do so.

For those who question why I would wish to reduce exposure by having the article removed, the answer is simple: Google penalizes authors for duplicate content, and the more often this article is copied, the less traffic it receives through Google's search engines -- to any site on which it's copied. Given that it has been copied no less than three times (and that in at least one case I've been unable to contact the offender) this has caused my article to take a hit.

It will get _more_ exposure if people can find it through Google.

Excerpts are just fine. Whole articles will cause problems with the search engines.

Again, thank you for your consideration. I'm glad to see that so many people have been helped by this article. There are several others on my site (also copied, unfortunately) which are relevant to this topic.


----------



## gumtree (Jun 1, 2013)

I guess the large emotional component to a mans sexual needs explains the varying intensity of sex at times within a relationship. Men often find it harder to verbalise their emotions. Perhaps why some men resort to physical violence as an extremely unpleasant form of emotional expression when they cant form the words they need. 

There was a make-or-break moment with my new partner after 2 weeks of bitter squabbles over minor issues. When the dam finally broke we talked for hours, that real honest communication that you hear about so much lol. The sex that evening was like nothing either of us has experienced before and has carried over into other areas. We feel so close.

The fear of loss made reconnecting physically so powerful. After talking quietly and gently with me for hours, his animal side came out and he 'made me his own' by locking eyes and possessing me so wildly it bordered on violent (no complaints here). It was so emotional it was like we were drowning. We both felt understood and it sealed the deal.

Casual sex (even 'casual sex' with your spouse, which can be so lonely and painful) meets a physical need, but meeting the emotional need sexually in a relationship is a huge deal and brings out his love for you in other ways. After a marriage train wreck and now nearly losing another good man...I think I get it now!!


----------



## Horizon (Apr 4, 2013)

treyvion said:


> I guess you forgot. Start having some, and remember you should have never allowed it to be stopped in the first place.


Agreed....could you recommend someone?


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

ChargingCharlie said:


> Yep, love this. Go out to dinner, wife looks good. Get home - "I'm so tired". Next week go out again, we even talk about sex when we get home, get home - "I have really bad cramps". Next time just tell me that you don't want sex.


And talk her way out of that evening out? That ain't gonna happen.

Based on personal experience and what I've seen here on TAM, the LD spouses manage to convince themselves they deserve to have their needs met without regard for reciprocation. The attitude is "sex isn't really that important - I do plenty and should get my way even if I'm not meeting the sexual need". You rarely get HD people saying they should get sex whether or not their spouse's reasonable non-sexual needs are met.

If the sex is a big deal to you, you need to call her out. You need to say "I really don't feel like taking you on the town tonight. I'm turned off to you for all the sexual neglect, and frankly you don't deserve to have me wine and dine you".

She almost surely knows this situation is imbalanced. You speaking up is much less about clarifying the situation and much more about signalling your intent to not tolerate it any more.


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

DTO said:


> And talk her way out of that evening out? That ain't gonna happen.
> 
> Based on personal experience and what I've seen here on TAM, the LD spouses manage to convince themselves they deserve to have their needs met without regard for reciprocation. The attitude is "sex isn't really that important - I do plenty and should get my way even if I'm not meeting the sexual need". You rarely get HD people saying they should get sex whether or not their spouse's reasonable non-sexual needs are met.
> 
> ...


in a recent discussion my GF was comparing how clean the house was to our sex life. 99.9 pct of people would consider our house spotless. But because I do not clean constantly and she is a bit neurotic about it she says it is not good enough. 

During that conversation my thoughts went to sex being on a higher playing field. She just does not realize it. Sure there are things that make her happy like a clean house. But how do those types of things compare to our sexual life? A 100 pct clean house certainly does not bring me closer to my GF. Sure its nice and much better than a mess. But how do you compare this to something that brings us so much closer.

That just shows the difference of thought process between someone with HD like me and someone that does not see the importance of sex like and HD person does.


----------



## endlessdrought (Jan 1, 2014)

I just emailed W a link to this article. We'll see what this stirs up. 
Seems some of the posters here have issues with the article's talk of lack of respect without the lack of affection/sex. I have a great amount of respect for my W even with no affection and very little sex. Maybe that's why the rejections hurt so much. If I had no respect for her I would have been gone long ago.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cyclist said:


> in a recent discussion my GF was comparing how clean the house was to our sex life. 99.9 pct of people would consider our house spotless. But because I do not clean constantly and she is a bit neurotic about it she says it is not good enough.


I can't help but wonder if you missed the analogy here. It's not that a clean house is necessarily on the same level as a good sex life, but (one interpretation, at least) that just like your cleaning will never measure up to her expectations, her sexual drive will never live up to yours.

AKA, she thinks she is trying and giving you her best, and you keep upping the ante.

Disclaimer: I don't know your story at all, or how difficult things are between you. So I'm just making a guess based on how you worded this here.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

gumtree said:


> Casual sex (even 'casual sex' with your spouse, which can be so lonely and painful) meets a physical need, but meeting the emotional need sexually in a relationship is a huge deal and brings out his love for you in other ways.


Hers too, no?

Isn't one of the key things leading women to sexlessness the feeling that he only cares about getting off?

The more I think about it, the more articles like this one seem addressed specifically to women that have turned off the sexual taps, and to remind them that men have emotions too, and aren't all about the orgasm.

But it's a two-way street, and a lot of women turn off those taps precisely because they are not having emotionally (or physically, for that matter) fulfilling sex. How many do we hear about that aren't even getting orgasms, or who are just there to give him his pleasure and get none of their own?


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

I have a theory that men, in general, find it difficult to be sexual with perpetually angry women.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

WorkingOnMe said:


> I have a theory that men, in general, find it difficult to be sexual with perpetually angry women.


Men who don't have experience with it, will fall for that "perpetually angry woman" ( b1tch ) because he just doesn't understand. 

So men will expend a ton of their energy and resources to attempt to make her happy, and it lasts for a very short while...

As time goes on, you can't even make one happy, they will fault find all of your good deads.

But yeah, as a young man for some reason i was attracted to those.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

I'm sure the same is true for women too. That is, not being in to angry men.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

GTdad said:


> Sure, the physical component can't be denied, but for my part I rarely feel emotionally closer to my wife than during sex. Repeated rejection starts to feel like a refusal to bond with me emotionally, besides a "mere" rejection of me physically.


Right, but I meant, what about the times where we are told men don't need an emotional connection for sex? 

I am not talking about men in marriages/committed relationships. Please expand on why it's important then? It is a physical release that is needed in the most base sense?


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

WorkingOnMe said:


> I'm sure the same is true for women too. That is, not being in to angry men.


Of course. Falling for the mean pricks who get alot of action. They always think that he will change for them.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> Right, but I meant, what about the times where we are told men don't need an emotional connection for sex?
> 
> I am not talking about men in marriages/committed relationships. Please expand on why it's important then? It is a physical release that is needed in the most base sense?


Okay, gotcha. I don't know if I can explain this very well, but I suppose I'd define this way: it's the physical release plus the thrill of finding a finding a girl/woman actually willing to let us into their pants. "OMG! I can't believe I'm getting laid! "

But I'm having to reach deep into my memory banks here. It's been since the Carter administration since I've been in that boat, and getting married at 21 meant I didn't have much of a career as a Stud Bachelor. I'll take it as a good thing though that 99.99% of my lifetime sexual encounters were accompanied by a solid emotional basis.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

GTdad said:


> Okay, gotcha. I don't know if I can explain this very well, but I suppose I'd define this way: it's the physical release plus the thrill of finding a finding a girl/woman actually willing to let us into their pants. "OMG! I can't believe I'm getting laid! "
> 
> But I'm having to reach deep into my memory banks here. It's been since the Carter administration since I've been in that boat


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Ah, I see. Well thanks for 'splaining. So men are really surprised when a woman is willing to let them into her panty parts?


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I can't help but wonder if you missed the analogy here. It's not that a clean house is necessarily on the same level as a good sex life, but (one interpretation, at least) that just like your cleaning will never measure up to her expectations, her sexual drive will never live up to yours.
> 
> AKA, she thinks she is trying and giving you her best, and you keep upping the ante.
> 
> Disclaimer: I don't know your story at all, or how difficult things are between you. So I'm just making a guess based on how you worded this here.


There is a bit of truth to what you have said. She does not think she can measure up. Just like I do not think I can clean enough

The issue is she thinks I do not care about a clean house BECAUSE I do not care if it is as perfect as she wants it. She is a perfectionist. My stand is if she wants it that perfect fine. Then its up to her to get it there. 

Before you go crazy saying I do not help around the house I do a TON. But there is a line where I would like to be doing something else. 

So the issue is she will not try harder sexually with me because I do not come home every night and keep the house spotless. 

Now maybe I am selfish or stupid but it seems to me that these are two different playing fields. If she gets the same satisfaction out of a spotless house than she does out of a great sex life than I think its out of whack.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> :rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> Ah, I see. Well thanks for 'splaining. So men are really surprised when a woman is willing to let them into her panty parts?


At ages 17-20? In my experience? Hell yes.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Cyclist said:


> There is a bit of truth to what you have said. She does not think she can measure up. Just like I do not think I can clean enough
> 
> The issue is she thinks I do not care about a clean house BECAUSE I do not care if it is as perfect as she wants it. She is a perfectionist. My stand is if she wants it that perfect fine. Then its up to her to get it there.
> 
> ...


Sounds like she's kinda OCD about germs and cleaning. If that's the case, then it very likely could affect her mind in such a way that she literally can't do anything else until the house is spotless.

Do you think she might have OCD? Because some people with OCD can't even leave the house until they've checked that the lights are turned off 27 times, or checked what's in their purse 10 times, etc.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Jellybeans said:


> Right, but I meant, what about the times where we are told men don't need an emotional connection for sex?
> 
> I am not talking about men in marriages/committed relationships. Please expand on why it's important then? It is a physical release that is needed in the most base sense?


Would somebody be a peach and explain to me exactly what the hell an 'emotional connection' is and looks like?

Cuz I've had sex with plenty of women with whom I haven't been in a long term relationship with, and I certainly felt that we had an 'emotional connection'. Hell, it's a requirement for me.

I would imagine that it's much easier to define what the LACK of an emotional connection looks like. And I think those are circumstances that most people can recognize and


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Deejo said:


> Would somebody be a peach and explain to me exactly what the hell an 'emotional connection' is and looks like?
> 
> Cuz I've had sex with plenty of women with whom I haven't been in a long term relationship with, and I certainly felt that we had an 'emotional connection'. Hell, it's a requirement for me.
> 
> I would imagine that it's much easier to define what the LACK of an emotional connection looks like. And I think those are circumstances *that most people can recognize and*


and? and ...?

Please, don't leave us in suspense until next week!


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Deejo said:


> Would somebody be a peach and explain to me exactly what the hell an 'emotional connection' is and looks like?
> 
> Cuz I've had sex with plenty of women with whom I haven't been in a long term relationship with, and I certainly felt that we had an 'emotional connection'. Hell, it's a requirement for me.
> 
> I would imagine that it's much easier to define what the LACK of an emotional connection looks like. And I think those are circumstances that most people can recognize and


I guess definitions could reasonably vary, but remember that I'm writing from the perspective of a man who's been married for 30 years.

Something more than a ONS, to be sure.


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

What I find puzzling is how some men can want to pay for sex with a prostitute. It took me a long time to understand that sex can have an emotional component and could be an expression of love for a man. I think this is why some women think that sex is just a physical release, simply "getting off," and not an expression of a loving bond.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Deejo said:


> *Would somebody be a peach and explain to me exactly what the hell an 'emotional connection' is and looks like?*
> 
> Cuz I've had sex with plenty of women with whom I haven't been in a long term relationship with, and I certainly felt that we had an 'emotional connection'. Hell, it's a requirement for me.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

You rule, Deejo.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> and? and ...?
> 
> Please, don't leave us in suspense until next week!


...the great cut off... Haha


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Tall Average Guy said:


> and? and ...?
> 
> Please, don't leave us in suspense until next week!


... And I have ADD and I'm at work.

Totally forgot what I was going to say.

Let me sum up. I don't need to know a woman for very long to feel 'connected' to her. If I feel connected to her, I absolutely want to be having sex.

In fact I would be hard pressed to come up with something more traumatic as having my then wife, whom I loved very deeply, consistently fail to display, or openly reject any sign of affection or intimacy on my part.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I don't know your situation at all, but I read this and think: What about your wife? Do you want to hit that? More than her friends? Or less?
> 
> Hearing this kind of talk (and I'm not trying to single you out here, as I see it all the time on TAM) only reinforces my view that h is perfectly normal in his desires for every other woman.


Sorry always_alone,
You always seem to see the worst in guys and then lump every thing you read and all of us together as one real AH guy.

I am sorry your husband is neglecting you for porn. He is wrong and he needs to change. 

The vast majority of us have both a physical need and an emotional need for sex with a partner. Most men use porn to supplement their married sex life and not replace or reduce it.

But some men and some women just do not seem to associate sex with bonding. Maybe they where not touched as much when they where babies, maybe their brains do not have the same chemicals or a certain structure is not as developed or whatever.

They are not wrong they just see things different. For all I know maybe they are an improvement because I know I have spent an awful lot of my life thinking about sex that I could have been doing other things.

Why your husband is doing that is something you need to help him work out. People generally do not start out with the intention to become addicts -they fall into it for other reasons.

p.s. I love a woman that makes it clear that she wants me. How often do you see female porn stars being all shy and acting like they are bored and not interested?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

usmarriedguy said:


> Sorry always_alone,
> You always seem to see the worst in guys and then lump every thing you read and all of us together as one real AH guy.


Yes, sorry about that. I'm here because I'm triggered by certain things, and I do focus on these triggers because it is really important to me to examine my thinking/feeling on this.

One of those triggers is how much supposedly happily married men spend talking and thinking about sleeping with other women. When it's my h, it makes me feel utterly replaceable and emotionally disconnected. If he wants to sleep with her, why is he even with me, and why should I invest my time and energy in helping him through anything? Why not just drift off into my own fantasy land?

Another trigger is this constant request that women act more like porn stars. Isn't the billions of them out there enough? And if not, then why not just marry one of them instead of me?

Ps I am not acting bored during sex, nor turning him down. 

(I'm not the only one on this forum who has made a hurtful generalization based on my experience)


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cyclist said:


> Before you go crazy saying I do not help around the house I do a TON. But there is a line where I would like to be doing something else.


As someone who isn't terribly interested in housework, I wasn't going to go there.

Rather my question would be how much of a perfectionist are you for your sex life? Are you putting that exact same pressure on her?

If so, you should understand how it feels.

ETA: beyond that I'm afraid I've got nothing. I really can't wrap my head around the connections between a clean house and sex either, and would be inclined to think there's a deeper issue underlying it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Would somebody be a peach and explain to me exactly what the hell an 'emotional connection' is and looks like?


Let me take a stab:

It is being drawn to someone, genuinely interested in who they are, their thoughts, their values, their feelings, their stories. It's just wanting to *be* with that person, and a feeling that being around this person is nurturing or inspiring or sustaining in some way, and that they feel the same way about you. It's concern for their welfare, their health, their safety, their comfort, their happiness. And, I think it usually involves some sense of sympatico, that on some deep levels you are kindred spirits.

ETA: and I think it includes a mutual sense of freedom to be who you really are, without the usual patina of social conventions.


----------



## I Don't Know (Oct 8, 2013)

Always, if your husband isn't emotionally connected, it could just be his make up or he may be checked out. But as a man who was in a basically sexless marriage, I can tell you it was NOT just a physical need. I would masturbate to porn every night sometimes more than once. Even at that frequency it couldn't replace actual sex. Now that I'm in a good relationship with a fulfilling sex life, having sex 3 times a week is plenty and I don't masturbate AT ALL. I mean I wouldn't turn down more, but I don't feel that "have to have it" feeling all the time. So orgasm 7+ times per week was less satisfying than sex 3 times a week for me.

Yes there is a physical need for orgasm, but all the orgasms in the world will not replace loving intimate sex. That's my experience anyway.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

"I'm not the only one on this forum who has made a hurtful generalization based on my experience"

No you are certainly not but that does not mean that it is a good approach to dealing with people. 

I have no idea what the average guy thinks but when I am looking at porn stars or see an attractive woman in real life I may appreciate her looks but I do not actually want to have sex with them. 

I mean technically sex with them may be very nice but I don't know them and porn stars are way to promiscuous. I may appreciate how open the pornstar women are to trying different things and how they can act like they are having fun even when they are most likely not in a comfortable position or situation. But I do not actually want to have sex with them. 

To be very frank, I like to watch the pornstars blow a guy and play with the come and act like it is fun. I don't expect my wife to do that but that does not mean it isn't a nice fantasy. I get it, (for most) come does not taste good. 

Before I started watching porn and really ever imagined a blow job to completion I had all sorts of other sexual fantasies. My favorite was I was super rich and had a harem consisting of the most beautiful woman from every country and my only purpose in life was to f*ck them all. 

Sorry but I'm a guy and I like sex.
But I am perfectly happy with my wife except that I wish she liked it a little more. We have pretty vanilla sex, one position and the same sequence of events that we have used every time for the past 3 years. We used to watch some porn together but she got tired of it and started to at least give me a bit of oral every time so I have not asked her in a while. 

I do agree with you that some guys seem to hold their SO's to the porn standard and get their feelings hurt if she won't do that and others just get obsessed with it.

I agree with I don't know,
In a previous relationship we only saw each other on the weekends and I did not use porn at all.


----------



## catfan (Jan 12, 2013)

*Re: Re: Interesting Article: Why (and How) Sex is Important to Men*



committed4ever said:


> I asked my husband a few weeks ago that if sex is an emotional need then why do men feel a physical need for it when they are not emotionally involved with anyone. He stared at me for a minute and asked if that was a trick question.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Really well said! My bf had a FWB he wasn't even attracted to. So I wonder about this too.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I don't know your situation at all, but I read this and think: What about your wife? Do you want to hit that? More than her friends? Or less?
> 
> Hearing this kind of talk (and I'm not trying to single you out here, as I see it all the time on TAM) only reinforces my view that h is perfectly normal in his desires for every other woman.


I can relate. Comments like that trigger me big time. Scares me to death for the very same reason...minus the husband but I'm afraid that is the typical man and you do see it all over TAM. But there are also other posts by men here that echo what I read about men and confirm what I want to believe about them and that helps . I think for me and maybe you we have too much experience with the wrong type of men so that makes it hard to trust that that goodness, depth, love, loyalty ....etc. is really there especially when men are notoriously so much less expressive emotionally. But I do see it the the way many of the men here are able to express themselves and I try to remember that when I read things that disturb me. Honestly I've never seen that or experienced it with Any man IRL and that makes me really sad but I would like to and I need to take responsibility for what I have chosen in my life and hopefully choose better in the future.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

I'm on roll now... You know what bothers me too ... The answers to why I don't cheat .. Because I honor my vows which is great but said in a way that its like a sacrifice being made , a struggle , a loss that they have decided to deal with sometimes grudgingly. When I am in love it's never a struggle or something I need to repress and not just in the beginning stages but throughout the relationship... Years..


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

inarut said:


> Honestly I've never seen that or experienced it with Any man IRL and that makes me really sad but I would like to and I need to take responsibility for what I have chosen in my life and hopefully choose better in the future.


Here's to better choices!! I hope you find what you're looking for.

I thought I had --finally, after so many years --found someone I could count on. Then I discovered what he was hiding, and it sent me into a tailspin. Still trying to pull out of it.

Should I just give up hope altogether, or are my demons merely taunting me?

The million dollar question.

If only I could read minds.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

inarut said:


> I'm on roll now... You know what bothers me too ... The answers to why I don't cheat .. Because I honor my vows which is great but said in a way that its like a sacrifice being made , a struggle , a loss that they have decided to deal with sometimes grudgingly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You get to be made of fool of for honoring your vows. Thing is though, someone realize that you are a good man and wants a man just like you. I wouldn't continue to sacrifice the rest of my life into a "rat hole" if I discovered that's what actually was going on.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Let me take a stab:
> 
> It is being drawn to someone, genuinely interested in who they are, their thoughts, their values, their feelings, their stories. It's just wanting to *be* with that person, and a feeling that being around this person is nurturing or inspiring or sustaining in some way, and that they feel the same way about you. It's concern for their welfare, their health, their safety, their comfort, their happiness. And, I think it usually involves some sense of sympatico, that on some deep levels you are kindred spirits.


I already knew you were a peach. And thank you for this. I like what you said.

So I'm guessing that the magic is, despite the fact that this is how I feel about you ... it's meaningless unless I have a way to convey these feelings of value and connection that you stir in me, in a fashion that you feel them, and choose to reciprocate.

Seriously, I don't sleep with anyone I don't feel connected to, but alas, it appears that the terms and conditions of that connection are subject to change without notice.

I call them 'Bliss Bubbles'. 

I'm speaking from the dating world of course.

Much like you feel now AA, I can only assure you that it had an immeasurable impact on my sense of self, when I couldn't connect with the woman I loved above all others. 

'Re-connecting' is virtually impossible if one of the parties is fundamentally averse to establishing that very thing.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

GTdad said:


> I guess definitions could reasonably vary, but remember that I'm writing from the perspective of a man who's been married for 30 years.
> 
> Something more than a ONS, to be sure.


How about a weekend stand?  Seriously ... I had one. Fun, exciting woman. It was wonderful, but temporary.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Here's to better choices!! I hope you find what you're looking for.
> 
> I thought I had --finally, after so many years --found someone I could count on. Then I discovered what he was hiding, and it sent me into a tailspin. Still trying to pull out of it.
> 
> ...


Demons will haunt . With time, learning, faith can subside and be overcome. I don't have all the answers. Wish I did but i still have hope. You will do what's best for you when you are ready ... Whether that's staying or going ....you're a strong, smart woman. You don't have to read minds... Just go by your own feelings.... Happy fulfilled , satisfied or not consistently/ majority of time.
Regardless of what may be going on with him that's your reality and if he is unwilling or unable to see beyond himself or share himself with you ...what else can you do?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Deejo said:


> How about a weekend stand?  Seriously ... I had one. Fun, exciting woman. It was wonderful, but temporary.


It probably was real benefitial for both of you and got you going again.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I call them 'Bliss Bubbles'.


Usually (or if not, then ideally) the emotional connection is readily felt by both parties and so conveying it isn't very complicated. 

The question then is where did the connection go? Oftentimes, it doesn't go anywhere, but due to timing, circumstances, context, it is fleeting, and doesn't ever translate into anything more.

Sometimes, people change and move on, just drift apart.

Sometimes, something happens, or someone does something that does actual damage to the connection. Sometimes irreparably, sometimes not.

You're right that both involved have to want to work on repairing the connection for there to be any chance of success. But whether or not it's worth the effort depends a lot on what went wrong in the first place.

So there's the question of whether he wants to do the work to reconnect with me. But there's also the question of whether I want to do the work to reconnect with him. And I have to confess, it does depend on what it is I need to do to make that happen.

Especially since I'm one of those impossible types that's always insisted on being true to myself, damn the consequences.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

"Especially since I'm one of those impossible types that's always insisted on being true to myself, damn the consequences." 

Unfortunately most marriages require compromise. If you are more interested in your principles than him I can see where he might have given up on you.

I would have to assume that you treat him just the same way you treat all guys -


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> So men are really surprised when a woman is willing to let them into her panty parts?


I won't speak on what it is for other men, but here's the explanation of my surprise.

Before I met my gf I was getting enough sex... both in short lived relationships and occasional hookups or sexual relationships. Even though I could have sex mostly at will with women I found very attractive, I STILL always felt a sense of accomplishment or surprise when a woman let me in her pants... even when I was certain that it would happen.

When I was really young, I was unable to approach women I was attracted to... and that's where I point the finger as to why I have this surprise at all. To be honest, I'd have thought the feeling that I pulled something off (PUNS! ) would have gone away a long time ago. It never has. There's always this bizarre sense of surprise, even when I know right from the get go that "I got this." Hard to explain really.

Faithful Wife has a sexual intelligence test on her profile or blog, and all such tests I score in the highest bracket, but the questions I get "wrong" are always the "knowing/sensing/assuming that she's sexually interested in me" type questions.

At the root, I think this sort of thing is a deep seated insecurity... like core level deep... early childhood deep. Its totally strange to feel like I know she's going to have sex with me, and then still be surprised that she does. The former is based on experience (the others had sex with me so she will too), the latter is core self-esteem I think (why would anyone have sex with me? -something I don't even think I think, but I suppose must be in there somewhere for such surprise to exist). I never, ever think that she's accomplishing something.

Based on my perception of who is interested in me, and who turns out to actually be interested in me, there have always been more women interested than I perceive to be. I figure I have some kind of mental block to preventing me from seeing most of them. But I'm still strangely surprised even when I do see it. In the few conversations I've admitted it to, nobody ever guesses I had any self-doubts. "You seem so confident!!!" I suppose I've learned to completely cover it up. However, its being there at all says that somewhere at the core level I have a sense of "unworthiness" even if I don't perceive it in most conscious thought or day to day life... maybe.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

That test was originally published on psychology today:

The Quiz: Mating IQ | Psychology Today

It isn't a sexual intelligence test, it is a Mating Intelligence test...created by an evo-psych team. IMO the test is crap as far as sexual intelligence and it basically just determines how promiscuous you are and how likely to cheat you are. That's why I deemed it The Sl*t Test, instead. (I did score very high, btw, but that's because I'm a sl*t).

I'm currently working on my own Sexual Intelligence and Proclivity Test for a future blog post.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> That test was originally published on psychology today:
> 
> The Quiz: Mating IQ | Psychology Today
> 
> ...


Names schmames. There are a lot of little tests like that on many different sites "developed" (seems almost silly to use the word) by different psych this and university of thats. A lot of similar type questions regardless of what they're measuring and don't place much value in their usefulness.

Indeed though, I am a total sl*t. If not for birth control I'd likely have a lot of genetically diverse little baby devil's running around that I probably wouldn't even know about.

I'm doing good though, I've been in one relationship for 5 months give or take depending on when you consider the "start"... and I'm happy.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

usmarriedguy said:


> Unfortunately most marriages require compromise. If you are more interested in your principles than him I can see where he might have given up on you.
> 
> I would have to assume that you treat him just the same way you treat all guys -


Some principles are non-negotiable. They're usually called boundaries around here. If he didn't like them, presumably he wouldn't be with me in the first place. It's not like I was quiet or secretive about them.

Compromise is something I'm familiar with. I've busted my a$$ to meet his needs. Makes it hard when he won't tell me what they are.

No doubt it would surprise you to learn that I have, and have always had male friends. And that they don't even think I'm hateful and awful -- or even crazy.

Amazing, huh?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Dvls - I wasn't pointing out the name to "correct" you, dear. I was pointing it out due to the irony of it.

Ie: High Mating Intelligence = Biggest Sl*t

That's evo-psych for ya.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls - I wasn't pointing out the name to "correct" you, dear. I was pointing it out due to the irony of it.
> 
> Ie: High Mating Intelligence = Biggest Sl*t
> 
> That's evo-psych for ya.


I didn't take it as a correction. The name, and even the ultimate purpose of the test, was irrelevant to my point. I was just trying to give readers something they could go look at. Yours is one of many tests that share a subset of questions that pertained to my point. I'll avoid citing you in the future if that helps. There are a host of other tests of sexual awareness, not "mating intelligence" or evo-psych, that also have questions pertaining to how one believes one is perceived by the opposite sex. That, and not the entirety of your test or its conclusive value, was the only reason I cited it.

Even being a sl*t, I perceive fewer women attracted to me than it turns out there really are... a direct answer to jelly's question about men being "surprised". I wasn't making a point about the test(s), but rather pointing to the tests as evidence of my own built-in misperception and potential cause of my surprise.

I don't think the name is ironic. If the purpose of mating is to ensure the continuation of one's genetic material, then the strategies of sl*ts are quite effective. Go with one partner, and you're subject to the genetic vulnerabilities of that lone partner. I've gathered for awhile that you take issue with the evolutionary view of sex, but that's a discussion for another time.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> That test was originally published on psychology today:
> 
> The Quiz: Mating IQ | Psychology Today


What a strange test!

What's interesting about it here is that it contradicts just about everything that's been said here about the importance of emotional connection to sex for men.

Does that mean I have amazing mating intelligence? :rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Dvls...all I was doing was further expanding on your point. I did want to point out (and did so) that it wasn't *my* test...I just wanted to be fair to the authors on that one. I understood the point you were making about the test (the ability to know when someone is into you part of it).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Gotcha... I didn't mean to imply that you made the test; only that it could be reached from your profile or signature.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> What a strange test!
> 
> What's interesting about it here is that it contradicts just about everything that's been said here about the importance of emotional connection to sex for men.
> 
> Does that mean I have amazing mating intelligence? :rofl:


I don't see the contradiction... care to expand?

My thoughts are that at the most fundamental level, man wants a primary mate he provides for, with whom he supports his children, and secondary mates with which ensures genetic survivability... and the two are entirely compartmentalized. The emotional component with the primary is the derivative... or byproduct of the primary relationship, without such connection, he will seek a different primary for a more secure child rearing situation and even to maintain exclusive rights to what he perceives as his highest value mate.

Cultural elements have made the secondary mates taboo imo (perhaps for the best), not lack of male desire to have them (the nature of evolution is that vestigial elements remain). Developing a balance of male and female interests - a "truce" ("Hey, I won't if you won't."), likely contributes to a more harmonious and cooperative social structure. I think this product is the result of higher level reasoning and strategic planning that developed later, but the vestigial desires are still there.

Even the most faithful, loving man still feels at least a degree of lust for other women I think. Men keep this under wraps with varying degrees of success and will (some better than others; others maybe it doesn't even take effort), they all still love their wives and absolutely need an emotional component to sex to want to keep this woman "primary". If he doesn't feel that connection from her, then I think at a subconscious level men assume she wants a different primary and the truce breaks down. Why keep her primary?


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

"No doubt it would surprise you to learn that I have, and have always had male friends. And that they don't even think I'm hateful and awful -- or even crazy.

Amazing, huh?"

I have to wonder if you are that upfront with them. "Friendship" standards tend to be pretty lax. 


"If he didn't like them, presumably he wouldn't be with me in the first place."

As you can see in this forum a lot of people stay in relationships that are not optimal for various reasons other than complete happiness.

"Compromise is something I'm familiar with. I've busted my a$$ to meet his needs. Makes it hard when he won't tell me what they are."

Perhaps you have given him the impression that he can't meet your standard and or will not accept his viewpoint as being worthy. My brief impression is that you tend to be fairly dismissive of any view that conflicts with your own.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

In that same system Dvls is talking about, women are always eyeing the bigger, taller, richer man, too....so all's fair.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> In that same system Dvls is talking about, women are always eyeing the bigger, taller, richer man, too....so all's fair.


Absolutely. And woe to he that doesn't put effort into maintaining his wife's emotional connection with him. She too may seek a primary with whom she feels more secure.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

"Absolutely. And woe to he that doesn't put effort into maintaining his wife's emotional connection with him. She too may seek a primary with whom she feels more secure."

Agreed, men often withdraw out of revenge, protest -whatever.
I do not see it as a healthy or productive coarse of action (even though admittedly I took the same approach at one time)


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't see the contradiction... care to expand?


Take the female version and you will see what I mean.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Absolutely. And woe to he that doesn't put effort into maintaining his wife's emotional connection with him. She too may seek a primary with whom she feels more secure.


Not to mention the secondaries. It's not just men who want it all with as many as possible.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If the purpose of mating is to ensure the continuation of one's genetic material, then the strategies of sl*ts are quite effective. Go with one partner, and you're subject to the genetic vulnerabilities of that lone partner. I've gathered for awhile that you take issue with the evolutionary view of sex, but that's a discussion for another time.


Seems like an ok thread for a discussion, since it was a zombie thread dug up by the author of the original article.

I think all any of us can do is make an opinion - or decide what they believe - about how or why we have sex. I tend to believe there is much more to life than physical reality, so the hard line evo-psyche theory (that people literally only have sex to make babies) just seems too simple to me. I have known and loved the feeling of "give me your baby, baby" and have felt very connected to the birth and baby experience....part of me wishes she could have had 100 of them.

But a much larger part of me is NOT a mother, but rather, a fully rounded human being. I love having sex that has _nothing to do_ with procreation, and I much prefer it this way.

I believe we've evolved past the baby-making sex and we humans are now capable of having intimacy-making sex. 

Obviously I could be all wrong, there is really no way to know for sure if the evo-psych theory is correct.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Is anyone seriously arguing that people have evolved the type of sexual response they have only for procreation? Even for other primates this isn't true. Chimps, bonobos and gorillas all have sex for reasons other than procreation; bonding and reinforcing of social hierarchy for example. 

Sex is for both procreation and bonding.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Oh yes, that is what they are saying. And many people believe that it is "science" but it is really just a bunch of flimsy studies on college kids. I read this book all about it (that is where I found the sl*t test, because the authors of this book developed the test) and it is such crapola, IMO.

Mating Intelligence Unleashed: The Role of the Mind in Sex, Dating, and Love: Glenn Geher, Scott Barry Kaufman, Helen Fisher: 9780195396850: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Here is one of the more ridiculous segments in the book....they are trying to make a case for "how" men evolved to prefer YOUNG BLONDES over OLD WOMEN WITH GRAY HAIR. Yes, young blondes. Even in the stone ages, they claim Playboy bunnies were the only attractive women. (always alone, don't read the following, you'll thank me later)....
____________________________________________________________________

All things considered, imagine two stone-age male hominids— Buffy and Sly. Buffy is, for some reason, attracted to the relatively young women in the clan (except for those who are close genetic relatives— we have adaptations that reduce such attraction). Buffy likes long blonde hair. He likes smooth skin. He likes large, round, symmetrical breasts of the nondrooping variety. Sly, for reasons unbeknownst to himself (and Darwin), is really into the older women in the clan (and there are only a few left!). To him, gray hair is a real turn-on. He likes the skin wrinkly.

Thin lips are just plain hot. And he is sexually excited by an older woman’s waist-to-hip ratio, which is hard (even for Sly himself) to objectively distinguish from the waist-to-hip ratio of the older men in his clan. Buffy and Sly are sharks with the ladies. Both are real lookers with smooth moves who often end up with the women they seek. 

Question: Who’s more likely to leave genes into future generations? Buffy, obviously. Given his preferences, Buffy is more likely to mate with women who are fertile and more likely to pass on his genes to offspring. And, further, he is more likely to pass on genes predisposing his offspring to find youthful features in females as attractive. 

Sly may well get a lot of action, but given his preferred type, he’s not too likely to pass on his genes— and the genes coding for an attraction to relatively elderly features are likely to go the way of the dodo bird. This reasoning bears strongly on features of female faces and bodies that are generally perceived as attractive.

______________________________________________________

(end quote)

Now why in the world were there ONLY Playboy bunnies and saggy old ladies to choose from in the stone ages? THIS is why I don't follow the basic evo-psych theories. Bleach.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> (always alone, don't read the following, you'll thank me later)....


Ah, that was very good advice --but of course I was too curious and ignored it. 

And have a few very thoughtful comments to share:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Gawd I hope they aren't giving out degrees for this claptrap!

Evopsych is pretty much 100% garbage. There's plenty of high quality evidence that early human sexuality is *nothing* like the picture painted by evopsychologists.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

Probably some truth to the theory that men are a bit more attracted to healthy attractive women in their childbearing years and women are more attracted to successful males. 

But as pointed out other primates mate for clearly social reasons. I think I saw a Nova show about Bonobos recently about how they had a much less violent society because they had much more open casual sex than Chimpanzees. 

I agree Faithful wife -that quiz was worthless.


----------



## Married but not happy (Jan 11, 2014)

I have been following this thread with interest as I know many have. Alas, I am in a sexless marriage like so many others. I showed this article to my wife. She always thinks it is from the man's point of view and I think completely missed the point of the article, that a man will not feel connected without that physical intimacy.

We have been married for over 20 years, had a great life together for many years, with physical and emotional intimacy. She stopped being close to me about 5 years ago, with little to no explanation, other than being hurt about something I had said.

She dropped out of counseling and has gotten a little closer to me but there has been little intimacy for me, other than some handjobs when I tell her how much I need to feel close to her. I have read how some men stay with their wives because they still feel some love even though there is no sex. Sexless marriages seem to be common but I wonder if the reasons for it are the same in most cases.

In our case, it is the fact that I feel my wife does not want to feel close to me that hurts the most. If she just had lost physical desire, that is one thing. But to feel that she just does not want to feel a bond with me is the most painful of all, especially after so many years of being a devoted husband.

It really is the most painful thing to feel. I think my wife enjoys cleaning the house more than being intimate with me. She used to love sex and intimacy, now she does not want it at all. I know, that is a common theme here. But the reasons in each case may be different.

I think I have part of the answer but no solution. My wife came to this country as a teenager and lived with a relative, who abused her emotionally. She withdraws emotionally when she is hurt and this can last for years. I have seen it happen with friends and family members. I think it is happening with me. I have told her that there is no marriage without hurt in some way. No one is perfect but I have been loyal to her and always tried to make her happy.

She does not seem to want divorce, and not only for financial reasons. She wants to stay married but with little intimacy, physical or emotional. I think my only option is to threaten divorce. I am always interested to hear of success stories where people have gotten to the edge of the cliff and made it back.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> That test was originally published on psychology today:
> 
> The Quiz: Mating IQ | Psychology Today
> 
> ...



I just took the test. No secret to that result.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Married but not happy said:


> She does not seem to want divorce, and not only for financial reasons. She wants to stay married but with little intimacy, physical or emotional. I think my only option is to threaten divorce. I am always interested to hear of success stories where people have gotten to the edge of the cliff and made it back.


Well why would she? 

Try telling her that you love her and you understand and will respect her desire, or 'need' to no longer be intimate with you, and that you want to preserve the marriage.

In that regard, you will be having those needs met outside the marriage, and you look forward to her understanding and respect that your needs and desires are equally important.

That should change her mind about the course of the relationship, or perhaps the option of divorce.

I'm all for having it out over sex, and coming to a resolution. I am.

I'm just never, ever, again going to be ok with "Your needs don't much matter to me, and aren't important."


----------



## MissScarlett (May 22, 2013)

I think women are able to keep that connected feeling without sex - more than men can anyway.

I think you are likely right about your wife. If she is harboring resentment and taking it out on you by intimacy starvation - she holds the power. Threatening divorce and taking a few steps in that direction would likely dissolve her power in this situation. She probably needs to realize that she is replaceable.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 12, 2011)

MissScarlett said:


> I think women are able to keep that connected feeling without sex - more than men can anyway.
> 
> I think you are likely right about your wife. If she is harboring resentment and taking it out on you by intimacy starvation - she holds the power. Threatening divorce and taking a few steps in that direction would likely dissolve her power in this situation. She probably needs to realize that she is replaceable.


He has to mean it though, and be willing at minimum to actually file, if not go through with it, otherwise once she knows he is bluffing and there are no consequences to her, he will have even less power in his relationship.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

I do not know how many marriages come back from sexless but I do not think that it will help to drag the issue out. 

You have to decide how much sex is important to you vs. being married to her. Lots of people get by fine without intercourse and contact. If you allow things to stay the way they are than they probably will.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Married but not happy said:


> She stopped being close to me about 5 years ago, with little to no explanation, other than being hurt about something I had said.
> 
> She dropped out of counseling and has gotten a little closer to me but there has been little intimacy for me, other than some handjobs when I tell her how much I need to feel close to her.


What did you say to her? Or, more to the point, how badly was she hurt?

Have you done anything to help her recover from this hurt?

That may get you further than telling her what you need or trying to make her feel "replaceable" (which she likely knows already).


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> What did you say to her? Or, more to the point, how badly was she hurt?
> 
> Have you done anything to help her recover from this hurt?
> 
> That may get you further than telling her what you need or trying to make her feel "replaceable" (which she likely knows already).


Having gone through this, I think you and I likely presume a completely different set of circumstances.
Quite often by the time a woman has no interest in intimacy with her spouse, she also has no interest in ANY effort he tries to make to correct that ... because she rightly or wrongly further believes that any effort he makes to improve the relationship, is quite simply to get laid.

You need to pull the pin and throw the grenade. It destroys the old dynamic and sets the stage for a new one.

I know of several men here that have used the "I'll have my needs met outside the marriage."
It reset the dynamic and things improved in two cases, in the other, they split, which lets face it, is always a possible outcome when things degrade this much anyway.

Sex is important.

It's important to understand WHY your partner doesn't want to have it with you.

Which can be challenging if your partner's (my case) consistent response is, "I don't know ..."

We got to the meat of it in the dying days. I had maintained a friendship with a woman I was previously engaged to. It hurt my wife. It hurt her more than I could have imagined. 

We both owned our pieces in the demise of our marriage, and forgave one another. But the price of getting there was the marriage.

Sex with the woman that he loves and admires is important to a husband.

It can be difficult to recognize and address that the woman you love and admire, doesn't feel loved and admired ... and doesn't want to have sex with you.

It's a toxic spiral. Best to learn about and use the tools we talk about here, to never get into the spiral in the first place.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Having gone through this, I think you and I likely presume a completely different set of circumstances.
> Quite often by the time a woman has no interest in intimacy with her spouse, she also has no interest in ANY effort he tries to make to correct that ... because she rightly or wrongly further believes that any effort he makes to improve the relationship, is quite simply to get laid.


And I really want to believe that women are wrong when they think this, I really, really do. But everywhere I turn, men say looks trump everything, how hot are you, how much weight have you gained, how much lingerie do you wear, how much do you put out? 

A woman asks what men find attractive, and it's looks, looks, and looks. Personality is irrelevant. Women are interchangeable because the only thing distinguishing us is hair color and cup size, and hey, that's okay because men like it all, as long as it's not fat.

And then the solution to a woman feeling hurt and disconnected is to throw a bomb into the relationship, to remind her that's she's utterly replaceable, and has no value beyond her sex?

It maybe helps in the short term with women afraid of being on their own. But I bet the rest of us just drift further and further away.



Deejo said:


> We got to the meat of it in the dying days. I had maintained a friendship with a woman I was previously engaged to. It hurt my wife. It hurt her more than I could have imagined.


And you still think it not helpful or relevant to consider how much hurt you've inflicted? No, just hurl some more hurt her way and make sure to blow everything up real good?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> And you still think it not helpful or relevant to consider how much hurt you've inflicted? No, just hurl some more hurt her way and make sure to blow everything up real good?


Want to be clear for a moment. I didn't 'inflict' anything. She did. All in her head. I wasn't seeing someone else, comparing her, putting her down, or telling her she wasn't good enough ... but that's what she thought. I loved my wife, very much.

I wanted her to WANT to save the marriage. And when it was apparent she didn't, yep, I let her have it with both barrels. I reinforced every negative thing she thought. I was mean. I was angry. And as ugly and wrong as I now believe that was, it still wiped the slate clean and made reconciling our enmity towards one another possible. She respects me more today than she did 5 years ago. And I'd rather have that than being in a marriage going nowhere, with a partner that feels nothing for me, and the idea of being sexual turns their stomach. 

You seem to be consistently focused on what 'HE did'. I mean this with no disrespect, but even in the tone of your posts sometimes I'm left with the impression that the fact that 'he' may want to atone for some wrongdoing is irrelevant in light of whatever he did and the resulting damage, whether merited or not. I have no control over my partners insecurity, low self-esteem, negative body image, if they have been victimized in the past, or have a history of choosing bad partners. So, how delicate are we really supposed to believe women are? Because if we say you are ... you don't say "Yes. I struggle with some of those things." The response I have seen on several occasions where I have delicately tried to probe some deep issues, is they get pissed and defensive ... and shut you off anyway.

Good men, are by no means perfect men, Always. And they own it when they're not.

But they still desire intimacy. Not as payment, or as a right, or because it's part of the marriage contract. Hurt men say those things, all the time. Just as hurt women say some things as well.

They want intimacy and sexuality because it reinforces that your partner loves and respects you. It's lack distinctly demonstrates the opposite.

And for all of the reasons that women become spiteful, cynical and untrusting, the same can happen to men who are caught in a sexless marriage and see no options other than to put up with it, and accept passive aggression as an outlet, because they can't imagine it will be any different with anyone else.

I'm glad that isn't the choice I made.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

I just want to add that best advice I ever received on TAM are the two point from Deejo.

One is that I'm here, I want to fix my marriage and I can only control myself. I can complain about her, but that does nothing to fix myself. I've repeated that many times to others.

The other is touched on above. Much of what I went through parallels what Deejo went through when his marriage dissolved. He covers it very well here:



Deejo said:


> They want intimacy and sexuality because it reinforces that your partner loves and respects you. It's lack distinctly demonstrates the opposite.
> 
> And for all of the reasons that women become spiteful, cynical and untrusting, the same can happen to men who are caught in a sexless marriage and see no options other than to put up with it, and accept passive aggression as an outlet, because they can't imagine it will be any different with anyone else.
> 
> I'm glad that isn't the choice I made.


I did make a choice to do exactly that for a while. Coming to TAM made me realize that it could be better, that I shouldn't have to accept what I had.

I feel very fortunate that my marriage survived, and we're much happier now.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Want to be clear for a moment. I didn't 'inflict' anything.


Ah. When you said you maintained a relationship with an ex, I assumed she made her displeasure about this known, and that you chose to do so anyway. That's why I used the word "inflict"




Deejo said:


> You seem to be consistently focused on what 'HE did'.


Because the poster himself said he had hurt her and she shut down directly after that. No mention of atonement.

Yet every other response was to threaten her with blowing up the marriage.

Maybe this is what you have to do, I don't know. Your choice to set your boundaries. But if you know you've done something to hurt someone, and you know they have trouble letting go of hurt, is it really so unreasonable to put forth extra effort to make up for that hurt?

This isn't about the fragility of women, but of making amends. You assume he has already done so. I didn't. One of us is probably right.




Deejo said:


> I mean this with no disrespect, but even in the tone of your posts sometimes I'm left with the impression that the fact that 'he' may want to atone for some wrongdoing is irrelevant in light of whatever he did and the resulting damage, whether merited or not. I have no control over my partners insecurity, low self-esteem, negative body image, if they have been victimized in the past, or have a history of choosing bad partners. So, how delicate are we really supposed to believe women are?


I'm giving the wrong impression then. I'm certainly not saying that men can do no right, or that it is men's responsibility to solve women's problems. It's not.

I do absolutely get why someone would chose to end a marriage over sexlessness. But many things men do contribute to why a woman shuts down. And to fail to acknowledge this or do anything about it may mean you just end up back at exactly the same place with another one.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

always_alone said:


> And I really want to believe that women are wrong when they think this, I really, really do. But everywhere I turn, men say looks trump everything, how hot are you, how much weight have you gained, how much lingerie do you wear, how much do you put out?
> 
> A woman asks what men find attractive, and it's looks, looks, and looks. Personality is irrelevant. Women are interchangeable because the only thing distinguishing us is hair color and cup size, and hey, that's okay because men like it all, as long as it's not fat.
> 
> ...


You know what....it's typically the men in sexless marriages that make the comments that disturb me. I do look. They are also the men that are staying faithful and banging their heads off brick walls because they really only want their wives who are seemingly cold and dismissive no matter what they do. And they are trying!!!! Really trying! Whatever mistakes they may have made in the past, I have never seen men try so hard or put so much effort, thought , planning or to really attempt to become so tuned into their partner. It greatly impresses me. Unfortunately I think the majority are wasting their time on women who aren't worthy but it does make you think why do these women get so much devotion? But that would be another thread. Anyway, my point is the wives are not replaceable!! I think it still it depends on the type of man, the kind that will deal with that with seemingly no hope . But they are in a special position because of their lack of sexual connection. They are forced to deeply feel, examine and understand that need....and then express it in a way other men haven't been made to. It does go far beyond physical release and they always crave their wives above all and stay faithful when most would leave or cheat but they don't. Personally I think most should leave . I wouldn't sacrifice myself like that . But these men give an important insight into the male psyche . 

Eta: I mean no disrespect to sexless men who post. You do have my respect and often warm my heart.
_Posted via Mobile Device_

Eta: my real point is these wives are not just replaceable/interchangeable .


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> But many things men do contribute to why a woman shuts down. And to fail to acknowledge this or do anything about it may mean you just end up back at exactly the same place with another one.


And on that, I absolutely agree. 

Don't get me wrong. I like the way you think. But some of my stuff was veiled advice too. Throw the grenade Always. You might actually have a good time blowing stuff up.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

My marriage got to the edge of the cliff, but we pulled it back. 

Much of what you write rings true for our ten years of poor sex and intimacy. I had unresolved resentments that made it impossible for me to desire my husband. I didn't understand what sex in marriage meant to men. I thought that if could still desire me when we were having such deep conflicts, then I must be no more than a piece of meat to him. Just a way to get off. 

I understand it much better now, but it wasn't until I found TAM and read the same things over and over again from men who were in sexless marriages. I never hated my husband. I never wished him that sort of pain. 

I went to IC to learn to resolve my resentment. Your wife could do the same, but she has to want to. Banishing the resentment and learning how to keep it away has been nothing short of life changing, and I don't mean just in terms of restoring intimacy to my marriage. Resentment eats at your soul. It keeps at bay the very things that make life worth living. It prevents you from knowing yourself as well as from allowing others to know you. It's a wall that imprisons and repels. 

Of course, how do you convince your wife? If she is not motivated to look at herself for the sake of your or her marriage, what would motivate her? Would the threat of divorce motivate her? Can you resolve resentment towards a person because that person is making an ultimatum, or is that a recipe to pile on more resentment?

I don't have an answer for you. In a way, your choices are very limited. You can wait and hope, or you can force your hand. I do think that if you threaten divorce, you should be prepared to follow through. Empty threats are only going to make the situation worse if she doesn't respond.


----------



## Married but not happy (Jan 11, 2014)

always_alone said:


> What did you say to her? Or, more to the point, how badly was she hurt?
> 
> Have you done anything to help her recover from this hurt?
> 
> That may get you further than telling her what you need or trying to make her feel "replaceable" (which she likely knows already).


What I said was simply something regarding financial matters in our family. My wife had pushed us to buy investment properties which had proven disastrous during the real estate meltdown. I had consulted with financial advisors who recommended that we sell lest we end up bankrupt. My wife, with all her pride, refused and was angry with me for even suggesting it. WSe waited years before selling, which nearly bankrupt our family. She admitted blame for this but our marriage has never been the same. Obviously, there were other underlying problems but I do not know what they are.

I do not want my wife to feel "replaceable" but just to understand that a marriage without closeness and intimacy is one that I consider a "phony" marriage and one that I will eventually depart if nothing changes. 

I agree with the idea that something like a grenade must enter the marriage in order to shake things up. My wife will never change unless she realizes that she may lose me. Threatening divorce may or may not work but I feel it is the only thing that has a chance to work. 

There are a few reasons why I have not gone that route yet. First of all, a year or so before my wife began withdrawing, my mother was diagnosed with a rare cancer. As she lived alone and was 500 miles away, I spent a lot of time helping her out. MY mother survived for several years but her situation continually deteriorated. It was painful for me and I felt I could not proceed with a divorce during this time. It would have just been too much emotionally for me.

After that, the financial issues have made it hard for me to think of separating but that situation is improving. My marriage has had many good years and I could only imagine leaving the marriage for one reason: if I feel my wife does not love me. The lack of sex is devastating but the hardest part is feeling that my wife does not want to be close to me. Not just not being in the mood, but that she doesn't really want to be close to me.

Why is she this way? I do not know but I suspect her coping mechanism when she gets hurt is to withdraw and stay that way, even for years. That is something she learned as a teenager when she was emotionally abused by a relative. Not wanting a divorce and yet not wanting to be close is something I do not think I will ever understand and something that has caused me to shake my head in disbelief.

I will come to the point of insisting on counseling with me and if she refuses, filing for divorce.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

inarut said:


> You know what....it's typically the men in sexless marriages that make the comments that disturb me.


It's actually the thougtless manosphere ones that stick in my craw the most. But I hear what you're saying, and have seen some of those stories. An eye-opener to be sure.

Definitely agree that what you and Deejo are saying about where some of these comments are coming from is spot on. No doubt I would be filled with suspicion of women too if I had been treated as poorly.

And years of sexlessness? No way I could do that and still keep my sanity. 

Unless there were mitigating or explanatory factors that I could accept/do something about.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Throw the grenade Always. You might actually have a good time blowing stuff up.



Oh I did. And true to my style, it wasn't a paltry grenade but a full-fledged weapon of mass destruction. It wasn't fun. 

Now we're wading through the carnage, wondering what to do. It remains to be seen whether my story is more like yours or Larry's.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Oh I did. And true to my style, it wasn't a paltry grenade but a full-fledged weapon of mass destruction. It wasn't fun.
> 
> Now we're wading through the carnage, wondering what to do. It remains to be seen whether my story is more like yours or Larry's.


Choose the one that will make you happy, not the one that will hurt less.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

"Would the threat of divorce motivate her? Can you resolve resentment towards a person because that person is making an ultimatum, or is that a recipe to pile on more resentment?"

People see what they want to see. If a person is looking for conformation than all they tend to see is what confirms their view. 

People do change but that usually happens over a long period of time and can't always be controlled or predicted. 

To me the fact that his wife just made a vague statement about him saying something that hurt her 5 years past was more likely just an excuse to justify no sex which is probably actually occurring for other reasons.

It would be nice if there was always some simple and fixable reason why a person does not want sexual bonding but I do not believe that is most often the case.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> But if you know you've done something to hurt someone, and you know they have trouble letting go of hurt, is it really so unreasonable to put forth extra effort to make up for that hurt?


Whatever a guy does, wouldn't you just assume its a ploy to get sex? That seems to be the frame of mind I get from your posts. There's no making amends if you can't take a person's actions at face value.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Whatever a guy does, wouldn't you just assume its a ploy to get sex? That seems to be the frame of mind I get from your posts. There's no making amends if you can't take a person's actions at face value.


Says the guy who has spent hundreds of pages convincing me that men see women as objects, find them utterly boring, only care about looks, and are only interested in them for sex. 

I tried really hard to think differently when I first came to TAM, but you sure helped to drive it home.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Choose the one that will make you happy, not the one that will hurt less.


Good advice. If you know which is which, that is.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

"...men see women as objects, find them utterly boring, and are only interested in them for sex."

Well I have to concede that there are a lot of examples that make us all look bad. I would not have predicted so many weight comments to the women who happen to be in a relationship with an LD man but it does happen visa versa as well (just not as often)

I guess men tend to be conditioned that they are more visual and to some degree are just parroting that idea. These are also guys who may have other problems and are not in long term relationships or just young and shallow.

Certainly with both men and women initial attraction is pretty visual but probably more so for men. Which accounts for women being so much better looking than men but is not the case with birds for example where the male is usually more highly decorated.

Are female birds shallow because they like pretty male birds?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Married but not happy said:


> Why is she this way? I do not know but I suspect her coping mechanism when she gets hurt is to withdraw and stay that way, even for years. That is something she learned as a teenager when she was emotionally abused by a relative. Not wanting a divorce and yet not wanting to be close is something I do not think I will ever understand and something that has caused me to shake my head in disbelief.
> 
> I will come to the point of insisting on counseling with me and if she refuses, filing for divorce.


If she doesn't want divorce, my guess is that she really does want to be close, but doesn't know how, or is afraid to try. She has used those walls to protect herself for so long, she really doesn't know any other way.

As far as marital bombs go, insisting on counseling is IMHO much less threatening than insisting on either regular sex or allowance that you'll get sexual needs met elsewhere. It really says "I need you to be whole and well". 

And it sounds like she really would benefit.

Good luck!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Says the guy who has spent hundreds of pages convincing me that men see women as objects, find them utterly boring an uninteresting, and are only interested in them for sex.




You continually repeat caricatures of things I've said that are entirely inaccurate. You've taken my analysis of how male attraction instantiates, and are now trying to apply it to emotional connection in relationships. I've repeatedly said that I believe men and women begin the process from opposite ends. So because male sexual interest starts out visual and objectifying, you think I'm saying that's all it ever is? You're entirely closed off to the idea of anything that is not exactly as you want it to be, or idealize that it should be. You can't seem to see anything but black and white.

"women as objects" - What I've actually said is that male sexuality is spontaneous desire for that which we see. This initializing factor IS objectifying. "Wow, naked body" => TAKE, POSSESS => erection. That is the sexual INITIALIZER, not some foo foo feeling of closeness. The emotional closeness for us occurs AFTER THE FACT. That's when we feel truly secure in our relationships. Willingly deny a man sex and he will feel less and less emotionally connected to you. You won't be his emotional partner anymore, you'll be his friend at best... and he will lose attraction for you regardless of what you look like. I've said all this before but you insist on singing your dismissive song. You're far too intelligent to be so lacking in nuance.

"women are utterly boring and uninteresting" - What I've actually said is that on a whole, platonic relationships with women are comparatively boring and uninteresting to men versus friendships with other men. My basis is simple and obvious: MEN TYPICALLY HAVE MORE IN COMMON WITH OTHER MEN THAN THEY DO WITH WOMEN. Shall we go fishing Always? I'll bet you love fishing. How about weight lifting? Can I talk to you about sports? Can most women? No. Can most men? Yes. There's no magic here nor insult... just simple observations of common behaviors. Maybe you have one here or there... but a random man is likely to have MORE common interests with me. Most men are going to have more in common with other men. That's just the way things are. Most people are going to have a majority of friends of like sex due to the greater overlap of interests. Many therapists will also point out that predominantly having opposite sex friends is very often indicative of an unhealthy psychological condition, like low self-esteem, and the opposite sex friends exist because the person is more threatened by the sense of competition or comparison with their own sex. Boiling my point of view down to women are just boring just shows your unwillingness to apply any depth of thought on anything you disagree with. These things ARE stereo types, but they are also largely true and my statement pertains to the likelihood of my having common interests with a random platonic female as opposed to a random male. If a man's primary interest is knitting, then I bet he has plenty of friends who enjoy knitting and that they are primarily female, as knitting isn't a very popular interest among men. To most men, knitting is BORING. For a variety of reasons, the interests of men and women DO tend to differ and all people tend to find others who share their interests, more interesting than those who do not. Your problem is really in comprehending that a generalization true of the population in aggregate doesn't dictate every single individual interaction. I say that absent sexuality, most men prefer the company of men, and you see it as an insult to women because YOU are in the minority that doesn't feel she fits in well with other women. But its not a statement about YOU, or any individual. Its a statement on the whole; on what is most common.

Scale it down to a really simple exercise AA: 10 men, 10 women. 8 men are primarily interested in cars and find interpersonal drama boring. 8 women are primarily interested in interpersonal drama and find cars boring. 2 men are interested in interpersonal drama. 2 women are interested in cars. People are interested in others who share their interests. Thus is it not true that 80% of men will find 80% of women boring, and 80% of women will find 80% of men boring? The same thing happens in real life on a more complicated scale. If you don't share my interests, I think you're boring. If I don't share you're interests, you think I'm boring. It is more common for the bulk of men's and women's interests to differ than to coincide imo.

If you want to believe that everything men say is a ploy to get sex, so be it... that's your choice. I bet that's a happy life. Thing is, its not far off from a similarly deluded man saying that everything a woman says is to ensure her financial security.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

usmarriedguy said:


> Are female birds shallow because they like pretty male birds?


Yes!

Okay, seriously, I'm not all that versed in bird mating habits, but I do get that looks play a role in attraction. For both men and women.

It's the "only" part, and reduction to object status that makes me unhappy. 

How big a role do you suppose looks play for bald eagles or gibbons?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Yes!
> 
> Okay, seriously, I'm not all that versed in bird mating habits, but I do get that looks play a role in attraction. For both men and women.
> 
> ...


What if male sexuality was purely objectifying? What if that's all there really was to it? What are you going to do about it? Become a lesbian?

I've never seen someone have so much problem with being sexually desired. tbh, I don't get it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

always is a sex abuse/rape survivor...the way she feels about "being sexually desired" is actually a fairly common way for survivors to feel.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> always is a sex abuse/rape survivor...the way she feels about "being sexually desired" is actually a fairly common way for survivors to feel.


I didn't know that about her. That I understand.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

usmarriedguy said:


> To me the fact that his wife just made a vague statement about him saying something that hurt her 5 years past was more likely just an excuse to justify no sex which is probably actually occurring for other reasons.





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Whatever a guy does, wouldn't you just assume its a ploy to get sex?


Sigh. These two notions sure do come up a lot on TAM. 

Men just want sex. 
Women just want to avoid sex.

Does everything really boil down to this? It seems awfully reductive to me, yet this gets repeated in some form or another again and again. 

(usmarriedguy and Dvls, I'm not picking on either of you, and not saying either of your espouse this; I just happened to be reading the thread and was struck by the juxtaposition of the two attitudes that seems to get a lot of air time here.)

I'm thinking that sometimes men really want intimacy and connection and love and acceptance. And I'm thinking that sometimes women aren't giving excuses; they are telling the truth when they say they are tired or upset or uncomfortable.

And I'm thinking that because neither gender can accept this, assumptions are made and acted upon and voila! You produce what you expected to see. 

But maybe I'm complicating things too much, and maybe most conflict between men and women really DOES boil down to the pursuit or the avoidance of just plain sex.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> Sigh. These two notions sure do come up a lot on TAM.
> 
> Men just want sex.
> Women just want to avoid sex.
> ...


Just to clarify, I wasn't arguing to the point you make above - specifically women avoiding sex. I was really pointing to a woman's tendency (or AA in particular) to lose faith or be cynical about a man's intentions. So if she's not interested in sex because he didn't do enough chores and she became resentful, he stays sexless even after he starts carrying his weight because now she thinks he's just doing it to get sex. How can that ever work out?

This notion that whatever he does to try to make amends, even if he accepts responsibility for something, doesn't count because she assumes he's doing it just to get sex.

In this case, I'm not thinking she is avoiding sex... but rather, how do you get out of the doghouse with someone of this mindset? At some point, she has to let it go and accept what she is given at face value. Otherwise, there's no point in being in the marriage imo.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You continually repeat caricatures of things I've said that are entirely inaccurate.


Ditto. 

For example, this idea that I think "everything men do is a ploy for sex" is a total misrepresentation of everything I've said.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You've taken my analysis of how male attraction instantiates, and are now trying to apply it to emotional connection in relationships. I've repeatedly said that I believe men and women begin the process from opposite ends. So because male sexual interest starts out visual and objectifying, you think I'm saying that's all it ever is?


You've also often repeated the idea that looks are absolutely the only thing that matters, that men do not develop feelings from sex because they compartmentalize it. That it is easy for them to get it on, get out, and to not at all care about their partner after the fact.

Oh, and let's not forget the arguments that men have no responsibility to have concern or care for their sex partners. And that women are all on their own to figure it out. If they should want to talk --well, that's a boner killer. 

You say here that women are opposite to men because --why exactly? Do you suppose that women aren't attracted by looks? Or that we never think of sex before the marriage date is set?

I might have to go back to that thread, but what I remember is that men objectify, don't attach meaning or emotion to sex, don't care about anything but looks, and if it weren't for sex, wouldn't even talk to women at all.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> "women as objects" - What I've actually said is that male sexuality is spontaneous desire for that which we see. This initializing factor IS objectifying. "Wow, naked body" => TAKE, POSSESS => erection. That is the sexual INITIALIZER, not some foo foo feeling of closeness.


Yes, exactly. You said that men objectify women, and more to the point think it acceptable.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> "women are utterly boring and uninteresting" - What I've actually said is that on a whole, platonic relationships with women are comparatively boring and uninteresting to men versus friendships with other men. My basis is simple and obvious: MEN TYPICALLY HAVE MORE IN COMMON WITH OTHER MEN THAN THEY DO WITH WOMEN.


Yes. Exactly. Women are boring and uninteresting because we like to knit and you like to fish.

I don't need you to explain stats to me.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This notion that whatever he does to try to make amends, even if he accepts responsibility for something, doesn't count because she assumes he's doing it just to get sex.
> 
> In this case, I'm not thinking she is avoiding sex... but rather, how do you get out of the doghouse with someone of this mindset? At some point, she has to let it go and accept what she is given at face value. Otherwise, there's no point in being in the marriage imo.


This too is a total misrepresentation of what I've said.

It would seem that many men here have found that doing more household chores isn't enough to rekindle her desire. I don't think that has anything at all to do with her questioning his motives or assuming he's just doing it for sex.

It has to do with taking entirely the wrong approach to solve the problem. Usually, but not always, at her insistence. But entirely the wrong approach nonetheless.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> But maybe I'm complicating things too much, and maybe most conflict between men and women really DOES boil down to the pursuit or the avoidance of just plain sex.


Or maybe you're not complicating it enough, as women too just want sex and some men avoid it.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Just to clarify, I wasn't arguing to the point you make above - specifically women avoiding sex. I was really pointing to a woman's tendency (or AA in particular) to lose faith or be cynical about a man's intentions. So if she's not interested in sex because he didn't do enough chores and she became resentful, he stays sexless even after he starts carrying his weight because now she thinks he's just doing it to get sex. How can that ever work out?


I don't disagree with you, I was just pointing out how it cuts both ways. You give a fine example above on how some women assume (or, more to the point, how men assume that women assume) that men are just after sex.

And then you have the oft repeated scenario in which the man asks his wife for an honest explanation of why she is not into sex, and when she gives a reason, he rejects it and says it's just an excuse to avoid sex--specifically sex with him. There is a refusal to believe that there are reasons women don't feel like sex besides not being attracted to their husbands. And yes, women are guilty of just assuming that their husbands don't believe them, too, just as men are guilty of assuming that women feel like men are just after sex, no matter what they do.

Everyone ends up feeling damned if they do, damned if they don't. 

Both sides so little understand the needs of the other. Both sides operate on a set of assumptions that only serve to widen the gulf. It takes HUGE effort to step outside of our own realities to see the relationship from the POV of the other gender. Its like trying to imagine the color xantrast. (Yeah I just made that up.) Not that we should stop trying . . .

I swear, sometimes I'm sure men and women are actually different species.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm reading this great book right now...

Challenging Casanova: Beyond the Stereotype of the Promiscuous Young Male: Andrew P. Smiler PhD: 9781118072660: Amazon.com: Books

Like the title states, the author is challenging the messages that young men grow up with messages like "all men just want to get laid", which he believes actually teaches them that they should NOT want an emotional connection, and many of them learn exactly that.

I love this book so far. It seems spot on. IOW, if young men didn't learn that the "only the guys who get laid like tile are the jerks" and other crappy messages like that, they would enter adulthood with a much wider appreciation for how love and sex work together.

Sadly...I don't think this problem is getting better, but rather, worse.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

Unfortunately it's getting worse because all of the nice guys are sexless and the jerks are getting laid like tile. I guess men are trainable after all.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

The reason I am interested in the topic at all (the subject of that book) is because I am a witness that what you said isn't true. My husband is a Sex God, gets laid like tile, and is neither a nice guy nor a jerk. Just a regular guy. And I know many other examples like him. If a person's only experience of the world of sexual partners is what they read on TAM, they will certainly believe what you just said, however.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

"Men just want sex. 
Women just want to avoid sex."

Not at all. 
As we can see from all the women posting -males not wanting sex is a pretty common problem. 

It is not women wanting to avoid sex. 
My wife has no intention to avoid sex she simply does not want it as often as I do. 

To say that a woman is avoiding sex is to say that she actually wants it but has made a conscious decision to not have it. I do not believe that this is true other than maybe some small number of cases where sex might be used to alter the spouses behavior. 

Most LD people simply do not place sex as high on their list of priorities.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

usmarriedguy said:


> "Men just want sex.
> Women just want to avoid sex."
> 
> Not at all.
> ...


I agree with you. It's not that every thread ultimately boils down to the posited dichotomy; but it seems to pop up frequently enough.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Ditto.
> 
> For example, this idea that I think "everything men do is a ploy for sex" is a total misrepresentation of everything I've said.


Funny, I seem to recall that being a question not a statement.

You said:
"But if you know you've done something to hurt someone, and you know they have trouble letting go of hurt, is it really so unreasonable to put forth extra effort to make up for that hurt?" 

This struck me odd, because from what I've read of you, you wouldn't accept the amends as anything other than a ploy to correct his problem of "sexlessness", giving you another thing to resent. SO I ASKED:

"Whatever a guy does, wouldn't you just assume its a ploy to get sex?"

So... wouldn't you?




always_alone said:


> You've also often repeated the idea that looks are absolutely the only thing that matters


No, I've never said its the only thing that matters. I said that of initial attraction and sexual desire... yes. If you're hot, most of us will have sex with you regardless of whether we love you or not. If you're terribly ugly, good luck trying to get a guy who doesn't love you to have sex with you. We may lower our standards for accessibility, but they don't disappear entirely. In addition, we require more from a woman than looks to have a relationship with her. So obviously looks are not the only thing that matters. You take a sliver of what I've said and portray it as my entire position... a classic strawman. Most of us can have sex without emotional connection just fine. On the other hand, most cannot have an emotional connection while being willingly denied sex. To us, your having sex with us in a relationship is indicative that you still desire us, and that we are secure in our relationship... that we are close. Denying us says you do not desire us, and our relationship is not secure. Who is going to stay emotionally connected to someone who doesn't desire them and makes them insecure about their situation?



always_alone said:


> , that men do not develop feelings from sex because they compartmentalize it. That it is easy for them to get it on, get out, and to not at all care about their partner after the fact.


The first sentence is correct. IMO, sex doesn't instantiate emotion in men. It can AFFIRM existing feelings of love, but not create them. Most of us can have sex without love willy nilly... hey, it feels good. Few of us can continue to love while being denied sex. Unless you've got some issue we can understand, we need to feel desired and be physically intimate to stay in love with you. Otherwise, we'll start referring to you as the great roommate. Your problem with that is what exactly?

The latter sentence is something I've never said. In all of my encounters there has been no one I didn't care at all about and I didn't love or share an emotional connection with the majority of them. Just because I don't want a relationship with someone I have sex with doesn't mean I'm mistreating them.



always_alone said:


> You say here that women are opposite to men because --why exactly? Do you suppose that women aren't attracted by looks? Or that we never think of sex before the marriage date is set?


I don't say they're opposite. I say there are a lot of differences in how each approaches sex. I think looks play a role women, but perhaps that women, more so than men, are more often interested in "more than just sex". 



always_alone said:


> I might have to go back to that thread, but what I remember is that men objectify, don't attach meaning or emotion to sex, don't care about anything but looks, and if it weren't for sex, wouldn't even talk to women at all.





always_alone said:


> Yes, exactly. You said that men objectify women, and more to the point think it acceptable.


We do... whether you like it or not, we do. That's not ALL WE DO however. Our carnal desire is for your body. We don't get erections because we feel lovey. Where I think you're mistaken is that this objectifying sexual desire for your body is somehow demeaning or means we don't like you as a person. You'll never hear a guy say "Oh baby, I feel so emotionally connected to you I'm hard as a rock!"

Our sexual desire is objectifying and that will never change. Why is it a bad thing that a healthy man is aroused by your body? Whether we love you or not is what makes sex emotionally fulfilling for us or not. Sex doesn't make us fall in love. Rather, I think it sort of reinforces our love if its there. At best, without sex, the nature of a man's love for a woman is absolutely sure to change into a less intimate, more familial love... like he may have for a sister. If you want that, more power to you.

But no, men don't get aroused thinking about how much their wives love them, or what a wonderful person she is... at least, none I've ever met. Its driven by objectification. That's why porn isn't poetry.

I'm sorry you think this is a bad thing and think any sliver of objectification is an all encompassing view of you as nothing but a hole to put it in. To be sure, my opinion on it is far too nuanced to ever change your mind.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> This too is a total misrepresentation of what I've said.
> 
> It would seem that many men here have found that doing more household chores isn't enough to rekindle her desire. I don't think that has anything at all to do with her questioning his motives or assuming he's just doing it for sex.
> 
> It has to do with taking entirely the wrong approach to solve the problem. Usually, but not always, at her insistence. But entirely the wrong approach nonetheless.


The wrong approach? What is the right approach? In the example, a woman resents carrying the entire load and wishes her husband would participate more without her nagging. Her resentment causes her to lose desire for him and they become sexless.

Once aware of the issue, the man in our example addressed the issue that caused her resentment - he is participating and carrying the load he neglected before. He's corrected his fault in the issue.

In the example, she ASSUMES his motivation is sex (why the motivation matters is beyond me, she wanted him to participate, and he's participating)... and continues to deny him solely because of that.

She explicitly defined the issue. He addressed the issue. She still refuses to be intimate. What's a guy to do? Romance wasn't an issue. Getting along wasn't an issue. According to her, "I'm sick of doing all the work" was the issue... he acknowledged his negligence and takes on his share.

What is this magic rekindling that he should he have done? Please be specific, because you'll solve a quarter of men's problems on this forum with that answer.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm sure you'll just try to dispute me, Dvls but you said: "But no, men don't get aroused thinking about how much their wives love them, or what a wonderful person she is... at least, none I've ever met. Its driven by objectification." 

... and actually my husband does get hot for sex thinking about how much I love him and what a wonderful person I am.

He *also* gets hot for me because I'm hot.

It may not be true for you, but I know it is true for many men that being in love makes them want to make love.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The wrong approach? What is the right approach? In the example, a woman resents carrying the entire load and wishes her husband would participate more without her nagging. Her resentment causes her to lose desire for him and they become sexless.
> 
> *Once aware of the issue, the man in our example addressed the issue that caused her resentment - he is participating and carrying the load he neglected before. He's corrected his fault in the issue.*
> 
> ...


If she's grown resentful after months of him neglecting responsibilities, him starting to wash dishes now doesn't immediately erase the resentment. She's been carrying it for a while, so now she is feeling disconnected from him and that doesn't go away just because he starts doing what he was supposed to be doing all along without nagging and without sex as a "reward" for it.

It's the resentment that needs to be addressed, not just the immediate cause of it. How to do that will depend on the couple. She's going to need to feel more emotionally connected to him, and that won't just happen automatically because he started doing the chores.

Maybe that's why it doesn't work to equate chores and sex.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Funny, I seem to recall that being a question not a statement.


You're right. My bad. It turned into a statement about my position but did indeed start as a question.

To which the answer is no. Once my SO shows he cares about me, my feelings, my needs, takes steps to address these, I can see that he's doing so and appreciate it.

Maybe it won't solve everything all at once, because it takes time to build trust, but effort gets noticed and helps me see how much I count in his eyes.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The latter sentence is something I've never said. In all of my encounters there has been no one I didn't care at all about and I didn't love or share an emotional connection with the majority of them. Just because I don't want a relationship with someone I have sex with doesn't mean I'm mistreating them.


There is a huge difference between not caring and mistreating. Huge. And practically everything you've ever said to me on the topic indicates lack of caring. Not mistreating, but lack of caring.




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> But no, men don't get aroused thinking about how much their wives love them, or what a wonderful person she is... at least, none I've ever met. Its driven by objectification. That's why porn isn't poetry.
> 
> I'm sorry you think this is a bad thing and think any sliver of objectification is an all encompassing view of you as nothing but a hole to put it in. To be sure, my opinion on it is far too nuanced to ever change your mind.


Yes, I think it's a bad thing if men are viewing women as they would porn. It is demeaning, it's disrespectful, and dehumanizing.

And let me be clear. It is not because men are aroused by women that I think this way. All humans are sexual beings, and it is normal and wonderful to feel sexual attraction and act on it.

But I find your blithe acceptance of objectification extremely troubling, and the way you talk about women extremely distasteful. It makes me want to stay away from men altogether, and I have to consciously remind myself that not all men are as quick to spew stereotypes or have such dehumanizing attitudes.

You're right. I see no nuance in your position because it always comes out as men having zero connection to women as people until he has magically decided to fall in love with her.

Then, all of a sudden, he cares.

.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

GettingIt said:


> I don't disagree with you, I was just pointing out how it cuts both ways. You give a fine example above on how some women assume (*or, more to the point, how men assume that women assume*) that men are just after sex.


Let's be fair here..........


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> Let's be fair here..........


I very much tried to remain fair. I think it's an issue both sides struggle with and f*ck up equally, which is why I said:



GettingIt said:


> And yes, women are guilty of just assuming that their husbands don't believe them, too, just as men are guilty of assuming that women feel like men are just after sex, no matter what they do.
> 
> Everyone ends up feeling damned if they do, damned if they don't.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Like the title states, the author is challenging the messages that young men grow up with messages like "all men just want to get laid", which he believes actually teaches them that they should NOT want an emotional connection, and many of them learn exactly that.


Sounds like an interesting read. One reason I rail so much about objectification is the constant, endless messages that women are but objects to satiate male desire, and worth nothing more than where they rank on the 1-10 scale.

It doesn't surprise me that so many men repeat these messages, as they are so bloody ubiquitous and insistent. But it saddens me how it has been taken up as "just male biology" and not to be questioned.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

That's exactly why the author *IS* questioning it. When you study the facts, they don't match up to the myths that men are raised with about their own biology.

This goes hand in hand with sl*t shaming. Finally women are able to want to have sex and not be shamed for it...yet there is still a largish portion of the population that believes they should be shamed for it. There is a lot of that around here, thinly veiled.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

GettingIt said:


> I very much tried to remain fair. I think it's an issue both sides struggle with and f*ck up equally, which is why I said:


I was questioning the fairness of this statement:



> ..or, more to the point, how men assume that women assume..


I would think that we're beyond the realm of assumption, conjecture, etc. when a woman verbalizes that sentiment to her partner directly to his face. 

And virtually every man who has lived with an LD partner has heard it expressed at one point or another, which is an awful lot of your audience here on TAM. 

To be fair, you can hardly blame a woman for holding that view (i.e. That men are just after sex) when society virtually screams it at all of us.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> That's exactly why the author *IS* questioning it. When you study the facts, they don't match up to the myths that men are raised with about their own biology.
> 
> This goes hand in hand with sl*t shaming. Finally women are able to want to have sex and not be shamed for it...yet there is still a largish portion of the population that believes they should be shamed for it. There is a lot of that around here, thinly veiled.


**** doesn't mean that someone likes to have sex. **** means someone is indiscriminate about their sexual choices and maybe carrying on with several intimate relationships at the SAME TIME. It is irresponsible.

Male ****s should be shamed too. Women need to stop raising the demand for these men who have no responsibility when it comes to who they lay with.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> I would think that we're beyond the realm of assumption, conjecture, etc. when a woman verbalizes that sentiment to her partner directly to his face.
> 
> And virtually every man who has lived with an LD partner has heard it expressed at one point or another, which is an awful lot of your audience here on TAM.
> 
> To be fair, you can hardly blame a woman for holding that view (i.e. That men are just after sex) when society virtually screams it at all of us.


Yes, plenty of women have expressed that the only thing that motivates men is getting sex. And plenty of men have expressed that any reason women give for not wanting sex is just an excuse to cover the truth. 

My point was to go one step further and say that, because both of those views get plenty of air time, men assume that women must feel that way about men, and women assume that men must feel that way about men . . . even if those views were not verbally expressed. 

I certainly do not think that men are more likely to assume things about women, or women about men. Just pointing out that on top of the problems caused when those sentiments are explicitly expressed, we also have problems caused when those sentiments are assumed. 

I have seen them both expressed and assumed here on TAM.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

treyvion...You are simply doing more sl*t shaming on your post #202.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> treyvion...You are simply doing more sl*t shaming on your post #202.


I believe male sl*t's should be shamed. It's an irresponsible behavior and should not be promoted.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Shaming doesn't work to change any given behavior, and this has been shown over and over. In fact, it promotes the behavior.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Shaming doesn't work to change any given behavior, and this has been shown over and over. In fact, it promotes the behavior.


true, they will strengthen themself in their ways. Being a **** should not be admired, and it needs to get credit for being as irresponsible as it is.

There was just a series on about women who were with several men at the same time, and they pin some kids on a loving man who they knew would be a good father, and they find out 20 years later...

It all started as a result of her actions and her LIE.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sure you'll just try to dispute me, Dvls but you said: "But no, men don't get aroused thinking about how much their wives love them, or what a wonderful person she is... at least, none I've ever met. Its driven by objectification."
> 
> ... and actually my husband does get hot for sex thinking about how much I love him and what a wonderful person I am.
> 
> ...


So what do you suppose these men are doing? Sitting back one day thinking "ohh... what light through yonder window breaks... tis the east and my wife is the sun!!" and that gets them all hot and bothered for their wives?

If you say so. Guess that's why women read poetry to their husbands instead of wear lingerie when they want some action. Oh wait...

So yeah. I disagree and we'll leave it at that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

norajane said:


> If she's grown resentful after months of him neglecting responsibilities, him starting to wash dishes now doesn't immediately erase the resentment. She's been carrying it for a while, so now she is feeling disconnected from him and that doesn't go away just because he starts doing what he was supposed to be doing all along without nagging and without sex as a "reward" for it.
> 
> It's the resentment that needs to be addressed, not just the immediate cause of it. How to do that will depend on the couple. She's going to need to feel more emotionally connected to him, and that won't just happen automatically because he started doing the chores.
> 
> Maybe that's why it doesn't work to equate chores and sex.


I wouldn't think it would come back immediately. But if she carries that resentment forever when the cause has LONG been removed, then the ball is in her court at that point imo.

This all presumes that all the connection building behaviors of a normal healthy relationship still exist. If you can't feel connected to someone because of past resentment when everything in the relationship is going well, then you really need to learn how to "let it go".


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I wouldn't think it would come back immediately. But if she carries that resentment forever when the cause has LONG been removed, then the ball is in her court at that point imo.
> 
> This all presumes that all the connection building behaviors of a normal healthy relationship still exist. If you can't feel connected to someone because of past resentment when everything in the relationship is going well, then you really need to learn how to "let it go".


It's hard to let it go when you feel marginalized, taken for granted, disrespected or used...which is how people tend to feel when they've been doing the lion's share while the other isn't pulling their weight. 

That's the pile of resentment that needs to be worked through over time, and with acknowledgment and apologies - true understanding of what the other partner has been feeling all the while and true regret for putting them through that. Even if they start pulling their weight but do not acknowledge the other person's feelings and how they contributed to it and express regret, just doing the chores honestly wouldn't be enough, I don't think, to resolve the resentment.

But you're right, if they can't work through it, then that connection isn't coming back.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

norajane said:


> It's hard to let it go when you feel marginalized, taken for granted, disrespected or used...which is how people tend to feel when they've been doing the lion's share while the other isn't pulling their weight.
> 
> That's the pile of resentment that needs to be worked through over time, and with acknowledgment and apologies - true understanding of what the other partner has been feeling all the while and true regret for putting them through that. Even if they start pulling their weight but do not acknowledge the other person's feelings and how they contributed to it and express regret, just doing the chores honestly wouldn't be enough, I don't think, to resolve the resentment.
> 
> But you're right, if they can't work through it, then that connection isn't coming back.


I feel like the acknowledgment, apology and what not would come with the discussion about the lack of sex that revealed the reason she detached was his lack of participation. To my thinking, that conversation ends with a promise to do better and follow through on it. Sorry if I gave the impression that he should just "do the chores" he was neglecting without any acknowledgment. Seems odd... I thought acknowledging that he'd been neglectful and apologizing would be a given.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

norajane said:


> It's hard to let it go when you feel marginalized, taken for granted, disrespected or used...which is how people tend to feel when they've been doing the lion's share while the other isn't pulling their weight.
> 
> That's the pile of resentment that needs to be worked through over time, and with acknowledgment and apologies - true understanding of what the other partner has been feeling all the while and true regret for putting them through that. Even if they start pulling their weight but do not acknowledge the other person's feelings and how they contributed to it and express regret, just doing the chores honestly wouldn't be enough, I don't think, to resolve the resentment.
> 
> But you're right, if they can't work through it, then that connection isn't coming back.


Resentment and pain is a hell of a b1tch to work through and it can take many years till forever to get past it.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

norajane said:


> It's hard to let it go when you feel marginalized, taken for granted, disrespected or used...which is how people tend to feel when they've been doing the lion's share while the other isn't pulling their weight.


Letting go of resentment is very hard. Sometimes I think I've really put it to rest for good and sometimes I don't. 

Marginalizing, using and taking for granted out of lingering resentment over being marginalized, used and taken for granted strikes me as an absolute catastrophe when multiplied by two, with both partners doing it.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

ocotillo said:


> Letting go of resentment is very hard. Sometimes I think I've really put it to rest for good and sometimes I don't.
> 
> Marginalizing, using and taking for granted out of lingering resentment over being marginalized, used and taken for granted strikes me as an absolute catastrophe when multiplied by two, with both partners doing it.


Marginalization SUCKS, there are qualities I get marginalized on and they will erode if I allow it. The key is to not allow it, but better yet is to not mess with people who will do it to you in the first place.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> To be fair, you can hardly blame a woman for holding that view (i.e. That men are just after sex) when society virtually screams it at all of us.


Exactly. Society, media, men, women, dating advice, marital advice, TAM posters... a veritable cacophony.

The voice that says men are emotional and need connection is vanishingly small.

It's sad, really, as it's a great disservice to men. Yet usually they still prefer the "men just want sex" line.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Exactly. Society, media, men, women, dating advice, marital advice, TAM posters... a veritable cacophony.
> 
> The voice that says men are emotional and need connection is vanishingly small.
> 
> It's sad, really, as it's a great disservice to men. Yet usually they still prefer the "men just want sex" line.


And likewise, it's pushed so hard that women don't enjoy marital sex. That most marriages have infrequent sex, that men beg for it, and women enjoy turning it down.

My STBW talked about this a little bit a while ago. She and one of her coworkers were talking, and her coworker was astonished at how much sex we have, and how my STBW actually enjoyed it that much. It raised the question of 'Is there something wrong with us?' No, not at all. There is nothing wrong with us. Changing a relationship to conform to societal steroetypes is wrong.

I'm not afraid to just say how I feel, and have never been one to be affected by peer pressure. I have no problems going against stereotypes, and I think the fact that I am able to let my STBW know just what makes me tick emotionally and physically, and help her understand that a lot of things she thought she knew about men don't apply to me, is part of why we are in such a good place in our relationship.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

samyeagar said:


> And likewise, it's pushed so hard that women don't enjoy marital sex. That most marriages have infrequent sex, that men beg for it, and women enjoy turning it down.


Indeed. It's worse than that. Women are told from the get-go that we're not supposed to like sex, and if we do we're shameless slvts that will indiscriminately give it up for anyone.

That if we like sex, we're unworthy and *unmarriable*. But then men get upset that the "pure" and "chaste" ones don't turn into wildcats once the ring is on.

Messed up! I'm with you. Never mind the stereotypes. Let's be true to ourselves.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Exactly. Society, media, men, women, dating advice, marital advice, TAM posters... a veritable cacophony.
> 
> The voice that says men are emotional and need connection is vanishingly small.
> 
> It's sad, really, as it's a great disservice to men. Yet usually they still prefer the "men just want sex" line.


If chicks had d1cks, then things would be different. Say the world converted and now chicks have d1cks, and they will not allow penetration of any other type, and these are these hyper Alpha, controlling little guys too who will network against you, use weapons, all systems against you...

But women were on the moon, actual women who like men and like being women. you could get to the moon, but you have to wait a year. Do you think your going to be cowering to, putting these chicks with d1cks on a pedastal for some p0ssy you will never ever get?


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

FrenchFry said:


> trevyion, I saw your other thread about this and I think you have this assumption that women want to be more like men. I think this is incorrect and the response to what you quoted is off-base.
> 
> This is seriously the only place that even every once in a while I hear that men have an emotional connection to sex. It's probably in other marriage books and therapists who study this kind of thing also say it. But if you aren't coming here, investing in building your marriage or going to therapy the chance that the message "men have a wide range of emotions as well and would like the chance to express them (ps one of these way is sexually)" is hilariously small.
> 
> I don't want men to be more like women, I just want them to have the chance to fully express the wide range of emotions that humans have. I don't want women to be more like men, but I want to have what I am saying just as equally regarded without being discounted as emotional. A balance that acknowledges that we are human before we fall into gendered roles.


I want the same thing. I have daughters. Definately don't want them giving their bodies to some selfish a$$hole who is only thinking about themself.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

FrenchFry said:


> This is seriously the only place that even every once in a while I hear that men have an emotional connection to sex.


It's so bizarre to me. Of all the reasons I could be considered a statistical outlier, I wouldn't have thought that this would be one.

Well, it's true for me, and I guess I don't particularly give a crap if that makes me unusual.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I have always known men who were overall well balanced emotionally and weren't "just looking for sex"...so I guess I have learned by what I've seen in the world that the stereotype isn't true for all guys.

FrenchFry...there are hundreds of excellent articles, ideas and authors that promote a healthy, balanced view of men and masculinity here:

The Good Men Project — The Conversation No One Else Is Having


----------



## BostonBruins32 (Nov 2, 2013)

Interesting read here. I'm probably late to the party, and dont feel like reading all pages on here... but have any of the husbands on this site shown this article to thier wife?

My LD wife refuses to really acknowledge (or care) about the importance of sex to me in our marriage. I was tempted to show her this article, but I am not sure there is huge value in it.

Another question, have any husbands on here tried to refrain from initiating sex after heavy rejection for a long time? I ask because I have been doing this in an attempt to adjust my expectations and lower my drive. Seems to work for the most part, but I still have my days. I was just wondering if anyone has had success long term with a similar approach..


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

BostonBruins32 said:


> Interesting read here. I'm probably late to the party, and dont feel like reading all pages on here... but have any of the husbands on this site shown this article to thier wife?
> 
> My LD wife refuses to really acknowledge (or care) about the importance of sex to me in our marriage. I was tempted to show her this article, but I am not sure there is huge value in it.
> 
> Another question, have any husbands on here tried to refrain from initiating sex after heavy rejection for a long time? I ask because I have been doing this in an attempt to adjust my expectations and lower my drive. Seems to work for the most part, but I still have my days. I was just wondering if anyone has had success long term with a similar approach..


There was a guy on here who said he gets rejected 7 out of 10 times, but he ends up getting it 3 times a week. He tried to ask for it less, but got it even less. So he has to deal with the rejection.

I don't know if I would mess around trying to lower my sex drive. However, I know you want to minimize your rejections while getting the amount of sex you need.

Perhaps make an agreement. It might not be as sexy, but some people are routine and schedule driven, so if they knew to expect it 2 or 3 times a week at this certain time, that feels better to them and more doable than being ready when you ask.


----------



## BostonBruins32 (Nov 2, 2013)

treyvion said:


> There was a guy on here who said he gets rejected 7 out of 10 times, but he ends up getting it 3 times a week. He tried to ask for it less, but got it even less. So he has to deal with the rejection.
> 
> I don't know if I would mess around trying to lower my sex drive. However, I know you want to minimize your rejections while getting the amount of sex you need.
> 
> Perhaps make an agreement. It might not be as sexy, but some people are routine and schedule driven, so if they knew to expect it 2 or 3 times a week at this certain time, that feels better to them and more doable than being ready when you ask.


Interesting. I used to attempt about 8-10 times per month, with a success rate of only one out of those times. Esssentially monthly sex. For a while I felt guilty for initiating so much, but the article does hit home in offering comfort as to why i try so much. 

At this point its been about 35 days with a week of being sick and a week of period in the mix. I heard a lovely sentiment in a book i've been reading "why would you want to have sex with someone who doesnt want to have sex with you". This really struck home with me, and has been something of a driving factor in resisting initiation. The problem is it doesnt cure the underlying issue. It just eases the blow of being sexless. 

I'm dissapointed her sex drive is low, but to be honest, I'm most bothered by my wife's inability to take my "need to have sex" seriously. The article is right, sex isnt just about the physical act, but rather a closeness. 

I havent had this blunt of a conversation with her, but sometimes I think about what I do for her because its important to her. Above and beyond acts of kindness, all the way down to splitting chores/parenting (rather than sitting on my ass after work). Its real hard to be excited about opening a car door for her, picking up a random card for her, etc when she is not interested in meeting my needs or holding her end of the marriage bargain. Oops..sorry about the vent.


----------



## Jung_admirer (Jun 26, 2013)

FrenchFry said:


> trevyion, I saw your other thread about this and I think you have this assumption that women want to be more like men. I think this is incorrect and the response to what you quoted is off-base.
> 
> This is seriously the only place that even every once in a while I hear that men have an emotional connection to sex. It's probably in other marriage books and therapists who study this kind of thing also say it. But if you aren't coming here, investing in building your marriage or going to therapy the chance that the message "men have a wide range of emotions as well and would like the chance to express them (ps one of these way is sexually)" is hilariously small.
> 
> I don't want men to be more like women, I just want them to have the chance to fully express the wide range of emotions that humans have. I don't want women to be more like men, but I want to have what I am saying just as equally regarded without being discounted as emotional. A balance that acknowledges that we are human before we fall into gendered roles.


Men and women have the same range of emotions. The differences appear as the cultural collective encourages suppression vs expression along gender lines. In the most basic sense, this how the evolution of patriarchy has failed young men. Bear in mind that women most certainly participated in the evolution of the masculine archetype.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

/* rant warning - this will likely stir the pot a bit for some people, but I just felt like ranting */

I don't feel its this black and white contest between claims of "needing emotional connection" and "just want sex".

Both exist in every man depending on circumstance and progression. In one case, he might just want sex/pleasure, in another, sex is a way that he perceives his emotional connection validated (possibly the case even if he's not aware of its role in validating him). Its not a black and white issue, or a popular culture contest between the two. They exist simultaneously in every man.

I think the most common behavior is for a man to seek sexual gratification (few of us go looking for love or security) and no emotional connection is necessary at all, but if he *does* have an emotional connection with a woman, sex takes on an additional role of providing emotional security. I think the confusion here, and even the media messages, are simply the inability to convey the nuance of the role of sex for a man when he's emotionally attached versus the way men perceive the instantiation of desire. IMO, sex doesn't cause the emotional attaching, nor does emotion drive sexual interest or change how his desire instantiates (this is where the objectification lies). Rather, I think the emotional component in sex for men is more a sort of proof that he is justified in having emotionally invested in this woman and that he's secure. It is emotionally fulfilling this way.

It seems that most women approach things the other way around; with emotional security placed before their gratification. To me this makes sense if you view female sexuality as more responsive (more conditions/pre-requisites), and male sexuality spontaneous (fewer conditions/pre-requisites). So its like women want this proof of value before having sex, and for men, sex is an important way we feel proof of value.

I flatly reject the attempts to place female concepts of emotional connection above sex, or dismissiveness of the nature of men's desire for sex, because it dismisses the affirmative role that sex plays in male emotional connection. Deriding objectification in sparking desire, and the devaluing of sex as some sort of lesser, selfish, base interest... just stomps on male nature because the kinder, gentler, less sex focused feminine "emotional first" perspective is thought more PC.

I'm totally going to draw flames with this conjecture, but I see two kinds of men who support those positions. The men who will tell women whatever they want to hear - some because they're willfully deceptive, others for their own lack of depth of thought... its easier to just agree when you don't care and no good comes from making the counterpoint. The second group of men are those who didn't really get much interest, probably before adulthood even, and subsequently pull off a mental reinvention of themselves as emotionally "deep" (a way of asserting control over the scarcity imo). Just more sexual strategy that I doubt people can even peel away from their own perception of their personality to even realize. The men just out there being men, doing what they want and sexually pursuing who they want, when they want, why they want... whether they like her @ss or her personality, don't bother with these personality defining strategies.

That most men subconsciously desire this non-strategic state, is why the "just want sex" culture exists imo. They all wish that they didn't have to bullsh*t. Our lust IS objectifying. Sex can be totally non-emotional and self-gratifying, OR it can be emotionally affirming an existing connection. I think the "blame it on the culture" mentality is bogus. If we really rejected these things, they would be popularly banned, and we'd be like a repressive Islamic state. Yet, the more you allow people to do as they wish, the more and more such media exists.

When a man says he doesn't need any emotional connection to want sex, he's telling the truth. And when a man says, I need sex to feel an emotional connection to my wife, he's also telling the truth. And there is no contradiction.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

treyvion said:


> Do you think your going to be cowering to, putting these chicks with d1cks on a pedastal for some p0ssy you will never ever get?





treyvion said:


> I want the same thing. I have daughters. Definately don't want them giving their bodies to some selfish a$$hole who is only thinking about themself.


So ....what? You're going to tell them not to think for themselves,not to pursue their dreams, and to make sure to pander to everyman's sexual ideal so that men will kowtow to them and put their pvssy on a pedestal?

Gawd, I hope not!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Indeed. It's worse than that. Women are told from the get-go that we're not supposed to like sex, and if we do we're shameless slvts that will indiscriminately give it up for anyone.
> 
> That if we like sex, we're unworthy and *unmarriable*. But then men get upset that the "pure" and "chaste" ones don't turn into wildcats once the ring is on.
> 
> Messed up! I'm with you. Never mind the stereotypes. Let's be true to ourselves.


Didn't we just discuss on another thread that the current surveys report that women feel pressured to HAVE sex, not remain "chaste"?

I wonder if there's an age bias going on here.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

treyvion said:


> If chicks had d1cks, then things would be different. Say the world converted and now chicks have d1cks, and they will not allow penetration of any other type, and these are these hyper Alpha, controlling little guys too who will network against you, use weapons, all systems against you...
> 
> But women were on the moon, actual women who like men and like being women. you could get to the moon, but you have to wait a year. Do you think your going to be cowering to, putting these chicks with d1cks on a pedastal for some p0ssy you will never ever get?


I read this and I don't know what any of it meant. 

But for some reason it made me smile.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I have always known men who were overall well balanced emotionally and weren't "just looking for sex"...


This implies that a man "just looking for sex" is emotionally unbalanced. Is that what you meant to imply?


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

BostonBruins32 said:


> Interesting. I used to attempt about 8-10 times per month, with a success rate of only one out of those times. Esssentially monthly sex. For a while I felt guilty for initiating so much, but the article does hit home in offering comfort as to why i try so much.
> 
> At this point its been about 35 days with a week of being sick and a week of period in the mix. I heard a lovely sentiment in a book i've been reading "why would you want to have sex with someone who doesnt want to have sex with you". This really struck home with me, and has been something of a driving factor in resisting initiation. The problem is it doesnt cure the underlying issue. It just eases the blow of being sexless.
> 
> ...


Your not alone. All of your acts of kindness and service, feel like they bleed you out little by little, for her to do nothing in return. Been there done that.

And like the title of the book "why would you want to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you?"

It's about self respect.

Maybe if you initiated 30 times a month you would get it 3 times a month.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

always_alone said:


> So ....what? You're going to tell them not to think for themselves,not to pursue their dreams, and to make sure to pander to everyman's sexual ideal so that men will kowtow to them and put their pvssy on a pedestal?
> 
> Gawd, I hope not!


They should think for themself. However they will have to interact with males too. And they will need help from them from time to time also.

I wouldn't mind them being good in the sack, but not spreading themself out for everyone to sample. An excellent relationship partner and friend who gets their **** accomplished.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Didn't we just discuss on another thread that the current surveys report that women feel pressured to HAVE sex, not remain "chaste"?
> 
> I wonder if there's an age bias going on here.


One poorly constructed survey concluded this. But you don't have to look too far to see the contradictory pressures put on women to be (a) super sexual goodtime girls (b)who are virignal and chaste (or are unworthy of LTR. Goodtime girls are, of course, always popular for sex.)


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yet, the more you allow people to do as they wish, the more and more such media exists.


I question your insinuation of cause here. We also happen to live in a culture that has the highest rates of alienation, loneliness, and disconnect from our fellow humans.

I don't think this is a coincidence.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

treyvion said:


> They should think for themself.


Good. Now can you see that thinking for themselves may lead them to want to be well-educated, or professional, or to pursue their ambitions to succeed? And that perhaps some men might find this intimidating and start harping on them as to how they are acting like they have d!cks?


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Good. Now can you see that thinking for themselves may lead them to want to be well-educated, or professional, or to pursue their ambitions to succeed? And that perhaps some men might find this intimidating and start harping on them as to how they they are acting like they have d!cks?


Well they should, but a man should not slow that process down one bit. A man should be their most supportive ally, not a deterrence to their goals.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This implies that a man "just looking for sex" is emotionally unbalanced. Is that what you meant to imply?


I'm implying that the stereo type isn't true for all guys, which is exactly what I said.

Yes, some guys and some women are emotionally unbalanced. Most are not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I question your insinuation of cause here. We also happen to live in a culture that has the highest rates of alienation, loneliness, and disconnect from our fellow humans.
> 
> I don't think this is a coincidence.


So sexualization by the media and in our culture is the cause of alienation, loneliness and disconnect?

I think I'd point to hyper individualism and the breakdown of traditional social outlets for that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm implying that the stereo type isn't true for all guys, which is exactly what I said.
> 
> Yes, some guys and some women are emotionally unbalanced. Most are not.


I wasn't being argumentative. Emotional balance and not wanting "just sex" were tied together in your post, even if you were only referring to "some guys". So I was inquiring as to your intent in linking them.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Actually what my post was targeted at was the stereotype that "men just want sex". I made no other suggestion or implication, other than that the stereotype isn't true for most men.

You are reading between the lines, but you don't understand where I'm coming from so you are seeing something that isn't there.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> You are reading between the lines, but you don't understand where I'm coming from so you are seeing something that isn't there.


Accepted. I do read between the lines a lot and that "and" stood out to me.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So sexualization by the media and in our culture is the cause of alienation, loneliness and disconnect?


That's not what I said. You were implying that objectification and sexualization is just how we really want to be - an exercise of our freedom. I'm questioning whether that's true.

It may be what *you* really want, but what a *lot* of people are craving/missing in their lives is acceptance and emotional connection.

Hypersexualization and objectification stand in the way of that.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That most men subconsciously desire this non-strategic state, is why the "just want sex" culture exists imo. They all wish that they didn't have to bullsh*t. Our lust IS objectifying. Sex can be totally non-emotional and self-gratifying


I agree that men who say this sort of stuff are probably telling the truth, but will go one step further than FW and suggest that these men are likely cut off from their emotional selves.

They are those that didn't get much interest, probably before adulthood even, and subsequently pull off a reinvention of themselves as "studs" who bang women and are supa playas, who can never be hurt or rejected because they've decided that women's purpose is nothing more than to gratify men, and to be used up and discarded.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

always_alone said:


> I agree that men who say this sort of stuff are probably telling the truth, but will go one step further than FW and suggest that these men are likely cut off from their emotional selves.
> 
> They are those that didn't get much interest, probably before adulthood even, and subsequently pull off a reinvention of themselves as "studs" who bang women and are supa playas, who can never be hurt or rejected because they've decided that women's purpose is nothing more than to gratify men, and to be used up and discarded.


I'm not going to say it's right or wrong, but it is a way to be. A way of life.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> That's not what I said. You were implying that objectification and sexualization is just how we really want to be - an exercise of our freedom. I'm questioning whether that's true.
> 
> It may be what *you* really want, but what a *lot* of people are craving/missing in their lives is acceptance and emotional connection.
> 
> Hypersexualization and objectification stand in the way of that.


For most people, I don't think its a matter of what they want to be. I'd guess few people give it any thought really. I think the culture, absent coercive enforcement, is as much a reflection of our base nature as it is an influence ON us. Its a feedback loop of sorts. It is defined by our collective base nature, even as we are defined/influenced by it.

Acceptance and support can be found in social clubs, entirely independent of our cultural proclivity to sexualization and objectification. I just feel the disconnectedness many people feel in modern life is more about the decline in these social connections, not our attitudes about sex. It used to be expected that everyone went to church and people would check up on you if you didn't show. Men and women used to commonly be involved in lodges, fraternities, and clubs. I look around and all those organizations are just full of elderly people today. Seems the norm for rest, excepting active church goers, is a rather isolated existence with few close social ties. Heck, most people aren't even very close with their neighbors.

Kinda wonder if that was a little different decades ago.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I agree that men who say this sort of stuff are probably telling the truth, but will go one step further than FW and suggest that these men are likely cut off from their emotional selves.
> 
> They are those that didn't get much interest, probably before adulthood even, and subsequently pull off a reinvention of themselves as "studs" who bang women and are supa playas, who can never be hurt or rejected because they've decided that women's purpose is nothing more than to gratify men, and to be used up and discarded.


I'm sure those exist, but saying every man who just wants to lay the hot chick he's checking out is a loser wannabe stud seems far fetched. Wanting to have sex with that hot chick makes him emotionally cut off?

I'm a guy who reinvented himself to draw more interest from women. I don't see myself as a stud, I just wanted better dates. I don't really feel hurt or rejection in dating... does that make me emotionally cut off? If someone decides I'm not for her, well, there's more out there and that's just life. I'd feel hurt if I thought she was all I could get maybe. I'd feel hurt if I had invested a lot of time and emotion in her and was surprised by a sudden cruel rejection.

I don't know what it means to use up and discard a woman. Do you run out of something? Is sex an automatic life commitment?

How come so few men complain about women using them up and discarding them? Are women just better people?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

You do seem emotionally cut off to me, Dvls, based on many, many things you have said and argued for or against here in many posts. That's why I don't think this type of discussion will ever get anywhere with you. This isn't an insult, just my opinion of where you are coming from.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> You do seem emotionally cut off to me, Dvls, based on many, many things you have said and argued for or against here in many posts. That's why I don't think this type of discussion will ever get anywhere with you. This isn't an insult, just my opinion of where you are coming from.


Fair enough, but tough thing to assess from forum arguments. I don't see myself as any different from the multitude of men. My assessment is simply that we do not process/express emotion the way women do, so its very easy for a woman to perceive a man as somehow emotionally dysfunctional. In the same vein, we think you're over emotional and so much of it is useless worry and mental knot tying. I've just always chalked this up to gender. Few I know break the mold.

I have had periods of time in my life where I intentionally detached, and there's no mistaking me for a very emotional person, but cut off... I can't see it. I don't get close to many people, but I get very close to those I do. You want to tap into a man's emotional network, get him to talk about who is proud of him, and who he owes a debt of gratitude or allegiance.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think the culture, absent coercive enforcement, is as much a reflection of our base nature as it is an influence ON us. Its a feedback loop of sorts. It is defined by our collective base nature, even as we are defined/influenced by it.


If culture were determined by biological imperative, there wouldn't be the phenomenal cultural diversity that you see. Women are not always objectified or hypersexualized, for example. True, oppression of women has a long history, but it isn't inevitable. 

Our Western culture, however, is Victorian-era hangover, with extremely messed up attitudes towards nudity and sexuality.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I just feel the disconnectedness many people feel in modern life is more about the decline in these social connections, not our attitudes about sex.


And again, I don't think sexualization/objectification necessarily causes the disconnect. I see it more as a symptom of it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm sure those exist, but saying every man who just wants to lay the hot chick he's checking out is a loser wannabe stud seems far fetched. Wanting to have sex with that hot chick makes him emotionally cut off?


It's the other way around. Being emotionally cut off is what makes it reasonable/desirable for a guy to "just want to lay the hot chick."

She's not even a person to him, just a random collection of body parts that he wants to rub up against until he ejaculates. Then he's done. That's what I mean by use up and discard: to treat someone as though they are a fleshlight.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> there are so many threads in this section alone that detail exactly how women use up men and then, when a better opportunity arranges itself, walk away.


QFT! TAM is chock full of men that have been used up and discarded by women. 

Or used up and kept on a leash for yet more use.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

*Re: Re: Interesting Article: Why (and How) Sex is Important to Men*



always_alone said:


> QFT! TAM is chock full of men that have been used up and discarded by women.
> 
> Or used up and kept on a leash for yet more use.


I feel used ...
And I dig it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I feel used ...
> And I dig it.


If it were remotely close to being true, you wouldn't phrase it like that.

That this is such a common attitude, though, makes me think men actually hate women or are utterly oblivious.

Hate because they really don't seem to care about anything at all but ranking her hotness so they can brag to their friends.

Oblivious because they can't connect the dots between their own choices and the deep hurts they suffer.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Cyclist said:


> So the issue is she will not try harder sexually with me because I do not come home every night and keep the house spotless.
> 
> Now maybe I am selfish or stupid but it seems to me that these are two different playing fields. If she gets the same satisfaction out of a spotless house than she does out of a great sex life than I think its out of whack.


I tend to agree. As bizarre as it may seem to most of us, the ultra clean house may be as important to her as a good sex life is to you. However, letting your relationship take a back seat to that is harmful, and she should see that.

I think another big issue is proportionality. You, as far as I can tell, aren't asking for a perfect-to-the-nth-degree sex life. But she is asking for that level of devotion from you to her wants, and though you do much she withholds even an ordinary sex life.

Is it possible she has other reasons for avoiding sex but uses the cleaning issue as a convenient excuse? Does she have overall control issues where she has to have everything just so and/or you completely into doing her thing before giving back?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

*Re: Re: Interesting Article: Why (and How) Sex is Important to Men*



always_alone said:


> If it were remotely close to being true, you wouldn't phrase it like that.
> 
> That this is such a common attitude, though, makes me think men actually hate women or are utterly oblivious.
> 
> ...


I was being sarcastic.

But ... I'm going to make it very clear that for me, sex is about connecting with someone. I don't much care about my biological imperative, evolutionary psychology, body agenda, or media culture.

Took me a very very long time to come to terms with my sexual self. I have no idea if other guys actively evaluate their sexuality or not. Because in general its simply presumed that we know what sex is, where stuff goes, and what we are supposed to do.

I have made no secret of the fact that I have a host of sexual issues. I CAN'T do 'wham bam thank you ma'am'.

Sex isn't and cannot be about 'getting off', not for me. It is quite simply the most physically and emotionally overt act or expression of intimacy that I can share with another human being. 

If anything, I have been on the flip-side of sexual preconceptions expressed by women. Believe me, I don't hate women. 

For all of the generalizing that understandably is easy for us to do, I try to never lose the perspective that everyone has a story to tell. TAM has only reinforced that notion as I've become familiar with so many peoples stories.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

always_alone said:


> QFT! TAM is chock full of men that have been used up and discarded by women.
> 
> Or used up and kept on a leash for yet more use.


While I agree,
I do not think that this particular forum represents an average sample of men. (or even close)

But I am not sure that you should be the one to point that out since in my view you represent the same attitude from the opposite side. Different sides of the same coin. 

Naturally there will be a lot of people here who have had bad experiences with relationships or life in general and be bitter about the opposite sex. 

If one misses something in a previous relationship I do not know that it is not understandable if they are more focused on that thing (often sex or emotional attachment)


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

DTO said:


> I tend to agree. As bizarre as it may seem to most of us, the ultra clean house may be as important to her as a good sex life is to you. However, letting your relationship take a back seat to that is harmful, and she should see that.
> 
> I think another big issue is proportionality. You, as far as I can tell, aren't asking for a perfect-to-the-nth-degree sex life. But she is asking for that level of devotion from you to her wants, and though you do much she withholds even an ordinary sex life.
> 
> Is it possible she has other reasons for avoiding sex but uses the cleaning issue as a convenient excuse? Does she have overall control issues where she has to have everything just so and/or you completely into doing her thing before giving back?



Most of the time yes. She has overall control issues. She likes to have control and she does it in her own little sweet way...to a point. Then she gets disgusted and resentful. 

Its just not going to work out between. I am trying to accept that fact. Making plans. its difficult but I am spinning my wheels.


----------



## Cyclist (Aug 22, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I was being sarcastic.
> 
> But ... I'm going to make it very clear that for me, sex is about connecting with someone. I don't much care about my biological imperative, evolutionary psychology, body agenda, or media culture.
> 
> ...



I agree. I have a difficult time being sexually active with someone I do not have an attachment with. Its just as much an emotional thing with me as it is a physical thing. 

I am just not a meet some chick in a bar take her home guy. Not that i have not done that in my past life but in the aftermath I did not feel right. I think as you grow older and as you come to terms with yourself sexually you understand your needs more. 

I am sure there are many woman out there who are jaded to think that we are not emotional in this regard because there are many men out there that do not see it as an emotional act. Just physical. Enough of that would probably jade anyone.

So just like there are LD people, men and woman, there are HD people. There are men and woman who view their sexuality as an emotional AND physical connection, and there are those that do not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> It's the other way around. Being emotionally cut off is what makes it reasonable/desirable for a guy to "just want to lay the hot chick."
> 
> She's not even a person to him, just a random collection of body parts that he wants to rub up against until he ejaculates. Then he's done. That's what I mean by use up and discard: to treat someone as though they are a fleshlight.


Of course we recognize she's a person. Its just that our desire to find out anything else about her was seeded in that lust for her body. I've never treated anyone like a sex servant, much less a device... and I'd still characterize my lust as objectifying.

If every guy who wants to have sex with the hot chick is emotionally cut off, then wow... most guys are emotionally cut off I'd estimate. The notion is absurd. Most of us are not as you would find ideal, so we're all disordered?

Mars and venus could have been much shorter books. Most of the discussion of men could have just been "men are emotionally cut off".

No. Men just experience emotion and sexual desire in a male way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> If culture were determined by biological imperative, there wouldn't be the phenomenal cultural diversity that you see. Women are not always objectified or hypersexualized, for example. True, oppression of women has a long history, but it isn't inevitable.
> 
> Our Western culture, however, is Victorian-era hangover, with extremely messed up attitudes towards nudity and sexuality.
> 
> And again, I don't think sexualization/objectification necessarily causes the disconnect. I see it more as a symptom of it.


Name a sexually non-repressive culture past "village state" where women were/are not sexualized. Its not a post-Victoria hangover. Women were sexualized LONG before the Victorian era. Women have been sexualized for as long as man's thoughts got past fertility. Even the ancient Egyptians depicted women performing sex acts.

You may detest it, but yes, its a deeply ingrained element of our being that expresses itself in culture again and again. Even some men recognize that some problems can come with it, and that's where you get certain social mores, legislation and sexual repression.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> . Women were sexualized LONG before the Victorian era.


Sex, sexuality, depictions of sex have existed forever. The particular sort of sexualization that posits women as trophy objects is totally Victorian-era hangover.

Although you're right that other cultures have viewed women as chattel.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If every guy who wants to have sex with the hot chick is emotionally cut off, then wow... most guys are emotionally cut off I'd estimate. The notion is absurd.


I didn't say every guy who experiences sexual attraction objectifies, as I completely disagree with your basic premise that all sexual attraction is objectification.

It's the treating of women as objects for male gratification that I see as a sign of emotional disconnect. 

Lots of guys don't see women as people. Just a good looking body that they want to stick their genitals into. 

(I seem to recall you telling me that all guys were biologically programmed to always be like this, and I just had to suck that up or stop dealing with men. Glad to see you recognize we're actually people.)


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I was being sarcastic.


It occurred to me sometime later that this might be so. Sarcasm can be hard to read. 

(Or maybe I'm just slow.)


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

*Re: Re: Interesting Article: Why (and How) Sex is Important to Men*



always_alone said:


> It occurred to me sometime later that this might be so. Sarcasm can be hard to read.
> 
> (Or maybe I'm just slow.)


It is difficult to convey in words how witty and charming I actually am in person. I'll let you make the call on that one.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Sex, sexuality, depictions of sex have existed forever. The particular sort of sexualization that posits women as trophy objects is totally Victorian-era hangover.
> 
> Although you're right that other cultures have viewed women as chattel.


Helen of Troy was quite a trophy object. And if you've read the Iliad, objectification is rampant. 

I'm just saying there's so much independent history of this that there's likely a basis for it in the nature of man rather than it being some kind of backlash or corrupting influence of culture.




always_alone said:


> I completely disagree with your basic premise that all sexual attraction is objectification.
> 
> It's the treating of women as objects for male gratification that I see as a sign of emotional disconnect.
> 
> Lots of guys don't see women as people. Just a good looking body that they want to stick their genitals into.


Who? Rapists? You overstate your case I think. Someone who can't see women as people probably can't see anyone's personhood... a sociopath.

We'll just agree to disagree whether lust is in its very nature objectifying or not. I believe it is, and that there's nothing wrong with it being so. Lust is after all, only a starting point. Amazingly, I've never treated a woman as nothing more than an object for my gratification. To say that I have is to say those "victims" were doing exactly the same to me.



always_alone said:


> (I seem to recall you telling me that all guys were biologically programmed to always be like this, and I just had to suck that up or stop dealing with men. Glad to see you recognize we're actually people.)


I stand by my comments on the objectifying nature of male desire. We want females. In fact, we pretty much want every single one we see that pushes the right button. Yet we aren't all raping you and duping you out of your pants - you're talking about an extreme minority.

I don't care if an object likes me nor not. I do want anything I have with any woman to be entirely mutual. 

I wonder if we're simply speaking past each other because you view anything objectifying as all encompassing, whereas I do not. Let me put it another way, an ugly woman will not attract me in the least because her form does not activate the part of my primal brain that objectifies. I want none of her body, no matter how great of a person she is. Lust, is objectifying. Women know it, and that's why you buy push up bras, short skirts, makeup etc etc.

I objectify and I am objectified. I do not resent being objectified for my ability to provide for example. If that were the ONLY element of me that someone was interested in, then yes, I'd have a problem with that. But the average woman does not see me as ONLY a provider, even though my appeal as a provider is objectifying. I feel like you assume that if any objectifying characteristic is desired, that it sweeps over everything else and the person has their entire personhood stolen. I don't feel that's the case. 

Men do not see women as ONLY sexual objects, but lust IS downright objectifying imo


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I objectify and I am objectified. I do not resent being objectified for my ability to provide for example. If that were the ONLY element of me that someone was interested in, then yes, I'd have a problem with that. But the average woman does not see me as ONLY a provider, even though my appeal as a provider is objectifying. I feel like you assume that if any objectifying characteristic is desired, that it sweeps over everything else and the person has their entire personhood stolen. I don't feel that's the case.
> 
> Men do not see women as ONLY sexual objects, but lust IS downright objectifying imo


It is clear that you have never dated men. Many do see women as ONLY sexual objects, and it is this that I find dehumanizing and objectionable. This is not just rapists and sociopaths, but garden-variety narcissists, and self-absorbed players. 

Objectification of women is so normal in this society, it almost always goes unremarked and probably unnoticed. 

And I've said it time and time and time again, but I'll say it once more: If you actually treat someone with respect, acknowledging their personhood and agency, you are not objectifying them. So no, it doesn't discount everything else. But even normal guys are regularly encouraged to objectify at least some women. So even though they may see and treat some women with respect (wives, girlfriends), they fail to with others.

My sense is that you just have no real experience with what it means to be objectified yourself, and so don't know when to recognize it when you see it. But when it comes to women, it happens all the time.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Here's another excellent Dr. Nerdlove article that talks about some of these issues. He does mention the height thing too, btw...I don't agree with him on that because other MEN pay more attention to and pay higher salaries to taller men. It isn't just an attraction factor that women have, it is across the board. But otherwise, really excellent article.

Do Looks Matter? | Paging Dr. NerdLove


----------



## Jung_admirer (Jun 26, 2013)

always_alone said:


> It is clear that you have never dated men. Many do see women as ONLY sexual objects, and it is this that I find dehumanizing and objectionable. This is not just rapists and sociopaths, but garden-variety narcissists, and self-absorbed players.
> 
> Objectification of women is so normal in this society, it almost always goes unremarked and probably unnoticed.
> 
> ...


Do you imply that objectification of women is largely male initiated? Would you not agree that the objectification of women in Vogue, Cosmo and the like is a form of self-objectification? In this matter, are women not complicit in what they choose to disdain?
Do Women Want To Be Objectified? | Psychology Today


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Jung_admirer said:


> Do you imply that objectification of women is largely male initiated? Would you not agree that the objectification of women in Vogue, Cosmo and the like is a form of self-objectification? In this matter, are women not complicit in what they choose to disdain?
> Do Women Want To Be Objectified? | Psychology Today


No doubt women are complicit. Sexual objectification is women's primary means of validation, acceptance, and power in this society. Women can easily cash in on their looks by playing to male fantasy and extracting whatever her heart desires: money, jobs, attention, gifts, free drinks, apartments, you name it. 

How great is that?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> No doubt women are complicit. Sexual objectification is women's primary means of validation, acceptance, and power in this society. Women can easily cash in on their looks by playing to male fantasy and extracting whatever her heart desires: money, jobs, attention, gifts, free drinks, apartments, you name it.
> 
> How great is that?


Or ... he falls in love with her. Values her thoughts, hopes, dreams. Lets her be who she is. Tries to make her smile, and wants little more than to feel her against him every morning when he wakes up.

How great is that?

Which one do you feel inclined to nod at, and which one makes you roll your eyes.

Nevermind, if I've gotten to know you at all, you're rolling your eyes at both.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's another excellent Dr. Nerdlove article that talks about some of these issues. He does mention the height thing too, btw...I don't agree with him on that because other MEN pay more attention to and pay higher salaries to taller men. It isn't just an attraction factor that women have, it is across the board. But otherwise, really excellent article.
> 
> Do Looks Matter? | Paging Dr. NerdLove


Interesting link!

Most perks for beauty are across the board, aren't they?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Nevermind, if I've gotten to know you at all, you're rolling your eyes at both.


Guess you don't know me at all then.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Guess you don't know me at all then.


Saw that coming too.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Interesting link!
> 
> Most perks for beauty are across the board, aren't they?


They are indeed, imparted to both genders ... from the crib to the grave. I remember seeing research that babies were shown pictures of a series of faces, all of their eyes lingered longer on the photos of beautiful people.

I'd hoped to find that research, but found another link instead and planted it in it's own thread.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Dr. Nerdlove sure does pass off as fact a whole lot of issues that are far from conclusive/decided.

But I do agree with some of his points. He addresses something I've addressed before, but because he puts in a manner that conveys that "its not women's fault, its social pressure to be something they're not", it is far more acceptable.



Nerdlove said:


> the genitals want what the genitals want, and that frequently comes in conflict with what we tell ourselves we should want. The model that Gottfried complains about may be saying that she likes nerdy guys – notice how he phrases it: “prides herself” in liking nerdy guys – but when it comes to pure attraction, she’s into George Clooney.


I have repeatedly made the same point. What women say they want, isn't necessarily what they really want. She thinks she wants a nerd, but she really wants George Clooney. She is either unaware (she doesn't truly know what she wants), or is intentionally being deceptive. I tend to think the former, and for expressing this, I'm accused of "knowing what women want better than women do."

Funny how a little difference in phrasing and writer perception make my very unpalatable opinion so much more palatable to women.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Dr. Nerdlove sure does pass off as fact a whole lot of issues that are far from conclusive/decided.


Yes. Entertaining (And ultimately a positive) read, but the article is a disaster on some levels.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm confused by your post, Dvls. You are the one who has consistently tried to say that women DON'T care as much about looks, you say they score men higher points for money, etc. You have argued against me saying that women do care about looks as much or more than men do.

He also makes fun of some of the things you have championed so hard about, Dvls. Like the "must only bang chicks hotter than myself" mantra you spout.

Will agree however, that the link is simply his opinion. It is his blog, after, not a research document.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm confused by your post, Dvls. You are the one who has consistently tried to say that women DON'T care as much about looks, you say they score men higher points for money, etc. You have argued against me saying that women do care about looks as much or more than men do.


My saying women "don't care as much about looks" is not saying "women don't care about looks at all". The basis for my belief that women don't care as much about looks, is in the greater array of characteristics that a woman actually wants in a man (such as money, another one of those un-PC things for a woman to want, that she'll say she doesn't care about... but usually does to some degree... often far more than she lets on). Take this example, and realize the numbers/features aren't specific, just to indicate a ratio to show the relationship: If a man wants 3 things: looks, intelligence and kindness... looks make up 1/3 of his interest in a woman. Possibly greater given that I think men heavily weight appearance. Women on the other hand will cite a laundry list of things they want in a man. You want him to look good, but you also want him to have a good job; you typically want him to be "handy" or skilled or talented... the list can be quite extensive. You don't want a hot janitor unless all you want is sex, and to be honest, most women don't want just meaningless sex. You'll quickly sacrifice looks if he still passes the bar and you can get those "other" needs met.

We don't typically care about what a woman makes or how skilled she is at anything as long as she is attractive, isn't an idiot and has a nice personality.

If physical attraction is 1/3 of our interests, but its 1/10th of your interests, then YES... physical attraction matters less to women. The more requirements you have, the more difficult you will find it to meet ALL of those requirements... and women ARE quite willing to negotiate a balance that is OFTEN not the most physically attractive partner she could get. He passes the bar, but she could do better (and probably has before... and the lack of "other" qualities likely altered her sense of the importance of looks). She'll still gush over the hot guy, she'll still instinctively want him... but she wants way more than that and is willing to forgo it. The "other" qualities matter a hell of a lot more to women than they do to men.

Men on the other hand, will typically go for the best looking woman they can get, and is more willing to negotiate on his other requirements.

This is also why its popular for a man to say "he just got lucky to marry such a beautiful woman", while I woman will say she "is so lucky to have found such a good man." I've heard this again and again. Men very commonly admit their wives are the hottest women they ever dated, while women will often admit they dated "hotter" guys, but their husbands had "what mattered most", "he was right for me." (or some other ethereal feminine thing)

I have maintained that women have a bar of attraction that a man must pass, but passing that bar rarely means anything by itself... it will rarely even get him a date unless he's WAY above average. Regardless of what you think of me personally, I'm above average looks, no? Yet my looks alone DO NOT get me dates... even with average women. The point of attractiveness where a woman is gushing over my looks is FAR below what I'm actually capable of pulling. I've asked you before for your explanation of why this is. Passing a man's attractiveness bar on the other hand, is practically guaranteed to be enough for a woman to land a date if she wants it.

I believe all human mate selection (sexual selection) includes self-perception of attractiveness. We seek those we perceive as more attractive than ourselves, and we tend to dismiss those less attractive than ourselves. The greater the distance between how much above ourselves we rank another has an affect on the other requirements we have for a mate. It lowers the "other" requirements. That the attractiveness disparity must be so much greater for a woman than a man for her to forgo other preferences is an additional indicator that women place lower priority on attractiveness than men imo.

My point in the last post was just to point out that I've said before that very often what women will tell you they want, isn't what they actually want... and there's a lot of reasons. DNL points out that what they say is often the result of social pressure - ie - what they're allowed to want. Ask a woman and she won't say this though. They really believe x is something they really want, even while their actions prove otherwise. When I said this before, I was flamed. DNL says it, and its wisdom. lol



Faithful Wife said:


> He also makes fun of some of the things you have championed so hard about, Dvls. Like the "must only bang chicks hotter than myself" mantra you spout.


That's quite alright. He's free to mock whatever he will. I'm also quite convinced that Dr Nerdlove is not an attractive man who has ever done well with women. Rather, his blog is more about making men feel better about not getting the hot girl. Likely born out of his own feelings of frustration and inability to get what he wanted.

Its a blog about dealing with one's own resentment for not being "the man", and how to move on. Perhaps he's dealing with it well, he's a bright guy, but he's still what I call a leprechaun. Lots of bitter attitude, really short, probably stocky... always searching for "gold" (women) he will NEVER reach. I'd guess he never got the gold but finally learned to cope and that's what the blog primarily gets at: Feel goods. Can't get what you want, adjust what you want. Bitter? Change how you think. Quite healthy stuff, and I give him kudos for it... really.

But seriously, I'd really bet money he's a leprechaun. I swear I know a guy that sounds just like him. I can't find a pic of him on the blog. Do you have one? 

Everything can be mocked. My guess is this guy reached all of his conclusions because he's not even "pass the bar" attractive to most women. Like I said, physical attraction does matter to women. It's just not as much of the whole game as it is for men imo.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Your shaming him for being a stocky loser is exactly the crap attitude he is championing against.

Yes, there are pictures of him available and in fact, podcasts. I believe he is married (and happily) and he most definitely has women throwing themselves at him because he is a type of hero for both men and women (when he goes to cons there are lines waiting to see him...and he has literally thousands of followers and readers...he is also an artist and contributes to other magazines and literary journals).

But nice try trying to "put him beneath you" for some inexplicable reason. Oh wait...the reason is pretty obvious....


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Your shaming him for being a stocky loser is exactly the crap attitude he is championing against.


I know I know. I'm mocking. 



Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, there are pictures of him available and in fact, podcasts. I believe he is married and happy and most definitely has women throwing themselves at him because he is a type of hero for both men and women.
> 
> But nice try trying to "put him beneath you" for some inexplicable reason. Oh wait...the reason is pretty obvious....


C'mon, you've read the blog... you don't think a guy who writes that much satire can't take a little mocking? He's so pretentious he's begging for it.

I just found his pic on the DNL facebook page and holy crap he's a ripe target. He looks to be about 5'5" on a good day, freckly, red hair... not quite as stocky as I'd imagined. My call was more spot on than I thought. He actually looks like a REAL leprechaun lol... and I was just pointing out a metaphor for an attitude. Seriously, this guy never got squat. His faux wannabe cool reaches epic proportions.

Forgive me if I find it hilarious that THIS guy is handing out dating advice as though he's a seasoned expert who knows the ins and outs of women. His advice to frustrated men... well, that's probably legit.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...395547.-2207520000.1390246169.&type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...395547.-2207520000.1390246169.&type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...395547.-2207520000.1390246176.&type=3&theater

Naturally, you'll take this as my desire to take the man down... that's cool. But really I think the man is a pretender... much like the guys at the gym who have read too many nutrition and workout articles and subsequently think they're experts, while having no muscle. There is a huge difference between theory and practice.

I'll bet women LOVE him, as a friend and writer... or else looks matter even less than I thought lol. His articles are really entertaining though.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Eeesshh...you're just plain being gross. It is like a 7th grade girl going off about some other girl. Have fun with that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Gross? Don't be so up tight. You have to admit the guy's schtick as some kind of expert is kinda laughable. He is Dr Nerdlove, the all knowing wizard of women... who probably got no women. So maybe an expert in coping with not getting women. I'll give him that. haha

Most of what he says is clearly based on his intuition, I don't know why it carries so much weight with you. I honestly doubt he has much real world singles/pickup/dating practical experience. He was just a regular frustrated nerdy guy who finally landed a woman, thus came to terms with his bitterness, read some relationship material, maybe took some psych courses and now thinks he's an insightful expert.

Half the blog could be boiled down to, "don't stress about it so much big guy, you'll find someone eventually, and some girl is out there looking for you too." How positive, sweet... and unhelpful. But hey, a guy might feel a little better about not getting any after reading it.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

I have never heard any man criticise the way other men look to the extent that Dvls does. It's weird.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> I have never heard any man criticise the way other men look to the extent that Dvls does. It's weird.


Really? I've criticized the looks of TWO men: Tom Brady and Dr Nerdlove.

With Tom, all I said is his body is rather "soft" for being "one of the sexiest men alive", in a discussion of physical factors influencing female attraction.

With DNL, well, you expect me to believe a guy who looks like that has the dating experience to be giving other guys dating advice? Is that not a legit point? I don't think the guy has the experience to back up all his talk and his looks are definitely relevant to that.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

It is just straight up weird to me.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My saying women "don't care as much about looks" is not saying "women don't care about looks at all". The basis for my belief that women don't care as much about looks, is in the greater array of characteristics that a woman actually wants in a man (such as money, another one of those un-PC things for a woman to want, that she'll say she doesn't care about... but usually does to some degree... often far more than she lets on). Take this example, and realize the numbers/features aren't specific, just to indicate a ratio to show the relationship: If a man wants 3 things: looks, intelligence and kindness... looks make up 1/3 of his interest in a woman. Possibly greater given that I think men heavily weight appearance. Women on the other hand will cite a laundry list of things they want in a man. You want him to look good, but you also want him to have a good job; you typically want him to be "handy" or skilled or talented... the list can be quite extensive. You don't want a hot janitor unless all you want is sex, and to be honest, most women don't want just meaningless sex. You'll quickly sacrifice looks if he still passes the bar and you can get those "other" needs met.


The hot janitor could make alot of money or have his own business and be very stable and clean. I work in the offices, but some of the less desireable jobs are able to earn a descent wage.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> We don't typically care about what a woman makes or how skilled she is at anything as long as she is attractive, isn't an idiot and has a nice personality.
> 
> If physical attraction is 1/3 of our interests, but its 1/10th of your interests, then YES... physical attraction matters less to women.


Yes! The 2/3 may be much more important than the 1/3. At times they will lust for that 1/3, that's why as men we must take care of our health.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The more requirements you have, the more difficult you will find it to meet ALL of those requirements... and women ARE quite willing to negotiate a balance that is OFTEN not the most physically attractive partner she could get. He passes the bar, but she could do better (and probably has before... and the lack of "other" qualities likely altered her sense of the importance of looks). She'll still gush over the hot guy, she'll still instinctively want him... but she wants way more than that and is willing to forgo it. The "other" qualities matter a hell of a lot more to women than they do to men.


True. Women out in the game are going to care about looks and status more than one who wants a partner.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Men on the other hand, will typically go for the best looking woman they can get, and is more willing to negotiate on his other requirements.
> 
> This is also why its popular for a man to say "he just got lucky to marry such a beautiful woman", while I woman will say she "is so lucky to have found such a good man." I've heard this again and again. Men very commonly admit their wives are the hottest women they ever dated, while women will often admit they dated "hotter" guys, but their husbands had "what mattered most", "he was right for me." (or some other ethereal feminine thing)


What's funny is I heard that over the years. Men and women. So we have this battleaxe of a woman, who does have a good physical presentation if you look at a picture. But being around her is like being in a war. She always has to be right, and for this, you have to be wrong. So sometimes "you got lucky" might mean "you have no friggin idea how much work this is!".

Also she may got the "hot guy". This guy may be visually handsome, his swag dripping off of him like a fine stench. He may be the worse relationship partner in the world, completely self centered, thinking about self. If she opens her mind to him, he'll trash it out with negativity and light negs and put downs. The sex sucks, because's he's had 300 one night or two night stands. He never had to be good at it, because the women were so excited to have landed him for the night! So women may say she got a catch and she's so lucky, and she is VERY unlucky. Even a Peter Griffin can make her feel like the best woman in the world in comparison.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I have maintained that women have a bar of attraction that a man must pass, but passing that bar rarely means anything by itself... it will rarely even get him a date unless he's WAY above average. Regardless of what you think of me personally, I'm above average looks, no? Yet my looks alone DO NOT get me dates... even with average women. The point of attractiveness where a woman is gushing over my looks is FAR below what I'm actually capable of pulling. I've asked you before for your explanation of why this is. Passing a man's attractiveness bar on the other hand, is practically guaranteed to be enough for a woman to land a date if she wants it.


Game and confidence affects your looks. They like to see this. They may not want the slickest one for a long term relation partner, but you still need confidence in yourself and take care of yourself.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I believe all human mate selection (sexual selection) includes self-perception of attractiveness. We seek those we perceive as more attractive than ourselves, and we tend to dismiss those less attractive than ourselves. The greater the distance between how much above ourselves we rank another has an affect on the other requirements we have for a mate. It lowers the "other" requirements. That the attractiveness disparity must be so much greater for a woman than a man for her to forgo other preferences is an additional indicator that women place lower priority on attractiveness than men imo.


I think women will tend to want men to make their lives easier, more than look good. So those type of resources gain more strength.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My point in the last post was just to point out that I've said before that very often what women will tell you they want, isn't what they actually want... and there's a lot of reasons. DNL points out that what they say is often the result of social pressure - ie - what they're allowed to want. Ask a woman and she won't say this though. They really believe x is something they really want, even while their actions prove otherwise. When I said this before, I was flamed. DNL says it, and its wisdom. lol


No matter what we think is true. Attraction and appearance does matter. It's all structured, so it's not like you just have what you have and thats it, you can work it. Most of it is attitude. What type of attitude is in you.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's quite alright. He's free to mock whatever he will. I'm also quite convinced that Dr Nerdlove is not an attractive man who has ever done well with women. Rather, his blog is more about making men feel better about not getting the hot girl. Likely born out of his own feelings of frustration and inability to get what he wanted.


Not a constructive blog to say the least. It would be much more constructive to show the blog from someone who HAS personally turned their life around and restructured it to have success in this area.

I don't want to learn from someone who always had it, doesn't even understand why. Learn from someone who knows exactly how it works and how to build it.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its a blog about dealing with one's own resentment for not being "the man", and how to move on.


LOL



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Perhaps he's dealing with it well, he's a bright guy, but he's still what I call a leprechaun. Lots of bitter attitude, really short, probably stocky...


LOL.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> always searching for "gold" (women) he will NEVER reach. I'd guess he never got the gold but finally learned to cope and that's what the blog primarily gets at: Feel goods. Can't get what you want, adjust what you want. Bitter? Change how you think. Quite healthy stuff, and I give him kudos for it... really.


Is the "gold" a look, or is it about what someone can do for you? LOL. I know normally it's about the "look". Those golds are a liability... There's another standard where the woman can greatly improve the quality of your life in a multitude of ways and will...



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> But seriously, I'd really bet money he's a leprechaun. I swear I know a guy that sounds just like him. I can't find a pic of him on the blog. Do you have one?


LOL. I know what you mean, one who isn't having success breating his dissent through his blog. It'll rub right off on you.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Everything can be mocked. My guess is this guy reached all of his conclusions because he's not even "pass the bar" attractive to most women. Like I said, physical attraction does matter to women. It's just not as much of the whole game as it is for men imo.


Men need to account for women think, but men need to do what works for MEN. Women many times don't understand this...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Your shaming him for being a stocky loser is exactly the crap attitude he is championing against.


Also, I'd just like to point out: I'm not shaming him for being a stocky loser. I'm shaming him for pretending to be an expert in dating, when by the looks of him, he probably struggled like hell to date at all.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

The Tom Brady thing was so odd, Dvls. You went on for pages and pages of posts about this guy, analysing him right down to the bone. I had no idea who he was, so googled him and frankly couldn't see what it was that had you so aerated.

I have seriously never heard or read any man dissecting another man's appearance in that way. It's something I've only ever seen from socially unaware, insecure women. It really surprised me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> It is just straight up weird to me.


Well, you're the married sexagenarian woman reading a blog primarily aimed at nerdy young men who can't relate to women. We're all a little weird, its ok.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

It isn't something I talk about here, but I am also a dating coach, Dvls (which is what Dr. Nerdlove is, which he does above and beyond his blog). So if you want, you can try to make up something else to shame me about, go right ahead. Meanwhile, whatever you want to tell yourself about how "normal" it is for a man to go on and on about another man's looks...have at it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> The Tom Brady thing was so odd, Dvls. You went on for pages and pages of posts about this guy, analysing him right down to the bone. I had no idea who he was, so googled him and frankly couldn't see what it was that had you so aerated.
> 
> I have seriously never heard or read any man dissecting another man's appearance in that way. It's something I've only ever seen from socially unaware, insecure women. It really surprised me.


I wasn't actually analyzing him. I was using him to demonstrate a point about attraction in females. Specifically to body type. That discussion actually spawned a number of other threads so its clear there were a number of people interested. One thread/poll was pretty close to the point I was making that a good face has more weight to women than it does with men. Body was more important to men than it was to women, even though both sexes prioritized face - men, simply less so. Other posters felt the need to defend Brady, and so all manner of discussion of his height got involved that were entirely beside the point I was trying to make. That begat a discussion on female height preference... but at that point, I was just responding, not leading that discussion.

The point was never to attack Tom Brady. I am however, attacking Nerdlove's credibility.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> It isn't something I talk about here, but I am also a dating coach, Dvls (which is what Dr. Nerdlove is, which he does above and beyond his blog). So if you want, you can try to make up something else to shame me about, go right ahead. Meanwhile, whatever you want to tell yourself about how "normal" it is for a man to go on and on about another man's looks...have at it.


I didn't realize you should be ashamed. Do you feel shamed? I seem to remember typing that "we're all weird". Am I shaming myself too?

I go on an on about another man's looks? You wouldn't be trying to shame me after being so indignant about my shaming you now would you? lol

You know what's not normal? DNL passing himself off as a dating expert when its clear he'd struggle to get a date at all. If I want advice about fixing a car, I'm going to ask someone who has fixed a lot of cars. If I want advice on dating, I'm not going to value the input of a guy who probably never had many dates and pretends his intuition is evidence and insight.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Lyris said:


> The Tom Brady thing was so odd, Dvls. You went on for pages and pages of posts about this guy, analysing him right down to the bone. I had no idea who he was, so googled him and frankly couldn't see what it was that had you so aerated.
> 
> I have seriously never heard or read any man dissecting another man's appearance in that way. It's something I've only ever seen from socially unaware, insecure women. It really surprised me.


It wasn't insecurity. He was making a technical point. That take away football, by appearance and physique alone this is a normal guy.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

treyvion....Sadly, if you really think that's all Dvls was doing...I'll have to put you in the same camp as he is in my mind. I hate to do that but...if that's really how you feel.

Stepping out of this thread now as it is obviously going into bizarre-o land.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Ok I think maybe you don't realise how unusual it is to read pages of someone arguing exhaustively that an attractive man is not attractive and women who think otherwise are lying and/or delusional. The level of focus, time and attention you gave to that particular discussion of Tom Brady was strange. 

I think maybe you suffer from a bit of social blindness or something. You can't see how you appear to others.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

treyvion said:


> It wasn't insecurity. He was making a technical point. That take away football, by appearance and physique alone this is a normal guy.


Well, he has a good face and he's really tall too.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

treyvion said:


> It wasn't insecurity. He was making a technical point. That take away football, by appearance and physique alone this is a normal guy.


Ooh, hee hee are we going to have the discussion again? Excellent.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Also, I'd just like to point out: I'm not shaming him for being a stocky loser. I'm shaming him for pretending to be an expert in dating, when by the looks of him, he probably struggled like hell to date at all.


It sounds like your making him to be a disgruntled guy who was unsuccessful in that endeavour and he's spreading his crap to people who may want to be successful in it.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well, he has a good face and he's really tall too.


It's a good face, but not an upper echilon face. Sorry being technical. It looks very normal in day to day life.

When he's energized and in a tux and around his new babe, and of course the ambiance that's fed into him, he does look very handsome.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> treyvion....Sadly, if you really think that's all Dvls was doing...I'll have to put you in the same camp as he is in my mind. I hate to do that but...if that's really how you feel.
> 
> Stepping out of this thread now as it is obviously going into bizarre-o land.


Don't do that to me. I was just being purely technical as if i didn't know who the guy was. I wouldn't be able to tell that this guy would melt womens panties.  Usually those guys I can tell.

But then again theres so many different types that do it, who am I to say?


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Lyris said:


> I have seriously never heard or read any man dissecting another man's appearance in that way. It's something I've only ever seen from socially unaware, insecure women. It really surprised me.


I'm not sure if it's appearance _per se_.

All men measure each other up in terms of how physically imposing the other is. In that one tiny facet of personal appearance, we're actually pretty darn good at it.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Lyris said:


> Ok I think maybe you don't realise how unusual it is to read pages of someone arguing exhaustively that an attractive man is not attractive and women who think otherwise are lying and/or delusional. The level of focus, time and attention you gave to that particular discussion of Tom Brady was strange.
> 
> I think maybe you suffer from a bit of social blindness or something. You can't see how you appear to others.


He doesn't have "social blindness". He was taking out the various "boosts" and "gains" this guy has from his stature, and looking at the guy as any other guy. Taking his name and rep away.

People up point people they know a ton.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

I don't understand your last sentence


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> I'm not sure if it's appearance _per se_.
> 
> All men measure each other up in terms of how physically imposing the other is. In that one tiny facet of personal appearance, we're actually pretty darn good at it.


Except as I recall he was also telling women who were posting that they thought Tom Brady was unusually handsome and attractive they were wrong. And doing so in posts of hundreds of words.

I'm sure men can tell when another man is physically imposing. What they can't always tell is how physically attractive a man is to a woman. As they are looking at different things.


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)

Ugh ladies look at this minger


----------



## lynst (Aug 13, 2010)

Men need sex and deserve it?! Sexless marriages stem from a lack of emotional intimacy. Men who expect sex from their wives month after month, year after year, but neglect to meet her emotional needs outside the bedroom, well the damage is gonna take its toll! Amazing how men want their emotional needs met, but neglect to meet their wives needs. My marriage is sexless. No, it wasn't always this way. No, I'm not trying to punish him. But for years I met "his" needs feeling used in the process. Feeling emotionally pushed away, ignored, and completely disregarded. If men want their wives to have sex with them (meet his needs), they're going to have to stop with the only showing interest in her when it comes to sex! No amount of sex is going to make a woman feel connected (emotional needs) to her husband if he neglects her outside the bedroom. If he walks out of the room when she's talking, if he doesn't look at and listen to her when she tries to talk. When you can't show her you care outside the bedroom, she will feel used, resentful, and eventually the sex will die. I know because I'm there! And it's NOT a pretty place!


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

God so ordinary. Wouldn't look twice!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Ok I think maybe you don't realise how unusual it is to read pages of someone arguing exhaustively that an attractive man is not attractive and women who think otherwise are lying and/or delusional. The level of focus, time and attention you gave to that particular discussion of Tom Brady was strange.
> 
> I think maybe you suffer from a bit of social blindness or something. You can't see how you appear to others.


In a thread aimed at discussing standards of attraction, it is unreasonable of me to point something out by example? Seriously?

You're giving me way too much credit for the depth that discussion reached. I was only pointing out that he had a "regular joe" body shape. The vast majority of that thread ended up being Created2Write's having a problem with my characterization of his body. But that body type IS common... so either C2W just thinks practically everyone is hot, or she was just getting defensive. Faithful decided to jump on my assertion that it was "common" body by claiming his height as a preference. So all I did was return what I knew about height preference, and that Brady was taller than the height differential preference of most women. These are nothing more than tangent discussions by women who felt the need to defend Tom Brady's hotness or something... which wasn't even what I was getting to. Rather, it was that beyond face (where he fits all the high symmetry prototype male), he wasn't that impressive so as to consider him "one of the sexiest men alive" unless the face is so important it makes up for average other features (and subsequently went round an round on height).

You can't say a guy has a hot body if practically every guy has that body type! 

The final determination was that a guy doesn't need to have a "great" body to have great appeal to women. Which was the whole freaking point I was making! A woman DOES need a great body to have great appeal to men. The whole discussion was to point out this difference in physical attraction for men and women and how men had a more distinct prototype of what is hot.

And yeah, I totally get how weird that discussion was... it was unavoidable. I cited Tom to make my point about his average man's body shape in spite of his sex appeal - something that doesn't happen for women - to point out the difference. Women had to defend him and we had the Tom Brady show.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Lyris said:


> God so ordinary. Wouldn't look twice!


That's good to know.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Dollystanford said:


> Ugh ladies look at this minger


Do we have to do this again? I've said all along the dude has a nice face. How many "sexiest women alive" only have a nice face? None. That's the point I was making.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Except as I recall he was also telling women who were posting that they thought Tom Brady was unusually handsome and attractive they were wrong. And doing so in posts of hundreds of words.
> 
> I'm sure men can tell when another man is physically imposing. What they can't always tell is how physically attractive a man is to a woman. As they are looking at different things.


Interestingly, I've worked with a number of gays and at office outings, Christmas do's etc they were often found with the women. Why?

They were all looking at the same men and appreciating them. Not saying that a gay guy is necessarily going to always see what a woman finds attractive in the same light but they have a more similar frame of reference.

From what I've seen of this Tom Brady guy he looks tall, handsome and muscly. Many womens dream guy.

I'm sure there are a good number of women who like my build, I tend towards the slimmer build without a golden triangle.

We are all different and we all like different things.

Does it really matter if more women prefer my type of build or Tom Brady's type of build? Heck, I'm sure some like both types.

So long as somebody likes what you have what's the problem?

Why do these things end up in arguments on TAM?

Yuck Dolly he looks awful.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

treyvion said:


> It's a good face, but not an upper echilon face. Sorry being technical. It looks very normal in day to day life.
> 
> When he's energized and in a tux and around his new babe, and of course the ambiance that's fed into him, he does look very handsome.


Primo face as long as he doesn't smile. But oh no... my saying that might be weird. Never mind that there's evidence that women have a negative preference for smiling men even while they claim otherwise. There I go again.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

I, for one, do not think Tom Brady is hot.

That said, I don't think he's bad-looking or unattractive, he just does nothing for me.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Primo face as long as he doesn't smile. But oh no... my saying that might be weird. Never mind that there's evidence that women have a negative preference for smiling men even while they claim otherwise. There I go again.


What do you say about the smiling face argument from your personal experience in singles land? Agree or disagree?


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Ok Dvls, but all that aside, I'm not sure you are seeing the impression you were giving by arguing so strenuously that a man many women consider extremely hot is not objectively hot.

It truly makes you look insecure, in the way that women who tear down other women's appearances look insecure. Why not just say, okay, he's obviously got something I'm not seeing, but I guess that's because I'm a hetero man.

Not everything can be quantified and measured. And that thread totally read like you were trying to convince women that Tom Brady was an ordinary looking man by breaking him down detail by detail. Like they'd suddenly say my god you're right! He doesn't do it for me at all anymore.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Except as I recall he was also telling women who were posting that they thought Tom Brady was unusually handsome and attractive they were wrong. And doing so in posts of hundreds of words.


That's entirely false. I know Tom Brady is attractive. The discussion was WHY he is attractive: The elements that factored into his attractiveness, and I brought him up because he has a body type I see all the time at the gym among men nobody would consider one of the sexiest men alive.

The point was to demonstrate the emphasis women placed on the face. No "sexiest woman alive", lacks a primo body. She has to have both a great body and face. Nowhere was I telling anyone they shouldn't be attracted to Tom Brady. I don't care what you're attracted to, but I know women are not crazy attracted to other men with Tom Brady body types, so I know its not his body.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> I, for one, do not think Tom Brady is hot.
> 
> That said, I don't think he's bad-looking or unattractive, he just does nothing for me.


I don't really like his persona, but I'd hit it.









Yes, I'm totally kidding.


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)

He's not my type at all but with endless reams of text on preferential height differentials and trying to break attraction down into scientific data I tried to lighten the mood somewhat. God knows this thread needs it


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Jellybeans said:


> I, for one, do not think Tom Brady is hot.
> 
> That said, I don't think he's bad-looking or unattractive, he just does nothing for me.


Everybody has different types.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

You know who's hot? Richard Armitage. Even as a dwarf with the fake nose. Actually possibly especially as a dwarf with a fake nose.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's entirely false. I know Tom Brady is attractive. The discussion was WHY he is attractive: The elements that factored into his attractiveness, and I brought him up because he has a body type I see all the time at the gym among men nobody would consider one of the sexiest men alive.
> 
> The point was to demonstrate the emphasis women placed on the face. No "sexiest woman alive", lacks a primo body. She has to have both a great body and face. Nowhere was I telling anyone they shouldn't be attracted to Tom Brady. I don't care what you're attracted to, but I know women are not crazy attracted to other men with Tom Brady body types, so I know its not his body.


To be fair, alot of the "hottest" guys don't have primo bodies. We're comparing him to high end male strippers and nfl defensive backs as far as the physique goes. Brady would fall in the range of bodies used in hollywood.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

lynst said:


> Sexless marriages stem from a lack of emotional intimacy.


Sadly, that is not always the case.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

treyvion said:


> What do you say about the smiling face argument from your personal experience in singles land? Agree or disagree?


My experience is that they don't want an overly smiley guy. I have a couple thoughts as to why, but I won't go into it unless you'd like to know.

The most common reason I think guys want to know this sort of thing is for online dating profile pictures. I'd say don't smile - instead, sort of smirk. Worse than smiling however, is avoiding smiling by trying to look too cool or [email protected]

The confident smirk, as long as you don't look like a tool, has a small benefit imo... its not some huge night and day, make or break thing though.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

I've never been into too muscle-ly of guys. Like the Hulk look does nothing for me.


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)

Whereas I luuuuurve muscles
Skinny guys are a massive turn off. So are too-tall guys
Except I really like Richard Armitage too - tall, skinny, long nose. Sexiest voice on the planet
Funny how attraction works


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Really? I've criticized the looks of TWO men: Tom Brady and Dr Nerdlove.
> 
> With Tom, all I said is his body is rather "soft" for being "one of the sexiest men alive", in a discussion of physical factors influencing female attraction.


You leave my poor Tom, the hell alone.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Dollystanford said:


> Funny how attraction works


Absolutely! What makes one person swoon may make another cringe. LOL. Humans are funny.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My experience is that they don't want an overly smiley guy. I have a couple thoughts as to why, but I won't go into it unless you'd like to know.
> 
> The most common reason I think guys want to know this sort of thing is for online dating profile pictures. I'd say don't smile - instead, sort of smirk. Worse than smiling however, is avoiding smiling by trying to look too cool or [email protected]
> 
> The confident smirk, as long as you don't look like a tool, has a small benefit imo... its not some huge night and day, make or break thing though.


Yeah, I'd like to hear your theory on that overly smiley guy.

When your successful with the sex, it rains from your ambiance. So they can see it on you. Ladies prefer to see it...


----------



## skype (Sep 25, 2013)

I was just going to say, sorry that our Peyton beat your Tom, Deej.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's entirely false. I know Tom Brady is attractive. The discussion was WHY he is attractive: The elements that factored into his attractiveness, and I brought him up because he has a body type I see all the time at the gym among men nobody would consider one of the sexiest men alive.
> 
> The point was to demonstrate the emphasis women placed on the face. No "sexiest woman alive", lacks a primo body. She has to have both a great body and face. Nowhere was I telling anyone they shouldn't be attracted to Tom Brady. I don't care what you're attracted to, but I know women are not crazy attracted to other men with Tom Brady body types, so I know its not his body.


Well if that was your point you want to watch your posting style, because the impression I got was of a short, average looking man who was boosting how he felt about himself by criticising a generally celebrated man.

Please note I have no idea what you look like Dvls. But that's the picture you painted in that thread.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Ok Dvls, but all that aside, I'm not sure you are seeing the impression you were giving by arguing so strenuously that a man many women consider extremely hot is not objectively hot.
> 
> It truly makes you look insecure, in the way that women who tear down other women's appearances look insecure. Why not just say, okay, he's obviously got something I'm not seeing, but I guess that's because I'm a hetero man.
> 
> Not everything can be quantified and measured. And that thread totally read like you were trying to convince women that Tom Brady was an ordinary looking man by breaking him down detail by detail. Like they'd suddenly say my god you're right! He doesn't do it for me at all anymore.


I do a hundred things that make me look insecure... I don't worry about it. I'm not really concerned with how secure I look when I'm trying to make a point. It wasn't something about Tom Brady I didn't see... rather it was a body type that I see plenty of that doesn't get "Tom Brady" style reactions. Given two like things, it was unreasonable to me to hear one is hot and another not. I attribute that phenomenon to a sort of black and white thinking I see often, where once you're convinced a guy is great... everything about him is great. I've had some great lessons in this from dating some Borderline Personality Disordered women, and I've come to think that a lot of that disorder was a regular women's thoughts exaggerated.

If a woman things Tom has a uber sexy body that's fine... but that means if I show another body that looks like Tom's, she should think that body is uber sexy too. But no, instead its the face that somehow upgrades or downgrades the perception of everything else.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I do a hundred things that make me look insecure... I don't worry about it. I'm not really concerned with how secure I look when I'm trying to make a point. It wasn't something about Tom Brady I didn't see... rather it was a body type that I see plenty of that doesn't get "Tom Brady" style reactions. Given two like things, it was unreasonable to me to hear one is hot and another not. I attribute that phenomenon to a sort of black and white thinking I see often, where once you're convinced a guy is great... everything about him is great. I've had some great lessons in this from dating some Borderline Personality Disordered women, and I've come to think that a lot of that disorder was a regular women's thoughts exaggerated.
> 
> If a woman things Tom has a uber sexy body that's fine... but that means if I show another body that looks like Tom's, she should think that body is uber sexy too. But no, instead its the face that somehow upgrades or downgrades the perception of everything else.


But attraction is a weird thing Dvls, as much as Dolly likes men who are x,y, and z and as much as you like women that are x, y, or z there will always be that one who just comes into your life and goes 'POW'.

Because somebody likes Tom Brady doesn't mean they like somebody who looks similar to him.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Looking insecure undercuts any point you're trying to make.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

FrenchFry said:


> hahaha
> 
> (yay broncos!)





FrenchFry said:


> LMAO.
> 
> Come ON DEEJO.


Forget it ... I'm not playin' anymore ...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

treyvion said:


> To be fair, alot of the "hottest" guys don't have primo bodies. We're comparing him to high end male strippers and nfl defensive backs as far as the physique goes. Brady would fall in the range of bodies used in hollywood.


Exactly, he doesn't have the primo body. Honestly, comparing him to Hollywood is a HUGE stretch. The likes of Hugh Jackman or even a muscled up Gerard Butler is Hollywood faire.

Brady's body just looks like a regular guy to me. Like he doesn't even lift... just keeps basic fitness. Soft around the middle, very little muscle definition. What is to appreciate there? That he's not fat? But I'm applying male importance of body to a woman's perception of a man... and its clear that the body isn't all that important to them... the whole point of bringing Tom up. lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Well if that was your point you want to watch your posting style, because the impression I got was of a short, average looking man who was boosting how he felt about himself by criticising a generally celebrated man.
> 
> Please note I have no idea what you look like Dvls. But that's the picture you painted in that thread.


Probably unavoidable to make the point I was trying to make. My avatar is me. I'm 5'10"... not short enough to care how tall anyone is. I think I'm a little above average in looks, with hair being a big negative. No amount of validation or rejection has ever shaken me from this self-perception. I'm told I look better than I give myself credit for, but you'll never see me brag about my looks.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

I have something to say: Ben Cohen. 


That is all.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> Because somebody likes Tom Brady doesn't mean they like somebody who looks similar to him.


That doesn't make any sense to me unless one is grading persona. Judging physical characteristics of two guys who pretty much look the same, should produce the same result. There has to be a difference that is being keyed on... which is to say, they are not alike.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Looking insecure undercuts any point you're trying to make.


Unfortunately so.

Of course, there's no way a man can discuss the positive and negative physical appeal of another man without coming off insecure. Say anything less than complimentary and kerplunk. It goes with the territory... and if anyone thinks I'm insecure, more power to them. My motivation is really irrelevant to any case I make one way or the other.


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)

It isn't a maths problem. All manner of things make up attraction. Two guys can have similar physiques but then one might have a third nipple. That would put me off. One might be slightly hairier. That might turn me on

Do you think like this about everything?


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That doesn't make any sense to me unless one is grading persona. Judging physical characteristics of two guys who pretty much look the same, should produce the same result. There has to be a difference that is being keyed on... which is to say, they are not alike.


I don't know. I am no expert on attraction and certainly have no expertise on what women find attractive.

However I suspect that attraction is triggered by many many visual and social cues, some overt and some more subtle.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Being able to state your position and then stop arguing would probably help you look less insecure and make your argument stronger. It was the sheer volume of words that made it weird, not so much the opinion.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Dollystanford said:


> It isn't a maths problem. All manner of things make up attraction. Two guys can have similar physiques but then one might have a third nipple. That would put me off. One might be slightly hairier. That might turn me on
> 
> Do you think like this about everything?


Yeah, but two guys can look exactly the same except one doesn't have the status, fame and money and you will up rate him several points and call him one of the sexiest men in the world.

I can see in some presentations he looks extremely handsome.  And in others, just like a normal face to me. Usually football shots and I know he takes it serious out there, so stress is doing that to him. I hear what devilis is saying about his bod. I wouldn't say it's a completely average bod. It's just not a top 1% one.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> I totally appreciate Brady's body.
> 
> Look how long his legs are!
> 
> ...


I have to say, I really do appreciate Tom Brady on his back.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

No one looks exactly the same. I'm kind of surprised this needs stating.


----------



## Thebes (Apr 10, 2013)

I'm sure sex is important to men but you make a big mistake thinking all it take is you to show up night after night wanting it and nothing ever said or done to satisfy our romantic needs which are just as important as the act of sex itself. Maybe more important because without it sex with you can get boring and turn into a job.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

treyvion said:


> Yeah, but two guys can look exactly the same except one doesn't have the status, fame and money and you will up rate him several points and call him one of the sexiest men in the world.


But is it the status, fame and money or is it the confidence that the aforementioned bring?

Or does the confidence bring the status, fame and money?


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)

that's not the point I'm responding to. The point was that judging solely on physical criteria, two men with similar physiques should garner the same result in terms of women being attracted to them. Which isn't the case. At all


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Dollystanford said:


> It isn't a maths problem. All manner of things make up attraction. Two guys can have similar physiques but then one might have a third nipple. That would put me off. One might be slightly hairier. That might turn me on
> 
> Do you think like this about everything?


See! The third nipple breaks it. But given a set of parameters that conform to what you find attractive in x body, you should find those same parameters attractive in y body.

Yes, I think this way about everything. The formula for attraction may be infinitely complex, but it doesn't mean I'm going to throw my hands in the air and say its voodoo. I believe there are real metrics to be considered with verifiable results and conclusions in aggregate.


----------



## Thebes (Apr 10, 2013)

Two guys can look exactly the same and women find one more attractive than the other because one is closed mouthed and the other one knows how to satisfy a woman's romantic needs.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

What's the point though? Even if there are verifiable concrete data about what makes people attractive? Who cares? 

Most people manage to find each other without mathematical analysis. And knowing what women collectively find attractive isn't going to do anyone any good if they want to find a woman singular. Unless you just want to cast as wide a net as possible and see what you can drag in I suppose.


----------



## joe kidd (Feb 8, 2011)

Dollystanford said:


> that's not the point I'm responding to. The point was that judging solely on physical criteria, two men with similar physiques should garner the same result in terms of women being attracted to them. Which isn't the case. At all


One has to take "windy hair" into account.


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> See! The third nipple breaks it. But given a set of parameters that conform to what you find attractive in x body, you should find those same parameters attractive in y body.
> 
> Yes, I think this way about everything. The formula for attraction may be infinitely complex, but it doesn't mean I'm going to throw my hands in the air and say its voodoo. I believe there are real metrics to be considered with verifiable results and conclusions in aggregate.


wow, I hope you don't talk like this on dates


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> I don't know. I am no expert on attraction and certainly have no expertise on what women find attractive.
> 
> However I suspect that attraction is triggered by many many visual and social cues, some overt and some more subtle.


I agree, but to learn anything about anything, you have to boil it down to singular components. I treat social cues the same way... and the whole picture is an interaction of all these small traits.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Dollystanford said:


> wow, I hope you don't talk like this on dates


lmao... no.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> No one looks exactly the same. I'm kind of surprised this needs stating.


There's probably no one out there exactly like you. However, someone out there has almost EXACTLY the same nose as you do. So on and so forth.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

WyshIknew said:


> But is it the status, fame and money or is it the confidence that the aforementioned bring?
> 
> Or does the confidence bring the status, fame and money?


I don't care anymore, want to go and get my own.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Yes my mother does. We don't usually go to bars together though so not much chance to test the theory that people will find us equally attractive because of it.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

Oh, but wait: Jason Momoa. 

But ONLY as Khal Drogo. 

Mmmmmm, I could do this alllllll dayyyyyy.


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)

ah Jason
Needs to keep his mouth shut. Dumb as a box of rocks


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Sigh.

You realise you women are objectifying those poor men.


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)

Any excuse


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)

Ooh Michael I didn't realise you were so big!


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

Dollystanford said:


> ah Jason
> Needs to keep his mouth shut. Dumb as a box of rocks


He can speak?
:rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> What's the point though? Even if there are verifiable concrete data about what makes people attractive? Who cares?
> 
> Most people manage to find each other without mathematical analysis. And knowing what women collectively find attractive isn't going to do anyone any good if they want to find a woman singular. Unless you just want to cast as wide a net as possible and see what you can drag in I suppose.


Its tremendously useful! I've previously mentioned the simplest of things. One of the sexiest elements any man has is confidence. So isn't it useful to know what actual behaviors signal confidence to most women? Perhaps you're a guy lacking in confidence? Perhaps your a confident guy, but you're unaware you're sending the wrong signals?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

What's funny to me, is that men love to tell each other how insecure women are. But just even MENTION some tall hunk....and they're off with their rulers.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

Ok, one more from my files . . . this one has that je ne sais quoi. I really find him attractive at a primal level, beautiful, even.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> What's funny to me, is that men love to tell each other how insecure women are. But just even MENTION some tall hunk....and they're off with their rulers.


Are you trying to say we are insecure wussies?


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> He can speak?
> :rofl:


Does he need to?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Not you, Wysh. I can see a confident man in you.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Not you, Wysh. I can see a confident man in you.


Not sure that confident is the correct word, although I probably am.

I think I am content, at peace with who and what I am.

WYSIWYG.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

WyshIknew said:


> Does he need to?


Khal Drogo can communicate without saying a word . . . 

As for Jason Momoa as himself, he gets a "meh" from me at best. That's the way it usually is with me and male actors. I lust for the character, not the actual person.

Captain Jack Sparrow, Wolverine, Aragorn . . . .

Bring a decent looking fellow and make him into an extraordinary character and . . . swoon. 

I often am out an about and notice men I find physically attractive. And then they open their mouths or otherwise show their personality and . . . pfffffttttt. Attraction can evaporate in an instant.


----------



## richie33 (Jul 20, 2012)

I came into a thread titled why sex is important to men and there a bunch of pictures of dudes in it. I guess sex is not important.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

I don't think attraction is so black and white. It does go beyond the physical for some. We all can appreciate a hot body , a beautiful face....but it's still more than that....or more precisely it takes more than that to keep you around , keep you interested. For instance, i am seeing a pretty hot guy right now by all superficial standards but he just doesn't really do it for me chemistry wise because he lacks other things that have nothing to do with looks... I keep asking myself why I can't get hot for him...but I can't it's just not there. Surprises me too... But there you have it...

Oh, and Even more importantly, what he is lacking is not money or power or status....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> Not sure that confident is the correct word, although I probably am.
> 
> I think I am content, at peace with who and what I am.
> 
> WYSIWYG.


All I know is that I've never seen you go on and on about how some dude ISN'T hot. And that doing so is the opposite of confidence.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

inarut said:


> I don't think attraction is so black and white. It does go beyond the physical for some. We all can appreciate a hot body , a beautiful face....but it's still more than that....or more precisely it takes more than that to keep you around , keep you interested. For instance, i am seeing a pretty hot guy right now by all superficial standards but he just doesn't really do it for me chemistry wise because he lacks other things that have nothing to do with looks... I keep asking myself why I can't get hot for him...but I can't it's just not there. Surprises me too... But there you have it...
> 
> Oh, and Even more importantly, what he is lacking is not money or power or status....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As I said earlier, I think attraction is formed from a myriad of cues.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

inarut said:


> I don't think attraction is so black and white. It does go beyond the physical for some. We all can appreciate a hot body , a beautiful face....but it's still more than that....or more precisely it takes more than that to keep you around , keep you interested. For instance, i am seeing a pretty hot guy right now by all superficial standards but he just doesn't really do it for me chemistry wise because he lacks other things that have nothing to do with looks... I keep asking myself why I can't get hot for him...but I can't it's just not there. Surprises me too... But there you have it...
> 
> Oh, and Even more importantly, what he is lacking is not money or power or status....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Give us an idea, so we can see it's not necessarily a mathematical equation.

It sounds like that there are several qualities, that if they were present or dominant, you would be seriously hot for him, but without them it's not working.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

My reasons go against everything guys like you believe and have convinced yourselves to be true .

He is very alpha, top dog. Hot, successful, ambitious and sought after, all good but i also find him to be superficial, self absorbed, lacking depth and overall genuineness. In a nutshell he has positive qualities that I like but he lacks positive beta characteristics pivotal to relationships He is very unbalanced. And yes, if some of those other qualities were there I would be seriously hot for him.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

GettingIt said:


> Oh, but wait: Jason Momoa.
> 
> But ONLY as Khal Drogo.
> 
> Mmmmmm, I could do this alllllll dayyyyyy.


If I'm remembering the character correctly, you might not have much choice


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> What's funny to me, is that men love to tell each other how insecure women are. But just even MENTION some tall hunk....and they're off with their rulers.


LOL - That *is* typical male behavior. The colloquial expression, "Pissing match" didn't originate in a vacuum.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Yes, it is called insecurity.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Cripes, I leave for a while and look what happens.

This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

Deejo said:


> Cripes, I leave for a while and look what happens.
> 
> This is why we can't have nice things.


Lol...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

inarut said:


> My reasons go against everything guys like you believe and have convinced yourselves to be true .
> 
> He is very alpha, top dog. Hot, successful, ambitious and sought after, all good but i also find him to be superficial, self absorbed, lacking depth and overall genuineness. In a nutshell he has positive qualities that I like but he lacks positive beta characteristics pivotal to relationships  He is very unbalanced. And yes, if some of those other qualities were there I would be seriously hot for him.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That sounds abrasive. Like it would wear you down to be next to it.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

treyvion said:


> That sounds abrasive. Like it would wear you down to be next to it.


Not a word I would have used to describe him but yes, he is abrasive and pushy ... And I don't like it .
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> What's funny to me, is that men love to tell each other how insecure women are. But just even MENTION some tall hunk....and they're off with their rulers.


If you really think that I'm off my ruler about some tall hunk, you haven't understood anything I've said. The last thing I'm going to be insecure about is a celebrity... an unreal fantasy of a person with whom I would never actually be competing with even if I were competitive in that way.

I'm very upfront with the few insecurities I do have. My height and being a good looking are not them.

The fact stands that women generally do not require as great a body to think a man has elite looks as men generally do of women. OMG, what an insecure point I was making.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Cripes, I leave for a while and look what happens.
> 
> This is why we can't have nice things.


Always happens when Tom Brady is brought into a discussion


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The fact stands that women generally do not require as great a body to think a man has elite looks as men generally do of women. OMG, what an insecure point I was making.


It's absurd, is what it is. Take any top sexy woman list, and you're going to see a range of body types, from super-slim and athletic to hour-glass, big booty curvy. All perfectly normal body types that you see in the gym and out and about IRL.

The only difference is that most photos of the women are glammed up, photoshopped, and sexed up to appeal to male viewer fantasies. 

If I were to sex up Tom Brady with a bit of photoshopping, maybe you'd see why some women think he's good looking?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Dvls...it is obvious to everyone why you go on and on and on about Tom Brady. Tell yourself whatever you want. Actions speak loudest, and your continuing tirade about it just makes it more and more obvious.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

inarut said:


> Not a word I would have used to describe him but yes, he is abrasive and pushy ... And I don't like it .
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Did any of your contacts say you where "lucky" to be with that guy?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> It's absurd, is what it is. Take any top sexy woman list, and you're going to see a range of body types, from super-slim and athletic to hour-glass, big booty curvy. All perfectly normal body types that you see in the gym and out and about IRL.


Uhm... what list are you talking about? I don't see any big booty curvies. The range of women's bodies is FAR more narrow than that of the men's lists.



always_alone said:


> The only difference is that most photos of the women are glammed up, photoshopped, and sexed up to appeal to male viewer fantasies.


And what does it say that women are glammed up and photo shopped to appeal to men, but men aren't similarly photo shopped to appeal to women? 



always_alone said:


> If I were to sex up Tom Brady with a bit of photoshopping, maybe you'd see why some women think he's good looking?


That he's good looking or not has never been a point I was making. Again, I was pointing out the greater importance of body and tendency to prototype in what men find super hot vs what women find super hot. Your photo shopping comments actually further my point.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Uhm... what list are you talking about? I don't see any big booty curvies. The range of women's bodies is FAR more narrow than that of the men's lists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If they photoshop the women to bring in more money, I'm sure they must do the men too.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...it is obvious to everyone why you go on and on and on about Tom Brady. Tell yourself whatever you want. Actions speak loudest, and your continuing tirade about it just makes it more and more obvious.


Ah yeah, you got me. Its my insecurity that dictates that female models get photo shopped, but even modest male bodies like Tom's for the most part aren't.

That doesn't say anything at all about how the sexes view each other's bodies. I'm just jelly. That's sooo it. Thank you for bringing that to my attention FW. It's about as insightful as your blog... and my gosh, what would I do without a concept of "sex-dar"?


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

treyvion said:


> Did any of your contacts say you where "lucky" to be with that guy?


My contacts?? Meaning friends, acquaintances ....No,
Nobody has ever said that to me. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

treyvion said:


> If they photoshop the women to bring in more money, I'm sure they must do the men too.


I have a couple friends who model professionally and no, the men are not photo shopped anywhere near the degree women are. Things like skin tone get touched up, but nothing like this:

Photoshop works wonders - YouTube


Virtually all of the really big "ripped" guys that model and hock supplements are on steroids though, or so says my friend, who works for a fitness publication.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Uhm... what list are you talking about? I don't see any big booty curvies. The range of women's bodies is FAR more narrow than that of the men's lists.


No, it's not. I'm not going to play who's the hottest woman with you, because I think this whole ranking of physical beauty is a load of bs, but I will say that the body types men go on about as sexy are as normal as the body types that women go on about.

That women are photoshopped into impossible fantasy land says only that women are supposed to be good little objects for men, with their mouths shut and their backs arched. 

But if you're right that those impossible bodies really are what men are holding out for in their estimations of "elite" -- well, they deserve what they get: a billboard and a fistful of lube.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

inarut said:


> My contacts?? Meaning friends, acquaintances ....No,
> Nobody has ever said that to me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ok. I was alluding to sometimes the friends see the "handsome" male or "beautiful" female and think their friend is lucky to be with this self-centered SOB because of looks.

I'm glad you got past your situation.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

treyvion said:


> If they photoshop the women to bring in more money, I'm sure they must do the men too.


Pretty much all celebs and ads get Photoshopped.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, it is called insecurity.


I've never thought of it that way and maybe you're right. That a lot of women like big and tall is no secret, (Remember the scene from _Continental Divide_ you gave me a link to in another thread?) but I think it's pretty obvious that men and women are not judging with exactly the same criteria. Women are coming from the standpoint of physical attraction and so there must, of necessity be other factors involved besides body alone. Men can only see that imperfectly and in the end, I guess we just have to take your word for it. 

I tend to think of the measuring between men more along the lines of how not just human males, but other anthropoid primates tend to establish pecking order without actually coming to blows. (i.e. Sizing each other up in terms of how physically imposing they are.)

Humans have the luxury of doing this abstractly, as in questions like, "Who was the better boxer? Joe Lewis or Muhammad Ali each in their prime?" My wife says that sort of thing is stupid, but maybe it does serve a purpose. I'm pretty sure that when I met her 6'-8" career military father for the first time, I was looking at him in an entirely different light than she ever did


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Ah yeah, you got me. Its my insecurity that dictates that female models get photo shopped, but even modest male bodies like Tom's for the most part aren't.
> 
> That doesn't say anything at all about how the sexes view each other's bodies. I'm just jelly. That's sooo it. Thank you for bringing that to my attention FW. It's about as insightful as your blog... and my gosh, what would I do without a concept of "sex-dar"?




Cheap shots don't make you look anymore secure, Dvls.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Cheap shots don't make you look anymore secure, Dvls.


Aww you don't like my cheap shots, but you're free to throw them at me at will?

In case you haven't noticed, I don't give half a sh*t about how I look on an internet forum... and I've been such LONG before I ever used Tom Brady to demonstrate a point. So the notion that I'm anonymously insecure is utterly laughable.

In fact, I'm telling you exactly what I think about your blog. I mean, if you can't keep a veneer of polite commentary, why should I?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Get a room and hug it out, or at least take it to PM's.

Please ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I am/was responding to exactly what you are writing on this post, Dvls. You are just throwing shade. But have fun.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Yes, Deejo...you are right. Not my intention to roll around in the mud. Thanks!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> No, it's not. I'm not going to play who's the hottest woman with you, because I think this whole ranking of physical beauty is a load of bs, but I will say that the body types men go on about as sexy are as normal as the body types that women go on about.


Bob and weave, AA... bob and weave. Fact of the matter is that the physical characteristics of the women on these lists is far more homogenous than the characteristics of men on these lists. In women, the cream of the crop are not generally "big booty" plus sizes. Yet for men, face and persona blow away body type with regularity. You can even find examples of it in this thread, "I was so attracted to him, and then he started talking and it was gone. I'm attracted to the fantasy character and not the man. The real man is meh." - to paraphrase.



always_alone said:


> That women are photoshopped into impossible fantasy land says only that women are supposed to be good little objects for men, with their mouths shut and their backs arched.


They're photo shopped because the photo shopped version is believed sexier by more men... plain and simple. Men are not photo shopped nearly as much because... really... women don't care as much. It makes little difference to them. Tom Brady's pasty skin, average BF%, low muscle definition, etc etc... body is just dandy. The same does NOT hold true for most men.



always_alone said:


> But if you're right that those impossible bodies really are what men are holding out for in their estimations of "elite" -- well, they deserve what they get: a billboard and a fistful of lube.


I agree, it helps set a near impossible standard. I'm sorry. But yeah, they're attractive for whatever reason or they wouldn't be shopped like that. I didn't say the idealized image was very realistic. I'll even go so far as to say that such unrealistic imagery deforms our perceptions of what is attractive. Yet still, the fact remains that generally, we do see that as more attractive. They certainly weren't trying to make her uglier. 

Again my point was only that male preference is more narrow than women's. Tom's body looks like a pretty typical mid-late 30s healthy guy's body. Again, tons of them in my gym... even the height... come and get 'em ladies. But does Giselle's body look like the typical mid-late 30s woman? ha... no way. Hell, there's only a couple 20-somethings in my gym that have a comparable body. Tom = common body. Giselle = uncommon body. Both widely claimed to be equally desirable to the opposite sex. And before Giselle's body is attributed entirely to photo shop, be aware I've seen plenty of her candid beach photos.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> case. That's why you repeatedly mischaracterize what I've said. You say I went on and on about Brady, but it was YOU who brought up the appeal of his height. It was C2W who claimed he had an athletic build.


To be fair it was me who brought up Brady's height first.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Bob and weave, AA... bob and weave. Fact of the matter is that the physical characteristics of the women on these lists is far more homogenous than the characteristics of men on these lists. In women, the cream of the crop are not generally "big booty" plus sizes.


Well, I can't believe I'm doing this, as I feel like I'm stooping to a new low. But if men do not like "curvy", can you please.explain the long lines of drool that lead to Christina Hendricks, Beyonce, Rihanna? Marilyn Monroe?

The so-called sexiest women are not at all homogeneous in looks. 

Certainly no more so than the so-called sexiest men. 

And I've heard many a man say something equivalent to the "I thought she was a 10 until I heard her speak" line.


But, you know, if you really want to believe that all men care only about looks, and all only want hyper-idealized fantasy girls with no personality or distinguishing features, and that women are just that much deeper and smarter, and more careful about our selection in mates, well that's okay too. You just keep thinking that.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Well, I can't believe I'm doing this, as I feel like I'm stooping to a new low. But if men do not like "curvy", can you please.explain the long lines of drool that lead to Christina Hendricks, Beyonce, Rihanna? Marilyn Monroe?


Waist-to-hip ratio ...


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

It was really me that brought up the Tom Brady thing. And I'm not sorry! As it is extremely entertaining.

I also would have thought there was more variation in what men find attractive than women. Christina Hendricks and Kim Kardashian both have undeniably big bums. Christina Hendricks is, frankly, fat. She's certainly not athletic or toned, like Gisele Bunchen, or whatever her name is. She (Christina) has the most beautiful face in the world though, in my opinion. 

And I've only ever read men here being very generous and accepting of their wives' imperfect bodies, still finding them beautiful.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Waist-to-hip ratio ...


Horse feathers! The slim athletic build doesn't ever give that ratio, and the various curves rarely do either.

A survey of super hot celebrities will give you ratios in a range of at least .65 all the way up to .8. One of the supposedly hottest women alive today has a waist of 25" and hips of 32", giving her a ratio of .78 -- yet, they also say .8 is supposedly attractive *for a man*


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> But, you know, if you really want to believe that all men care only about looks, and all only want hyper-idealized fantasy girls with no personality or distinguishing features, and that women are just that much deeper and smarter, and more careful about our selection in mates, well that's okay too. You just keep thinking that.


I don't know if I'd phrase it exactly like that, but men really can be utter sycophants around attractive women. In droves. As an old man, it's really funny to watch. 

My daughter showed me this about a week ago. Pretty messed up.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> It was really me that brought up the Tom Brady thing. And I'm not sorry! As it is extremely entertaining.
> 
> I also would have thought there was more variation in what men find attractive than women. Christina Hendricks and Kim Kardashian both have undeniably big bums. Christina Hendricks is, frankly, fat. She's certainly not athletic or toned, like Gisele Bunchen, or whatever her name is. She (Christina) has the most beautiful face in the world though, in my opinion.
> 
> And I've only ever read men here being very generous and accepting of their wives' imperfect bodies, still finding them beautiful.


TBH, I don't think these women make any "sexiest woman" lists unless catering to a specific subset of men - a targeted audience.

Its not that I don't think there is any variation. Its that I think there is far LESS variation.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Horse feathers! The slim athletic build doesn't ever give that ratio, and the various curves rarely do either.


That's where you'd be incorrect. To the majority of the male population, the most attractive ratio of waist to hips is about 0.7, and this ratio is scientifically proven across builds, height, and even culture. My skinny athletic girlfriend is .72.

I think this is only one part of the equation, but a very important part.

A similar ratio exists to a slightly lesser degree for female preference of male bodies - a chest-waist ratio called the Adonis ratio. Tom Brady doesn't fit it. Sorry, everyone knows how much I like talking about Tom Brady. 

His face however, fits the Golden ratio to a T... in fact, moreso than any other QB in the NFL. I'll see if I can find that article.

We all want what we want, and most of us want the same thing... some "ideal". We get what we can get.


----------



## The Lonely Stoner (Aug 3, 2013)

committed4ever said:


> I asked my husband a few weeks ago that if sex is an emotional need then why do men feel a physical need for it when they are not emotionally involved with anyone. He stared at me for a minute and asked if that was a trick question.


 Sex as an emotional need is relative to bonding with your wife. Making sure the bond is there. There is quite an emotional need for sex when in a marriage or strong relationship. It brings you together with your wife in a unique way. 

There is no physical need for sex. It just feels great. That can make men seek sex as a form of enjoyment. This where sex tends to become a problem. 

A man who is satisfied by his wife doesn't need sex with anyone else. So in his case, he just has some kind of problem if he is getting any sort of extra marital sex. 

A man who is unsatisfied by his wife has a need. But not for sex with another woman while he is still married. His need is to be honest with his wife about his desires and work them out or separate. Cheating (thus sex without emotional attachment) is never the answer. It is an extension of the problem. The actual answer is honest and forthright communication. And before things reach the grudge holding, impasse stage.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Well, I can't believe I'm doing this, as I feel like I'm stooping to a new low. But if men do not like "curvy", can you please.explain the long lines of drool that lead to Christina Hendricks, Beyonce, Rihanna? Marilyn Monroe?
> 
> The so-called sexiest women are not at all homogeneous in looks.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but the difference is that she didn't just break out of persona... she spoke and they realized she's an idiot. With the female equivalent, there's not really anything wrong with the guy's voice or what he said... it just didn't fit the persona the woman had conjured for him. Persona is a huge factor in a woman's attraction to a man, and all sorts of elements play into it.



always_alone said:


> But, you know, if you really want to believe that all men care only about looks, and all only want hyper-idealized fantasy girls with no personality or distinguishing features, and that women are just that much deeper and smarter, and more careful about our selection in mates, well that's okay too. You just keep thinking that.


Not "only looks". But weighted more heavily than women weigh looks and much more homogenous. If you want to think women are deeper and smarter for their differences, I wouldn't be surprised. You defined what is deeper and smarter, so of course you'd be correct.


----------



## samyeagar (May 14, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah, but the difference is that she didn't just break out of persona... she spoke and they realized she's an idiot. With the female equivalent, there's not really anything wrong with the guy's voice or what he said... it just didn't fit the persona the woman had conjured for him. *Persona is a huge factor in a woman's attraction to a man*, and all sorts of elements play into it.
> 
> 
> 
> Not "only looks". But weighted more heavily than women weigh looks and much more homogenous. If you want to think women are deeper and smarter for their differences, I wouldn't be surprised. You defined what is deeper and smarter, so of course you'd be correct.


My 18 year old future step daughter and her boyfriend were watching The Bachelor, and later that night she was talking to my STBW and said how she wished her boyfriend could be romantic like on that show. I didn't even know where to begin with that...


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Horse feathers! The slim athletic build doesn't ever give that ratio, and the various curves rarely do either.
> 
> A survey of super hot celebrities will give you ratios in a range of at least .65 all the way up to .8. One of the supposedly hottest women alive today has a waist of 25" and hips of 32", giving her a ratio of .78 -- yet, they also say .8 is supposedly attractive *for a man*






> A waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 - or a waist measurement exactly 70 per cent of the hip circumference - scored the highest marks.
> 
> Examples include some of the world's most beautiful women. Marilyn Monroe, modern-day starlet Jessica Alba and Victoria's Secret model Alessandra Ambrosio all possess the perfect figure.
> 
> ...












I blame FrenchFry for the gif thing, can't seem to help myself now.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> I don't know if I'd phrase it exactly like that, but men really can be utter sycophants around attractive women. In droves. As an old man, it's really funny to watch.


Indeed! It's even funnier as the woman.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's where you'd be incorrect. To the majority of the male population, the most attractive ratio of waist to hips is about 0.7, and this ratio is scientifically proven across builds, height, and even culture. My skinny athletic girlfriend is .72.


No I'm not incorrect. The person I was talking about at .78 is Mila Kunis, and she regularly makes top 10 lists. Regularly.

And she's not alone.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I blame FrenchFry for the gif thing, can't seem to help myself now.


Yes, of course some women who are attractive are at the so-called ideal. And yes, 70 is somewhere halfway between 60 and 80. 

But fact is women of quite varying proportions are considered sexy by legions of men. Even when restricted to the most narrow-minded of current cultural stereotypes.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Best post of the day!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah, but the difference is that she didn't just break out of persona... she spoke and they realized she's an idiot. With the female equivalent, there's not really anything wrong with the guy's voice or what he said... it just didn't fit the persona the woman had conjured for him.


This is just such utter bs. Where do you get this stuff?

And honestly, really? I totally see that the media tends to push a quite homogeneous views of beauty. But man-sexy is just as homogeneous as woman-sexy. Every man underwear ad, for example, looks almost exactly the same.

Why do you suppose this media ad homogeneity actually represents what men find sexy, but not women?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

PS Marilyn Monroe clocks in at .62 or .64 (depending on age), significantly lower than the 0.7 so-called ideal.

Don't believe everything you read, even if it claims to be "science"


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> But fact is women of quite varying proportions are considered sexy by legions of men. Even when restricted to the most narrow-minded of current cultural stereotypes.


Yeah, but who's arguing that? I don't even think Dvl's is arguing that point?

I tend to like jacked bean-poles. Think Linda Hamilton from Terminator 2. Absolutely my wheel-house.

I generally don't find 'beautiful' what other guys do. So in that regard, I'm really not arguing with you. I was just responding to why men may still find women like Hendricks attractive.

Either way, I still want the woman that I love, or just really, like, like, to feel that sex is a chance to connect emotionally, and having it is very, very, important, regardless of her waist-to-hip ratio.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> PS Marilyn Monroe clocks in at .62 or .64 (depending on age), significantly lower than the 0.7 so-called ideal.
> 
> Don't believe everything you read, even if it claims to be "science"


I don't believe for a moment that U.K. Mail Online would fudge facts.

Audrey Hepburn ...
I get slack-jawed seeing pictures of that woman. It's more admiration than lust. I just find her stunning. But I can't imagine she comes in as a .7 either.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's where you'd be incorrect. To the majority of the male population, the most attractive ratio of waist to hips is about 0.7, and this ratio is scientifically proven across builds, height, and even culture. My skinny athletic girlfriend is .72.
> 
> I think this is only one part of the equation, but a very important part.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty much a perfect .7 ratio. And yet somehow men manage to keep their feet when I pass by. That makes me think maybe there's more to it.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Lyris said:


> I'm pretty much a perfect .7 ratio. And yet somehow men manage to keep their feet when I pass by. That makes me think maybe there's more to it.


KERRTHUMP!

Ouch, damn it Lyris, you could have warned me you were about to walk past.


Sorry, I'll get my coat and leave.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

And I think the reverse is true for women viewing men.

If you read too much of the stuff on here you would think a man without a golden tricycle has no hope and is doomed to be on the relationship scrap heap. Yet I get complimented all the time on my figure and shape by women.
Whether that would transfer to sexual interest if I was single I don't know, I don't have a clue about this dating stuff.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Yeah, but who's arguing that? I don't even think Dvl's is arguing that point?



Dvls was saying that what men think is sexy, and what they count as an "elite" body, is very homogenous, admitting only a very small range, --indeed a much smaller range than what women think is sexy in a man. And that everybody wants this ideal, but then settles for what they can get.

And since he also agrees that the 0.7 hip-waist ratio epitomizes that ideal, I thought I would point out that piles of women who are what he called "not really attractive" or "only to a few men's taste" (because they have the fuller figure) are actually *closer* to this "ideal" ratio than some of the slimmer women who consistently top out in the who's sexy today charts.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Dvls was saying that what men think is sexy, and what they count as an "elite" body, is very homogenous, admitting only a very small range, --indeed a much smaller range than what women think is sexy in a man. And that everybody wants this ideal, but then settles for what they can get.
> 
> And since he also agrees that the 0.7 hip-waist ratio epitomizes that ideal, I thought I would point out that piles of women who are what he called "not really attractive" or "only to a few men's taste" (because they have the fuller figure) are actually *closer* to this "ideal" ratio than some of the slimmer women who consistently top out in the who's sexy today charts.


Got it. I don't know if Dvl's is that absolute about attraction or not, but when you listed the women you did, who are not petite bean-poles, and wondering why men are attracted, I do think there is something to be said for regardless of a woman's size, her shape is what sends a signal regarding attraction triggers in a man. All of those women, Marilyn, Rihanna, Christina, Beyonce, have the hour-glass figure. Their weight doesn't matter. Make them an apple, or a pear shape and that attraction is simply no longer going to exist.

There are women I can acknowledge as beautiful, to whom i am not attracted. And no doubt there are women I find stunning who others would not.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> PS Marilyn Monroe clocks in at .62 or .64 (depending on age), significantly lower than the 0.7 so-called ideal.


Yep...Ms Monroe's measurements are given at 22-23W and 35-36H. I'm no math whiz, but I think 22.5/35.5 = .634, which is more curvy than .7

Having said that though, I wouldn't call her average


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> No I'm not incorrect. The person I was talking about at .78 is Mila Kunis, and she regularly makes top 10 lists. Regularly.
> 
> And she's not alone.


You're using a woman who is .78 to invalidate a rule that says .7 is ideal?? For real?

In terms of body, Mila Kunis is not ideal... she's pretty damn close. Accounting for the rest of her makes her a top 10 in my book. I'm a big fan of Mila Kunis.

You're attacking a point I'm not making. There is margin in men's preference for women's bodies even while .7 is ideal, but its not where near as wide as the margin women have for men's bodies. Tom Brady is nowhere near the Adonis ratio. This isn't something I'm just intuiting out of thin air like Doctor Nerdlove. Its proven fact demonstrated again and again across cultures.

The Adonis ratio - women's proven ideal male body, plays less a factor in female attraction than the waist-hips ratio plays in male attraction. In other words, an ideal body matters more to men. Hence, the top women's list shows little variation from the ideal while the top men's lists show large variation from ideal.

The sexes weight these qualities differently. For women's taste to vary so much from their ideal says they are weighting some other quality greater than men do.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I do think there is something to be said for regardless of a woman's size, her shape is what sends a signal regarding attraction triggers in a man. All of those women, Marilyn, Rihanna, Christina, Beyonce, have the hour-glass figure. Their weight doesn't matter. Make them an apple, or a pear shape and that attraction is simply no longer going to exist.


Except that my whole point is that evidence shows that this is simply not true. Beyonce, for example, is not hourglass, but pear-shaped. 

My wondering was purely rhetorical. If you step back and follow the trails of drool, and do a weensy bit of math, you'll see that there's a huge variety of both proportion and body type that is considered uber sexy --and not just by fringe kinksters. All of the numbers I ran came randomly from top sexiest women in the world lists. Hip waist ratios run from .62 to .78, and that's just from the very teeny sample I bothered to calculate. And shapes ran from hourglass, to pear-shaped, to beanpole. 

These "ideals" people throw around as "science" are meaningless numbers grounds in baseless assumptions.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

This conversation went from zero to nerd in 8 seconds.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> These "ideals" people throw around as "science" are meaningless numbers grounds in baseless assumptions.


Which must be exactly why the Discovery Channel did an entire series based on attraction and cited numerous scientists and researchers citing those meaningless numbers grounded in baseless assumptions surrounding these very topics, facial symmetry, waist-to-hip ratio and the Adonnis ratio.

I could give you a link to the documentary, a link to references, I think this is simply a matter of you ain't buyin' it.

I'm attracted to what I'm attracted to ... not arguing with you there. But I also don't doubt that the principles of attraction are extraordinarily straightforward and quantifiable, with ever-present degrees of variability.

And regardless of all of that, sex remains an emotional need for a man who is deeply in love with his partner.

And I'm not looking to rub salt at all, but I keep wondering if therein lies our disconnect. It's my personal truth. But in your experience, you see no evidence of it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're using a woman who is .78 to invalidate a rule that says .7 is ideal?? For real?


Considering that .8 is considered healthy and attractive for *men*, yes I am. 

Let's face it, if you get much curvier than .62, it's going to start looking a little freakish, and once you get to about 0.8, you are getting into the same proportions that men have. So the range of what's even possible (barring extremely overweight apple shapes) isn't very large to begin with. Yet there's plenty of sexy women exist at both extremes.

Are you still going to insist that men's tastes are so homogeneous? So much more so than women's?

Maybe you might want to include some evidence instead of just asserting it must be true because you say so.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> This is just such utter bs. Where do you get this stuff?
> 
> And honestly, really? I totally see that the media tends to push a quite homogeneous views of beauty. But man-sexy is just as homogeneous as woman-sexy. Every man underwear ad, for example, looks almost exactly the same.
> 
> Why do you suppose this media ad homogeneity actually represents what men find sexy, but not women?


I totally agree, every male underwear model looks exactly the same. I'm glad you picked that example because I've had this conversation before. The women I've spoken to don't find these models nearly as attractive as men find women's underwear models. Specific reasons included: "too muscley", "not my type", "he looks like a douche"... all manner of excuses, many not even related to his body, as to why they don't like him. I've even heard "nice eye candy, but I probably wouldn't be into him". Its like women look for excuses to not like a guy. Men see the female underwear model and just say "Yes please. Want." I consider all of that fact... do you dispute those facts, or just my conclusion?

My conclusion, if the above facts are true - and given other comments like "he started talking and ruined it", is that women don't actually judging the body alone. Many of you seemingly CANT. The body alone doesn't do it for you. What is most common I think, is that women tag a man with a persona. Who he is being just as important as his physical form. Harder to nail down concepts of how he carries himself, his confidences, attitude and charisma. These drive the woman's desire as much as physical form. When a woman sees a man, she fills the gaps with their own imagination of what the man is... and given those underwear models are posing like shallow body-obsessed women on an underwear ad, he gets bad marks (the actual pose even makes a difference!). This is the same phenomenon I see in women's reactions to men sharing dirty pics. Most view posing for a dirty pic as somewhat effeminate... even if the guy has a great body, posing is often an overall negative in attraction. In sending the pose pic, he's damaging the persona she's attracted to. Timing and circumstance is everything here. Notice how different that is from men? Send us a dirty pic anytime anywhere for any reason and we're stupid happy.

What is the homogenous male ideal? Is it the big muscled up dude? Is it the muscley thin underwear model? Is it the skinny jeans hipster? Women are ALL OVER THE MAP when it comes to men. Seriously, all over the effing map. Even the Adonis ratio is a poor predictor of overall attraction. I take this to mean that you have an ideal, its just not that important to you. Example: Penny on Big Bang Theory is a woman men think is quite attractive (not going to make any lists, but good looking). Leonard on the other hand is by no means good looking, but women are drawn to the persona of the character. Take away the character, and he's not attractive anymore. Penny is physically attractive, period. Its as if women can't evaluate a man's looks without attributing some persona to him. 

I think the media does try to establish a homongenous "sexy-male", but its only weakly received because those physical traits just don't have the pull that they do for men. They do a pretty good job of it in movies where you can express persona. They do a pretty poor job of it in underwear ads. The body alone just isn't enough for most women - "nice eye candy, but I probably wouldn't be into him". I've never heard a guy say anything like that! My reasoning is that the persona is far more attractive than some physical prototype for women. Men on the other hand, are more attracted to the physical prototype than the persona. That is just my opinion/interpretation of the facts as I see them... my attempt to explain what I see.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is the same phenomenon I see in women's reactions to men sharing dirty pics. Most view posing for a dirty pic as somewhat effeminate... even if the guy has a great body, posing is often an overall negative in attraction. In sending the pose pic, he's damaging the persona she's attracted to. Timing and circumstance is everything here. Notice how different that is from men? Send us a dirty pic anytime anywhere for any reason and we're stupid happy.Cannot agree on this point. I get crazy stupid happy when DH sends dirty pics to me. I wish he'd do it more often. But then again,I'm just one woman and that's not enough to prove anything.
> 
> Example: Penny on Big Bang Theory is a woman men think is quite attractive (not going to make any lists, but good looking). Leonard on the other hand is by no means good looking, but women are drawn to the persona of the character. Take away the character, and he's not attractive anymore. I heart Leonard  I liked that guy when he was on Roseanne too.He taught himself to play the Cello. HAWT.Penny is physically attractive, period. Its as if women can't evaluate a man's looks without attributing some persona to him. Depends on the dude. I know nothing about James McAvoy other than he's the hottest man I've ever seen.No attributes.Just a glorious smoking hot face and body. Then other guys like Adam Richmond are hot bc of their sexy faces,laid back style and incredible personality.
> 
> My reasoning is that the persona is far more attractive than some physical prototype for women. Men on the other hand, are more attracted to the physical prototype than the persona. That is just my opinion/interpretation of the facts as I see them... my attempt to explain what I see.I can agree with this to a point.Absolutely. Is it fair to say that a man will think a woman is slightly less attractive if she's terrible person or has a terrible personality after he gets to know her? It's definitely that way for many women. We'll think a man is super hot based on looks alone then he'll lose attraction points if he turns out to be a douche. We'll still think he's hot but he will go from f**kable to no thanks.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I'm attracted to what I'm attracted to ... not arguing with you there. But I also don't doubt that the principles of attraction are extraordinarily straightforward and quantifiable, with ever-present degrees of variability.


Well, can't disagree with Discovery Channel, now could I?

Oh wait: Yes, there are lots of studies on attractiveness, proportion, symmetry, and so on. But when push comes to shove, the fact remains that the variability is quite wide-ranging, yet the people involved are still voted sexiest man or woman alive. How is that?

Statistics are fun, but averages are not "ideals" and do not necessarily establish a meaningful truth. There are simply too many factors involved in our judgments, and so reducing it to straightforward quantitative measurements are inevitably going to fail. 

And yes, evo-psych notions about "signals of fertility" are vastly too simplistic for words. And the hip-waist thing has been shown to vary in different cultures. All of the truths put forward in these attractiveness studies are either debunked, or shown not to have predictive value.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The body alone just isn't enough for most women - "nice eye candy, but I probably wouldn't be into him". I've never heard a guy say anything like that!


Oh, well, yes, men do objectify women, and are basically trained to view them that way from birth. And women do tend to look at a whole person, not just an object. I don't disagree with that.

I just disagree on your assessments about objectivity in looks and perceived ideals.

PS I was going to calculate Tom's Adonis ratio, just for kicks, but couldn't find the measurements. I did notice, though that askmen and other men's sites do describe him as an adonis, though, and worthy of emulation. So it might be that he just doesn't meet your personal taste.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Considering that .8 is considered healthy and attractive for *men*, yes I am.
> 
> Let's face it, if you get much curvier than .62, it's going to start looking a little freakish, and once you get to about 0.8, you are getting into the same proportions that men have. So the range of what's even possible (barring extremely overweight apple shapes) isn't very large to begin with. Yet there's plenty of sexy women exist at both extremes.
> 
> ...


Alrighty... we'll play the exact numbers game. You're right and you're wrong. .78 is pushing out of range... but Mila Kunis isn't .78. Mila Kunis' measurements are 25-33. That's a ratio of about 0.75 I think.

Rihanna? .66
Kim Kardashian? .66
Jennifer Lopez? .68
Adriana Lima? .68
Beyoncé? .65
Alessandra Ambrosio? .72
Jessica Biel? .72

You can find their measurements all over the net, good luck finding any male measurements. Very few men are going to say there is any woman much more beautiful than Ambrosio or Lima. That .68 - .72 range is widely considered absolutely *perfect* and indistinguishable to most men. If you want to see some non-celeb ratios, here's a thread on myfitnesspal.com: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/788028-hip-to-waist-ratio-post-your-s-and-pictures - note however, that a couple of these women are clearly not measuring properly.

Then you have the celebrity women who are cheered up by a vocal minority. I'm sorry, but these women are not the elite hot to the overwhelming majority of men. They may still be attractive, but far less so. Nicky Minaj, for example, is a .57. Totally unattractive to me, but not freakish.

Waist-hip ratio is a proven health indicator in both men and women, this is why its thought that the strong correlation between the ratio and attraction exists. Have a look at the Wikipedia article on it and its citations. ".7 WHR for women and .9 for men" have been shown to strongly correlate to general health and fertility. It is strongly correlated with proper levels of estrogen or testosterone, and is thereby thought to be a gender cue and signal of sexual maturity.

The correlation of WHR to attraction is FAR stronger for men than for women. The better correlation for women, is in a man's waist-shoulder ratio... but even there, the correlation to attraction is less than men have for a woman's WHR.

The female preference for male shoulder-waist ratio shows a lot more variance than studies of waist-hip ratio for male preference. Its a little harder to nail down, but there is a clear preference for a V-shape. Though studies put the number anywhere from .7 to .9. Even finding celebrity examples is more difficult. The numbers simply aren't out there. My guess as to why is that obtaining this magic number doesn't actually achieve the female attention that men desire. It helps, but other things matter more. I think men recognize this. Even trying to achieve the ideal shoulder-waist ratio is off putting to many women. My interpretation of this is that women want a man who is confident in whatever he happens to be, and physical self-improvement to conform to social standard of attraction is viewed as insecurity or some quasi-weakness of self confidence and independence. ie - compensating for some perceived inadequacy.

Men on the other hand do nothing but cheer a woman working toward improving her ratio. I don't sense anything like women's view of men doing so as "unattractively vain".

Whether I have the details well understood or not, I've seen enough to strongly believe there are significant differences in how men and women perceive each other's bodies and what contributes to attraction.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Well, can't disagree with Discovery Channel, now could I?
> 
> Oh wait: Yes, there are lots of studies on attractiveness, proportion, symmetry, and so on. But when push comes to shove, the fact remains that the variability is quite wide-ranging, yet the people involved are still voted sexiest man or woman alive. How is that?
> 
> ...


So ... you really do believe it's just 'magic'? I guess that's ok too.

Or are you just being contrary?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I just disagree on your assessments about objectivity in looks and perceived ideals.


WHR is a scientifically proven ideal. Didn't you ask for proof? WHR is as proven as it gets.



always_alone said:


> PS I was going to calculate Tom's Adonis ratio, just for kicks, but couldn't find the measurements. I did notice, though that askmen and other men's sites do describe him as an adonis, though, and worthy of emulation. So it might be that he just doesn't meet your personal taste.


I've been trying to find the article that broke down the ratios for all NFL qbs a few years ago. I think it was in Men's Health, but I haven't found it. Sorry. But I'm not lying to you... he has a poor Adonis ratio, and an exceptional golden ratio in the face. He's also has very good facial symmetry... another one of those proven ideals you don't like.

Its not "my taste"... its women's taste. I didn't make up the ratios.

You're absolutely right though, the male measurements are hard to find. Maybe because, though women have an ideal, that ideal doesn't matter as much?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> And the hip-waist thing has been shown to vary in different cultures. All of the truths put forward in these attractiveness studies are either debunked, or shown not to have predictive value.


The above is just BS. The hip-waist thing is VERY predictive and yes, proven across cultures to be within a certain range of WHR. Get outside that range, and you're less attractive regardless of the culture.

Maybe you can cite some actual facts. You know, that thing you accused me of not doing.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Oh, well, yes, men do objectify women, and are basically trained to view them that way from birth. And women do tend to look at a whole person, not just an object. I don't disagree with that.


I think you can spin anything negatively (Or positively) if you have a mind to. All you have to do is focus on one to the exclusion of the other.

The male tendency towards "Body first blindness" takes many forms. One form is greater ideological compliance and adaptability. I've seen plenty of men suddenly and rabidly adopt the political or religious views of {Insert name of hot girlfriend} for no other reason besides that. And we're talking about bonafide true believers here. 

One of my children got mixed up with a high control group (i.e. A cult) years ago and young women were actually coached to recruit young men this way. You see pretty much the exact same thing in some of the less mainstream Protestant denominations that preach endogamy. Many a young man was originally converted via his girlfriend.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Octillo, the same practice is found in the swinging community I think. The females are the evangelists. Its a little counter-intuitive to me, but the indoctrination of other couples is usually via collusion of the females and the newbie female then works her influence on her partner.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The above is just BS. The hip-waist thing is VERY predictive and yes, proven across cultures to be within a certain range of WHR. Get outside that range, and you're less attractive regardless of the culture.
> 
> Maybe you can cite some actual facts. You know, that thing you accused me of not doing.


Oh fer gawd's sake, I give you fact after fact, and you put your hands over your ears and sing lalalalala and spew wikipedia articles at me.

So there's a small discrepancy between what we discovered about Mila Kunis measurements - the site I say said 25/32, which gives you the .78. Your site gives you 33, for a slightly lower number.

Big deal. My point remains. The variability of sexy is huge, given what is physically possible/remotely healthy for a human being. 

Do you remember that some women who fit the "ideals" you initially said weren't really attractive (e.g. Christina Hendricks)? That they represented "fringe" tastes? But now they have been shown to fit within your waist-hip theory, all of a sudden they're perfect (or close to it, closer than Marilyn, who still has *it*, even though she is dead)?

You're just changing your tune to suit whatever ridiculous theory you wish to propound.

Cross-culturally, some cultures have been show to prefer around .8, while others drift much lower than the .7. Look it up.

Within cultures there is huge variability; between cultures it is much larger still. Them's the facts.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> The male tendency towards "Body first blindness" takes many forms. One form is greater ideological compliance and adaptability. I've seen plenty of men suddenly and rabidly adopt the political or religious views of {Insert name of hot girlfriend} for no other reason besides that. And we're talking about bonafide true believers here.


Young women are notorious for this too. They will morph into whatever it is that he wants.

Although I grant you that it's quite possible that the women are more likely to morph back into their original form once the deal is sealed.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> So ... you really do believe it's just 'magic'? I guess that's ok too.


Not magic. Just not reducible to simplistic measurements and assumptions about our biological drives.

Everything from cultural norms to genetic make-up, including but not limited to smell, presence, personal tastes, health, family, sexual availability, etc and so on influence attraction.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> Not magic. Just not reducible to simplistic measurements and assumptions about our biological drives.
> 
> Everything from cultural norms to genetic make-up, including but not limited to smell, presence, personal tastes, health, family, sexual availability, etc and so on influence attraction.


Oh. Well then we're good.

Then I guess I don't need this ...

http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2010...le-body-exists-but-does-it-matter/#more-16015

*read the comments, they are pure gold.

By a feminist mind you. Acknowledging what we pretty much all know ... and I guess I'm still not sure if you are onboard with. There IS a standard to which most people when asked, in this case both men and women; define as 'most' attractive.

But as is summed up, just because there is an ideal, doesn't mean the people we fall in love with have to fit that ideal.

My standard? I tend to be very attracted to the woman that is enthusiastically having sex with me and making me feel loved. I think my standard is kind of awesome.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Yes, here's what their "proof" is made of:

Videos of the models were shown to a sample of 92 Australian adults, 40 men and 52 women, aged between 18 to 58 years of age, and mostly of European descent. They then compared the attractiveness ratings given by the Australian group to the ratings from a group in Hong Kong to avoid cultural bias.

Both sample groups were asked to rate the models’ attractiveness on a 7 point scale; on average the raters took just 5.35 seconds to rate each model.

.......

So a whopping 92 people, from one culture, agreed on a very small range! Yeah...that accounts for all of attraction.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, here's what their "proof" is made of:
> 
> Videos of the models were shown to a sample of 92 Australian adults, 40 men and 52 women, aged between 18 to 58 years of age, and mostly of European descent. They then compared the attractiveness ratings given by the Australian group to the ratings from a group in Hong Kong to avoid cultural bias.
> 
> ...


No ... 184 people from 2 different cultures and all of the models were from one; non-European.

I guess I'm just stymied that we're even arguing about this.

Look at the graphic. There is undoubtedly one of those female forms to which 'most' people, including you, are going to be attracted. And it really is no surprise that the type most widely chosen, is young, tall, and slender, with a narrow waist, by both men and women.

Seriously ... I fall into the same category as the author, why does this even need to be verified? Why is this even questioned, let alone needing to be debunked? There's nothing to debunk.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Oh fer gawd's sake, I give you fact after fact, and you put your hands over your ears and sing lalalalala and spew wikipedia articles at me.


You've done no such thing! Specifically, what evidence have you provided to back up your claim that WHR is invalid? Where did you provide that?? YOU DIDNT. So don't give me that crap about going lalalala. In all honesty, you haven't backed up squat. You're doing exactly what you accuse me of. Was the Wikipedia article invalid? Its sources are listed, do you object to them? You've provided even less than a wiki full of citations. You've provided nothing at all.



always_alone said:


> So there's a small discrepancy between what we discovered about Mila Kunis measurements - the site I say said 25/32, which gives you the .78. Your site gives you 33, for a slightly lower number.
> 
> Big deal. My point remains. The variability of sexy is huge, given what is physically possible/remotely healthy for a human being.


No, your point does not remain. The variability of sexy is not huge. Mila Kunis is on the border of the ideal, AND posseses a myriad other qualities that push her into the elite. Yet she's far closer to having ideal WHR, than a guy like Tom Brady, or even half the male lists, are to having ideal WSR - the ratio that shows the least variance in female preference (but still way more variance than male preference in WHR).



always_alone said:


> Do you remember that some women who fit the "ideals" you initially said weren't really attractive (Beyonce, Rihanna, Christina Hendricks)? That they represented "fringe" tastes? But now they have been shown to fit within your waist-hip theory, all of a sudden they're perfect?


TBH, I'm not much attracted to black women (a few here and there... ) and I'm just not familiar with the bodies of Beyoncé, Kardashian. I don't even know who Christina Hendricks is. I couldn't pick Kim out of a lineup. My apologies... I don't know their bodies. I'm told they have big booties and crazy curves, so I would have assumed they were out of the ideal ratio, just as you did. I was wrong. Put the same body on a woman I'm familiar with and I'd probably think she's crazy hot. The ideal ratio is still true. Did you assume that its the only thing that matters? You do a lot of that "only" stuff. I think Rihanna is pretty hot though... but a nice pic of her body comes up from time to time when I'm listening to music. I'd rather off myself than listen to Beyoncé.



always_alone said:


> You're just changing your tune to suit whatever ridiculous theory you wish to propound.


Not even. I don't follow Beyoncé... sorry. I don't know who Christina Hendricks is. I couldn't pick Kim Kardashian out of a line up in all honesty. I went with popular perception there... but then, so did you in declaring them out of the ideal to begin with.  

I haven't seen their bodies to truly judge them one way or the other. My bad.



always_alone said:


> Cross-culturally, some cultures have been show to prefer around .8, while others drift much lower than the .7. Look it up.
> 
> Within cultures there is huge variability; between cultures it is much larger still. Them's the facts.


My terrible wiki accounted for this variance, but you didn't want to read it because its wikipedia. The ideal range is .6-.8 cross culturally. This small variance is primarily tied to nutrition. In nutritionally deprived cultures, the ideal attractive figure reflects the healthiest members of their population - as nutrition greatly affects the production of sex hormones that influence figure - and the preference is "sticky". Do you really want to say malnourishment is a legitimate preference? The best of the least nourished? Or can we accept that if the women in those culture were properly nourished, those men would have the same preferences of men in developed nations?

If all the women a group of men sees as he develops were fat, then yes, men would prefer those fat women who were closest to actual healthy ideal... and he'll continue to like them even after you move him to a healthy group of women where the actual ideal exists. The preference is "sticky", but there is still an ideal. This will either fly right over your head, or you'll willfully refuse to understand it.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Deejo said:


> Why is this even questioned, let alone needing to be debunked? There's nothing to debunk.


Right. Reminds me of the time my husband's doctor spoke to us about a study in which it was determined that doctors received better medical history on their male patients from their patient's wives than they did from the male patient alone.

My response was:" Some one paid to have that study done?"


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo said:


> No ... 184 people from 2 different cultures and all of the models were from one; non-European.
> 
> I guess I'm just stymied that we're even arguing about this.
> 
> ...


Deejo - Ok, let me change the angle of it a bit.

What these studies show over and over is that we can "see" what a healthy weight range is on other human beings.

I'm going to guess that any random person on the street could also "see" the "healthiest" of any 5 horses or dogs or other mammal in a similar chart. Our eyes will find the subtle cues that indicate good mammal health.

To then translate this into it being a baseline for all of human attraction is absurd.

So let's change it to "sexual attraction". Can you still just show 5 computer generated pictures to everyone and expect them to pick one and *THAT* is supposed to be their personal ideal of sexual attraction?

What if their actual ideal has more to do with a personality type?

What if they are blind?

What if they are gay?

What if they have been conditioned (via shaming) to never admit they are a chubby chaser?

Have you not seen and known people who are each other's ideal yet neither of them look anything like those robots in your study?

Sexual attraction sometimes has little to do with physical attraction...yet these stupid studies think they are one and the same. I'm saying that yeah, they might be the same for some individuals. For many of us, no not really. For some of us, not at all.

Evo-psych believes that we only have sex to make babies, so of course, all studies are skewed toward that view point. But they are all simply *research studies*....what OTHER scientific evidence is there?

Because I can offer the millions of people who are crazy sexually attracted to each other, none of whom look like ANY of the robots on your study.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Young women are notorious for this too. They will morph into whatever it is that he wants.
> 
> Although I grant you that it's quite possible that the women are more likely to morph back into their original form once the deal is sealed.


Maybe the example of high control groups was too esoteric for this discussion. At any rate, I am way, way more familiar with those examples than I ever wanted to be. 

When a male "Believer" starts seeing an attractive female "Unbeliever" it more often than not, works the other way around. She slowly deprograms him and turns him into a (semi) normal human being. --Not always of course, but often enough that this trend is even reflected in their cult-speak.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> So let's change it to "sexual attraction". Can you still just show 5 computer generated pictures to everyone and expect them to pick one and *THAT* is supposed to be their personal ideal of sexual attraction?
> 
> What if their actual ideal has more to do with a personality type?
> 
> ...


You've redefined the question to get the answer you want. Basically a form of moving the goal posts.

Its quite clear this discussion of ideal is limited to the physical preferences of heterosexuals. Lets not try to redefine it and further muddy the water.



Faithful Wife said:


> What if they have been conditioned (via shaming) to never admit they are a chubby chaser?


I've considered those before, and I believe, but don't have evidence to prove, that this is like a double entendre or chicken and egg sort of thing. There's a weird backwardness or feedback loop about it maybe.

I believe the desire for the chubby is the result of local conditioning, much in the way that men in malnourished cultures desire women who don't fit the overall ideal... because these are the women who most closely fit the ideal when their notions of attractiveness formed. The shame for that desire is the shame anyone feels for being out of norm for any reason. When these men conditioned by local factors are exposed to the larger world, their preferences remain "sticky" just like the men in malnourished societies.

My other theory on this may be the better one... but again, totally supposition for the purpose of discussion, is that the chubby chaser has a mental dependency or unresolved psychological issue with some chubby woman... perhaps his mother. The chubby women he pursues are surrogates for whatever he sought from that woman (his mother). There's also potentially a power issue / self-esteem issue at play for a man to seek a woman far below his own attractiveness.

One particular chubby chaser I know does so, I believe, because he can control them or they're otherwise more enamored with him / compliant to his wants. To an ordinary woman, he's ordinary. To the chubby women, he's special. I think there's a psych issue there.

Now I admit, that's all totally pulled out of my @ss. But that's my current thinking based on the chubby chasing men I've known... so you can take it or leave it. Here's the salt.



Faithful Wife said:


> Have you not seen and known people who are each other's ideal yet neither of them look anything like those robots in your study?


Not really what I see... a couple here or there maybe. For the most part, people seem to find other people of like attractiveness or blend of status/attractiveness. ie - the doctors I know sure are unattractive or plain men with remarkably attractive wives. Generally anyway, one is butt ugly and his wife isn't too hot either. Still, I don't think he gets her without being a doctor. But usually, what I see, is a bunch of couples who are on par physically.



Faithful Wife said:


> Sexual attraction sometimes has little to do with physical attraction...yet these stupid studies think they are one and the same. I'm saying that yeah, they might be the same for some individuals. For many of us, no not really. For some of us, not at all.


I don't think they're one and the same. I don't think the studies think they are either. Physical attraction is one, often important, component to sexual attraction.



Faithful Wife said:


> Evo-psych believes that we only have sex to make babies, so of course, all studies are skewed toward that view point. But they are all simply *research studies*....what OTHER scientific evidence is there?


That's a common mischaracterization of evo-psych. Actually, it says that the pleasure we get from sex is derived from our biological imperative to reproduce - those with that trait just reproduced more; the non-evo-psych people credit the trait as a standalone feature/property. But if your ancestors didn't enjoy or get mental rewards for having sex, they wouldn't have pursued it as much. The development of those traits were important. Reproduction was not a rational choice during our evolution... reason developed later. Those who didn't pursue sex, because they lacked this reward system were effectively outbred, leaving the rewarding traits as dominant. The pleasure, love etc etc... are all by products in evo-psych. All these "other things" you seek sex for beyond "making babies" are the result of those things developing because they made your ancestors actually "make babies". Just a little bit deeper than I think you're seeing if I'm reading you right.

Today, you enjoy sex (and all the other reasons you have sex) because some human ancestor developed that trait and it made them have MORE sex... or rather, more babies.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo - Ok, let me change the angle of it a bit.
> 
> What these studies show over and over is that we can "see" what a healthy weight range is on other human beings.
> 
> ...


I'm going to conduct scientific research trying to determine why people hate the results of scientific research, even when scientific research effectively tells us what we already know.

The study actually consisted of 96 distinct body types. Those types were then aggregated into 5 composite figures.

Seeing as this thread has completely gone off the rails from being about me and my emotional need for sex, to feel loved, lets beat this concept of what's beautiful or attractive into the ground.

Another site that studies the concept of beauty from those crackpots at the University of Regensburg, Germany.

Beautycheck - Home


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

But again...you're talking about "beauty" as if it is the same as "sexual attraction".


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> But again...you're talking about "beauty" as if it is the same as "sexual attraction".


And again ... I don't know what you are questioning? We gotta start somewhere.
You know what makes me crazy sexually attracted to a woman? That she is into crazy sex.

I've dated beautiful women with whom I've had great sex. 

I've dated less beautiful women with whom I've had the crazy sex, summarily, I can acknowledge that one woman may be more beautiful than the other, and one I am much more sexually attracted to than the other.

In the link I provided, there is an experiment compositing the faces of Ms. Germany contestants. I can acknowledge that all of those women are attractive (They have on no makeup, and their hair is pulled back, so it's a raw photo). But I was only 'highly attracted' to one of them, and it isn't the composite.

Beautycheck - virtual miss germany


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

What do you mean, we gotta start somewhere?

Do you think tribal people who have never been exposed to our cultural ideas of "beauty" and "sexy" don't feel sexual attraction toward each other, even though most wouldn't fit any of the idealized faces and bodies these studies are showing?

Point being - sex is gonna happen, and those who are sexually attracted to each other will not always pick each other based on those studies.

WHAT OTHER scientific evidence besides those types of studies about only "beauty" and "physical attraction" can you cite? There isn't any, right?

And yet for however many thousands of years...people have been getting it on with others who don't fit into those small holes evo-psyche is trying to cram them in.

I honestly can't believe that my POV has to be explained, Deejo.

Sexual attraction does start somewhere...and it will ALWAYS start based on your culture and what you have been exposed to and what you have been shamed into and out of. From there, it will be bent by your orientation, your chemistry, and many other factors. But yeah, lets test a few hundred college kids and THEY will determine for us what we find sexually attractive.

Really?


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Deejo said:


> And again ... I don't know what you are questioning? We gotta start somewhere.
> You know what makes me crazy sexually attracted to a woman? That she is into crazy sex.
> 
> I've dated beautiful women with whom I've had great sex.
> ...


If I had to choose who was the most attractive just based on a quick glance at those photos I would say Miss Bremen.

Miss Bavaria looks like she either hasn't slept in a week or is on drugs.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> What do you mean, we gotta start somewhere?
> 
> Do you think tribal people who have never been exposed to our cultural ideas of "beauty" and "sexy" don't feel sexual attraction toward each other, even though most wouldn't fit any of the idealized faces and bodies these studies are showing?
> 
> ...


I think age and maturity come into play too.

As a school boy I was very much "Phwoooar look at the norks on that"

As a mature man my perception of attractiveness is based on a much wider set of criteria, less on superficial beauty.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

WyshIknew said:


> I think age and maturity come into play too.
> 
> As a school boy I was very much "Phwoooar look at the norks on that"
> 
> As a mature man my perception of attractiveness is based on a much wider set of criteria, less on superficial beauty.


I had already known that "beauty" is not necessarily "f0ckability". 

So the "beautiful" model type who appears perfect might not light your jets more than some lady who is a cauldren filled with lust who has a more normal face but a good body...


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> What do you mean, we gotta start somewhere?


I mean, there is SOMETHING that creates that initial "Wow ..." flag. What I don't understand is why you are trying to further deconstruct the simple question of 'What's attractive?' into beauty attraction vs. sexual attraction. Invariably if I'm attracted to someone, I'm going to want to be sexual. 

Attraction is the baseline that helps set the stage to determine if sex is a possible outcome of an interaction or relationship. No?

I think quite simply, that you are Evo-Psych averse. You've stated as much. And that's fine.

But I mean, c'mon. Are you saying attraction can't be measured or qualified? 
Are you saying there aren't traits that are commonly and widely recognized as attractive, even across cultures? 

Whether a woman is deemed attractive by her waist, the distance between her eyes, or the number of goats her dad is prepared to bestow upon you, I don't much care. There are triggers, there are traits, there are behaviors that can foster attraction, and certainly triggers, traits and behaviors that can kill it just as quickly.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo said: "Invariably if I'm attracted to someone, I'm going to want to be sexual."

Ok, well I see where the disconnect is then. This statement is soooo far from true for ME that I realize we are not talking about the same thing.

And yes...I am saying that sexual attraction for the entire human race cannot be measured by American college students taking surveys. It is so much broader than that, that it surprises me you disagree with me on this one.

Oh but...wait...if you want to be sexual with every person you find attractive...which I do not...it makes more sense.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh but...wait...if you want to be sexual with every person you find attractive...which I do not...it makes more sense.


Negative good buddy.

I'm talking in terms of someone I want to be with. I can acknowledge that Anna Torv does something to me and I don't know why, but that doesn't mean I imagine being tangled up on my leather couch with her. (I'm a dude, of course I have a leather couch)

We have had this discussion in the past as well. I simply do not have protracted sexual fantasies about women I find attractive. There may be that unconcious yes/no/maybe mental checkbox regarding finding someone attractive, but I don't do mind movies based on seeing a woman.

If I'm dating a woman and I'm attracted to her, it's her I picture on the couch, not some celebrity with a perfect .7 WTH ratio.

Oh, and it was Miss Baden-Wuerttemberg that made my heart skip a beat.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Then why are you arguing that these beauty contest surveys are telling us who we want to have sex with?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

WyshIknew said:


> I think age and maturity come into play too.
> 
> As a school boy I was very much "Phwoooar look at the norks on that"
> 
> As a mature man my perception of attractiveness is based on a much wider set of criteria, less on superficial beauty.


We may still look at the norks, we just don't make the declaration anymore.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Then why are you arguing that these beauty contest surveys are telling us who we want to have sex with?


What we have, you and I, is a red herring.

I'm not arguing what you claim I'm arguing.

Always Alone asked if there is such a small set of traits that determine what makes a woman attractive, then why are men attracted (drooling over was her synonym of choice) to women like Marilyn Monroe, Christina Hendricks, Beyonce, and Rihanna.

And I effectively stated because their 'shape' still falls within the parameters of what men tend to find most attractive ... as is evidenced by the measure of waist-to-hip ratio.

My simple position is, that attraction has baselines and can be measured, and unless someone wants to disagree with me on that point, than I'm not arguing anything.

I have conceded that the 'standard' may not be my ideal. I've conceded that there are a range of variables that play into attraction. 

But I have never said that 'beauty contest surveys are telling us who we want to have sex with.'

Now it's your turn. 

Concede.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

Deejo said:


> Negative good buddy.
> 
> I'm talking in terms of someone I want to be with. I can acknowledge that Anna Torv does something to me and I don't know why, but that doesn't mean I imagine being tangled up on my leather couch with her. (I'm a dude, of course I have a leather couch)
> 
> ...


I'm really not interested in the rhetoric evolving in this thread but it's posts like this that make me feel good about men. I hope what you have expressed is true for most,many....some...but then, how do you know which one you've got???
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

inarut said:


> I'm really not interested in the rhetoric evolving in this thread ...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


LOL. That makes two of us inarut.

I wince whenever I hear a man saying, "Men are pigs."

Just isn't true. Are we sexual and do we have desires? 
Well, hell, I hope so.

But the notion that we can't help but think about where we're going to put our d!ck next, I flatly reject.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo...I was just going to respond to your asking me to concede on what you didn't say in post #476...and now you are saying:

*"I wince whenever I hear a man saying, "Men are pigs."

Just isn't true. Are we sexual and do we have desires? 
Well, hell, I hope so.

But the notion that we can't help but think about where we're going to put our d!ck next, I flatly reject."*


What? Who said "men are pigs" and who said they "can't help but think about where we're going to put their d*ck next"? Talking about putting words in mouths. I don't get that at ALL...no one is saying anything like that. (Please point me to who and where if I missed something).

In light of which...it is clear if you think that *I* am saying anything even remotely close to either of those things...then clearly it is a point I can't make without being misinterpreted, so I'll bow out.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...I was just going to respond to your asking me to concede on what you didn't say in post #476...and now you are saying:
> 
> *"I wince whenever I hear a man saying, "Men are pigs."
> 
> ...


I don't like it when MEN say "Men are pigs."

I've never heard you remotely make such a claim.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Oh ok, good. Still confused on what it was in reference to (what man said men are pigs?) but am glad you didn't think I think that.

Deejo my friend...I'll still bow out. I do think there is a large difference in understanding still, and I don't know how to bridge the gap between us.

My parting statement will just be this: I don't feel that those research surveys about facial symmetry or body shape are measuring "beauty" or "attraction". I think they are simply measuring the uncanny ability we have of seeing "good health" in other animals. Like I mentioned earlier about if we were shown 5 horses, I bet most people could pick "the prettiest" one...and that one would end up being the healthiest one. But they could have just asked to pick "the healthiest" one, and then the survey would be about that rather than "pretty". The fact that we can see good facial symmetry and health - to me - doesn't equate to those same healthy features being "sexually attractive". Just my opinion. Health, beauty and sexual attraction are different things. As are pretty, "worthy", and a bunch of other questions people could be asked on the same surveys. Babies gazing at the most symmetrical face, to me, says nothing about sexual attraction. It again just means we can see patterns as newborns. Therefore, using these surveys in the discussion about sexual attraction to me, makes no sense. I wish I could make that clear but it just keeps going round in circles so...off the merry go round for me!

(not saying it is your fault about the merry go round...it could be I'm just not saying what I mean clear enough)


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> N
> Seriously ... I fall into the same category as the author, why does this even need to be verified? Why is this even questioned, let alone needing to be debunked? There's nothing to debunk.


Because this deserves to be questioned. Seriously.

FW already pointed out some of the weaknesses of the study, but what really needs to be driven home, I think, is the cross-cultural variation in what is deemed attractive. Take a look at Medieval nudes, for example, with their luscious and rolling pear-shaped bodies. Or the sexual and fertility icons from South America and their round bellies. Or images from Africa with the accentuated buttocks. 

Just for a moment step out of the globalized digitalized world that pretends that our ideals are the same for everyone, have a good close look, and then come back and tell me that yes, all these images of sexy women obey the 0.7 ratio ideal.

You simply can't. No matter what specifically turns your personal crank.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The ideal range is .6-.8 .


The facts that I gave you were this: that if you go through random top sexy woman lists in our culture, you will find that they include the full range from 0.6 and 0.8.

So, since we are agreed on the *range* of what's attractive, let's look at the interpretation.  You call this homogenous and an ideal that varies from culture to culture.

But how do you get "homogenous" out of this? This is virtually the complete range from hyper curvy to stick figure, that is shaped like a man. It encompasses virtually every woman who is not completely obese or insanely curvy. It includes every single body type, and just about every weight range, except for the morbidly obese.

On what planet is this a homogenous set of standards that capture only "elite" bodies? Not this one!

Then, we need to look at *actual* cross cultural variation -- but my post to Deejo covers that.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Maybe the example of high control groups was too esoteric for this discussion. At any rate, I am way, way more familiar with those examples than I ever wanted to be.


Your point is not lost. Yes, attractive young women can wield a great deal of power, and many take great glee in doing so.

I do not find this to be a positive spin, or solution to, issues of objectification. Merely another exercise of it in a world that continually puts women's looks at the heart of their value.

Yes, women can capitalize on this. But the problems still remain --and they hurt both men and women. Only cults, advertisers, and pornographers come out on top.

What kind of world is that?


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Because this deserves to be questioned. Seriously.
> 
> FW already pointed out some of the weaknesses of the study, but what really needs to be driven home, I think, is the cross-cultural variation in what is deemed attractive. Take a look at Medieval nudes, for example, with their luscious and rolling pear-shaped bodies. Or the sexual and fertility icons from South America and their round bellies. Or images from Africa with the accentuated buttocks.
> 
> ...


It depends on the culture.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

*Re: Re: Interesting Article: Why (and How) Sex is Important to Men*



always_alone said:


> Because this deserves to be questioned. Seriously.
> 
> FW already pointed out some of the weaknesses of the study, but what really needs to be driven home, I think, is the cross-cultural variation in what is deemed attractive. Take a look at Medieval nudes, for example, with their luscious and rolling pear-shaped bodies. Or the sexual and fertility icons from South America and their round bellies. Or images from Africa with the accentuated buttocks.
> 
> ...


I have in several instances in this thread indicated that variance exists. I've acknowledged that attraction had different terms in the past, and will likely have different terms in the future. The Chinese used to think that having ridiculously tiny feet was attractive. The Mayans thought setting jade into their teeth was attractive. In Africa women used rings to elongate their necks. 
There is ALWAYS a standard by which attraction can be measured regardless of time period or culture . In one of the links I provided, they indicated that in 3rd world countries where food is scarce, heavier women are seen as healthier and more attractive.

First world countries have a different definition, and have had, since before the media age.

I can't shake the notion that your problem isn't so much the method of how attractiveness is measured, but rather that anyone feels compelled to measure it all.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

always_alone said:


> Your point is not lost. Yes, attractive young women can wield a great deal of power, and many take great glee in doing so.
> 
> I do not find this to be a positive spin, or solution to, issues of objectification. Merely another exercise of it in a world that continually puts women's looks at the heart of their value.
> 
> ...


I think I understand where you're coming from here. I picked the example of high control groups because the phenomenon is not only striking, but documentable in their literature. However it exists more benignly even in mainstream Christianity. In the Christian Bible, for example St. Peter admonishes women that their unbelieving husbands can be, "..won over [to Christianity] without words". Some modern flavors of Christianity write off the overall misogynistic tone of the passage as a product of the time and culture, but this one kernel of truth in it still remains.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> The facts that I gave you were this: that if you go through random top sexy woman lists in our culture, you will find that they include the full range from 0.6 and 0.8.
> 
> So, since we are agreed on the *range* of what's attractive, let's look at the interpretation. You call this homogenous and an ideal that varies from culture to culture.
> 
> But how do you get "homogenous" out of this? This is virtually the complete range from hyper curvy to stick figure, that is shaped like a man.


Of course there's a range! Attraction isn't a binary proposition. But if you look at the distribution of preference for WHR, you'll see that it increases as one gets closer to .7. It is certainly NOT a complete range from hyper curvy to stick figure. Statistically speaking, men find women with .7 WHRs more attractive than women with .6 or .8 WHRs... but that doesn't mean we have no attraction to .6s or .8s. The only known groups of men that violate this come from cultures where malnourishment is common. These men still prefer the women available to them closest to this .7 number... there are just very few .7s and so another number is "ideal" (something that doesn't exist in your experience can't be ideal now can it?). Its thought that the preference is sticky, and men will continue to prefer what he saw that was closest to .7 when his sexual preferences formed. In other words, the difference in preference is the result of external constraint. Limit the world to only women who are 1.0s, and men will find 1.0 ideal. See what I'm saying? That's not the real world ideal, that's the result of a constraint.

And yes, I'd still qualify .6 to .8 as being homogenous in body shape. The average WHR in the US is .79 and the distribution is normal. Do you think most women are "stick figures"? I can only imagine that you're not seeing that its more about the distribution of body fat than the amount of body fat. The ideal also narrows significantly if you accept that the preferences of the outlying cultures are the result of widespread health constraints on body shape that falsely skew the cross-cultural average. But, you won't... you'll claim the malnourished outliers disprove the ideal. 



always_alone said:


> It encompasses virtually every woman who is not completely obese or insanely curvy. It includes every single body type, and just about every weight range, except for the morbidly obese.


It does not include every single body type or weight range... not even close. The majority of women DO fall within the range, which just says that most men find most women's bodies attractive (omg... what news!!), but the key here is that attraction is HIGHER as the ratio approaches .7, or the closest to .7 as is readily available when sexual preference develops.

Pictures:








Mila Kunis and her .75 or .8 depending on what measurement you like.









Marissa Miller and her .65.

At a MINIMUM, they have .1 difference in their WHR, and they look virtually identical in shape. You can increase the person's body fat, and they will look quite different, but their *shape* will remain the same. Preference for body shape is pretty homogenous if you ask me.

You will find variance in "sexiest woman" lists, even if only because body shape isn't the ONLY factor in physical attraction. I think you'd find some small variance even if it were (variation ensures survivability). You'll find a hell of a LOT more variance in the male lists. You don't even need to measure... its readily apparent from just eyeballing them. Its more than obvious.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Just for a moment step out of the globalized digitalized world that pretends that our ideals are the same for everyone, have a good close look, and then come back and tell me that yes, all these images of sexy women obey the 0.7 ratio ideal.
> 
> You simply can't. No matter what specifically turns your personal crank.


There's a documentary called "Statue Diaries" that does this very thing. .7 ratio all over the place, throughout history, and across cultures. Venus De Milo is .7. Sexualized depictions of women in Egyptian carvings show a .7 WHR. It talked about southeast Asian statues, Chinese statues... its not just a modern concept found in the west.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Of course there's a range! Attraction isn't a binary proposition. But if you look at the distribution of preference for WHR, you'll see that it increases as one gets closer to .7.


This is just utterly wrong, and for someone who professes to love numbers you are not thinking about this very carefully. The "ideals" that you have posted here do fall into the "acceptable" range, but so do a whole lot of other bodies that are not(!) going to get men posting their pics on an Internet forum.

Let me say this another way: Yes some of the most attractive women are at 0.7, but some are at 0.62 and others are closer to.8

Some that are further from your 0.7 ideal are *more* attractive than those closer.

Let's break it down further: Take the "unattractive" 0.8. What this means for a body type varies. Yes, some overweight women will have this ratio, but so will some petite women with narrow hips. So while American women may average 0.79, Asian women would be somewhere in that neighborhood too. We are talking about radically different body types here with just *one* number. And some are deemed extremely sexy, and others are not.

And this is true for *all*. The ratios can be realized by vastly different body types and weights, some of which will be super attractive, and some less so. Consider, for example, a woman who is size 22. She might have a 38" waist and 52" hips. A perfect 0.7!

In some of the studies touted as "proving" the 0.7 rule, men actually rated women with higher ratios much higher than the so-called "ideal" based on breast size.

All of this, still granting the cultural ideals men have these days, thanks to their training from Playboy.

Once you actually look at cross-cultural data, it shows that men in some places *prefer* 0.8 and *above*.

For example, Marlowe & Westman, 2001, "Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, 30.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I can't shake the notion that your problem isn't so much the method of how attractiveness is measured, but rather that anyone feels compelled to measure it all.


I just get very irritated by utterly ridiculous and factually incorrect information getting repeated so often that everyone just accepts it as fundamental truth, not open to question.

It's one of my many character flaws.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Pictures:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh hell yes I want what she has. 

Iced coffee from starbuds would be so awesome right now.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

I really do not understand the point. Both sides seem to be talking past the other or are to focused on a particular word choice.

Both sides seem to be in fairly high agreement that looks are not everything. 

Maybe the fact that I am a male I see what the other males are saying and can not account for the apparent confusion from the women's side.

dvlsadvc8 just said: 'There is an scientifically measurable ideal but a wide range of specifically desirable (people)'

and then always alone said: 'No, there is a wide range of ideal looks'

So what is the argument about when both sides agree that there is a wide range of desirable looks?

It seems like the only thing left is this study that suggests that within a given culture there is an ideal body type. I do not see that it is practical to deny what that study suggests is true. 

As far as I can tell, looks are to some degree a determining factor in many species. And in particular in species where there is quite a bit of difference in looks between the male and female. Other times size and male stamina and aggression are more important. etc..


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

I don't know what her 0.whatever measurement is but she hot.

I wouldn't kick the other two out of bed but I'd take Nigella over them.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

Oh oh good! We're posting pictures again!! Thems some killer ratio, right??


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

usmarriedguy said:


> I really do not understand the point. Both sides seem to be talking past the other or are to focused on a particular word choice.
> 
> Both sides seem to be in fairly high agreement that looks are not everything.
> 
> ...


It all seems so simple ... until it goes online.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> This is just utterly wrong, and for someone who professes to love numbers you are not thinking about this very carefully. The "ideals" that you have posted here do fall into the "acceptable" range, but so do a whole lot of other bodies that are not(!) going to get men posting their pics on an Internet forum.


Yep, a lot of women with bodies within the range will not get posted... but its not because of their body shape. If a woman were 7 foot tall and had a .7 WHR, yeah, she's probably not going to make any "sexiest woman" lists.

WHR isn't all encompassing. The correlation is extremely strong however.



always_alone said:


> Let me say this another way: Yes some of the most attractive women are at 0.7, but some are at 0.62 and others are closer to.8
> 
> Some that are further from your 0.7 ideal are *more* attractive than those closer.


Not in aggregate, no. As I said, the distribution is normal. .7 is the peak of the curve. If "more attractive" is defined as being preferred by MORE men, then .7 WHR is as attractive as female body shape gets. To get another number, you have to narrow the selection of men... ie picking only Chinese men, who prefer .65.



always_alone said:


> Let's break it down further: Take the "unattractive" 0.8. What this means for a body type varies. Yes, some overweight women will have this ratio, but so will some petite women with narrow hips. So while American women may average 0.79, Asian women would be somewhere in that neighborhood too. We are talking about radically different body types here with just *one* number. And some are deemed extremely sexy, and others are not.


Maybe this is where we can't see eye to eye. These two women will appeal to men equally on body shape. One has more fat than the other, but their body shape is identical. Marilyn Monroe is a .69. Jessica Alba is a .70. Both are insanely hot, but Marilyn is carrying more weight proportionally.



always_alone said:


> The ratios can be realized by vastly different body types and weights, some of which will be super attractive, and some less so.


No, the weight can be all over the map. The *shape* will be the same. Its having that shape that has been found to correlates so strongly to attraction through history... not that she's leaner or fatter.



always_alone said:


> In some of the studies touted as "proving" the 0.7 rule, men actually rated women with higher ratios higher than "ideal" ratios based on breast size.


And I'd call that a valid criticism of that study. Fundementally, its the same reason a woman like Mila Kunis might be deemed more attractive than some woman with a .7 WHR - WHR isn't the only trait. Mila has a face that is pure sex... exotic, seductive eyes, plump lips, great symmetry etc etc etc. What you're pointing out is men saying "great t*ts, +5 points". But another factor that doesn't eliminate the strong correlation of WHR to attraction.



always_alone said:


> Once you actually look at cross-cultural data, it shows that men in some places *prefer* 0.8 and *above*.
> 
> For example, Marlowe & Westman, 2001, "Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, 30.


I have already addressed this. Its only in nutritionally deficient cultures that you will find this. So again I ask, are the preferences of those struggling with scarce resources and malnourishment a good measure of ideal? I've seen this before and understood the preference to be more for additional body fat than WHR - a product of association - and to be honest, this study isn't very convincing otherwise. I've read of other foraging cultures that show the same preference. That the preference is actually for weight, is further bolstered by the fact that you do not see this phenomenon in any culture that has gotten beyond subsistence.

It does reinforce the notion that WHR is a key signal of health however. To the Hadza and subsisting cultures, higher WHR preference probably signals famine survivability and absence of parasites and what not - serious health concerns of theirs. To the rest of us, higher WHR signals diabetes, heart disease etc... famine and parasites aren't really a problem.

I don't view this as evidence against there being a universal WHR preference but rather the influence of other constraints. If low WHR usually means parasitic infection and death (for example), then no doubt men will prefer higher WHR women. You may as well say there are no .7 WHR women. Take away the health constraint and I think .7 rears its head again.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

always_alone said:


> I just get very irritated by utterly ridiculous and factually incorrect information getting repeated so often that everyone just accepts it as fundamental truth, not open to question.
> 
> It's one of my many character flaws.


I become aware of when it looks like we're ganging up on you. And not because I think you're delicate, or we're being mean, but I do want to maintain some decorum. 

So, just a reality check. I'm presuming we're all in this because we enjoy the discourse, not because I have any hope in the world, of actually changing your mind ... even when you're wrong.

I like to be fun, sarcastic and irreverent. But I'm not ok with it, if it looks and feels disrespectful from any of the parties involved.

We good? 

I wouldn't describe your tenacity as a flaw.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

ScarletBegonias said:


> Iced coffee from starbuds would be so awesome right now.


LMAO! That is totally why I picked that photo too. It gave me a craving for an Iced Vanilla Latte... and sex.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

usmarriedguy said:


> So what is the argument about when both sides agree that there is a wide range of desirable looks?


Not a whole lot. While these things are adversarial, I think people like me, AA, FW, Deejo and others also just enjoy discussion. People rarely concede or even agree, but its all still fun to bat around.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> Oh oh good! We're posting pictures again!! Thems some killer ratio, right??


Hey!


This is the sex is important to men thread.


Take that picture down right now. 


Anyway, he's probably gay or photoshopped or something.


Me? Jealous? The very idea!


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

Yes I agree, that is the whole point of forums. 

I was not attempting to stifle the conversation. 

I just failed to see any reason on this particular point which seems to be over some pretty minor nuance when both sides where mostly in agreement.

But by all means, discuss away and do not let my petty criticism stop you.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not a whole lot. While these things are adversarial, I think people like me, AA, FW, Deejo and others also just enjoy discussion. People rarely concede or even agree, but its all still fun to bat around.


It's like combative family around the Thanksgiving table. I do get concerned when it looks like Always or FW or any female participants are defending themselves against the hordes of men, because we don't want women to stay away from the threads if they have something different to offer.

We like women. A lot.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

GettingIt said:


> Oh oh good! We're posting pictures again!! Thems some killer ratio, right??


As a matter of fact, yes. Men clearly displaying the inguinal crease is very attractive to most women.

However I can't tell if the dude is wearing pants, or that's just more hair around his jock.

And as a mod, I will simply state for the record that a threads longevity is directly proportionate to when and how many scantily clad human figure photos start getting linked.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo said:


> It's like combative family around the Thanksgiving table. I do get concerned when it looks like Always or FW or any female participants are defending themselves against the hordes of men, because we don't want women to stay away from the threads if they have something different to offer.
> 
> We like women. A lot.


I know you feel this way Deejo...and I appreciate it. You always debate fairly, too.

Not true for everyone else around here. But that's my fault for even engaging, as I know better.

I would love it if we really could just debate and discuss. It never ends up that way, though. (shrug) Sad, really.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

FrenchFry said:


> Yes we are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This guy is lighting some of the ladies jets?

The head, the facial attitude and the bod?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Deejo said:


> It's like combative family around the Thanksgiving table. I do get concerned when it looks like Always or FW or any female participants are defending themselves against the hordes of men, because we don't want women to stay away from the threads if they have something different to offer.
> 
> We like women. A lot.


The way I see it, there is defending yourself, and then there is defending your ideas. When someone begins to attack the person instead of the idea is when things get out of hand.

It would be very nice if some people could keep their comments to the idea.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

I'll take this one...


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Oi!

Scarlet, French Fry.

I refer you to my reply to Getting It, above!


Grrrr!


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Anyway French Fry, that dude has his head upside down.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

FrenchFry said:


> Yes we are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've seen that dude before I and I think he's hot! (Or maybe just more hot than the other "average joes" in that particular campaign. Sometimes hotness can go up or down depending on who's standing next to a person . . . )


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> Oi!
> 
> Scarlet, French Fry.
> 
> ...


*sigh* fine.I GUESS if pressed I can stare at her all day...


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> Huh? I can't hear you over the loud phwoars going on over here. :rofl:





"mutter mutter grumble, sassin frassin...."


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yep, a lot of women with bodies within the range will not get posted... but its not because of their body shape.


Bull. The shape is not at all the same, because weight, tone, muscle, bone structure, size, all play a role in the overall shape. The perfect 0.7 with the 38" waist will not get posted here because her *shape* does not conform to the typical Hollywood/playboy expectations of what women ought to look like.

A woman like Marilyn Monroe (who is actually 0.63) will get posted even though she is vastly curvier than the 0.7 ideal, as will a more slender woman closer to 0.8. It isn't the shape at all, but the conforming to cultural ideals about looks, fitnessl, and other factors.





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not in aggregate, no. As I said, the distribution is normal. .7 is the peak of the curve. If "more attractive" is defined as being preferred by MORE men, then .7 WHR is as attractive as female body shape gets.


And this only proves how meaningless the statistics are. Men in aggregate choose as attractive some women from the whole range of healthy women, while calling "unattractive" those that are perfect 0.7 but do not fit the Hollywood/playboy mold. You yourself were quick to call actresses described as "curvy" unattractive -- and have only changed your tune now that you know they are close to 0.7.

But let me tell you, there are plenty of women who are perfect 0.7 who do not have anywhere near the shape of the women you posted, while there are others at both end of the spectrum that men, in aggregate, would identify as just as, if not moreso.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't view this as evidence against there being a universal WHR preference but rather the influence of other constraints. If low WHR usually means parasitic infection and death (for example), then no doubt men will prefer higher WHR women.


Again, you're not thinking carefully about your numbers. Low WHR is very curvy, like Marilyn Monroe, and not necessarily a sign of emaciation. Indeed, one could be emaciated and have a very high WHR depending on bone structure, of course.

So your whole explanation is a complete wash. High WHR is not the same as "fat" and low WHR is not the same as slender.

I would add that there are many more studies looking at preferences in first world nations (Spain, Portugal, Italy, England) that also show that the 0.7 WHR doesn't pan out in real life. It isn't just subsistence cultures (not all of whom are emaciated, BTW) that fail to conform to this popular misconception.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

usmarriedguy said:


> I just failed to see any reason on this particular point which seems to be over some pretty minor nuance when both sides where mostly in agreement.


Dvls thinks that the 0.7 ratio represents the ideal woman to all men all over the world, and that the further away a woman is from this ideal, the less attractive she is, AND that this is the gospel and objective truth.

I'm just trying to demonstrate how wrong he is.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Dvls thinks that the 0.7 ratio represents the ideal woman to all men all over the world, and that the further away a woman is from this ideal, the less attractive she is, AND that this is the gospel and objective truth.
> 
> I'm just trying to demonstrate how wrong he is.


It depends on the cultural ideals. I know it varies. Some part of the world will want a woman who is more "fat" than this ideal.

Different facial shapes and bone structures will be appreciated in different parts.

Different rules for bodily limb lengths and thicknesses.

Etc.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Well that's typical, you slim down a bit, nip your tummy in a bit and find out women fancy Mr Beergut!

Just showed Mrs Wysh and she said yuck to both those pics. She likes me slim, trim with some muscle but not muscly.

So I'm good to go.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

We all like different things, different features, different personality types etc.

Vive la difference!


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Oh, and on the original topic of the thread.

I haven't seen this as an answer, although I haven't read the whole thread.

People are saying that men have sex to feel emotionally connected etc.

This is true, but let's face it, sometimes I have sex because I am frickin' randy to the point that things get uncomfortable.

It's not always about love, sometimes it is sheer lust.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Bull. The shape is not at all the same, because weight, tone, muscle, bone structure, size, all play a role in the overall shape. The perfect 0.7 with the 38" waist will not get posted here because her *shape* does not conform to the typical Hollywood/playboy expectations of what women ought to look like.


I'm glad you chose playboy, because playboy has a remarkably consistent history of its centerfolds being very close to .7 WHR, even as those centerfolds have gotten lighter and lighter over the years.



always_alone said:


> A woman like Marilyn Monroe (who is actually 0.63) will get posted even though she is vastly curvier than the 0.7 ideal, as will a more slender woman closer to 0.8.


Depends on what age Marilyn Monroe you pick.










All else being equal, a woman with a .7 WHR will be preferred to .6 or .8 WHR, by the majority of men.



always_alone said:


> It isn't the shape at all, but the conforming to cultural ideals about looks, fitnessl, and other factors.


Absolutely not. Else .7 WHR would not be so prevalent. I'm pretty sure the sculpter of Venus De Milo wasn't influenced by Playboy and Victoria's Secret commercials. I'm damn sure the Egyptians weren't.

There are certain things that are influenced if not entirely dictated by culture, WHR isn't one of them. It stands out BECAUSE of its limited variance across cultures. When the counter-argument hinges on the preferences of people for whom avoiding mates infected by parasites is a major concern, you might want to reconsider.



always_alone said:


> And this only proves how meaningless the statistics are. Men in aggregate choose as attractive some women from the whole range of healthy women, while calling "unattractive" those that are perfect 0.7 but do not fit the Hollywood/playboy mold. You yourself were quick to call actresses described as "curvy" unattractive -- and have only changed your tune now that you know they are close to 0.7.


Where am I evaluating any trait other than WHR? If you have a .7 WHR but no nose, one eye, two teeth, deformed limbs and a square head... you should still be thought attractive? I don't know where you're trying to go with this. The point is simply that WHR is extremely well correlated with physical attraction. If she has that WHR, odds are quite good that most men will find her very attractive. In fact, as far as I'm aware, the correlation is stronger than for any other female trait... indicating a tolerance of greater variance in other features than in WHR.



always_alone said:


> But let me tell you, there are plenty of women who are perfect 0.7 who do not have anywhere near the shape of the women you posted, while there are others at both end of the spectrum that men, in aggregate, would identify as just as, if not moreso.


If she's .7, she has the shape of the women I've posted. The measure is one of shape. She might be really fat, she might be really lean, but her shape is her shape.

The preference for lean over fat can be attributed to cultural trend and popularization, but ideal WHR is always about .7.

I can only imagine that you're confusing the two.



always_alone said:


> Again, you're not thinking carefully about your numbers. Low WHR is very curvy, like Marilyn Monroe, and not necessarily a sign of emaciation. Indeed, one could be emaciated and have a very high WHR depending on bone structure, of course.


Oh trust me, I've thought carefully. I don't view high or low WHR as a sign of emaciation. Its not a measure of "bulk". Its a measure of curvature... shape. Your Hadza evidence runs into trouble here too. Low WHR could very well be a big booty low WHR woman, yet the Hadza prefer high WHR because they view thin waists as sickly. From this characterization, its undeniable that the trait they're really prioritizing is BEEF, not WHR, and they associate BEEF with a thick waist rather than a big butt. That's why I said the study is entirely unconvincing on WHR terms, on top of its being fundamentally unsound to compare such a constrained society to one that doesn't face such constraints. Again, you might as well remove all the .7s and say "men prefer something other than .7!" You can't make a statement on preference when you are constraining preference by external factors.

I have to bow out now, as I have a bunch of stuff on my plate at the moment, but I'll check back in in a few days. Enjoyed the discussion, as always.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Dvls thinks that the 0.7 ratio represents the ideal woman to all men all over the world, and that the further away a woman is from this ideal, the less attractive she is, AND that this is the gospel and objective truth.
> 
> I'm just trying to demonstrate how wrong he is.



Yes sorry for my interruption, I just thought it was a fairly minor difference. 

I do think that it has been demonstrated that culture plays a big role in defining what is attractive. On the other hand society is becoming more homogenous. So I think you both have valid points.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

Girl crush! This gets me to the gym when nothing else will. I want that back sooooooo bad . . .


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

GettingIt said:


> Girl crush! This gets me to the gym when nothing else will. I want that back sooooooo bad . . .


Diet is about 80% of the battle


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

treyvion said:


> Diet is about 80% of the battle


Agree. I've got that dialed in.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Here's my favorite...WERK, baby!


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

At the end of the day I think if you are happy with what you have then it shows in your attitude.

What I have may not be to everyones taste but I am happy with what I have and hopefully that shows in my dealings with people.

I don't have a golden triangle but I don't think I need one.

I don't spend hours in the gym, I spend hours with my wife.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

The ideal shape in Japan during the heyday of the geisha was columnar. Straight up and down. If a woman could wear a kimono without needing padding, she was widely admired by men who paid considerable sums for her company.

So there's a pretty significant culture that didn't value a .7 ratio.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

GettingIt said:


> Agree. I've got that dialed in.


Just keep going. I'm doing the same thing. I'm good now, but just for extra measure my goal is a physique that would be in the upper 1%, so it's going to take a while...

This work is like that water dripping on a stone over 100's of years and slowly cutting a hole through it.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Lyris said:


> The ideal shape in Japan during the heyday of the geisha was columnar. Straight up and down. If a woman could wear a kimono without needing padding, she was widely admired by men who paid considerable sums for her company.
> 
> So there's a pretty significant culture that didn't value a .7 ratio.


renaissance ladies.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's my favorite...WERK, baby!


Rupaul?

If so, he is feminized in the skin and muscular tone and waist and wonder what was done with the package.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

It is called tucking.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

treyvion said:


> Rupaul?
> 
> If so, he is feminized in the skin and muscular tone and waist and wonder what was done with the package.


A guy!


I wondered what it was, why I felt nothing when I looked at the pic, something must have looked 'off'.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

6'4" of yummy! (7'0" when including heels and hair...)


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

WyshIknew said:


> A guy!
> 
> 
> I wondered what it was, why I felt nothing when I looked at the pic, something must have looked 'off'.


When I start from the bottom, go up the pic, legs to hips to stomach to right at shoulder level, I think it is a scorching hot woman so it lights me up. Especially the belly and hips area. When I see the face, and the word "WERK" I have to clarify if it's Rupaul, because I'm a little confused.

One of my favorite types is extremely atheletically built women.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> It is called tucking.


Every time we have a Jacuzzi party a guy I know drinks too much and does the 'mangina'. It is just tedious.


----------



## GettingIt_2 (Apr 12, 2013)

WyshIknew said:


> Every time we have a Jacuzzi party a guy I know drinks too much and does the 'mangina'. It is just tedious.



:rofl: hahahahahaha!

I used to be quite active in the local drag community (uh, not as a drag queen, just a hag) and omg the tucking stories . . . and the hair removal *shudder*


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> 6'4" of yummy! (7'0" when including heels and hair...)


Even the knees and thighs look sexy for a woman.

So you are looking at him in a male way or a female way from your bi side?


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

GettingIt said:


> :rofl: hahahahahaha!
> 
> I used to be quite active in the local drag community (uh, not as a drag queen, just a hag) and omg the tucking stories . . . and the hair removal *shudder*


You can laugh.

I can assure you that seeing some unfit drunk waddling saying "look at me" is not funny.


Oh no no no.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

treyvion...He's the epitome of genderf*ck...something I am pretty attracted to...but it does depend on the individual (it would not just be anyone). I am hot for him when he's in man drag, too. Not just his looks, but mostly *who* he is.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> treyvion...He's the epitome of genderf*ck...something I am pretty attracted to...but it does depend on the individual (it would not just be anyone). I am hot for him when he's in man drag, too. Not just his looks, but mostly *who* he is.


*who* is he to you?

I normally don't get caught up in hype or mojo's. I look at how the person treats me and how they make me feel.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

He is/was a pioneer for genderf*ck and human rights, and he has an incredible story...he is so much more than a drag queen. He was actually first just a gay punk rocker who wore lipstick. There is a lot to *who* he is. Too much to put here. 

My own orientation and a bit of gender confusion sent me straight to him (and a few other gender bent people) at an early age...and I've loved him ever since.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

WyshIknew said:


> renaissance ladies.


Renaissance ladies ...


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content










All depended upon who was doing the painting.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Deejo said:


> Renaissance ladies ...
> 
> 
> __
> ...


This second one looked more like a current standard for beauty in North America.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Well thank goodness it's not the Victorian period where the poor women were laced up so tight to achieve a 12" waist they could hardly breathe.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

treyvion said:


> This second one looked more like a current standard for beauty in North America.


Was painted around 1650.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Hmmmm.

I reckon she was a 0.6576 recurring.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

WyshIknew said:


> Well thank goodness it's not the Victorian period where the poor women were laced up so tight to achieve a 12" waist they could hardly breathe.


I have acknowledged before that I completely recognize that women are subjected to an awful lot of scrutiny. They have body image issues, eating disorders, low self-esteem, they are subjected to criticism, abuse, and sexual violence.

And I find it abhorrent.

But the bit about the Victorian period is interesting because at what point do we look for the source, or reason for which that something fashionable, has become fashionable, or attractive?

Referring to the corset from the Victorian era. The garment served absolutely no other function than to modify the form of the female figure, and to accomplish what exactly? Appear to have a smaller waist.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Deejo said:


> I have acknowledged before that I completely recognize that women are subjected to an awful lot of scrutiny. They have body image issues, eating disorders, low self-esteem, they are subjected to criticism, abuse, and sexual violence.
> 
> And I find it abhorrent.
> 
> ...









Women were thought of as the weaker sex, therefore their minds and bodies were weak. So the corset was deemed morally and medically necessary. Tight lacing was considered virtuous - a loose corset was probably a sign of a loose woman. To keep her innocence and virtuosity, a lady had to be chaperoned everywhere she went. She could not read or see any plays lest it excite her imagination. Even Shakespeare was thought unsuitable for ladies. A woman needed to protect herself from lustful men (and her own morality) by wearing heavily reinforced layers of clothing and tight corsets that made getting undressed a long and difficult task. 


from here.

Victorian Era: History of the Victorian Corset


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

That's the "story" behind men doing theatre in drag...because women weren't allowed in the theatre at all. But we all know it was because they wanted to wear dresses.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> That's the "story" behind men doing theatre in drag...because women weren't allowed in the theatre at all. But we all know it was because they wanted to wear dresses.


The good 'ol days ...


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

WyshIknew said:


> Women were thought of as the weaker sex, therefore their minds and bodies were weak. So the corset was deemed morally and medically necessary. Tight lacing was considered virtuous - a loose corset was probably a sign of a loose woman. To keep her innocence and virtuosity, a lady had to be chaperoned everywhere she went. She could not read or see any plays lest it excite her imagination. Even Shakespeare was thought unsuitable for ladies. A woman needed to protect herself from lustful men (and her own morality) by wearing heavily reinforced layers of clothing and tight corsets that made getting undressed a long and difficult task.
> 
> 
> from here.
> ...


Really interesting read. Thanks for the link, Wysh.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm glad you chose playboy, because playboy has a remarkably consistent history of its centerfolds being very close to .7 WHR, even as those centerfolds have gotten lighter and lighter over the years.


Well, clearly I'm whistling into the wind again, so this will be my last post on the topic:

The cross-cultural data doesn't support the conclusion that 0.7 is ideal -- when it comes to actual stated preferences from men around the world, including Spain, Italy, Portugal, England, parts of South America, Australia, and Africa

Much of the research supporting the 0.7 ideal is by one person, who consistently used small samples and relied heavily on poor-quality line drawings. Efforts to replicate those findings by later researchers have largely failed.

Even that one researcher had conflicting results, and at one point it was believed that the lower the WHR, the better. Wider hips, of course, being a sign of fertility. The wider the better. But results were revised to accommodate the broader array of preferences that men actually have.

It's true that you can find images from the Paleolithic era that have the 0.7 ratio. But guess what? You can also find images of every other shape/ratio imaginable. 

You can find 0.7 in lots of other places, if you're looking for it. But as you traverse time and space, you will see all manners of variation in terms the shape of "ideal."

I'll absolutely grant that Playboy has consistent standards. And I'll absolutely grant that our cultural ideals are a whole package amalgamation encompassing all kinds of body parts in which waist-hip ratio is but one measure. 

But you keep imagining that the only exceptions to your 0.7 ideal must be deformed in some other way. And that's simply not true, as how a that ratio will look, how it will be shaped varies incredibly based on weight, height, and bone structure. 

So what's really going is that you're assuming a whole package cultural ideal, and all sorts of measures that do not necessarily translate across time and space, either together or separately.

Mere statistical folly propagating short term, narrowly conceived cultural and personal bias.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Now what was that about emotional connection...?

j/k


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Yes the Venus of Willendorf is no .7 that's for sure


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Now what was that about emotional connection...?
> 
> j/k


Is this your last post?

Or the previous one?

Do you answer this question and make it your last post or not?


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Now what was that about emotional connection...?
> 
> j/k


As I mentioned a few pages back despite all the talk about emotional connection etc. sometimes sex is important because I'm fricking horny. End of!


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

WyshIknew said:


> She could not read or see any plays lest it excite her imagination.


Not allowed to read plays? In the Victorian Era? :scratchhead:

Considering some of the other entries on that blog, this has to be a mistake. The Victorian Era witnessed an explosion of female writers and playwrights, novelists, essayists and poets abounded. A tiny thumbnail sampling would include Marry Elizabeth Braddon, Elizabeth Inchbald, Anna Sewell, Catherine Gore, Jane Austen, Louisa May Alcott, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Mary Agusta Ward, Catherine Crowe, Alice Furlong, Clara Balfour, Isabella Banks, May Byron, Louisa Atkinson, Mary Montgomerie Lamb, Rhoda Broughton and Caroline Clive.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Not allowed to read plays? In the Victorian Era? :scratchhead:
> 
> Considering some of the other entries on that blog, this has to be a mistake. The Victorian Era witnessed an explosion of female writers and playwrights, novelists, essayists and poets abounded. A tiny thumbnail sampling would include Marry Elizabeth Braddon, Elizabeth Inchbald, Anna Sewell, Catherine Gore, Jane Austen, Louisa May Alcott, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Mary Agusta Ward, Catherine Crowe, Alice Furlong, Clara Balfour, Isabella Banks, May Byron, Louisa Atkinson, Mary Montgomerie Lamb, Rhoda Broughton and Caroline Clive.


Yes. I think the article painted with a rather broad brush.

Perhaps this is a little more accurate?


Victorian Era Actresses


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Also I haven't long finished reading the autobiography of Sarah Bernhardt, and she was anything but repressed or Victorian. She was an actress and quite a racy lady!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Yes the Venus of Willendorf is no .7 that's for sure


Venus of Willendorf was not a depiction of sexual preference. All body parts associated with child bearing are exaggerated, which is why its thought to be a fertility charm or goddess.

Pretty sure men have a sexual preference for women who have arms and feet, and these paleolithic charms don't have them. They didn't lose them, they never had them.

These charms are the paleolithic equivalent of a woman sitting upside down after having sex in hopes of getting pregnant.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Venus of Willendorf was not a depiction of sexual preference. All body parts associated with child bearing are exaggerated, which is why its thought to be a fertility charm or goddess.
> 
> Pretty sure men have a sexual preference for women who have arms and feet, and these paleolithic charms don't have them. They didn't lose them, they never had them.
> 
> These charms are the paleolithic equivalent of a woman sitting upside down after having sex in hopes of getting pregnant.


Some cultures do like that pear shape though. Indicates wealth and fertility.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Got a few mins this morning, but won't be able to continue the discussion later today...



always_alone said:


> The cross-cultural data doesn't support the conclusion that 0.7 is ideal -- when it comes to actual stated preferences from men around the world, including Spain, Italy, Portugal, England, parts of South America, Australia, and Africa


You'll accept a .65 preference of men in Spain as disproving .7 as the most preferred WHR globally? What definition of "most attractive" are you using? The way you treat this, there can be nothing informative gained because you'll just further subdivide the data. If I say men in Spain prefer .65? Then you can say that's not a standard for attraction in Spain, because men in Barcelona prefer .68. I've admitted there is a range. I previously pointed out that WHR preference globally is a normal distribution. We will have to agree to disagree on whether that's the fairly narrow range of body shape I think it is or the all encompassing thing you think it is. A huge number of women DO fall into this range... and in fact, the average female body is attractive to men. However, the distribution says that .7 is the preference most men, thus most of your "sexiest women" would be and are of women pretty close to .7. 



always_alone said:


> Much of the research supporting the 0.7 ideal is by one person, who consistently used small samples and relied heavily on poor-quality line drawings. Efforts to replicate those findings by later researchers have largely failed.


That's bologna and I think you know it. You're overstating the case of one person to make a flawed conclusion about the whole. These attraction studies are plentiful, and .7 has been confirmed by the majority of them and always with objections from the likes of you who will point to foragers and impoverished cultures, which are the ONLY examples that are far from the mean.



always_alone said:


> It's true that you can find images from the Paleolithic era that have the 0.7 ratio. But guess what? You can also find images of every other shape/ratio imaginable.


Not just images. Sexualized depictions of women. Whether it be the murals in Roman era brothels, Egyptian carvings of women engaging in sex acts, or sexualized depictions of women on ancient Chinese porcelain... most of these depictions hover around .7.



always_alone said:


> But as you traverse time and space, you will see all manners of variation in terms the shape of "ideal."


No, you really don't. I'll trust my ridiculous number of art classes (can you believe I was once an artist? lol). The same figure is seen again and again when portraying beauty or sexualizing women. This being so readily apparent is what drove the first studies of WHR in the first place! Similarly, you'll apply the golden ratio if you want to depict a beautiful face.

You're seemingly desperate for there to be no such standards but those defined by culture. Do you think we find warts less attractive because of a cultural bias too? Do you just think its sheer coincidence that many of these widespread attractive traits so strongly correlate to physical health?

We fundamentally disagree here, so there's really no point in continuing. As far as I can tell, to you, sexual preference is entirely determined by a given culture's seemingly random preference of traits over time. What I see, are some preferences that are clearly culturally driven (ie that neck thing in Africa), and other preferences that are not... or at least FAR less so... such as WHR or skin quality. And rather than explaining this preference by the random magical whims of culture, the more consistent ones can be explained by one common element: each of these objective standards correlates strongly to health. EVEN the rare instances where a standard is shown to deviate significantly, the deviation correlates to health in that society as a result of environmental constraints.

What we are attracted to is not all, or even mostly, meaningless cultural magic.




always_alone said:


> So what's really going is that you're assuming a whole package cultural ideal, and all sorts of measures that do not necessarily translate across time and space, either together or separately.
> 
> Mere statistical folly propagating short term, narrowly conceived cultural and personal bias.


I pointed out quite specifically how they do. I've even included a few sources and pointed out the flaws in the only thing you specifically cited... which you subsequently ignore.

Next, you'll tell me that body symmetry isn't a physical attraction standard too right? Got any cultures that prefer lopsided people? How about wrinkly skin? Blotchy skin? Warts? Its all about culture. In a hundred years... wrinkly skin is going to be the in thing right?

Yes AA, there ARE some objective standards of physical attraction.... quite a few actually, and WHR is among them.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Venus of Willendorf was not a depiction of sexual preference. All body parts associated with child bearing are exaggerated, which is why its thought to be a fertility charm or goddess.
> 
> Pretty sure men have a sexual preference for women who have arms and feet, and these paleolithic charms don't have them. They didn't lose them, they never had them.
> 
> These charms are the paleolithic equivalent of a woman sitting upside down after having sex in hopes of getting pregnant.



Actually if you read the real anthropological studies on the Venus of Willendorf and the other similar figures, scholars are undecided about what significance they held. Possibly fertility, possibly protection, possibly wealth, possibly some kind of bridal exchange. 

Maybe they were sexual. Maybe they fulfilled several functions. No-one really knows. 

And what about geisha? They were certainly sexual.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Got a few mins this morning, but won't be able to continue the discussion later today...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree, because tribal and aboriginal people have some trends of beauty which do not agree with the stats. So I recognize brown and yellow peoples perceptions of beauty as well and some of it does not jive with what we would call beauty in north america.


----------



## Dollystanford (Mar 14, 2012)




----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Maybe they were sexual. Maybe they fulfilled several functions. No-one really knows.


True, no one really knows for certain. Fertility worship/magic is the most commonly cited view though. I think its fair to trust that they weren't idealized female bodies. Most men would like their women to have arms and feet... and faces, which most of these statues do not.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

They do have arms and feet. They're just not the focus, and they are stylised representations. In fact, the focus is on the sexual/fertile characteristics of breasts, belly and buttocks/hips.

Some have kind of peg feet, probably to push into the ground.

The interesting thing I think is that although quite a few of these figures have been found, none have the .7, 'ideal' figure. Surely if paeleolithic people were going to the trouble of representing women's bodies, there would be some of a sexual nature, given how important sex is and how prevalent sexual images of women in art are. So either they haven't been found, or the Venus figures did serve a sexual function as well.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

*Re: Re: Interesting Article: Why (and How) Sex is Important to Men*



Lyris said:


> They do have arms and feet. They're just not the focus, and they are stylised representations. In fact, the focus is on the sexual/fertile characteristics of breasts, belly and buttocks/hips.
> 
> Some have kind of peg feet, probably to push into the ground.
> 
> The interesting thing I think is that although quite a few of these figures have been found, none have the .7, 'ideal' figure. Surely if paeleolithic people were going to the trouble of representing women's bodies, there would be some of a sexual nature, given how important sex is and how prevalent sexual images of women in art are. So either they haven't been found, or the Venus figures did serve a sexual function as well.


I'll concede that Venus figures were realistic Paleolithic representations of true, or idealized female figures if you will acknowledge that a cover model for Cosmo, or a Barbie doll is a realistic representation of the modern female form.

Neither effectively represent real women.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

As I am not arguing that they represent real women, I don't require your concession and I don't acknowledge anything of the sort. And how can something be both a true and idealised representation? Was that a mistype? 

I was hypothesising that as sexual representations of women's bodies have been depicted in art throughout human history, and as the Venus figures are the only naked female figures that have been found from that time period, maybe they were at least partly sexual in nature. 

If the Venus figures are idealised forms in the same way that Barbie is an idealised form, then that certainly doesn't disprove my theory that they could have had a sexual element. They are further away from real women than a Barbie, as they mostly lack faces and have only symbolic indications of arms and legs. The exaggerated focus on the secondary sexual characteristics could mean that their sexual association is part of their primary purpose, certainly to a greater degree than a Barbie doll.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

So then you're just being sassy?

True and idealized go together like reality and tv.

And I do concede. I just don't have the juice for this argument anymore. It has come a long way from where it started. I contributed to the derail ... then I'm pretty sure FrenchFry derailed it with her photo of Grizzly Spandex. Obviously we're not doing a very good job of moderating this thread.

I actually do find the Venus figurine stuff very interesting.



Lyris said:


> As I am not arguing that they represent real women, I don't require your concession and I don't acknowledge anything of the sort. And how can something be both a true and idealised representation? Was that a mistype?
> 
> I was hypothesising that as sexual representations of women's bodies have been depicted in art throughout human history, and as the Venus figures are the only naked female figures that have been found from that time period, maybe they were at least partly sexual in nature.
> 
> If the Venus figures are idealised forms in the same way that Barbie is an idealised form, then that certainly doesn't disprove my theory that they could have had a sexual element. They are further away from real women than a Barbie, as they mostly lack faces and have only symbolic indications of arms and legs. The exaggerated focus on the secondary sexual characteristics could mean that their sexual association is part of their primary purpose, certainly to a greater degree than a Barbie doll.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

I'm not sassy. I'm just right. From my head to my .69 WHR.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

Us men have higher sex drives than women.

Women know this, dress sexy, hair styles, makeup, tight seductive clothing, sexy shoes, etc., which makes us pursue them even more.

Both men and women love sex.

Us men need sex for our mental and physical health. Sex gets our testosterone going, which we are primarily built on. Sex also bonds us to our women more than words, talking, will ever do. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.

Myself, I have never done a one night stand or had a friend with benefits. I need everything that goes with sex, cuddling, emotional closeness, warmth, and everything else. I can't just have cold sex and move on.


In the past, I got sick and tired of my wife's LD, so I would relieve myself and when she was finally in the mood, nope, I'm not in the mood. It goes both ways. But she took it much harder when I said no compared to how I took it when she said no.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

BostonBruins32 said:


> Interesting read here. I'm probably late to the party, and dont feel like reading all pages on here... but have any of the husbands on this site shown this article to thier wife?
> 
> 
> 
> ...







I am done initiating. Not sure I'm even comfortable with her possibly initiating.



That, combined with frequent-enough masturbation has made my life bearable for a change.



I have no clue what the outcome of this approach will be, but nothing else was working.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> They do have arms and feet. They're just not the focus, and they are stylised representations. In fact, the focus is on the sexual/fertile characteristics of breasts, belly and buttocks/hips.
> 
> Some have kind of peg feet, probably to push into the ground.
> 
> The interesting thing I think is that although quite a few of these figures have been found, none have the .7, 'ideal' figure. Surely if paeleolithic people were going to the trouble of representing women's bodies, there would be some of a sexual nature, given how important sex is and how prevalent sexual images of women in art are. So either they haven't been found, or the Venus figures did serve a sexual function as well.


Most of them don't have arms or feet at all - they do have peg legs. None of them I've seen have had a face. These figures have exaggeratedly large breasts and a ton of body fat, both qualities are known to be associated with fertility in the ancient world. Also, the further back you go the more common it is to see depictions of deities associated with fertility to be large feminine forms. Was ancient man sexualizing his Gods? This fits in nicely with the preference for big women we find among foraging cultures today who would be most similar to paleolithic man, and their preference is not one of lust but for the ability to survive and bear children. Fertility.

What I'm 100% certain you will not find, are graphic depictions of women engaged in sexual acts who are shaped like Venus of Willendorf. My side of the argument is loaded with pornographic depictions of women at .7 (albeit heavier than commonly depicted today, still .7). So the depictions with very clear intent never have these large shapes, but we're to assume Venus of Willendorf was the equivalent of pornography?

The vast majority of other ancient figurines that have been found are known depictions of various Gods. Do you think it more likely that this is paleolithic porn and not yet ANOTHER depiction of a Goddess, like most other ancient figurines? Some Mother Goddess perhaps?

Literally the only reason for you to think that its sexual in nature is that its a nude female form. Can you acknowledge that the a larger view of ancient man points to Venus of Willendorf, not as a sexualized ideal, but as fertility symbol or Mother Goddess? We may never know for certain, but there is far more reason to believe the latter than the former.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Lyris said:


> I'm not sassy. I'm just right. From my head to my .69 WHR.


We have something in common then; I'm just right too.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

If the Venus figurines as sexualized depictions of prehistoric women is accurate then it's interesting that 'shaving the bits' has come back into fashion after a 10,000 year hiatus.

Not arguing mind you, just an observation that kind of jumps out, and then creeps me out in terms of wondering about prehistoric figurines and pubic hair.

Definitely time to step away from the thread.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Dvls, not to belabour the point, but the most famous figurine, the Venus of Willendorf does have arms. They are draped across her breasts. And she does have feet. They are stylised and kind of pointed, but they are there, she even has toes and fingers. 

All the identified "Venus" figures are from the paeleolithic, so they are all as far back as you can go. That's partly what I saying, that they are the earliest found representations of women in art and they are not .7 ratios. 

Anyway, I have no idea if the figures are sexual. But even if they just have something to do with fertility, that's pretty closely linked to sex and lust. 

And the Venus of Brassempouy has a face. Although it's just a head and neck fragment, so who knows what her body looked like.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Ha, I stand corrected... Willendorf does indeed have those itty bitty arms. Completely forgot about those. Looking at the pic again however, I don't see how you can say those stubs are feet, much less have toes.

Well, we agree they're not .7 ratios. I don't know about the paleolithic, but lust and fertility were quite different in most mythologies.

Have you seen many of these figures? Many of them are outright grotesque and impossible body forms. I honestly cannot fathom an argument that claims these forms represented sexual preferences. That's my ultimate point... no way no how. They had to be something else.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Have you seen many of these figures? Many of them are outright grotesque and impossible body forms.


Like Artemis of Ephesus? That's just scary...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Came across this excellent article (opinion piece) about the topic of sexism in film and TV:

Hollywood, Sexism, and the Minds of Men - The Good Men Project


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Yes I've seen all of them, pictures anyway. I find them really interesting. I've also read a few of the papers archaeologists/anthropologists have written on them, some of which do assign a possible sexual/pornographic purpose to them.

We'll have to disagree on the feet. I think those are toes!

Oh and one other thing. Pornographic ukiyo-e woodblock prints don't tend to have .7 ratio women. Much more straight up and down. If you compare the ukiyo-e geisha to the Hindu temple goddess there really is a big difference in preferred shape. I think there is more cultural variation in sexual ideals than you are willing to see.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Lyris said:


> Oh and one other thing. Pornographic ukiyo-e woodblock prints don't tend to have .7 ratio women. Much more straight up and down. If you compare the ukiyo-e geisha to the Hindu temple goddess there really is a big difference in preferred shape. I think there is more cultural variation in sexual ideals than you are willing to see.


Aren't all the ukiyo-e women wearing kimonos? I'm not aware of any nudes or clear figures. The kimonos depicted are not form fitting but loose and hanging - a la drapes... straight lines.

The documentary I referenced covered Hindu depictions as well. There too most depictions are close to .7, with only a handful being obese. Albeit, many of them are difficult to figure given they are often sitting or obscured by other adornments.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

Sorry, I was saying that the Hindu goddesses tended to be very different in that they have a distinct waist-hip curve, unlike the Japanese pictures. Not that they were obese. 

There are lots of nudes and partial nudes in ukiyo-e. They tend to look fairly androgynous with narrow hips, curved bellies and smallish round breasts. Plus there is lots of written Japanese erotica that describes the ideal female form as columnar. The most eroticised part of a Japanese geisha was the back of her neck. 

Then of course there was the Chinese ideal which centred mainly around the tiny feet and that women walked like tender young willow trees bending in the breeze.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Gotta give it to the Japanese, the nape of a woman's neck is as hot as fire.

That Chinese tiny feet thing is just gross though. haha

Don't get me wrong, I think a number of factors in attraction are driven by culture... but a number aren't.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That Chinese tiny feet thing is just gross though. haha


Extremely.

Interestingly though, tiny feet being associated with attractiveness is something that has cropped up in multiple cultures at multiple times in history. It was, for example the single most distinguishing characteristic of the girl in the Cinderella story.


----------



## Lyris (Mar 29, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Extremely.
> 
> Interestingly though, tiny feet being associated with attractiveness is something that has cropped up in multiple cultures at multiple times in history. It was, for example the single most distinguishing characteristic of the girl in the Cinderella story.


Fun fact: the Cinderella story has its origins in a Chinese folk tale.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

Lyris said:


> Fun fact: the Cinderella story has its origins in a Chinese folk tale.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's a good observation. _Yeh-hsien_ substantially predates European variants of this story and does contain the plot element of small feet. In early European versions, the slipper identifies its owner by magical means. (i.e. Magically jumping to her foot.) Perault's, _Cendrillon, ou La petite Pantoufle de Verre_ incorporates the small feet motif, which was probably reflective of social trends in Europe at the time. 

The Greek Ροδώπις (Rhodopis) is older than the Chinese version by centuries and it also contains the same motif. In this version, the girl's sandal is stolen while she is bathing by Horus in falcon form and dropped into the Pharoah's lap during a celebration. This results in a search for the lady whose foot will fit the sandal.


----------



## MSP (Feb 9, 2012)

The article from the OP has vanished. Does anyone have a different link for it? Or maybe a quick summary? It was well received and I'm curious!


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

MSP said:


> The article from the OP has vanished. Does anyone have a different link for it? Or maybe a quick summary? It was well received and I'm curious!


Why (and How) Sex is Important to Men


----------



## sounhappy (Jul 15, 2012)

ocotillo said:


> Why (and How) Sex is Important to Men


Apparently, there were Google reasons for it being removed. I couldn't find it either and for protection for another article that is likely very similar I'll just say google "to wives: why is sex so important". It opened my eyes as to why I always feel so depressed. Maybe not just simply why, that I know, but the why behind the why. The next step for me will be how to approach this issue with my wife without sounding like all I want is sex for sex's sake.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

The article is still readable via WayBackMachine internet archive. I've given a link above.


----------

