# New York Times: Nothing Is Wrong With Your Sex Drive



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

Low sexual desire is a common topic at TAM. This NYT article sheds some light on why we may be thinking about it wrong and offers the hope of simpler solutions.



> Researchers have begun to understand that sexual response is not the linear mechanism they once thought it was. The previous model, originating in the late ’70s, described a lack of “sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity.” It placed sexual desire first, as if it were a hunger, motivating an individual to pursue satisfaction. Desire was conceptualized as emerging more or less “spontaneously.” And some people do feel they experience desire that way. Desire first, then arousal.
> 
> But it turns out many people (perhaps especially women) often experience desire as responsive, emerging in response to, rather than in anticipation of, erotic stimulation. Arousal first, then desire.
> 
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/opinion/nothing-is-wrong-with-your-sex-drive.html


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

I think you will find a lot of topics about this exact subject. Additionally most people here with LD spouses do not have 'responsive' spouses either.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

I always figure the NYT has some kind of social engineering agenda drama they're not telling you.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Runs like Dog said:


> I always figure the NYT has some kind of social engineering agenda drama they're not telling you.


because they usually do.

on the other hand, doesn't mean it's not valid research.
would look at the research references and read published paper to see for myself.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

interesting food for thought


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Runs like Dog said:


> I always figure the NYT has some kind of social engineering agenda drama they're not telling you.


Would you feel differently if the story had been run in "Guns and Ammo?"


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Responsive desire is normal too - I agree. (It may be less satisfying to the partner unless they understand that and can adapt to it, however.) 

Responsive desire becomes dysfunctional when that person will not allow their spouse an opportunity to even create a response.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

or its just a bunch of bs.

if they weren't responsive desire before marriage and then after they are .....hows that work.


a convenient way to explain that they really just picked the wrong guy.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Responsive desire is normal too - I agree. (It may be less satisfying to the partner unless they understand that and can adapt to it, however.)
> 
> Responsive desire becomes dysfunctional when that person will not allow their spouse an opportunity to even create a response.


QFT


----------



## MacyLu (Mar 2, 2015)

chillymorn said:


> or its just a bunch of bs.
> 
> if they weren't responsive desire before marriage and then after they are .....hows that work.
> 
> ...


I married my husband for his high sex drive, his sexiness, and his intellect, in that order. My desire and passion for him just gets stronger each passing year and after 20 years together I still can't get enough of him.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

Nothing in my marriage vows mentioned desire.


----------



## jorgegene (May 26, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Would you feel differently if the story had been run in "Guns and Ammo?"


guns and ammo doesn't try to hide their agenda. that's the difference.
nyt pretentiously tries to, although not so successfully.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

jorgegene said:


> guns and ammo doesn't try to hide their agenda. that's the difference.
> nyt pretentiously tries to, although not so successfully.


I don't think that they try very hard. 

Even with their obvious left-leaning slant, there is still no better source of news and the remnants of true journalism on the internet.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

I saw a study once that really shocked me. It was a study based on what people would do in various states of arousal. The people who designed the study must have been really sick. 

The thesis they were testing was something to the effect if highly arroused people will do really discusting things. (Please no flames, I am just the messenger.)

The had couple engage in foreplay and then asked them to do a variety of strange things from eating worms, if I remember correctly to doing other things that might put one off. 

The conclusion of the study was that yes the more arroused a person was, the more they were willing to do things that were typcially considered gross. I found the conclusion to possibly explain a lot in a kind of humorous way.

I wonder if I can find that study?


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

Young at Heart said:


> I wonder if I can find that study?


OK, I guess my memory was a little off as to the exact details of the study.




> Borg and her colleagues separated 90 female university students into three equal groups: one watched "female friendly erotica;" one watched a video of extreme sports meant to get them excited, but in a non-sexual way; and one watched a video of a train, meant to elicit a neutral response.
> 
> The women were then given 16 tasks, most of them unappealing. They were asked to take a sip from a cup of juice that had a large (fake) insect in it, to wipe their hands with a used tissue and to take a bite from a cookie that was sitting next to a living worm. The women were also asked to perform several sex-related tasks, like lubricating a vibrator.
> 
> Women in the "aroused group" said they found both the unpleasant tasks and the sex-related tasks less disgusting than women in the other groups. They also completed the highest percentage of the activities, suggesting that sexual arousal not only decreases feelings of disgust, but directly affects what women are willing to do, the study shows.


How Arousal Overrides Disgust During Sex: Study


----------



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

Seriously? The New York Times?

'Nuff said...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

I think that the NYT article implies that for some (quite a few) arousal is required for desire to appear. I think that the Dutch study implies that arousal is required to suppress discust or the "ick factor." So they both do seem to imply for at least for some that lack of desire to have sex, just might be a barrier that hormonal changes associted with arrousal may overcome.

If so, let's hear it for nature's grand plan on populating the planet.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Why does the notion of responsive desire ruffle feathers? It seems like a lot of people would be thrilled at this thought. That maybe what they've categorized as duty sex isn't duty sex but is responsive.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Thundarr said:


> Why does the notion of responsive desire ruffle feathers? It seems like a lot of people would be thrilled at this thought. That maybe what they've categorized as duty sex isn't duty sex but is responsive.


A logical conclusion, and I'd agree it may apply in some cases.

At the same time, however, I trust such a person's partner to (more often than not) be able to distinguish between times that their partner is genuinely enjoying the experience and when they're not. I'll borrow a description that my wife sometimes uses to describe some of the entertainers at the fine gentlemen's establishment that we sometimes patronize: some seem to be genuinely enjoying performing, and some seem to be mentally composing their grocery list.

ETA: I'd have no problem if my wife had somehow transitioned from HD to "responsive." But when her "response" is to pull away, shoo me away, or to fall asleep before anything happens (even when fooling around was her idea, I think it's safe to say that most (if not all) sex is duty see these days. On the rare occasions it happens. And, that my own statement to her that I'll just stop trying is equally logical.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Grayson said:


> A logical conclusion, and I'd agree it may apply in some cases.
> 
> At the same time, however, I trust such a person's partner to (more often than not) be able to distinguish between times that their partner is genuinely enjoying the experience and when they're not. I'll borrow a description that my wife sometimes uses to describe some of the entertainers at the fine gentlemen's establishment that we sometimes patronize: some seem to be genuinely enjoying performing, and some seem to be mentally composing their grocery list.


I agree with that. It's just seems like the concept of RD is a curse word at TAM is all. The fact that some claim to be RD when they're just not interested is a separate issue.


----------



## usmarriedguy (Dec 9, 2013)

It does not seem like new, revolutionary or shocking information to me. 

I have read here many times that women tend toward responsive desire. 

I would guess what is ruffling feathers is that the title implies that there is nothing wrong with their sex drive. But I am pretty sure that if a couple is mismatched than they both think that something is wrong with their spouses sex drive. 

Basically the article is only saying that therapy is a more appropriate treatment than any known pill and low desire is common.

At least that is what I got out of it. But if either sex chooses to ignore the issue and or not work to find some compromise than it makes no difference anyway. We already know that it is very hard to change unwanted behavior.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Yep. Nothing new about responsive desire. I don't think "RD" is ruffling feathers so much as "NYT".


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Fozzy said:


> Yep. Nothing new about responsive desire. I don't think "RD" is ruffling feathers so much as "NYT".


So what's the problem with the article? It only says that RD is now part of the equation and that the new diagnosis for medicines is intended for those who lack both spontaneous and responsive desire. If RD isn't ruffling feathers then why is that assersion offensive?




> Why the change? Researchers have begun to understand that sexual response is not the linear mechanism they once thought it was. The previous model, originating in the late ’70s, described a lack of “sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity.” It placed sexual desire first, as if it were a hunger, motivating an individual to pursue satisfaction. Desire was conceptualized as emerging more or less “spontaneously.” And some people do feel they experience desire that way. Desire first, then arousal.
> 
> But it turns out many people (perhaps especially women) often experience desire as responsive, emerging in response to, rather than in anticipation of, erotic stimulation. Arousal first, then desire.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

It's not, to me. I'm just stating what appears to be ruffling others feathers.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

I have no problem with the "meat" of the article. I have no problem with the NYT.

The title, however, is stated as an absolute. To someone who truly doesn't have a "responsive drive," but a low or no drive, and it's adversely impacting the relationship, they're able to skim the article, then point to the title and say, "See? Even the New York Times says there's no problem with my drive. Now stop pestering me about it."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 1812overture (Nov 25, 2013)

Thundarr said:


> Why does the notion of responsive desire ruffle feathers? It seems like a lot of people would be thrilled at this thought. That maybe what they've categorized as duty sex isn't duty sex but is responsive.


It ruffles feathers, IMO, because it doesn't look at the entire equation. It's not "duty sex," so. . . . so, what, exactly?

IF I do all the right things, at the right time, maybe she'll get aroused? That's just the way she is, so I shouldn't be hurt by it? 

She seems to enjoy sex when we have it. But I can't really know for sure, can I? (Not that she has bothered to look into things enough to even know what responsive desire pertains to.)

If she ever bothered to initiate, I'd KNOW she was interested -- or at least interested enough to pretend. Instead, I have to initiate, risk rejection, yet again, from my wife. 

I spent way too much of my single life NOT getting laid to be comfortable with ANY justification for my wife deciding she has NO obligation to initiate, EVER. 

As you can tell, I am looking forward to my anniversary.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

The point that is being missed is that it is vital that BOTH men and women accept that RD is normal human sexual response, not just men. If RD people knew they were normal they would express their sexuality without feeling like freaks of nature. 

It's not a movement that you need to believe in, it's a fact about normal human sexual response. We had it wrong, spontaneous desire is not the all encompassing norm. It's not RD Vs. SD, it's RD and SD. 

The man who says about is reluctant wife - "She enjoys sex when we have it but she never wants to start" Duh. If the couple knew that she is normally RD, do you think she would resent having to get a jump start or that he usually starts things up? Do you think that she would feel her husband was annoying her to have sex? 

He is expressing his sexuality in his normal way and she hers. She needs to accept his normality and he needs to accept hers. They don't have to. things can stay the way they are now. A battle for who is normal.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

So what happens when two RDs get together?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

As a side note, why would anyone be so dismissive of the article because it was in the New York Times?

I would think that reading the article, following up at the original source material, and making up one's mind then would be a better course of action.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Anon1111 said:


> So what happens when two RDs get together?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Nothing.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

1812overture said:


> It ruffles feathers, IMO, because it doesn't look at the entire equation. It's not "duty sex," so. . . . so, what, exactly?
> 
> IF I do all the right things, at the right time, maybe she'll get aroused? That's just the way she is, so I shouldn't be hurt by it?
> 
> ...


Someone who might get aroused if I do all the right things, at the right time, is not responsive desire. That's more of the definition of just LD or lack of interest. I don't have any good answers for incompatibilities regarding LD/HD though. I can definitely see where the thoughts of someone very LD latching onto the notion of RD would be annoying.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> It's not a movement that you need to believe in, it's a fact about normal human sexual response. We had it wrong, spontaneous desire is not the all encompassing norm. Thinking that is is RD id BS will not make it go away.
> 
> The man who says about is reluctant wife - "She enjoys sex when we have it but she never wants to start" Duh. If the couple knew that she is normally RD, do you think she would resent having to get a jump start or that he usually starts things up? Do you think that she would feel her husband was annoying her to have sex?
> 
> He is expressing his sexuality his normal way and she hers. She needs to accept his normality and he needs to accept hers. They don't have to. things can stay the way they are now. A battle for who is normal.


I agree. It would at least be helpful everyone to know that responding to initiation is okay and normal too. Honestly I like to initiate and I think my wife likes it that way too.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Thundarr said:


> I agree. It would at least be helpful everyone to know that responding to initiation is okay and normal too. Honestly I like to initiate and I think my wife likes it that way too.


Thundarr I need a jump start and never resented it. When I get started I'm good to go. That's the sticking point, IMO. It wouldn't be such a big deal if we didn't make either RD or SD an abnormal state. 

I can't see why a person with SD would object to his RD partner never saying anything like "All you think about is sex". There would be far less frustration. Maybe in time this will turn things around.


----------



## doobie (Apr 15, 2014)

unbelievable said:


> Nothing in my marriage vows mentioned desire.


Nothing in my marriage vows mentioned celibacy - I feel like I got married to god. If I'd wanted a celibate lifestyle, I could have joined a convent - I feel like I'm living in one  .


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

everybody want to feel desired!

when you have to push all the right buttons just the perfect way to make love to your partner/lover then pretty soon they just feel like a partner the lover part is missing.

after awhile you start wondering dose this person desire me at all?

I'm good looking and work hard provide for my family and show my sexual desire for them ??????? why don't they desire me back?

there has to be desire on both side to keep a long term relationship going!

not necessarily perfectly equal desire but some desire non the less!

when its not expressed ever then its just a matter of time before it crumbles into I'd rather spank it than jump through hoops to make love to the person I dedicated my love to. who is indifferent to ever making love again!


----------



## Hacker (Jul 14, 2014)

Arousal first, then desire....... I can buy that.

There have been times when my Wife had no desire and I was facing rejection.

So I found a way to turn her on, and bang bang bang.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

Hacker said:


> Arousal first, then desire....... I can buy that.
> 
> There have been times when my Wife had no desire and I was facing rejection.
> 
> So I found a way to turn her on, and bang bang bang.


Good luck with a steady diet of that for 20+ years!


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

chillymorn said:


> everybody want to feel desired!
> 
> when you have to push all the right buttons just the perfect way to make love to your partner/lover then pretty soon they just feel like a partner the lover part is missing.
> 
> ...


I've been down this road. I told her I don't have any problem with initiating the majority of the time, but throw me a bone once in a while to let me know she actually desires me. Without that, I start to feel kind of slimy like I'm just using her.

So I continue to feel slimy.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Thundarr said:


> Why does the notion of responsive desire ruffle feathers? It seems like a lot of people would be thrilled at this thought. That maybe what they've categorized as duty sex isn't duty sex but is responsive.


Like porn. You know duty sex when you see it ..eh..you know what I mean


----------



## speeedbump (Mar 12, 2013)

This truly sheds no new light for any of us who have been with a LD for any length of time and have been looking for solitions.

Michele Weiner-Davis has been writing and talking about this for many years (at least a decade?).


----------



## the2ofus (Jan 28, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> The point that is being missed is that it is vital that BOTH men and women accept that RD is normal human sexual response, not just men. If RD people knew they were normal they would express their sexuality without feeling like freaks of nature.
> 
> It's not a movement that you need to believe in, it's a fact about normal human sexual response. We had it wrong, spontaneous desire is not the all encompassing norm. Thinking that is is RD id BS will not make it go away.
> 
> ...


Well said.



chillymorn said:


> everybody want to feel desired!
> 
> when you have to push all the right buttons just the perfect way to make love to your partner/lover then pretty soon they just feel like a partner the lover part is missing.
> 
> ...


But if she was RD and you could accept that and were not making her feel as if something was wrong with her. She may enjoy it more, heck she might even initiate remembering how much fun it was. She may tell you how handsome she thinks you are, if she feels safe.



chillymorn said:


> Good luck with a steady diet of that for 20+ years!


I think if there was appreciation for each others differences it would not be as you think.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

the2ofus said:


> Well said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're absolutely right. There's nothing wrong with a partner who's RD.

It's all the fault of the RD's partner for having the audacity to feel wanted just like the RD partner.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Anon1111 said:


> So what happens when two RDs get together?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


perfect match! everybody is happy


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

no matter how much you understand their RD we're all just human and a life time diet is tough.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

chillymorn said:


> everybody want to feel desired!
> 
> when you have to push all the right buttons just the perfect way to make love to your partner/lover then pretty soon they just feel like a partner the lover part is missing.
> 
> ...


The couple, the RD and SD partner, has to accept that this might actually be real or it will not solve anything. The RD person has to accept that they have to start even when they are not at first feeling it. When they fire up after starting they will accept that they are normally RD and not think that their SD partner made them do something they did not want to do. 

The RD person needs have the desire to get a jump start not a desire to have have sex. That comes later. If they don't know that it's normal for a RD person, then they will not try. It's the responsibility of the RD person to allow themselves to be aroused by doing whatever it takes. That's not "pushing the right buttons"? They both have to work like good team members on jump starting. 

The only difference is that the RD person knows that they have an active role. They don't have to wait for their partner. The RD person can jump their partners bones to get in the mood and look forward to a happy ending.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

chillymorn said:


> no matter how much you understand their RD we're all just human and a life time diet is tough.


You wanted SD woman? Did you find one and marry her? 

Many men look for women who have low number of lovers for LTR because they assume that she is selective and he prides himself in turning on her wild side. 

She may be selective but it may not be for the reasons he realizes. She may actually suppress her normal sexual desire to avoid shaming. She may not be waiting for a man to turn her on, she can do that herself. She may be waiting for a good match for a LTR.

The very fact that a "virtuous" woman can control her sexuality by severely limiting the number of men she has sex means she finds it relatively easy to turn off. The fact that she can turn on for the right man means she has RD. If you marry a woman who can turn off her sexuality and then turn it back on under very restrictive circumstances then she has RD. 

If this is your situation, then it is tough but you can't blame some outside entity for your choices. It is certainly not fair to blame the woman you freely selected.


----------



## the2ofus (Jan 28, 2014)

Grayson said:


> You're absolutely right. There's nothing wrong with a partner who's RD.
> 
> It's all the fault of the RD's partner for having the audacity to feel wanted just like the RD partner.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Why does it have to be someone's fault.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> The couple, the RD and SD partner, has to accept that this might actually be real or it will not solve anything. The RD person has to accept that they have to start even when they are not at first feeling it. When they fire up after starting they will accept that they are normally RD and not think that their SD partner made them do something they did not want to do.
> 
> They have to start with the desire to have sex. If they don't know that it's normal then they will not try. It's the responsibility of the RD person to allow themselves to be aroused by doing whatever it takes. That's not "pushing the right buttons"? They both have to work like good team members on jump starting.
> 
> *The only difference is that the RD person knows that they have an active role. They don't have to wait for their partner. They can jump their bones to get in the mood and look forward to a happy ending. *



This is important, and would make the concept a lot more palatable to a lot more people. What myself and a few others seem to run up against is that when our spouse is completely passive about the entire thing, there's very little validation thrown back our way. An RD taking a more active role in the process--even if it takes a little longer--would go a long way.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

the2ofus said:


> Why does it have to be someone's fault.


Personally, I don't think it _has_ to be.

In the abstract, however, we more frequently see a finger of blame being pointed at the other partner for "failing" or "refusing" to understand the RD partner.

And, in reality, when bruised feelings and/or ego are involved, one or both parties tends to blame the other for just that...not understanding or, worse, putting their own desires/wants/needs in front of the other partner's. And, if a serious discussion has been had about what's lacking, and a party doesn't change his or her behavior to try to meet their partner halfway...then I daresay that some degree of blame is appropriate.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

WandaJ said:


> perfect match! everybody is happy


I actually doubt this is the case.

I think two RDs would be miserable together (e.g., "Lesbian bed death")

I think an RD needs to feed off an SD.

But really, why bother dealing with that?


----------



## the2ofus (Jan 28, 2014)

Grayson said:


> Personally, I don't think it _has_ to be.
> 
> In the abstract, however, we more frequently see a finger of blame being pointed at the other partner for "failing" or "refusing" to understand the RD partner.
> 
> ...


I guess I'm looking at it as the RD person may realize what they doneed and be willing to try. Thinking your partner or yourself is broken can make one not even want to try. Knowing you are different may make you want to see just how this works.

Understand I'm not talking about selfish jerks being incompatible, I'm talking about two loving partners with an otherwise good relationship. By the way I am the HD and when my husbands T levels were really low, I often felt undesired. Understanding is the only thing that got us out of that space back to a place where I'm just a little more HD.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Fozzy said:


> This is important, and would make the concept a lot more palatable to a lot more people. What myself and a few others seem to run up against is that when our spouse is completely passive about the entire thing, there's very little validation thrown back our way. An RD taking a more active role in the process--even if it takes a little longer--would go a long way.


Fozz I didn't think of that. i don't think that accepting RD as normal on the spectrum of human sexuality supports a sexless or near sexless marriage. It's the opposite. 

"I don't need to do something that I don't want to do" is the mantra of many RD people. However, it's not a body ownership issue it is love, commitment and promises issue. Most people don't set out to hurt others. Understanding often changes attitudes and actions. 

There is ample proof of that. There are many former "LD" women on TAM who changed when they realized how deeply they hurt their husbands by refusing them. They also made an effort to be intimate and report that they are happy and feel loved. I can't remember their names.


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> I agree with that. It's just seems like the concept of RD is a curse word at TAM is all. The fact that some claim to be RD when they're just not interested is a separate issue.



There is nothing inherently wrong with someone who has a genuinely responsive drive. It's a cuss word only to those who have no desire to be partnered with an RDer. 

I don't see it any differently than people who have a high, spontaneous drive being treated by their partners as if they're perverted sex fiends. Is a spontaneous, high drive wrong? Of course not. But it's the worst nightmare to a partner who doesn't want to be on the receiving end of all those sexual advances, or be held responsible for engaging to the degree that would even begin to satisfy their partner.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

jaquen said:


> There is nothing inherently wrong with someone who has a genuinely responsive drive. It's a cuss word only to those who have no desire to be partnered with an RDer.
> 
> I don't see it any differently than people who have a high, spontaneous drive being treated by their partners as if they're perverted sex fiends. Is a spontaneous, high drive wrong? Of course not. But it's the worst nightmare to a partner who doesn't want to be on the receiving end of all those sexual advances, or be held responsible for engaging to the degree that would even begin to satisfy their partner.


If the RD person knew that receiving sexual advances from a high SD partner is normal, wouldn't that change the way each felt. 

If we were able to go into relationships knowing the true nature of sex drives, that would allow us to make better decisions about the LT potential. What stands in the way of authentic intimacy now is that everyone feels that normal is high SD. 

If a RD person knew that the were normal, they would find someone who was good match for them sexually. They would avoid a match with a high SD person because it would eventually wear them out. They would not have to ape HD spontaneous because that think they are broken. 

Partners should commit with their eyes wide open. Low/RD people rarely acquire a high/SD.


----------



## Grayson (Oct 28, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> If the RD person knew that receiving sexual advances from a high SD partner is normal, wouldn't that change the way each felt.
> 
> If we were able to go into relationships knowing the true nature of sex drives, that would allow us to make better decisions about the LT potential. *What stands in the way of authentic intimacy now is that everyone feels that normal is high SD. *
> 
> ...


A larger issue exists when partners _do_ commit with eyes wide open, yet one partner enters the relationship covering or simply without LD and/or RD behaviors. When, during courtship even into the marriage, their behavior changes, their partner is left asking themselves, "Why?"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> If the RD person knew that receiving sexual advances from a high SD partner is normal, wouldn't that change the way each felt.


Depends on the person.

The reality is that some people who are more SD (and I say "more" because I believe all human beings have a responsive element to their drive) would never optimally be married to a RD person.

I'm one who would have a problem with that, even though I consider RD totally normal and acceptable. 

Being open, and not stigmatizing people's drive, is healthy. But it won't automatically lead to either party being satisfied in the end.



Catherine602 said:


> What stands in the way of authentic intimacy now is that everyone feels that normal is high SD.


I don't think this is true at all, outside of a few niche populations like TAM.

Men, on the whole, are socialized from early on to believe women are inherently responsive in your drives. Most (though not all) of us expect to take the primary, even sole, role in initiating sex. That's a very common expectation to the degree that there are men who don't even believe women can have a truly SD.

The complaint that most men have about women is LOW drive, or duty/pity sex. But I'd venture to say that the majority of men have no problem accepting and believing that women are RD. If a man believed that warming up his lover would lead to genuine, enthusiastic desire? Lots of guys would sign on for a RD woman with no problem whatsoever. 

It's the other way around that has the stigma. Men who have RD are thought of as anomalies.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

jaquen said:


> Depends on the person.
> 
> The reality is that some people who are more SD (and I say "more" because I believe all human beings have a responsive element to their drive) would never optimally be married to a RD person.
> 
> ...


Sincere thanks for posting this. My worry is my husband. Hope he is as happy as he says. RD women are so vilified and hated by some of the men on TAM. That it is discouraging. 

I am sure that RD and or LD men feel wounded to their soul. All men have high SD don't they?


----------



## jaquen (Mar 1, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> Sincere thanks for posting this. My worry is my husband. Hope he is as happy as he says. RD women are so vilified and hated by some of the men on TAM. That it is discouraging.


The only reason RD people get vilified around TAM is because a lot of people confuse RD with LD.

People will come here complaining or worried about partners who have a very low sexual drive and they're too often told that their spouse has "responsive drive". 

I don't agree with that. A truly RD person, who actually enjoys sex and wants to have it with their spouse, can still initiate. They can still be excited about the prospect of sex. They can still have frequent, enjoyable sex. They just don't crave it in a seeming vacuum. 

To me it's like pizza. I almost never crave pizza. I can easily go months, or even years, without having it. However I think pizza tastes absolutely amazing when I do have it. And if my wife and I decided to have a weekly couples pizza night, I'd look forward to it and even initiate the purchasing or making of said pizza.

Just because I don't crave pizza doesn't mean I dislike pizza, or am adverse to having pizza. That's how I see RD.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

I think people get confused and incorrectly label unresponsive as responsive. For true rd the sd initiates and the rd responds positively. Most who say they're responsive are actually unresponsive at least some of the time.


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

jaquen said:


> To me it's like pizza. I almost never crave pizza. I can easily go months, or even years, without having it. However I think pizza tastes absolutely amazing when I do have it. And if my wife and I decided to have a weekly couples pizza night, I'd look forward to it and even initiate the purchasing or making of said pizza.
> 
> Just because I don't crave pizza doesn't mean I dislike pizza, or am adverse to having pizza. That's how I see RD.


We were typing at the same time, but I think we're on the same page. I really like the pizza analogy. This time of year I work a lot of hours, and for whatever reason I crave pizza often. I spontaneously buy it and eat it at the office 4 or 5 times a week. 

Now my wife, she rarely will spontaneously crave pizza. Once in a while she will. And sometimes she'll buy it simply because she knows everyone else likes it and she doesn't feel like cooking. On those occasions, she genuinely enjoys the pizza. Now, if on any random day I show up with a pizza, she will eat it and enjoy it. That's responsive desire.

Some people, if you brought the pizza home, would refuse to eat it. They'd complain and then sit by themselves with a salad while everyone had pizza. Sure, you could convince them to join the family with pizza, but they wouldn't like it. That's unresponsive. To call this person, who you could convince to eat the pizza if they had to, responsive....would be wrong.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Grayson said:


> A larger issue exists when partners _do_ commit with eyes wide open, yet one partner enters the relationship covering or simply without LD and/or RD behaviors. When, during courtship even into the marriage, their behavior changes, their partner is left asking themselves, "Why?"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There is less purposeful deception than is realized. A lot of it is ignorance. The man who would not consider marrying the scores of women who shared sex with him but commits to a woman with low numbers. Either he suddenly became LD or he is deceiving her and himself. 

It is often see as the LD person deceiving the HD one. There is self-deception going on. Each person really believes that love will solve the sexual incompatibility. By the time they have children and a mortgage, they realize their mistake. One is not more deceptive than the other.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

jaquen said:


> There is nothing inherently wrong with someone who has a genuinely responsive drive. It's a cuss word only to those who have no desire to be partnered with an RDer.
> 
> I don't see it any differently than people who have a high, spontaneous drive being treated by their partners as if they're perverted sex fiends. Is a spontaneous, high drive wrong? Of course not. But it's the worst nightmare to a partner who doesn't want to be on the receiving end of all those sexual advances, or be held responsible for engaging to the degree that would even begin to satisfy their partner.


Yes when something is an incompatibility to an otherwise compatible relationship then it's going to be considered a bad thing to that person. So it makes sense that a some would not like RD but I agree with Working-on-me. Responsive desire sounds like no desire to people who have an uninterested partner or an LD partner. So RD gets a bad rep that it doesn't deserve IMO.


----------



## Melvynman (Mar 19, 2014)

Catherine602 said:


> There is less purposeful deception than is realized. A lot of it is ignorance. The man who would not consider marrying the scores of women who shared sex with him but commits to a woman with low numbers.


Studies have show western women lie has to how many partners they have had before marriage. The lie is somewhere between three to seven time more partners. Men are just stupid for asking!


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Melvynman said:


> Studies have show western women lie has to how many partners they have had before marriage. The lie is somewhere between three to seven time more partners. Men are just stupid for asking!


No, not stupid for asking. Stupid for thinking that a woman's real or professed lack of interest in sex is a desirable quality. The biggest lie is that good women don't like sex too much and bad woman like it too much. Why do women lie? To fit into a slot much too tiny for a real, live human. So we manage. Men feel deceived? But it is mostly self-deception isn't it? 

If woman deflate their numbers then men are marrying woman who are more into sex then they think. But this is not what he wants to know so the little lie takes on a life of it's own throughout their relationship.


----------

