Strange creatures - women...
Pete L
about sex? Although men and women are very different in the way they
think, I suspect that both have the same desires regarding wanting
sex. We live in an age now where there is little or no risk in an
unwanted pregnancy and there are a large proportion women beyond the
menopause that are still sexually active. Could it be that women still
have an instinct that they always have to be careful in case they get
pregnant? This in itself is actually going against nature, which would
want the women to produce as many children as possible. But, being
practical, they think beyond nature and reckon they do not want
another mouth to feed and the result is that they do not encourage
their man to initiate sex. Yet with the prospect of another pregnancy
impossible (menopause, vasectomy) they still hold back? This tactic is
actually counter-productive.If somehow they think that by being coy it
will make their man keener on sex it just doesn't work that way
(unless I'm the exception). I suspect that guys like me in their
fifties find that sexual urges start to get less and less and unless
there is encouragement they disappear altogether. 'Use it before you
lose it', is actually a very good saying. I wonder who thought it up -
a man or a woman!
Denny Wheeler
<peterla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why are women, generally speaking, (from my experience), very coy
>about sex? Although men and women are very different in the way they
>think, I suspect that both have the same desires regarding wanting
>sex.
Well. Firstly, asking that question here has its issues, as the women
in this newsgroup average out a lot less coy than average, I suspect.
But your question is a bit too broad...
Women of what age? Women my age, and within 10 years of it, are
likely more as you describe than younger ones are. (I'm over 60)
Women where? The US? Western Europe? Japan? etc.
But the short answer to your question is "society."
>(unless I'm the exception). I suspect that guys like me in their
>fifties find that sexual urges start to get less and less and unless
>there is encouragement they disappear altogether. 'Use it before you
>lose it', is actually a very good saying. I wonder who thought it up -
>a man or a woman!
The long answer to your original question is "reasons and coyness vary
a great deal."
(I won't essay the LONG answer.)
--
"Every single religion that has a monotheistic god
winds up persecuting someone else."
-Philip Pullman
-denny-
(not as curmudgeonly as I useta be)
Pete L
Ok - of course I am refering to my wife. Now I'm not looking for
advice or anything. This is just a general observation. Why should a
British woman, or it could be of any nationality, think that it is to
her advantage to be reserved with sex. Surely, women and men must
realise that it is to their advantage to keep their partner happy
sexually - simply because if they don't there is a danger that one or
the other will find happiness elsewhere. I think that especially for
women it isn't that difficult. Even if the woman isn't that fussed
about sex it can't be too difficult to make just a small effort. It
strikes me that women have the capability of just shutting down and
not caring about sex at all. For men it really is a physical thing but
as we get older it gradually decreases. That's when we really need our
wives to make an effort to keep things going. Oh well, I've had my say
and I feel better now!
toramjero
You may want to read books on the subject, for example "Passionate
marriage" by D. Schnarch. Basically, the idea is that the position of
being the one who decides on sex is a position of power, and the
position of being the one of needing it is not.
-Elizabeth-
Well, in the relationship I'm in, I am the one more interested in sex
than my partner. I have largely stopped approaching him for sex
because he just isn't all that wrapped in it. These days I just feel
foolish doing anything much with him sex-wise. So, there you have it.
You can't generalize about any gender, or anybody.
-Elizabeth
toramjero
You are certainly not the only woman in that situation. Pardon my
indiscreet question, but what do you intend to do about it? Try harder
to convince your man? Try to find a lover? Split? Resign yourself to a
sexless life?
-Elizabeth-
I have a sex partner fortunately. I'm not into resigning myself to any
life that isn't rich and interesting. This does not mean my partner
and I need to separate; it just means we share other things.
toramjero
That is a solution I had not thought about. Although I should have:
having a bit of freedom on the side is, as far as I know, a rather
common solution to that problem.
shadi....@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
u might have a point there, women are sometimes hard to figure
out..and some of my ex girlfriends are still a big buzzle to me sex
wise..though we had the right sex drive and perfect body chemistry...
but yet the relation ended much too sooner than i expected ...we men
indulge totally in sex..but for women there always a big mystery
behind their weird reluctance ...but i think from my point of
view ...that men are physically oriented and women are more
emotionally oriented in that regard .
-Elizabeth-
wrote:
If you read my post (as opposed to the quoted text of the original
poster [Pete], attributed to me) you would have observed something
different. I'm a woman whose life partner (a man) likes sex much less
than me. So this collective women bizzo with "their weird reluctance"
regarding sex isn't a universal truth.
Norton
>You are certainly not the only woman in that situation. Pardon my
>indiscreet question, but what do you intend to do about it? Try harder
>to convince your man? Try to find a lover? Split? Resign yourself to a
>sexless life?
We discuss this here with some regularity. It seems to be
a question without any simple answer. Everybody is different.
That said, what the sexier person does depends on their
personality and their needs as well as their partner.
Some can live with little or no sex. Some can't.
--
--- Norton
Norton
After making the Usual Assertions (everybody is different, no
conclusion fits everyone, etc., etc.) I will add my two cents
which stems more from some years ago than the present.
Society tends to frown on women who are forward about sex.
Indeed, it seems to scare some men. Thus a bit of reticence
goes a long way for some women.
--
--- Norton
shadi....@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
of course i,v read your post and i,m aware that you,r living with a
man whose desire for sex is much less than yours...
but i,m inclined to believe - no offence meant - that his sexual urge
for other women is not attenuated .
my point is ..in any relationship - where sex is an integral part of
it - especially marriage - is bound to get tasteless and may be
sexless " with statistical exceptions..of course " as years go by...!
for a simple fact called " boredom " .
one gets bored of doing the samething over and over again ,eating the
same dish, day in and day out...let alone sleeping with one life
partner - imagine for all ur life -over and over again.
this process has its own mechanism and evolution that will finally
reach the point of no return " loss of desire and eventually rejection
"
so, i,m advocating the slogan " GO FOR A NEW SEX RELATIONSHIP..IF THE
OLD ONE GOT EXPIRED "
-Elizabeth-
Oh really. And you know this because?
And I'm not meant to be offended by a very offensive comment like
yours?
> my point is ..in any relationship - where sex is an integral part of
> it - especially marriage - is bound to get tasteless and may be
> sexless " with statistical exceptions..of course " as years go by...!
> for a simple fact called " boredom " .
> one gets bored of doing the samething over and over again ,eating the
> same dish, day in and day out...let alone sleeping with one life
> partner - imagine for all ur life -over and over again.
> this process has its own mechanism and evolution that will finally
> reach the point of no return " loss of desire and eventually rejection
> "
> so, i,m advocating the slogan " GO FOR A NEW SEX RELATIONSHIP..IF THE
> OLD ONE GOT EXPIRED "
Mmmm
-Elizabeth-
I forgot to mention that our relationship is quite new (4 years) and
my partner has always been largely uninterested in sex. It isn't a
sexless relationship, however, for we do have sex - but it isn't as
often or as interesting as I would like. As for him being interested
in other women - you've got to be joking (apart from being somewhat
presumptuous). He just isn't all that fussed about sex.
suzee
Yeah, some men are like that. Men who aren't like that think that it
must be the woman's fault if he's not interested in sex with her...
sue
toramjero
There are plenty of men who do not appear to have sexual urges, for
their wife and for other women as well.
> my point is ..in any relationship - where sex is an integral part of
> it - especially marriage - is bound to get tasteless and may be
> sexless " with statistical exceptions..of course " as years go by...!
> for a simple fact called " boredom " .
> one gets bored of doing the samething over and over again ,eating the
> same dish, day in and day out...let alone sleeping with one life
> partner - imagine for all ur life -over and over again.
> this process has its own mechanism and evolution that will finally
> reach the point of no return " loss of desire and eventually rejection
> "
Boredom is indeed a problem that arises often in old couples. Every
book about improving your marriage notes it. In a nutshell, the
solution appears to try new things with your old partner, but that
requires that your partner wants to try new things, of course.
> so, i,m advocating the slogan " GO FOR A NEW SEX RELATIONSHIP..IF THE
> OLD ONE GOT EXPIRED "
I take it that you are relatively young. Finding a "sex relationship"
is not easy, especially after a certain age. And the older you get,
the more difficult it is to divorce.
Tom Allen
> Boredom is indeed a problem that arises often in old couples. Every
> book about improving your marriage notes it. In a nutshell, the
> solution appears to try new things with your old partner, but that
> requires that your partner wants to try new things, of course.
That's why it's important that the both of you are on the same page. All
too often, your desires diverge because you never make time to discuss them.
Reminds me of my friend Bill.
Bill was in a terrible accident, and his "manhood" was mangled and torn
from his body. His doctor assured him that modern medicine could give
him back his manhood, but that his insurance wouldn't cover the surgery,
since it was considered cosmetic.
The doctor said that the cost would be $3,500 for small, $6,500 for
medium, and $14,000 for large. Bill was sure he wanted a large, but the
doctor urged him to talk it over with his wife before he made any decision.
Bill called his wife on the phone and explained their options.
The doctor came back into the room, and found the man looking quite
dejected.
"Well, what have the two of you decided?" asked the doctor.
Bill answered, "She'd rather remodel the kitchen."
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Norton
>Yeah, some men are like that. Men who aren't like that think that it
>must be the woman's fault if he's not interested in sex with her...
And then we throw in the fact that most (not all) people
change to some degree over time, we end up with couples
who might have had compatible sex drives for years discover
over time that that's not altoghether true.
For example if A has a higher sex drive than B, but feels
that they can put up with it, might discover years down
the road that they now have a sex drive more like B or
they might stay the same, or they might not be able to
stand the mismatch any more.
Add to that the fact that B is likely changing too, you
find that many marriages have difficulties after 20 or
30 years.
At least that's what I've seen.
--
--- Norton
toramjero
>
> "I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
> carrier."
I see... So tell us about your new kitchen, Tom.
JustGB
>
> "I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
> carrier."
Hmm. I'd have gone for the happy medium: medium dick and a medium
kitchen!
JustGB
toramjero
I am not sure that I really understand. Aren't we supposed to somewhat
take care of each other's needs in marriage? I mean: if one of the
partners wants more sex, aren't we suppose to try to accomodate even
if we don't feel particularly in the mood at that moment? It is not
really possible for 2 humans to leve together without making
compromises.
Another thig which I am not really sure I understand is Elizabeth
comment that sex with her husband is not "as interesting as she
likes". I thought that sex was bound to be interesting if one found
the partner interesting.
suzee
You do have to make compromises, however, some people are really adament
about not doing something sexually they don't like, even when it would
make their partner happy.
> Another thig which I am not really sure I understand is Elizabeth
> comment that sex with her husband is not "as interesting as she
> likes". I thought that sex was bound to be interesting if one found
> the partner interesting.
Sometimes a partner can be interesting but their sex skills may be too
boring for their partner.
sue
toramjero
Why do people stay with partners not ready to make any compromises to
make them happy?
> > Another thig which I am not really sure I understand is Elizabeth
> > comment that sex with her husband is not "as interesting as she
> > likes". I thought that sex was bound to be interesting if one found
> > the partner interesting.
>
> Sometimes a partner can be interesting but their sex skills may be too
> boring for their partner.
>
>
This is not really related to what I wrote unless you imply that there
are sex "skills" which would be interesting per se. What "skills" are
you thinking about? And, a more interesting question: why wouldn't an
interesting person learn them?
I am sorry, but my feeling is that something does not quite add up in
what you are saying. In that story, there is one man who is boring in
bed, but interesting nevertheless and a man who is great in bed yet,
not that stellar otherwise for the woman to change partner. Why can't
the first man learn to do what the second does? At the very least, his
unability to learn is not the sign of a very flexible mind to me and
that does not make him "interesting". And why does the woman feel
excited by the less interesting man? Do women have better sex with men
who are less "interesting", less "intellectually interesting" maybe?
Please give me some practical examples of the type of men you are
thinking about. I'll think I'll understand better.
suzee
> suzee wrote:
>> toramjero wrote:
>>> suzee wrote:
>>>> Yeah, some men are like that. Men who aren't like that think that it
>>>> must be the woman's fault if he's not interested in sex with her...
>>> I am not sure that I really understand. Aren't we supposed to somewhat
>>> take care of each other's needs in marriage? I mean: if one of the
>>> partners wants more sex, aren't we suppose to try to accomodate even
>>> if we don't feel particularly in the mood at that moment? It is not
>>> really possible for 2 humans to leve together without making
>>> compromises.
>> You do have to make compromises, however, some people are really adament
>> about not doing something sexually they don't like, even when it would
>> make their partner happy.
>>
>
> Why do people stay with partners not ready to make any compromises to
> make them happy?
Perhaps the other ways in which they make them happy overcome one or two
areas they don't compromise on. <shrug> Why does anyone become attracted
to and stay with their partner? Lots of reasons...
>>> Another thig which I am not really sure I understand is Elizabeth
>>> comment that sex with her husband is not "as interesting as she
>>> likes". I thought that sex was bound to be interesting if one found
>>> the partner interesting.
>> Sometimes a partner can be interesting but their sex skills may be too
>> boring for their partner.
>
> This is not really related to what I wrote unless you imply that there
> are sex "skills" which would be interesting per se. What "skills" are
> you thinking about? And, a more interesting question: why wouldn't an
> interesting person learn them?
No skills particularly, perhaps I should have said technique. And some
people may be interesting in one area, but dense in another.
> I am sorry, but my feeling is that something does not quite add up in
> what you are saying. In that story, there is one man who is boring in
> bed, but interesting nevertheless and a man who is great in bed yet,
> not that stellar otherwise for the woman to change partner. Why can't
> the first man learn to do what the second does? At the very least, his
> unability to learn is not the sign of a very flexible mind to me and
> that does not make him "interesting". And why does the woman feel
> excited by the less interesting man? Do women have better sex with men
> who are less "interesting", less "intellectually interesting" maybe?
>
> Please give me some practical examples of the type of men you are
> thinking about. I'll think I'll understand better.
I wasn't thinking of any type in particular, just trying to answer your
question. I guess I just see both sides of an issue, didn't mean to
confuse you.
sue
Kat
> This is not really related to what I wrote unless you imply that there
> are sex "skills" which would be interesting per se. What "skills" are
> you thinking about? And, a more interesting question: why wouldn't an
> interesting person learn them?
Skills might not be the right word I think that talent might be a
better word but that still doesn't tell the whole story.
> I am sorry, but my feeling is that something does not quite add up in
> what you are saying. In that story, there is one man who is boring in
> bed, but interesting nevertheless and a man who is great in bed yet,
> not that stellar otherwise for the woman to change partner. Why can't
> the first man learn to do what the second does? At the very least, his
> unability to learn is not the sign of a very flexible mind to me and
> that does not make him "interesting". And why does the woman feel
> excited by the less interesting man? Do women have better sex with men
> who are less "interesting", less "intellectually interesting" maybe?
Why are some people great composers and why can some people draw or
paint while others have no talent and simply can't learn either no
matter how hard they try.
Remember that it takes two to tango too so someone who enjoys visual
arts but has no appreciation for music might not appreciate a love
song nearly so much as someone musically inclined.
> Please give me some practical examples of the type of men you are
> thinking about. I'll think I'll understand better.
Sex isn't any different then anything else in that people have
different tastes. Some people need that interesting-in-bed creative
energetic kinky partner while others enjoy a more routine experience.
To someone who is sexually energetic and adventitious a missionary-
only goes-for-an-hour partner might not be all that much fun but to
another woman that same guy might be exactly what she needs to lay
back and think about nothing more then the pleasure of the experience.
I'm not really sure if this helps or not I actually left this post
open overnight to think about a better way to explain it but haven't
come up with anything just yet.
toramjero
It helps. And yet it tells me how little I know. I had not realized
that there were different way to "interpret" sexuality. Are there
really sexual experiences as different as music and painting? I can't
imagine it (this is to be taken literally).
If I had been asked, sex is rather boring. Sort of nice, but not
really worth the effort and the frustration. I can't really complain,
but if I look back, if I take into account everything brought ant
took, I would rather do without. Not counting my children, I would not
do without them.
-Elizabeth
You'd think! I gave up trying to ask for some sexual contact (even if
he didn't want piv sex) because he just didn't feel like it. It all
become quite silly, so I gave up really. When he did want sex it was
always the morning of an early start to work for me. (He works away,
one week on, one week off.) It seemed always like a ploy to make me
stay at home. I'd get angry because I thought he knew how much my work
means to me. In other words, his sex drive is low and he uses sex as a
power strategy - at least that's how it has looked to me, quite often.
>
> Another thig which I am not really sure I understand is Elizabeth
> comment that sex with her husband is not "as interesting as she
> likes". I thought that sex was bound to be interesting if one found
> the partner interesting.
Sex, like any other activity, is a skill. In out, in out, is the most
basic of skills. Though I've tried to teach him more about the art of
sex, he is not interested and wont learn. I've tried getting him to
finger me more according to the expanse of nerve endings (see Helen
O'Connell's urological work on the extent of the clitoris), but still
he focuses on the clitoril head. His fingers have been guided to the g-
spot, but he finds this slightly repulsive (at least that's how it
seems to me) and wont engage with it. He does do a bit of oral, but,
again, at the most elementary of levels. A good oral can be enough to
give orgasm upon orgasm. His act does nothing for me. I note that I
give him oral sex, which - through my years of practice and learning -
brings him great and eruptive pleasure. I've pointed him to that most
excellent resource Society for Human Sexuality www.sexuality.org and
he may well read from it, but refuses to put any of it in practice.
I like my partner and find the rest of his life and interests
interesting. Just because he's interesting in these other ways,
doesn't make sex with him interesting. What I do find interesting
about his lack of interest in sex is why he has a lack of sexual
interest, but this is because what I do professionally is about why
people feel the way they do.
suzee
You've just answered your own questions, I think. If your partner had a
higher sex drive than you or was more adventurous, she might not be
satisfied with you. However, she may beyond having a more exciting sex
life is worth.
sue
David
>but i,m inclined to believe - no offence meant - that his sexual urge
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That usually implies someone's going to be offended and the person
giving offence knows that they will be doing so.
>for other women is not attenuated .
>my point is ..in any relationship - where sex is an integral part of
>it - especially marriage - is bound to get tasteless and may be
>sexless " with statistical exceptions..of course " as years go by...!
>for a simple fact called " boredom " .
Or just a lack of imagination.
>one gets bored of doing the samething over and over again ,eating the
>same dish, day in and day out...let alone sleeping with one life
>partner - imagine for all ur life -over and over again.
I don't know about doing it all my life, since I don't remember getting
interested until into my teens, but my partner and I don't seem to have
had that problem since we've been together.
>this process has its own mechanism and evolution that will finally
>reach the point of no return " loss of desire and eventually rejection
>"
>so, i,m advocating the slogan " GO FOR A NEW SEX RELATIONSHIP..IF THE
>OLD ONE GOT EXPIRED "
And just what's your idea about how long it takes for a relationship to
"expire", or go past the use-by date, or whatever you want to call it?
How quick does the relationship "go bad"? Do you measured it in days,
weeks, months or years? I'm just curious, just to see how it squares up
with the relationship I'm in now.
toramjero
From your description above, your partner does not seem to be an
interesting person at all. Stubborn, egoistic and controlling is what
comes to mind. But there must be more to this story: for example, he
cannot really be controlling since he agreed that you have a lover. I
realize how naive my question was: it is not possible to reduce the
complexity of the interactions in a couple and the character of a
person to simple elements as I was doing.
toramjero
But I can learn. Which I did, BTW. I used the same ressources that
Elizabeth cited to gain some knowledge of female anatomy, for example.
Whereas her husband did not want to learn, as far as I understand.
This is the difference I was thinking about.
> However, she may beyond having a more exciting sex
> life is worth.
>
I suppose you mistyped something in that last sentence, and I can't
understand it. Did you mean "she may be worth more (to me) than a more
exciting sex life"? She certainly is, but I have no real idea how
exciting a sex life can be, actually. Although some people write that
it can be pretty exciting, I can't really relate to the descriptions.
Besides, not everybody believes sex is exciting, I hear contradictory
messages about it.
You may want to ask why I don't try to find out. I am simply not in a
position to do that.
suzee
>>> If I had been asked, sex is rather boring. Sort of nice, but not
>>> really worth the effort and the frustration. I can't really complain,
>>> but if I look back, if I take into account everything brought ant
>>> took, I would rather do without. Not counting my children, I would not
>>> do without them.
>> You've just answered your own questions, I think. If your partner had a
>> higher sex drive than you or was more adventurous, she might not be
>> satisfied with you.
>
> But I can learn. Which I did, BTW. I used the same ressources that
> Elizabeth cited to gain some knowledge of female anatomy, for example.
> Whereas her husband did not want to learn, as far as I understand.
> This is the difference I was thinking about.
Good for you.
>> However, she may beyond having a more exciting sex
>> life is worth.
>>
>
> I suppose you mistyped something in that last sentence, and I can't
> understand it. Did you mean "she may be worth more (to me) than a more
> exciting sex life"?
Whoops, yes, I retyped it a couple times and ended up leaving out some
words and what I meant.
She may feel the relationship with you is worth more than a more
exciting sex life. (this was based on the `what if' that she wanted more
adventuresome sex than you did.)
> She certainly is, but I have no real idea how
> exciting a sex life can be, actually. Although some people write that
> it can be pretty exciting, I can't really relate to the descriptions.
> Besides, not everybody believes sex is exciting, I hear contradictory
> messages about it.
By more exciting, I think people here mean something beyond the ordinary
in and out and it's over, not necessarily acrobatics or whatever. But
you seem to want to learn more than the vanilla flavor of sex, though as
you seem to feel it's boring, that may just be how you're wired.
> You may want to ask why I don't try to find out. I am simply not in a
> position to do that.
sue
toramjero
I think that I was misunderstood. My wife is perfectly happy with our
sex life as it stands. At least she says so. I think that she is
rather of the type "needs to lay back and think about nothing more
suzee
No, I didn't misunderstand. I was making a hypothetical example of IF
your partner MIGHT have a higher sex drive or want more high energy sex,
but IF she felt the relationship had more to offer/was worth more to her
than a more adventurous sex life, then she might put up with lowered
sexual expectations.
sue
Kat
> But I can learn. Which I did, BTW. I used the same ressources that
> Elizabeth cited to gain some knowledge of female anatomy, for example.
> Whereas her husband did not want to learn, as far as I understand.
> This is the difference I was thinking about.
Are you an artist or do you have any talent at all? If not and if you
really want to understand then take a self taught art course and see
if you improve. You may become technically proficient but likely won't
become truly passionate about it.
I don't mean to suggest that you won't be able to please your partner
without a high sex drive or passion for any particular kink but rather
that for a truly mutually satisfying sexual relationship that never
leaves either of you wanting you and your partner need to be roughly
matched in over all sex drive and in sexual interests and in sexual
energy.
If you have found that compatibility in someone that you are
compatible with outside the bedroom as well then I am not only happy
for you both but possibly even a little envious. I might not be
looking for that myself right now but I can still appreciate the joy
in finding it.
toramjero
"Technically proficient" is indeed what I was thinking about. If only
the little number of people who can go beyond that step would be
satisfying, there would be lots and lots of unsatisfied couples. Not
everyone can become a virtuoso. Not everyone can play a part with a
virtuoso.
The "sexual compatibility" part is another story. Most people do not
"test" enough different partners to be able to find out about that.
Most people have two or three serial relationships in their early
twenties and that's it. Some people have even less, like me. Finding a
sex partner is a lot more difficult than finding a partner to play the
piano, for example. And you have to actually have sex with someone to
know how they "play", while for a piano player you could go to
concerts or listen to recordings to find out about their playing
style.
So selecting for sexual compatibility is not really doable, the best
one can do is to reject the odd partner who will be really
incompatible with your tastes. This is why willingness to compromise
and learn is important in a couple.
Of course, learning about sex has a completely different set of
problems than learning to play the piano (to keep the same example).
There aren't sex courses or sex teachers. There isn't the equivalent
of concerts to realize about playing styles. People have things they
do not want to do and desires that they are afraid to tell their
partners. And the emotional risks are far higher: for example I think
that many women would not have accepted the situation that you have at
present with your "slave". I think that people who have such a kind of
kink simply can never express it: if they come out, it is simply the
end of their relationship.
Maybe it is regrettable, but it is so in our society. I think that
this a consequence that sex is not supposed to happen without love and
a long term commitment. (Imagine if people were expected to fall in
love and marry their piano teacher before they could start a
course...) Sex is not something one is supposed to practice and learn,
it is something which is supposed to happen to work well automatically
when both partners are in love. This is not necessarily the case
obviously, but this is how our society sees it.
Norton
She could have gone the whole way the penis and had him do the
cooking... ;-)
--
--- Norton
Norton
Of course. But among my friends the compromise usually comes
over who takes out the garbage and not about what goes on in
bed...
>Another thig which I am not really sure I understand is Elizabeth
>comment that sex with her husband is not "as interesting as she
>likes". I thought that sex was bound to be interesting if one found
>the partner interesting.
That can be a problem. I *think* the Elizabeth is speaking
from previous experience. In that case there may indeed be
trouble on the way.
The usual advice is to talk to each other. But a case like
this might require being far more honest with each other than
people like to be -- mostly because deep honesty about sexual
matters often really upsets one if not both partners.
Of course I have no idea if this is really Elizabeth's situtation
at all, so all my good advice may have no application whatsoever.
--
--- Norton
Norton
You have the ability to say what Norton meant (in his last post)
far better than he does. That's what I meant about being very
honest with each other. It isn't easy to say to a partner that
they could do "X" in a much more pleasing way, or not to be quite
that much in a hurry, or whatever.
Everybody is different. Some of us are just waiting to have our
boundaries pushed a little bit. Others will run screaming at the
very suggestion.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>suzee wrote:
>> toramjero wrote:
>> >
>> > suzee wrote:
>> >> Yeah, some men are like that. Men who aren't like that think that it
>> >> must be the woman's fault if he's not interested in sex with her...
>> >
>> > I am not sure that I really understand. Aren't we supposed to somewhat
>> > take care of each other's needs in marriage? I mean: if one of the
>> > partners wants more sex, aren't we suppose to try to accomodate even
>> > if we don't feel particularly in the mood at that moment? It is not
>> > really possible for 2 humans to leve together without making
>> > compromises.
>>
>> You do have to make compromises, however, some people are really adament
>> about not doing something sexually they don't like, even when it would
>> make their partner happy.
>Why do people stay with partners not ready to make any compromises to
>make them happy?
Because by then one is often three or four years into a relationship
and both parties have a lot invested in it by then.
>> > Another thig which I am not really sure I understand is Elizabeth
>> > comment that sex with her husband is not "as interesting as she
>> > likes". I thought that sex was bound to be interesting if one found
>> > the partner interesting.
>>
>> Sometimes a partner can be interesting but their sex skills may be too
>> boring for their partner.
>This is not really related to what I wrote unless you imply that there
>are sex "skills" which would be interesting per se. What "skills" are
>you thinking about? And, a more interesting question: why wouldn't an
>interesting person learn them?
Well, me lad, since I seem to be lecturing about the Good Old
Days(tm) a lot, let me continue. Strange as it seems, back
then men did NOT use their mouths on women's nether regions.
They simply did not.
In fact, almost any position other than the missionary position
was considered "advanced" and not necessarily something a "nice"
girl would do.
Today the boundaries have moved a lot, but there are still things
that folks simply won't consider.
>I am sorry, but my feeling is that something does not quite add up in
>what you are saying. In that story, there is one man who is boring in
>bed, but interesting nevertheless and a man who is great in bed yet,
>not that stellar otherwise for the woman to change partner. Why can't
>the first man learn to do what the second does? At the very least, his
>unability to learn is not the sign of a very flexible mind to me and
>that does not make him "interesting". And why does the woman feel
>excited by the less interesting man? Do women have better sex with men
>who are less "interesting", less "intellectually interesting" maybe?
>Please give me some practical examples of the type of men you are
>thinking about. I'll think I'll understand better.
Example: a man who thinks that rapid pumping is the only way
to get himself off. He would not be too receptive to the idea
that she might prefer him to act more slowly.
Would he slow down if asked? Perhaps. But then he might never
have an orgasm.
Remember, sex is mainly in the brain. If your head thinks it is
true, it often becomes true for you. So it isn't just the abstract
knowlege, it is the real willingness to approach something new with
an open mind.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Yeah. I had the same problem.
How about this: I was once given a long and somewhat upsetting
lecture about the right way to touch a breast. The woman was so
annoyed with me that she took the time to let me know.
She even noted that not only are women all different, but that
changes are needed as the level of arousal changes.
I've always thanked her for it -- even though she'd given me
up as hopeless -- which I was back then.
--
--- Norton
toramjero
Now we can't wait to have all the details of the instructions.
Norton
What I'd have to say makes no difference. Ask the woman
involved.
--
--- Norton
toramjero
The obvious solution is to go slow for a while and accelerate when
your partner has had enough, isn't it?
> Remember, sex is mainly in the brain. If your head thinks it is
> true, it often becomes true for you. So it isn't just the abstract
> knowlege, it is the real willingness to approach something new with
> an open mind.
>
"If you think it is true, it often becomes true to you". This is
interesting. A relatively generally shared idea is that women are not
that interested in sex while men are ever-horny sex maniacs. Indeed
many people men and women, act as if the idea were true. Another
aspect is peer pressure in this case, of course.
toramjero
> The usual advice is to talk to each other. But a case like
> this might require being far more honest with each other than
> people like to be -- mostly because deep honesty about sexual
> matters often really upsets one if not both partners.
> You have the ability to say what Norton meant (in his last post)
> far better than he does. That's what I meant about being very
> honest with each other. It isn't easy to say to a partner that
> they could do "X" in a much more pleasing way, or not to be quite
> that much in a hurry, or whatever.
>
> Everybody is different. Some of us are just waiting to have our
> boundaries pushed a little bit. Others will run screaming at the
> very suggestion.
> Today the boundaries have moved a lot, but there are still things
> that folks simply won't consider.
> Because by then one is often three or four years into a relationship
> and both parties have a lot invested in it by then.
I'll answer to the three messages I cited above at once, because they
all talk about the same subject. In a classical relationship, one is
between the proverbial rock and hard stone. One does not want the
relationship to fail, because it would mean considerable loss (not
only financial, emotional as well), so one does not want to upset the
partner. And telling a partner that sex is not so good is upsetting.
Yet, one is dependent on the partner for sex, and you don't get what
you want if you never tell about it. This is more or less the content
of innumerable books on couple counselling, most notably Schnarch's
"Passionate Marriage" in the English speaking world. In a nutshell:
couples end up on the smallest common denominator of their sexuality:
the parts that both know to be acceptable for their partner. The parts
that are "safe".
It goes further than that. The writers note that the balance of powers
is shifted towards the one who says no. It is socially accepted that
one should not force the partner (and rightly so), so "no" is a
stronger position. And as seen above, asking implies risks which can
be considerable. It follows that the partner who has the smallest
desire and can refuse is in a strategically favorable situation and
controls the relationship. The problem is aggravated by social
expectations about sexuality: even if the situation has improved
vastly since the time when Norton was young, having sexual desires or
needs is still regarded negatively. Even more so when those desires
fall outside the relatively small set of acceptable practices.
Counsellors suggest many scripts by which couples can learn to talk
again in a non agressive manner as a way out of this double bind.
Obviously, all those scripts require some willingness on both sides to
work. It is just as obvious that the partner who is in the
strategically favorable position of refusal is likely to be the less
willing to adhere to any script, because he or she has the most to
lose. And generally speaking humans attach greater value to what they
lose now than to what they may gain in the future (a better
relationship or better sex in our case).
How do you move someone who perceive that their interest is to stay
put? None of the books answer that question and for a simple reason:
they are written by counsellors who are usually in the position of
having both members of the couple to come to their practice. In other
words: they only see the couples who have already agreed to move, if
only a little bit.
How can couples avoid to fall into that double bind? The short answer
is unfortunately that most don't, agreement between partners being the
exception rather than the rule. The social costs of this situation are
immeasurable, yet the situation is aggravated by the generally
accepted view of our society on marriage and relationships. The idea
that control and power are part of a relationship is frowned upon,
being in a position of having unanswered sexual desires or needs in a
relationship is generally the object of pity or ridicule and the
liberty to refuse a given sexual practice is perceived as of great
value, probably because of an overlap with the civil rights of self
determination and physical integrity. It may be worth noting that the
balance has shifted a little bit since the 1950s, where the liberty to
refuse was less highly regarded (the legal framework of rape within a
marriage appeared later for example), but sexual needs were also more
socially unacceptable, as Norton noted. Hundred years before that
time, the use of prostitution was however seen as an acceptable
solution for that problem, if you were rich and powerful enough that
is. In recent times, divorce has also entered the equation,
counterbalanced again by costs which can be so high as to act as an
efficient deterrent, depending on the country.
One might wonder why people still marry if the situation is so bad.
The answer is that people actually marry less and less in developed
countries. It is also interesting to note that marriage remains
prevalent mostly amongst the most traditional parts of our society
where large investments are made to make sure that the perceived value
of marriage stays as high as possible, by linking it to religious
values, presenting a vastly distorted view of relationships (e.g.
under the motto of "eternal romantic love") or simply social coercion.
Social coercion is still the norm in many cultures and third world
countries, BTW.
If marriage is so bad, should it be suppressed? Letting aside the fact
that this is not likely to happen any soon and that there are social
advantages of marriage, I would like to point out that this would not
solve the problem. The problem is inherent to (monogamous)
relationships, and human couples usually redraw the same framework as
in marriage, even if not actually legally married.
What are the options to the partner who is in less strategically
favorable position of wanting something that the other partner
refuses, then? Well, frankly, if I could answer that question I would
not be writing here, but I think that the only options are coercing,
convincing, getting your needs met by someone else or separating. Each
of these ways bears a cost which is mostly borne by the partner in the
unfavourable position, unfortunately.
Norton
You make many good points. I have no answers that work
for everybody or every situation.
Here's an interesting story, from today's (Sunday) New York
Times:
"I COULD chalk it up to getting older, the fact that sex
interests me these days about as much as playing checkers.
But the fact is I?ve never much liked sex, even though it
has, on occasion, captivated me. Says my proverbial therapist:
'Sex threatens you, Lauren. You feel overcome.'"
Much more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/fashion/30love.html?_r=1&em
--
--- Norton
toramjero
Yes, but the author allowed her husband to seek sex somewhere else:
(Cite:) " On the one hand, I am miserable about our lack of a sex life
because it makes my husband miserable and cold and withdrawn, and it
is so unhappy, living this way. “Have sex with someone else,” I tell
him."
So she did not try to gain power by controlling the sexuality of her
husband. Obviously, this happens (we also have an example in the other
direction with one of this forum members), but I think that it is
relatively rare. The attitude "I don't feel like having sex and you
have to prove me your love by keeping your marriage vows" is a lot
more common, I think. Of course, it is an abuse of the word "love".
Still: telling your partner to have sex with someone else is not
really a solution either. Finding this "someone else" is not easy,
especially for a man (unless you are prepared to pay by the half hour,
of course). And this other person may not be content with the role of
a surrogate.
Norton
>Yes, but the author allowed her husband to seek sex somewhere else:
>(Cite:) " On the one hand, I am miserable about our lack of a sex life
>because it makes my husband miserable and cold and withdrawn, and it
>is so unhappy, living this way. “Have sex with someone else,” I tell
>him."
>So she did not try to gain power by controlling the sexuality of her
>husband. Obviously, this happens (we also have an example in the other
>direction with one of this forum members), but I think that it is
>relatively rare. The attitude "I don't feel like having sex and you
>have to prove me your love by keeping your marriage vows" is a lot
>more common, I think. Of course, it is an abuse of the word "love".
I don't think that power is necessarily involved in these
situations. That's a reach. Of course it might for some,
but for the most part I don't think so.
>Still: telling your partner to have sex with someone else is not
>really a solution either. Finding this "someone else" is not easy,
>especially for a man (unless you are prepared to pay by the half hour,
>of course). And this other person may not be content with the role of
>a surrogate.
Society has a good way to deal with this. I didn't think so
originally, but discussions in this group led me to it.
Society's interest is in protecting marriages. This is so for
various reasons that we need not talk about here. And of course
it is officially against seeking partners outside of marriage
or "cheating".
On the other hand, it clearly tolerates those things *as long as
one does not make it public or cause scandal with it*.
So there is no officially condoned response. The correct thing
is to do what enables the two partners to get on with their
lives with minimal disruption.
For some that's divorce, for others that's abstinence, and for
others that's taking other partners, known or not. Society
ends up happy and stable.
--
--- Norton
toramjero
Seeing extramarital affairs as "society good way to deal with the
problem" is an interesting take on the matter. I had not seen it this
way indeed.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> The "sexual compatibility" part is another story. Most people do not
> "test" enough different partners to be able to find out about that.
> Most people have two or three serial relationships in their early
> twenties and that's it. Some people have even less, like me. Finding a
> sex partner is a lot more difficult than finding a partner to play the
> piano, for example. And you have to actually have sex with someone to
> know how they "play", while for a piano player you could go to
> concerts or listen to recordings to find out about their playing
> style.
While I realize that you're trying to use a metaphor and all metaphors
fall short on some level, I don't think that this one works at all.
For one, if you want to play piano *with* someone, the chemistry between
you matters more than anything else, and you can't tell that from
recordings or concerts any more than you can tell from clicking with
someone online whether you'll feel sexual chemistry with them in person.
Second, you can certainly find out a lot about sexual compatability
without actually having sex with someone. I had a bit of a crush on a
friend for a long time (we're still good friends, I got over the crush).
I read her sexuality blog post (and her other blog posts). In reading
them, I found out that some things that I am 100% not interested in are
the same things that she finds are a requirement for satisfying sex for
her. From that I could surmise that we wouldn't be sexually compatible
without actually having sex. This sort of thing happens an awful lot;
you find out about a person's sexual tastes, and if they clash with
yours in a significant way, then you know that it won't work.
Also, a lot of people do in fact have sex with a number of partners
before "settling down" with one, even for people who do settle down with
one. A lot of times, really clicking in bed is an important factor in
whether or not someone wants to get involved with someone long-term.
It's not the only factor, and you could say that it's a shallow factor
(although I think it's an important one), but lots of people do consider
it and work from their experiences.
But probably most importantly, a lot more people are interested in sex
than are interested in playing the piano.
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > The "sexual compatibility" part is another story. Most people do not
> > "test" enough different partners to be able to find out about that.
> > Most people have two or three serial relationships in their early
> > twenties and that's it. Some people have even less, like me. Finding a
> > sex partner is a lot more difficult than finding a partner to play the
> > piano, for example. And you have to actually have sex with someone to
> > know how they "play", while for a piano player you could go to
> > concerts or listen to recordings to find out about their playing
> > style.
>
> While I realize that you're trying to use a metaphor and all metaphors
> fall short on some level, I don't think that this one works at all.
>
> For one, if you want to play piano *with* someone, the chemistry between
> you matters more than anything else, and you can't tell that from
> recordings or concerts any more than you can tell from clicking with
> someone online whether you'll feel sexual chemistry with them in person.
>
You have a point about playing the piano.
> Second, you can certainly find out a lot about sexual compatability
> without actually having sex with someone. I had a bit of a crush on a
> friend for a long time (we're still good friends, I got over the crush).
> I read her sexuality blog post (and her other blog posts). In reading
> them, I found out that some things that I am 100% not interested in are
> the same things that she finds are a requirement for satisfying sex for
> her. From that I could surmise that we wouldn't be sexually compatible
> without actually having sex. This sort of thing happens an awful lot;
> you find out about a person's sexual tastes, and if they clash with
> yours in a significant way, then you know that it won't work.
>
But this is where our different backgrounds show. I haven't the
faintest idea what my friends sexual tastes may be. I have no idea how
to find out, and no: asking is not a way I could use with a reasonable
chance to be told the truth. And they don't write sex blogs that I
know.
> Also, a lot of people do in fact have sex with a number of partners
> before "settling down" with one, even for people who do settle down with
> one. A lot of times, really clicking in bed is an important factor in
> whether or not someone wants to get involved with someone long-term.
> It's not the only factor, and you could say that it's a shallow factor
> (although I think it's an important one), but lots of people do consider
> it and work from their experiences.
>
While a "lot of people" do have sex with a relatively large number of
partners in absolute terms in percentage of the general public, most
people don't. I can refer you to studies on the subject (designed to
study transmission of STDs).
Now, the vision I get in my neck of the woods is the one I tried to
describe: the vast majority of women are not interested in sex if it
is clear from the onset that long term bonding is out of the equation,
and the vast majority of men have no idea who they could convince,
say: 10 women, so that they could compare them on sexual criteria.
They find it already extremely difficult to convince one. So, as I
wrote, they "do not "test" enough different partners to be able to
find out". Most of them have two or three serial relationships in
their early twenties and that's it.
I am not disputing that the experience around you is different. I am
however arguing that the experience around me is more prevalent.