25, Thanks for your comments. I hope you don't think I'm like your brother. I don't believe that I malign my wife for the point of hiding my own problems, nor do I believe that I'm a "bad lover". That last part is kind of funny because how would I know unless I compared myself to how other men perform? All I can tell you is that I had many girlfriends and several long term (3+ years) relationships before I got married, and sex was never an issue in any of them. Perhaps that's why this has been so hard -- my picture of how "easy and natural" a sex life can be was well-established. I know I'm a "good man", and a woman's satisfaction is important to me -- I'm willing to do what it takes. It is not nor has it ever been "all about me" in bed. That's how my W wants me to look at it, and that's not satisfying to me at all.
That whole story feeds into the "LD wife is the H's fault" philosophy. I guess it would be easy to embrace that if I had an HD wife and was on the outside looking in, but my position in this relationship has definitely given me a different perspective.
My MC, who I thought was very good, explained "sex drive" as being part of your sexuality. He said that an LD person cannot become HD any more than a straight person can will themselves to become gay. It's just not there, it's not a matter of dysfunction or poor performance.
He said if a person is LD, it is either a result of a treatable problem, or it is not. If you rule out medical and psychological problems, then all you have left is an innate low desire for sex, which he said is naturally occurring, like blue eyes.
For my W's part, she said that she has always been LD, for as long as she can remember. She said that she has never had sex with anyone because it was something she wanted to do for the sake of having sex, but instead would do it because it was necessary to maintain a relationship that she valued. She said on her own, she would probably masturbate about once a year, and she'd never come looking for sex for herself with anyone. Greenblue may think she's full of cr@p and either isn't being honest or hasn't had her world rocked yet by a Cassanova. I don't think that's the case. She had plenty of prior sexual relationships as well and in her words was no different in any of them. Maybe she only picks clumsy men?
Originally Posted By: Greenblue90
I guess I have a question for some of the guys that have "tried it all"
Do you believe you may some day get the sex life you want? Or have you totally given up.
If you've given up then I can understand that.
If you haven't then what's your next step?
I do not believe that I will have the sex life I want with this woman. I have not totally given up on the sex life I want.
What's my next step? As I told you, I'm going to run the MAP. I read the book, I get it, I'm working on it. He said not to expect fast results. WRT sex rank, I'm overweight, but not in terrible shape. I'm very physically active and muscular. W is overweight as well, but probably less so. I'm 6 foot 228lbs. My high was about 240, and my goal is 200 (for now). I'm doing weightwatchers, and they recommend losing 1-2 pounds per week, so getting down to 200 will take a while!
Once I feel I'm in crazy good shape, I'll see if it makes a difference. If it doesn't I'll reassess again.
That said, sex is not the only issue in my marriage, nor is it the most important. The Captain said on another friend that the way to survive a sexless marriage is to expect "friendship without romance". I'm coming to believe that's what W really wants, that's where she's comfortable. I am not. I would like a relationship characterized by more intimacy, and not just physical. I am having sex, once or twice per week, and sometimes it's good. It's the intimacy that's missing.
Accuray
Married 18, Together 20, Now Divorced M: 48, W: 50, D: 18, S: 16, D: 12 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 7/13/11 Start Reconcile: 8/15/11 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 5/1/2014 (Divorced) In a New Relationship: 3/2015
The comment about a wife not having yet been rocked by a Cassanova -- some women, including my wife, would laugh at that as an old-fashioned sexist comment, especially in the sense that it implied better physical technique. This kind of talk presumes a ridiculous lack of responsibility on the part of the woman for her own sexuality. If that argument has any validity at all, a man with erectile dysfunction can claim that the problem is that he hasn't yet been blown away by a sufficiently skilled and attractive woman.
Yeah, I'd like to see what happens if a man with ED tries that argument with his wife.
Actually, Cassanova, at least in legend and literature, is considered to be a man who really knew how to woo women, how to make them feel beautiful, desired, understood--that they were really being seen and valued for who they were. This was the key to turning them on, not sexual technique. I believe the same thing is at work in many affairs: people fall in love with the image their lover has of them--it's not initially about with the sex--once they feel taken for granted by their spouse.
I accept your upgrade of Cassanova's image. But does it really matter exactly how Cassanova turned on women? Does it make it more "OK" because his methods seem more "socially redeeming"? It still invites the question about the reversed situation. I can't imagine any woman would allow her man's ED to be blamed on her for any reason.
It gets into this unfavorable comparison I sometimes encounter about what turns on the typical man vs. typical woman. The hidden presumption in some of the discussions is that a woman's needs are socially redeeming -- better communication, talk, caring, closeness, helpfulness, etc. By contrast, what the stereotypical man needs to be turned on is less worthy -- attractive figure, revealing clothes, a direct grab for sexual organs, dirty talk, explicit visuals, etc.
It's cyrena's version of Casanova that I'm trying to become. At least a married version. That can charm the pants off his wife and only does it for her.
I do realize that in order for that to happen she has to be "charm able" and she may not be at all. If that's the case then like Accuray I either put up with it or leave no other way around.
Here's the thing I won't know if she is completely un charm able until I am at my complete highest "charm level" or full Casanova mode.
It's like saying a particular object is unliftable because you've been trying to lift it for day's. Then someone one comes and says why don't you try and hit the gym, and you respond with "what's the point if I know it's unliftable".
Personally I'm going to hit the gym and if after I max out I can't lift the object then I'll move on. (hehe I'm doing this literally and figuratively.
Ssmguy I think the fact that we have allowed one to be the appropriate and the other in inappropriate is the biggest issue.
Men are chastised for being low creatures who want visual stimulation and physical stimulation. Women are seeing as more civil for wanting mental and verbal stimulation.
Yet women say that wearing revealing clothing and making themselves visually appealing is empowerment while any guy that says he'd like to learn how to learn how to verbally seduce a woman is made out to be a threat to society.
I don't think much has changed since Cassanova's day regarding differences in how men and women are turned on. Men and women are wired differently, and those who are most successful in love embrace these differences and use them to their benefit.
Really, women feel threatened by men who want to learn to verbally seduce us? I thought we were only worried about the guys who were too physically aggressive?
Greenblue, I'm interested to see how your attempts at charming your wife go!
Cyrena Think of it this way, a guy who paid good money to go to a seminar on how to pick up women will probably be seen as a total loser who won't get any even after the seminar. The guy running it will probably be seen as a sleaze bag and an imposter.
On the other hand make up, revealing clothes, and even plastic surgery are more socially acceptable. These are the tools women have to seduce men. While I do acknowledge that too much of these will lead to slut shaming, I think for guys it's worse since any guy that is seen as tryin too hard automatically gets labeled as creepy or a potential rapist.
As for my own attempts I've gotten mixed results. My marriage is definitely the better for it, and has a new sense of vitality. I haven't closed the deal yet so to speak, but clearly I can tell she loves being around the coy, confident, devious little flirt I am now.
I don't think much has changed since Cassanova's day regarding differences in how men and women are turned on. Men and women are wired differently, and those who are most successful in love embrace these differences and use them to their benefit.
Oh, I'm aware of that and I don't mind it one bit. In fact, I like it that women are like that. The current biological theory seems to be that while both men and women are attracted to healthy and nurturing members of the opposite sex (indicating good parental potential), men are more tuned to signs of fertility in women, while women are more tuned to signs of good character in men.
And since women have a relatively narrow time-window of easy fertility, men tend to focus on features which make a woman appear to be in that time-window. And that tends to make the focus more physical. Which makes men seem more "shallow".
I might seem unfair to both sexes, depending on how you look at it, but I'm OK with it. That's just the way it is. And to the women who feel shortchanged, all I can say is I don't think it's possible for any man on campus to get the kind of attention I saw a few women getting who had model-perfect looks, dressed sexy, and had charming personalities -- all in one package. I remember one such girl, her phone was ringing non-stop starting around 3 pm on Thursday afternoons, with guys trying to line up weekend dates with her, including a few professors. It was completely ridiculous. No guy could ever get that kind of attention at that point in his life.
But back to the original point. None of these is approaches is ever a guarantee. And I think a lot of the advice misses that possibility.
Quote:
Really, women feel threatened by men who want to learn to verbally seduce us? I thought we were only worried about the guys who were too physically aggressive?
Ah, we probably all would agree here that the question is only about sincerity. The guys coming out of those seduction seminars think it's unfair that another guy got laid "just because he knew the right thing to say". If only he could string the right words together, he could get laid too. Which, of course, hilariously misses the point.
