Can calling your partner "honey" ruin your sex life?
Maybe so, according to a funky little book I read over this morning called Stop Calling Him Honey and Start Having Sex: How Changing Your Everyday Habits Will Make You Hot for Each Other All Over Again.
The book seemed to have some pretty good tips for couples whose sex lives are suffering due to being "too comfortable" with their partner and hence, resorting to bad habits like calling a guy "honey" instead of using his name.
The authors state that calling each other "honey" erodes individual identity and leads to a sexual desert. Rather than a term of endearment, the authors, Maggie Arana and Julienne Davis, view the term "honey" as a term of sameness and nonsexuality. "Honey" has a caregiver connotation--it's what you call children. They say it's not what you call a lover.
The book goes on to give good advice like not dispensing with the formalities. So peeing in front of each other is a no-no.
I can see their point.
Do you think there is such a thing as being too comfortable with your partner that leads to a loss of interest in sex?
The book seemed to have some pretty good tips for couples whose sex lives are suffering due to being "too comfortable" with their partner and hence, resorting to bad habits like calling a guy "honey" instead of using his name. The authors state that calling each other "honey" erodes individual identity and leads to a sexual desert. Rather than a term of endearment, the authors, Maggie Arana and Julienne Davis, view the term "honey" as a term of sameness and nonsexuality. "Honey" has a caregiver connotation--it's what you call children. They say it's not what you call a lover.
The book goes on to give good advice like not dispensing with the formalities. So peeing in front of each other is a no-no.
I can see their point.
Do you think there is such a thing as being too comfortable with your partner that leads to a loss of interest in sex?
Labels: interesting books
posted by Helen at 7:47 AM
81 Comments:
At the risk of employing a cliché, familiarity breeds contempt. "Honey" is merely code for "Meal Ticket," "Slave," and/or "Sucker." (Whether the user realizes it or not.) The odds of liking someone with whom you've been living for years -- much less those of still finding them sexually attractive -- are close enough to zero to obviate further discussion.
I'm not bitter; just experienced. Of course a bunch of contradictory anecdotal evidence will likely be provided, but the people who can tell those stories are in a tiny minority.
Somewhat I think changing to honey is due to the familiarity instead of a cause of it. I think a long term relationship can remain fresh, but you would need to treat your other like you are still dating and examine the relationship since the words of I do. Very few people are willing to do that level of work when you can fall into a happy rut that then slides into unhappy canyon
I understand their point theoretically, but my experience contradicts it.
Trey
"Do you think there is such a thing as being too comfortable with your partner that leads to a loss of interest in sex?"
I can't speak for other husbands, but for me I don't think the two are related. My wife and I have different roles that effect our interactions with eachother. One of those roles is "best friend" which includes being very comfortable and laid back around eachother. My wife can yell from the bathroom, "Honey, could you bring me a roll of toilet paper, and you might want to hold your nose when you come back here?!?!", and it means something completely different than when she gives me her coy smile and says, "Honey, could you help me unzip this?"
Here's the key: Regardless how comfortable you are together, if you don't know how to seduce each other, or don't take the time to do it, you're probably going to have a lackluster sex life.
I suppose it would be possible to be so casual together that it effects your sex life, but to me being called "honey" isn't a danger sign, it's a term of endearment.
Good and bad things are happening in the publishing arena. The good news is that anyone can write a book and have it printed for a small fee. Amazon is more than happy to help any author out, and offer the book for sale on its site. The bad news is that anyone with an opinion can write a book.
With this particular book, one author has a degree in English literature and the other is a ballerina. Does this make them experts on interpersonal and romantic relationships? I don't know, but I'd take their directives with a grain of salt, hon.
"With this particular book, one author has a degree in English literature and the other is a ballerina. Does this make them experts on interpersonal and romantic relationships?"
-----
Can't be any worse than having an interdisciplinary Ph.D. in sexual therapy and women's studies, for instance. That course of studies probably makes you even stupider.
Lots of "relationship experts" have multiple divorces. It's as stupid as fat people like "Dr. Phil" writing a book on dieting.
"I'm not bitter; just experienced." -by The Captain
So then all those contradictory anecdotal stories told by a tiny minority should be dismissed based on your superior anecdotal experience?
I can't say if you're bitter or not, but I know plenty of people who have lived together for years and still like eachother. If two responsible and considerate adults are involved, their odds of finding lasting hapiness together are pretty good. The tricky part is finding responsible and considerate adults.
"... all those contradictory anecdotal stories told by a tiny minority ..."
----
It seems that people on this board and elsewhere who are going on about their wonderful relatonships go a bit overboard. It doesn't even sound all that real to me sometimes. I often wonder why they are trying so hard to convince others that they have such a great relationship.
I got the same feeling when Marie Osmond was married to her first husband. She went on and on (and on and on and on) about how great their relationship was. It just sounds kind of strained or even a bit phony to me.
Aside from the divorce rate (40-50%?), most couples I have seen who have been together for a long time have a constant low-level bickering situation that has kind of turned into a truce. There's also usually lots under the surface (affairs in the past, disloyalty, lots of other scars).
This idea of romantic love is really hepped up by the media. It's all around. The reality is probably that you have that feeling in the first 2-5 years, but it is sexual infatuation. After that, reality kind of sets in. It doesn't mean you can't like or love the other person, it just means that the media-type view is not real.
I liked it when my bf called me "hon" and "doll." I thought it was sweet, but he sort of stopped doing it after a while, but there were bigger problems than whether or not we called each other "honey." On the scale of things, this rates as pretty unimportant.
"... all those contradictory anecdotal stories told by a tiny minority ..."
Let me follow up on this because I was recently involved in a debate where some of the supplied evidence was an ABC poll which compared sex life of married vs unmarried.
Part of what that poll reported was percentage of married couples having sex more than once a week and found their sex life very exciting, broken up by age of marriage. For those married less than 3 years, 72% had sex more than once a week and 58% found their sex life exciting. Of those married more than 10 years, only 32% had sex more than once a week and 29% found their sex life exciting.
Now, correlate that data with the median marriage length before divorce and the 50% divorce rate... The Captain's words have the ring of truth to them: Only 30% of marriages who even make it to 10 years are having good sex.
According to a CDC study released in 2001, 33% of first marriages are divorced by the 10 year mark. (43% by 15 years). That means if you get married today, you only have a 20% chance of having a good sex life with that spouse in 10 years.
Is the frequency of sex the bellwether of a good healthy satisfying relationship?
"Is the frequency of sex the bellwether of a good healthy satisfying relationship?"
I think banding the frequency is an appropriate proxy. More than once a week? Can't hack that without really being into it. Less than once a week? Believable. Less than once a month? Probably something wrong going on.
Did you get married to be celibate?
It's much more about how the pet name is delivered and even more so about how the two people relate in other ways.
It also asked about whether they felt their sex lives were "exciting", which is a proxy for the fulfillment issue.
Look, this isn't rocket science. Most married couples are not terribly happy sexually 10+ years in. Anyone who knows long-term marrieds knows that this is true. It isn't true for *every* couple, of course, but for 2/3+ or so, which means "most".
Marriage was not made for sexual fulfillment. We've weighted up marriage with all sorts of expectations now that we want it to be about self-actualization and fulfillment, but to be honest long-term monogamy is not satisfying for a solid majority of men or women, all things being equal. The difference today is that we aren't willing to put up with anything less, hence divorce, fatherlessness and so on OR, being full of sanctimony and beating up others who didn't marry someone they are sizzling for after 10 years (i.e., most people) -- that's akin to rich people looking down on the poor, in my opinion. It's sanctimonious, smug, and irritating as hell.
Hi Helen,
"leads to a sexual desert"
Marriage with children leads to a sexual desert. Just ask ANY married man with kids. As one posted to the spearhead the other day, he's coming up 10 years since the last time he had sex with this wife. I remind you that when I was in Saudi Arabia for 15 months and home for just 6 weeks my wife claim she still had 'a little too much sex'. Gee. Thanks. I was in Saudi Arabia when compounds were being blown up and people were being shot in the street because it was the only job going in the recession that I could get. Would wifey give me a bit of sex? Nope.
Post divorce? My sex life is beyond anything I could have imagined was possible as a married man. Really. There are almost NO men who get to date the quality of women I date. Those few friends of mine who have met my lady friends just shake their heads. Very, very jealous. I wouldn't be monogomous again if you put a gun to my head.
I tell the women I date that they have competition and they step up to the competition. I recently started dating this woman who is the 'hotest' in bed I have ever met. There are some elements of her personality that don't 'gel' with me so she won't make 'fav' status. But wow. In the sack? I've never experienced better. She has given me the motivation to get into the gym something serious and really re-cature my health.
I told my favs#1/#4 ALL about her and surprise, surprise, they BOTH stepped up their performance another notch. LOL! I was talking to this new one about how I don't really like 'alphaing' my favs, that I'd really prefer we could negotiate and agree. She pointed out that women won't do that. The only thing they respond to is 'competition' and 'being alphed'. She was clear. If I want to get what I want there's no point talking or asking. You have to alpha the women. THEN they will give you what you want. And that including dumping them at the slightest mis-behaviour and then letting the woman ask to come back.
Demonspawn,
"That means if you get married today, you only have a 20% chance of having a good sex life with that spouse in 10 years."
This is 'what is reported'. I can tell you that MANY men who are still married will not tell you or any survey 'how it really is'. No-one knew of my marital problems save counsellors. I refused to say a 'bad word' about my wife until I read her lies about me in court documents. That's how most men are with their wives. Very protective.
I used to call my second wife "honey". Eventually it turned out that one of her 30-something personalities was named "Honey" and that's the only one that was married to me. Well, you never know how these things are going to turn out.
Props to JG on his Osmond reference. Same story with Kathie Lee Gifford, et. al. Seems like the more people declaim their supposedly "wonderful" private lives, the darker and more convoluted the actuality.
And Novaseeker is right; marriage was not made for sexual fulfillment. That's why you have a gummar.
Cham,
"Is the frequency of sex the bellwether of a good healthy satisfying relationship?"
Not just frequency but also performance levels. For men good sex on a regular basis is mandatory. This is almost NEVER achieved via marriage in the west nowadays. Conversely, russian women tell me they know full well they have to put out 3 times a week or so as well as they can or risk being kicked out because the next woman will.
If all you ever call each other is "honey", then yeah... i agree with the authors. But if theres also a healthy dose of "gorgeous", "hot stuff", "sexy", "sugar butt", and lusty smacks on the ass... I think you'll be fine.
Well, she calls me Honey, I call her Baby, and we have sex pretty much every day. (I figure she can call me practically anything she wants as long as I get laid.)
If you call all your lovers honey then you will never call one by the wrong name.
I didn't get married to be celibate. Ever since I said "I do," I could almost qualify for priesthood.
Married people have sex?
Nothing whatever about marriage dictates impossibility of having a decent sex life after many years. The biggest problem is that the sexes are different, and we are told by popular culture in the West that we ought to only make love when we are in the mood.
Since females are biochemically structured to be less driven by sexual desire, that pretty much spells out who controls sex in marriage and how little there will be, especially once she has the children she wanted- unless a positive decision is made to value the marriage over the mood for an hour a week or so.
For the record, my wife and I have been married 10 years this year, and I'd have a hard time even guessing at what out average weekly sex rate has been over the course of our marriage thus far. There are times when once a month is high cotton, and times when twice a day isn't enough. Sometimes it is infrequent because we have busy lives. Sometimes it is infrequent because we are going through a rough patch in our relationship. And sometimes it is more frequent for those exact same reasons. The sex is better and more varied today than it was 10 years ago, and it was pretty damn good 10 years ago. I can pretty much guarantee that a sexual encounter with another man would not be as physically rewarding for my wife as being with me, because I know every square inch of her body intimately and what it responds to and what it doesn't and how that all interplays with what kind of mood she's in. And the reverse is also true.
As for the value of marriage itself, I don't claim that marriage and family is a utopia or that we never have our struggles or problems, but when I look at my single friends, even the ones who are players, I see something that looks less fulfilling than what I have (and they very well may look at my life and think the same thing).
I also wonder to what extent role models play into this. One of my biggest heros in life is my grandfather, who has been married to my grandmother for coming up on 60 years now. My wife and I take a lot of queues from them. They have done pretty well for themselves financially over the course of their lives, but if I could choose to emulate their finances OR their relationship with eachother, I'd take the relationship.
i say here what i say about the endless changes to what you call groups.
For instance, in 1870, it was hateful to call black people African Americans. it was respectful to call them Negroes or colored. and of course we know of another hateful term used.
then negro and colored went out in favor of black. now african american is considered most respectful, ironically enough.
Ditto with disabilities. once it was handicaps, then disabilities, and now it is "challenged." i am disabled, and i frankly throw up in mouth a little at the term "challenged."
or take another word, "special." it was meant to make the handicapped feel good about themselves. but what happened? they started saying special as a derogatory term.
the truth is all the repackaging in the world won't fix the underlying problem. if you feel like x toward y person or persons, whatever term you apply will come to reflect the underlying attitude. so if you hate black people, what you call them doesn't make much of a difference. its the attitude that is the problem.
and, point of fact, i never call anyone honey but my wife. with children, if its a girl i call her sweetie, and if its a boy, i call him "son" in that southern way.
So "honey" isn't the problem. if you are taking each other for granted, THAT is the problem.
Like another poster ahead of me, I understand the conclusions drawn theoretically, but my experience is far from what they conclude. I am married 20 years last week, and there is no shortage of passion or sexual activity.
Eric,
Sounds like you have found the lifestyle that works for you. More power to you!
Brian et al,
I strongly believe that a complete lack of sexual cooperation should be grounds for a fault divorce.
Google Athol Kay (actually I'll do it for you - http://www.marriedmansexlife.com) and read. Let us know how you react. And Google Dave in Hawai'i for more.
This book completely misses the mark, in my opinion. Eric nails it (no pun intended) here:
I can pretty much guarantee that a sexual encounter with another man would not be as physically rewarding for my wife as being with me, because I know every square inch of her body intimately and what it responds to and what it doesn't and how that all interplays with what kind of mood she's in. And the reverse is also true.
Let's be honest. Women control the frequency of sex. If men are having very little sex, it's mostly because their women aren't enjoying it (of course, I'm also not ruling out medical or other causes for low sexual desire--in men or women). So the solution, as Eric makes clear, is to make sure you know how to please your partner. In most cases, it really is that simple. If women missed sex as much as men miss sex, there would be a lot less missed sex!
As someone pointed out above, today anyone can write a book. I have as well. It's called The Sex Secret, and you can download it for free here.
Topher,
I've been a fan of Athol's site for a few months now. I agree with a lot of what he says, though I sometimes think he comes off as viewing marriage as almost exclusively being about sex. However I'll cut him some slack here because the name of the site is, admittedly, 'Married Man Sex Life'. He probably has more dimensions than that in real life.
But yes, a great site and one I would reccomend for all the married men who are interested in men's cultural issues but find Roissy and The Spearhead to be a bit too over the top. Another of my favorites is artofmanliness.com
Donn,
"If men are having very little sex, it's mostly because their women aren't enjoying it"
Smacks of ingorance my friend. Western wives don't have sex because they enjoy it. They have sex as a weapon against the man they claim to love. With my ex it was no problem to give her 20, 30 sometimes even 40 orgasms in a evening. You can't get much more 'enjoyable' than that. The women I date now ALL remark how they never met a man who can give them orgasms like that. But my ex would call me (at the office) the next day to whine and moan about how sore her legs and back were etc. It was 'all my fault' despite the fact it is quite clear that a woman can not have 20-30 orgasms without her active agreement. With 'the modern western woman' its ALL about controlling the man.
Conversely, my fav#1, who can run a marathon in under 4 hours by the way, playfully pushes me away and tells me how spending a day doing a marathon is sometimes 'easier' than spending a day with me. She loves her time with me and laughs her head off about her 'enjoyment'. I partciularly like it when she curls up into a little ball in the corner of the bed and demands that I 'leave her alone and let her recover'..LOL!!!
"Marriage was not made for sexual fulfillment."
Truer words have never been spoken.
Men use "Honey" because it prevents them from calling their wives by the wrong name. Big mistake. So my wife is "honey", and she actually prefers it to her own name. If I call her by her name, she thinks I am mad at her.
"Honey" works just fine if it is meant and intentional; but it can easily become a throw away line.
As to more sex, less sex and such like - smart men recognize that women are cyclical. They have times of the month when sex crowds out carpooling and helping the kids with the homework. If you have been married for a while you will recognize your wife's cycle. Now, while men can certainly have sex at any point, if a man makes the effort to pamper his wife on those few special days he has every chance of as much fabulous sex as he can take.
The shoulders of the cycle are harder to call but they are there and should be recognized. Plus, of course, every woman is different so your mileage may vary.
Final point, if at all possible - and make it possible - half an hour to an hour of adult time (cocktails no kids) where there is actual talk per day, every day - can do wonders.
i`ve only been married for six months and the sex has stopped completely.
but when she gets home it will begin again.
80% of everyone does things poorly,so i`m not suprised that sex would be part of that disribution.
and yeah, she calls me hon.
and a bloody englishman (she`s a scot.)
but she uses my name when it matters most.
and back to distribution af ability for a minute...how many people are good at anything?
most just show up and get a mark for attendsnce.
globalman has seemed to have found his niche, and good for him, it`s not bragging if you deliver.
and so 80% of men are shit in bed, and 80% of women are too selfish to "put out" for any reason and don`t enjoy the poking and prodding and would rather read a romance novel.
no wonder marriage is tanking...there has to be a reason to keep going.
I thank the good Lord above I have never been married. Obligatory sex have never been my thing, as is not being able to discuss relationship issues, and shutting the fuck up. This is way too difficult a life plan. No wonder the divorce rate is what it is.
globalman100 --
"Marriage with children leads to a sexual desert. Just ask ANY married man with kids."
Man. Married with children (now grown). Did not live in sexual desert. Premise fails.
Eric's post is the bar.
I've been married 15+ years. My wife and I both work, and she brings a fair bit of work home with her. We have three kids. We're tired and happy. Sex tends to be seasonal. Wintry periods don't freak us out anymore.
The reason is that we agree that marriage is a project to be undertaken together, not a commodity to be evaluated according to criteria like "instances of sex per week at Sex Level 8 or Higher." It's more about the group than it is about the individual. It's about building something together rather than getting something for yourself.
As for whether this is mere rationalizing, let me say to Globalman100 that I'd be serious competition for you if I were single. In your shoes, I'd take a similar approach. I've just decided to build something different.
I'm curious about the Evo Psych angle in all this. PUA alphas like to bang away and roar, but how many of them are really propagating their genes and building up the pride? It's one thing to spray the grass, bag the top females, and live free and easy while others do all the lifting.
Building the future is something else entirely. The calculus and criteria are different.
The odds of liking someone with whom you've been living for years -- much less those of still finding them sexually attractive -- are close enough to zero to obviate further discussion.
I must be lucky. Or maybe it is her double Ds.
Oligonicella
"Married with children (now grown). Did not live in sexual desert. Premise fails."
The rare exception merely lends weight to the reality Oligonicella. Women, and their mangina lackeys, seem to think that by prodcucing a single exception the 'premise fails'. Tell that to all those men who are living is sexual deserts.
Verdiales,
"I've just decided to build something different."
Are you aware I was with the one woman for 23 years and married 18 of them? Are you aware I already raised 4 children? And dis-owned them. Many men I know rate me as the best 'father and husband' they haver ever known. It's just that I discovered we are hated and despised so I gave up 'family man' and became 'global man'. And that's exactly how I live.
Cap'n/global/etc,
1) You ARE bitter
2) You probably have good cause (I know)
3) There are a small number of attractive, devoted, reasonable women out there who were missed by the MSM program to inculcate women with the notion their mission in life should be to control men. They generally respond to dominant men, which are also a vanishing breed for the same reason.
Sex? Sex? I think I remember that... damn, if it's not erectile dysfunction, it's Alzheimer's.
New title for a Babyboomer movie:
Broke-Dick Mountin'.
Watresses call me "Honey" frequently it seems. And, that what I associate "Honey" with, unless you add a little whipped cream and a cherry or two and then....
Dave,
"1) You ARE bitter"
Take your lies and try and peddle them somewhere else Dave. I LOVE my life now. My life now is FAR better than when I was love-man-slave-beta-provider for 5 other people who couldn't give a shit about me.
My testimony to young men is that being married sucks, even when it's good. On the way out of the office the other night I asked the young security guy if he had any 'news'. He smiled and said 'yes, I got married'. I look him in the eye and said 'Well that was really stupid'. He hung his head and said 'Yes, I thought you would say that'. I said it because it's true.
mangina lackeys....again, i agree with globalman.
bitter probably, but warranted it seems.
i am building something new with my wife. we hold meetings and have adult discussions about what it is we are building, and sometimes we disagree...and we allow eachother that.
and so the construction continues.
we have both got children, hers 19 and 24 and mine 11 and 14..and we resent and feel bitter about the exes and their shit...but now we get to do things the way we want to and we...agree....99/100 times.
and the sex is great and loving and many times well into the small hours.
we call ourselves the rare anglo-saxon mating pair.
Glo Balls gives us anecdotal evidence as well. So what does it prove? Just that he has a system that works for him to get laid a lot in a manner he appreciates.
So having raised, with my wife, a wonderful family, now being financially secure I guess I should dump the one who had the hysterectomy, cancer scares, and cardiac problems since at times I'm in the "dessert". Or wait, do I give her an opportunity to "compete" to rise to the occasion against other women (tail?) that I am pursuing? After 40 years it might only be fair to give her a shot at the trophy (me).
Actually I am having difficulty deciding if I think Glo Balls is long on imagination or just a narcissistic prick.
Alistair,
"bitter probably, but warranted it seems."
Please put 'bitter' away. It is a lie. And from the rest of your post clearly one that is not worthy of you. It has become clear to me over recent weeks that the book I have been planning is not and has never has been 'my book'. I have just become aware that I am little more than the selected instrument to write this book with credibility. I have wondered many times why my life has taken the turns it has these last three years. I have just become aware that it took these turns because it had to take these turns.
I am very happy. More importantly the book that is emerging through me is a key component of freeing humanity from those who would enslave them. Like I said...I have only really just become aware of this myself. Until about two weeks ago it was 'my book'. Now I know it is 'humanities book' and I have been selected by who I don't know to write it. I can tell you this. It feel REALLY wierd to know this. I don't really know how I know. I just know. Call me crazy all you like.
Thanks to Topher and Eric for the kind mentions.
And yes I'm more dimensional in real life, the blog just stays on it's topic is all.
Modern sex lives seem to dry up when someone is called a formal title, usually "husband." Doesn't sound as sexy as boyfriend I guess.
"The book goes on to give good advice like not dispensing with the formalities. So peeing in front of each other is a no-no. "
THIS I was told years ago and have held to it. Seeing your partner without makeup or unshaven is one thing, but watching them do the most (b)anal of bodily tasks is another step towards animalism.
I have heard the argument "you should be so comfortable with me it's OK," which is surprisingly the same thing I hear when a woman has an emotional blowup directed at the man who is not at fault, and she rationalizes to him why he should just "take it."
fair enough globalman,
i went through an alpha stage for about two years,and it felt good to be in charge and single and so on, but it wasn`t realy me, though that doesn`t mean it`s not right for you.
i started a website called the sterling group to help men to assert their maleness and to be alpha. i became evenagelical lke yourself because i saw then the struggles that men of all ages have with the raging tyrant we know as the modern american woman.
i let the work go because it effected my ability to find a woman for a long term relationship.
the women that i saw had questions about my ability to be a loyal partner while teachng "tricks" to men and so, while i still do one-on-one work, i don`t do seminars and immerse myself any longer...but it certainly was invigorating.
'It's much more about how the pet name is delivered' -- Oligonicella
'the truth is all the repackaging in the world won't fix the underlying problem. if you feel like x toward y person or persons, whatever term you apply will come to reflect the underlying attitude. so if you hate black people, what you call them doesn't make much of a difference. its the attitude that is the problem' -- A.W.
That is utterly on target. Reality doesn't just because you re-label it, and the tone of voice and context tell you more than the word itself about how a person feels about someone else (or some other group).
I've noticed many times that I can often see a near-future divorce or affair coming by listening to the tone of voice a couple uses in talking to, and/or about, each other. Even if the words are the same, the underlying emotions come through.
'Honey' can be a term of affection, desire, anger, boredom, indifference, resentment, or even hatred and contempt. So can the other person's first name, for that matter.
Dr Alistair,
yes...I can believe your story and how it went. Actually I didn't want to be 'alpha'. I chose beta when I was a kid and preferred it all my life. I had thought that being a great husband and father would be respected like my father is respected. I slowly drifted to alpha over the last 2 years. My mate Mr. Truth is high alpha and he coached me with the women. I had not persued a 'woman' since I was 14 so I was completely inept at it. I've drifted to 'alpha' because it works better. I don't see any of it as 'tricks'. It just is what it is. If I want a woman to do what I want I will 'alpha' her. My 23 years with my ex is all the evidence I need that 'talking to a woman' is completely useless. My fav#1 actually agrees with me and she is pleased I have made the transition to alpha. She tells me I have been too much of a 'whimp' these last 2.5 years and she's much happier now that I alpha her. She can't stand betas either.
The only pet name I like to be called is 'my sweetheart'. Other than that? I like my name to be used. And I agree with Topher, men and women need a little distance in their marriages. There are some things that it's better to just not see each other doing.
i placed "tricks" in qoutations purely to indicate that some may see them as such.
the anthropologist/sociologist in me knows the difference.
maybe www.heretical.com may appeal to you.
many women today need to "own" a man and get him to beta around until he gets fat and stupid, and then of course they find him disgusting and want to move on.
they do it to themselves.
and yes, "honey" can be a bit patronising in certain contexts.
as agnostics, my wife and i use the term "ohgod ohgod ohgod" so as to not be seen as merely religious....
Huh? I don't care what she calls me, why is often the problem. No, I don't want to talk about "our relationship". No I don't want to go to the inlaws for a fest, well, unless the cooking is really good or she has some sweet looking sisters, if that last I might not mention. Call me "Honey", for meals, come hither time if more than snuggling is on the menu, or for a beer. Though being Honey all of the time would get a little annoying, I would just assume her faculties are a bit weak and she has some kind of passive aggressive thing going on due to her station in life. Not really my problem.
What she calls me matters not a bit, how she calls me what she calls me might, but I'm not going to be a pansy about that... I will just get even, sweety, little lady, thunder thighs. Since what someone is called being a bother seems to be more of an issue with women, while with guys it seems more how we are called which can be most annoying. We can play at that all day! Heck, the rest of our lives. Ah... marriage.
This is how crazy this all is now.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1315725/Jenny-McCarthy-tells-Oprah-Jim-Carrey-stopped-making-laugh.html
Apparently it's Jim Carreys problem to make Jenny McCarthy laugh for the rest of her life. As for 'comedienne'? Oh come on. She got famous for taking her cloths off and having a hot body when she was young....but don't dare treat her like a 'sex object'.
OT but this is really worth a click.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1315432/Women-forced-work-longer-hours-thanks-ruining-families.html
Thank dr Helen. I know I am just one data point. And it has only been a day or so. But I have conciously been calling my wife by her name Lisa or by the nickname I used when we were dating, Lis. I have probably slipped once and called her Honey. Frankly, the change is more than just 'noticable', it is remarkable. I doubt she notices it conciously but she is much warmer to me since I made the change. Also, it makes me feel more like we were dating. Lastly, I now recall that my happily married parents seemed to also use first names and not 'honey' themselves. So, thanks for the good advice.
Wary, you are a genius. After all this arguing, making suppositions, misogyny, insulting women, belittling the dating process and demanding an overbearing alpha-male attitude, nobody thought to simply try to experiment with a temporary behavior change to see what would happen. Please keep us all apprised of how things are working out for you.
Wary,
Glad it made a difference. I think the idea of the authors is to make little changes like this on a daily basis and see if things don't heat up.
"I think the idea of the authors is to make little changes like this on a daily basis and see if things don't heat up."
Sounds like they are following Athol Kay's advice of destabilizing the relationship for fun and, er, profit.
I would compare it to lifting weights - you put minor tears into your muscles, which when repaired come out bigger and stronger. It's a bit of work, but not hard once you get used to it, and the results are worth it.
Remove sex and few people would get married.
Personally, I find "honey" to be asexual. There are other "pet names" I do find sexual or sexy, but "honey" is at *least* outdated in my view, and not something I would say soon before, during, or soon after having sex with my lover. She, unfortunately, calls me honey on occasion. She is forgetful of my preferences. I have forwarded her this article.
I have noticed, that if we have not had sex in a while--or if the sex was not stellar--that her unconscious tendency to slip into calling me "honey" as opposed to something like "baby" increases.
I suppose that support the thesis.
Cham,
"nobody thought to simply try to experiment with a temporary behavior change to see what would happen"
I have changed my behaviour towards women and I am very satisfied with the results. But then again, to a woman like you I am 'no-one'. Thanks for telling me. ;-)
My mum and dad used to only ever use first names. When their first baby was born he started calling them by their first names too. So while us boys were little they called each other 'mum' and 'dad' so the babies would do the same. Us boys only EVER call mum and dad, 'mum' and 'dad'. Though the oldest has taken to calling them 'father' and 'mother'.
This also worked well in the family situation as it made clear the honour and respect obliged to be shown. These people who try to be 'friends' with their children by closing the 'gap' between a parent and a child do their children great dis-service. I didn't really become 'my own man' until I was 31. Some men never do. The names we call each other are an important part of how we define our relationship to that person whether we know it or not.
The one that is most repulsive is 'baby'. Henry Makow has even commented on this. When you call your wife or husband 'baby' you are infantilising them and demeaning them. Not good.
To watch television is to be told that the world is full of attractive middle-aged women who are anxious to fool around, if only their husbands didn't suffer from ED.
Dreamers.
The change from 'honey' to something else probably produces a change in your spouse's behavior butthis makes me skeptical that the word used is what is generating the impact.
Eleanor,
from your spearhead post:
“Girls make great pets.”
I gotta get me a T-Shirt with that on it. My favs would LOVE that!
And thanks for writing the article...I will backpost it to Sams blog and see how she feels about that.. ;-)
Eleanor,
ps...I posted this to sams blog...lets see if she responds eh?
Sam,
you are breaking into the 'big time' now.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/09/29/what-women-want-supposedly/
Thag is, in fact a woman, so let's have no 'bad man' rubbish. And she's one of the few really lovely ones from the west. I posted your article to a blog we share and she felt it was worth the effort to make comment. ;-)
Living in the South, one hears honey, sugar, sweetie from female wait staff. Any of them are not really a term of close endearment, at least not to me.
Data point two and three. Lisa called me on it today. So I was wrong. She did conciously notice the change and asked why. I said that calling her by her name 'felt more like when we were dating'. Her reply? Keep doing it. I like it. And now, at times, calls me by my first name, and not just when she's upset. And as you might guess, I like it when she reciprocates.
p.s. Saw your next post. Lisa is a liberal and I'm conservative. I know humor and patience are essential. Because politics is a liberals religion. And non-believers are evil. Bottom line. I try to do as my Mom said, "Just Love them."
i did a little experiment too cham, i called my wife baby, hon, love and so on as well as her christian name several time this last few days and i noticed something also...
...sex four times in three days, and sweetie was late for work this morning with a smile that lasted throughout her manager`s meeting.
heating things up?
if your relationship is so fragile that the choice of terms of endearment could crumble the foundation, you`re in deep shit.
i would suggest that there are other factors, such as not flirting with your spouse through the day by text, or being depressing, or negating her interest in things, or not grabbing her ass with intent while you are in the grocery line...or not dreaming together and helping eachother.
those are the things that erode relationships.
and, of course, it`s the tone you use when you call her what you call her....
Okay, sounds good. Who else wants to join the experiment?
Married for 32 years now. Have 5 kids. Youngest is 11. Don't know what this sexual desert for couples who have kids is- the lock to our bedroom door works just fine. They know if its locked, leave us alone. They all learned it early.
I have always called her by the name she introduced herself to me as. (Her family has multiple names for her.) She always calls me by my name, not my family's name for me. (Too many people in the family with the same name- nicknames were used to differentiate.) No honeys or dears. And, we call our kids by their names; no nicknames. I've explained to many people that if I wanted to call them by nicknames, that's what I would have named them.
As far as frequency of sex- it's whenever either one of us want it. No schedule. No particular time of day.
And whenever I hear another guy say his wife has cut him off, I want to ask "What are you doing wrong that she wants to punish herself like that?" I don't, because I've discovered the question generates hostility. Sex doesn't stop just because we're disagreeing about something. That would be silly.
And the secret to a long lasting marriage- the husband gives in to wife on all matters that aren't all that important, and remembers that there really isn't that much that is important. There's not more than a half dozen times I've put my foot down and said we're doing it my way. Each time she sulked for a while, then came to realize I was right. Never by admitting she was wrong- women don't do that. Simply by dropping the subject completely and never talking about it again.
"the lock to our bedroom door works just fine. They know if its locked, leave us alone. They all learned it early."
A woman called Dr Laura one day and said much as she wanted to, she couldn't find time to be alone with her husband. Dr Laura said "go to your bedroom at 9pm and lock the door." The woman asked what about the kids?
"They'll survive. They can take care of themselves once they're ready for bed."
"Oh."
That is as salient as anything else I've heard of the lesson of "put your spouse first." No person - save for infant children who are truly helpless 24/7 - should be existentially more important to you than your spouse. Old-fashioned? Maybe. C'est la vie.
Harold,
"What are you doing wrong that she wants to punish herself like that?"
The reason you will get hostility from men like I used to be on questions like that is because we aren't actually doing anything 'wrong'. We were doing what we were told to do by pretty much ALL women. Be beta-providers. How were we to know it was 'wrong'? Since every woman told us this is what they wanted and our fathers didn't tell us otherwise?
Now? I know that women hate beta-providers with a passion. So I tell all the young men that. Since Mr. Truth started teaching me more about how to handle women PROPERLY by dominating and controlling them and gaming them and aphaing them I do just fine. One of his BEST quotes was:
"Women make much of the power of the pussy. But you have the power of money. And between those two? Money wins every time. You might want to remember that."
So men who treat women really well and are really kind and generous to them are hated and despised by women. Who knew? Not me. I'm still on my alpha training wheels. But I'm getting about 10x more sex than I got when I was married.
It's very funny.Can it ruin your relations.once you are in a relationship you expect your partner to drop everything and rush to your aid whenever you need him.
bhavik
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home