PJTV: The way to better sex
In this episode of "Ask Dr. Helen," I talk with Maggie Arana and Julienne Davis, the authors of the book, Stop Calling Him Honey and Start Having Sex. They tell viewers how closing the bathroom door, talking dirty and engaging in sexual dialogue can result in a better sex life.
You can watch the show here.
Update: Susannah Breslin at the Frisky has some interesting comments on the video here.
Labels: marriage, PJTV, Relationships
posted by Helen at 7:29 AM
77 Comments:
sweeps week on the internet?
Wrt to your calling Glenn "my old man," I think continuing it when he has said he doesn't like it is more bothersome than the name in the first place.
I don't know that we have a high divorce rate because of a lack of sex - women initiate most divorces and it's usually women who withhold sex! Explain that!
I would hardly call buying sexy lingerie a "crazy gimmick" - wtf?
They make some decent points about not being too intertwined (I think this is the main point here) but over all they seem to be a couple of dozy tarts who are talking bollocks.
Since they advocate only seeing each other's genitals in bed, I wonder if they also think a man shouldn't be present for the birth of his baby, since that might spoil the poontang for him.
I'm definitely calling bs on "keeping your name" too. How simplistic can you get. I seriously doubt the sex is better in marriages where the wife has kept her maiden name, come on. *big eyeroll*
Well, Thag, I will comment on your concerns regarding the high divorce rate and divorces initiated by women. I'm going to be facetious so don't get offended.
To contrast and compare, the census tells us the number of unmarried women is on the rise. The experts say that this is because women are experiencing economic success and don't feel the economic need to enter into a marriage with a man. Those on the Internet that have a problem with this have crafted a solution: Women need to treat men better and be more submissive and compromising. Now, Thag, do you see the problem with this solution?
So let's get back to the "just have more sex to please your husband so he won't cheat" solution to improve your marriage. The writers admit that women are taking care of a house, kids and also are holding down a job. Yet, they give the directive that on top of all these activities it is mandatory that women also provide their husbands with ample sex even if they aren't necessarily in the mood. You are right, Thag, women are initiating divorces because sometimes something has to be eliminated when people are way too stressed and have too many demands on them.
I'm all for married people having sex, but perhaps if a husband wants sex so badly I don't understand why the two women didn't suggest the husband take care of a few chores around the house, call his wife by her name and help the kids out with their homework first, rather than mandate sex no matter what.
Thag Jones,
"Wrt to your calling Glenn "my old man," I think continuing it when he has said he doesn't like it is more bothersome than the name in the first place."
You are correct. I should have stopped a long time ago.
I very much enjoyed the interview. I agree with the authors that using first names matters because they denote gender. And that using androgynous gender-neutral terms dampens libido.
But there are another group of gender-neutral terms that people use all the time, and that the authors use too. They very often use terms like partner, significant other, person and the like. Then when it comes time to specify a gender by using a pronoun, the authors follow the habit that most Americans have adopted and refer to him or her as "them."
If I recall correctly, when Maggie Arana talks about her relationship she never uses gender specifying terms.
I'm wondering about the effect of this bad language habit, which is not only very common, but which people are often forced to use-- in universities-- and what effect this has on sexual attraction.
What Thag Jones said.
Women are strange. When talking about relationships, they ask for things they really don't want.
Feminists, i.e. female supremacists, are the last people men should consult for sex advice. Jeeesh.
Cham, men do as much productive work as women. Women often overestimate their contributions. But you are on to something. Women often don't fuck their husbands because of imagined grievances. Women today are just angry and unsatisfied - all the time.
No amount of name-keeping or genital-hiding will fix that kind of mass neurosis.
Cham, I think they are talking about having a satisfying sex life from the POV of both partners, not just the man. Going into the old "why doesn't he do some chores/ help the kid with homework/ etc." arguments aren't really what their book is about so much as habitual patterns that kill sexual attraction. I just think they're being a bit simplistic, judging by the interview.
You seem to be still making sex a carrot on a stick by saying "if he does some chores, I'll feel more like having sex," and, frankly, that sounds like more bs. Speaking for myself, if I'm feeling like having sex, it has diddly squat to do with "what have you done for me lately" and everything to do with my own libido and my attraction to the man with whom I'm having sex. What if he said "if she'd put out more, I'd feel more like doing some chores"? It's too much keeping score - unless he's really doing absolutely nothing but lazing around playing video games all day, it all gets a bit petty.
I don't know, if the sex is good then why are women withholding it? There seems to be a lot of this attitude where women are using sex as a tool or a weapon instead of just enjoying it for what it is. How about, stop being a control freak and bang away for a while - you might even enjoy it.
But you are on to something. Women often don't fuck their husbands because of imagined grievances. Women today are just angry and unsatisfied - all the time.
No amount of name-keeping or genital-hiding will fix that kind of mass neurosis.
LOL Well said.
Stuart Schneiderman, I noticed them doing that too. That contributes to my impression of them as a couple of dozy tarts talking rubbish. Half asleep. Barking up the wrong tree. [Insert your own appropriate cliché here].
I am sure wives can provide their husbands with sex even if they don't feel like having sex one or two times without repercussions. However, after one has sex 50-60 times when they really aren't in the mood they just might start being a little resentful, and their acting ability might wither. I'd rather see people advise couples to figure out why they aren't interested in sex and then making some positive changes rather than go down this "do it anyway" path. I don't think it works.
Cham,
Obviously "lie back and think of England" isn't a whole lot of fun for women and I really don't see where anyone is really advocating that - certainly those two dozy tarts didn't say that.
Trust me, I know that doing that is pretty spirit crushing, which is why I say not to collect every petty complaint and turn it into a wall around sex, which is what you're talking about doing here.
Either you see it or you don't, but I think people's sex lives would improve if women stopped doing that and just tried taking on the attitude that it is a worthy endeavour to keep your husband/boyfriend satisfied. You do that for him, he'll probably do it for you too. Unless you're just not particularly interested in sex, in which case, stay single. No crime in that!
The woman haters are on a tear again.
Who could ask for better theatre?
One thing's for sure -- thanks to Stuart Schneiderman, Dr. Helen and her "old man," these two women are getting immense publicity for an inconsequential work. That in itself is a coup. No disrespect to the named bloggers; just noting the authors' unusual luck.
As to their thesis, well, some people will do just about anything to try to revive a dead marriage, no matter how silly or demoralizing. (This learned from extended, painful experience.) Most of the time, people are probably better off not trying to stave off the inevitable and should just take Ol' Yeller out behind the barn and do the right thing. (By which I mean end the marriage, not whack the spouse. Although it's always an option. Also ends the marriage, come to think of it.)
The Captain, I couldn't agree with your more. Sometimes it is best to see the inevitable for what it is, rather than make some lame attempts to fix what is most certainly permanently broke. Trying to mend what isn't there may actually cause much more harm to one's future mental state. Sometimes you have to know when to put a fork in something when it's done.
I am sure wives can provide their husbands with sex even if they don't feel like having sex one or two times without repercussions. However, after one has sex 50-60 times when they really aren't in the mood they just might start being a little resentful, and their acting ability might wither. I'd rather see people advise couples to figure out why they aren't interested in sex and then making some positive changes rather than go down this "do it anyway" path. I don't think it works.
quoted from cham.
50-60 times? really....and you didn`t like it once or twice.
sounds like some sort of relationship mis-communication from the start.
if someone dislikes sex with a person so much that they would "do it anyway" they need to make adjustments.
and by the way, if guys thought for a moment that they could get pussy for doing housework, well, guess what....the freaking housework would get done.
remember, guys are the builders, fixers, hunters and killers of things...and for what?
pussy.
and so, if hot willing pussy was the reward for a half hour of cleaning, picking shit up and putting things away, it would be well taken care of i assure you.
a certain type of woman does the four "C"s.
the four Cs are control, confuse, compare and last but not least, cash out.
cashing out merely refers to making sex espensive.
(to be fair and balanced, a certain type of man will do the four "B"s to get sex.
boast, bully, brag and bullshit.)
and when the "B"s meet the "C"s , the fun begins.
my wife likes the sex and if the place is a mess because we were both busy or if i was lazy, i will hear her point, but it won`t interfere with her and my pleasure in bed.
that would be cutting her nose off to spite her face.
i think there are some women who don`t like sex for whatever reasons and are much more into pleasure from contol games,and would lie there 50-60 times for a future payoff...like "you owe me".
jeeeez.
I am sure wives can provide their husbands with sex even if they don't feel like having sex one or two times without repercussions. However, after one has sex 50-60 times when they really aren't in the mood they just might start being a little resentful, and their acting ability might wither. I'd rather see people advise couples to figure out why they aren't interested in sex and then making some positive changes rather than go down this "do it anyway" path. I don't think it works.
quoted from cham.
50-60 times? really....and you didn`t like it once or twice.
sounds like some sort of relationship mis-communication from the start.
if someone dislikes sex with a person so much that they would "do it anyway" they need to make adjustments.
and by the way, if guys thought for a moment that they could get pussy for doing housework, well, guess what....the freaking housework would get done.
remember, guys are the builders, fixers, hunters and killers of things...and for what?
pussy.
and so, if hot willing pussy was the reward for a half hour of cleaning, picking shit up and putting things away, it would be well taken care of i assure you.
a certain type of woman does the four "C"s.
the four Cs are control, confuse, compare and last but not least, cash out.
cashing out merely refers to making sex espensive.
(to be fair and balanced, a certain type of man will do the four "B"s to get sex.
boast, bully, brag and bullshit.)
and when the "B"s meet the "C"s , the fun begins.
my wife likes the sex and if the place is a mess because we were both busy or if i was lazy, i will hear her point, but it won`t interfere with her and my pleasure in bed.
that would be cutting her nose off to spite her face.
i think there are some women who don`t like sex for whatever reasons and are much more into pleasure from contol games,and would lie there 50-60 times for a future payoff...like "you owe me".
jeeeez.
sorry, the four "B"s are bully, brag, buy, and bullshit...and sorry for posting the last post twice, it happens sometimes in the magical internet kingdom.
.....and my wife and i made love (had sex, for the clinical) the other morning and afterwards, my wife said "i had a headache, but you fucked the shit out of it".
the headache wasn`t the excuse not to, it was a real headache that could have been in the way of her pleasure, but she "womaned up" and lost the headache as a secondary gain.
then we went garage sailing.
Sorry you don't agree with us, Captain, but sometimes it happens that a book or an idea looks inconsequential but isn't. Appearances have been known to deceive.
Surely, some of us could take the basic ideas of the book and make them appear to breath the rarefied air you can only find at the summit of intellectual sophistication.
But, more often it happens that people who pretend to be intellectually sophisticated are blowing a large amount of hot air.
I think it's always worth while to take ideas seriously, to give them a serious hearing, no matter what the packaging.
As I mentioned in my post about the book, proper names are not an inconsequential issue in philosophy. Nor are qualifiers and predicates that attempt to substitute for the lack of same.
I feel that the authors had a great idea, and a great intuition. Since it doesn't cost very much much to try it out, why not try.
I concede your point, Stuart. Well put. I am not in a position to test the hypothesis personally at this time (thank you, Jesus). It may well offer hope and improvement for people who are not in incurably sick situations.
Again, didn't mean to diss anybody. I'm more impressed by the exposure the book has received than by its content. That's just professional curiosity. Very cool for the authors.
If I ever reach the summit of intellectual sophistication, I'll issue a press release. Don't hold your breath.
Bacon,
You just Godwinned yourself.
I wonder if married sex is an oxymoron after the first month? Unless we're talking about extraordinary people like the Palins.
Helen this is a first-class interview with articulate women who know what they're talking about.
Familiarity and silliness do in fact breed contempt in the bedroom and outside it.
Also, your hair looks so pretty.
Webutante,
Thanks, glad you liked it.
Well, for the record, I also liked the interview. It's tough to do a good interview.
Helen, you have a gracious style. It puts your guests at ease, and it makes for pleasant viewing.
Jeff Y.
Thanks so much. Glad you liked it. I think these two authors have a lot to say. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but there is some good advice there. I talk to so many couples who live as "roommates" and it's damn depressing. I think this book and their advice just might help.
Found a great resource for men that helps them take charge of women in their relationships that brings back the spark of romance that Feminism has killed: http://manhood101.com/principles101.pdf
Does size matter?
Honestly, the "G" spot, once found and the proper method applied (no two people are the same), does wonders for the sex life of both partners.
Just sayin'.
This blog is great for anyone who's entertained by men who still believe that women were born to be domestic servants and sperm dumpsters.
20 years ago my new wife and I moved into what we thought was a community that wasn't wallowing in the middle ages. She went out to a club with a girlfriend of hers soon after we got married. When she was getting a drink at the bar, a young woman noticed her ring and asked where her husband was. My wife told her that I was home because I didn't like dance clubs. The young woman's mouth dropped open in shock, "He lets you go out?"
I didn't realize how many men treated women like property or how many women had their heads up their butts until I heard that story.
Helen,
My opinion now about getting better sex is to make DAMN sure you don't get married and make DAMN sure the woman knows she can be dropped at any time and you can get another.
All my lady friends know I date other women and that there is 'one in the wings' who is fighting for the chance to replace her. If women don't like that men like me hit on that as a 'solution to the sex problem'? Then maybe they should have explained to our wives that using sex as a weapon would ultimately destroy our love for our wives.
Thag....
"I would hardly call buying sexy lingerie a "crazy gimmick" - wtf?"
My fav#1 is the most beautiful woman I have ever met. She makes supermodels look like cows. So....one time I suggested that I would buy her some nice lingerie at the price of 'one dance' for me. I offered her a budget of EUR200 which she took THREE DAYS to spend because "no one has ever offered to buy me such expensive lingerie in my life and I want to get a set that is just perfect". That was pretty hard for her and her amazingly slim body shape.
Anyway. She duely danced for me to the song November Rain by Guns and Roses. That was one of the BEST EUR200 I have ever spent in my life!!!!
You think my WIFE would do anything like that? Nope. Mr. Truth later joked "Now imagine your ex-wife dancing like that"..Scare my eye-balls!!
As for 'better sex'? Her birthday was in February. I figured we would be split up before her next birthday. Since she helped me save my life I felt that for her last birthday together I would buy her a gift to say 'thank you' and to remind her of me in the future. I offered her a budget of EUR500 which is nothing to me. She actually called me thinking that maybe my friend Mr. Truth sent the text from my phone to get her in trouble as a prank. She claimed no-one had ever offered her such a budget for a gift before. About 3-4 days later she calls me from a shop and tells me she has found what she wanted and she wants to check with me again if she can really have it. It is a necklace. She was as nervous as hell on the phone at the idea she might actually be able to have this piece of jewelry to keep for herself. She was "please, please tell me that you will not change your mind in the future and make me give it back"
When I spent the weekend with her a few weeks later she shows me what she bought. It was an exquisite piece. And it suited her perfectly. I doubt anyone could find a better piece to suit her. She was ssssoooooo thankful for this gift. We spent some time talking over it because she was "why did you do this for me?". I explained to her again, it must have been for the 4th or 5th time, that her kindness and caring for me helped me save my life. THIS time she actually 'got it'. I told her that I would treasure her memory for the rest of my life and that the gift was just a tiny thing to show my appreciation for what she had done for me. She felt so 'touched' and so 'close' to me that she proceeded to give me the best weekend of my life....EVER.
Now. Will any western WIFE do this? Not a chance now. On the occasion of my exs 40th birthday I bought her (at her DEMAND) a set of the most beautiful necklace, ear-rings, braclet you could imagine. I mean this was stunning. It was hand crafted irish silver, a unique one off piece cretaed by the jeweler. There is not another in existence. This store was SO EXCLUSIVE you needed an APPOINTMENT to be allowed into it!!! of course, the set cost a small fortune. Most african countries have national debts that are smaller.
Did my wife give me a 'lovely weekend' for buying her such a gift? Not a chance. And that's what MOST men experience now.
Thag,
"You seem to be still making sex a carrot on a stick by saying "if he does some chores, I'll feel more like having sex," and, frankly, that sounds like more bs."
LOTS of women use this cow-shit. This cow shit tells men loudly and clearly that sex is used as a weapon against men by their wives.
Imagine the reverse. "I will give you food from the fruits of my labour if you give me the sex I want." How many women would 'like' that ultimatum?
It's real simple. Being married is a terrible deal for men and the sex is total crap. Indeed I can get the feelings of 'love and intimacy' from my lady friends at will and they are happy to provide it. I just spent the weekend with my fav#4 and we had a lovely time. She is the best I have ever experienced at presenting 'love and intimacy'. About 10x better than my ex-wife ever was. I can't tell young men often enough or clearly enough how being married sucks every which way except the one way that's good.
Blogger Cham said...
"I'd rather see people advise couples to figure out why they aren't interested in sex and then making some positive changes rather than go down this "do it anyway" path. I don't think it works."
Cham, I agree. And no man should have to go to work to pay for his fat, useless, tub of lard wife unless he really wants to. Why should he 'go to work anyway' when he doesn't want to.
So glad you advocate that any man who does not want to go to work to pay for his wife and kids should not just 'do it anyway' even if he does not want to.
globalman, you can never experience the intimacy you describe with commerce in the way.
most women have such an air of entitlement that they make me cringe.
i am truly lucky to have met my wife.
some years ago i was in scotland and bought a thisle brooch in a gift shop. i didn`t know why i bought it then. i had no intention of giving it to my then wife, she was an ungrateful bitch who would have thought it cheap and only made of silver.
i kept the brooch and gave it to my wife on the first anniversary of our first date. the way she reacted made me realise why i had bought it in the first place. to be able to recieve that feeling.
true intimacy is what a man asks for in a woman, and unfortunately, it`s the last thing they are able to give for most of them.
Dr. Alistair: I couldn't help but notice that you received a 67 on the Empathy Test, from the post down below. Per the article, the average score for a man would be 42 and many posters here received radically low scores and also placed themselves in the introverted thinker of the Myers
Briggs Test. Globalman didn't take the test but I'm guessing that he would probably find himself in the low-score empathy group along with the introverted thinkers.
So it would seem reasonable that you would migrate to a romantic relationship based on mutual interests, communication and developing intimacy. Whereas, it would also seem reasonable for Globalman to seek out more so pay-to-play romantic endeavors. You each have found what suits and pleases you best.
cham, i think that globalman recognised the intimacy between himself and the girl he was with for that period, and for that moment experienced a non-commercial intimacy.
i think many men seek intimacy (as do women) but struggle with all manner of pre-existing ideas about what that would cost them, one way or another in a pay-per-use society.
our relationships have, like everything else in this dystopia we live in, been monetised...and with the help of efficiency experts had the durability of everything flogged out.
pay-per-use relationships? sure, why not?
and cham, thank you for helping me to understand that romantic, compassionate relationships are but one of a spectrum of ways men and women relate.
sometimes i get a little hard on pay-per-use types and their percieved coldness.
and i guess that`s why my wife and i make people ill with our constant holding hands and other public expressions of affection.
I have no problems with pay-per-use intimacy. I am well aware that some people in the world wake up in the morning wondering what the world is going to do for them today. They will never, can never, be empathetic with anyone because they just don't care, will never care, what anyone else feels. That's okay. These people are constantly calculating what they have to give or what they have to do to get a specific desired result. They may very well equate intimacy with sex, where another type of person might equate intimacy with personal relationships.
However, our culture/society seems hell bent on pushing everyone into this dating/romance/marriage/communication arena. We outlaw prostitution because we expect people to be able to communicate and romance with each other. That is why we have these Pickup Artists contriving "The Game". They ARE playing a game. The end goal is to get laid which is going to provide them with the satisfaction/intimacy they seek. These PUAs don't understand communication and romance, it confuses them, hence they gave it an appropriate nomenclature. They do what they have to do, lie when necessary, to get the desired result.
On the other end of the spectrum are these touchy feely types that think everyone has ESP and their minds are automatically being read by their significant other. They feel their partner should know to empty the dishwasher and put the kids to bed, because everyone is an instant mind-reader. There is no reason to have the discussion about, their partner should just know because they expect their partner to be as empathetic as themselves.
It is just 2 different ways of looking at romantic relationships. Everyone has to find their comfort zone. People should not delude themselves that they can operate with someone on the other end of the spectrum, nor should they insist that their way is the right way.
succinctly put cham, that`s why i advocate part of the pua methodology in that it is important to find someone who shares values if you want a long-term commitment.
the pua who advocates and teaches this is ross jeffries, and yes he sarges and runs the boyfriend destroyer and such, but he also clearly stresses that most guys are looking for the life-long companion and need to learn how to be that themselves, and to recognise those values in a potential partner.
i think a lot of the lack of compassion and empathy is conditioned response due to shit social conditioning, and mixed up beliefs amongst men...and some practical jokes from whoever designed men and women to be so substantially different regarding biological needs.
'Imagine the reverse. "I will give you food from the fruits of my labour if you give me the sex I want." How many women would 'like' that ultimatum?'
Not too many, I think. But, it is even worse than that. The common response I have seen women make to your argument/comparison is that sexual intimacy and money are not fungible. One is an emotional and physical thing, the other merely financial. So, I tried another approach.
What if a husband goes on a male version of the sex "strike"/sex as a weapon technique that wives employ? Not, "I won't put my pay check in our joint account," but "I won't give you any hugs, any 'I love you's," any emotional intimacy or reassurance? How many wives would like that?? Not many, but there could be no question of the refused support being "merely" financial in that case.
Her body, her choice. Just cuz they're married doesn't mean she has to screw him anytime he wants it. It is illegal to rape your wife. And so on. OK. Fair enough. But, his body, his choice too. That means no hugs when he "doesn't feel like it" or "isn't in the mood." Hugs and shoulders to cry on and sweeettalk and caring and so on are intimacies, they are expressions of emotions. They aren't money. So they are very much like sexual intimacy.
But women don't look at it that way. No women ever wonders, a la Cham, how it feels to provide emotional and non sexual intimacy to a wife "50 or 60 times," when one doesn't feel like it. Women who use sex as a weapon, who think of sex as a carrot, as a reward, as a "treat" that they bestow upon their husbands, not as something that should be part and parcel of their married relationship, as something that they should just do, whether the floor is still dirty or the garbage has been taken out or not, don't hesitate for a moment to demand emotional and non sexual physical intimacy from their husbands as a non negotialble, "it doesn't matter what chores I did or didn't do," type of thing.
Wives demand little gifts and cards. They demand "recognintion" and "acknowledgement" of their birthday, wedding anniversaries, even Valentine's Day and other, lesser anniversaries. Many men find this kind of thing to be childish and unnecessary. But they play along, cuz it's the nice thing to do. Not because they "feel like it" or are "in the mood" for it. They do these things even if it so happens that their wives are being especially bitchy or nasty when one of these days happens to come around. But all of that is just taken for granted.
Most men really don't give a shit about housework or cooking and so on. Most husbands would much, much prefer a wife who puts out than one who keeps the house neat as a pin and cooks gourment meals every night. Really, the only thing that most husbands really want from their wives is sexual intimacy, and the emotional intimacy, that for most men, comes AFTER the need for sexual intimacy has been met. That's it.
And, in exchange for that, most men are more than ready to do not only the lion's share of the wage earning, and a good portion of the unpaid work too, but meet all of the emotional and physical needs of their wives described above.
But that isn't good enough for the average American wife. Nope. The guy does all that, but, because she "isn't in the mood" or "doesn't feel like it," she feels it is perfectly OK to refuse him sex. And the feminists have taught her that she is right. If she has sex anytime she doesn't feel like it, that is tantamount to rape! If she has sex if she is not 100 per cent into it, then she is compromising her "personhood" and submitting to "sexual exploitation." The idea that marriage is a two way street, and that men sacrifice a lot, and do things (including things other than go to work and make money) for their wives, even they don't feel like it, means nothing.
But women don't look at it that way. No women ever wonders, a la Cham, how it feels to provide emotional and non sexual intimacy to a wife "50 or 60 times," when one doesn't feel like it. Women who use sex as a weapon, who think of sex as a carrot, as a reward, as a "treat" that they bestow upon their husbands, not as something that should be part and parcel of their married relationship, as something that they should just do, whether the floor is still dirty or the garbage has been taken out or not, don't hesitate for a moment to demand emotional and non sexual physical intimacy from their husbands as a non negotialble, "it doesn't matter what chores I did or didn't do," type of thing.
Wives demand little gifts and cards. They demand "recognintion" and "acknowledgement" of their birthday, wedding anniversaries, even Valentine's Day and other, lesser anniversaries. Many men find this kind of thing to be childish and unnecessary. But they play along, cuz it's the nice thing to do. Not because they "feel like it" or are "in the mood" for it. They do these things even if it so happens that their wives are being especially bitchy or nasty when one of these days happens to come around. But all of that is just taken for granted.
Most men really don't give a shit about housework or cooking and so on. Most husbands would much, much prefer a wife who puts out than one who keeps the house neat as a pin and cooks gourment meals every night. Really, the only thing that most husbands really want from their wives is sexual intimacy, and the emotional intimacy, that for most men, comes AFTER the need for sexual intimacy has been met. That's it.
And, in exchange for that, most men are more than ready to do not only the lion's share of the wage earning, and a good portion of the unpaid work too, but meet all of the emotional and physical needs of their wives described above.
But that isn't good enough for the average American wife. Nope. The guy does all that, but, because she "isn't in the mood" or "doesn't feel like it," she feels it is perfectly OK to refuse him sex. And the feminists have taught her that she is right. If she has sex anytime she doesn't feel like it, that is tantamount to rape! If she has sex if she is not 100 per cent into it, then she is compromising her "personhood" and submitting to "sexual exploitation." The idea that marriage is a two way street, and that men sacrifice a lot, and do things (including things other than go to work and make money) for their wives, even they don't feel like it, means nothing.
But women don't look at it that way. No women ever wonders, a la Cham, how it feels to provide emotional and non sexual intimacy to a wife "50 or 60 times," when one doesn't feel like it. Women who use sex as a weapon, who think of sex as a carrot, as a reward, as a "treat" that they bestow upon their husbands, not as something that should be part and parcel of their married relationship, as something that they should just do, whether the floor is still dirty or the garbage has been taken out or not, don't hesitate for a moment to demand emotional and non sexual physical intimacy from their husbands as a non negotialble, "it doesn't matter what chores I did or didn't do," type of thing.
Wives demand little gifts and cards. They demand "recognintion" and "acknowledgement" of their birthday, wedding anniversaries, even Valentine's Day and other, lesser anniversaries. Many men find this kind of thing to be childish and unnecessary. But they play along, cuz it's the nice thing to do. Not because they "feel like it" or are "in the mood" for it. They do these things even if it so happens that their wives are being especially bitchy or nasty when one of these days happens to come around. But all of that is just taken for granted.
Most men really don't give a shit about housework or cooking and so on. Most husbands would much, much prefer a wife who puts out than one who keeps the house neat as a pin and cooks gourment meals every night. Really, the only thing that most husbands really want from their wives is sexual intimacy, and the emotional intimacy, that for most men, comes AFTER the need for sexual intimacy has been met. That's it.
And, in exchange for that, most men are more than ready to do not only the lion's share of the wage earning, and a good portion of the unpaid work too, but meet all of the emotional and physical needs of their wives described above.
But that isn't good enough for the average American wife. Nope. The guy does all that, but, because she "isn't in the mood" or "doesn't feel like it," she feels it is perfectly OK to refuse him sex. And the feminists have taught her that she is right. If she has sex anytime she doesn't feel like it, that is tantamount to rape! If she has sex if she is not 100 per cent into it, then she is compromising her "personhood" and submitting to "sexual exploitation." The idea that marriage is a two way street, and that men sacrifice a lot, and do things (including things other than go to work and make money) for their wives, even they don't feel like it, means nothing.
It's interesting about all this wife not being "in the mood" talk because in my relationship experience (including marriage and co-habitation) the only times I'm genuinely not in the mood are as follows:
-I am not attracted to the guy on a chemical/physical level.
-I have the flu (and even then I often won't say no to someone I'm physically attracted to, if he really wants to - extra heat and all).
-I'm utterly physically exhausted - I mean, really just can't stay awake for anything.
Yeah, that about covers it. Barring really serious problems in the relationship or huge hang-ups, it shouldn't be so much of a struggle, I don't think.
dr.alistair said...
"globalman, you can never experience the intimacy you describe with commerce in the way."
Alistair I'm not sure what you mean by 'commerce in the way'buying a gift for someone who has been kind to you is not 'commerce' to me.
Similar to your story. My ex always asked me to 'buy me something that shows you know something about me'. Apparently I was 'never good enough at planning spontanaity'. One day we took a trip to Shakespears grave. She loves shakespeare. Knowing she loved poetry and shakespeare I decided to duck away to the gift shop and see if something caught my attention. I found a book called 'love poems for my wife'. I looked at some of the poems and all the usual suspects were in it so I bought this for her. Ihad it wrapped and I asked her to come beside shakespeares grave to give it to her. I had tried so hard to find something I believed she would really like. When she unwrapped it she just kind of shrugged and put it into her purse turned and walked away. She didn't even say thank you. I was crushed. I excused myself and went outside and wept quietly that my gift had been so summarily treated. I vowed and declared never to buy her another gift ever again. About 2 years later she bitched and moaned about how I had 'not bought her a gift in ages'. I reminded her of the episode and told her I had vowed I would never buy her another gift. He claim was "Shakespeare never loved his wife, I thought you were telling me you didn't like me". Sure...I failed english and couldn't care less about shakespeare. So I told her that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion and she was shit out of luck for any future gifts.
On the other hand? I have experienced the sort of love and intimacy I wished for from my ex from no less than 5 different women in the last 2.5 years. I am currently dating two women who can do this with ease. They are amazed that I wish to be with them in this way so much as most man friends they have are a little bit 'rougher' shall we say. But they are both delighted that I find them so enjoyable to be with and they are competing with each other for my attention. Nice.
ruddyturnstone said...
110% truth....thank you.
Thag,
I could easily list you 10 reasons for my ex 'not being in the mood' that were conveniently cycled through.
I spent a three day weekend in Germany last weekend with one of my two current lady friends and it was just a delightful time.
When I do get a 'I am not in the mood' my lady friends are quite genuine about it. One was in hospital recently. I told her to buy something that would have her know she was cared about while in hospital for three days. I thought she would buy flowers. Nope. She bought flannel pyjamas. How 'romantic'.. NOT! LOL!
When she came to my place soon after and I was 'frisky' (lets say) she said she was still feeling sick and stressed from her time in hospital....and then she pulls out these flannel pyjamas and asked me if we could cuddle up on the couch and just watch a movie together and feel close. I say sure. And actually? They were really nice and fluffy pyjamas!
At the end of the evening she 'did her best' to reciprocate my kindness and understanding she was not well. We retired to sleep both feeling very cared for. Indeed, she has commented that only her father has ever shown her the same sort of care and attention. I am so unused to a little 'give and take' that is seems a MAJOR improvement to me.
In our culture there's a constant viewing of man-woman relationships through the female perspective: why aren't men more like women? The assumed subtext is that the female way is the "right" way, but the male perspective on the issue is just as valid.
If a woman doesn't want to have sex, fine. But where is it written that a man has to be OK with that? Men generally want sex and shouldn't be expected to put up with a sexless life. The trouble is that women often seem to want sex early in the relationship and then later lose the desire, never to return (I just don't believe that passion departs because men won't help around the house, perhaps others find that plausible). By that time children may have come along, there are mutual financial assets to consider, and with the legal system as it is, it's difficult for the man to move on to find a new partner without incurring astronomical costs and the loss of his children.
If you're a wife, pretend you're still his girlfriend for a moment. Would your man stay with your or just never call you again? Who knows, maybe you regret dating him in the first place. I simply think both men and women need to look at what they bring to the table in a relationship. Are you making each others lives better or worse? What do you _do_ for your man or your woman that they can't do on their own? If the answer is nothing, then maybe you're with the wrong person.
Obdurate: You bring up a good point, if one party in a marriage brings nothing or very little to the table more than likely the other partner will start thinking: Is my partner's winning personality enough to override that they are costing me a boatload of money, time and effort to keep this marriage going? and, Is it worth it enough to be able to tell everyone that I am married for me to overlook that I putting up with way too much? Hence, the decline in the marriage rate and the 50% divorce rate.
Now I have a question, and I'd like to refer to your comment that men incur astronomical costs and the loss of his children. Kids cost money and somebody has to raise them, so it seems reasonable that if you make a kid you pay for the kid, be it both mother and father. Let's say the courts weren't biased and, just like my state, are more than willing to give both parents consideration when it came to custody. How many fathers would choose to have full custody or joint custody of their children?
I don't know the answer to the above question, the answer may be 100% for all I know. If there has been a study done on this I'd like to see the data. If there hasn't been a study then it would be nice if someone performed one because I would like to know.
TO: All
RE: I Disagree....
....with the premise that having sex more often, instead of 'calling him honey', will improve marital relations.
Calling him 'honey'—or her 'sweetheart'—is not the 'root cause' problem. It's more likely 'indicator'. The more important 'indicator' is whether she is enjoying sex as much as he is.
If she isn't enjoying it as much, if not MORE, than he is, THAT'S the real problem.
The causes of her dissatisfaction are the issues that need to be addressed.
If she were having a wonderful time nearly EVERY time, then, as I like to put it, 'everything will fall into its proper place, automatically'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you have your priorities in their proper order, everything will fall into its proper place, automatically.]
Cham,
I suspect a definitive answer to your question is unknowable until men actually have that sort of option. One thing I can say is that fathers love their children and want to care for them. There are exceptions to every rule, but that's what they are--exceptions.
Obdurate
"If she isn't enjoying it as much, if not MORE, than he is, THAT'S the real problem."
Men simply want more sex, on average, than women do. Women do typically enjoy sex, when they have it. But the need for it is not as great. That isn't a "problem," or, at least, one that can be easily fixed. It's part of the innate, biological differences between the sexes.
"The causes of her dissatisfaction are the issues that need to be addressed."
Again, that's a lot easier said than done. The guy can be the best lover in the world, and the most thoughtful, romantic husband. Still, nine times out of ten, he will want sex more often than his wife does. Similarly, perhaps, most guys really don't have the need for little presents and cards and so forth that most women seem to have. The solution isn't that something should be done to change the needs and desires of either partner, but that both partners should strive to meet their partners' needs and desires, even though they are different from their own.
"The trouble is that women often seem to want sex early in the relationship and then later lose the desire, never to return (I just don't believe that passion departs because men won't help around the house, perhaps others find that plausible)."
I don't. I think that what happens is that young women like sex a lot. It is new to them, their hormones are raging, and it is fun, even a little bit illicit (despite the "sexual revolution") for a woman to have sex with her boyfriend. It's sexy and exciting to be a GF who sleeps with her BF. But it is not particularly sexy or exciting to have sex with her husband. Especially after it becomes routine. It's more like a duty. An affair might kick up her desires, but not sex with her husband. Hormones have something to do with it too. Women seem to be into sex in their early years, and then go into a period where they are not so into it, and, finally, in their late middle age years, the desire returns. With guys, it seems to be more linear...with the desire strongest in their early years, a slight decline in early middle age, and a stronger decline in later middle age. This "mismatch," I think, causes a lot of marital problems. The guy still wants a lot of sex, the women much less so. By the time she wants to have sex more (if they last that long), his desires have cooled. Throw in the stresses of childbearing and rearing, the two earner lifestyle, and other early marriage strains, and, to the woman, sex becomes a take it or leave it thing, at best. And, really, nothing can change that. No matter how great the guy is in the sack, and, no matter how great he is out of it (in terms of chores and so on), she's just not "in the mood." And the whole bubble bath-backrub-champaign-candle-wine-chocolate-lingerie routine has only a marginal effect on that.
The average married guy in his late twenties or thirties probably WANTS sex pretty much everyday. He would be happy with it every other day. He would settle for it once or twice a week. Meanwhile, his wife wants it once a month, maybe. That's an awfully big gap to try to close with mutual understanding, therapy, trying to make it "satisfying" to her, and so forth.
"Let's say the courts weren't biased and, just like my state, are more than willing to give both parents consideration when it came to custody. How many fathers would choose to have full custody or joint custody of their children?"
Most of them. Fathers are much, much more into their children than they were in years past. The loss of true intimacy with their children is the real heartbreak of divorce for most fathers. Money can be replaced. As can female compansionship. But each child is unique, and fathers grieve the loss of everyday contact with their children that divorce causes.
Great, so let it be so. Dads can assume parenting of their kids. It's a win win win. The dads get joint custody of their kids, they don't have to pay child support, there are no more long drawn out court battles that enrich lawyers and judges, there is no big child-support windfall for the moms, and the kids get the love and attention of their dads. Best of all, I don't have to hear this constant bitching of all men assuming that they automatically get screwed over in the event of divorce. I'm on board, let's do this.
"I'm on board, let's do this."
Great. Now convince the feminists and the politicians they carry around in their change purses like so many nickels and dimes to get on board too. Otherwise, you will continue to "have to hear this constant bitching of all men assuming that they automatically get screwed over in the event of divorce," and, as we all know, you having to hear this truth is the most important thing. Not that men actually ARE screwed over in divorce, but that you "have to hear" about it.
I'm not totally convinced that all men want custody of their kids. I hope they would, but I'm wondering if these loud complaints are more lip service. When actually given the option to parent their children 50% of the time, I'm thinking that some men might grow quiet on the matter. However, I could easily be proven wrong on this. We won't know what will actually happen unless we get all the court systems on board.
Cham,
A difference that exists between men and women is that men are still expected to be the producer. That can be seen in the fact that women who are ordered to pay child support default at around twice the rate of men who are ordered to pay child support. You also have odd decisions like 50/50 physical custody, but the man is paying the woman child support.
So men have that additional aspect to worry about. In other words, if he won the lottery, he would love to stay home with the kids and watch TV, but he hasn't won it yet.
Is there some law out there that says a mother doesn't have to pay child support? I'm not aware of one. If you have a child support arrangement you are expected to pay it. My state slaps judgments on mothers that are in arrears just as fast as they do fathers. I don't see a bias. Their pictures end up in the newspaper just like everyone else.
Cham,
Non-custodial mothers generally are asked to pay only half the child support men do and half of them default compared to about 29% of fathers who are asked to pay twice as much. Many more men are held accountable as "deadbeat dads." If you don't see a bias, it is because you personally don't want to, not because there isn't one.
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0505wilson.html
I don't live in your state, Helen.
This comment has been removed by the author.
TO: ruddyturnstone
RE: On Women
"If she isn't enjoying it as much, if not MORE, than he is, THAT'S the real problem." -- CBPelto
Men simply want more sex, on average, than women do. -- ruddyturnstone
So what? Does this negate my premise? No.
Women do typically enjoy sex, when they have it. But the need for it is not as great. That isn't a "problem," or, at least, one that can be easily fixed. It's part of the innate, biological differences between the sexes. -- ruddyturnstone
Again....so what?
The point is that if women were having a wonderful time EVERY time, they'd be more inclined to have such a time more often.
"The causes of her dissatisfaction are the issues that need to be addressed." -- CBPelto
Again, that's a lot easier said than done. -- ruddyturnstone
Did I say, anywhere, that it was 'easy'?
The guy can be the best lover in the world, and the most thoughtful, romantic husband. Still, nine times out of ten, he will want sex more often than his wife does. -- ruddyturnstone
For a third time....so what?
Similarly, perhaps, most guys really don't have the need for little presents and cards and so forth that most women seem to have. The solution isn't that something should be done to change the needs and desires of either partner, but that both partners should strive to meet their partners' needs and desires, even though they are different from their own. -- ruddyturnstone
What does this have to do with anything that I'm addressing?
Nothing.
The average married guy in his late twenties or thirties probably WANTS sex pretty much everyday. He would be happy with it every other day. He would settle for it once or twice a week. Meanwhile, his wife wants it once a month, maybe. That's an awfully big gap to try to close with mutual understanding, therapy, trying to make it "satisfying" to her, and so forth. -- ruddyturnstone
Speak for yourself, ruddie.
My 60 years on this ball-o-dirt has taught me otherwise.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You think intercourse is a private act; it's not, it's a social act. Men are sexually predatory in life and women are sexually manipulative. When two individuals come together and leave their gender outside the bedroom door, then they make love. -- Andrea Dworkin]
Cham,
"I don't live in your state, Helen."
It doesn't matter, those stats are nation-wide.
Also, Helen, you are aren't considering another factor. I wonder how many men who are owed child support take then necessary actions to get the child support. I know 2 fathers that are owed money by their children's mothers and have not lifted a finger to pursue them legally. What we have here isn't necessarily a problem with "feminists", it's more of a cultural problem. The men abhor the idea of chasing these women down and making them pay, so they don't. I say a little wage garnishment is in order regarding these deadbeat moms.
If you study the empathy quotient test, you'll find that women are much more sensitive to the way they are perceived by others. In our culture a mother who doesn't have custody of her children may be perceived as a bad person or a bad mother. Myself, I don't really care as the circumstances as to why a mother doesn't have custody of her children, but many others do and women are very very sensitive to this. For this reason mothers are very prone to fighting tooth and nail to get custody even if they don't have the financial resources, the mental stability, or a home for the kids. If our society makes the extra effort to change perceptions about parenthood, mothers might be more likely to think more about what is best for their kids and less about how their buddies, family members and coworkers are going to think of them. The problem may have less to do with the judges and courts, and more with our twisted maternal culture.
Cham,
"I know 2 fathers that are owed money by their children's mothers and have not lifted a finger to pursue them legally"
I am not aware of ONE SINGLE CASE where a woman has been forced to pay child support. Making some sort of accusation that men are derelict for not persuing child support is like making accusation men are derelict in not persuing DV allegations when women attack them. We are laughed at. Thanks for showing more hatred towards men. Men need to know you are the 'normal western woman' now.
Maybe, Cham, the men figure on some level that to pursue their ex-wives/baby mamas for support would cause more trouble than it's worth. A woman is more likely to poison the child against the father than vice versa, and most men know this on an instinctual level.
Furthermore, being supported financially by a woman goes against his sense of manliness in a real way and it probably just feels a bit distasteful for a man to fight for money from his ex. Call it what you will, but be real about it too.
Your arguments make sense on the surface, but there's a lot more going on here than "what's legal" and what isn't.
Cham,
"What we have here isn't necessarily a problem with "feminists", it's more of a cultural problem."
Typical woman. Women aren't responsible for their actions...the 'culture' is. And women wonder why I openly call women children for their refusal to take responsibility for their actions.
What we have here Cham is the Illuminati wanting to reduce the worlds population to 500M and to do that they have to drive a wedge between men and women. Since men actually really DO love women that wedge has to be offering 'babies and money sans man' to the women. And the women are buying that in their tens of millions. And it will ultimately cost them their lives. Guvments kills more people than anything else. And women are running to guvment for 'protection'.
"The causes of her dissatisfaction are the issues that need to be addressed." -- CBPelto
Total rubbish. No man can be a better husband than I was in 'address princesses issues'. Not long before we divorced I put a pen and paper in front of my wife and said "write down any issue that you have that is outstanding and want me to solve. I will solve any issue you write down."
Her response? She did not have a single issue after 23 years together and she said I was 'oppressing her' for wanting her to write down her issues. Meaning? She should be able to make up shit and call it an issue and just keep me on the hop. This is normal for women now. I am so glad I am done with that. As for 'satisfying princess'? I offer fav#1s wisdom:
"Women do not know what they want to be happy. They need to be told what they can have by their man and told to be happy about it. THEN they will be happy."
I took her advice. Guess what. It works. I never listen to a woman and what she wants now. Now I give her what I will give her and tell her how lucky she is to get that. It works.
Cham said...
"I'm not totally convinced that all men want custody of their kids. I hope they would, but I'm wondering if these loud complaints are more lip service."
You are such a bitch Cham. Try this. The suicide rate of men in divorce is 8x the suicide rate of women who have been raped. You think those guys are killing themselves as 'lip service'.
I despise women like you. I really do.
ruddyturnstone, great to have another man along who knows what is going on. Not so many around. It's always nice to meet one.
Cham,
"For this reason mothers are very prone to fighting tooth and nail to get custody"
Totally false. Mothers fight 'tooth and nail' because they are using their children as mutilated beggars. This is all covered in the book 'The Case for Father Custody'.
Women 'fighting' for their children usually severely abuse them psychologically, and often physically, in the process.
Thag, I completely understand your POV. I'm addressing Helen's concern that men aren't receiving the child support they are owed. It's not just that the mothers aren't paying, but nobody is forcing them to pay. If someone can get away without paying a debt they often try to do just that.
globalman, you are a breath of fresh air in this artificially created gender war.
when i state that it is difficult to experience intimacy in a commmercial act, i wasn`t referring to your experience with giving gifts to a woman who helped you. i sincerely believe you were grateful, and that she understoood your feelings....hence the intimacy.
i meant that the narcessistic psychopaths that have been created via media and culture will suck up all available resourses as their god-given right and negate any feelings of intimacy...simply because they know they will be leaving before sunup.
and cham...(sigh) the woman i had children with gained sole custody, a house, a car and is continuing to threated a suit for child support because it`s her legal right to do so.
she is entirely uninterested in her children and works 70 hours a week, many times leaving our youngest boy alone for hours at 11 years of age, which is against the family services act.
i find out about this sort of thing days or weeks later when i inquire about the boys when i get them on the week-end.
and before anyone suggests that i sue for sole custody, i suggest that i would then be taking the boys mother out of their lives, much as she has tried to do with me.
i am grateful that i see my boys on week-ends and occasionally evenings during the week, when she has something on (i become babysitter for her then) and so it goes.
and i see many of my children`s friends treated in much the same way by single momthers...and many of these children are becoming delinquent as a result, without a strong male perent in their lives to tell them right from wrong (how could a woman playing such a game teach morals and ethics, after all).
TO: All
RE: Off-Topic Exorcisms
Guys....
.....the topic seems to have suffered from some SERIOUS 'drift', e.g., child support, etc., etc., etc....
Can we get BACK to the topic at hand? The one on the video?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Maintenance of the 'objective' is essential to success....EVERYWHERE....]
By the way, Cham, I see that Charlie Sheen will be paying $55,000 per month ("month") in child support to his soon-to-be ex-wife.
There are lots of men paying that kind of money, but I can't think of any women. Men realize that they are going to have to earn money; women not so much.
Cham,
In some ways, you are correct. I have known men who are owed child support and they have a hard time doing anything about collecting it for psychological reasons. However, I have also seen men go after child support and the state doesn't do much to help them collect and I certainly have not seen any women put in jail over it.
"I see that Charlie Sheen will be paying $55,000 per month ("month") in child support to his soon-to-be ex-wife."
-------------
Yeah, I guess I'd opt to sit home and watch TV with my kids for that amount of money - which is more than I earn after several good degrees (including a JD) and working with full commitment for 30 years.
Society is kind of moronic. Why is this woman so rich?
Post a Comment
<< Home