Sexuality issue questions for the older set ...

[soserious1]

I also want to add that at least you have the benefit of knowing up front that he's not interested in sex more than x1 per week. Many of us who've divorced or are still struggling with issues related to being in sexless or near sexless marriages never had the luxury of being given the direct truth prior to marrying.

[giotto]

It only becomes the elephant in the room when you feed it peanuts.....

 

In other words it becomes a problem when you make it a problem.

 

A disparity in sex drives is exactly that. A disparity in sex drives.

The thing is not to turn that into a problem.

 

Sex brings pleasure.

It doesn't create happiness.

 

Whilst I understand that with many, sex seems to be a fulcrum upon which a relationship may pivot, at the end of the day, if you're creating the problem of "My God, I am so NOT getting enough sex!" the logical response to give yourself would be - "Yeah? So what?"

 

Try giving yourself that response, and see how different the road it takes you down, is......

 

 

I know you are attending monastery and I'm pleased you are able to spiritualise everything, sex included... I find it a bit difficult, but then I'm a man... lol

 

As a fellow Italian (yes, I just found out you are Italian too), maybe we could meet, so you can teach me some good abstinence and meditation techniques ;-) Ciao...

[TaraMaiden]

Actually I was quite serious in trying to be helpful to you in my responses and am actually rather puzzled about what it is that you sought to get from posting this thread? You've seemed to not only discount advice offered from those of us with direct experiences with low sex/ sexless marriages but you've also started denigrating our experiences and labeling us with terms like "negative" and "bitter"

I'm quite certain re-reading the thread that I don't think River was entirely sure herself what it is she sought from posting the thread. Isn't that the point of sharing things like this? To see what comes up and resonates? To see where our meanderings take us? Apt name, River Ouse.....

I posted a thread some time ago with regard to a situation that had arisen between me and my partner. Some of the responses were constructive, others were frankly laughable.... but I got to a conclusion in the end. Albeit one even I had not expected.

 

I said once and I'll say it again.. the saying "if sex is good in a marriage it only counts for 10 % of the marriage but if it is bad it counts for 90 %" is very true from where I sit.

That's because you insist on bestowing excessive importance on something that actually, within a long-term, serene and comfortable relationship with staying power, actually fades into complete insignificance in comparison to benefits that far outweigh the advantage of a few sweaty moments....

 

If you feel you can live happily with such a great mismatch in your desire levels, best wishes to you both.

I can't speak for River, but you have no idea what level of happiness and serenity I have reached, in letting go of something that really, cannot be considered to be vital and dramatically important.

 

I couldn't continue to exist in my sexless marriage and Zen myself into pretending that I was happy to live a life totally devoid of sexual intimacy.

:laugh:

 

Where has anybody stated here that the marriage or relationship is sexless? A sexual disparity doesn't mean there is no sex. A sexual disparity means there are different levels of sex drive. It's all a question of adapting to your environment.....

 

If you think I've Zenned myself into pretending anything, you actually demonstrate an abysmal lack of knowledge of how powerful your mind is.

Sex begins in the mind. And that is where the key to serenity, contentment, compassion and loving kindness lies.

In your mind.

The moment you consider that life is un-livable without your comforts being pandered to, you internalise your ego, and make it all about 'poor you'.

 

Well all I can say to you, is - Poor you.

[soserious1]

It only becomes the elephant in the room when you feed it peanuts.....

 

In other words it becomes a problem when you make it a problem.

 

A disparity in sex drives is exactly that. A disparity in sex drives.

The thing is not to turn that into a problem.

 

Sex brings pleasure.

It doesn't create happiness.

 

Whilst I understand that with many, sex seems to be a fulcrum upon which a relationship may pivot, at the end of the day, if you're creating the problem of "My God, I am so NOT getting enough sex!" the logical response to give yourself would be - "Yeah? So what?"

 

Try giving yourself that response, and see how different the road it takes you down, is......

 

 

I did... the road it took me down was one in which I was like a mother and caretaker who also paid all the bills.

It wasn't enjoyable.. not at all.

 

If being in a sexless or near sexless relationship works for you that's great but the majority of folks don't get married with the expectation that they're going to swear vows of fidelity and then be expected to remain basically chaste, celibate for the rest of our lives.

[TaraMaiden]

I know you are attending monastery and I'm pleased you are able to spiritualise everything, sex included... I find it a bit difficult, but then I'm a man... lol

It's not a question of spiritualising anything. Quite the opposite.

Don't you see?

There is nothing spiritual about sex. It's purely a carnal and physical pleasurable instinct.

 

And I think people are getting into this 'sexless' groove erroneously.

There is no sexless relationship, being discussed here. There is an alteration of attitude to a disparity in sex drives. A compromise is being reached, where a person is happy to compromise, because the alternative would be a greater disadvantage....

 

By the way: (O/T, but as you brought it up....) I don't attend a monastery as an ordained person.

I attend a Monastery as a follower of Buddhism. Exactly like hundreds of other laypeople like me.

So I don't adhere to, or practice celibacy. It's not a requirement of my practice.

But if Monks can manage it, I don't see why you shouldn't.....

 

As a fellow Italian (yes, I just found out you are Italian too), maybe we could meet, so you can teach me some good abstinence and meditation techniques ;-) Ciao...

 

If that's what you really want.

What do you really want....?

Edited May 25, 2010 by TaraMaiden

[The River Ouse]

Actually I was quite serious in trying to be helpful to you in my responses and am actually rather puzzled about what it is that you sought to get from posting this thread? You've seemed to not only discount advice offered from those of us with direct experiences with low sex/ sexless marriages but you've also started denigrating our experiences and labeling us with terms like "negative" and "bitter"

 

I said once and I'll say it again.. the saying "if sex is good in a marriage it only counts for 10 % of the marriage but if it is bad it counts for 90 %" is very true from where I sit.

 

If you feel you can live happily with such a great mismatch in your desire levels, best wishes to you both. I couldn't continue to exist in my sexless marriage and Zen myself into pretending that I was happy to live a life totally devoid of sexual intimacy.

 

I read your past posts ... I am sorry that you had such a terrible marriage. Truly. I did NOT learn from my read that you were in a marriage with a person with a different level of sex drive than you ... I read that you were in a marriage where both people pretty much despised each other for a plethora of reasons, which you both demonstrated freely and which of course manifested in the bedroom.

 

I have a good relationship. It is not "sexless." It is not "devoid of sexual intimacy" or the other aspects of intimacy. We are very intimate! It is not ultimately defined by the frequency with which we have sex. And I have said more than once that the intensity and depth of our sex is uncommon and wonderful, even if the "mechanics" of it would fall into the category of "vanilla sex." That's the truth - I LOVE having sex with my boyfriend. And, if once a week is the right frequency for him, I am going to give a lot of thought to "demanding" more. I think he will do what I ask if he thinks I need it or to please me. The way it is now, we both have a pretty good level of sexual tension present when the time comes and I think that is exciting. At this point I'd rather have this than "dutiful" sex.

 

I initially posted to see if I could get help finding a healthy perspective upon how I was dealing with the effects of my boyfriend's lower drive upon my own self esteem. It was getting to me. I think I was PERFECTLY clear about that.

 

Soserious1, can you read your post to me where you tell me to picture my boyfriend doing and saying all kinds of hurtful things to me without acknowledging that it is indeed full of bitterness and negativity? I can't imagine that you can.

[soserious1]

I'm quite certain re-reading the thread that I don't think River was entirely sure herself what it is she sought from posting the thread. Isn't that the point of sharing things like this? To see what comes up and resonates? To see where our meanderings take us? Apt name, River Ouse.....

I posted a thread some time ago with regard to a situation that had arisen between me and my partner. Some of the responses were constructive, others were frankly laughable.... but I got to a conclusion in the end. Albeit one even I had not expected.

 

 

That's because you insist on bestowing excessive importance on something that actually, within a long-term, serene and comfortable relationship with staying power, actually fades into complete insignificance in comparison to benefits that far outweigh the advantage of a few sweaty moments....

 

 

I can't speak for River, but you have no idea what level of happiness and serenity I have reached, in letting go of something that really, cannot be considered to be vital and dramatically important.

 

 

:laugh:

 

Where has anybody stated here that the marriage or relationship is sexless? A sexual disparity doesn't mean there is no sex. A sexual disparity means there are different levels of sex drive. It's all a question of adapting to your environment.....

 

If you think I've Zenned myself into pretending anything, you actually demonstrate an abysmal lack of knowledge of how powerful your mind is.

Sex begins in the mind. And that is where the key to serenity, contentment, compassion and loving kindness lies.

In your mind.

The moment you consider that life is un-livable without your comforts being pandered to, you internalise your ego, and make it all about 'poor you'.

 

Well all I can say to you, is - Poor you.

 

 

I'm sitting here laughing my arse off thinking about what my ex would have said if I'd told him that my desire

to caretake for him and pay his bills was going to wane over time and that him getting upset over it was just evidence

that he " consider that life is un-livable without your comforts being pandered to, you internalise your ego, and make it all about 'poor you"

 

I'm sorry but I think the vast majority of people marry with the expectation that regular sexual intimacy will be a part of their lives

and that while illness, aging or other life stages might slow that intimacy that the partners will work together to try to compromise

and met each other's needs.

 

Oh and there is no "Poor me" here, I decided that what the marriage had to offer me wasn't worth the costs to me for it and I divorced him.

[jackson30]

I'm sorry but I think the vast majority of people marry with the expectation that regular sexual intimacy will be a part of their lives and that while illness, aging or other life stages might slow that intimacy that the partners will work together to try to compromise

and met each other's needs.

 

As I used to tell my dentist when he asked if I floss regularly, once a month is regular. Of course that wasn't what he wanted. If you have sex once a week, that is regular. Maybe the two of you have different ideas about what is "regular".

 

I'm your age and I can tell you my libedo has slowly decreased for the last 10 years or so. The importance of sex in our marriage has also decreased while the other things are much more important. If this guy is so perfect in every other way then keep him and work on the other part, or compromise and be happy with less than what you consider perfect. Who knows, 10 years from now once a year might be enough for me, or maybe I'll be happy if she just snuggles next to me on the couch.

[TaraMaiden]

I'm sitting here laughing my arse off thinking about what my ex would have said if I'd told him that my desire

to caretake for him and pay his bills was going to wane over time and that him getting upset over it was just evidence

that he " consider that life is un-livable without your comforts being pandered to, you internalise your ego, and make it all about 'poor you"

 

Apples and oranges.

We're not talking about your dysfunctional relationship with a man that basically ignored your needs and input in favour of his own egotistical desires. That he used you as a doormat and basically rode roughshod over your contribution to the relationship is hardly a valid example here.

 

I'm sorry but I think the vast majority of people marry with the expectation that regular sexual intimacy will be a part of their lives

You're missing the point. River has regular sexual intimacy. Her relationship is not sexless. She has sex, it is regular and intimate.

Your gripe seems to be that if she wants it fifteen times a day, she should be able to have it. If her husband isn't obliging then it stands to reason he must be a closet porn-gazer who classically desires someone much younger and athletic.

and that while illness, aging or other life stages might slow that intimacy that the partners will work together to try to compromise

and met each other's needs.

Needs are being met. Compromises are being made. People are happy.

Where is your bone of contention here? Because try as I might - I still don't get why you don't get it.

 

 

Oh and there is no "Poor me" here, I decided that what the marriage had to offer me wasn't worth the costs to me for it and I divorced him.

Aaaaah.

There we have it.

 

 

One size doesn't fit all, you see......

What works for you, is not a general remedy or solution for others.

 

I sense (and I'm as certain as anyone could possibly be that you will dispute this) that because your relationship might have lacked in some departments, and proved to be a fatal flaw in the plan, you can't possibly see how others might actually manage to work through similar issues and come out together, smiling.

 

What you're saying is:

"My marriage failed because of so-and-so. Yours will too, because the problem is insurmountable. And if you have surmounted the problem you are fooling yourself, because all men are the same, and you will end it, because see, I did."

 

I think you envy this.

I think you resent that someone making something so fundamental actually work - grips your 5h!t and you are actually indignant that they are succeeding where you (and your ex-) failed.

I think you're raining on River's parade - because your parade was a wash-out.

 

Given that you have consistently avoided answering River when she has questioned your own physical needs being met, and your level of contentment, I think it's possible there's a raw nerve somewhere.

 

Yes, I'm sure I'm wrong. I often am. Feel free to tell me.

[xxoo]

In other words it becomes a problem when you make it a problem.

 

A disparity in sex drives is exactly that. A disparity in sex drives.

The thing is not to turn that into a problem.

 

Sex brings pleasure.

It doesn't create happiness.

 

While all of this is true (and very, very Zen), it is also true that not all people are equally prepared to live in a low-sex relationship. And that is ok.

 

River seems prepared to do so. If low-sex is a deal breaker for another poster, that doesn't make them a horrid peanut feeder. It just means it is really important to them.

 

Everyone has their own dealbreakers. It is healthy to know what they are before committing to a relationship.

[soserious1]

Apples and oranges.

We're not talking about your dysfunctional relationship with a man that basically ignored your needs and input in favour of his own egotistical desires. That he used you as a doormat and basically rode roughshod over your contribution to the relationship is hardly a valid example here.

 

 

You're missing the point. River has regular sexual intimacy. Her relationship is not sexless. She has sex, it is regular and intimate.

Your gripe seems to be that if she wants it fifteen times a day, she should be able to have it. If her husband isn't obliging then it stands to reason he must be a closet porn-gazer who classically desires someone much younger and athletic.

 

Needs are being met. Compromises are being made. People are happy.

Where is your bone of contention here? Because try as I might - I still don't get why you don't get it.

 

 

 

Aaaaah.

There we have it.

 

 

One size doesn't fit all, you see......

What works for you, is not a general remedy or solution for others.

 

I sense (and I'm as certain as anyone could possibly be that you will dispute this) that because your relationship might have lacked in some departments, and proved to be a fatal flaw in the plan, you can't possibly see how others might actually manage to work through similar issues and come out together, smiling.

 

What you're saying is:

"My marriage failed because of so-and-so. Yours will too, because the problem is insurmountable. And if you have surmounted the problem you are fooling yourself, because all men are the same, and you will end it, because see, I did."

 

I think you envy this.

I think you resent that someone making something so fundamental actually work - grips your 5h!t and you are actually indignant that they are succeeding where you (and your ex-) failed.

I think you're raining on River's parade - because your parade was a wash-out.

 

Given that you have consistently avoided answering River when she has questioned your own physical needs being met, and your level of contentment, I think it's possible there's a raw nerve somewhere.

 

Yes, I'm sure I'm wrong. I often am. Feel free to tell me.

 

 

My point here is that at the start of a relationship the sexual side of things is usually at it's highest level. If you have a really wide difference in desire levels during the honeymoon phase of a relationship IMHO that spells trouble down the road.

 

Over time the partner with the lower drive can and often does get ANNOYED with constant requests for intimacy, you don't believe this? ask the men who post regularly here who are unhappy in low sex marriages. The higher drive partner remains frustrated.. over time those conflicting desire levels can create quite a bit of friction! Arguments ensue, painful things are thought and said aloud.

 

 

The OP speaks of "compromise" from where I sit the only one doing any compromising here will be the OP, the man's told her flat out she can expect plain vanilla sex x1 per week and no more.. no compromise on that end is there? no, OP who desires sex x3 per day will be the one compromising.

 

I hope it works for her but it's sort of like getting that simply to die for pair of gorgeous shoes that are 1/2 size too small, they might stretch over time and be perfect but they might not and will cause you lots of painful blisters every time you wear them.

 

 

As to the repeated questions about my sexual life.. I'm a LOT happier now than when I was basically living as a roommate. Sex x2-3 per week plus self care.

 

Oh and since you've decided to dive into psychoanalysis of me, my motives etc, let me offer up the the thought that I think you're really working overtime to morph physical sexual intimacy into some sort of meaningless abstract concept so that you can convince yourself that it really doesn't matter.I like the physical experience of sex and I won't apologize for that nor will I be shamed for having regular sexual intercourse be high on my list of needs.

Edited May 25, 2010 by soserious1

[soserious1]

I read your past posts ... I am sorry that you had such a terrible marriage. Truly. I did NOT learn from my read that you were in a marriage with a person with a different level of sex drive than you ... I read that you were in a marriage where both people pretty much despised each other for a plethora of reasons, which you both demonstrated freely and which of course manifested in the bedroom.

 

I have a good relationship. It is not "sexless." It is not "devoid of sexual intimacy" or the other aspects of intimacy. We are very intimate! It is not ultimately defined by the frequency with which we have sex. And I have said more than once that the intensity and depth of our sex is uncommon and wonderful, even if the "mechanics" of it would fall into the category of "vanilla sex." That's the truth - I LOVE having sex with my boyfriend. And, if once a week is the right frequency for him, I am going to give a lot of thought to "demanding" more. I think he will do what I ask if he thinks I need it or to please me. The way it is now, we both have a pretty good level of sexual tension present when the time comes and I think that is exciting. At this point I'd rather have this than "dutiful" sex.

 

I initially posted to see if I could get help finding a healthy perspective upon how I was dealing with the effects of my boyfriend's lower drive upon my own self esteem. It was getting to me. I think I was PERFECTLY clear about that.

 

Soserious1, can you read your post to me where you tell me to picture my boyfriend doing and saying all kinds of hurtful things to me without acknowledging that it is indeed full of bitterness and negativity? I can't imagine that you can.

 

 

Please read carefully, I am NOT trying to hurt, offend or harm you in any sort of way.

 

Yes, when my marriage ended we despised each other but here's the thing.. Do you seriously think I married someone that I despised? Do you think the relationship was ALWAYS filled with us thinking and saying negative hateful things?

 

I'm here to tell you that it wasn't, my ex and I were once happy and in love, so thrilled we'd found our soul mates.

Right from the start though there were huge differences in our sexual drives.. over time those differences caused enough friction to become a major source of arguments

that became increasingly bitter over time.

 

All I am saying to you is that having a big difference in drives can be a problem and that going into a marriage with such a wide split in what you'd like ideally versus what he'd like can indeed be a recipe for trouble.

 

I'd like to also offer up the observation that in a true compromise neither party gets exactly what they wish but both come a bit closer to what they'd like .. ie: he wants x1 per week, you'd like x3 per day.. he agrees to x2 per week with an option for an additional quickie. What I'm hearing from you is a one sided compromise all coming from your side.

 

Truly I hope this works out for you, I really do, just fully believe him when he tells you that at best it will be x1

per week.. and understand that it most likely will become even less frequent once the honeymoon phase of the relationship passes.

[The River Ouse]

 

 

The OP speaks of "compromise" from where I sit the only one doing any compromising here will be the OP, the man's told her flat out she can expect plain vanilla sex x1 per week and no more.. no compromise on that end is there? no, OP who desires sex x3 per day will be the one compromising.

 

 

 

I said "we've talked about it" and "it is what it is." Nowhere did I say what you are attributing to me, and no conversation like that ever occurred. I did not share the details of talking about it. I will say this: From reading these fora, I get that the "popular" approach is for people to make their sexual needs (demands, even) known up front and then often engage in some kind of power struggle to see which member of the relationship will "win." I'm not going to do that. It's destructive, and it's not my nature. I have other ideas to try, knowing that I do have a GOOD sexual relationship with my darling even if it remains as it is, and taking care not to let his lack of hounding after it make me doubt myself (which, I repeat, was my main big problem).

 

I have said at least twice (including in my first post) and I will say it again:

The sex we have once a week is intense, deep, expressive, and I love it. I also just said that if once a week is his optimum interval, I would give much consideration to insisting upon a change, as the sexual tension between us at that point is exciting and I really like it. Is this not worth acknowledgment in any of your posts addressing how miserable I'll be soon?

[soserious1]

I said "we've talked about it" and "it is what it is." Nowhere did I say what you are attributing to me, and no conversation like that ever occurred. I did not share the details of talking about it. I will say this: From reading these fora, I get that the "popular" approach is for people to make their sexual needs (demands, even) known up front and then often engage in some kind of power struggle to see which member of the relationship will "win." I'm not going to do that. It's destructive, and it's not my nature. I have other ideas to try, knowing that I do have a GOOD sexual relationship with my darling even if it remains as it is, and taking care not to let his lack of hounding after it make me doubt myself (which, I repeat, was my main big problem).

 

I have said at least twice (including in my first post) and I will say it again:

The sex we have once a week is intense, deep, expressive, and I love it. I also just said that if once a week is his optimum interval, I would give much consideration to insisting upon a change, as the sexual tension between us at that point is exciting and I really like it. Is this not worth acknowledgment in any of your posts addressing how miserable I'll be soon?

 

 

ok, I am just a bitter woman,you're really lucky and I'm just jealous that I couldn't get laid even when I paid all the man's bills and begged him to let me pleasure him.

 

Is that acknowledgment enough for you? Does that satisfy?Sarcasm mode off now, I still say that if you're asking about how not to let his low desire levels do a number on your self-esteem that you need to really think this over carefully before marrying because it it was all THAT wonderful you wouldn't be having this question,this early on when things are in the new stages and still really good between you, seriously, your differences in drive are big enough at the 1 yr mark for you to have this question, to me it spells a caution flag being waved.

 

Good luck on your marriage!

Edited May 25, 2010 by soserious1

[rewe4reel]

Sex brings pleasure.

It doesn't create happiness.

 

You must not be doing it right.

[rewe4reel]

It's not just the frequency differential. There are clues in the OP's first post in this thread that there are more issues involved. He's a very conservative guy (whatever that means) and that impacts how he perceives the role of sex in a relationship.

 

Also, OP said he only does "plain vanilla" sex. But she didn't say plain vanilla was her favorite flavor or that she could go through her life only eating vanilla ice cream. I guess if you're getting ice cream less often than you want, you'll take vanilla all the time. I mean vanilla is the most popular flavor. But the way she said "vanilla" it sounded like she wasn't particularly thrilled with only one flavor. Now he doesn't have to be Baskin Robbins but why not chocolate and strawberry as well as vanilla?

 

The use of euphemisms like "vanilla" sex indicate that probably OP and her partner both have difficulties communicating their needs to each other. Maybe part of the problem is that she doesn't feel like she can say what she really wants to him because since he's "conservative" he'll get offended or something, and she's afraid of risking the entire relationship.

 

In any case what does "vanilla" sex actually mean? I'm guessing it probably means he's not into giving her oral. I hope it doesn't mean he'll only do conventional missionary style sex, that would get boring really quick.

 

I think the posters who are sensing trouble for this couple are NOT just reacting to the frequency issue. There are a number of other incompatibility issues implied in the OP, not just frequency.

[TaraMaiden]

My point here is that at the start of a relationship the sexual side of things is usually at it's highest level. If you have a really wide difference in desire levels during the honeymoon phase of a relationship IMHO that spells trouble down the road.

I get your point. You don't get mine.......

 

Over time the partner with the lower drive can and often does get ANNOYED with constant requests for intimacy, you don't believe this?

I'm not disputing some do,but that's because they see sex as vital. Others don't - because they don't.

ask the men who post regularly here who are unhappy in low sex marriages. The higher drive partner remains frustrated.. over time those conflicting desire levels can create quite a bit of friction! Arguments ensue, painful things are thought and said aloud.

That's their problem. The only reason people say painful things is through a sense of vengeance and petty spitefulness. Their frustration gets the better of them, whereas a little rational thinking might do wonders.....

 

 

The OP speaks of "compromise" from where I sit the only one doing any compromising here will be the OP, the man's told her flat out she can expect plain vanilla sex x1 per week and no more.. no compromise on that end is there? no, OP who desires sex x3 per day will be the one compromising.

River's dealt with this snippet. I'll leave that as said.....

 

I hope it works for her but it's sort of like getting that simply to die for pair of gorgeous shoes that are 1/2 size too small, they might stretch over time and be perfect but they might not and will cause you lots of painful blisters every time you wear them.

Such a shame you equate such a situation with problems, pain and self-inflicted suffering.

I find people try the shoes once, then usually avoid wearing them a second time, and opt for more comfortable shoes.

Or are you going to contradict me and tell me you'd go for the painful shoes every time, whatever it takes?

 

 

As to the repeated questions about my sexual life.. I'm a LOT happier now than when I was basically living as a roommate. Sex x2-3 per week plus self care.

2 - 3 times a week is quite a bit to some people. Whatever's normal for you.....

By 'self-care' I presume you mean masturbation?

Why so coy, suddenly?

 

 

Oh and since you've decided to dive into psychoanalysis of me, my motives etc, let me offer up the the thought that I think you're really working overtime to morph physical sexual intimacy into some sort of meaningless abstract concept so that you can convince yourself that it really doesn't matter

Ok...let me review....

I have put forward the opinion that sex is a transitory and fleeting impulse, which brings pleasure and temporary gratification, that in time, fades and becomes insignificant because at one point or another, people stop having sex altogether, and if the relationship is rich, rewarding, fulfilling and content, it little matters, because other things take priority, and sexual gratification does not equal happiness, anyway.

I never said that sex is a meaningless abstract concept, anywhere.

I said that ultimately, people attach far too much significance and importance to something fleeting....

Tell me where that synopsis is inaccurate.

 

I like the physical experience of sex and I won't apologize for that nor will I be shamed for having regular sexual intercourse be high on my list of needs.

Good, I'm glad to hear it, I hope that works out for you.

But you will just have to accept that for others, such as myself, I really can find as much contentment and fulfilment in living with less sex than I might like, with no rancour, bitterness, frustration or resentment.

At all.

And from where I'm sitting (to steal a phrase) that leaves you at an emotional and sexual disadvantage. Because by attaching so much importance to sex, you run a far greater risk of disappointment, delusion and frustration, than I do.

The likelihood of you finding a perfectly suited sexual partner, who loves it as much as you do, the way you do, when you do and how you do, are pretty remote when you consider he also has to be compatible in other ways as well. Emotionally, morally, financially, physically, ethically.....

 

Seek not every quality in one individual.

Which is what I think you're demanding......

[Lovelybird]

I did... the road it took me down was one in which I was like a mother and caretaker who also paid all the bills.

It wasn't enjoyable.. not at all.

This may sound a little harsh, you are an enabler, you made it too easy for him, spoil him to the degree he became rotten.

[soserious1]

This may sound a little harsh, you are an enabler, you made it too easy for him, spoil him to the degree he became rotten.

 

 

Men support stay at home wives all the time and as matter of course,

nobody calls them 'enablers" The reasons my ex became a stay at home

spouse were totally legit and were not central to our issues. Truth be told my ex was "rotten" when I met him, I was too blind or too stupid to see it, a fact that the divorce court judge has made sure I'll pay for via alimony till the day I drop dead. Marry in haste, repent at leisure most definitely applies.

[giotto]

 

If that's what you really want.

What do you really want....?

 

 

 

No, stavo scherzando...

[TaraMaiden]

Lo so. E per quello che non ho risposto in piu dettaglio....

[Lovelybird]

TaraMaiden, you mean Budda is a nazi in your avitar ?

[You Go Girl]

TaraMaiden, you mean Budda is a nazi in your avitar ?

 

The swastika symbol existed many years, perhaps even over a thousand, before Hitler.

It's original meaning was peace.

[Lovelybird]

The swastika symbol existed many years, perhaps even over a thousand, before Hitler.

It's original meaning was peace.

I didn't know that ! When I see that sign, I thought Hilter and nazi

[TaraMaiden]

Let's go completely off-topic, shall we...?

 

TaraMaiden, you mean Budda is a nazi in your avitar ?

 

For an intelligent person, that's really a very dumb question, Lovelybird....

If you're curious, PM me....

 

The swastika symbol existed many years, perhaps even over a thousand, before Hitler.

It's original meaning was peace.

 

it's still in use today in most Asian countries. You'll see it on street maps of cities, indicating where Buddhist temples are....

 

Sorry River Ouse....

Back O/T