Sexuality issue questions for the older set ...

[TaraMaiden]

You must not be doing it right.

 

No. Sex is a physical pleasure. Happiness is harder to come by. You can get sexual pleasure by wan-king your rocks off looking at porn on the internet, if that's your bag. Happiness need not involve sex, and if it does - bonus. if it doesn't, you can have a great deal of happiness without the sex. Pleasure is transitory, happiness is long-term....

 

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.

Yes, and they may well have nothing to do with this issue.

My ex-husband wasn't athletic or active and had a low metabolism. He also had a sedentary job and did little on his feet. If I'm talking about one subject, the other may be a factor, but it may not be one up for discussion....

 

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?

Some people are allergic to strawberries... brings 'em out in hives..... When all you can have is vanilla, you become happy with that.

If you have a choice, go for choice. if you have one option - stay with that option and enjoy it.

 

The use of euphemisms like "vanilla" sex indicate that probably OP and her partner both have difficulties communicating their needs to each other.

 

And this is where discussions like this get thrown into the rralms of imagination. It's a bit like Chinese Whispers... someone says something inaccurate, and everyone dives on it and makes it worse.

This is complete supposition and hypothesis on your part. 'Vanilla' is just a phrase, an adjective. Why it should suddenly indicate that 'people can't talk about it' is beyond me....

 

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.

How is: 'Darling are there different flavours' any different to 'darling is there only vanilla?'

I don't get the impression she has any difficulty talking to him.

You should know as well as anyone that when we speak to anyone on any subject affecting us both, that there are ways and 'there are ways' of phrasing things. Everybody has to discuss matters in a way that is suitable and tactful. Nobody just barges in with the issue in question and demands changes....

So the above is applicable to everyone at one point or another. Unless of course, you do just barge in and demand changes. Which, unfortunately, seeing some of your posts, may well be your MO.... in which case, you might like to review your methodology.

How's it working for you?

 

In any case what does "vanilla" sex actually mean? I'm guessing it probably means he's not into giving her oral.

More guessing. More hypothesis. More supposition.... You're good at inventing things, I'll give you that.....

 

I hope it doesn't mean he'll only do conventional missionary style sex, that would get boring really quick.

I don't know anybody that does that - except perhaps a real missionary....

You looking for pointers?

 

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.

I think the posters who are sensing trouble for this couple are reading 2 and 2 and making it 16.

Implied incompatibility issues don't mean they exit. It just means you're reading a whole lot more into this and making it into a major earth-shattering dilemma when in actual fact, there's only one point of discussion - and I believe it's been covered.

[giotto]

Tara, you seem to assume that everybody should be happy in the their LTR even if it doesn't include sex. But can't you see why people long for a "complete" marriage which includes spiritual and carnal pleasures? You just dismiss people for wanting a complete relationship, for maybe putting too much emphasis on sex. Personally, I had to learn how to switch my focus from sex (maybe I should say "turn off my sexuality") if I wanted our relationship to last. Is this fair? Do we need to compromise so much, accept it and getting on with life, finding pleasure in other things? Be happy with what you got... is this what you are advocating?

[rewe4reel]

No. Sex is a physical pleasure. Happiness is harder to come by. You can get sexual pleasure by wan-king your rocks off looking at porn on the internet, if that's your bag. Happiness need not involve sex, and if it does - bonus. if it doesn't, you can have a great deal of happiness without the sex. Pleasure is transitory, happiness is long-term....

 

Perhaps someday you will have truly fulfilling sex with someone you love, and who loves you, and you will gain a more mature perspective.

[lordWilhelm]

Tara, I don't understand why you praise this state of happiness so much. Happiness is really just an internal reward for doing something right, for example being in a good relationship (or having a good session of "physical pleasure") -- however, if you're happy all the time it doesn't really mean anything anymore, it becomes a default state of being. Which is why we stop being "happy" all the time after a time in a relationship and it just means there are some aspects of the relationship that need to be worked on or could be improved.

[WalkInThePark]

Tara, you seem to assume that everybody should be happy in the their LTR even if it doesn't include sex. But can't you see why people long for a "complete" marriage which includes spiritual and carnal pleasures? You just dismiss people for wanting a complete relationship, for maybe putting too much emphasis on sex. Personally, I had to learn how to switch my focus from sex (maybe I should say "turn off my sexuality") if I wanted our relationship to last. Is this fair? Do we need to compromise so much, accept it and getting on with life, finding pleasure in other things? Be happy with what you got... is this what you are advocating?

 

giotto is right. In a good relationship all has to be there. For me this means being compatible concerning mind (intellectual level), heart (emotional level) and body (intimacy, sex). Somebody with whom you have great sex but with whom you can't talk won't make you happy. Someone who is great company but does not fulfill you sexually won't make you happy either.

I've read stories about couples who are in their 70-ies/80-ies and still have sex after a long relationship so it is still possible.

 

One thing I wonder about. He only wants sex once a week so it is said he has a low sex drive. But is there nothing to do about that, is this a unchangeable given? I mean, does he only have an erection once a week and can nothing make him have more erections? Sometimes I think that all these low libido people just sit there and wait until they will feel the urge. I personally think that libido is a muscle that you need to keep in shape. If I touch my partner or let myself be touched in a certain way, I know I will feel like sex. And it absolutely does not feel like an effort, I do it because I like to do it and with it comes the desire. It's something natural.

[carhill]

I hope the OP tries some 'hounding' of her own and reports back with the results. By her reports, they have a strong, intimate relationship. Her taking some initiative, and sharing her desire for him to do it more, could be a recipe for a positive outcome. One doesn't know unless one tries.

 

Oh, one 'man' tip. Refine the art of seduction, rather than be blatantly displaying a seeking of sex. Make love to his mind. We men do have minds, and an older man can have a quite complex one.

[You Go Girl]

Sometimes I think that all these low libido people just sit there and wait until they will feel the urge.

 

That's exactly it.

And for low libido people--that's good enough, and they're content with not thinking about sex until their body insists upon it.

They're not wrong, neither are you.

Thomas Alva Edison used to wall himself up in his lab for weeks at a time; his wife would put meals outside the door and knock on it to let him know.

Was he wrong not to be concerning himself with sex all the time?

Maybe those that don't we should be thankful for...maybe they are the thinkers and creators in this world while the rest of us are muckin like rabbits.

I was low libido for some years in my first marriage. Mommy mode? probably...and other factors involved.

Just saying that not everybody needs to be muckin like rabbits. To each their own type of thing. Each has their priorities in life. Seeing as how we don't have a population shortage, I have no problem with people who don't put sex as a top priority.

 

And Tara--you're right...happiness is not about sex. A wonderful sex life is a by-product of a good happy relationship, but is certainly not necessary for one. The important thing is communication, and that the parties in each relationship have an understanding. This is especially true because it is unlikely that everybody is going to find a person with exactly the same libido as their own.

Edited May 27, 2010 by You Go Girl

[TaraMaiden]

Tara, you seem to assume that everybody should be happy in the their LTR even if it doesn't include sex.

Again this absence of sex. Nobody here is talking about a celibate relationship.

Why do people keep insisting there is an absence of sex, when the OP has made it quite clear that is NOT the case....?

I've assumed nothing of the kind. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm merely trying to point out that a difference in sex drives does not equal incompatibility. It means there is a difference in sex drives. People in a strong loving relationship can reach a compromise, and I've reminded people that in time, the sexual urge calms down and dissipates anyway, so sex is not essential to existence.....

 

But can't you see why people long for a "complete" marriage which includes spiritual and carnal pleasures? You just dismiss people for wanting a complete relationship, for maybe putting too much emphasis on sex.

 

That's it exactly.

"Putting too much emphasis on sex.".

That's where things begin to fall apart.

This "too much emphasis on sex" is not a healthy aspect of a relationship. If there is too much emphasis, don't you see that there is the problem, in and of itself?

 

Personally, I had to learn how to switch my focus from sex (maybe I should say "turn off my sexuality") if I wanted our relationship to last. Is this fair? Do we need to compromise so much, accept it and getting on with life, finding pleasure in other things? Be happy with what you got... is this what you are advocating?

Only if you're happy and contented to maintain the relationship in this way. Remember, a relationship is a series of compromises and meeting in the middle. The above is only unhealthy if it is done unwillingly, with a heavy heart and no sense of input from the other person......

 

Perhaps someday you will have truly fulfilling sex with someone you love, and who loves you, and you will gain a more mature perspective.

(At 53, I figure I've matured all I need to.....)

 

Why on earth do you feel I don't have that now?

You have no idea how wide off the mark you are.

I am happier now, with my partner than I have ever been in my entire born days.

Why do you have a problem with that?

is it because you permit your "trouser furniture" to govern your level of happiness?

Sounds like it to me.

How's that working for you, by the way?

 

Tara, I don't understand why you praise this state of happiness so much. Happiness is really just an internal reward for doing something right, for example being in a good relationship (or having a good session of "physical pleasure") -- however, if you're happy all the time it doesn't really mean anything anymore, it becomes a default state of being

.

Not so.

You can be internally happy, even though your life may be in turmoil. The state of your life might be extremely unsettled, bringing you unease and unrest. The crisis is something that might raise your stress levels. The secret is to cultivate an inner serenity that is, despite the raging storm, immoveable.

I'm happy to have pretty much gotten to that point......

 

Which is why we stop being "happy" all the time after a time in a relationship and it just means there are some aspects of the relationship that need to be worked on or could be improved.

Just remember though that your happiness is not dependent on the presence of another person. your happiness should be achieved through your own work and diligence.

Are you in love?

Wonderful. Just let that feeling free.

Are you no longer in love?

Wonderful. Just let that feeling free.....

This is true love. being able to grasp it tightly when it's there, and being able to release it as and when the time comes, when it's time to let it go.

All the while, retaining that inner balance of contentment.

You think this is all psycho-babble and nonsense?

Fine.

I know it can be done, because you see, I'm living proof.

 

.....for low libido people--that's good enough, and they're content with not thinking about sex until their body insists upon it.

They're not wrong, neither are you.

 

Thomas Alva Edison used to wall himself up in his lab for weeks at a time; his wife would put meals outside the door and knock on it to let him know.

Was he wrong not to be concerning himself with sex all the time?

Maybe those that don't we should be thankful for...maybe they are the thinkers and creators in this world while the rest of us are muckin like rabbits.

I was low libido for some years in my first marriage. Mommy mode? probably...and other factors involved.

Just saying that not everybody needs to be muckin like rabbits. To each their own type of thing. Each has their priorities in life. Seeing as how we don't have a population shortage, I have no problem with people who don't put sex as a top priority.

 

And Tara--you're right...happiness is not about sex. A wonderful sex life is a by-product of a good happy relationship, but is certainly not necessary for one. The important thing is communication, and that the parties in each relationship have an understanding. This is especially true because it is unlikely that everybody is going to find a person with exactly the same libido as their own.

 

QFT.

[rewe4reel]

(At 53, I figure I've matured all I need to.....)

 

Age does not equal maturity.

 

 

Why on earth do you feel I don't have that now?

 

Your words scream it. It's obvious.

 

 

You have no idea how wide off the mark you are.

 

I'm happy with the mark I've aimed for. Why are you concerned about my aim rather than your own?

 

 

I am happier now, with my partner than I have ever been in my entire born days.

 

And your partner?

 

 

Why do you have a problem with that?

 

If neither you nor your partner believe that sex is an important manner of expression of love, then you are a good match for each other. Does that mean it applies to most others? No it does not. For most people a healthy sex life is part and parcel of a strong emotional love connection.

 

 

is it because you permit your "trouser furniture" to govern your level of happiness?

 

This kind of condescending "humorous" reference, in context, suggests that you are unhappy, and quite bitter, and sexually dissatisfied, but have not quite resigned yourself to it; and are obsessed with pretending you are not sexually dissatisfied.

 

 

Sounds like it to me.

How's that working for you, by the way?

 

This also fits in with your pattern--you believe if others are unhappy that would increase your happiness. Misery does love company. Excuse me if I opt out of your pity party.

[TaraMaiden]

:laugh:

 

priceless.......!

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

This kind of condescending "humorous" reference, in context, suggests that you are unhappy, and quite bitter, and sexually dissatisfied, but have not quite resigned yourself to it; and are obsessed with pretending you are not sexually dissatisfied.

 

Really? What a lame analysis. The "humorous" reference seems to clearly suggest that she found YOUR mean spirited and laughably off - based post to be ... funny.

 

This also fits in with your pattern--you believe if others are unhappy that would increase your happiness. Misery does love company. Excuse me if I opt out of your pity party.

 

Haha.

 

Misery loves company? Pity party? I've read a lot of Tara Maiden's posts here. I never get self pity, and I always get that she is helpful, honest and supportive to others. She's also often real funny.

 

Dude, you might be the undisputed king of LS when it comes to making up ridiculous scenarios and attributing them to people who post here.

 

Sure, SOME people may be delusional about their own situations in life. Even given that, their perception of their own life is highly likely to be far more accurate than yours. You don't seem to have a lick of insight, you're a terrible debater, and also you seem to be coming from a really mean place.

 

You're actually married? REALLY? Now there's a potential opportunity for a pity party.

 

Now I crown thee ...

[Mme. Chaucer]

Tara, you seem to assume that everybody should be happy in the their LTR even if it doesn't include sex. But can't you see why people long for a "complete" marriage which includes spiritual and carnal pleasures? You just dismiss people for wanting a complete relationship, for maybe putting too much emphasis on sex. Personally, I had to learn how to switch my focus from sex (maybe I should say "turn off my sexuality") if I wanted our relationship to last. Is this fair? Do we need to compromise so much, accept it and getting on with life, finding pleasure in other things? Be happy with what you got... is this what you are advocating?

 

I'm not going to speak for Tara, but I believe that everybody should be happy in their LTR ... or not be in it. And I do NOT mean that in a cavalier way. I take marriage or similar commitment very seriously.

 

A hackneyed, overused cliche from the "recovery" community, of which I am a member:

 

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change (other people), the courage to change the things I can (me), and the wisdom to know the difference."

 

In this context, that would advise that one can only work on one's self in a relationship. If you cannot change your own expectations, behavior, perspective, whatever in a way that brings you to a happier place in the relationship ... then perhaps it is time to not be in the relationship any longer.

 

Sure, we can hope that our partner will work on themselves, will change, but he / she very well might not. So, we are left with the choice: to find happiness within the reality of that relationship with that individual as they REALLY ARE, or to go.

[rewe4reel]

Really? What a lame analysis. The "humorous" reference seems to clearly suggest that she found YOUR mean spirited and laughably off - based post to be ... funny.

 

I guess that's why she argues with everyone who believes that a healthy sex life is an important aspect of a loving relationship. I'm sorry you believe that to be a mean spirited analysis but it's fully explanatory, and it's completely accurate.

 

 

Haha.

 

Misery loves company? Pity party? I've read a lot of Tara Maiden's posts here. I never get self pity, and I always get that she is helpful, honest and supportive to others. She's also often real funny.

 

 

If you believe like she does that a healthy sex life is not a very critical aspect of a loving relationship, then I can understand why you would feel so defensive on her behalf. Or more accurately if you like she wanted others to believe that she really believed that, even if you did not really believe that, then I could understand why you would feel so defensive on her behalf.

 

Well what is it? Do you like she believe a healthy sex life is not really important as part of a loving relationship? Again I would have to disagree with you. But you know what? If you want to live a relatively chaste life, be my guest.

 

 

Dude, you might be the undisputed king of LS when it comes to making up ridiculous scenarios and attributing them to people who post here.

 

That hasn't really been tested, because no one really has to establish what is a correct deduction and what is incorrect. What you just posted is a perfect example: You simply declare that I make up "ridiculous scenarios" yet you do not give a single, verified example. So, what you're actually doing is known as an "ad hominem" attack, and indeed, you're guilty of the supposed offense that you wish to attribute to me.

 

I will speculate, deduce, that you are not particularly an emotionally happy person, you are troubled, probably have problems in your relationship, if you have one; have a reasonably high degree of resentment towards men, perhaps your own partner if you have one, or other men in your life, or in your past.

 

"Ridiculous"? Maybe. I only have your posts to deduce anything from. What do I base my deduction on? Your posts are bitter. You feel the need to defend someone, a woman, Tara Maiden, whose entire position is patently ridiculous--i.e. that sex is not an inherently important aspect of love, in most people's relationships. Not that everyone can achieve that, but it is certainly an ideal to ascribe to. And it is not only that position that is patently ridiculous, it is her notion that she cannot be happy without browbeating any and all other persons into accepting that a healthy sex life should not be important to themselves, and in fact, castigating them if they state the contrary.

 

She is not a happy person. You are not a happy person.

 

Happy people do not question the importance and value of a strong, healthy sex life as an important part of their loving relationship with their spouse or significant other. They certainly do not attempt to justify their denigration of a normal, healthy sex life under the guise of mysticism, enlightenment, Buddhism, or some other distraction.

 

A relationship in which sex is unimportant is NOT "better" than or even anywhere close to being as good as a relationship where it IS important. I have no idea what sort of life turmoil would bring anyone to the point where they would feel compelled to ceaselessly proselytize for such an obviously counter-intuitive world-view. But expecting anyone else to willingly share in it borders on the delusional.

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, SOME people may be delusional about their own situations in life. Even given that, their perception of their own life is highly likely to be far more accurate than yours. You don't seem to have a lick of insight, you're a terrible debater, and also you seem to be coming from a really mean place.

 

Tell me precisely, and without reference to ad hominem attacks, what in this post you think is "ridiculous" or inaccurate, and why.

 

You can start with straight up telling me whether or not you think a healthy sex life is an important part of a loving relationship for most people; next, whether it is important to you personally; finally, whether you believe that people who think sex is important in their relationships are somehow inferior to those who don't. Then you can explain how you arrived at these conclusions.

 

 

 

 

You're actually married? REALLY? Now there's a potential opportunity for a pity party.

 

Now I crown thee ...

 

Yes, I "really" am married, to a woman who actually ENJOYS sex, and doesn't claim that it's an "unimportant" part of a loving relationship.

 

In other words, a normal woman.

 

I am thankful for that. Very thankful.

[rewe4reel]

I'm not going to speak for Tara, but I believe that everybody should be happy in their LTR ... or not be in it. And I do NOT mean that in a cavalier way. I take marriage or similar commitment very seriously.

 

Continually chasing happiness is the hardest way to ever catch up with it.

 

 

A hackneyed, overused cliche from the "recovery" community, of which I am a member:

 

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change (other people), the courage to change the things I can (me), and the wisdom to know the difference."

 

"Other people" are not "things." Neither is "me" a "thing."

 

 

 

In this context, that would advise that one can only work on one's self in a relationship. If you cannot change your own expectations, behavior, perspective, whatever in a way that brings you to a happier place in the relationship ... then perhaps it is time to not be in the relationship any longer.

 

I don't think this kind of self-centered attitude--"me me me"--is very helpful in terms of relationship dynamics. Whoever told you you could only work on one's one self in a relationship had it all wrong. Also you are not trying to bring "you" to a happier place, aren't you trying to bring "us" to a happier place?

 

 

Sure, we can hope that our partner will work on themselves, will change, but he / she very well might not. So, we are left with the choice: to find happiness within the reality of that relationship with that individual as they REALLY ARE, or to go.

 

Good relationships are much more than two individuals working on themselves, individually. That's more like two isolated individuals who happen to be in physical proximity and do things together from time to time. People who always think in terms of the individual are generally not very good at relationship-building.

[TaraMaiden]

I guess that's why she argues with everyone who believes that a healthy sex life is an important aspect of a loving relationship. I'm sorry you believe that to be a mean spirited analysis but it's fully explanatory, and it's completely accurate.

Each individual must assess the importance of it for themselves. If we can make it run compatibly with our partner, that's wonderful.

if a partner has to make adjustments for the other, and resents the modification and does so unwillingly - that's unhealthy.

if a partner has to make adjustments for the other, and comes to the conclusion that they are content to do that and can, and does find fulfilment in other ways, that's healthy.

Sex eventually takes a back-burner and ceases to be of any primary importance in a relationship, anyway.

What of the above is incorrect?

 

 

If you believe like she does that a healthy sex life

This is what the whole discussion hinges on. An individual's own definition of what a 'healthy sex life' is for them.

It's not a 'one size fits all' and sometimes, even an individual has to adjust their own perception of what that is......and if it tsakes adjustment to maintain a relationship and make it work to the advantage and fulfiment of both, then that's as things are.

Listen, people always have chioces, and they basically come down to 'stya' or 'go'.

.

 

Well what is it? Do you like she believe a healthy sex life is not really important as part of a loving relationship? Again I would have to disagree with you. But you know what? If you want to live a relatively chaste life, be my guest.

Again, this 'chaste' crap. Quality, not quantity..... Don't know why you don't get this.....A person could have sex once a month, and it might be enough for them. Doesn't make them chaste....or even near chaste. It makes them happy to have sex once a month. That's normal for them.....

 

 

That hasn't really been tested, because no one really has to establish what is a correct deduction and what is incorrect. What you just posted is a perfect example: You simply declare that I make up "ridiculous scenarios" yet you do not give a single, verified example. So, what you're actually doing is known as an "ad hominem" attack, and indeed, you're guilty of the supposed offense that you wish to attribute to me.

No, you basically deride my assertion an consider what I say is utterly ridiculous and without foundation, and you dismiss my comments as inaccurate and untrue.

This, without knowing me, knowing my partner or seeing how our lives are panning out.

You dismiss my input as pure fantasy and totally unbelievable, simply because you could not imagine doing the same, and you find the premise impossible.

That's not my problem.

That's yours.

 

I will speculate, deduce, that you are not particularly an emotionally happy person, you are troubled, probably have problems in your relationship, if you have one; have a reasonably high degree of resentment towards men, perhaps your own partner if you have one, or other men in your life, or in your past.

Well, for my part, you deduce wrong, Sherlock....This is why I say that however true you believe your aim to be, you are far off the mark. You claim to be happy with your aim.

Really, I'm telling you - your sights are way off.

I'm here doing it....

 

"Ridiculous"? Maybe. I only have your posts to deduce anything from. What do I base my deduction on? Your posts are bitter. You feel the need to defend someone, a woman, Tara Maiden, whose entire position is patently ridiculous--i.e. that sex is not an inherently important aspect of love, in most people's relationships.

I haven't actually said that anywhere.

What I have said is that sex ceases to be of primary importance, and that people need to make adjustments in relationships they see the advantage of maintaining.

If a relationship has so many advantages that a compromise on sex is advisable because the relationship is so rich in so many other ways - it's worth making those adjustments.

If the relationship on the whole, is simply not worth maintaining for many reasons, including the sex, then quit it.

I've seen many posters here complaining about their relationships - but maintaining that even though other matters are awry, "The sex is great".

Well, really, do you think sex will hold it together in the long run?

 

 

Not that everyone can achieve that, but it is certainly an ideal to ascribe to. And it is not only that position that is patently ridiculous, it is her notion that she cannot be happy without browbeating any and all other persons into accepting that a healthy sex life should not be important to themselves, and in fact, castigating them if they state the contrary.

no, what I'm saying is to not attach any permanent importance to it, because ultimately things change, physically. People modify their sexual input over time. And invariably, in a relation a disparity occurs. It's bound to. No two people can feel the same way, for the same duration of time, to the same intensity. can't be done.

At one point, one person (A) may find their desire levels waning and fading to something less than it has been.

At this point - if they permit themselves to do so, or allow it to happen - the other person (B) may become frustrated, resentful and alienated form their partner.

This can be the 'make or break' point.

if a relationship, however, has become so rich, full and satisfying that person B finds the thought of leaving it a far greater disadvantage than staying, then they are the ones who have to come to terms with, and accept a new level of things.

B can learn to be completely content and fulfilled, and enjoy the relationship for the whole benefit it brings, rather than focus on the fact they aren't getting theirs as much as they want.

If they can't move past this - then they're attaching excess importance to something that can be overcome, adjusted and modified....

 

She is not a happy person. You are not a happy person.

:laugh:

Permit me, if I may, to be the judge of that... I think I can probably tell if I'm happy or not....

Hnag on. Let me check.....

Yup. I'm happy!

 

Happy people do not question the importance and value of a strong, healthy sex life as an important part of their loving relationship with their spouse or significant other.

I'm not questioning it, though, am I? I have my answers and am completely content with them.....

 

They certainly do not attempt to justify their denigration of a normal, healthy sex life under the guise of mysticism, enlightenment, Buddhism, or some other distraction.

I'm not going to go into this, because it would steer the discussion away from the main topic in hand.

All I will say is that you are showing an ignorance of fundamental basic teachings and I'm not about to discuss that here.

 

A relationship in which sex is unimportant is NOT "better" than or even anywhere close to being as good as a relationship where it IS important.

You say.

And this demonstrates how vital sex is to you.

I hope your wife can maintain her libido levels to your satisfaction.

Hell I hope you can maintain yours to hers.

Or yours, even.

But would you ever admit it on forum if this flipped in any way?

Nope.

I very much doubt it.....

 

Tell me precisely, and without reference to ad hominem attacks, what in this post you think is "ridiculous" or inaccurate, and why.

 

BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO I AM OR HOW I LIVE. What I am saying is accurate, and your twisting it doesn't make it any less so.

 

 

You can start with straight up telling me whether or not you think a healthy sex life is an important part of a loving relationship for most people

back to "Every individual is different, and a healthy sex life' varies in definition...."

 

next, whether it is important to you personally;

It is as importnt as I have permitted it to be within my own relationship and I am completely happy with that.

I have given it the importance and prominence I 'm happy to give it.... It's a question of adjusting one's priorities....where needs be.

 

finally, whether you believe that people who think sex is important in their relationships are somehow inferior to those who don't. Then you can explain how you arrived at these conclusions.

Tell me exactly and precisely where I have either said or implied that.

Then tell me how you've arrived at yours.

 

Yes, I "really" am married, to a woman who actually ENJOYS sex, and doesn't claim that it's an "unimportant" part of a loving relationship.

You expect this to remain a constant do you? You think that as things stand, they will always be?

Do come in and tell us if things alter, won't you?

 

 

 

In other words, a normal woman.

What is a 'normal' woman? If you did a straw poll here of what sex levels constitute 'normal' I think the sheer variety might make you re-think your evaluation of 'normal'.....

I am thankful for that. Very thankful.

enjoy it while it lasts.....

 

Continually chasing happiness is the hardest way to ever catch up with it.

I've chased nothing.

It is wuite happily curled up in my lap....

 

 

I don't think this kind of self-centered attitude--"me me me"--is very helpful in terms of relationship dynamics. Whoever told you you could only work on one's one self in a relationship had it all wrong. Also you are not trying to bring "you" to a happier place, aren't you trying to bring "us" to a happier place?

You can only bring the 'we' to a happier place, if you yourself are happy in the first place. You cannot bring the we to a happier place if you yourself are not there yet.

You can't help your partner up the mountain if you are a plateau below them. You can only do it effectively from above. Achieve your own personal fulfilment and serenity. Then you can effectively work towards the 'happy "us" 'Even MC looks at the two individuals separately. MC helps two individuals work on themselves, to help the whole.

 

Good relationships are much more than two individuals working on themselves, individually. That's more like two isolated individuals who happen to be in physical proximity and do things together from time to time. People who always think in terms of the individual are generally not very good at relationship-building.

 

Read this.... It's wise counsel.....

Edited May 28, 2010 by TaraMaiden

[giotto]

I'm keeping out of this...

[califnan]

I'm keeping out of this...

 

---------------

 

I know .. Tara and Reel .. what a combo .. ha

[rewe4reel]

Read this.... It's wise counsel.....

 

Kahlil Gibran? Oh come on.

 

Surely you can do better than that if you want to claim some dime-store "enlightenment."

 

Now let's talk about Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix, and Peter Maxx.

[TaraMaiden]

In the whole of my post, that's all you could come up with?

Seriously.....?

 

Now let's talk about Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix, and Peter Maxx.

Naaah. Let's not..

Frankly, I'm done with this.....

 

I wish you well in your relationship and a sex life which has you both equally satisfied and fulfilled.

I hope it remains frequent, constant, important and prominent for you both, equally and on level libidos, for as long as you both want it to.

 

Any problems, feel free to come back.

 

I for one, solemnly and seriously promise to never make any derisory, incriminating, sarcastic or belittling comment, in any way shape or form.

Because I swear to you as I live and breathe, sure as eggs is eggs....

 

Change will happen.

I fervently hope it won't become a deal-breaker for you.

 

I'm absolutely serious here, and I assure you, there is no sarcasm intended.

Edited May 28, 2010 by TaraMaiden

[TaraMaiden]

I'm keeping out of this...

 

Very wise.

So am I......

 

---------------

 

I know .. Tara and Reel .. what a combo .. ha

 

2They all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the world was round"......

[jackson30]

Very wise.

So am I......

 

 

 

2They all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the world was round"......

 

Christopher Columbus was a seaman second class

When I told him that the Indies could be found

By sailing to the West instead of sailing to the East.

I advised him that I thought the world was round.

(I really thought so.)

 

And then I sent him down to ask good Queen Isabella

To pawn her jewels for all their worth.

Next day he set sail, and as everyone knows,

He fell off the edge of the Earth.