Columns Feb 4, 2015 at 4:00 am

What Would You Do?


Anyone who refers to ‘primitive cultures’ has no knowledge of modern anthropology and their opinions on the topic are worth nothing.

Just thought I’d put that out there.
... ditto anyone thinking that people one can wander over to and visit with and then write about can be ‘prehistoric.’
Sean; glad you're sorted. Sorry. My projection.. My mother, could have got off her arse and worked, once us kids were at school. She didn't. My father dropped dead, at 51 yrs of age.
You sound like a lovely Dad. Nice. See more and more engaged fathers, kind fathers. I feel I was very lucky with my father. He was great.
What I had thought yesterday, re your " myth" line. Is I don't really think us in the west, know the full potency of female sexuality.
We were never given the freedom to find our own pleasure- like boys were. Even much younger women than me, write here of shame etc.
Think Cat said somewhere, that hippy's were anti vibrators. I missed that instruction, like I missed the other instructions.
My experiences with masturbatiion, by hand, were frustrating and unsatisfying. I realize now, it was my fear of my own sex.
Till these last several yrs, since a man has been absent from my life. And I'm not interested in NSA( like there really is such a thing. STD's . Pregnancy. Sounds pretty stringy to me).. I've learnt to self pleasure and dev the fantasies that go with it. And my reservations re vibrators, is its just another disconnect to our bodies. Touching our own sex, feeling the flesh-
Should have been doing this since I was a girl. Cause, it gives me a sense of potency. Before, I relied on men in my life. My loss. And no doubt, the men's loss as well ..
Guess, I just don't know if women know really if we are naturally monogamous or not. Of course, the culture sets those standards- in all our heads.
And by the sound of the stories coming up here, the standards are changing.
Gnot; have no real feeling of who you are. Your age. Whether you are a mother or not. You sem to want attention, yet I'm wary of your motivation.
To look after people or just bait them. Your call of course. I am, though, getting close to not reading what you have to say.
@438 Well said.

34 no kids, no intention to have any, shit genetics. And hey, I like to argue. Not the only one on this thread clearly. No obligation to tolerate it when people saying women are biologically programmed to be one way or the other, better or worse Same applies to similarly stupid statements about men. Socialized sure, but that distinction should be made.
Venn, thank you for your care, last night. I was very distraught- so wAsnt quite able to understand your reference. I did, however, register your concern. Love to you.
@gnot: No obligation to tolerate it when people saying women are biologically programmed to be one way or the other

Have you mentioned this to @gnot @367:

Women are by nature non-monogamous.
Gnot, far be it from me, a slightly difficult poster here- when I think it's called for.
Just be a little careful . Real people connected to these words.
gnot, I think you might be the only person on this thread asserting that women are biologically programmed to be one thing or the other.

Most of us acknowledge and respect human diversity. Some of us also make empirical observations while acknowledging the limitations of the data and the collection process and refraining from drawing conclusions about biological programming.
@394 Ciods - I believe that the miscommunication may have been that I consider bringing your vibe to bed to be a "running the fuck" action (as opposed to a response). I'd say the men who weren't kicking up a fuss about it were ok with you running the fuck. I wouldn't call that really kinky but I also wouldn't call it vanilla. Regardless, it seems that when you felt you could do what worked alone when you were with a partner, you had good sex, which was half of my point. The other half was that a woman needs to discover what she likes with a partner. Coming while your partner runs the fuck might be awesome but it's not the only way to come. And it won't work unless they're a great natural match or a great sex learner. While a woman sitting on the dick of an attractive man will figure out what to do if that man lets her run the fuck. Gorilla grip guys need their hand, and vibe girls need their vibe perhaps. And the kinky need their kink.

Thanks for complimenting my list and feedback. Great additions, I can't believe I forgot about creativity.

@405 Seandr - I consider it easiest to build a good sexual connection with partners with compatible preferences as well. But a routine of the best sensations is not my ideal. I like growing good moves with a partner. A man who I have one incredible orgasm with is not nearly the same prize as a man who I want to sex up for decades. It's like a Twix bar vs tiramisu.

Re hard cock: Yes hard cock is not necessary for penetration, let alone sex in general. I think it feels nice for most women to have some cock inside while humping a guy. I also think most women don't need a cock inside to come. But along with being useful, a solid hard on means high arousal. It was in this second sense I think an erection, or some indication of arousal with your partner's run of the fuck, some encouragement, is necessary.

Google told me about many examples of modern matriarchy. Amazonian women rulers are pop culture. Humans are not all patriarchal even today.
@Seandr - I wouldn't call a partner with compatible preferences a good lover. I think it's a choice and a skill to be a good lover. I think it's about behavior. I don't think it means having convenient feelings.
Philo, excuse me butting in, but come again? Of course skill is involved- but what the hell do you mean by" convenient feelings"?
Talking from past experience Philo, I still don't see the point of fucking a man, who hasn't a hard erection. I had to feel that hardness.
Obviously, people differ a lot.
Ms Lava - I have a keen appreciation for the ability to settle oneself after such an undeserved upset. Long may it serve you when required.
@441 We are primates, and mammals. So, no, not monogamous. Primates are notoriously non-monogamous, and as far as I am aware there are no monogamous mammals. Perhaps you know of an example?

@320 Have they performed the same study on men? What were the results? I read that article when it came out, too blurry at the moment to read it again.

Why is it a problem for married men to know that their wives need variety as much or more than men habitually claim to? I would think many would be overjoyed to learn that, given the also habitual claim that men are so much more interested in open relationships, especially married men in decades plus relationships.

@443 Hunter.
@Philophile: Yes, I agree that being a good lover is about what you do. But I've always assumed a guy can be a good lover yet still be unable to light a particular woman's spark. I think my wife broke up with such a guy just before she met me - she described him as very attractive, great abs, nice personality, competent in bed, but seems he was too much of a square to really get inside her head.
@325 Haven't we all? Yes, I've fucked gay guys. Sometimes they get curious you see. It's quite fun and a little bit of an honor really.
Gnot: things change when children come along.
Obviously, given that over time there has been a variety of cultural practices around sex, for humans, it's not programmed either way. A Harem
Situation, might very well serve both sexes, if you think about it. The wives can have their intimacy with each other and take it in turns to
Mount The Master ( MTM). And a bi wife like you.. Heaven or what?
Share the child reariNg.
And he gets to get nagged by half a dozen women, not just one.
Who really wins in that story, over time, I ask you?
@443 Curious - what did I assert? Guys have a refractory period, humans are not monogamous, virtually no animals are and certainly no placental mammals, what else?
@443 You mean the comment about women needing more variety than men? Ha! Well, yes, but I wrote that because someone else was stating things like men need more variety than women, and a tad tongue in cheek. What is true is that everyone has a strong need for novelty and variety. If you can manage to get through your entire life only having sex with one person, only thinking about having sex with one person, only masturbating to the thought of one person, and only one person - you are a goddamn unicorn, the last of your kind. If you're real lucky that person will be Twilight Sparkle.

Anyhoo, breaking it down by this gender or that gender is tricky since we are so heavily freighted with cultural baggage - in our society, that feeling and acting on it are strongly encouraged for guys and strongly discouraged for women. What you can be certain of is that women's need for variety is downplayed and undercounted - not only in surveys, anonymous or no, but in their own minds.

I don't know how you'd get a clean result out of work done on this except by hooking machines up to your junk to see what it's up to, 'cause your panties don't lie - thank god the scientists are working diligently on this front. Lemme dig around a bit and I'll see what I can find. Oh, the other thing is probably fMRI studies, possibly eye movement studies, but I don't know if they are bothering with it for something like this as the genital response work is simpler and cheaper to run. Probably harder to recruit for though, I'll grant that. Poor grad students.
Of course, one would have to Insist that some of the other wives were bi.
Now let's look at the reverse scenario. A woman and say five husbands.
Yes, sexual variety. But can you imagine the choas each morning, when they were looking for their socks or turban or whatever?
And , of course, each would want their own child. So, you know what that looks like?
Five children x9 months. Say a yr each breastfeeding .. Looking at a lotta yrs.
@453 Yeah, but can you imagine the complaining over who gets the dick at any given time? Unless all the women are primarily interested in women, it wouldn't work too well. Or if you had a guy who could energetically and thoroughly fuck lets see... 10 women, each want to fuck their husband on average what, 3x a week? 30x a week for the guy, divided by seven - ok, that's 4 or so times a day, 365 days a year. It would help if he didn't work or do anything else. That's pretty doable actually. You're right the brat pack would be out of control, but raising 6 kids all of the same age is probably about the same as 12, and certainly cheaper than separately. The Mormons seem to find it efficient. If you time it out, you can enslave the older kids into childcare and do a second round.

10 husbands? I don't want kids. Sex 4 times a day? If I didn't have to work? Done. Assume I can take two at a time, or three if I'm feeling ambitious? That gets it down to a very manageable amount.
@447 Wow, Lava, that is rough.
@436 Point taken. Please enlighten us as to the proper terms. Indigenous peoples is too vague and I don't know what else to use.
@LavaGirl: I had to feel that hardness.

Reminds me of a visit to a strip club with a female friend. She wanted to experience a lap dance, and the first woman we asked refused for essentially the same reason - she needed to feel that hardness in order to perform.
@436 That's also why I asked for the help of a cultural anthropologist earlier. None was forthcoming.
@445 There's 'good lover' and there's 'good match'. Two really good lovers (the list you guys came up with is pretty good) can just be incompatible (though I hope they'd be mature about it when they found out!). GGG or not, people have preferences and limits, and everyone has an anatomy, which definitely affects the actual experience on the ground (or bed, or backseat, or whatever.) Not to mention the ever-popular-at-Savage-Love question of libido match.

Being a good lover is a lot, but that good luck counts for a lot too.
@gnot: humans are not monogamous

I don't know whether you're open to influence on this subject, but the history of evopsych and its obsession with identifying what is "natural" to human beings consists mostly of bigots speculating about evolution and its influences on human brain design in order to make their prejudices sound like science. Evopsych has taught us that blacks are inferior, women are incompetent, and gays are an abomination. You and the Sex at Dawn crowd are playing the same game, and your evidence is no more compelling than the haters who came before you. To me, you're like a Scientologist who insists that her holy book is truly different than those of all the other religions.

This is a tired old debate, and you're not paying me enough to get you up to speed. I'll just say that "natural" is an extremely slippery concept when you attempt to pin it on an animal with a brain as complex, variable, and adaptive as ours.
@463 No one has ever shown humans as a species to be inherently monogamous. Genetic analysis of family trees are enough proof for me. You may feel social science, psychology, biology, and neuroscience are too soft. Biochemistry is a bit harder to discredit. DNA doesn't lie. Perhaps you are referring to social rather than sexual monogamy?

In a nod to Lava, the Australian Study of Health and Relationships:


"Among those who had been in the relationship for more than 12 months, about half the small number of people in agreed open relationships had had sex with someone else in the previous year. Of those in agreed monogamous relationships, about 3% of the men
and 1% of the women had had sex with someone else."…

That's per year, so over time...

I'd be curious to see how it pans out re: guys talking to their friends. Do guys talk about that sort of thing? Are 3% of the men you know cheating at any given time? Cause when I worked in an all male environment the self-reported percentage there was quite a bit higher.

My guess is it's a bit underreported in the survey.

I'm not sure why you'd have less for women, but I'd say probably issues like the LW's first 30 years of marriage combined with the far greater threat of partner violence and risk of death by hubby might be making a bit of a dent, as well as general financial dependency due to kids. That and slut shaming of course, in terms of reporting.

If you feel our culture is somehow pushing women towards infidelity, so that they are doing it against their will, then ok, perhaps women are inherently monogamous. But I kind of doubt this is the case.

Our brain is a Cro-Magnon brain (with some Neanderthal sprinkled in, if you are of European descent). Do you think that humans were default monogamous 43,000 years ago? Do you think women were?
Natural means genetic.
Jesus Gnot; what are you on?
What, now I can't say, my preference if I fucked, is for the man to have a good hard erection? I mean, cmon.. That's the best part.. What am I missing here?
A limp dick would be just of no use to me. Sorry. But I'm not backing down from this one.
If it was the only option? Then his tongue and fingers better be in god damn superior order.
That's right Gnot: no one has shown humans are inherently monogamous.
Nor, have they shown they are inherently non- monogamous.
It is not an inherent behaviour, either way. Nature doesn't give a toss how humans create their groupings. The way to procreate, that is the brief. How humans go about that procreation, nature threw open to us.
And thru out humanity, cultures have adopted different cultural standards. This is to keep some sort of order, control- whatever.
In my small corner of the planet- monogamy is the norm. Families are the norm.
In the big cities of my country and yours, other structures are evolving-
And not just cities of course. The predominate structure though, in both our countries, is monogamy. Is nuclear family structures.
This has evolved because a cis man and a cis woman are needed to make a child, and the economic imperatives.
Go to the Middle East, ( and as a woman, I'd say no to that invitation),
And very different cultural structures have evolved.
That sperm and an egg, is needed to create human life- the consistent thread.
We all( so far), make babies exactly the same way.
If you are focusing on
Non baby making people, then there is much more room to create looser structures . Monogamy, non monogamy- obviously people are creating all sorts of different ways of conducting their sexual lives. And many of these people, are
Living these different structures and procreating..
Pregnancy/ a man knowing a child is his, disease,
emotional issues( jealousy etc), economic necessities- these are real constraints. Within these constraints, people improvise.
No social/ sexual structure is inherent.
And of course, a family can be peopled by a homosexual couple. children for these families, coming into being from a variety of ways. Adoption etc..
Evolving cultural structures.
Dear Hunter, delicious one. Thank you for your strengthening words last night.
My children 's father, of course, after 30 yrs, knows how to screw a hole in my mind and explode a bomb of twisted metal. You kindness, helped me a lot,
To just extract those pieces of his craziness, and return my state to one of joy.
Venn@304my " matronly status".. Wtf? I ain't no matronly status. Catherine de
Whatever?? No fucking way. I can be a mature Lizzie. Find myself a mature Darcy. Matronly status my arse. Didn't you hear that 60 is the new 40?
Already got my fantasy Darcy in Hunter. See. Finding a flesh and bone one might be a little problematic. I'm a woman of eternal optimism.
gnot @459,

My point is that if you don’t know that already then you don’t know what you’re talking about. My supplying you with a bit of vocabulary will not make you knowledgeable about modern anthropology.
Oh hi, Alison. I don't think you're a dick, rather I think you're a Cool chick.
Thought I was just here on my lonesome. Keying out now, as Late would say.
Ms Lava - I wondered there was no pushback on that count.

There are dozens of potential Lizzies; the fact that you'd require the casting of Mr Hunter as Mr Darcy (not a role I think he'd particularly enjoy, though he might be willing to take it on for you) is way too much of a minus compared to other potential Lizzies for you to be able to overcome.

Now, if you want to be cast as a mature Lizzie in one of those innumerable sequels that seem to be popping up all over the place, I've nothing against that. Perhaps it might be one of those mysteries.

But, if this is to be the original P&P as written by Miss Austen, we can only have one Lizzie and we must have one Lady Catherine. Of all the mothers on this board, the two who come closest to being called doting are you and Ms Cute, and you are far more Lady Catherine-like in adhering to your own opinions and being willing to recommend them to others. Long before you mentioned P&P in this thread, I immediately thought of Lady C on reading your series of posts in the trans thread a week or two back.

You are so better matched to Lady Catherine than anyone else that, even if you were in the lead for the best Lizzie (a matter on which I don't think I actually have an opinion, though I grant it as a point in your favour that you do seem to be a Daddy's girl), the lack of so good a Lady Catherine would be a far greater net detriment to the cast (and, as Miss Brodie might say, if Ms Cute will allow me to mix authors, the cast must have the team spirit) than anyone's Lizzie would counteract.

It may be as well if we were to leave it here before it turns into a fiasco similar to the casting of Lovers' Vows in Mansfield Park. I shall only say that I think the assembled company would agree that I have demonstrated sufficient familiarity with Miss Austen's works to support my opinions on any such hypothetical casting. I'm sure there are many areas where I'd take your opinion over mine, but not this.
Wow gnot is getting some haters. Wonder if it's the uncomfortably realistic views or the posting volume.

evopsych and its obsession with identifying what is "natural" to human beings consists mostly of bigots speculating about evolution and its influences on human brain design in order to make their prejudices sound like science
One might almost think you don't use evopsych when it's convenient, and yell evopsycho when it's not.

I've always assumed a guy can be a good lover yet still be unable to light a particular woman's spark
Many women, I believe most woman, need only attraction and sexual tension and the ability to run the fuck. It seems you've concentrated mostly on making yourself attractive and creating sexual tension. Lots of performance-insecure men do, it's what player guides focus on. You can't learn what a woman really likes without allowing her room to demonstrate and explore though. Manly men, men trying to impress other men, need to keep the reins like a security blanket. It sounds like your wife lacked sexual tension with the last, maybe even attraction. 'Square' is very simple, but tension is created by complexity. Or maybe she wasn't that into him. But I believe that two people who are very mutually attracted and not insecure enough to squelch the others' ideas don't need anything else. A natural match, compatible sex preferences, convenient desires, is not the most necessary ingredient to me. The ability to inspire desire is much more necessary, and I think that's what "good lover" skills center on.

If you had let your undergrad gf run the fuck it may not have taken 3 shots. Or she could have been a sub. You never know.

When someone is unable to imagine that not everyone on the planet is exactly like them I don’t take them seriously when they talk about how everyone on the planet is. Doesn’t mean I hate gnot, doesn’t mean I hate you.
gnot @450,

It would help if you quoted the bit where Hunter78 states that all women have identical biological programming.
gnot @450,

It would help if you quoted the bit where Hunter78 states that all women have identical biological programming.
Alison - I don't hate you for your inaccuracies and hasty conclusions either. But I did state that I would prefer you not post to me anymore. That preference still stands. Yet you keep posting to me. And only when you disagree.
Philophile, I thought you’d just decided not to respond to me anymore. Guess I misunderstood.

Just so you know, with reflection I’ve decided that my conclusions aren’t hasty, they are based on the evidence. You might not like my conclusions but that doesn’t mean the evidence leads anywhere else. My conclusions might even be wrong, but that just means the evidence was presented inaccurately. I am not going to accept blame for inaccurately-presented evidence.

Not that you care. Just so that you know.
Alison - I was wondering if this was a miscommunication or deliberate assholery. My preference that you stop posting to me was clear. So is your disrespect of my preference. My question has been answered.
Fair enough, Venn.. yes, well- I don't get time to read whole comments sometimes, went back thru last nite. And yes, I would have bitten back hard on those words. As I now see where your venom was originating from ( my comments on that other thread).
And of course, if one ( you) were casting a real play, then yes being Lizzie would not be able to go to me. I was , though, mixing up life/ as you know.
Last Catherine was not a doting mother. She was a train wreak mother.
Grant you the sharing of opinions to others. I do that. She had a heart of stone. Nah. I don't. She was a horrible woman emotionally. Controlling, manipulative, self important. Nah. Nah . Nah.
Even though I haven't been married for 30 years. I have been for 11 years. I was a virgin, my husband wasn't. Every time we had sex or made love I was searching for something that was lacking. I wanted more, but just thought that it wasn't possible.

Then I went online and met someone. We were only friends at first but then the connection felt deeper. We met up and made love. It was amazing. I never felt anything so passionate in my life, and I know now that it exists. I do feel bad for cheating on my husband but I had to find out. If it was possible to be in an open marriage so I could see this other man I would.
See Hunter, late joiner above. I find the fag end of these threads, more often the most interesting.
Yes Venn. What is an equivalent male word for Matron? I'm guessing there ain't one. Us women, lots of words, so we get to know our " place".
General tips for people in general who don’t want to see other particular people’s comments:

• Talk to someone if you don’t want them to reply.
• Instruct someone to behave in ways you have no means to enforce. It’s futile and makes you look foolish.

• Use greasemonkey in Firefox or Chrome to filter the objectionable commenter out of the comments presented to you.
@484. So what? You just going to deny yourself , till you hit the 30 yr mark?
You've tasted the forbidden fruit, can't go back from that. Well of course, you can- you're a woman. Trained from birth not to Really go for your life.
Even though I haven't been married for 30 years-11 in my case, I completely understand what the wife is going through and her decision to stray.
I was in the same situation, except I was a virgin when I met my husband-he wasn't and even though we didn't wait until we were married I always felt something lacking when we had sex or made love. I wanted closeness and compatibility and never felt it. So I started talking to other men online, and still wasn't feeling it until I met one man who would change my life, and I wasn't even looking for it. We started talking as friends and then it grew into something more. We met up one night, and we made love. It was amazing. I never felt anything so romantic or passionate. I also never felt so loved like I did that night.
I feel bad for what I did to my husband but I do not regret it. If it were up to me I'd be in an open marriage so I could have this other man in my life.
So with that being said if I was this other woman, yes I would seek another man, especially when she says that she can hardly stand not having good sex in her entire life.
But Alison. This IS an advice coluum.
@Philophile: One might almost think you don't use evopsych when it's convenient, and yell evopsycho when it's not.

It can be fun and interesting to speculate about the evolutionary origins of human behavioral trends. There's a book called Why Women Have Sex that reports results from an enormous survey in which the authors allow themselves to theorize on how their results may have been shaped by evolutionary pressures. But they start with actual data, and when they do theorize, they make it clear that's all they're doing.

And many evopsych claims are quite obviously true - for example, the way people respond to long periods solitary confinement can be reasonably explained as a result of our having evolved a need to be with others. Or more obviously, the way they respond to being starved indicates that our species has evolved to require food.

What I'm objecting to, specifically, is gnot claiming that certain complicated, conscious, personal, higher-order decisions are governed by some sort of polygamy instinct, and that this is somehow proven by her fantasy of how all the noble savages once lived. Or her arguing that because no mammals are monogamous (false), humans can't be monogamous. This very same line of reasoning has been used to "prove" that homosexuality is unnatural. Sorry, but whether or not homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom has absolutely no bearing on whether it should be considered acceptable among humans.

I certainly don't hate gnot, although I admit I find claims of the form "You're all doing it wrong, my way is the right the way" to be annoying.

P.S. Actually, my gf was running the fuck from cowgirl before we switched it up and I went all caveman. Yes, she was a sub, more like nocutename than EricaP.
Philo; I don't hate Gnots. I know her. I remember my early 30s.. Barely. Sometimes. Time of intense ideas and opinions.. She's cool.
Yeah Hunter, and I'd like to drip some of it on you.
No time now though, luscious man, day is Beginning.
Ms Lava - You have had better hours since. I can certainly see a number of points on which you do not resemble Lady Catherine, but we have very few formerly married women who take more than common pride in sharing their strong opinions and praise their children around here. I will say, for one point in your favour, that your maternal praise seems far better deserved than hers. I should think, though, that Lady Catherine would be a rather fun role to play. You could channel all the occasions on which you wanted to be horridly but hilariously imperious and let loose. I perhaps have not have mentioned this since you've been here, but I have played Sister Mary Ignatius, and, probably because she was such a horror, found the experience quite a romp. Along with everything else, it was a good indication that I'd finally defeated the demons of involuntary conversion therapy.

Not a bad point about matronly - the closest that comes to mind is avuncular, which has different connotations but, similarly, no immediate counterpart.

The most important part is that the idea of Mr Hunter as Mr Darcy simply doesn't register. But I did give him quite a good part in my Downton cast.
It can be fun and interesting to speculate about the evolutionary origins of human behavioral trends.
Some of them, at least. The trends people are proud of especially. People get mad at Dan too when he claims everyone wants to cheat, it's just that some have self restraint.

I find claims of the form "You're all doing it wrong, my way is the right the way" to be annoying.
I dislike "you're doing it all wrong" too. I'd much rather skip to someone else's version of "the right way" so I can judge it for myself. Helps if they explain the reasons behind it too but people are usually too lazy for that..

P.S. Actually, my gf was running the fuck from cowgirl before we switched it up and I went all caveman
I wondered... but... you can run the fuck from the bottom... you weren't moving her hips with your hands, or telling her what to do, or setting the pace or depth? It was clear to both that her job was to figure out/show you what she liked? Interesting data point.

I didn't mean to criticize commenters, I was surprised that gnot got more negative feedback than positive. I didn't find anything she said very surprising. I think. She said a lot :)
@Phil: you weren't moving her hips with your hands, or telling her what to do, or setting the pace or depth

I don't recall that level of detail, but I don't think there anything goal-oriented about it, just two kids caught up in each other and very much present in the moment. I'd probably already gotten her off with my hand or tongue. This is getting me turned on.
It's getting us all turned on, Sean. Of course, I'm a little trigger happy, though.
Coming late to this party...

First, terrible advice to the 1st LW.

I'm always amazed that readers tend to take LW's at face value. I always calculate we don't know the other side of the story, and therefore, I try to maintain some measure of respect for the other person.

Now...we have a woman who in 50 years of living hadn't yet figured out how to make herself orgasm...and now we're going all hate on her husband for not knowing how to do so? Everybody is responsible for understanding their own body first...and then teaching their partners how to interact with them to their satisfaction. Concluding that the husband is simply an asshole here is way beyond necessary. SHE didn't even know who to please herself.

And while simply achieving orgasm is enjoyable...fucking a woman who isn't being pleased/never achieves orgasm is its own hell. HE's suffered here too. I'm sure he could weave a tale for us.

But, really, given her culpability in delaying her own understanding, we need to cut this husband some slack. He's been fucking a sexless woman for 30 years; that he doesn't see her as sexy may not be simple misosgyny; she may very well have been a terrible lay, and 30 years of fucking that does a number.

Finally...the advice to CHEAT? Seriously Dan? What happened to your rules about cheating?

I could go on...
Yes Timothy, you are late. I'm just here to pick up the used coffee mugs.
Good points. I suggested way way back- they both need to go fuck a sex worker each. All I got.

Hunter, before you start calling me over. For some reason the new week hasn't come up on my iPhone.
I would stick this in your butt, but I want it in my butt more. Sorry.
It's just turned up. Gotta finish here though.
Whatever you say, Philo. All good.
Timothy - I'm always amazed that readers tend to take LW's at face value. I always calculate we don't know the other side of the story, and therefore, I try to maintain some measure of respect for the other person.
It's possible to both take the letter at face value and assume the partner is respectable. Most people don't call their partner a jerk in the letter, just state the situation and their feelings. Lots of people look for a victim though. You seem to see one in him. Personally if I had to choose, I'd choose bad sex with orgasms over bad sex without orgasms. I find it as hard to criticize one who spent decades anorgasmic, as one who spent decades without hugs.
First up Venn. How did you get from me saying, I loved my Father, to me being a daddy's girl? Big jump there. If anything, I was my father's surrogate creative son. He had 4 daughters. I was no3. By then, I guess, he was ready to find some masculine energy in one of his daughters. I was a Tom boy. By adolescence, the boys let me know I wasn't one of them. My father died when I was a few months short of my 16th birthday( for which, one of my sisters gave me a copy of P&P).
Grief overwhelmed me . My sexual interactions were retarded for a few yrs.
My father shared his masculine world with me, his creative world. Books, photography, ideas.
You may not see Hunter as Darcy. I'm the one casting here. You're doing
Downtown abbey or whatever.
How did Lizzie and Darcy meet? Turning their noses up at each other.
How did Hunter and I meet ( in the virtual world)? Same way.
And what sort of characteristics predominated, in Darcy, when Lizzie met him? That's right. Arrogance and pride. And over time Darcy , having this woman stand up to him and his arrogance- started to fall for her fine, independent mind.
And she started to see the essence of Darcy, beneath the exterior. This is a 21st Century P&P.

It is my fantasy. You don't have to approve.
I would never play Lady shit face. Had far too many dried up old women in my life( ie My Mother), to ever need to play one myself.
Yes Hunter. Yes. If I was 11 yrs married and found the courage as this girl did, to Find out for herself, what is out there because my husband wAsnt connecting to my heart sex: then found an awesome guy. I'd cut my losses, and leave the marriage. Is there children? Still. I'd leave. She's a young woman.
The LW is not a young woman. Has stayed for 30 yrs.. These two need to try and sex up their story first. Leaving after creating a home and family.. Big ask. She should have left him yrs ago. I know that story.
@philo...I'm not necessarily suggesting he's a victim, I'm just saying we don't have his story here.

I'm also suggesting that laying her inability to orgasm entirely on him is a step too far. What responsibility does she bear here?

Anyway...I hope for their sake she doesn't come anywhere near following Dan's advice.

Here's mine. Be Honest. Talk. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out. But then you won't have become a dishonest person, you won't have sacrificed your own integrity.
Why can't I get to the end of the comments thread here, now. Very annoying.
People who previously asserted that sex with an orgasm could not be bad sex have broadened their perspective. Would be interesting to know why, and to know how they now understand the concept of bad sex.
Venn; all just stories really. What is it about Jane Austen, that after all these yrs, her books still grab women, mainly.
Her women are allowed to think for themselves. And are not punished for it. Poor Jane, so very far ahead of her time.
Dan Savage is a rape apologist.
To TUT I have a feeling it's not about the age she had sex, but the fact she still talks to him on FB. He wants to turn this ex into a monster rapist so she will have to delete him, who would keep their rapist as a friend? And then his ego is saved. If you can't trust her years later, don't be with her. And if she has said he's not traumatized, who are you to say otherwise. I had a very active sex life starting at 14, I was with boys & men between 12 and 28 by the time I turned 18. I actually was raped at one point. By a 16 year old boy. I am most certainly not considering the men I had sex with as rapists due to their age and never will. If their age was a problem, we wouldn't have had sex.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.