The obvious answer is, you probably haven't fucked enough dudes, CUMM. It's overwhelmingly unlikely that he's the best-for-you out of, say, 100 random guys. Even if he was 1-in-100, math says you'll probably run into someone as good in bed as he was. If you don't want to fuck 100 guys to find the magic one, I have good news: On average, you'll find him within 69 dudes.

I wanna know which religions we're talking about with all this premarital fucking going on. I mean, if both their faiths are allowing sex out of wedlock, who needs to convert?

@2 Judaism

@1,

On average, you'll find him within 69 dudes.

I'm assuming that was intentional... well played!

People of all faiths fuck premaritally even if they strictly speaking aren't supposed to.

In the late 1970s pre AIDS and herpes, while living in NYC my brother had sex with 300 men in two years before he met his boyfriend and now husband.

And they're monogamous for over 30 years.

Not saying you or anyone else needs to make it with hundreds to find a sexual match.

My brother and his significant other met through friends and got to know each other cccband hung out as friends before getting it on.

Something my brother didn't do or get to with many of those other men, although there had been others he had dating relationships with who didn't work out as a good fit for a boyfriend.

I'm 66, and one thing I've learned from my romantic life and those of my friends is that if someone isn't working out on enough levels, the magic word is "next!"

Add up all our love lives and that's hundreds of years of experience and there's always been a "next," if needed.

Had to kick to the curb boyfriends who weren't a good fit sexually, or emotionally.

But there's always a "next."

However, if a friend with benefits keeps you from sorting through the "nexts" you might want to hold off on the booty calls.

@4 I'm a principled man - it's just how the numbers lay. But life works out funny sometimes.

I just mentioned a long ago letter from a sister-fucker in another comment and his question was somewhat similar. As I remember it, he had gone away to college and started fucking girls other than his younger sister, but the sex was never as good and he always couldn't wait to head back home and start fucking his little sister again. Dan's advice, in my imperfect memory, was that he was probably in love with his sister and he needed to stop fucking her and end their relationship before he could move on and fall for a girl with whom sex would not be a crime.

That seems like better advice than the FWB suggestion here. The LW probably needs to get over her ex before she can really move on to a new guy. And if the new guys really aren't as good in ways that won't improve as they get to know what turns her on, yes, she needs to break things off and see who's next.

Having mentioned an old sister-fucker letter twice today, I feel the need to tell anyone assuming that I'm a pervert obsessed with fucking my own sister that I may be a pervert, but I have no sister, so there. :-P

@ 8

The LW in this case did break it off with her ex. And hasn't gone back for over a year. And still the problem remains. So how to get over sexual longing that lingers for that long? I don't have an answer to that either, btw. Probably is best, as others have said, just to keep trying until she finds that elusive chemistry with another. Or wait until you're so damned pent-up, that almost anything/anyone will do...

@1: "On average, you'll find him within 69 dudes."

OTOH, if you want to maximize the chances of picking the best out of 100 lovers (assuming once discarded, you don't get a redo), you should sample 37% ( 1/e ) of them, and then stop with the next one that beats the best of the first 37%.

P.S. acknowledging that you are using this strategy is likely self defeating unless ubernerds are your thing.

@10 your note turned me on.

I still pine sexually for an ex-boyfriend I dated for 7 months over 5 years ago. Some sexual connections are really rare. Oh well.

For those who wonder, I agree that the ex was Jewish and want to raise his kids with a Jewish identity. My guess is that he's not very religious.

The most obvious answer is that CUMM needs to have sex with more men, but I would note that she indicated that she has had sex with a "few" men since her ex. If we assume that she had sex with a couple of men before her ex, than she's already had sex seven or eight guys. That's not a big number, but enough that we can appreciate her disappointment in not finding someone as good in bed as her ex. Perhaps CUMM might have a bit more causal sex simply to prove to herself that she can find good sex from someone other than her ex.

Your only other alternative CUMM is to rethink your deal breakers. The price of admission to be with this guy is to convert and have a family. At 24 or 25 you decided that wasn't for you, so you looked for something that was a better fit. Now you're 28, and it sounds like you're reconsidering. Kids are forever, and if you really know that they are not for you, then I wouldn't consider contacting your ex, but if you're more open to the idea than you were before then maybe you should reach out to him.

Also, you're 28? Don't worry. You still have PLENTY of time to find someone where the sex-chemistry is extra-good. Some people don't find that connection until their 30s. Some, their 40s. You never know. They key? Personal confidence, good communication, and intelligent sex-positivity. Look for those in a guy and you'll be closer to some fun stuff... ;>)

The ex might be the best you'll ever have, but how will you know if you don't MOVE ON? DO NOT go back, FWB is a terrible idea! All that will do is keep you locked in an old unsatisfying pattern. There is a whole world full of men out there and statistically they can't ALL be lousy lays. Possibly, take a an honest look at the criteria you are using to choose these mediocre mannies. Join a gym, sex is better when you're in shape. Don't lose faith. Kiss a few more frogs. ALSO, read up on good sex. In case you haven't noticed, it takes two to tango, so you're at least 50% responsible if the sex sucks.

@11: I dated a long succession of straight-A valedictorian nerds. Proposed to one and married another.

Geek Power!

@ 10 - But if you find him quickly after the 37th, you'd be depriving yourself of the chance to sample all the other dudes!

I'm just promiscuous by nature. I would have to go through the whole lot of them before making a decision.

@ 17 - Yes. When she started with him, they were both young and they probably learned together over a lengthy period of time, so by now he knows exactly what she wants and how she wants it. The LW must ask herself if the sex with her ex was always that good, or if they fumbled a bit in the early days. Then she must give the next guy she's really interested in the chance to learn as well.

My advice to the Letter Writer: Whatever strong bond that keeps you pining for your off and on ex boyfriend, you will find that with someone else. Powerful emotional bonds make the sex better. I would also be assertive to your current or future lover of what you like and what you don't like in intimacy. One thing I learn as a guy is that each women's body is different in likes, dislikes, whether they like vaginal penetration or clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm. I don't really learn unless I asked, or more likely my lover would tell me what they like to be touched, how much foreplay they need to get aroused. My final piece of advice is that a lover has to be open with one's feelings, and the little things add up, from touching to smell, body type etc. that can lovemaking very powerful..

No, no, no, don't go back and have sex with him! I've been down this sad, circular road. Don't neglect other FWBs for the one sexual connection you feel is perfect. All it'll do is distract you from other guys, decreasing your odds of meeting someone who's sexually and emotionally compatible, and thus further convincing you that you'll never be satisfied except with one dude.

...Maybe. I mean, do what you want. Maybe screwing him again will convince you he's not as great as you remember. All I can say is, I forgot my ex for whom I would have swum across the Atlantic when I found someone else and realized, "Oh. He's a better person AND he's really good at sex. It's possible after all!"

Seriously, you have all of my sympathy because I know the impossible-to-beat-back conviction that a certain person, and only that certain person, can really turn you on. It's an illusion. I promise. If you don't want to keep having desperate rebound sex, try to crush on some hot actors/porn stars. Sounds stupid but it was my first baby step in getting my mind (and sexual imagination) off my ex.

PS Dan, even though I strongly disagree on this one, I think you're great. Thanks especially for HUMP!

More terrible advice. What's up, Dan? CUMM doesn't say she was in love with this guy, but "in love" and "oxytocin" are pretty much indistinguishable. What motivation would CUMM possibly have to try out different guys, and give them a chance -- multiple chances -- to learn her body, when she's already getting the best sex of her life from someone unsuitable? Fucking her ex would only keep CUMM sexually, and emotionally, tied to him. Every fuck would reactivate the romantic feelings and serve as a painful reminder of the sex not being as good with other men.

CUMM, continue staying away from your ex. Keep him in the wank bank if need be, but keep auditioning replacements, and help them get better by telling them what you like. I know this feels awkward and demanding, but trust me, it's the best way of turning an okay lover into a really good lover. There ARE other good fucks out there. It took me far more than a year and a half to find sex on the same quality level as my ex-husband, but it did happen. I know it can for you too.

(Wondering why Dan's advice in this case wasn't "smoke weed." Pot can easily upgrade sex from mediocre to satisfying.)

Also disagree 100% with Sublime @13. Having kids is NOT a fair price to pay for great sex.

@24/BiDanFan: That's not actually what I said.

That actually is what you said.

"Your only other alternative CUMM is to rethink your deal breakers. The price of admission to be with this guy is to convert and have a family. At 24 or 25 you decided that wasn't for you, so you looked for something that was a better fit. Now you're 28, and it sounds like you're reconsidering. Kids are forever, and if you really know that they are not for you, then I wouldn't consider contacting your ex, but if you're more open to the idea than you were before then maybe you should reach out to him."

There is no indication whatsoever that CUMM has rethought her decision to not have kids. Can you offer any evidence whatsoever, other than age and possession of ovaries, that she has?

Besides which, unless Dan has fiddled the numbers again, she is 28 now and they broke up a year and a half ago. So at age 26 1/2 she still did not want kids.

Chemistry is a very rare thing indeed. Though you might feel like you'll never find it again, I assure you that you can. I had amazing chemistry with an ex, and didn't think I'd ever find chemistry like that again. It took about 3 years and over 100 women, and many post coital missing the good sex to find it, but I did. Read Moby Dick. Keep searching for your white whale, and never, EVER settle for less

CUMM mentions a couple different things, mediocre sex and sex that is not as good as with that one guy. These are hopefully two different things. If the issue is that the few sex partners she's had since the great-sex-ex have been unsatisfying, that's either bad luck (most likely) *or* something LW is contributing to herself (still being stuck on ex, not communicating desires effectively, lacking enthusiasm for new partners, etc.). If she doesn't like the idea of the numbers games of sampling people until she finds a satisfying sex partner, maybe take the opposite approach of having slightly longer courting periods to establish whether there's strong physical chemistry, then skip the sex altogether if there's not, rather than wasting time in a mediocre relationship.

OTOH, if her goal is to find a sex partner as perfect as great-sex-ex, there are no guarantees, unless perhaps she is open to doing as much sampling as needed and then also willing to prioritize great sex over all other qualities (maybe she is willing to do these things, I don't know). A couple of my most satisfying sex partners were guys I'd never, ever want to date, but they sure blew my mind in bed. But a fair number of partners I've been with have been really great and satisfying in bed (just not THE GREATEST) and also good matches as dating partners, and that combo is a higher priority for me. In such cases, I don't feel like I'm settling. For me, settling would be fucking an asshole who's especially amazing in bed.

@26/BiDanFan: Seriously, why so argumentative? First, like everyone else, I stated that CUMM should date/fuck other men. In fact, I thought that she might want to do so more actively. Second, you seem to be reading this out altogether: "Kids are forever, and if you really know that they are not for you, then I wouldn't consider contacting your ex."

Why you need to get into a back and forth, given that statement, I don't know. Nor do I get why I have to provide evidence for my sense that at 28 she might be reconsidering her previous position. Asking CUMM whether her basis for reaching out to her ex is founded in a change in what she wants is perfectly logical and fair. As is my belief, that if she hasn't, Dan's advice for approaching him for causal sex isn't a good idea.

Sublime @30: Well, first answer to "why so argumentative" is work stress, so apologies for that creeping into my SL break.

Second answer is because, as a child-free female whose only regret is not taking cash bets with the legion of patronising jerks who confidently told me "You'll change your mind," I take strong exception to baseless assumptions that women will change their minds about having kids. Which is what you seemed to be implying, given that CUMM never mentioned anything about "reconsidering." The only possible bases for this assertion, without any evidence, are projection and sexism. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former, but you should know it can come across as the latter.

Third answer is, at the risk of sounding like Dan, if CUMM had indeed, independently of the sex issue, come to change her mind about kids -- yes, some women do, but that's not justification for assuming any or all women will -- then certainly it would have occurred to her that there was now no reason she couldn't go back to her ex.

I got no sense that she was reconsidering anything, only that she missed having great sex. Which is, you know, what she said.

Hockey @28: If you went through women at that quickly a pace, no wonder so few of them lived up to your standards. Sex the first time with a new partner is rarely as good as sex with someone who's spent years exploring your body and learning your turn-ons. What you were doing is expecting someone to ace a test when they'd only looked at page one of the book. I bet if you'd put in a few months, Woman 6 or Woman 22 could have blown your mind. I hope CUMM gives her lovers at least a handful of chances to show their potential. Sure, sometimes sex the first time is obviously hopeless, but I've had lovers who were "okay" the first time and quickly progressed to "amazing." Writing them off after one fuck would have been my loss.

Life is compromise. The best sex of my life (so far) was some crazy dude I'd never had married. So good. Mmm. But you know, you have to look at the total package. I'm sorry lw, I wish we could order our mates a la carte. We can't. You have priorities in a long term mate. This guy doesn't meet it. Keep going or revamp your priorities. But do it with your eyes open.

Some men know what they are doing right away and are fantastic in the sack. There aren't many of those. Some men can be taught. Some are just lousy lays.

I second what BDF has been saying about multiple sexual encounters making for better sex, I think especially for those of us with clitorises and vaginas. I know that for me sex is much better now than it was when I first started fucking my husband. They know your body and you know theirs and most likely you both have relaxed a bit about bodily foibles that can make people nervous in a new sexual relationship. I think if she finds someone she likes for other reasons, she should give him more than a few sexual encounters before writing him off. Maybe the sexual chemistry will build. Maybe not, but since she isn't ready to convert or have kids she should avoid her ex like the plague. And @2Absurdist I second Sportlandia's idea, Judaism is a good guess for a partner, especially for a male partner who wants to raise their children Jewish (Judaism is inherited from the mother, so even without my husband being Jewish my kids are but his wouldn't be).

@MizM @35 I think this is one of those things that is different for different people. I have a vagina and clitoris but can only thing of one time ever in my life when the sex went from just okay to great and that was between the first encounter and the second encounter, not like months into it.

For me, if I like someone's scent and how they kiss, I will almost always enjoy having sex with them, whether it is really good or really great. And if I don't enjoy kissing them and their scent doesn't turn me on, the sex will almost always be just okay (or worse). There have been rare exceptions.

I can't tell from the letter if CUMM gave the new guys times anyway. It sounded more like all were mediocre (which I would consider either a run of bad luck or a sign that she needs to up her own sex game) *or* maybe she is so focused on finding someone as sexually satisfying as the ex, maybe even in very specific ways, that everyone seems mediocre in comparison. I think it would be healthier for her to focus on finding satisfying sex, period. Don't settle for mediocre, but don't compare everyone to the ex either. Different partners will have strengths in different areas.

some_hockeyguy@28..."3 years and over 100 women"?! Holy dogshit, man, that's a new woman every ten days. I'm guessing your standards aren't very high. Are you counting sheep and sex workers in that number?

Anti @9, Oops. I knew she had broken things off with him, but didn't remember how long ago it was. That does undermine my perspective. Never mind.

@11 and 10. Me too a little, despite the fact that David and I are both straight.

Donny @37, Maybe some_hockeyguy is or was a professional athlete. For the rest of us, sampling more than 100 women in three years is probably unlikely without including sheep.

Speaking of exaggerated impressions of the sex lives of professional athletes, does anyone else count "Ballers" (on HBO) as a guilty pleasure?

@28 and bedding 100 women in 3 years: That is so not me. Never has been. Sigh. But it is some people. Yeah, professional athletes (Magic Johnson reportedly admitted to having sex with 300 to 500 people per year) and traveling musicians seem to attract their groupies, but I've had friends who could walk into a bar and reliably go home with someone that night (obviously easy for women, but I'm talking about men, here). So if they go out most Friday nights for 3 years . . .

@10 what's this technique called? My stats knowledge is actually pretty limited

@42 Sportlandia: Google "Sultan's Dowry Problem" and various explanations of it will pop right up. The problem is phrased to be about the daughters' dowries, but presumably the commoner has sex with the selected daughter, so it seems an unusually appropriate mathematical lesson for Savage Love.

IRL example where I've used it: Ten round trivia competition. New host, so I don't know the difficulty or distribution of scores in each round. I can "joker" one round to double my score in that round. Which round to joke? Solution: sample 0.367879 of the set (e.g. four) and then joker the next round that is higher. Not perfect, of course, but it does maximize your chance of selecting the highest of the ten.

Oh dear, I've been doing this recently. I had a four year relationship that wasn't ideal, but the sex was great. We broke up in February, but stayed friends. Actually we get on a lot better now we're not a couple. And then I had an intense summer relationship which ended devastatingly in October. Since then, the four year ex has been comforting me occasionally. It's a bad idea. I know it. I broke it off yesterday... again. Need to do some more fishing.

The best way to get over a guy is to get under a new guy.

It is not sexist to think that people will change their minds as they age over whether to procreate. Everyone one of us - my siblings and myself - went from "no way no how" to yes in our twenties and thirties. My ex went from hell yes to a decided no from his early twenties to mid thirties. Two of my cousins (female and male) never changed their mind (no kids). I've seen it both ways. I have no idea which is more common, but neither seems uncommon. What is guaranteed though, is that people grow particularly in their twenties. People pick up different priorities. People learn themselves better. And yes sometimes they change their mind. I can't police anyone else's feelings. But to me there is a difference between (1) asking someone if his or her priorities have changed (not patronizing), and (2) telling someone that you just know his or her priorities are going to change (patronizing). Having gotten a full measure of the latter, I do appreciate why it's a hot button. But recognizing the mutability of the human species in general is different - I think - than dismissing the statements of a flesh and blood person in front of us.

Fwiw

:)

The other thing she needs to think about is how she's assessing "good in bed". I very nearly stopped dating this one guy because a lack of experience in bed made him a pitiable combination of timid and premature. But he was kind and eager to learn and seemed as invested in the idea of a good sex life as I was, so we expanded his boundaries and experience together. We've been together for almost five years now, and I married him last July, and I still marvel at how perfectly sexually compatible we are. Oral is a two way street....two way highway, really, and everything from the vanilla midweek maintenance sex to the weekend multi-hour kinky boundary-pushing fuckathon sex is deeply satisfying for us both. We communicate well and aren't afraid to ask/tell/order sternly what each other should do.

Moral of the story, don't judge a guy by the quality of the first half-dozen fucks, as long as he's eager to learn what satisfies you and wants to put good sex at the same priority level as you. It takes time to mold each other into our ideal lovers. Find someone who is worth investing that time into, not anticipating that some magical man will just appear and telepathically know everything that turns you on.

DarkHorse @46: I admit that I am defensive about this due to the sheer volume of patronisation I've received on this over the decades (mercifully, it seemed to stop once I reached 35). And I did say that it was EITHER projection OR sexism -- the sexist bit being the comparative frequency with which women are told they'll change their minds, compared to men, who are far more likely to be taken seriously when they say they don't want kids.

Sublime's comment irked me because there was no evidence whatsoever that CUMM had reconsidered. Had they phrased the comment "if you're reconsidering" rather than "it sounds like you're reconsidering," which it absolutely didn't, I might have let it slide.

Not that I am perfectly conscious of my inherent biases, but sublime's question didn't bother me because sublime asked the question in reverse. The assumption (that is absolutely focused on women, not men) is that women *will* change their mind and *want* kids. In this case Sublime asked the reverse question - against the mindless cultural assumption - that had lw changed her mind and decided she did not want kids.

Because the ultimate question posed by lw is (1) take this guy for everything that worked and accept no kids; or (2) continue to explore in search of the good roll in the hay who wants kids too. To me bringing up kids didn't seem so speculative considering that is why they busted up to begin with. I won't say anything further other than nod my head vigoriously over your experience mirroring mine (and particularly my female cousins). I was horrified when my aunt sent out a holiday letter mourning the fact that they wanted grandkids. Holy sh1t on a shingle. My parents' decision, after a few jerky statements in my early twenties, was to leave me alone about it. Something I will do for my kids. I even say it to my kids, both girls - they may have kids or they may not. It's all good.

@ 47 - Very well said, cloudbase. That may be the best advice in this entire thread...

Why is it that sex with this ex was better than any other the LW's had since? There's a very obvious answer, as (or more) obvious than an exceptional pheromone or kink line-up, which has only been skirted by the responses (by ferret @20 & BiDanFan @23). Which is: monogamy and commitment! It's at least plausible to me that the LW found it so much better with this guy because she could trust him, as a long-term partner, more; they knew what they were each into, what they found too much, where they could push and explore....

I think it's possible that there will always be people like this. Sex against the backdrop of a committed, monogamous future will be more relaxed, and so have more potential, than hookups or more recreational FWB sex. At the same time ... I do think people are conditioned by their upbringings, especially religious upbringings, to be ashamed, even just unnecessarily circumspect of their sexual desires,esp. where they're non-standard; do believe these people could be happier, sexually and also more integrally, if they were more exploratory, more sex-positive, less reticent about communicating what they might like; and it's quite possible to me, in this case, that the LW hasn't had enough good sex, or been enthusiastic or just completely mentally unfettered about it, to find someone she liked as much as the ex--and who was a better fit with her life. So I do buy into the ethos, as it were, of the column. But I do wonder whether it can swing too far the other way from patient, 'accept-your-unhapppiness' monogamy--that the insistence on non-monogamy can be dogmatic in its own terms.

The LW uses the vocabulary of 'monogamous', 'commitment', 'dated', but not that of 'love', 'feelings', 'cared for', 'was into'. Why is this? Is it that the second set are harder to use in this context? It's easier to say 'dated', meaning 'had sex'? Or is it that she _wasn't_ in love with the guy she dated (it's just that the sex was very good?) To me, her holding off talking about her feelings says something. One piece of advice might be: 'keep on dating until you find a lover who satisfies as much as the old one'. I don't dissent from that. Another might be: 'date until you find a guy you really have feelings for, and see how much the quality of the sex for the first three months actually matters to you'.

@ 51 - "date until you find a guy you really have feelings for, and see how much the quality of the sex for the first three months actually matters to you"

Are you a recent reader? A good proportion of the letters Dan gets is from people who started an LTR with people they had feelings for and thought that, because of their feelings, the quality of the sex didn't matter that much... until they realized it actually did. A lot.

Not everyone has the capacity to learn to become a better lover (in the sense of "better adapted to their SO's sexual needs).

Sorry, but this extremely bad advice.

@ 52: Maybe I'm a _very_ recent reader.... I think I read in the 90s, have now found out about the podcast (I'm not the internet generation), and am giving my two pennies'-worth as respite from insomnia....

I don't see that my second piece of hypothetical advice (prioritise something called--or that you're willing to call--'love') is worse than my first piece of advice (prioritise your sexual satisfaction, in the sense of trying out more guys until you find one equally good). Maybe a man with compatible values, and who shares a close emotional bond, with the LW will be able to get much better in bed, as @35 MizM and @47 Cloudbase have described. Or maybe (the more heretical view) what amounts to 'great in bed' for the LW involves long-term love and commitment.

Could it be that why the LW has written to Dan is that she has a perception hers is a 'sex problem', and that he's the go-to guy with anything in that area? That his reputation is for dealing with problems narrowly as they pertain to sex--by being more willing to say, for instance, 'have a loving non-monogamous relationship with your partner and go elsewhere to be dominated'? My suspicion is that many supposed 'purely sex' problems are actually 'whole-life problems'. (And occasionally the other way round).

@ 53 - What I meant is that for them to get better in bed together, independently of everything else, the quality of the sex has to matter (a lot) to both of them. Having feelings for each other will not be sufficient to make it work, even though, as you're saying, it may be an essential ingredient for her.

For me in my experience, the difference between bad sex and good doesn't have to do with any particular activity. It's whether the guy was willing to take the lead and admit attraction and enjoyment. The guys who were bad in bed were the ones who somehow had the idea that they were supposed to be sweet and sympathetic and adore me and not objectify me. They treated me like I was going to break if they touched me, and when they touched me, they'd check if touching me was okay even as I was gasping and sighing. If anything, they'd hear a gasp or sigh and check that I was alright because they seemed sure, deep down, that they were hurting me. It was like the were convinced that sex was wrong, their own desire was wrong, and they'd heard so much about feminism, well who knows what they thought.

That's not to say that good in bed equals rape. The great guys were secure in their own desire. I could just feel eagerness emanating from them, they were that into me. They were just dying to get me turned on because it turned them on to see me so turned on, and they wanted that to happen so they could plunge inside me and turn me into one hot quivering coming wrung out sexual experience. There was plenty of consent.

I've stated this in all or nothing terms, but that's not Cumm's question. What if you found a guy who was great on paper, someone who wanted the same things you do as to religion and children and monogamy and how to live and how to make a living, and you got along great, communicated great and even fought and resolved conflict great, and this great guy was good in bed but not as good as your ex? My advice would be to marry him or at least stay with him a bit longer.

That's because your ex has advantages that the future men can never attain. You've built him up in your mind. You'll always remember him as the guy you learned with. When you were your youngest and hottest, he was there. And now you've got the intimacy that comes with there being something forbidden about him. But other guys can be good too. You have to give them a chance.

So follow the part of Dan's advice that has you identifying what you liked about your ex's technique, and look for a guy with that.

@ 54 I think you're saying that some people don't care about how good their sex life is. If these people in a stable, loving relationship, they're happy. (And by implication, they don't care how fulfilled their partner is in bed). Maybe. I'm not personally sure how many of this type of people exist. I'd have thought more that the implicit requirement of contemporary life was to be happy sexually, as well as financially, emotionally, with your children, in career terms, and so on.

I don't think anyone should be held to monogamy with anyone irretrievably selfish in bed. It's their right to ask more of their lover; and when it's not forthcoming just on grounds of their partner not caring, to look for this more satisfying, exciting sex with someone else.

@54 You hit the nail on the head. The long term relationship I had prior to my marriage was with a guy who was also inexperienced, and who got better over the two years we dated, but ultimately was unwilling to prioritize intimacy and didn't have a lot of enthusiasm for it. That was the primary reason I broke up with him - and the primary reason my husband is superbly compatible with me. It wasn't some magical set of skills or endowment (the ex had a nice cock and the body of an underwear model, to no avail). It's both parties wanting an equal level of effort/prioritization/enjoyment/curiosity/quality regarding sex.

I wonder if great sex in youth is like the first time you do heroin. Some of this might be memory and projection. What I mean is... If it's the best sex you ever had at 24, then that's the best sex you ever had in your life. And the first time too, so it probably blew your mind. You could be having really good sex later, but the novelty element is gone meanwhile the memory of that wonderful amazing sex in the past grows.

My advice is find a kink. Have that "best ever" experience again with something new.

@48 BDF and Dark Horse

I'm right there with you regarding never wanting kids and never having changed my mind. Also yes, women are subjected to the "you'll change your mind" crap more frequently than men when women are in the 25-35 age range. But I think this is because 'well meaning' noisy people are freaking out on behalf of women's biological clocks (which could be called sexism ok). Men who choose not to have kids in their early 30s don't get this advice as much because in the minds of the same 'well-meaning' noisy people, they have decades to go. They get a lesser dose of it, spread on throughout their lives, rather than the ten year intense panic "your ovaries are about to shrivel up and die" blip that women get. My husband has faced it more than I have, being a nicer person than I am. And it went on through his forties.

As for changing minds, yes while some people do (and either way as Dark Horse pointed out) plenty of people don't. My own opinion is that fewer people would have children, in fact, if it were less expected that they should.

Ha ha. Nosey not noisy, though nosey people are often noisy too. My pain killers are showing.

@Harriet I think every relationship benefits from a healthy sex life, but that's what I think. In real life, I know people who don't care so much about sex either way and really and truly are more concerned about other things. I think that Dan is the sort of person for whom a really good sex life is super important, and so sometimes he is skewed in that way when giving advice. Frankly if you didn't want that though, why write him? He's a sex advice columnist.

But the LW is clearly not that sort of person. For those of us that the sex life is really an important part of the relationship, being with someone for months to see how much the quality of the sex life matters to you is really terrible advice. Unfortunately, it's advice society gives a lot, and then people feel guilty for moving on just because the sex isn't great, and (as Ricardo says) years down the road they end up in really shitty situations. This isn't to say the sex always has to start out great- look at Cloud's advice above. Eagerness and willingness go way farther than experience- especially in a situation like you describe (where you like someone a lot and want it to work despite the sex not being mind blowing initially) but putting a lackluster sex life on the back burner just because it's less important than other things seems wrong-headed. It's just as important as other things, and sometimes in fights/crisis it's actually the most important.

I forgot the most important part of what I saying to CUMM in 55: Fantasize. There are still 2 guys I think about when having sex with my current (stable, mostly loving, definitely better than nothing, reasonably hot) relationship. In my imagination I've built them up, and that works to my advantage because the memory of the better sex fuels my reality sex.

And I think Emma Liz is on to something in 54. If it's the best sex you ever had at 24, then it's the best you had in your life. Everything else is going to pall in comparison simply because it IS a comparison. Keep in mind that this state of affairs is still better than having terrible sex first. You might think that there's an advantage in things getting better from there, but it's actually better to have your first experiences formed by something good even if the long term reality is a bit of come down.

Harriet @ 56 - "I think you're saying that some people don't care about how good their sex life is"

A lot of people aren't that into sex. And also, a lot of people really don't care about how satisfied their partners are as long as they themselves are getting what they want. An awful lot, in my experience.

Fichu @ 55 - " They were just dying to get me turned on because it turned them on to see me so turned on"

And that is the secret ingredient that makes for great sex, IMO.

@ 61 EmmaLiz. Dan's a sex life columnist? I thought he was an all-round agony uncle? Often the advice is not just to angle for better sex but to for the LW to make wholesale changes in her life--to demand greater respect or treat themselves with more self-respect. If someone is persistently denigrated in their sex life, or their sexual needs are scorned or neglected, that's not just a sex-life problem, right? That goes to the heart of someone's relationship(s), and addressing it will mean making a life-sized change....

I guess I'm more a believer in people working out more quickly what they want everyone close to them in their life for.... This person is for going to the movie theater and ballet with; this person is a confidant; this is someone I can trust with my low-down-and-dirty views of colleagues and work professionally; this person is my lover, to whom I'm committed, monogamously or not.... I think there's a pressure to place too many expectations, including of serving up endless sexual bliss, on primary or monogamous sexual partners; and--though everyone is different, and I'm not prescribing--my impulse would be to have people pursue long-term relationships with very compatible sexual matches, and delegate out the functions sometimes rolled up into the lot of the primary partner/husband/wife to multiple people. Or the other way round--for us to expect to have many sexual partners and one soulmate-and-life-companion, with whom the quality of the sex wasn't the main thing. If I was someone's primary partner, I wouldn't want to feel my lover was always about to bail because I was hesitant sexually, or the sex was just iffy ... but I think that's just me and my insecurities.

@ 63 Ricardo. Yes, I remember these selfish fucks from when I was younger. But often my talk bored them out of their boner and sex ended up off the menu.

Fichu @55

The guys who were bad in bed were the ones who somehow had the idea that they were supposed to be sweet and sympathetic and adore me and not objectify me. They treated me like I was going to break if they touched me, and when they touched me, they'd check if touching me was okay even as I was gasping and sighing. If anything, they'd hear a gasp or sigh and check that I was alright because they seemed sure, deep down, that they were hurting me. It was like the were convinced that sex was wrong, their own desire was wrong, and they'd heard so much about feminism, well who knows what they thought.

Are we talking about men who where born in the 1960's, came of age in the 1970's, and who are now in their early fifties? Because I recognize this mindset. It's more or less what made me a sexual failure in my first (and only) relationship, decades ago. The thinking is something like: sex is wrong, unless the man does his utmost best to make sure that it is good for the woman. So a man should not follow his own desire, but ask the woman what she wants and make sure that she is okay with what he is doing. Otherwise, he is behaving like a Neanderthal, like the men from previous generations.

DarkHorse @49: You've misread the letter.
CUMM says: "things we didn't talk much about in college started becoming an issue, i.e. the fact that he wanted kids and I didn't".
So Sublime IS trotting out the old "of course you'll change your mind and want kids" trope.

Harriet @51: My advice is: If the sex ISN'T amazing after three months, cut bait and run.
And I don't synonymise "repetition" with "commitment and monogamy." Firstly, you can have commitment without monogamy. Secondly, some of the best sex I've ever had was with an out-of-town FWB whom I (tragically) only saw every couple of months. Yes, I had to cut him loose because not seeing him more often was tearing me apart. And no, I haven't had sex that good since. But I've had sex almost that good with people who treated me better. As DarkHorse @33 says, you have to look at the total package.

Also in my experience, strong feelings do not lead to great sex. Great sex leads to strong feelings. I suspect that's how it worked with CUMM and her ex.

Emma @58: While, at 24, I was having the best sex of my life with my ex-husband, those memories did fade. I couldn't honestly tell you who was better, my ex-husband or my ex-FWB. The point is that equally good lovers are out there.

Harriet @65: Yes, Dan is a sex advice columnist. He used to have a general agony-uncle column called "Dear Dan," but that's been defunct for a few decades. Dan's advice will always skew sex-positive. Now you know.

RE @66: What's wrong with a bit of both? Verbally ascertain whether the woman you are with wants you to take the lead in bed. Ask whether screaming means "more" or "stop." Then proceed accordingly. The sexual style Fichu describes would be perfect for many women. Communicate! Communicate! Communicate!

66-- Registered E-- I'm a little older, now in my early 60s, not early 50s, but basically yes. I'm sorry that these broad cultural trends hurt you so badly. It points to the flip side of the madonna/whore thing for women. There's a gentleman/beast thing for men.

BiDan-- 68-- Yes, communication is key. It was a tall order for me and the young men I slept with when I was in my teens and 20s. But more than that, when you're dealing with a major culturally imposed mindset, it's hard to overcome even when a woman is willing to talk it out.

Harriet @ 65 - You were wiser (or luckier) than me, then. I started a few relationships with bait-and-switchers, i.e. people who were really GGG in all aspects of the relationship until we started living together or until they felt the relationship was well enough on its way that I would find it hard to back out even if they revealed themselves to be selfish turds. They were wrong, but I still lost a few years of my life (in total) waiting for them to treat me decently.

@68. BiDanFan. I think at the level of generality you've given your advice, 'advice' has to be personal and to reveal someone's priors--which will often be adaptable to specific situations. Yours is 'if the sex isn't amazing after three months, cut ... and run'. Mine would be 'if you're not then on the same page as to what you want your sex-life to be, don't suppose that person will be your exclusive or primary partner, or not without extensive negotiation and boundary-setting'. Three months might be short in some cases for the sex to get so great if there are physical or mental disabilities to accommodate, even if one or both partners has blockages due to previous trauma or just the internalisation of negative affects or prohibitions. Sometimes I'd be of the mind not to let expectations concerning sex be a burden on a couple's burgeoning love.

Does love guarantee respectful, mutually fulfilling sex or does great sex prompt feelings of love? It's a huge question, and perhaps not one that has a single answer. I think people can fall in love because their beloved has nice hands--before they know what they do with them; because they have an upstanding job or vocation, which makes them morally beautiful; because they have a capacious mind or wildly unexpected turn of phrase or argument; or just because they're an adept short-order cook or have an infectious laugh. Perhaps I've read too many nineteenth century novels.

I'm sure Dan isn't a sex-columnist in the sense of counseling his readers/listeners to treat their partners like shit (ess-aitch-one-tee, I grew up saying) just so that they can scratch the itch of their irresistible kink. The emphasis is always being in relationships (often multiple relationships) configured to allow people maximum sexual gratification and security, while also providing support for the non-sexual parts of their lives. I would think it supposes a reductive view of sex--to reduce it to kink, or a dispensable-with add-on--to imagine there can be any hard-and-fast division between whole-life and sex-life advice.

The original LW is 28 and gives no sign (in her letter as we have it) of ever having had feelings for or been in love with anyone. This to me is potentially as much a problem as her not finding a lover as good as her ex.

BDF @ 68 - "strong feelings do not lead to great sex. Great sex leads to strong feelings."

Truer words were never spoken.

@70. Ricardo. I don't think I was wiser; I was just more circumspect or more blocked. My attitude was 'If I'm going to let you put that thing up my ass, I have to know what I mean to you'. Totally out of tune with the prevailing culture--in the 80s (I mostly grew up overseas, in a family with a peculiar relation to culture/religion); and I had also internalised an unhealthy measure of homophobia. I was also what would then have been characterised as gender dysphoric, but now has kinder or more realistic names. This cross-identification has in some ways proved more enduring than the gay identification.

@66 Registered European - These concepts/approaches aren't mutually exclusive. Some of the best sex I've ever had was with a guy who made sure he knew exactly what turned me on most (specifically asked me about my desires) and had a lot of enthusiasm for pleasing me but at the same time was very dominating, ran the fuck and made it seem like everything was his idea and like anything could happen at any moment. I wouldn't be happy with someone who prioritized their pleasure over mine or didn't seem to care about my turn-ons, but I would probably not be too turned on by the type of guy Fichu described either, unless I took it as an opportunity to seduce and dominate myself (that can be fun for me sometimes). I was born in the 60s and have had many partners and don't recall any guys treating me exactly the way Fichu described. However, I have noticed more of a trend toward dominance in the generation after mine, though I think it could be a fairly recent development. Hard for me to know because I was in a long marriage and noticed the shift after becoming single again.

Also, I disagree with those saying sex at a young age is always going to be the best because youth. I've had equally mind blowing experiences in youth and middle age. I do think novelty can be a factor for people who are novelty seeking (I fall into this category). This may be why I can't relate to those for whom sex gets better and better over time. Just individual differences, I suppose. For some people, sex gets better with increased intimacy, and for others novelty plays a larger role.

FutureCat @74: Sex has been far better on average since I've been older, because I'm over those silly youthful notions of "a good lover should be able to read your mind" and that sort of nonsense, and am no longer afraid to offend a fragile ego by asking for what I want. Ask and ye shall get... who knew?

@76 @BiDanFan That makes sense. I was always very assertive and also more aggressive in my youth, but in my older age I occasionally enjoy roleplaying the type of young and inexperienced girl you're describing. It can be fun when it's just pretend. :)

What I was referring to earlier was the concept of sex getting better over time with one specific partner. That rarely happens for me. I know it happens for some people, and for some it is the rule rather than the exception.

My lover of five years left me for another woman. I was hurt and depressed, a friend suggested the idea to contact a spell caster, which I would have never thought of myself. I contacted a few of them but manifestspellcast@gmail.com was the only person who could restore my relationship in a blink of an eye. he was understanding, replied all my emails promptly and patiently. at first I was a bit skeptical about his capacity to bring my man back to me. but it was so surprising that it took him few weeks to restore my relationship, my lover returned to me and since then, it seems that there is no more mistrust and no more lies between us. For that reason, I am gladly leaving a testimonial on this page, which I believe will help solve many relationship case.