What turns the bf on is not her Dadddy, and you’re right, she should dump this sad sac and find herself a younger man.

Whoops left out a comma, after her and before Dadddy.

You must meet some shallow women Dadddy, if you think the primary reason a woman has sex is to feel desired and attractive. Good you’re here, you’ve got a lot to learn.

Belated congratulations to @69 BiDanFan on scoring the highly coveted Lucky @69 Award!! May good fortune smile upon you, and also to CMD wannabe @100, on hitting the Lucky HUnsky Award! Make good fortune smile upon you, as well.
Griz has been out of town this week in the San Juans with her beloved Love Beetle. The weather was fabulous; many heads turned. This being so late in the game for Griz, I may elect to read letters to Dan and comments--possibly catch this weekend.

@112: Eek! Make that: "May good fortune smile upon you."
How odd that my most glaring typos occur when I have not consumed alcohol.

I wouldn’t say that Dadddy. If you saw my studio.

@111 Dadddy, yes of course.. if the one doing the desiring is desired in return. Some hobo giving me the eye doesn’t do it for me.
Women have sex because they love to have sex, scratch the itch and yes being desired and found attractive are important. Just not the primary motivation. Getting the sex is the primary motivation.

Dadddy @ 105
"Are any of the resident sexagenarians still having sex?"
Of course, and I believe many discuss it here from time to time. There's also plenty of experimentation going on in that age group.

Dadddy@105 ~ “...Are any of the resident sexagenarians still having sex?...”

WHHAAAAT? Even though most of us in our 60s basically have one leg in the coffin, can’t find a pussy without a seeing-eye dog and need a bicycle pump to get our dicks up, somehow we manage to still have the requisite 27.2 seconds of sex every other month. Why do you think they call us SEXagenarians?

@118 DonnyKlicious: "Even though most of us in our 60s basically have one leg in the coffin, can't find a pussy without a seeing eye dog and need a bicycle pump o get our dicks up, somehow we still manage to have the requisite 27.2 seconds of sex every other month..."
And people wonder why I'm asexual at 54?

Lava @109/@116: Spot on. I am wondering why Dadddy is asking his partners what their motivation is for having sex with him. Odd question. Generally I have sex because I'm horny and because it feels great, releases stress, etc. I find that women whose primary motivation is "to feel desired and attractive" start Instagram accounts. There is no need to follow through with sex to get the benefit of "feeling desired." If women are having sex with men who've expressed desire, it's because they want to fuck those men.

Griz @112: Thank you, and hope you've enjoyed your holiday!

Donny @118: Ha! I look forward to becoming a SEXagenarian. :)

I conclude from Dadddy's comment @102 that the typical woman he bangs is in her 20s.

I conclude from Dadddy @105 that he must be a lot younger than I thought.

Rookieadvice @ 42- I watched the video with interest. I liked that all involved looked equally interested as well as ordinary looking. Not familiar with the show, it is my observation that at least this scene was catering to women. “It’s something you always wanted,” says the dancing friend on the phone, “Ok, turn over!” says the now empowered as we see the (fairly advanced in my semi-experienced opinion) dildo shot from behind her ass, in an implied pre-erected mode.
“Kavanaughty hearings you said?”

Some elderly advice if I may… If this is your thing then don’t be shy to express it. As you may already be aware of the video is a very fast forward entertainment version of life, the real one may require negotiation and compromise by all involved. You may have a bargain chip if you go along with something desired by the opposite camp, “a threesome if I get to peg you,” or a special request when YOU bring it up, “How about I wear some pretty lingerie for the occasion?”
And then come the size, the lube, the condom-or-not, the enema-or-not, and the awkwardness in the bedroom if and when.
Or not. Still worth exploring regardless.

And now go tell Dadddy that old fuckers are very much still at it.

@Ghost of Sea Otter: While I know this is SO last week, I did see about the first third of all I could stomach from my newly purchased DVD copy of The Lobster. I commented further in last week's SL: Fresh Starts.
And people ask me why I'm a happily single asexual. Oy.

I’m in my sixties and have sex, with myself. Yes, the options for not half dead men at this age, does drop. And why should LW1 put up with mediocre sex, if she’s still fit and attractive and most of all Still Enjoys Sex.
LW1, give this man a kick, no liars and no men who don’t look at you with lust and eventually love in their eyes. Go for younger men, and enjoy.

Correction: options...do drop. For the GP out there.

Dadddy @124: But still fucking twentysomethings? Perhaps you should try a change of tactic if you want women who like sex for the sake of sex, not women who are having sex to disprove a decade of "you're not good enough because your body isn't perfect" messages. By the time we've done this for a decade, we learn three things:
1. Yes, we're attractive and desirable even though we don't meet impossible beauty standards.
2. Whether men want to have sex with us has very little to do with how attractive we are. Lots of men aren't picky.
3. And most importantly, how our bodies work -- what gets us off -- and how to ask for it, so that sex is for us, not just to impress some man.

Sure, there are some insecure women who remain stuck in the 20s mindset later into life, just as there are some Peter Pan-like men. Both should be avoided.

Griz @126: Sorry you didn't enjoy The Lobster. Spoilers on last week's thread.

@129 BiDanFan: Wow---that was a horrifically bizarre film! If nothing else, it does serve as a wonderful reminder though of how fortunate I am to not only be single--but also be well out of a toxic nightmare of a bad previous marriage. And nobody is bugging me to have kids anymore. Heaven bless the 50s+ !!

Yes Grizelda, you should be baby safe by now. I did have my last child @47, so I may not be the best advice giver.

I remember having dreams I was pregnant into my early fifties, waking up in a sweat. I think this whole abortion debate, men have to stay out of.
It is so disrespectful to a woman’s autonomy. And shows no sensitivity to how a woman feels. The hormones kick in straight away, so it mostly would never be a non conflicted choice.
This bull about men not having to pay child support if he wanted an A and she didn’t. Once that sperm fertilizers the egg, the woman’s choice must be respected a hundred percent. And if a man is called upon to be a father, then he needs to do that with love for his child. If he doesn’t get to be a dad, and he wanted to be, he needs to grieve and accept her decision.
I read sperm count is going down. Our wonderful western lifestyle is sending men sterile. That’s how we’ll go extinct.

@132 LavaGirl: I am now left wondering if the Powers That Be granted my childhood wish to remain sterile decades ago. For me, it's a blessing. I have never liked the process of human pregnancy. These feelings I haven't shaken off since age 10. In all my life there are few things I consider worse than having motherhood pushed upon any woman--including myself--who has no desire at all to become a parent.
@133 LavaGirl: Here's to the entire RepubliKKKan Party of Pigs going extinct--and soon. They brought it on with their raging testosterone spiraling out of control, arrogance, greed, and dirty money.

Hunter @130: LTR or no LTR, no consent, no groping. No means no. It's really not rocket science.

@134: I also wonder if my being what the late bestselling author Sue Grafton would call an "oopsy baby" (from Y is for Yesterday)---unplanned and much later in my parents' marriage---has had anything to do with my not wanting to have children at all, ever. My mother was clearly very unhappy about having an unexpected fourth child a decade after her first three, and later juggling three adolescents' busy extra-curricular schedules along with that of a grade schooler enrolled in another district. I came along two years after my father had had a vasectomy. Dad's doctor didn't snip far enough, apparently. I also didn't like the idea of any child I might have had being so much younger than his or her cousins, repeating the cycle.

@137: So that's why you're here. Shucky darn!

@139: I scare you that much? You're that fearful of losing your hard on? LOL

@140: Wow--nothing. He must have gone flaccid.

Once again, I cannot wrap my head around the concept of a sexual relationship without sex (or without sex most of the time). Do people not understand that it's totally possible to form a shared household with a friend? Like, if you're looking for companionship and a housemate but not sex, live with a friend, a sibling, a parent, a child, etc. If sex (or partnered sex) isn't a big deal to you, and especially if it's something that you actively dislike doing with regular frequency or at all, don't date people for whom it is a big deal. And if you're just indifferent, then step the fuck up and spend fifteen minutes or half an hour every couple of days doing something that makes your partner happy. If you actually care about someone's happiness, it's pretty much a given that you are willing to put in some minimal effort to make that person happy.

This isn't a big ask - is SAP's boyfriend totally unwilling to make out and finger her to orgasm every other day? Take the hour every weekend to eat her out? Fuck once a month, or even once every two weeks? If he's just into jerking it, that's totally fine, but he shouldn't DATE people in that case, he should form close friendships with no sex (and no expectation the other person won't actually date others).

That said, communication could well be the only issue. SAP preferred snooping to a clear, direct conversation. Possibly she's expecting mind-reading and not actually explicitly voicing her concerns at all (in my experience, an absurd number of people expect mind-reading, which is probably a function of to the Illusion of Transparency). OYMSYP.

PHONE's husband is a rapey creep. He gets off on involving an unwitting third party in his sex, and he has no qualms about manipulation and coercion to get PHONE to comply. Manipulation and coercion and a lack of clear consent aren't a bug for him, they're a feature. She should leave his rapey ass yesterday.

@Bi #69: "I agree, it's not a kink, it's a means of controlling her."

Well, it's both - his kink is being a controlling, boundary-/consent-violating asshole. One thing that's been lost in our current cultural discussion about sexual violence and violation, thanks largely to the focus on the impact on and feelings of victims (which is generally a good thing, but becomes a problem if it the ONLY element considered, because stopping sexual violence in general requires analyzing why perpetrators assault people), is the distinction between people who actively get off on and actively seek out non-consensual sex and people who wind up engaging in boundary-violating or coercive behaviors when trying to get sex as a matter of course, becasue the norms that they have internalized present boundary violation and coercion as the normal, acceptable way to seek sex.

The first problem is willful rapists, and the second problem is rape culture, and these are almost completely separate, except that rape culture allows willful rapists to hide in a zone of plausible deniability by normalizing rapey behavior. We could lock up every willful rapist and still have problems with sexual violence becasue of rape culture, and we could completely eliminate all aspects of our rape culture and still have problems of sexual violence becasue of willful rapists. We probably won't ever do either 100%.

At any rate, husband is pretty clearly of the willful rapist variety, since the fact that the person on the other end of the line doesn't know about the sex constitutes the entirety of the appeal, and since he's totally unwilling to respect PHONE's "no." He's not going to get better; unlike the well-meaning-but-poorly-socialized person, who DOESN'T want to perpetuate harm and therefore DOES want to change once ze knows ze's harming others, husband gets off on the harm and control and therefore won't want to change.

@EmmaLiz #77: The only totally ethical way to indulge is for the other person to know they're part of your sex act. Call up a phone sex worker or someone interested in the voyeurism aspect, per previous suggestions. I know my own personal threshold for acceptability of exhibitionism is lower than many - I'm opposed to people making out in public, for example, especially after one too many instances of people dry-humping at a crowded bar bumping into me (I'm just trying to have dinner and a drink, not have bank-shot over-the-clothes group sex; take it to a sex club where people have actually signed up to be around people having sex) - but I'm clearly not far from the consensus opinion on this count. Some desires (e.g. rape, pedophilia) are simply unethical to ever put into practice. That's unfortunate for the people with those desires, and I'm all for finding ethical ways to play-act unethical desires, but you don't get to violate other people's boundaries and trust because you like to get off to that. I disagree with Dan re: his foot fetishist in the shoe store example - I think it's unethical - while acknowledging that there's only truly harm to someone else if anyone actually finds out.

Basically, some things that are unethical may not be harmful until one is caught, and if one can manage to never get caught, one can do something unethical indefinitely without causing harm, but it's still unethical becasue of the heightened odds that it will eventually cause harm. It's a bit like saying "smoking causes cancer": technically, smoking only increases the rate of particular types of cell mutation that increase the odds of developing cancerous cell lines that the body doens't recognize and kill, and it's possible to smoke all of one's life without ever developing cancerous tumors that impact one's well-being, but becasue of the sufficient increased risk of harm, we are comfortable simply asserting that smoking causes cancer. I think it's a good idea for ethical standards to take into account risk of harm rather than simply demonstrated harm that has already been caused, so there are cases where I think a behavior is unethical even without demonstrated harm, and I think involving people in one's sex acts who have not consented to such is one of those cases (I should note that there probably has to be an actual interaction with the person to sufficiently increase the risk of harm in my view - jacking off to, say, photographs of a celebrity at the beach who hasn't consented to being in something billed as porn carries next to no increased risk of harm as far as I can see, so I'd consider that okay).