Thanks for having a bunch of ones where the women are the high-libido one of the pair. That was always me and I found it constantly frustrating to be told women like me don't exist.

I stopped reading halfway thru the second letter, then decided to check out the last one, as I figured it'd be the most interesting of the bunch. I liked this line from it... "We get along like a house on fire."

Never heard this analogy. Interesting, I guess, if nothing else....

The Cougar seemed rather disrespectful; only someone with that sort of kink would find that a turn-on.

Even when my live-in relationship was deteriorating, we still bumped. We didn't even really like each other at all near the end. When I finally got all my stuff moved out of the apartment after an acrimonious break up, we fucked for "one last time" (it was not the last time).

@1 I feel like the womans-libido-still-raging is probably the single most common letter category in SLLOTD dating back like a decade plus.

Sometimes I wonder if mutual sexual attraction ever really lasts. We always frame these couples' problems as mismatched libidos, but frequently the story goes: "we used to have great sex all the time and now my partner doesn't want to have sex."

It makes me sad, and it seems to be the rule, rather than the exception.

Yeah, a lot these aren't a low-libido partner, they're a partner who's not sexually attracted to you anymore. That's a tough thing for someone to tell you. So, these situations get dragged out.

That last one seems just a little too close to the letters David Brooks writes to himself from "former liberals," or the stories Thomas Friedman hears from that neoliberal cab driver who follows him all over the world.

For many (I assume) couples, desire does wax and wane, fade and return. My wife and I went through phases where the sex was enthusiastic and awkward (when we were newly dating); comfortable and smoldering as we began to figure each other out; infrequent and usually done poorly under the influence of alcohol during the work+grad-school years; nearly non-existent, mostly to libido-killing influences of medication prescribed to treat anxiety; routine and dutiful and dull when the kid was young and we were tired; and now, as the anxiety is addressed through therapy, the kid is older, we've both gotten back into shape, and our professional lives are under control, it's hotter and better than it ever was.

During all of those down periods, though, there were easily identified causes. At no point did either of us feel unjustifiably neglected or ignored. For us, it was worth it to stick it out.

Gotta stay dedicated to keeping it going. Gotta keep finding ways to change stuff up. And gotta be fucking reasonable. Twice a week and he's crying like a baby? Gtfoh with that shit.

Most people would be elated for twice a week after the relationship has moved beyond the honeymoon phase. But there are certainly people with higher libidos.

It seems to me that the overarching problem for most of the people who write in about dips in sex/dead bed syndrome is a tension between a good relationship more generally and a good sex life. It seems like people don't want to break up or get a divorce because other parts of the relationship work well, and, let's be honest, that's not always easy to find. So the big problem is lack of sex. Dan isn't going to publish letters from people who have great sex but are in bad relationships otherwise (e.g., "my husband fucks like a champ but he never does the fucking dishes, what should I do?"). Perhaps the moral of the story is that most people are going to find one or the other and they will be unhappy with the one part that works well and pissed off about the part that doesn't work. Those people who find amazing partners in every way are pretty lucky.

BTW, at the end of the day, all of these letters are way less interesting than the guy's letter about his balls being licked during the threesome, to re-emphasize my question about people finding that letter boring.

"Unless there are kids involved, in which case: suck it up, breeders."

Because that's what a child wants, to grow up to realize they were the lock on their parent's cage, when they never asked to be any such thing.

Behavior is learned. Sex is a behavior, so sex is also learned. In line with that, except for some rare cases, a sexual problem is a behavior problem. Men tend to have self-esteem (SE) issues so their drive is driven by how they feel about the present. Too much pressure and not enough progress will stunt desire. Women tend to have self-confidence (SC) issues. Too much poor behavior - a typical side-effect of self-esteem issues - will stunt cooperation. Yes, there are plenty of gender exceptions, but I’ll guarantee you that almost all couple sexual issues are rooted in these causes. Sex is a general / common symptom of relationship dysfunction. After all, libido is a natural and emotional need for us, so lack of sex means there’s some undesirable thought process that’s driving it all. Learn how to be good partners and the sex will come. No matter what you describe I’m sure there’s something missing or wrong beyond just sex, and the ignorance of that is also a symptom.

I think people naturally have high or low libidos though this might change with age. Then life circumstances might get in the way here and there, but the natural libido is basically the same- you can tell the difference because if it's a circumstantial thing, when you remove the circumstance, the libido comes back. So a high libido person who's really stressed about a work/school deadline might see a drop off in the libido, but when the deadline passes, they want to fuck. Or likewise someone on birth control sees a drop, but she gets off it, and libido returns. Or exhausted parents might be overwhelmed but you give them a weekend away to themselves and they spend it in the hotel room.

The same thing works in reverse- a low libido person has circumstances in which they are super horny like they have a new exciting partner or they went through a period without sex at all and now they can get it so they are like a kid in a candy store or they are in a moment in life where they have lots of time without stress and so they can get around to it more- and then when regular life hits or the newness wears off, they return to the norm of being low libido.

Then on top of all this, there are the differences in male/female sexuality- what it takes to get / stay hot, what it takes to get off. Sometimes it's amazing any straight people ever get it on.

The not-a-tiger grad student, the young gay dude, and the youngest straight girl should both all on. Life's too short, it's not going to get better, there's no reason to stay. The other straight girl (with the birth control) should yes try getting off bc and see if that helps, but they can use condoms, they don't have to avoid PIV altogether. And if her libido does come back without bc, she can then look into other alternatives (non hormonal bc, bc with lower hormones, condom use). The older straight woman, that sounds more like a marriage issue. Dude is working two jobs AND he's in school? I think there are two (maybe three) different issues here. First, your man is exhausted. If he doesn't last long in sex, try centering some non PIV stuff. See if you can mix it up- you didn't say much about what he wants or is up for, what you are doing for him, etc. Second, the libido issue- it might be that he does just have a lower libido than you and therefore you might talk about an open marriage b/c y'all are just never going to be super compatible sexually. But that is not a replacement- "sorry hon that you are working two jobs and going to school but I've got my needs and I'm going to fuck others" isn't a good approach. You should first work on improving your own sex life in the marriage and then deal with the issue of libidos: an addition rather than a replacement. Third, the health issue- it's possible there's a medical reason and why not check it out, but really I bet it has to do with the two jobs plus school. Seems like you have all three things muddled up into one.

Cougar Love: So your husband gave you lots of sex during your courtship, but knew going into your marriage that his libido would drop off a cliff after a year or so of fucking you, and didn’t tell you? Ask your husband to open up your relationship so you both can fuck other people or DTMFA.

DFRS: Your boyfriend went from fucking someone new every two to three weeks to just fucking you. You’re only 19 and he’s only 20, you’re not in a relationship that will last forever, and he is probably regretting all the new sex partners he isn’t fucking. Open up your relationship, bring in special guest stars, and when the relationship ends, try to part as good friends.

NATCFH: Since you’re a busy student and don’t live together, why not just go see him or invite him over on the days you want to have sex. Then there is no need to reject a sexual advance, just I can’t see you tonight.

TFHMO: “But when I initiate sex 95% of the time, I start feeling undesirable.” In most heterosexual sexual relationships, men will initiate close to 100% of the time, but why does that have to be? When you initiate, does he fuck you, or reject you? If you initiate and he fucks you maybe you need to reset your expectations as to who does the initiating in your otherwise great relationship. In other words, pin your sense of sexual desirability on how he fucks you and not on whether he initiates. On the other hand, if he frequently rejects your advances, DTMFA.

SFMSD: Yes, speak with your doctor about the changes in your libido. Your physician may change your HBC, or HBC may not be for you. But you also write, “On the occasions we do have sex I can still enjoy it physically and my boyfriend usually gets me off.” Many women with low libido report the same: little interest in sex, but when physically aroused by their partners, they enjoy the sex and orgasm, and the sex and orgasms are as good as when they had sex because they were horny before getting intimate. So maybe this is just how your body works, and you should try going with the flow when your partner initiates. If through kissing, manual stimulation, and oral sex he can get you aroused enough to have vaginal sex great, and if not, try again a different night.

I think the problem is too many people are trying to hold on to relationships that just don't work. The nineteen year old is nineteen. Don't waste another second with this guy who isn't into you. Same with the girl who's BF is making her feel bad. Making you feel bad is a dang good reason to end the relationship. He clearly needs to be working on his shit, not dating. To the wife, stop dancing around your frustration. Be honest with your husband because nurturing resentment helps no one.

Heck 80% of these are DTMFA letters if I ever saw one.

NATCH's solution is simple: Only see him once or twice a week. That way you have sex every time (or almost every time -- there is always a chance that you, that anyone, won't be in the mood on date night) you see him, and you have sex once or twice a week, satisfying both of your timetables. On a bigger scale, that your boyfriend "finds self-affirmation in sex" and takes your unapologetic (good for you!) no's so personally suggests that he may need therapy. Other people's libidos -- and FYI, once to twice a week is not "low" -- are not a referendum on him, and he may need to do some work to get to this realisation.

TFHMO should learn this too. Hoping for sex you don't get should leave you frustrated enough to masturbate, not "break your heart." Women are taught that men are always horny and that our value lies in our desirability, so I get it, but it's still unhealthy to think this way.

SFMSD, it is absolutely possible that birth control and stress have sapped your libido. The first part is easy to solve: ask your doctor about different birth control options. If he has to go back to using condoms, that's a price he should be willing to pay. The stress issue is one where he's going to have to be patient. Your grad program has an end in sight; once that's over, resolve that you'll find a less stressful job so you can focus on other things, such as your own sexuality and your sex life within your relationship.

Wouldn't it be fun if MASS wrote back to let us know how they're doing now, 8 years later? And it'd be really interesting if he checked in again another 20 years from now...

Surfrat @10: "Dan isn't going to publish letters from people who have great sex but are in bad relationships otherwise."
I beg to differ: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/11/30/36492789/shes-big-and-her-boyfriend-seems-to-hate-fat-people-what-should-she-do
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/11/13/35522477/she-fell-in-love-with-one-guy-but-wound-up-with-another

Emma @13: Great observations, particularly about the low libido person who experiences a libido boost due to circumstances like NRE, and then it falls off after six months to a year, which sounds like Mr Cougar's problem (along with, as you said, the ridiculous schedule). They're married; is there any way he could NOT work the two jobs? But he's told her that this is what he's like, so she needs to figure out if little-to-no improvement is something she can accept. But yes, generally, this is a difficult situation when the other person is NOT experiencing an NRE-related libido boost, this is their all-the-time libido, and it DOESN'T fall off -- what to do then, now that they're invested in the relationship? Related are people like NATCH and her boyfriend, who may see each other once or twice a week when dating and have sex every time, then move in, and Partner A expects to continue having sex once or twice a week and Partner B expects to continue having sex at every opportunity. Communication would help, but not everyone knows themself well enough -- someone who's never cohabited won't be able to say what their sex drive will be in a cohabiting relationship -- and there's a notorious issue with people in the throes of NRE hearing what they want to hear. "Dickful thinking," Dan called it. But I guess if everyone were capable of seeing their future partners-of-10-years at the beginning of a relationship, the human race would have died out long ago.

"Weepy bag of slop", really? NATCH's boyfriend may need to work on his self-esteem, but there's no need for the "boys don't cry" bullshit. People cry for all sorts of reasons, and all of them are valid.

I feel that our 'education', in broad terms, is wrong. Young adults socializing to independent life are often told 'find someone you love, who loves you, who completes you', with the assumption that the sex will fall into place. Love will find a way; sex is just 'a technical issue' when you care. I think that's wrong. Often, it would be more apt to see things as being the other way round: feelings of romantic attachment and the desire to commit grow out of sexual satisfaction and its predictability. Even leaving kink and evidently non-normative practices (between consenting adults) out of it, matching up libidos and broad sexual interests could more usefully be the primary concern of people dating. Many grounds of relationships, meanwhile, like once or occasionally finding each other attractive, having a shared study or intellectual interest (Chaucer, mitochondria, pulsars), being fanboys/girls of pop culture phenomena, could underlie not exclusive but fuckbuddy relationships (or just good old friendships).

One objection to this 'aligned-libido-first' view will be that people's libidos change through life, especially with major life-events like childbirth and the menopause. Then--what will get you through these tough times but love? Cis women may have a different perspective, but this hasn't been my experience. Everybody I've wanted to be with, I've wanted to fuck--at more or less my typical partnered pattern of frequency. And when they haven't wanted to oblige, it's caused problems for the relationship....

Margarita @19: Amen. Shame on you, Dan.

@7. robotslave. Ha! It’s Friedman's butler. When I travel, I always catch the coach from the airport i.e. with lower middle-income locals or airport service sector staff, and they tell me the opposite of his cabbie.

@10. Surfrat. Imv, Dan should solicit and publish letters saying 'my husband fucks like a champ but never does the dishes', or, rather he demeans my views, or is discouraging me from going to college. He already sort-of does that with his comments re Trump voters. But it's too specific, and too partisan-politicized. The separation of sex from other aspects of a relationship is artificial. It paints sex as a specific problem. The whole point of GGG is that the same norms of listening and being reasonable should be as active in sex as in negotiating other domestic arrangements like the dishes.

Another issue with our 'sexual education' in culture is that we're taught to understand sex as happening in a situation of scarcity, not abundance. This is informed by perspectives in which sex is dangerous, especially for women (it is, and should be less so), and where, residually, promiscuous or nonmarital sex courts shame (again, esp. for women). But if sex were by ideal happy and abundant, people would be under less pressure to stick with romantic-loves that weren't doing it for them sexually.

@13. I agree with EmmaLiz's essential idea that people basically have either a high or low libido.

Did anyone else hesitate over the typo in TFHMO's letter? "The problem is that I want to save sex more frequently than he does." I sat there wondering about saving sex and how that would work.

@25. Fichu. 'The grave's a fine and private place/But none, I think, do there embrace'. Can't bank it.

@19. Lost Margarita. I'm 100% with you and Bi on this. He's not crying because he's not getting sex, but because he thinks she's breaking up with him. It’s a misunderstanding. A man crying because his grad-school relationship is ending...? With someone who could be his soulmate, his intellectual equal, his long-term partner? Not someone I want to deride.

The letters are eight-and-a-half years old, and in all but the first case, have necessarily resolved themselves; the people involved are different people. So I've not gone beyond generalities.

@14 Ms. Anonymous for the win!

@18 BiDanFan I've always wanted a relationship that dengenreated to "horrible except for the great sex." I'd like to try that for a change.

CL:
"sex its over in a minute or two"

Premature ejaculative is quite possible to oversome, often simply by self-treatment. (Sexual surrogate therapy is a good followup for those not partnered with someone willing to participate.) Sorry I don't recall the book I heard recommended for this issue. A a sex advice column should address "men’s number one sexual complaint"(1) more often.

(1) https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201407/premature-ejaculation-self-help-usually-cures-it

p.s. IIRC I've seen Dan give premature ejaculation the "this is how your dick works" answer, which is not a good answer.

Harriet @26: Both the tying of frequency of sex to his own self-worth and the crying because of a perceived imminent breakup were what led me to recommend therapy for this young man. Therapy, not mocking.

Curious @28: That reminds me of a joke I heard long ago: "Studies have shown that 30% of men suffer from premature ejaculation. That's not true. WOMEN suffer!" :)

I loooooove Dan and most of his advice, but it seems like his answers this time were written in the spirit of the title, “ I’m Sick Of This Question.” In lieu of giving him a break of decades of having to answer it, checking out some of Esther Perel’s ideas on the paradox of the committed relationship might be helpful. Some relationships take a hit (sexually or in terms of ‘hotness’ or ‘aliveness’) once the couple settles in, as the couples above have. There’s no more risk or unpredictability, no more mystery or big question marks. The relationships tend to be characterized by comfort, groundedness, predictability, and reliability. Just what most people (esp most women) are looking for in a long-term, usually monogamous bond. Problem is, in still being human, we still want (and should want) the edge. Risk, mystery, the unknown. Some will find this in an affair, some in hopping from one person to the next. And some will take on the task of figuring out what it means and what it IS to live the paradox of have both things—comfort AND risk—within the context of the relationship with the person whom you already love. The one you don’t really want to dump, btw.

26-Bulrushes-- And THAT'S why I keep coming back to this column despite being old, straight, monogamous, and comparatively conservative. I marvell at your erudition

@32. Fichu. Thank God there are some English Profs I can please. College classes merely.

@26. Bi. I don't think it's unusual for a guy in the last (or final/ABD) years of a postgraduate degree to get his 'self-affirmation' through sex. This is a time where you're getting the constant message you're not good enough. You've gotta step it up a gear for your diss.. Then, on the job market (I can speak for humanities and social science PhDs) you can be culled arbitrarily, through no fault of your own; or you find out that everyone thought you were lousy, mediocre, all along. The feelings of unselfconscious mastery and dominance a guy can have in straight sex are conceivably a good antidote to all that.

By now she's an Associate Professor and he's a hedge-funder or Wall St. seller of derivatives.

YEP. To the youngsters, especially, a life lesson I learned after far too long in a sexless marriage: when thinking about whether or not to end things, you need to seperate your desire for something different from your fear of grief. It's easy to say, "I'm not happy, but I don't want to loose them," which is usually a true statement. But the reality is that after you work through the loss, you'll be in a position to be happier than you could have been with an incompatible partner. It will suck to go through the loss of the relationship, but it will suck a lot more to spend every day aware that your needs aren't being met and, to some extent, are being tacitly invalidated. Break-ups suck, but to some extent breaking up is a skill that's healthy to develop.

I have been married for many years and have two kids. I still find my husband to be completely delicious and irresistible, it's not an impossibility. It helps that while our values are similar, we are actually very different. There is always the "other " aspect that keeps the desire flowing. Also, he treats me like a slut and not a mom and I love that.

Harriet @33: Not unusual? Possibly, but certainly not healthy, either for himself or any potential partners. I've dated a lot of dudes and not one of them ever cried because I said no to sex. Sulked, pouted, sure. That this guy's issues aren't unique doesn't mean he's in any less need of addressing them, otherwise by now he has a string of exes who walked away from his emotional sexual blackmail, a couple of Me Too's, and/or a screenname on incel forums. Women do NOT exist to make him feel better by letting him fuck his insecurities away.

@36. Bi. No, of course they don't--of course women don't exist for that reason. It’s not unusual for a man to find his self-affirmation in sex, but it is (perhaps) unusual for him to cry when his gf turns him down. He would have had other reasons for thinking that the relationship was ending--her pulling away from him, etc. A lot of this would be the result of his sexual importunacy. They were at cross-purposes.

@36/BiDanFan: Once again you want to treat men differeny than women for the same or similar behavior. NATCFH’s boyfriend cried once after she turned him down for sex, and in your view, without hearing anything else about those circumstances leads you to suggest he needs therapy. Meanwhile TFHMO herself writes: “But when I initiate sex 95% of the time, I start feeling undesirable.” So when a man get affirmation from sex that’s bad and requires therapy, but when a TFHMO needs her insecurities fucked away - and lets get real, a large percentage of women get affirmation of their desirability through their sexual relationships - you merely say in passing that she needed to “think” about that.

I could be wrong, but I think @Harriet, might have been more open to your views if they were less openly gender biased.

Sublime @38: Sorry, but it's YOUR bias (against me personally) that has led you to the completely wrong conclusion that I have treated Mr NATCH and TFHMO differently. Yes, they are both tying their own self-worth to their desirability to one particular partner, and yes, I told both of them (see comment @16) that this view is unhealthy. Dan called Mr NATCH a "weepy bag of slop" for his reaction, yet I'm the one who's gender biased?

I'm doing my best to be a kinder, gentler commenter here, but your constant attacks on me have seriously got to stop, or the gloves are coming back off where you're concerned.

@BiDanFan: I did see you comment at @16 and noted that it was worded vaguely enough to have the appearance of evenhandedness: he needed “therapy; “she also needed to learn,” but no therapy. So didn’t say anything until you kept hammer away at NATCFH’s boyfriend in comments with @Harriet.

I’m sorry that you feel attacked, and I do praise you as well, even recently, as you know, but I stand by the comment that you treat men and women LW and third parties often strikingly differently, and here was a case within the same set of letters and in same comment thread. If you want to believe that you’re entirely gender neutral fine, but I don’t think that is unreasonable to say, and I don’t think you need to make threats of personal attacks in response.

Sublime @40: Quasi-apology accepted. The reason I recommended Mr NATCH -consider- therapy, but not TFHMO, was not gender bias but the difference in the degree of their reactions: TFHMO "felt heartbroken," while Mr NATCH cried because he believed NATCH was going to break up with him, which seemed extreme. The conversation regarding Mr NATCH continued, due to Lost Margarita's calling Dan out for his unfair quip; the conversation regarding TFHMO did not. So my comment didn't just have the appearance of evenhandedness, it WAS evenhanded, and I'm glad you now recognise that. (Oh, and my threat was to resume calling YOU out for YOUR gender bias, which I've been holding back from doing, just so you know. Either that's an "attack" or it isn't.)

Oh, and saying someone would benefit from therapy isn't an insult.

Likewise, the one is crying over not getting sex. The other one is feeling rejected. While they both have issues with validation, only one is crying over getting a totally normal amount of sex. If there's a bias affecting the response, it's that one letter is from the viewpoint of the pressured while the other is from the viewpoint of the rejected- given the info that they presented in their two letters, the pressured LW describes a situation in which the partner is acting more unreasonable. This could be a lack of self-reflection on the part of the rejected LW- for all we know, she might also be getting a normal amount of sex (she doesn't say) and her responses might be just as bad as crying for it (she doesn't say), but as usual, we respond to the info we have. It seems reasonable to point out that we might need to read between the lines of both letters, but it's a factor of reflexive resentment to assume we aren't because of the genders- I don't know about everyone else, but with so many LWs, I had to go back and check on the genders of the individuals. I did not remember which was the male or female.

One thing I've noticed is since the cries of female bias here a few weeks ago (which taken in the context of current social and political realities is ludicrous as I've said), I've stepped back as well, and it's not surprising that certain male posters instead take things out of context and continue to have their feelings hurt and cry "but if the genders were flipped!" or get very rude and personal, etc. There is nothing gendered in what BDF said above, and there was nothing gendered in what I said last week, and without anything overtly gendered to pick out, some people are going to pick things out of context to find offense and express resentment. Or else, as in the rape thread, escalate a normal disagreement about how to respond to the LW's situation into personal insults. So whatever, I'm sort of over it to, and I think I'll step back again.

I'm starting to think there's some truth to the stereotype that those of us who are more, ah, challenging partners at least put out. Makes me think of Rebecca Bunch: girl needs therapy but she's always DTF.

I think I made an unwarranted assumption that the guy who wants sex every time they meet was NATCH's college boyfriend. She says she's three years into an advanced degree, not that he is. (In elite educational settings, which are most grad programs, what with time pressures, you have to make an effort to meet anyone from outside your bubble. Or know them from before). It’s possible, then, that she's a student, even a part-time student juggling a relationship with a heavy, varied workload, and that he's not.

It would be fairly classic for sex to feel, to him, like the sphere of life in which they're equal--in which she isn't above him, or moving beyond him. Whether he experiences it as his domming her or not, or as a more or less vanilla exercise of his mastery, sex could be something 'they're both in together'. Some commenters have got the idea that he cried because he wasn't getting it each and every day; but NATCH said nothing of the kind: the tears were because he thought the relationship was over.

Bi is right that many women would interpret tears in such a context as manipulative, coercive--though the LW did not. If the couple could have a discussion about their future plans, and what her work / study schedule implies for their sex life, and the time they spend together, she wouldn't be writing to Dan. And I'd have to think that the one who makes it hard to talk is more him than her. I see no reason at all to say that Bi isn't even-handed in her treatment of men and women in her remarks.

EmmaLiz @43: Thank you, and sending hugs. It's a fine line to tread. No one is entirely free of gender "bias" because each of us has either been socialised male or socialised female, and depending on which lifetime of socialisation one has received, one will find it easier to relate to LWs who have received the same socialisation. However, ease of relating does NOT mean lack of sympathy for the other gender, which I've tried to show at all times. I give all LWs the benefit of the doubt unless they show me some reason not to; there have been asshole male LWs and asshole female LWs, and no doubt some asshole non-binary LWs, though those are less likely to be expressing their assholery in ways related to their gender socialisation. At any rate I feel I'm better placed than most to relate to people of both genders, having dated people of both genders -- though that is not required for empathy.

Harriet @45: Thank you, but a clarification: I was not trying to imply that "many women would interpret tears in such a context as manipulative, coercive," or that this was Mr NATCH's intent. I was referring not to the tears themselves but to a strategy of seeking sex for stress relief, putting his partners in the position of being responsible for his emotional well-being by obligating them to have sex they themselves may or may not want. Certainly sex IS a great stress reliever, but as it does rely on the cooperation of another person, Mr NATCH should seek other alternatives if he doesn't want to fuck up his future relationships.

Sublime, you and I have formed negative opinions of each other, and those are leading us to read each other's comments with a negative spin. You're therefore seeing gender bias where there is none -- and I'm likely doing the same. The difference is that I've now stopped pointing it out wherever I see it, which I now know doesn't do any good anyway, and which I hope has led to a more harmonious environment on the board. I ask you to do the same.

firsttime @35 "Also, he treats me like a slut and not a mom and I love that."

Yes, that's what works for us, too. And changing up our sex play over time so we don't get in a rut.

@46. Bi. Ah, I misunderstood what you meant by 'emotional sexual blackmail' in your remark @36. You seem to have been saying that it's tantamount to a form of blackmail to hang your happiness, as you represent it, on whether your lover has sex with you. If NATCH's bf keeps doing this, he may well (you imply) go on to have a string of exes who leave him because, consciously or not, he was putting them in a situation where they felt blackmailed. I agree with all this.

Imv the ideal of absolute even-handedness wrt the genders (the two main ones) is an impossible one; and it can even be unhelpful or skewing to seek this. We live in a sexist culture--one where everyone has been socialized, to some degree or other, into baleful gendered assumptions and impulses, not always (and most amenably to reflection) in their 'politics', but often in their feelings, their self-esteem, their intimacy. A young straight woman is very likely to feel undesirable if she always has to initiate sex. One answer, and even a feminist answer, is that often it just falls to the more highly-sexed partner to start things, and that this should stand quite to one side of gender identities. But to expect someone to assimilate this at once is a counsel of perfection. It could be punitive to say, 'you're a feminist; you understand that gender identities are socially constructed, the effect of ideology and history; get with the program, drop your preconceptions, accept there's no such thing as 'acting like the man' and act as you imagine the man should act'. This hard, theoretical-feminist line is not going to make her feel any better. Nor will it help her with her conversations with her bf. Or in arranging a schedule, explicit or implicit, where each has an amount of sex they're happy with.

Incidentally, I thought Dan's advice to her bf, that he should 'get his ass in gear' and hit the gym, crude or insensitive. What if he just wants less sex than she does? No fault inheres in this case. They would just be incompatible. Her story about the lingerie is a bit sad. A robe party is not likely to whet the libido of somebody insecure in that relationship situation. Whether in a joking spirit or as something more charged, she should have tried to have sex before they went. If he got drunk at the party, because he feared not being aroused (or feared being too aroused), then of course he's going to collapse into bed afterwards.