Millennials Debate the Meaning of Sex

November 5, 2010

We often discuss and debate the sexual double standard here. Understandably, “It’s not fair to women!” is a common complaint. Yesterday’s student newspaper at SUNY Geneseo had an interesting post on hooking up featuring two different viewpoints – the woman wanting the random hookup, the guy holding out for something meaningful. However, what really caught my attention was the view each had of the opposite sex. Excerpts follow.

Don’t buy a car before you drive it: sex doesn’t have to be a big deal.

by Kate Hayden

“What, after all, is so wrong with a random physical encounter? Who’s to say that it isn’t something akin to trying a new hairstyle or test-driving a new car?

…Blah blah blah wonderful guy, blah blah well-endowed. Great! We’ve got the thumbs up on both the physical and emotional aspects of Mr. Dream Boat. We’re college students, and a vital portion of our intimate relationships comes from their physical nature. True, this might not always be the case, but it frequently is. I’m going with the numbers on this one.

So, you strike up a conversation, have a few drinks, and make plans to see whatever crappy flick is currently showing at the local theater. Lovely. I bet you’re psyched. You go out on a few dates, spend some quality time together and eventually take that next step. Surprise! Your views on intimacy don’t quite, erm, mesh. In a big way. And now, my dear, you’re in the proverbial pickle. You’ve developed feelings for someone with whom you do not agree on an absolutely vital topic. Enter inner turmoil, unhappiness, and undue stress.

Bet you wish you’d taken that test drive, eh?”


Kate’s primary concern is that she’s going to wind up having crappy sex with someone she’s fallen for. That they’ll each have such different views (preferences, fetishes, what???) that the chasm can’t be breached. The guy being WONDERFUL and WELL-ENDOWED isn’t a guarantee that he’ll be any good at pleasing her, so she wants to start with the sex and work backward from there. The only problem is….

Save up for the car of your dreams: commitment should come before sex

by Kevin Muller

How many sexual partners have you had?” asks a dashing young feller to his blushing lady during a spirited game of Q-and-A over wine at a local pretty-fancy restaurant.

“I…” she begins, pausing in thought. “I don’t know.”

The boy bunches his brows, a nervous smile. “You don’t…know?!?”

Her eyes fall into to the spaghetti. “I LOST COUNT AFTER SEVENTEEN.”

Okay, so not every college student is as promiscuous as this poor example, but the attitude that having unattached sex with flings, friends and flesh is no big deal is disconcerting and depressing. Yes, it’s biology; yes, it feels pretty cool to do it; yes, you’re only young once, but how long will it be before you’re hanging from chandeliers and coating your skin in molasses just to keep things exciting?

…Sex is yours to have and yours to give, and it holds exactly as much value as you give it. Choose wisely. Even if your adherence to this advice means that you’re a terrible lay, you’re giving the man or woman on top of you an experience that was earned and a part of yourself that is rarely had.


Kevin wants sex to be special, an act of love, a generous gift. And he’s worried that women have so many sexual partners that sex no longer has emotional value. He wants to earn the physical intimacy. He wants to wait.

They’re obviously not right for each other, but I wonder who’s right, or at least more right.

Is Kate’s view typical of women in college? Is a test drive in the sack key to not getting stuck with a dud? Is she being fair?

How unusual is Kevin’s desire to earn sex? His chagrin over girls’ number? Is he being fair?

  • Jess

    Goodness am I the 1st to post? Well this is the 64000 dollar question isn’t it?
    Does one try out the car before buying?
    I think its a matter of opinion. In the uk we are less god fearing than the bible belt of the USA and I would say it’s very rare for people to marry before sex. Well below 1%
    I actually think it’s a very good thing. What if you fall In love and discover he/she has a mismatched sex drive, or is/isnt kinky or don’t like their body? You have turned an awkward situation into a heart breaking one.
    There is this notion that virginal brides cannot compare their husbands lovemaking so they will eternally happy and will not know better otherwise. This is a falsehood. Good sex takes practice, expertise, intimacy, empathy, functioning body parts, confidence and compromise.
    If a person doesn’t care about sex then perhaps it doesn’t matter but how would they know how much it could matter to them unless they have tried it?
    I say buy in haste and repent at leisure?

  • GudEnuf

    Abstinence until marriage (AUM) is more than just buying a car before you test drive it. It’s like buying a car when you have NO CONCEPT OF WHAT DRIVING IS LIKE. Virgins tend to think sex is heaven on earth, and they become fixated on what it must be like. The best argument for losing your virginity, and this is going to sound cynical, is that it shatters your idealism. It reframes sex as just another part of life, rather than the culmination of all that is worth living.

    Saving sex for a relationship is more understandable, but I still wouldn’t wait too long. Women who want to get married don’t have time to waste with men they aren’t compatible with. And women who don’t want marriage probably don’t care much about commitment anyway.

  • filrabat

    @GudEnuf

    Saving sex for a relationship is more understandable, but I still wouldn’t wait too long. Women who want to get married don’t have time to waste with men they aren’t compatible with. And women who don’t want marriage probably don’t care much about commitment anyway.

    The assumption here is that sex IS, in fact, the end-all be-all of marriage. Anyone who thinks sex is the end-all be-all of marriage is – very likely – someone who values excitement and other feel-good emotionalisms over love. In fact, they even confuse the two. To me, love – and happiness in general – is characterized by a lack of barriers to open communication about your most vulnerable “raw nerves”, emotionally speaking. It’s also characterized by a steady, sober, low-intensity state of mind (but that’s likely just my opinion).

    In fact, I’d argue that intense emotional feelings are VERY likely to be counterfeit love, just like “ex” and other illicit drugs produce counterfeit happiness. The feelings of limmerance (not love) are just a neurochemical cocktail, just like mind-altering drugs are. Same thing for testosterone, oxycotin, and other sex-related drugs. That’s why I think it’s better to have a rather inactive sex life. Whatever advantages an active sex life has, it can really distort your perception of what love is.

  • GudEnuf

    @filrabat Even if sex isn’t the end-all be-all of marriage, most women don’t want to marry to someone they aren’t sexually compatible with.

  • http://www.snubbr.com Henway

    @Filra I actually agree with you. Too much sex can really interfere with true feelings of love, and can disrupt the good things in a relationship. That’s why when I get married, I’d practice karezza, which simply touching/bonding without the orgasms. It leaves both partners feeling whole, and relaxed, while orgasms causes mood swings, angst, and tension between both partners

  • NGII

    @GudEnuf
    The Car/Driving anaogy to sex is always excellent. When you were a kid, you waited years to get the chance to get that driver’s license, and you waited for years to lose your viriginity. The excitement partly comes from the anticipation, and partly they represent the cultural ritual of passing to be an adult. Driving/Having sex the first time may not be the most pleasent experiences in the world, but initially both make you want more. As you experience more, both become another part of life as they should be.

    However, I would argue that you’ve taken a too simplistic view on the virginity issue. Losing your virginity as a way to reframe sex is not a good reason to lose your virginity. For some virgins, they are virgins not because they want to hold it as a precious gift, but simply of security issues developed from not having the chance. A combination of bad luck and life situations may rob them to the time for social lives. As time goes, these virgins often feel insecure about sex (not not interested in sex), and want someone they can trust to pop their cherry and ease them into the world of their sexuality.

    I agree oftentimes these virgins become level 5 clingers after having their cherry popped because they are going through the excitement stage I mentioned above. Insensitive partners may not understand that it is just human nature but not personality. It takes a lot of maturity and self-disipline on both parties to go through that awkward period. That may be the reason why someone like Athol suggesting “being the first of each other”. Both partners are going through the same stage and understand each other.

    That’s what I think the psyche of virgins/sexually inexperienced. It’s not necessary the fixation of sex you referred to.

  • filrabat

    @Henway

    Never heard of Karezza, but I’ll look into it. Sounds interesting.

    [Karezza] leaves both partners feeling whole, and relaxed, while orgasms causes mood swings, angst, and tension between both partners

    I can’t speak too intelligently about this (as obvious from my above remark), but I do appreciate that emotional intensities (sexual or not) cause “swings, angst, and tension”. I also add it leads to loss of control over one’s self, thereby making you a slave of the very thing you intensely desire. The more intense the feeling, the more likely you’ll be addicted to it and therefore the weaker your mind becomes.

    @NGII

    I don’t agree that a heterosexual’s or gay’s lack of interest in sex has to come from insecurity about sex. It could be that they managed to see through the hormone fog to find a deeper truth – that sex IS overrated, even if it is an important part of a relationship. This can happen if they find other activities to occupy their mind and body to the point that they start thinking “Eh, sex is ok to have, but it’s not a necessity for my happiness. I’ve got other things going for me”. Still, I do agree about their need for a trustworthy partner in order to want sex. They’ve seen horrid breakups over their lifetimes and decide that if they’re going to have sex, they might as well have it with someone who is truly worthy of their trust.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    “The feelings of limmerance (not love) are just a neurochemical cocktail, just like mind-altering drugs are”…the fact that feelings operate via a biochemical mechanism doesn’t mean that the feelings aren’t real or valid. If you’re about to get run over by a bus, your racing heart is driven by a surge in adrenaline, but this doesn’t mean your fear isn’t an accurate reflection of reality.

  • filrabat

    @David

    True, BUT…suppose that bus wasn’t real, but a hallucination? That’s what limmerance is: a hallucination of love, based more on intense emotional desire rather than because of ease of communication and/or trust in a person. On another track, intense emotional attachment is also a trait of codependency – which is definitely NOT true love but more like addiction to the person.

  • Jess

    When I hear stuff like Henway’s comments it makes we wonder if people have ever met someone compatible or been in love.
    Sex can be a consuming and beautiful experience.
    It can also be mundane, humdrum and unfullfilling.
    Thats why I think its worth finding out how good it can be and how important it might be to the individual. I have had experience of this myself as I rotted away in a mismatched relationship. Life really can be so wonderful, its so important not to settle, we pass but once this way.
    Any mental state could be reduced to a collection of brain chemicals and electrical signals. Is my love for my kids merely a neuron emitting an electrical impulse? Maybe so but I dont think its healthy to think that way.

  • PJL

    “how would they know how much it could matter to them unless they have tried it”

    You really don’t believe this, which amounts to asserting “one cannot know a characteristic of X if one has not tried X or acted in X manner.” I won’t bother to point out why, as I consider it obvious to anyone who honestly reflects about the premise.

    The tired car metaphor is unhelpful, because people aren’t cars. Most metaphor arguments are easy to manipulate. In the case of the car test drive sex argument, observe: if you know cars, you don’t have to drive it to know whether or not it’s a good buy. In fact, just taking a car around the corner is no way to understand whether or not it’s a good match for you. Instead, what any intelligent person does is check the engine or take it to someone who will check the engine. I leave it to the more literarily inclined amongst the readership of HUS to do all the tiresome work of figuring out this allegory, which I think as tiresome and useless as its first incarnation.

    “The best argument for losing your virginity, and this is going to sound cynical, is that it shatters your idealism. It reframes sex as just another part of life, rather than the culmination of all that is worth living.”

    I’m not going to argue for anything, but if to think that anyone asserting AUM is somehow committed to the premise that sex is the “culmination of all that is worth living,” is to have missed a lot. If being a virgin somehow psychologically leads to the belief that sex is the culmination of all that is worth having or living for, it does not logically lead to it. What would be needed would be a rational discussion, not some sort of brutal disenchantment. (What sort of charm does disenchantment hold for people anyway? Loss of idealism and innocence used to be a tragedy.)

    Putting aside the straw man reference to the position of AUMers, to label the AUM understanding of sex as idealistic is to beg the question–you simply assume that sex is and ought to be “another part of life,” presumably not quite like scratching where it itches or eating when hungry but of the same order. Of course, the AUM position says that sex is emphatically not “just”—this is the important word for your understanding—another part of life. If you have experienced sex as just another part of life, the AUM advocate would say, this may say more about you then about sex itself. Thus, the ground provided by your argument sacrifices sure footing for a killing stroke—never a good move, in thinking or in fighting.* I speak thus to prove that one can be both a logic snob and a man of the people.

    I find it strange that whenever Kevin’s position is taken people assume that its only ground is religious. But if you listen to many arguments for AUM, explicit divine command is rarely brought in. I’m not interested in arguing for or against AUM. My policy on this board is to rarely assert what I believe about sex one way or the other. And my criticism of two rather bad arguments does not comment one way or the other on the conclusion that these arguments attempted to establish.

    Again: I just think it’s interesting that Kevin’s position was (A) immediately converted into an AUM position when there’s no indication that he was defending AUM and (B) that the AUM position was seen as having only a fideistic or religious basis, which can be safely quarantined.

    * I refer of course to 2.20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnFJiEPxwbg

  • forcho130

    As an average man living in California and interested in starting a family, I’d like to add a few thoughts. I believe this issue has been brought up multiple times throughout the past on this blog, but I think that it’s important to sometimes rehash what has been said previously.

    Because of the onerous consequences of divorce in my state, my primary objective (yes primary!) in finding a mate is to do everything in my power to reduce my chances for divorce. One of those factors is, unsurprisingly, the sexual past of my future wife. I realize that this is a contentious issue and that people will accuse me of judging people based upon their past actions, but research has shown that, for whatever reason, the number of men that a woman has slept with before marriage is directly proportional to marriage dissolution.

    The Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women by R Rector et al, 2003

    Chances of having a stable marriage:
    Virgin: 80.47%
    1 partner: 53.63%
    2 partners: 43.65%
    3 partners: 39.35%
    4 partners: 41.77%
    5 partners: 29.70%
    etc…

    You can read some interesting comments and analysis at The Social Pathologist.

    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/08/defining-slut.html

    Now this is not to imply that all women who have sexual intercourse before marriage will eventually divorce, but as an average man, I am not so arrogant as to think that I can successfully pick out the loyal ones from the perfidious ones among women with a sexual past.

    Fortunately, I have been able to find a nice young lady with no sexual past, and you can bet I’m doing everything within my power to keep her.

    Those are my two cents.

  • jess

    @PJL
    Perhaps Im a dumb brunette but I suspect I’m not the only one who finds your writing very hard to follow.
    Also who is Kevin?
    In any case I think the car anology is a good one and most motor magazines insist you test drive before buying (wise words). Perhaps you have never had bad sex. Good for you. For those who have, the idea of having it for a lifetime is not enthralling. Compatibility is important. Whilst there may well be people that can tell themselves that love conquers all etc etc, most cannot and are best advised to try other fish in the sea if such a problem presents itself.
    I agree sex isnt everything but good food, love, sex, children, friends, warmth and shelter- whats the point in living if you deny yourself these things?

  • jess

    @forcho
    Hi. I always like it when people use stats- at least its a nod to the scientific process. However I have heard altrnative stats. If we assume they are rock solid then do they give the relative proportions and also are they filtered for religious allegiance?
    Because I know a few religious women who have only been with their husbands and will never divorce and who’s lives are utterly miserable. Did you data filter for that?
    Also, and I apologise for being provocative, I dont know else to phrase this, but are you certain of your new partners history? SW has spoken about how some women feel the need to ‘forget’ the odd liason or two.
    Not that it matters. I have had more than 5 partners and will likely never cheat on partner, despite having plenty of opportunities to do so. Its just not gonna happen. And I would say the same for most of my friends. Why ruin the special bond? the trust?
    And how many western girls marry as virgins and are not religious or extremely under confident? We could be talking about a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Slim pickings methinks.

  • PJL

    Jess,
    If you ask me where you don’t understand, I will do my best to clarify.

    I see that I have made myself misunderstood; because you missed the point. I didn’t want to cavil over the car analogy. I wanted to point out that analogies aren’t arguments. They are attempts to demonstrate a conclusion. Therefore, they are useless unless you’re preaching to the converted, which you are not.

    When you reassert that the car analogy is a good one, you’re just begging the question, rather than discussing the issue. (A common example of begging the question is “God exists, because the Bible tells me and everything the Bible says is true”).

    And my point was not to argue for any position. It was just to point out that your argument (and another’s) was very bad. In demonstrating that, my own opinion about sex is irrelevant. Where you think that somehow my own experience with sex would at all be relevant to a discussion about what sex is or ought to be is a mystery.

    The sad part about people’s preconceptions is not the content of those preconceptions, which is often defensible upon reflection. It’s that most people are completely unaware they have them. In your case, you may want to spend some time reflecting on why you equate “good sex” with “physically pleasurable” and why you *seem* to equate the lack of the “physically pleasurable” with an unhappy marriage, irrespective of whatever you mean by the position of your putative interlocutor, the “love conquers all” position. Prima facie, let’s call your antagonist Jane Austen. Austen would argue that a happy life is one characterized by moral virtue. Consequently, a happy marriage is one characterized by mutual respect and emotional bonding between two moral people. A lackluster sex life may not be ideal, but this world is not an ideal one, and anyways it would not spell doom for the couple’s happiness. That position deserves just a little more thought than your car analogy allows, don’t you think? (I’m not saying I agree with Austen’s position, I am saying it deserves to be recognized and seriously confronted, rather than simplified and forgotten).

    And Kevin, unless I am mistaken, was mentioned in the main post, which I assumed to be the touchstone for further discussion.

    Hope that helps.

  • PJL

    whoops:

    “They are attempts to demonstrate a conclusion”

    Should read, “they are attempts to illustrate a conclusion.”

  • rick

    Susan-

    It’s really over for us, isn’t it?

    Can the future legions of innovative betas really remain motivated to produce the amazing standard of living that we have enjoyed up until now?

    Once we reach the tipping point of recognition, these good men will then begin to actually become the peter-pan basement dwellers that women have accused them of being.

    As an early-40s beta male who has always tried to live with honor and chivalry, I am hereby conceding the results of the election.

    I have patiently waited through my 30s as the ballots were recounted numerous times in the hopes that women would outgrow their revulsion of good men.

    As it stands, it is not going to happen. I wonder if they actually relish the idea that my heart has been fully broken, or if they only consider it to be collateral damage in their great mating campaign?

  • Anonymous

    Neither. More likely we are simply nonpersons.

  • Sasha

    I agree on both sides of the argument.
    Coming from a woman’s perspective I totally agree with the try the car before you buy it. Interestingly enough when I was in my mid-teens (I had had my first boyfriend for 2 years by this point) I made a mention to my Mother about wanting to stay a virgin till I was married because that is what “good” girls do and girls who follow their faith (I happen to be Roman Catholic and went to Roman Catholic primary and secondary schools) she then sat me down and proceeded to make an analogy about good and bad tilers and how some are good and do an amazing job while others leave little to be desired. She then made the comparison to men that some men are very good and compatible with you sexually while others not so much and that’s why you should try before you buy. Now I know this doesn’t seem like great advice to be telling your then 16 year old daughter but I mean it’s come to be very true. I believe trying before you buy is more about whether you’re sexually compatible. There is nothing worse than being with someone and they don’t fulfill you sexually – in my personal opinion.
    Also from the perspective of the guy that you should save up for the car and that sex is about commitment I believe this is important too – because a girl would like to know that sex isn’t the be all and end all of what makes the relationship. That by her holding out she has somehow gained some respect that makes you want to commit to her and her only.
    But where I get confused is where you should apply either one?
    When it comes to applying trying before you buy or save the sex for some commitment I mean where do you begin to make the judgement of what one to use? They both contradict themselves – the girls want to try before the commitment in order to make the commitment while the guys think that if you don’t save the trying till after the commitment is made then your not worth it to make the commitment at all in the first place.
    So should a girl instead hold out and refrain from having sex with a guy? What if there is never any commitment made or offered until the sex is given? And at that point who is to say that there will even be any commitment offered? If a girl does in fact hold out who is to say that he finds that tedious and boring and will move onto another girl who will offer sex. I dunno. I just think there are all these rules that can’t be applied generally – they are all person and situation respective. The trouble comes then in applying it to that person and that situation.

  • Anonymous

    To elaborate: for them to “relish the idea that [your] heart has been fully broken” or “consider it to be collateral damage” there would have to be some weighing on their part on the harms visited on you, whether it is desired (as in the former case), or merely acceptable (as in the latter). I don’t believe there has been any such weighing. Rather, to them, you do not exist.

    “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”

  • Octavia

    For the men who identify themselves as betas, have you searched for and appreciated your counterparts? I firmly believe that the type of people who hold your interest, especially romantically, are embodiments of what you value. If you like women who are shallow, accept being used and abused by cads, etc., it might be time for some introspection. Maybe the problem isn’t women but the type of women you let into your life.

    I prefer betas who also have a reasonable amount of alpha tendencies. I want a man who is in control, without being controlling. (I’m using the terms alpha and beta for the sake of the argument, though I don’t always agree with some definitions of those labels.)

  • J

    Good sex takes practice, expertise, intimacy, empathy, functioning body parts, confidence and compromise.

    Exactly–and you are far more likely to get those things in a non-casual relationship.

  • JESS

    @JPL
    Oh found Kevin!- my bad
    .
    but “putative interlocutor”, “Prima facie”, “Jane Austen”???
    .
    are you taking the piss?
    .
    Im a plain speaking Brit mate! I’m afraid your simplified version left me floundering.
    I maintain anologies serve may purposes in debate as they offer perspective and a degree of proof of rationale.
    In this case; a car is a complex item that you commit to long term. It has/hasnt a history and is complex and often demanding. Your quality of life may be dependant upon it. This is true of an LTR. You really dont know what a cars like till you drive it. You really dont know what someone is like between the sheets just by looking at them. Trust me, people vary a lot. Compatibility (with due deference to a degree of compromise and lateral thinking) is importnat these days. I dont always think good physical = happiness. Far from it. But I have to tell you its rare to find a woman who is unhappy with the sex in her relationship who is content and happy with life. There is a lot misery out there. In my view uneeded misery.
    In regards to the threads title- If you have sex early on and it isnt working then its awkward and a bit sad for one of the parties. If you wait untill strong love is involved and then discover a profound sexual issue you have a potentially devasting situation on your hands- I struggle to see the value in that. Perhaps this is due to my putative interlocator neurons having undegone an inverse matrix violation discharge.

  • Matt T

    Kevin’s desire for the sex to be special is solely a product of evolutionary mechanisms. What he is implicitly concerned about is that his potential child with the female won’t be his if she has had many sexual partners. Granted, that’s not a concern in today’s world, but you can’t wipe away tens of thousands of years of evolution in a century.

    So yes, I would say that Kevin is fair to hold women to such a standard, despite what feminists may think.

  • http://ft.com VJ
    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VJ
      I found that second pic rather touching and sad.

  • PJL

    “But I have to tell you its rare to find a woman who is unhappy with the sex in her relationship who is content and happy with life.”

    You seem remarkably unable to grasp that, perhaps, being unhappy with the sex in the relationship is an effect rather than a cause of being content and happy with the relationship or, as you put it, life itself. Your formation of it seems a bit dramatic for me and indicative of a position you claim to be far from—but OK.

    That being said, I will raise my head into the fray and say that I think the whole sexual compatibility concept, if extant, could be solved by sexual therapy. The idea that Romeo and Juliet should part because their first few times in the sack weren’t mind altering is so asinine that I’m really not even going to pay the position the compliment of sustained rational dissent. And really your position is more shallow than that, because it asserts that two people couldn’t learn to please each other between the sheets or anywhere else for that matter (so much for your experience criteria). Just another place where the car metaphor leads you to sloppy thinking: people change, cars only depreciate.

  • Obsidian

    This just in:

    Fellow blogger Nicole, over at her site The Iron Wynch, seems to have gotten wind of what recently happened to me, and has decided to go straight to the source: Essence.com. She’s started up a discussion forum to deal with the whole ball of wax; you can check it out here:

    http://community.essence.com/forum/topics/should-a-black-man-be-allowed

    Head on over and register your thoughts! And biggups to Ms. Walsh for allowing my this indulgence. :)

    O.

  • Robson

    demotywatory.pl (crappy motivation poster parodies in Polish) site has something on topic:

    http://demotywatory.pl/2212832/W-dzisiejszych-czasach-seks-juz-nie-jest-
    In English: Sex is not a big obligation nowdays, but flowers are a serious step.

    “For some virgins, they are virgins not because they want to hold it as a precious gift, but simply of security issues developed from not having the chance. A combination of bad luck and life situations may rob them to the time for social lives. As time goes, these virgins often feel insecure about sex (not not interested in sex)”

    You’re telling story of my later twenties… To add some value apart from “mee too”: I my quite short dating time I had a couple of opportunities of having my “cherry popped” but either the girl was sending mixed signals, or I was not confident/arrogant enough to overcome insecurity feeling.

  • Jack Arthur

    You don’t discover this “sexual compatibility” by ‘trying it out’ (AKA letting your ego beat your heart to the goal post)… but by allowing love to lead your relationships rather than lists, rather than your head, your judgment.

    There is a reason we call it (or used to call it) “falling” in love. Incorporating sex into the ego’s agenda-driven pursuit and hunger will not ‘let you know beforehand whether things will work'; it just doesn’t work that way. Do you think if you got everything you wanted it would make you happy? What is the point of relationships in the first place, you think it is to increase the breadth of your comfort zones in life? Heh.

    I have never in my life fallen in love with someone and then ‘discovered’ in the bedroom that we were ‘sexually incompatible’. I think this occurs only when people lead with their ego into relationships where they require the other to fulfill a list of expectations of theirs. That is not love.

    It is not love.

  • Jack Arthur

    More like using someone to fight your fears and insecurities for you.

  • asdf

    The revealing thing here is how shallow are these’s people expectations of a relationship between two (supposedly) unique individuals for (supposedly) the entirety of (supposedly) their only life. This girl thinks a man is defined by the pleasantness of his disposition, the size of his dick and what kind of sexual appetites he has. There is no depth, no mystery, no wonder, no creativity in these people and for that reason they will end up with what they deserve – hollow fucking sessions to release sexual tension. Might as well make a business out of it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @asdf

      There is no depth, no mystery, no wonder, no creativity in these people and for that reason they will end up with what they deserve – hollow fucking sessions to release sexual tension. Might as well make a business out of it.

      I’ve often thought that the recreationally promiscuous are less well off than sex workers. I guess the payoff is choosing your sexual partner, and the brief validation of having been with that high status male, even if briefly.

  • Anonymous

    Just because you drive the car beforehand doesn’t mean that you’ll never want to drive another car.
    IOW, having sex before marriage is a poor guarantee of marital happiness and satisfaction.
    Love isn’t a feeling (that’s infatuation), it’s an action. It isn’t just sex, it’s doing things for the benefit of someone else.
    And I agree that sex isn’t the be-all-end-all for marriage. A good marriage takes maturity. Part of maturity is being able to delay gratification. The (seeming) inability to delay gratification among younger people is my big concern.
    Add to this that people change over time. I remember being told that when you marry, you marry three people: 1) who you think they are, 2) who they really are, 3) who they become as a result of marrying you. Successful marriages are able to deal with the differences between the three.

  • Jack Arthur

    I wonder if anybody really thinks our generation is happier because of their ability to test-drive…

    As in, how miserable all our ancestors must’ve been, being stuck with the one they loved for their whole lives, many of them probably sexually incompatible… they didn’t even have condoms to be able to test the waters first! ???

    But perhaps it is the very unleashing of our ego’s selfish, gratification chasing mentality on to the gift of procreation that is the cause of discontent in the first place.

    Perhaps viewing sex as a tool for self-fulfillment only engenders and solidifies an attitude of discontentment.

    Perhaps revolving one’s life significantly around the pleasurable feeling of an orgasm is not a good way to engender a healthy mind. Perhaps this habit of chasing and grasping at a pleasurable high blinds us to the beauty of life and love.

    Perhaps to our ancestors, sex was an expression of love, like a work of art. Perhaps its purpose was not to make someone feel totally perfectly great, but to create a beautiful child through the gift of life.

    Perhaps some things should be sacred to maintain the integrity of mind from which true happiness emerges.

    I sound like an old codger but maybe this issue isn’t so complicated after all. I think it’s simply the case that people know what’s up, but the human mind has an unrivalled capacity for self-delusion. So people chase and chase and argue and argue all to avoid facing up to reality.

  • Lavazza

    I have bought new cars without test driving them because I already know from reviews or from the manufacturer’s reputation that they will be good or at least good enough. The same goes for second hand cars. If the car has passed the mandatory yearly test I know that there is nothing disturbingly wrong with it and the reason I buy second hand cars is that I want to avoid high depreciation and finance costs and that I am prepared to pay for the necessary reparation costs. None of these reasons apply to women, since they can decide themselves if they want to be bad or good, independently of how I treat them, even if that has an influence as well. Cars cannot decide to react badly to repairing either.

  • PJL

    “You seem remarkably unable to grasp that, perhaps, being unhappy with the sex in the relationship is an effect rather than a cause of being content and happy with the relationship or, as you put it, life itself.”

    Should read: “You seem remarkably unable to grasp that, perhaps, being unhappy with the sex in the relationship is an effect rather than a cause of being unhappy with the relationship or, as you put it, life itself.”

  • Jess

    Dear all,
    Yes, yes, all very good points everyone.
    Although PJL more errors? Tut tut sloppy writing old bean…..
    It’s true that the quality of sex and happiness of the relationship are symbiotic and it may be hard to define where a deteriation started.
    It’s also true that there are no absolutes and people change over time so the ‘test drive’ isn’t a guarantee. Which Is also true of cars.
    I disagree with those who says cars lack personality and choice. They most certainly do and right now my golf is acting like a total bitch/bastard ( I have never checked underneath to find it’s gender).
    I do find it charming people describe relationships in such warm terms. I would never consider a happy couple inferior due to lack of sex. People are different and have many ways of relating.
    I made my comments based not only on my experiences but due to my work with many broken families. Sexual mismatch issues, in my experience, can often put huge strains on relationships. Sometimes issues arose overtime but more often than not at least one partner had an inkling right from the start.

  • Lavazza

    Jess: In my native Sweden 99 % of ethnic Swedes not only test drive their spouses sexually but also by living together for a couple of years before marriage. It is even far from uncommon for people to have babies and then marry much later, for example before having a second child or combining the marriage with the baptism of one och the children. As I see it what is important for success in LTR’s is not so much the info you can gather about the partner before every important step in the relation, but rather the infrastructure surrounding the relation, i.e. culture/society/laws. I think more and more young guys have a clearer and clearer view of the infrastructure and know that the partner would be good enough or even really good in another infrastructure, but not in this.

  • Jess

    Hi
    Yes Europians often have a very healthy attitude towards sex. swedes are known for having a modern and open approach. They see no need for shame or embarrassment.
    Brits can be a bit weird about it as can the Americans.
    However also even in the uk it is almost unheard of for a couple not have sex before marriage unless they are part of a cult or something.
    I’m not sure I understood the 2nd part of your post. Did you mis-type?

  • Robson

    “not have sex before marriage unless they are part of a cult”

    Seriously, apart religion, do you know about other possible motives? In some communist countries the ruling Party tried to create sth like “laic sex morality”, separated from religion but promoting abstinence until marriage — it was sooo grotesque and that was quickly abandoned.

  • Lavazza

    Jess: Not impossible. Which sentence do you mean?

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Sorry, I’m extremely late to my own post. I had a very busy weekend with family. However, there are a lot of really interesting thoughts here already and I wanted to jump in and comment.

    First, I don’t believe that Kevin was advocating for abstinence in any way. He certainly didn’t use that word. I believe he was really trying to communicate that the “test drive” theory cheapens sex as an emotionally intimate experience. As he sees it, having sex with “the one” is going to be very different (not in a good way) if each of you has had many sexual partners. He does seem to allow for the fact that in contemporary society, most people will have other relationships before finding a life partner, and will most likely have sex in those relationships. What he is objecting to is the idea we “audition” our partners sexually before developing real feelings.

    I strongly agree with PJL and Jack Arthur here, who made very effective arguments, IMO. I would add this – a trial run of sex before two people have come to know one another does not accurately reflect what sex would be like in a committed relationship. Casual sex is very different qualitatively than relationship sex. I’ve cited numerous studies here that demonstrate that individuals are mostly concerned with their own orgasms in casual sex. (Because men orgasm more easily than women do, this creates the “orgasm chasm”.)
    .
    Furthermore, a person who is temperamentally suited for sex as an expression of love may not “perform” in an encounter where emotional expression is to be avoided. Conversely, someone who has become accustomed to a steady diet of casual sex may not have the emotional skills to imbue sex with deeper meaning.
    .
    In the current generation, this divide wrt the meaning of sex is real, and I don’t think these parties can be reconciled. That’s why I said these two could never be right for each other. Kate needs a man who will not ask about her number of partners, possibly because his own number is very high. Kevin needs to find a woman who shares his views on sex. My own guess would be that fast forwarding 5 years, Kate is likely to have a more active sex life, and have more varied sex, expert technique, etc. She is less likely to be in a committed relationship. Kevin is more likely to have had just a handful of sexual partners, and to be content with sex as an expression of love first, with experimentation occurring only in the context of deep sharing and trust. His sex life would probably bore Kate, but he is more likely to be in a committed relationship.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Sasha
    I do think there is a middle ground. For one thing, before two people have intercourse, there can be a period of gradual experimentation and anticipation leading up to sex. The benefits of this approach are numerous:
    .
    – Waiting for sexual tension to build leads to better sex. A bomb rather than a blip.
    – During the period where you’re spending time with someone but haven’t had sex, the sex drive is on full display if you’re paying attention. I once dated a guy with a low sex drive and it was obvious early on. He didn’t want to make out every chance we got, he didn’t seem tortured by waiting, and he wasn’t eager to press forward.
    – We are genetically programmed to seek cues for compatibility in the things leading up to sex. A man’s saliva tells a woman a lot about their genetic compatibility, for example. That’s why women find kissing so important. A woman’s scent profoundly affects a man’s degree of attraction to her.
    – Attraction is enhanced by familiarity. The more time you spend with someone in a non-sexual way, e.g. work, school, the more likely you are to find them attractive over time.
    – Women feel increased attraction for a man after sex. Men’s attraction decreases slightly after the blush of first time sex has worn off. His brain sends him the message “Your work is done here.” It benefits a woman to wait until a man feels enough for her that his emotional investment will be substantial enough to keep him from wandering away to a new conquest.
    .
    That’s just a few considerations – there are probably many more.

  • Kaz

    Yeah Britain and Sweden are just soooo “progressive” with white birth rates below replacement, declining marriage rates, and increasing divorce rates.

    They’ve really got this relationship business locked up.

  • http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/ hambydammit

    A couple of thoughts:
    I think Kate’s overestimating the amount of either compulsive or pathological sexual weirdness out there. Probably the most common “non-standard” think guys are going to want is anal, and most guys are not fixated on it. Beyond that, I really doubt Kate is going to encounter a lot of guys who are into things so weird that she can’t stomach the idea of thumping bunnies with them. (Unless she hangs out with a really bizarre crowd, or has extremely prudish ideas of sex.) In other words, if the guy’s that good, he’s probably both teachable and willing to learn. That would be part of his awesomeness, right? That he isn’t in it for just his own gratification?

    Kevin’s thing is a bit more complex. I bet if you asked him if he prefers to date virgins, he’d hesitate before answering. He’s got to know that’s a minefield he doesn’t want to wander into. But if he doesn’t demand virginity, then he’s got a problem with drawing a line. Is seventeen too many? Fifteen? Ten? Five? Two? Presumably he would answer that it’s not the number so much as the intent. Ok, so how many times is a girl entitled to falling in love feelings? Two, five, ten? Either way, he’s trying to create some kind of dichotomy, where sex is either “all about love” or “all about the hookup.” Sure, the extremes exist, but most sex falls somewhere in the middle.

    Kevin is also painting an interesting picture, with the girl who acts ashamed at having to admit to seventeen sex partners. If he was finding confident, self-actualized girls to hang out with, he might have gotten a very different answer. “Oh, I’ve had enough to know what I’m looking for.” That’s a perfectly acceptable answer. Asking a girl for her number is just rude. Especially on a first date. So maybe I’m suggesting that girls need to sit themselves in front of the mirror and practice delivering that kind of answer with confidence. Or maybe Kevin just hangs with the insecure girls.

    Yes, I know that there is a double standard, and that eventually, a girl’s number catches up to her. But girls shouldn’t be hanging their heads trying to live up to this guy’s standard of purity. And he should be opening his mind up to the broader spectrum of human sexuality and not pigeon holing himself into the “One True Way to Have Sex.”

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Hamby
    Great comment. I share your view that Kevin’s hypothetical Q&A session would be very odd on a date, but I think that’s probably not meant to be taken literally. I hope not.
    .
    It’s also true that “somewhere in the middle” is where most people actually feel most comfortable having sex. “It all depends” is probably a good guideline, and it is up to the individuals to sort out what’s a good match for them. There will be a shortage of men who prefer highly experienced women. There will be a shortage of women who prefer male virgins over 30. But if that’s what you’re looking for, either because of beliefs, past experience, whatever, then you need to try and find a match within your parameters.
    Most people in the modern era are comfortable with some sexual experience in their partner, though the nature of the experience will surely matter. “In-love feelings” vs. “irresistible frat star” or even high-priced escort assignment, are all very different motivations for having sex. For most people, context matters.
    .
    I like your advice to women to think about the “number” question and rehearse responses. Too early, it’s not only rude, but very presumptuous. Leave it too late, and you find yourself suddenly sick to learn your fiance has had 36 partners. I also believe that a woman has every right to decline to answer that question with a specific number, especially in the early stages. She should be aware, though, that what is acceptable as an answer will vary from man to man.
    .
    In this era of casual sex, there will be large pools of people who are poorly matched by virtue of their sexual histories. Perhaps it’s not important – maybe the history tells us important things about a person that we might not have understood before, to our detriment.

  • Lavazza

    Kaz: Reproduction and marriages are going down in the West as a whole. Sweden is not the worst. When it comes to sexual health, Finland is the country to watch right now. Very good stats the last couple of years.

  • Aldonza

    The Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women by R Rector et al, 2003

    Chances of having a stable marriage:

    .
    We’ve been through this before. That’s the Heritage Foundation’s *report*…not a study and certainly not a peer-reviewed study from a respected journal. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative thinktank with a clear agenda. How do I know? Because I can’t find the other report they did on how men’s sexual past impacts marital happiness.

  • Clarence

    Aldonza:

    I didn’t see you commenting on The Social Pathologists site about that study. You seemed to dismiss it simply because it was Heritage Foundation derived, which was my initial instinct as well. But alas for you other people there including me have looked into the National Survey of Family Growth which is the Federal report from which Heritage derives their numbers and found that they didn’t just make up the results of their study. The numbers are indeed there to construct those graphs. Another thing TSP did was to look at other studies. The other studies (not “reports” unlike Heritage) also found the same effect. Lastly he did a whole series of posts delving into the numbers trying to find out what effect other factors such as education might have had. I didn’t go to that level. I merely verified for myself that Heritage wasn’t playing fast and loose with the numbers that the Feds collected. And yeah, there seems to be a very real and very scary level of an effect.
    On the other hand it’s not an absolute thing, so there is some hope if one can figure out the reasons those with large partner counts tend to have difficulties with the LTR stuff. I myself suspect its mostly the type of sex a person prefers that leads to most of it, but I have no real proof. You really should go back and look at those posts. There’s around ten of them all together and they will blow your mind.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    GudEnuf: “Virgins tend to think sex is heaven on earth, and they become fixated on what it must be like. The best argument for losing your virginity, and this is going to sound cynical, is that it shatters your idealism. It reframes sex as just another part of life, rather than the culmination of all that is worth living.”

    Athlone McGinnis: Speaking while using my own personal experience as an example, I’m going to have to agree with this. This is going to be long, so avoid if you’re so inclined.

    As a couple of you may already know, I’m a beta through and through. I’m 19 and have only gone as far as second base with a girl(and that was once). I’ve kissed three times. That’s it.
    I have some things going for me. I play D-1 football at an Ivy League school, I’m fairly intelligent and I’ve been called good looking. I have had attractive girls show interest in me before, so I know I am not COMPLETELY hopeless. Because of my unusual upbringing and lack of game, though, I am never able to follow through. Hence, I am where I am.

    Comparing myself to my peers(especially my teammates), I’ve noticed that I see things very, very differently.
    Firstly, I think way too much. When it comes to talking about girls or sex, I don’t do it as casually as other guys do. I’ll break it down into a science(well honed thanks to all of the manosphere reading I do) and explain it accordingly. I do the same thing when I get attracted to a girl and start approaching her.

    I also have an excessively high value of sex as an act. I care way too much either way about it, and I’m certain that people sense this. When my peers are talking about some girl and who she’s had sex with, I find myself sometimes pressing for details about who/what/when/where/why, etc. Other guys inquire about these things to, but I don’t do it as casually as they do so I end up sounding desperate/try hard. Add to this the fact that I have kind of an unusual personality to begin with and it makes for a pretty bad social situation-guys conclude that I’m low value and I stop hearing about a lot of the “gossip” that goes around(mild “social exile”, so to speak).

    When my teammates talk about a girl who is “clinging” to them, for example, they’ll often go on and on about how they blew the girl off and are hoping she’ll disappear. To them, the sex is no big deal. They’re willing to turn down blatant offers from attractive girls and can do so very callously. I can’t imagine this. To me, the offer alone is a very big deal. A pretty girl who comes into my room and just hops into my bed or who begs me to go to her room is like a dream to me. To them it is a nuisance or a mundane event.

    When a girl I’m attracted to even so much as makes out with another guy and I find out(or worse, see it), I tend to get a little down. Rationally(thanks to my reading of the manosphere) I know that its no big deal and girls hand out makeouts like parents hand out candy on halloween. It means nothing, not even commitment. But mentally, because I NEVER get makeouts, it is a big deal to me and I assign more value to it than I should. What to some girls and guys is “just a kiss” or “just a hookup” is a huge deal to me because I’m never in that situation and I end up with this scarcity mentality, breeding more neediness and desperation. There’s a hurdle there and I can feel it.

    My teammates again provide this huge contrast. One of our starters had been regularly hooking up with this hot(but somewhat slutty) freshman since before she first came on an official visit to the school. I see it and I’m thinking that she’s his official “slampiece” at this point, and I expect nobody else will make a claim on her.
    Then, the next week, this girl is getting done by his friend and they’re all completely ok with it. Then the NEXT week the first teammate is doing the girl in the frat living room IN FRONT OF the other teammates. Nobody cares. To them, its just sex, and, to put it in the words of a teammate I talk to regularly, the girl “Just wanted some dick”, so they gave it to her. “It’d be rude not to”, he says.

    “Just wanted some dick.” Almost like you “just want some candy” or you “just wanna go for a walk.” Just a completely mundane, everyday thing…and despite understanding the reasoning behind why they think this way, I find myself unable to orient my mind in the same direction.

    I’ve gotten a lot better in the past year at hiding my desperation/neediness and insecurity about this stuff, but internally it is still there. I still feel a very high degree of outcome dependence when it comes to my dealings with women that I have to fight to control. I usually lose that battle because the fact that sex is a big deal to me can be sensed by a lot of females, and guys who care less(because they get it more) tend to move way ahead of me. I really have become fixated on what a sexual relationship must be like. Sex is not just another part of life for me. Its something rare, exclusive, “special”.

    I’ve gradually realized over time that if I just had sex, a lot of the issues I have no with women would disappear, as would much of the anxiety I feel. Sexual relationships would be no big deal and I’d quit caring so much and worrying about it. But that’s the catch: when you’re in my position, having sex is your answer, but women rarely find men in my position attractive enough to have sex with.

    If I leave this school a virgin(very real possibility), I’ll get a call girl or something later on. In fact, I might get several, just to guarantee that this pathetic scarcity mentality within me is killed and stays dead so i can stop being such an idealistic coward when it comes to sex. I know now with absolute certainty that my relations with women aren’t going to improve until I get over this psychological mountain. I’ll be unsatisfied until then.

    Sorry that was long, but I figured it was relevant. To sum it up, I think GudEnuf has a really good point.

  • jess

    Athlone that was a very well written and moving piece.
    I think for you, its time to rid that demon.
    Things can go 2 ways: tomoorow you might find the love of your life or you might go 5 years more with nothing.
    Only you know how unahppy the latter would make you.
    I would normally never suggest this but as this monkey on your back has become so large I might suggest you go to a different town, load up on contraception and use the best call girl you can buy.
    I will get a severe kicking for this of course but if you cannot hide your desperation it may put off some nice girls.
    You sound lovely- you will find someone- truly- its just the wait that is killing you and well, you have to weigh up risks and options.
    Good luck whatever you do.

  • http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/ hambydammit

    Aldonza, You’re exactly right. The Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with peer reviewed research and everything to do with propaganda (mostly for abstinence only).

  • Jack Arthur

    What is wrong with shame? Shame can mean integrity.

    Maybe this is one of those emotions that the ego perceives as a threat and tries to fight against and medicate, not really comprehending that deep down, the mind knows what it is doing, and should be allowed to coalesce in its own way. Do we wonder why there is little creativity nowadays?

    Hello Athlone..

    Nice post. I was the same as you, but fortunately I wasn’t on any football teams and the kinds of things you describe didn’t seem to happen, or at least if they did I didn’t know about it (I am in Canada, plus highschool for me was 12 yrs ago… not sure if that makes a difference)

    So I was more happy go lucky, didn’t crave sex or make it to be a big deal like many seem to and I lost my virginity at 23 to a nice girl, though our relationship didn’t last. I would’ve at 18 but my girl at the time was a little bit religious :) She wouldn’t let me but that wasn’t so bad in the end because it taught me something too. I was very sad when we broke up but it had nothing to do with not having had the chance to rub our genitals together, if you catch my meaning.

    I will tell you that I look back fondly on the days when a bare leg would arouse in me all kinds of terrible thoughts. :)

    There is nothing wrong with you, and you don’t think too much. Hard to believe but it is true. Every supposed fault and flaw of ours is inextricably bound up with all our strengths. You might not have got to know your strengths yet. Time is the best teacher.

    There is no need to hide from it, or fight it or pretend something is wrong with you. Don’t you see, that’s exactly what these other people you see are doing? It’s just that they’ve gotten some temporary medication to keep them feeling high. It will wear off just the same and they will be back to where you are now. Filthy rags that they’ll have to deal with in time.

    Many people try very hard to medicate their suffering, to avoid it, to hide from having to feel it. Shame, pain, suffering, fear, anxiety. There is meaning in these emotions. They don’t need to be medicated or fixed.

    It’s an illusion. Sex is an illusion. It doesn’t fix you or validate you and there is no prize

    Don’t rush to take the wonder out of life just because you’re afraid of looking stupid or failing. You are a scoundrel after all. Why would you want to go about having loose women convince you you’re important? So you can forget who you are, how you felt?

    Love is alpha. Everything else is an illusion.

  • Jack Arthur

    PS: I wholeheartedly recommend doing something really stupid. Go for it.

    Just remember to forgive yourself.

  • Höllenhund

    Athlone,

    if your number one priority is getting to experience what sex feels like, then the advice given by Jess is useful but it is also problematic for a number of reasons. High-quality call girls will obviously cost you a lot of money that could be spent on other useful things. The bigger issue is that prostitutes have peculiar economic interests. They just want to get over with it as fast as they can and get paid. They have no real interest in giving you a really good experience unless they want you to become a regular client (which is a huge cash drain). Young guys like you are easily ripped off by them if you don’t watch out. A hooker will probably try to just give you a quick handjob/blowjob to get rid of your erection.

    Another problem is that women intrinsically despise men who pay for sex since it’s a huge DLV. If you ever visit a hooker, make sure no woman ever gets to know about it. Also keep in mind that on top of this most hookers and strippers hate men in general due to their bad experiences. And only women who WANT to have sex with you will ever give you any validation.

    If you want your neediness about women to disappear, just keep doing what you’re already doing: learn about their true nature. Ms. Walsh and other women complain all the time that Roissy, Roosh and other similar authors just make young men angrier and more bitter. The funny thing is that ever since I started reading websites like theirs, plus F. Roger Devlin and PUA/Game material in general, I feel more and more enlightened and at peace – and I’m sure I’m not the only one. The disciples of great philosophers in the past probably had a similar experience.

    I see everything from a new angle. I learned that the disease of hypergamy in female genes is not only an enormous de-civilizing force (at least when unrestrained) but is also making women themselves generally miserable – due to their own choices for which they can only blame themselves. My sympathy for women is already low, and my neediness about them is nonexistent. To remember that I used to believe they are fantastic and all that seems like a bad joke. And ever since I learned that a) I hate having sex with a condom b) unprotected sex, on the other hand, is very risky c) even getting a blowjob without a condom is a huge risk due to STD rates nowadays, my interest in casual sex has also dropped. Yes, sex is not all that it’s hyped up to be in the virgin brain.

    All in all, your neediness about women will evaporate if you keep educating yourself, listening to the experiences of other men, and paying attention to what women do, not what they say. (Visiting a hooker won’t achieve any of that in itself.) Listening to what women tell you about their sexual preferences is a bad idea in general. For this reason you should be suspicious of women who say ‘you’re lovely’ and ‘you’re a nice guy’. It just means they aren’t interested in you sexually.

    P.S. This is somewhat off-topic but I find it hilarious that Jess insists that getting sex is pretty much as easy for high-quality men as for women and then goes on to suggest to an apparently high-quality young man to PAY for sex. How often do women pay for sex, dear Jess?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Ms. Walsh and other women complain all the time that Roissy, Roosh and other similar authors just make young men angrier and more bitter.

      This is incorrect, at least about me. My complaint with Roissy and Roosh is that they make young men more like them. That is not angry or bitter, but rather narcissistic and isolated from emotion. They have forfeited their souls. Athlone has already expressed his agreement with this, and stated that he guards against falling into that trap when he reads their stuff.

  • TeflonExpat

    @jess
    .
    “And how many western girls marry as virgins and are not religious or extremely under confident? We could be talking about a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Slim pickings methinks.”
    .
    And how many western girls make up the percentage of total marriage-age girls globally? Slim pickings thankfully.
    .
    When its time to consider marriage, its easy to navigate around the trite Kate Hayden cult.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Athlone….maybe you should try dating some girls from outside your Ivy League campus…girls who go to other local universities, or for that matter girls who aren’t going to college at all. I suspect you’d probably find a lower level of arrogance and entitlement, and your higher relative status might help make up for your fear of failure.

  • Maura

    @Susan
    My complaint with Roissy and Roosh is that they make young men more like them. That is not angry or bitter, but rather narcissistic and isolated from emotion. They have forfeited their souls.

    I agree to a point. They are really responding to the already existing zeitgeist. If, for example, Roissy grew up in a culture where traditional values like chastitiy and self restraint were more expected, however dark his view of human nature may still be, he would likely not write about women in the terms he does. Roissy does write about true love and clearly places a value on it independent of the physical aspect.

    I tend to take a more deterministic view of human nature and see attitudes as arises from feedback loops rather than isolated cause-effect events. The young men who like them were already turning off their emotions.

  • Jack Arthur

    Agree on those Ro guys.

    They far, far overstate their case. All this evopsych nonsense is completely unneeded. “Inherently hypergamous” and all that? Heh

    If that is in women’s nature, then “beta” is in men’s.

    I see those two as a host of manipulation tools for the mentally slavish who just cannot overcome their attachment to their own self-important image.

    Women are very easy to deal with if instead of seeing them as validity-giving-machines to serve your fantasy of yourself, you simply love them for who they really are (in the moment.)

  • Jack Arthur

    *I find David Deida is more helpful and doesn’t have any of the rationalist or slavish bitterness of the aforementioned.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jack Arthur

      I find David Deida is more helpful and doesn’t have any of the rationalist or slavish bitterness of the aforementioned.

      I just picked up DD’s The Way of the Superior Man. I’ve been meaning to read this for a while, and look forward to digging in. Just looking through the Table of Contents, it’s clear that he does not have an anti-woman agenda.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    Jack Arthur: “There is no need to hide from it, or fight it or pretend something is wrong with you. Don’t you see, that’s exactly what these other people you see are doing? It’s just that they’ve gotten some temporary medication to keep them feeling high. It will wear off just the same and they will be back to where you are now. Filthy rags that they’ll have to deal with in time.”

    Athlone McGinnis: A year or two ago, I might have agreed with you. Now I’m certain of the opposite conclusion.

    What I go through is not normal and not right. I’ve been denied something fundamental to the full human experience in youth, something ALL of my peers have known: female company. All of this because, for various reasons, I “waited too long”.

    People who don’t go through the type of experience I have don’t know what it can do to you as a guy, and that is a good thing because it isn’t an existence I’d wish on anybody save for my worst enemies.

    When you approach a girl, you get nervous, anxious. You catch feelings for women a lot quicker than other guys do, so every approach weighs more on you. You can’t help it because you were raised to value(almost pedestalize) women and you have a scarcity mentality that has only grown with time. If you wait long enough, the mere sight of the girl can be enough to increase your heart rate to what feels like a dangerous level.
    Fear of failure creeps into your mind at every turn during the approach. While you “court” her, knowledge of her past exploits, even if they are as mundane as kissing, tears at your soul and creates this black hole where your heart is supposed to be. You’ll date her for a month and find out that, while you were doing this or just a week or two before that, she had hooked up with someone else you know. This sinks in and you feel like you just got shot.

    You know this feeling is irrational, but you can’t help it.

    The sight of other happy couples acts as a bludgeon to your heart. At the end of the day all you really want is companionship. Someone to hang out with at night, to watch tv with, to gossip and joke around with, to take out to parties, etc. You see it happening at the frat parties you go to as happy couples joyously play pong together and joke around with other peers. You hear it happening in the dorm next to you as the happy couple laughs and jokes and enjoys one another’s company while listening to itunes or watching TV. But you never get to enjoy it. You don’t even come close, and it kills you every time you see some other guy enjoying the fruits of that more pleasant experience.

    And then your pride kicks in. What does that other guy have that you don’t? You start to list all of the areas in which you are objectively superior to him. You might be right about those things, but deep down your rational mind knows it doesn’t matter. Girls don’t care about the things you have to offer, and that’s what separates you from that guy.
    That’s when the depression sets in. Those guys have “it”. You don’t. You can’t catch up-they’ll never want you. You’re gonna be alone, and that is that. All you have to cling to are pleasant dreams of a better existence, but during the day that pleasant mental armor is gone from you. You’re open to the ravages of the real world, a real world that, to you, doesn’t seem to even want you around. Every day feels like a war.

    It isn’t a way to live. I’ve dealt with this long enough to know this for certain, and I won’t fool myself into thinking that somehow EVERYONE else is just in some sort of lie and I was right all along. Sure, perhaps in a different environment things would be different. Maybe it isn’t COMPLETELY my fault, and I’m not totally hopeless.

    But something is definitely wrong with me. I’m not a normal human being. Remaining a virgin for too long in this world as a guy(minus any sort of religous/spiritual conviction) can do this to you, and I don’t think that after living like this I can recommend it to anyone.
    Sure, those other people will have pain to deal with later on. But me? Not only will I have more, but I’ll have far less to look back on positively than they will.
    Again: this isn’t a way to live.

    Jack Arthur: “Many people try very hard to medicate their suffering, to avoid it, to hide from having to feel it. Shame, pain, suffering, fear, anxiety. There is meaning in these emotions. They don’t need to be medicated or fixed.”

    Athlone McGinnis: There is nothing but despair in the path you’re suggesting. I’m here-I would know. If you can avoid these emotions by not being anything like me(having normal sexual relationships in youth, finding companionship, finding a way to not take sex TOO seriously early on, etc, etc) then I highly recommend you do it.
    Nobody completely avoids pain, suffering, shame or anxiety. That just isn’t how the world works.
    But you can minimize it. Don’t be like me.

    Jack Arthur: “It’s an illusion. Sex is an illusion. It doesn’t fix you or validate you and there is no prize
    Don’t rush to take the wonder out of life just because you’re afraid of looking stupid or failing.”

    Athlone McGinnis: “Wonder”? You mean “misery”, right? I certainly feel no “wonder” here.
    Granted, I’d be willing not to rush for sex if I could just get into an LTR with a girl I like who reciprocates. I could wait then. But I can’t get to that stage either because of the hangups I already described above and in a previous post.
    Thus, I have no place to go.

    Jack Arthur: “Why would you want to go about having loose women convince you you’re important? So you can forget who you are, how you felt?”

    Athlone McGinnis: They don’t have to validate me or love me. Part of my long process up to this point has consisted of my coming to the realization that women don’t need to do that for me and often won’t be willing to when I want them to.
    I’ve spent my entire life looking for a “partner”, valuing all of these intangible things(education, intelligence, virginity, etc). That’s been part of my problem, and it has helped to create this falsely high value I place on intimacy. It also creates the emotions that arise when I meet a particular girl I like and get attached(leading to neediness, desperation, etc).
    Women are just women. Who cares if they’re “loose”?

    And yes, I do wish to forget how I feel right now. Unfortunately, that may never happen even if I try.

    Jack Arthur: “Love is alpha. Everything else is an illusion.”

    Athlone McGinnis: In another age, maybe you’re right. The world doesn’t work that way anymore.

  • Höllenhund

    Athlone,

    your attitude is somewhat unnerving. You vastly overvalue female company and idealize relationships.

  • Höllenhund

    You want to gossip, watch TV and joke around with a girl? That sounds like the biggest waste of time I can think of.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    David Foster: “Athlone….maybe you should try dating some girls from outside your Ivy League campus…girls who go to other local universities, or for that matter girls who aren’t going to college at all. I suspect you’d probably find a lower level of arrogance and entitlement, and your higher relative status might help make up for your fear of failure.”

    Athlone McGinnis: You’re completely correct. In the few instances I’ve been exposed to some state school girls(and a few girls who hadn’t gone to college at all) I have had more positive experiences.

    Just last week I met a girl from Ohio who was actually on the LPGA tour and had not gone to college(she was about 21). It was the football frat’s homecoming party(even though we had just lost the game) and I was sitting in the basement minding my own business. I didn’t feel like getting wasted so i wasn’t drinking that night.
    She walked in with a teammate of mine(they were from the same hometown) and I immediately noticed her. I took a quick glance and then pushed her out of my mind. If she went to this school, there was about a 99% chance I stood no shot at her anyway and she would ignore me, especially given how attractive she was. Pursuing would just make me look desperate so, i reasoned, it was best to just leave it alone. It wasn’t like I could compete with the guy either(he had a lot more social cache and status than I did).

    Then she comes and sits next to me on the empty bench after the guy goes to get drunker. Surprised at the action, at this point I figure I might as well introduce myself. Then suddenly we start a conversation and she just starts going on and on with what PUA’s would call “IOI’s”(indications of interest). She drove the conversation forward(pouring out her life story with a ton of personal detail), added me as a friend on facebook right there with her phone not even half an hour after we’d met, held eye contact, etc, etc. I was bewildered. When I left her later to go guard the frat’s front door, she actually followed me up after and stood for the rest of the night a few feet away from where I was posted just socializing.
    Mentally, I had went into the interaction and left it expecting nothing. I’ve learned enough now in college to reduce some of my neediness and outcome dependence, and my practice came out that night. Maybe my more reserved demeanor and mentality at the time helped, I don’t know.
    She left with my teammate that she’d come with later. I assume they had sex since they’d known each other for a while. But the experience stuck with me nonetheless. I may never see her again, but I’m ok with that. Meeting her was definitely worth it.

    I came into the Ivy League thinking it’d be better for me romantically since the girls here were likely to be of a similar studious background to myself.
    Not only was I wrong(the arrogance and entitlement seen among many girls here makes them a bad fit for me), but I once again over-thought things and overvalued intimacy. The girl’s education level shouldn’t have even been a factor. The more time I spend here, the clearer this becomes to me.

    This long winded story does have a point relating to the article for guys: don’t wait too long. Find a balance between the two perspectives posted in Susan’s article. Kevin is right when he says that there is danger in being to callous with sex. Going overboard is never good, and even I can see that amongst my peers. But don’t let yourself get to my stage where sex is TOO valuable because you wait too long over-valuing peripheral things. The closer you can get to a balanced mindset that views sex as just another part of life(albeit a relatively important one, not necessarily just a casual “sport” but not the holy grail either), the better off you will be.

    Granted, you can never completely avoid negative feelings or emotions, but you certainly can minimize them by doing this. Don’t end up like me.

  • Jack Arthur

    You’re not over valuing intimacy, you’re overvaluing rationality and taking yourself too seriously.

    Come from a deeper place and you won’t care so much. This has so little to do with ‘waiting’ and so little to do with all the things you are making it out to be about…

    You are imbuing women with the power to save you and I am telling you that you don’t need saving. Knowing you are ok is scary and takes courage but there is no other way… hard to see from so deep inside the labyrinth of memories thoughts ideas…

  • Jack Arthur

    PS: reading things on blogs and the net about all this will make things worse, not better. You need to gain control of your mind, and the more baggage you accumulate the harder that will be.

  • terre

    It’s funny to see the arguments from girls here rationalizing their past flings. Marriage is not about sex, sexual pleasure or “sexual compatibility” (whatever that means). A pairing is not the sum of its juices. Men who fall for this “compatibility”/”try before you buy” line of argument crack me up. You’re being duped, fellers.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    Hollenhund: “Athlone,
    your attitude is somewhat unnerving. You vastly overvalue female company and idealize relationships. You want to gossip, watch TV and joke around with a girl? That sounds like the biggest waste of time I can think of.”

    Athlone McGinnis: You missed my point. That’s fair, since I was long winded and probably could have been clearer.

    Note what i said at the end of that little spiel:
    “Again: this isn’t a way to live.”

    The unnerving mentality I’ve described there is simply the result of having the unhealthy mindset I’ve been describing. It is what happens when you end up where I am-you overvalue things that ought to be peripheral at best. I don’t approve of the behaviors you described anymore than you do. You’re right when you say that to desire things like “joking around” with a girl is to desire something silly, but when you end up in my situation and female company becomes too scarce, you end up putting too much value into these things(along with sex, kissing, etc). Like i said, it isn’t a way to be.
    My post was simply meant to show what happens when you end up in my situation(read: over value sex). Jack Arthur suggests I accept my current sense of self as “ok”. While I can see where he is coming from, I wrote that and included the description of my overvaluing of female company and desire for frivolous things as an example to show that I don’t think this is the case.

  • terre

    By the way, Athlone, “Jess” sees you as a perfect case precisely because your idealized future mirrors her own values. She wants to turn you into another Jess – a person for whom ‘sex’ is a rote act of pleasure, incident, kinesthetic exploration and water-cooler talk rather than an act of communion. If you want to excise your soul, by all means, follow her advice.

  • terre

    “This is incorrect, at least about me. My complaint with Roissy and Roosh is that they make young men more like them. That is not angry or bitter, but rather narcissistic and isolated from emotion. They have forfeited their souls. Athlone has already expressed his agreement with this, and stated that he guards against falling into that trap when he reads their stuff.”

    That is some serious higher-level irony, Susan. In what possible other way are men supposed to respond sexually to the world today? Never mind “supposed”: what other means is possible? Marriage is a joke, women have free reign over a jostling meat market and sentimentality is something weak; Roissy prescribes a flak-jacket no-shit exterior precisely because that’s what girls respond to. There’s no space for “emotion” in a world without constraints, because there’s no penalty for leaving a partner whose flaw surfaces not to your liking.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @terre

      There’s no space for “emotion” in a world without constraints, because there’s no penalty for leaving a partner whose flaw surfaces not to your liking.

      You are certainly free to make this choice, and I am well aware that many men in the Roissysphere have done so. Personally speaking, I would not wish to live without emotional intimacy, and I believe my husband of 26 years would say the same. We all stand naked and vulnerable in countless ways, every day. As a woman, I can’t attest to the value of the sexual experiences men have without any emotional investment. I think it would be terrible to have sex that way – it would suck out your soul. I know that many women share this view. But not Roissy’s partners. Oh no. He’s cornered the market on women who need to be demeaned to feel sufficiently dominated.

  • Jack Arthur

    shrug. ‘Who we are’ isn’t all the thinking we do. Thinking is just what we do to make sense of who we are.

    But if we are emotionally repressed and going haywire, with frightening and anxious feelings popping up in inconvenient places, it often means we are putting too much effort into interpreting / fixing / fighting them.

    In short, we are letting our memory (or conscious mind) take control of our heart, and when that happens our heart becomes destructive. It is exactly the same as when a woman is in a relationship with a controlling man; often she will feel that something is wrong and become unhappy first, and then later dark and destructive (often self destructive).

    We must separate ‘who we are’ from our ideas, our thoughts, our memories, our tools. Those are just remnants.

    When a woman rejects you she is not rejecting ‘you'; she is rejecting something in her imagination. It has nothing to do with anything.

    These blogs are largely the same; they interpret and define human beings in terms of flat ideas, imaginary fantasies drawn out of somebody’s memory.

    I can’t even really communicate this to anyone because to do so would only make the recipient more outer-directed (as in, directed by externalities) when the solution is becoming inner-directed (wherein life and goodness is a gift… that we don’t have to chase).

    Anyway I enjoy the discussion and think that you will be ok.

  • Octavia

    At the end of the day, there is no form of media that can really tell me how to attract the type of man who matters to me. Who I am attracted to is an embodiment of what I value the most. When I keep this in mind, I can’t get angry or bitter about men in general in regards to relationships.

    I think part of the problem with interactions is that some people have truly unevaluated, and sometimes unreasonable, expectations. I treat people with basic respect. However, I don’t put anyone on a pedestal for merely being born one gender or another. So, while I’m a heterosexual woman, men in general could not lose my respect because I never had respect for them as a gender. They did nothing to be born male, to be born human males and/or to grow into men. That was one of many natural processes.

    Some will say, “I used to love [insert gender] until [insert traumatic experience]” Well, that’s the issue in the first place. I’m not trying to attract men “in general.” I’m trying to attract the kind of man who actually matters to me. It’s likely that I have that attitude because I’m fairly self-contained. I’m quite introverted, which has presented some challenges in the relationship arena. However, it has also kept me out of a great deal of trouble. There’s very little in my life that can be used as a cautionary tale but there are enough adventures to make my memoirs interesting. LOL At any rate, I’ve noted that many people have to recharge by interacting with others. They crave approval and sometimes, they do not evaluate what it means to crave acceptance from a person or group.

    I’m not trying to marry men. I’m trying to marry the right man for me. I think some people cause problems for themselves when they try to use all kinds of nebulous techniques to get the attention of some nebulous group. A group can be as large as 50% of the world’s population, if not greater. Trying to appeal to an entire gender is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps some people are overstating their case about loving men and/or women in general. Or, they have not taken the time to consider the type of person they find attractive, understand what it says about their values and focus on appealing to those individuals, making adjustments as necessary.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Octavia
      Epic comment!

      So, while I’m a heterosexual woman, men in general could not lose my respect because I never had respect for them as a gender. They did nothing to be born male, to be born human males and/or to grow into men. That was one of many natural processes.

      This strikes me as eminently reasonable. A certain culture can’t destroy a whole gender. It cannot make all women unfit for relationships, as some men claim, nor can it make all men jerks, as some women claim. As you say, the goal is to pair with one individual who shares your values and goals.
      .
      I do believe that many people suffer from unrealistic expectations, which obviously serves to disappoint. I also think people too often lead an unexamined life in the area of relationships. How else to explain people repeatedly choosing the wrong kind of person – a person who is not even interested in commitment, for example?

  • http://attractionreaction.wordpress.com/ Jeffrey of Troy

    Hi SW et al,
    I’ve been writing, and here’s a sample:

    We men have long used a 1-10 scale to rank women on their hotness / desirability. Women (and men) have lacked a comparable scale for men, because what women find attractive in men is a bit more complicated. Well, I figured it out for you, and here it is:
    The Score for Men

    * Height
    * Intelligence
    * Shoulders
    * Waist
    * Some Muscle
    * Middle-Class Money or above
    * Social Proof / Fame
    * High-Status Job
    * Good Looks
    * Personal Behavior / Game

    Each is worth one point out of ten. So what’s your score?
    More at http://attractionreaction.wordpress.com/

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jeffrey of Troy
      I just spent a while at your blog, you’ve got great stuff there. First, let me thank you for the link in the post about Game. I hadn’t been aware of that – a nice surprise! Also, your post on the obesity epidemic was excellent.
      .
      Re your Score for Men, I think you’ve hit on most of the key things. But..overall I think it’s too heavily weighted toward appearance, especially body. Height is a real preference, so much so that perhaps it should count for more than 10% of the total. Shoulders, waist, some muscle – I think these could collapse into Tone or Muscularity. The truth is that a guy who is really well toned will get a lot of attention, but most men fall into the category of “fine.” We don’t really focus on different aspects of the physique all that much – obviously, being overweight is a problem, though perhaps not quite as much as for women.
      .
      Conversely, I would probably break out Personal Behavior into a few different things, because I believe it counts for way more than 10% of the total. Sense of humor is a real turnon for women – wit is definitely a +1. Also, warmth/nice guy demeanor is key, though only when accompanied by social dominance (like beans and rice). While some women go for the total jerks, it really is not what most women are looking for. I totally agree with what you say about hypergamy in your post. It is real, but IMO receives too much attention and is exaggerated in the manosphere.

  • jess

    Athlone,
    Well I didnt get quite the kicking Ithought I would…
    I have been thinking about this during the day. There may be a way to overcome this by using a sex therapist. They have them in Europe and I suspect usa too.
    They are a glorified ‘prostitute’ but they are caring and understanding and deal with men with issues. They may be less intimidating.
    I would completely agree that if this path is taken you do not tell a soul- it might put off that one girl who might have come your way.
    Having said all this, if girls are chatting you up in the way you describe, you just need to show intiative. How about casually asking a girl to go for a drink? Or maybe try speed dating?
    You are young, healthy and intelligent. This is such a waste and you sound so unhappy- Im sure good things are right round the corner for you…

  • terre

    “You are certainly free to make this choice, and I am well aware that many men in the Roissysphere have done so. Personally speaking, I would not wish to live without emotional intimacy, and I believe my husband of 26 years would say the same. We all stand naked and vulnerable in countless ways, every day. As a woman, I can’t attest to the value of the sexual experiences men have without any emotional investment. I think it would be terrible to have sex that way – it would suck out your soul. I know that many women share this view. But not Roissy’s partners. Oh no. He’s cornered the market on women who need to be demeaned to feel sufficiently dominated.”

    You’re building a strawman. Roissy advocates puncturing your asshole facade with moments of emotional outlet; “vulnerability game”, so to speak. Executed properly, these seduce a girl into believing that a) he’s attainable and b) he’s a human being. But this is obviously not real emotional vulnerability, and the reason is because the latter is not pleasant, attractive or conducive to seduction — one might even say it’s the least attractive part of a person (bar gross physical ugliness). Being emotionally vulnerable is just that – you’re vulnerable, she can no longer rely on you because you’re not relying on yourself. Girls have no time for it and few things will drive her out the door faster.

  • TeflonExpat

    Whatever meaning women assign to it, they start their risk with it quite early.
    .
    http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/09/study-teen-girls-more-likely-to-have-risky-sex-than-teen-boys/
    .
    Its easy (especially for women), it feels good, so they dont want to be told that irresponsibly masturbating with interactive sex toys (men) is not in their best interest. Maybe the privilege should be restricted until they can figure out how to handle it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Teflon Expat
      Wait – the article says the average age at first sex has gone from 15 to 17.5. That’s a pretty significant change in the right direction.

  • Snowdrop111

    “Women are very easy to deal with if instead of seeing them as validity-giving-machines to serve your fantasy of yourself, you simply love them for who they really are (in the moment.)”

    I slowly figured out that I was brought up to see men as validity-giving machines, too. I was brought up in a small, obscure fundamentalist sect where premarital sex was absolutely forbidden (The same sect that produced Mary Winkler.) There were other things going on in this sect besides the strictness…I have seen loving, non-crazy sects and denominations where the people try to adhere to strictness on sexual mores and they don’t have a super-meanness at the core like THAT sect does…but anyway…I started figuring out that I viewed men as these approval-dispensing machines or approval-withholding machines instead of individuals with their own stuff. Still put way too much of my emotional wellbeing in whether I have a man on my arm. Incidentally, I know people who know Mary Winkler. Exactly half of them say “she was always crazy” and half say “She was the sweetest little thing on Earth.” It sounds to me like both of them tried to keep a lid on a lot of seething anger and every once in a while, blew their top, but not everyone who knew either of them saw that side of them. I think the meanness at the core of that sect, unexamined, left them both with huge amounts of seething anger they didn’t know what to do with, and they both felt trapped, which is what can happen in sects where complete obedience is so absolutely demanded and people get married too young and also, divorce is absolutely not permitted. Sorry to hijack the topic with Mary Winkler. I am of course not advocating doing what she did. She needed to go home to her parents. If her husband wouldn’t “give” her a divorce maybe she should have gone so far as to have an affair so he would “give” her a divorce (the only grounds for divorce in that sect….and in some sub-branches of that sect, you can never marry again) This did not come out in the media about this story. In that sect, you can repent for murder just by “going forward in church” and ALL IS FORGIVEN but if you divorce, unless you are the “wronged” party in an affair, you can NEVER remarry.

    Well, just because some very very strict religious sects have problems, does not mean the complete opposite, everybody doing it in the road, is the answer. There is a sane middle ground, although my best prescription is to grow old and get past the lifestage where sex matters so much. Not a real fun prescription, don’t mind me.

  • Jason

    My wife and I were virgins when we got married for religious reasons. I ended up in a 25 year marriage with a frigid woman incapable of being truly intimate. When we have sex, it’s f**king and nothing more. The scary part; this was obvious on our wedding night. The scariest part; I was so involved in our religion that I listened to our ecclesiastical authorities and didn’t ask for an annulment immediately.

    Welcome to a quarter century of hell.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Jason
    That’s terrible. Why don’t you divorce her? Surely you’ve gone above and beyond what anyone could expect.

  • Jason

    For the longest time, I held to my religion. Once I discarded that, all our children were teens and pre-teens and I decided to wait it out. Two are now left at home and I’ve run out of patience. I’ll probably file for divorce in the next six months. Problem is, as I just posted elsewhere this morning, a crappy relationship is still better than no relationship and at 48 and a total nerd, that’s all I can see.

  • Octavia

    @ Jason.

    I highly recommend this website: http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/

    I’m not married or a man but I know good advice when I see/read/hear it. Good luck.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Jason
    I don’t agree that a crappy relationship is better than none. But I do understand that many people don’t want to be alone. If you have something worth saving, then perhaps she is willing to work on it. If not, you can free yourself for a different future. Don’t sell yourself short – at 48 with a healthy sex drive there are likely many women who might be interested. Sorry, I don’t mean to tell you what to do. I am less risk averse than many people, and I’ve always embraced change. It sounds like you really want things to change, one way or the other. I wish you the best.

  • Jack Arthur

    Yes Snowdrop…

    I am Catholic and for us it really had little to do with obedience. Whether you wait this long or that long the truth is that you know and nobody else does and if you figure that out then nothing can touch you.

    “Once and for all, a short rule is laid down for you: Love, and do what you will. If you keep silence, do it out of love. If you cry out, do it out of love. If you refrain from punishing, do it out of love.

    Let the root of love be within. From such a root nothing but good can come.”

    Augustine

    There is really no explanation or answer but there is also no shortage of marauding preacher types who will lay all their baggage at your doorstep or load you up like a camel until you crave a release that you never really needed in the first place.

  • jess

    To Jason,
    Please dont leave it 6 months- leave TODAY.
    She deserves the truth and you deserve a slice of happiness and freedom.
    It WILL NOT get better.
    YOUR responsibility is to amend things.
    Her responsiiblity will be to find someone new – if she wants
    Yours is to find happiness for the 1st time in your life.
    Please call a free counselling service- you need to talk this through.
    Best of luck, J
    ps at 48, plenty of miles still left in you!

  • Mike C

    Don’t end up like me.
    .
    Fuck, Athlone

    Seriously, you are way too young to be talking crazy sh1t like that. You should have made some kind of move on LPGA girl. Honestly, to relate to football, you just need a few victories under your belt. You are like the Detroit Lions. You just need a victory to at least get some confidence, even if it means playing and beating a high school team.
    .
    Part of me doesn’t like to say this, but you need to “slum it” for awhile. You need to go for some random girls that are obviously below your SMV. You are a football player. At the very least, I’m sure you’ve got a good body. You just need to get the monkey off your back. You don’t even have to be disrespectful. Just find an average girl or a few and get to a point where you can psychologically move on.
    .
    No offense Jack, but you are full of it. Every guy should ignore 100% of what you are saying.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    @Mike C:

    Yeah, you’re right. I’m working on this now though I’m not getting my hopes up. The social scene where I am right now is difficult for me to say the least, and that makes it a lot harder to get out of this hole. I’m starting to show more social anxiety as a result, and I have to somehow overcome that before I make any progress.

    Like I said, if it doesn’t work out in college I’ll pony up the cash and take care of it after graduation. The monkey is leaving my back one way or another, its just a matter of time.

  • William

    I am reminded of the difference between a whore and a bitch….a whore will fuck anyone, a bitch will fuck anyone but you.