Eric Barker, a columnist for Wired Magazine and owner of the popular blog Barking Up the Wrong Tree, continuously posts interesting findings from a wide variety of social science studies. He’s compiled a collection of things you should look for in a marriage partner at Business Insider, here. (H/T: David Foster, Ted D.)
Here’s my take on it.
1. View your partner through rose colored glasses.
A bit of delusion by both parties helps a lot. Relationship quality is correlated with each party’s conviction that their partner is better looking than they are (even if it’s not true).
Similarly, newlyweds who find their partners more agreeable than their behavior might suggest tend to be more in love and more likely to stay in love over time.
In other words, marry someone you are literally crazy about, and who feels the same way about you.
2. Avoid people with low self-esteem.
They damage relationships by prioritizing self-protection from rejection over intimacy or closeness.
Those with high self-esteem are confident in their partner’s caring and thus have high chronic trust that allows them to seek connectedness when interdependence concerns are salient. In contrast, low self-esteem people perpetually doubt how much their partner values them and as a result, prefer to prioritize self-protection goals in risky interpersonal situations. This lack of trust is often unwarranted given LSEs’ partners actual caring (Murray, Griffin, et al. 2003). However, these perceptions often lead LSEs to behave differently from HSEs when facing risky interpersonal situations.
…Low self-esteem people reported less positive evaluations of their relationship and their partner and reported feeling less close to that person. When feeling rejected by their partners, they sought to protect themselves by devaluing their relationships and downplaying its importance.
While we tend to think of people with low self-esteem as unattractive, they may hold a certain appeal and often succeed in attracting relationships. For example, the bad boy with the terrible family life and damaged psyche is often irresistible to women, even as he is emotionally guarded or unavailable.
Women with low self-esteem are also more likely to be promiscuous, which is not reassuring re predicted sexual faithfulness in marriage.
3. Choose a man according to education, profession and income.
Socioneconomic status among males predicts engaged fathering and higher IQ.
1. “Previous studies in developed-world populations have found that fathers become more involved with their sons than with their daughters and become more involved with their children if they are of high socioeconomic status (SES) than if they are of low SES.”
2. “For IQ, there is an interaction between father’s SES and his level of involvement, with high-SES fathers making more difference to the child’s IQ by their investment than low-SES fathers do.”
4. Avoid sexually submissive women to avoid a sexless marriage.
Women’s adoption of a submissive sexual role predicted lower reported arousal and greater reported difficulty becoming sexually aroused.
5. Conscientious couples who are a bit neurotic live long, healthy lives together.
Conscientiousness and neuroticism acted synergistically, such that people who scored high for both traits were healthier than others.
I’m reminded of Alec Baldwin’s best line from Woody Allen’s new movie To Rome With Love. Upon hearing the description of a flakey, psycho young woman coming to visit, he says, “Beautiful, funny, smart, sexual, and also neurotic – it’s like filling an inside straight.”
6. Cheaters look shady, so trust your instincts.
Humans better recognize faces of cheaters than those of cooperators when they do not know who are cheaters and cooperators. [They] think they recognize cheaters’ faces even when they have not seen them before. The results of these experiments suggest that cheaters might look different from cooperators, possibly due to beliefs and personality traits that make them less ideal exchange partners, and the human mind might be capable of picking up on subtle visual cues that cheaters’ faces give off.
7. Marriages work best when the woman is hotter than the man.
Relative difference between partners’ levels of attractiveness appeared to be most important in predicting marital behavior, such that both spouses behaved more positively in relationships in which wives were more attractive than their husbands, but they behaved more negatively in relationships in which husbands were more attractive than their wives.
For the record, it’s male dissatisfaction that arises when his wife is not as attractive as he is. Similar levels of attractiveness between mates are unrelated to marital satisfaction.
8. It’s best if you can find someone whose parents did not divorce, especially if you are male.
Research on the intergenerational transmission of divorce has demonstrated that compared with offspring of nondivorced parents, those of divorced parents generally have more negative attitudes toward marriage as an institution and are less optimistic about the feasibility of a long-lasting, healthy marriage.
Women’s, but not men’s, parental divorce was associated with lower relationship commitment and lower relationship confidence. The current findings suggest that women whose parents divorced are more likely to enter marriage with relatively lower commitment to, and confidence in, the future of those marriages, potentially raising their risk for divorce.
In a random sample of 274 U.S. married individuals, 40% of those married over 10 years reported being “Very intensely in love.”Importantly, correlates of long-term intense love, as predicted by theory, were thinking positively about the partner and thinking about the partner when apart, affectionate behaviors and sexual intercourse, shared novel and challenging activities, and general life happiness.Wanting to know where the partner is at all times correlated significantly with intense love for men but not women. For women, but not men, passion about nonrelationship factors significantly correlated with intense love.In a random New York (NY) sample of 322 individuals married over 10 years, 29% reported being very intensely in love and our predicted correlates cross validated.
{ 183 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 »
Interesting article and some good points.
Wrt the 40% being intensely in love after 10 years, that figure presumably discounts the 40/50% of couples who divorce that’s only 20% of people net, who marry, remain married and being intensely in love…..! Still great that it works for those 20% (or maybe slightly higher) but would you sell a concept with an 80% chance of unhappiness/fiscal loss.
“4. Avoid sexually submissive women to avoid a sexless marriage.
Women’s adoption of a submissive sexual role predicted lower reported arousal and greater reported difficulty becoming sexually aroused.”
This is the one that threw me for a loop. For all I see in the ‘sphere about looking for a “submissive” woman, it seems that at least in some cases, submissiveness results in a crappy sex life. Perhaps the problem is what definition of “submissive” is used? A woman can be submissive to her husband (meaning she willingly fills “first officer” roles) but otherwise is rather aggressive in life, for lack of a better concept. I believe that those women are probably great mates, as they can work as part of a team yet aren’t afraid to take command on occasion and steer the ship a little, so to speak.
on the other hand, I can easily see a “meek” woman being far too restrained to really shake a bed, and those women could be viewed as “submissive” as well.
I’m interested in what others thing, because this has me a bit confused.
The sex part is most unpredictable especially if the man wants to marry a virgin or non-slut and religiously adherent. I’ve been there.
No mention of temperament. You need to marry someone most like you, not the opposite. If you’re a firecracker, marry a firecracker. If you’re reserved, marry a introvert. This advice is somewhat similar to the attractiveness advice, where you should marry someone similarly attraction instead of one being more hot than the other.
What if the woman loses here attractiveness due to weight?
“Women’s adoption of a submissive sexual role predicted lower reported arousal and greater reported difficulty becoming sexually aroused.”
My interpretation:
Feminine women are more submissive than masculine women. Masculine women have higher sex drives than feminine women. That is the underlying truth but they interperate the findings wrong. Also, a submissive woman with a highly dominant man gets a huge increase in sex drive which is not found with the average beta husband. Female sex drive is very contextual IMO.
The not so popular poster Doug1 had an interesting theory about feminine and masculine women and sex drive that I resonates with me. He said that masculine women tend to have a “push” sex drive, meaning it was active independent of stimuli in the way a mans was and made them inclined to actively pursue sex on their own initiative both by initiating when they where with a man and by being more inclined to go out to bars looking to get laid. Feminine women, on the other hand, have a more “pull” sex drive meaning that they can`t as well light it up themselves but need someone to fire them up and draw in highly masculine men (which they appeal extra to) in order to have these men ignite them. So if you give feminine women enough alpha stimulus and initiative they will respond with as much sexual desire (or almost as much) as a masculine woman and it will be real desire not just agreeing to sex. They just don`t have the desire so much unless there is a man and a situation there and the man is high enough quality.
Where in blazes can one find a silly woman ? A woman that takes one look at when you’re down, and asks if you’ve been swearing at Ole Eustace in his 40-mph, ’39 Buick, who lingered for 38 seconds at 37 different Stop signs ?
Wudang, the push-pull theory sounds fairly accurate. I think I fall under the submissive category, but fortunately my husband is dominant, so he lights me up very well.
“2. ‘For IQ, there is an interaction between father’s SES and his level of involvement, with high-SES fathers making more difference to the child’s IQ by their investment than low-SES fathers do.’ ”
Right. It’s merely his greater involvement and investment, rather than the most likely higher IQ he passed to them.
@Jon
I believe the 10 year divorce rate is around 20-25%, though it’s likely that couples who feel intensely in love at that point are less likely to be in the group that does eventually divorce.
Frankly, I was very surprised the number is as high as it is. “Intensely in love” – that’s a 9 or 10, an A or A+. I would have predicted many more couples would have said, “deep attachment but not in love” or even “somewhat in love.” The percentage of those who would say “unhappy, not in love” is probably quite small, not even including all of those who go on to divorce.
@Ted D
To me, sexually submissive means letting the man initiate and following his lead as a rule. What is clear is that initiating sex, making sexy moves, etc. turns women on when they do it. Active is more exciting than passive. It’s got to be true for men as well – many have said here that the appeal of the crazy girl is “crazy in bed.” Based on my feisty personality, in my youth I often had guys tell me they thought I’d be a wildcat in bed. It seems pretty clear that men like women who jump their bones, surprise them with BJs, climb on top, etc. Since it’s much better for the woman, I don’t know why anyone would lie there like a fish!
@Wudang
Since that directly contradicts the study, I wonder if you have sources?
Let me also add that Ted is morphing into a bad ass before our very eyes. LOL.
Haha, you are a master of understatement. In my experience, Doug1 is just full of it. He talks out his bum 90% of the time. I appreciate that you like his idea, but what evidence do you have to support it?
Yes, though there may also be a difference in IQ between SES groups, obviously. One would expect so.
In case it wasn’t obvious, I was being facetious. I don’t think father involvement drives IQ all that much. Couldn’t hurt, and it probably helps achievement (as opposed to IQ) a fair amount. But I think parental IQ drives IQ more than anything else, and a high SES father is statistically more likely to have a high IQ.
I don’t understand this part if anyone cares to explain:
” For women, but not men, passion about nonrelationship factors significantly correlated with intense love.”
Kaikou
In other words, what are nonrelationship factors?
Kaikou
People with low self-esteem on the inside often appear to have high self-esteem on the outside though.
Kaikou, yeah that part struck me as weird, too. Does that mean women who are super into an outside hobby tend to remain intensely in love?
@ Susan & Wudang
A feminist sex nerd blog isn’t something I’d normally think to link here, but since Athol Kay was in the comments, perhaps the post will resonate for HUS readers also – on responsive vs spontaneous desire:
http://www.thedirtynormal.com/2010/02/27/do-you-know-when-you-want-it/
@Hope,
Yeah thank makes, but doesn’t, you know? But I guess if she doesn’t have time to pick apart the relationship than she doesn’t pick apart the relationship and is happy?
I also thought it could mean satisfacation about the home, job/careers, kids etc. As these are external factors to the relationship, but not the relationship itself.
It’s funny for someone I currently like a lot, I often wonder what he is doing, but I don’t need to know. Just more like daydreaming their adventures.
I took it to mean women who admire or are passionate about some aspect of their mate that doesn’t involve his looks or behavior in the relationship. But maybe I’m just imprinting my own manospheric template on it.
I know the topic of partner temperament/personality has been discussed previously in other posts and comment threads. I just want to say that I don’t want a partner with the same personality to me. It is not appealing at all. There are types I can never be with for sure, but overall I am open. I wonder if I am alone in this. It’s more of a respecting each other. Also I don’t agree that you need to laugh at the same stuff, as Blog Mother once said at a recent post. I honestly don’t laugh at things (out loud) that most people do. I honestly laugh at people (their expressions, how they choose to say things more than anything). Again I think this is a small portion of the population. I might think something is funny, but never laugh out loud. Although I have to contain myself when someone unexpectedly falls. Even if it’s not appropriate. The situation of falling in public is registered in my brain as funny..
Kaikou
@Passerby
That is what I was getting at, but you said it better.
Kaikou
Tassie, that was a good read. It basically describes the majority of the tim of how I feel about sex. The part about “it’s totally legitimate to have sex because your partner is interested, and not because you’re horny” is very true. Funny enough I often do what my husband interprets as “initiating” but without the intention of it. So I think he doesn’t see me as submissive in that sense as much as I see myself.
Susan: “Since it’s much better for the woman, I don’t know why anyone would lie there like a fish!”
Since what’s much better for the woman? Sex? Being sexually agressive?
“marry someone you are literally crazy about”
How do all the women spouting “where are all the right men” or some such nonsense wind up being crazy about anyone?
@abbott
“How do all the women spouting “where are all the right men” or some such nonsense wind up being crazy about anyone”
Polygyny
Susan – “To me, sexually submissive means letting the man initiate and following his lead as a rule.”
OK this makes some sense. And, to be honest, this clears something up in my head that I never put my finger on. I imagine this may be my own personal “Madonna/whore” complex at work, but I’ve said before that I do like to be “ravished” from time to time, but the types of women that would generally “ravsih” a guy in bed are also the more promiscuous ones. Obviously my views on promiscuity run counter to this, so in a way this search for the perfectly demure woman that will rock my world has been my own unicorn search. I imagine it is a very rare circumstance that changes a low count passive woman into a raving sex nut for JUST one and only one man. But, I also imagine I’m not the only guy that secretly wished for exactly that.
“It seems pretty clear that men like women who jump their bones, surprise them with BJs, climb on top, etc. “
Absofreakinglutely! But, the flip side to that is as I stated above: the women most likely to act this way generally ARE NOT the low count/low promiscuity types. So if a man’s primary goal in a relationship is to have an outstandingly wild sex life, he may need to dip into the promiscuous pool to find what he is looking for.
“Since it’s much better for the woman, I don’t know why anyone would lie there like a fish!”
Well now you’re just teasing me.
Ideally this is the way to go, right? A woman that is low count meets a guy, sparks fly, and she turns into a maniac in bed for him. I personally don’t know any “cold fish” types amongst the couples in my circle, but I’m sure they exist. I think anyone that finds good chemistry with a partner will indeed actively participate, mostly because it’s nearly impossible to stop your body from reacting when it feels that good. I would say any woman that “lies there like a fish” is either petrified of sex in general, has self image or body issues, or really just IS NOT into her partner.
Now that being said, there is still a pretty wide gap between energetic participation and surprising a man with a random BJ. Of those same couples I mentioned above, I can count on a single hand the amount of times in the last year I’ve heard of these types of things occurring. I suppose that it has much to do with the reactive nature of a woman’s sexuality, but even women who are enthusiastic about sex with their mate just don’t seem to want or think to take initiative often. Most are more than willing to jump into the fray once poked into action, but it is a very rare thing for them to actually kick start the process. And that is unfortunate, because I KNOW I’m not the only man that appreciates a little unrestrained and unbridled passion directed at them now and again. To be sure I get it every once in awhile from my SO. But I sometimes think the problem is that we are both pretty damn satisfied most of the time. I imagine perhaps a little less regularity in our sex life might just build a little more tension in her to trigger these events, and from what I can remember most of those “unbridled passion” nights come at the end of her monthly visits when we are forced to take a few days off. But the truth is, I’ve decided I’m willing to trade more frequent maulings for a steady routine most of the time. But I’ve also made it clear to my SO that I GREATLY appreciate it when she whoops my ass on occasion. I explained that every once in awhile it feels good to know she is so damn turned on by me that she can’t control herself, and that she should feel free to “have her way with me” any time she pleases. Even if it doesn’t result in more “unbridled passion”, at least she knows not only that I’m good with it and promote it gleefully, but that I appreciate the effort when it comes. Maybe next time I’ll buy her a balloon…
Passer_By – I like to think of it as a controlled release of my full potential.
“In case it wasn’t obvious, I was being facetious. I don’t think father involvement drives IQ all that much. Couldn’t hurt, and it probably helps achievement (as opposed to IQ) a fair amount. But I think parental IQ drives IQ more than anything else, and a high SES father is statistically more likely to have a high IQ.”
I suspect that good DNA has more to do with actual IQ than environment, but nature versus nurture is complicated. However, I can easily see where a father’s involvement CAN and DOES promote more “street smarts” as it is commonly called. More to the point, I think a father can likely impart practical knowledge onto his children regardless of his actual IQ. Even if the child has more horsepower upstairs than dad, it doesn’t do them a bit of good if they don’t learn to apply that horsepower to get something done. And traditionally it was the father’s role to teach his children about “life” in general. The best possible scenario is a smart child that grows up knowing how to use his/her knowledge to gain an edge in their environment, and even if dad wasn’t the brightest bulb in the box, his wisdom coupled with their increased intelligence might make them the perfect storm of IQ and the ability to apply it.
Kaikou – “” For women, but not men, passion about nonrelationship factors significantly correlated with intense love.””
I interpreted this to mean that for women, a mate that shows some real passion for something outside of their relationship tended to attract them intensely. And this isn’t really a surprise to me, since it is repeated often that women like a man with “passion” regardless of what he is passionate for. Yes, I’m sure most women want a man that is passionate about them. But a man that is passionate about his mate AND about something else demonstrates some extra value. It shows he has something important in his life that isn’t her, that he has a “mission”, and it possibly gives her a way to feel a sense of pride and respect for him as well. Women want to be proud of their men, and they LOVE to tell other women how proud they are of them.
I might be way off base in regards to what the author actually meant, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it! And it looks like Passer_by got the same impression, so at least I’m not alone.
“the types of women that would generally “ravsih” a guy in bed are also the more promiscuous ones”
Are the guys who ravish women more promiscuous as well?
Abbot – “Are the guys who ravish women more promiscuous as well?”
LOL. Well I’d like to think I do my fair share of “ravishing” and I’m far from promiscuous. So certainly a promiscuous past IS NOT necessary to be a good lover. However, I think that “unbridled passion” and promiscuity often go hand in hand.
“Polygyny”
aka the SMP Harem
No one, not even the Double Standardler, has ever denied that the Harem is the morphology of the SMP
Mad Double Standardler….
Now that being said, there is still a pretty wide gap between energetic participation and surprising a man with a random BJ
In my defense hubby notices right away anything happening on bed, the moment I shift in bed he opens his eyes immediately (and this is the man that can sleep trough a house being demolished in front of his tiny apartment superpower fail!) so if he hasn’t woke up to random BJ is not my fault, with God as my witness I tried many times.
“How do all the women spouting “where are all the right men” or some such nonsense wind up being crazy about anyone?”
Desperation. Eventually they’ll be goddam amazed to run across a guy who is even remotely decent.
“I think anyone that finds good chemistry with a partner will indeed actively participate, mostly because it’s nearly impossible to stop your body from reacting when it feels that good. I would say any woman that “lies there like a fish” is either petrified of sex in general, has self image or body issues, or really just IS NOT into her partner.”
Exactly, Ted ! (I love your new pic too, btw.)
And because it’s that good a woman WILL initiate..
“It seems pretty clear that men like women who jump their bones, surprise them with BJs, climb on top, etc. “
Absofreakinglutely! But, the flip side to that is as I stated above: the women most likely to act this way generally ARE NOT the low count/low promiscuity types.”
I don’t agree, Ted, because as I said above a woman will initiate if it’s THAT GOOD!
I do it often, simply because my hubby is extremely busy with his business.(and I don’t want to miss out. ha!) If he is in his office working at night I’ll go in there and make him take a break from work for a little while.
Then he can go back to work and finish what he is doing. He does not have to bother about getting me in the mood, and he enjoys it when I initiate.
If I can’t sleep I’ll wake him up. (he does the same to me) Sex is a great sedative.
Because my husband is so busy I have had to be creative and inventive. I send him risque text messages, particularly if he is working close to home. Often they pay off and he will come home for a quick lunch.
On the weekends when he has more time he will initiate.
It works really well for us.
It takes the pressure off hubby too, when he has a lot of work to do.
I think having the legal system involved in an LTR is quite dangerous, at least from a male perspective, so I can only describe some elements that I would want to see if I personally was in the marriage market.
The investor Peter Lynch once said that he “only liked to invest in a company that an idiot could run, because eventually one will.” In other words, he liked a business model that was so fundamentally sound that it could survive the actions of an imbecile at the helm. It seems to me that this logic should also apply to marriage—simultaneously A) use the best selection filter that you can to find a great partner, and B) be realistic about the limitations of any such filter and assume that your selection system will fail and that you will end up with a toxic partner. Speaking to the second point, how can you prevent a selection failure from proving catastrophically destructive?
The Colombian narcotraficante community has a nice phrase—”plata o plomo”—literally “silver or lead”—take the money as a reward for cooperation, or be assassinated for failure to cooperate. The phrase describes an incentives program that appeals to both greed and fear simultaneously.
I will propose a thought-experiment that might work towards at least a partial solution. I am not saying that this is realistic; the idea has many holes and it’s just an entertaining intellectual exercise. Imagine if you will that the marriage contract becomes something like a driver’s license or passport and automatically expires after, say, five years, at which point it has to formally renewed by both applicants for some very modest sum (say, $50).
I realize that this could create chaos in longer-term planning and that there would be issues to work around regarding things like health benefits and the like, but I think it would be worth exploring it in terms of the potential to create an auto-policing aspect to appropriate spousal behavior.
Renewal should be quite easy. In the event that a marriage was not renewed after the 1st round, however, the former couple would return to their individual pre-marriage financial arrangements. If they renewed for a second tour of duty, they would first have to claim the marriage/partnership assets that were now being placed in the joint pool. If for some reason they did not wish to continue after the 2nd 5-year round of marriage, the assets that had been specified in the joint pool—and only these assets—would be available for distribution (this would not be open to a judge’s discretion unless an extraordinary situation could be established).
Note that this means that the net worth/income calculations used for alimony, child support, etc. would normally trail the actual assets theoretically available at the time of dissolution of the contract by about five years (something equivalent to this was put in place to prevent company insiders from instantly dumping all of their shares during an IPO pop).
So if a couple got married when they were struggling financially and established the joint pool at that point, then they proceeded to make a lot of money, and then they decided to dissolve the marriage after five years, the asset split would be based on the joint pool that was available when they were younger and poorer, not on current, wealthy conditions. This has all kinds of interesting ramifications in terms of incentives.
Divorce would of course still be possible under this structure, and I suppose that the same assessment schedule could be used to identify joint property that was available for distribution.
If this sounds like it would terrify people, that’s exactly the intention. People who would never give 50% equity in their LP or LLC to someone who had virtually no legally-enforced obligations would start to de-romanticize marriage and see it as a very sobering legal partnership decision.
Thoughts…? Am I just too cynical?
Am I just too cynical?
In short yes.
Hubby and I hate paperwork with a fire of two thousand suns (taxes, my immigration paperwork, school, drivers license renewal, voting registration…) the idea to have it to do it every five years sounds like a punishment for people that actually are planning long term and part of the appeal is that I don’t have to go and sign anything else even if I renew my vows is just a party to plan not some legal stuff to deal with.
I would be more open for being optional for people that want to, with the rise of cohabitation and the use of “starter marriages” becoming more popular, sadly I might add, I think there is a market that will want to work with this model but please leave us boring people out of the painful paperwork every five years.
Susan Quote:
4. Avoid sexually submissive women to avoid a sexless marriage. Women’s adoption of a submissive sexual role predicted lower reported arousal and greater reported difficulty becoming sexually aroused.
@Susan:
Okay, this is a tough one, unless you mean avoid women who share themselves with all the guys. I thought low status and/or submissive males are the ones who end up causing women, to avoid sex within marriage (roissy). If she gives me a hard time, when I ask for reasonable favor then I will end up giving her a hard time, with whatever mutual cooperation she needs. So its a deal breaker.
I like the way Bill Maher put’s it when he spoke on the topic of feminism: “[female daytime tv host] only a woman could have said this [applause] … a couple should explore their mutual fantasys’ … [Bill Maher] there are no mutual fantasy’s, yours bore us, ours offend you”
Collegeboy: so the problem is that allot of men, might like fantasy’s that our significant other doesn’t. sexual submissiveness within reason, is one of mine (I don’t like blue ball’s, it would end the relationship or I’ll avoid marriage all together, like Bill Maher, by the way).
Bill Maher Feminism video it’s good, you might want to see it, for men’s point of view.
http://youtu.be/x64cy3Bcr98
@Collegeboy
LMAO at the Maher video. Thanks.
I’m confused about something in this post. In the beginning it says –
“1…Relationship quality is correlated with each party’s conviction that their partner is better looking than they are (even if it’s not true).”
But then later it says –
“7. Marriages work best when the woman is hotter than the man.”
Was #1 meant to be “attractive” and not “better looking”? A little confused…seems like they can’t both be better looking than the other, and also have the woman be hotter than the man…
Feral…”People with low self-esteem on the inside often appear to have high self-esteem on the outside though.”
There are a lot of people with *brittle* self-esteem; they have a very high opinion of themselves but constantly fear having it shattered like a piece of glass.
@Kaikou
I took that to mean passions outside the relationship – some autonomy wrt interests and dedication to pursuing those interests.
@GudEnuf
Being active and initiating sex, or some moves within the act of sex, heightens female desire. I think one reason is that men respond very favorably to it physically, and there is nothing more arousing to women than being intensely desired.
I think sexual submissiveness sounds like minimal fun
From the article, re item 1: “Longitudinal analyses suggested that spouses were less likely to suffer declines in love when they idealized one another as newlyweds. Newlywed levels of idealization did not predict divorce.”
How do these two things go together. Wouldn’t one expect that lower likelihood of decline in love would improve the chances of the marriage staying together?
@ted 9.10pm:
Your surmise would actually be well founded both on empirical and simple observational grounds-all of which gos right to my comments regarding hbd on the previous thread.
Iq is not only a matter of heritibility, its one the swpl/umc takes very, very seriously-to the point that their kids can begin to be rigorously tested as early as preschool to assess their cognitive readiness to compete in the world they will inherit. Nyc is an excellent example of this where schools charge astoundingly high fees, from attendance at the actual schools themselves, all the way to offering tutoring and test preparation courses which promise to help their child essentially edge out the competition. Again, it cannot be overstated-this goes right back to major arguments heard in hbd spaces: “prestige” is something that begins very early on in life, as early as preschool, and ends at grad school-*an ivy league grad school of course*.
If iq was NOT heritable; if only large sums of money were required to fund intensive educational programs and the like; then women like jodie foster wouldnt bend so far backward in an attempt to find the smartest sperm donor possible. The invitro fertility business is well known to collect the sperm samples of the worlds smartest men, and which fetch quite a high price out on the open market. This is the last resort move white/jewish/asian women of the hus cohort do when a suitable mate is not available-they avail themselves of the smartest sperm they can buy.
Here again we see a key area of hbd-informed argument not only being borne out but, as they also say, the swpl/umc no being completely honest about it either.
Iq is indeed more heritable than not, and if a fathers contribution is paramount in that regard it starts and one can make a powerful case that it ends, with him busting a heady nut…
…just ask the 44th potus.
Holla back
O.
@bastiat 11.22pm:
Your proposal has from where i sit, two key flaws:
1. It wont work because the swpl/umc dont need it
And
2. The middle and working/lower classes not only dont need it, they would find it impractical
Lets take these items in turn.
As ive noted on the previous thread, both hymowitz and murray have made it crystal clear-not through theories but on the basis of mountains of data sources-that the swpl/umc are far from novel in their approach to marriage and family formation; indeed if anything they are staunchly wedded, pardon the pun, to it. Usually what happens when such proposals as yours comes along is that anybody and everybody BUT the swpl/umc cohort gives it a try usually to disasterous results. The swpl/umc sticks to what works. As the hbers have rightly observed about them, watch what they do instead of listening to what they say.
As for the middle/lower classes, marriage as weve known it is increasingly becoming a shaky proposition for them for a whole host of reasons; as edin and kafalas clearly state in their book “promises i can keep” poorer women dont see marriage and childbearing as inherently connected; they bear kids because they know the pickings from which to select a marriagable mate are slim-so, they do the next best thing: select the best sperm donor they can find. The book finds that many of these women do go on to marry, and that it might look just a bit askance to ask them to do marriage 1.0 when the rest of the country does marriage 2.0-the former being a “need” marriage and the latter being a “want” marriage. For more on this see banks and coontz.
All classes of people in the usa will keep on reproducing. The question is, what will be the most dominant model for future generations?
O.
Being active and initiating sex, or some moves within the act of sex, heightens female desire. I think one reason is that men respond very favorably to it physically, and there is nothing more arousing to women than being intensely desired.
—————————————————————–
I once read” men desire a woman, but women want to be desired by a man.”
How is anything a vow if it has to be re-vowed? I have never understood renewing of vows. isnt that the point? that its permanent?
I think divorces should be harder to get, not easier
Kathy – Thanks!
“And because it’s that good a woman WILL initiate..”
Perhaps some do, but my experience shows otherwise. I’ll admit I have a small circle of male friends, and certainly only a few that shares such intimate details of their relationships, but I can tell you that all of my male friends would LOVE if their wives would initiate more often. Now, that isn’t to say those same wives don’t greatly enjoy sex with their guy, and I’m fully confident that my SO enjoys herself most of the time. (I suspect she enjoys sex ALL of the time. But I know beyond all doubt that she doesn’t always “pop” with the quickies, which is fine.) And on occasion she gets horny enough to pounce on me, but it is almost always after her period ends, which means we’ve gone without for several days. Like I said, maybe less frequency would result in more pouncing, but I’m not really interested in cutting back to less romps right now.
“I do it often, simply because my hubby is extremely busy with his business.(and I don’t want to miss out. ha!) If he is in his office working at night I’ll go in there and make him take a break from work for a little while. ”
Good for you! (and your hubby actually. LOL) I would like to ask, do you work? I only ask because another thing I think tends to curb the sexual appetite of women I know is a stressful job. Makes sense since stress at work often does the same for men. Me? When I get stressed, I get horny. Like MAD horny. My SO knows I’ve had a rough day at work right after I walk in the door by the way I “urgently” kiss her.
Anyway my point is every single woman in my circle works, and every one of them work full time at that. Most have jobs I would classify as stressful, and despite being interested in having sex, most nights I think they are just too worn out to even think about initiating. Like I said, stress gets me all riled up, so the more of it I experience the more aggressive I become at initiating. Also, I would wager that most conservative women just aren’t as sexually expressive. I’m certainly not promoting promiscuity, but it is a factor to consider. Surely some very chaste women have found themselves married and with a HUGE appetite for sex, but even in those cases I’d imagine it could take years before she is comfortable enough to take the lead on occasion. And perhaps this is more about personality and temperament. I can say that my SO is by no means a wallflower, and I’d even say she leans far more towards the “wild child” side than the other way, but for all that she still just doesn’t take the lead much. And again, I hear the same things from my guy friends, and most of them didn’t marry any nuns either… *shrug*
And to be sure, I’m not complaining. My sex life hasn’t been this good since I was in my early 20’s. And it isn’t like I’ve been mauled by lots of women in my years, so I’m not lamenting some past GF that rocked my world. I just think that in general women don’t think about sex enough for it to occur to them to initiate, or perhaps they generally just need to be kick started, so to speak. One of these days I might try a little experiment and cut back on our weekly romp quota (we don’t really have one, but I try to keep a minimum in play. LOL) and see how she reacts. My guess is she will become more aggressive as time passes until she simply takes what she wants, which happily is me!
“He does not have to bother about getting me in the mood,”
I have no complaints here either. To be honest, my SO is down for a roll in the sack anytime I’m interested. It is a VERY rare occurrence that she rejects my advances, and in every single case I completely understood. (usually she is either wiped out from a tough day, or feeling under the weather). I don’t want you to think there is a lack of willingness from my SO or any of the women I’m discussing. Quite to the contrary, they are all very interested in having sex, just not so much interested in initiating sex.
“On the weekends when he has more time he will initiate.”
I love weekends! We usually knock two out a day on the weekends, if not a third. I’m not a fan of morning sex, by my SO likes it a great deal, so weekends at my house usually start with a bang. :p From there it depends on what we are doing, but we usually have a ‘nightcap’ as well. I’ve said to her many times: “Baby, I love you every single day, and twice on the weekends!”
“It takes the pressure off hubby too, when he has a lot of work to do. ”
This is going to make me sound like a woman, but I’ll be honest: for me it isn’t about the “pressure” of always initiating. I honestly and truly want to feel like she is so hot for me she can’t help herself every once in awhile. I want to feel wanted. And I’ve said as much to her before. She looked at me, chuckled and said: “If I didn’t want you, I wouldn’t have sex with you.” I laughed and said that makes perfect sense, but I asked her if she likes feeling desired, to which she replied “of course.” To that I answered: “I know you want me, but wanting me and desiring me are NOT the same. Sometimes I want you to simply NEED to take me. And to be honest, I feel that way about you much of the time.” She thought about it, and said she completely understood and would make an effort. I guess we’ll see how that goes. Even if nothing changes, it’s good to know she understood. And I realize that this is very much a “female” type want/need, but I’ve come to accept that I have a head full of odd wiring that has seemingly blended some more “feminine” traits with the rest of my thinking.
Fellas – anyone else feel similar? I know my male friends have expressed that they’d love their SO’s to initiate more often, but I can’t say that I know WHY that is. Like I said above, for me it really is about feeling desired. Plus there really isn’t much hotter than a woman really putting the moves on and giving me a solid workout. I L O V E watching my SO at work.
This is Jen – “I once read” men desire a woman, but women want to be desired by a man.””
I WANT TO BE DESIRED! At least on occasion…
That being said, I certainly “desire” my SO often. I would honestly say I feel genuine desire for her at least once a day, and sometimes far more often. And that’s after 2+ years of being together. I know that we are technically still early in, but I’ve never experienced this level of “carnal attraction” for an LTR partner before. Not to say I wasn’t sexually attracted to my ex or other LTR mates. But I didn’t often find myself “craving” them much either.
The one about sexually submissive women also seems iffy. Don’t you have to initiate sex to get such women going?
CED – “The one about sexually submissive women also seems iffy. Don’t you have to initiate sex to get such women going?”
Yep. What I *think* the author intended to say is: any woman that is sexually submissive (meaning not very active during sex, simply follows her man’s lead) aren’t as much fun in the sack. I’m sure that is true, but to me the bigger implication is: exactly what types of women are NOT “sexually submissive” in general? And I still maintain that it is generally the more promiscuous women that tend to be sexually aggressive. Yes, a guy could always find himself an “angel” that turns into a demon in bed, but that is an awfully bad gamble in my opinion.
Choosing a blogger who makes $29k a year,
but writes 100 hours a week
for the equivalent of $7 an hour
sounds like he just stuck his foot in his mouth
Since it’s much better for the woman, I don’t know why anyone would lie there like a fish!
Easy. Responsibility.
IME, girls are often “submissive” so that they are not responsible for anything.
You can’t get into a car accident if he is driving.
You can’t be responsible for a bad meal if he chose the restaurant.
You are not responsible for disappointing sex if he made all the choices.
Ramble – good point! That hadn’t occurred to me at all…
+1
Very well put.
Off topic, but, David, the other day you asked about some of the mating rituals of various Native American tribes. I am far from an expert, but I do know a little, and would be open for questions.
You can email me at my GMail account. My username is DougRisk.
Can I offer a zeroth entry for the list? (c.f. zeroth law of thermodynamics)
If the number of sluts really is as low as Susan’s numbers show (and I have no better numbers, nor any particular reason to doubt her’s), that means that the 50%-40% divorce rate is what happens when men marry non-slut women.
So apart from STDs, sluttyness doesn’t look like a major factor in why marrying itself sucks for men. (and similarly for women).
However, there are stats showing that as a woman’s N increases (from zero), divorce rate rises (dread blogger D IIRC). I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that there’s a mirroring (though probably smaller) effect for mens’ numbers. The explanations for this effect usually centre around the ability to bond being degraded by each partner. Given that we are not, and never will be again, in a society where most marriages are between virgins, does a lifetime commitment even make sense any more?
If the legal and financial ramifications of divorce were acceptable, then maybe, if you really think that (s)he is the one, you might go for it. But they aren’t for men, especially if children are involved. (alimony and chilimony overwhelmingly go to the wife).
So my zeroth law would be:
0) check that he has any interest in marriage with anyone. Don’t assume that you can talk him out of that view at some point, don’t assume that an accident (real or other) will lead to a shotgun marriage.
George Clooney split up with a woman that thought she’d change his mind, didn’t he?
(I can’t (won’t) give links to the men saying that they will never, ever, marry – they’re not on sites that the majority here would want to visit. So, you can take my point that these statements are becoming more frequent or not – s’up to you. I don’t think that it changes the 0th entry).
The relevance to this site is; Ladies there are young men who say that they will never marry, before you set your heart on someone, check if he is one of them.
As well as man-whores who will P&D you, there are also men that will do LTR, but won’t do marriage. If that makes a difference to you, CHECK!
“I think divorces should be harder to get, not easier”
I think that marriages should be very hard to get, maybe there’d be less divorces…
… alimony and chilimony overwhelmingly go to the wife
We like to call this Mommy Support.
@Ramble
oh, I already thought that chilimony was a mix of child and alimony, given how tricky it can be to track where the child support gets spent.
my bad
“Choose a man according to education, profession and income….Socioneconomic status among males predicts engaged fathering and higher IQ.”
Predicts how strongly? I didn’t see any correlation coefficients in the article…does SES predict 80% of the variance in “engaged fathering and higher IQ”, or 10%?
In any event, I think it’s much better to look at people as individuals, when individual attributes can be observed, than as members of a statistical class. For example, women on the average probably have lower mathematical skills than men. But if you’re running the aerodynamics modeling group at Boeing and you need a mathematician, it would be insane (as well as illegal) to reject a good candidate because she was a woman and “on the average” would be expected to be not so good.
Same applies here. Rejecting a guy who seems to have the attributes of a good father on the grounds of some statistical correlation (of which the degree is not even stated) wouldn’t be too smart.
One can be convinced that one is hotter than someone else regardless of whether this is in fact the case. As the article notes, a degree of self-deception is important for marriage, and self-deception about the relative attractiveness of one’s partner might be particularly important.
Ramble…mating among American Indians…maybe you could do a guest post on this here, if Susan is agreeable, and others can chime in.
My sense is that in general life in tribal societies is more structured and controlled than people tend to think.
I would have to do a LOT more reading to offer up an actual post. At best, I can chime in with a few comments. Which I will do right after this quote…
Yes.
I will offer up just a few points that seemed to be common amongst many different tribes/nations:
- Boys and girls after a certain age (say 5-10) were strictly separated. Boys did male things and girls did female things. And the roles that the different sexes within the tribe were often very well defined.
- A man’s value was greatly tied to his hunting and fighting (i.e. war) abilities. It was not uncommon for a young man to be mocked by the girls after he had apparently failed in battle.
- Fairly strict customs were in place for showing “romantic” interest.
For instance, if a Hopi girl was interested in a Hopi boy she would make some Piki bread (basically, blue cornmeal crepes…quite difficult to make, and deserves a post all of it’s own) and place it in a basket. Her mother would then put this basket at the foot of the door of the boys family very early in the morning. If the boy’s family accepted the Piki bread, it was on, if not, the girls mother would go back and take back the Piki bread. This was done early enough in the morning so that the mother could retrieve the Piki without the village knowing about it.
To be clear, in most tribes, it was the girls who initiated this kind of contact (“emotional escalation”). Of course, they only did this AFTER the men had shown their value.
“and deserves a post all of it’s own”
Grammar Fail.
Ramble, girls and boys played separately when I was a kid, too. I think the “there are no differences between sexes” idea is wrong and foolish.
Like many others I was puzzled by this:
4. Avoid sexually submissive women to avoid a sexless marriage.
This is not consistent with my personal experience. All the women I’ve known have been at least somewhat sexually submissive, including my wife, who is very sexual.
It is also inconsistent with a lot of sexual research, which indicates that women’s sexuality is more responsive that initiating: “women’s system of desire, the cognitive domain of lust, is more receptive than aggressive”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
So I looked up the study on which this conclusion is based.
http://www.sanchezlab.com/pdfs/SanchezKieferYbarra2006.pdf
Several things are immediately evident:
- The conceptual framework is radical feminism, as the many references to rad-fem luminaries such as Dworkin and MacKinnon show.
- Sexuality is assumed to be determined by social conditioning and the role of biology is ignored completely, as is standard in rad-fem discourse. For example, the uncomfortable fact that female sexuality is primarily submissive in nearly all the mammalian species is not mentioned.
- The study suffers the weakness of most such psychological studies – the subjects are all university undergraduates. One cannot make sweeping generalizations from such a non-representative sample (especially given the quality of most college sexual experiences!). For the key study, this was the subject pool: “In Study 4, 96 female University of Michigan undergraduates participated for course credit”. We know that female sexual response is different in a long term committed and trusting relationship such as a good marriage compared to casual hookups, and it is unlikely that many of this subject pool were in such a committed relationship. Therefore the conclusions cannot say much about what type of sexual response works best in marriage.
- The submissiveness of the women were evaluated with a questionnaire. Such responses are highly subject to suggestion and bias confirmation.
“Submissive sexual behaviors. Participants rated the following statements on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree): “I tend to take on the passive role during
sexual activity,” “I tend to take on the submissive role
during sexual activities,” “I prefer to take on the passive
role during sexual activities,” and “I prefer to take on the
more agentic or active role during sexual activity”
(reverse coded). The average of these items comprised
our measure of submissive sexual behavior (Cronbach’s
alpha = .85).”
I could go on with an analysis of the other weaknesses and limitations of this study, but I think by now it’s clear that a rad-fem analysis of bad college sex says very little about the sex life of a married woman, submissive or not.
Another issue to consider in the ‘sexually submissive woman’ is that the type of agency a woman has in a loving, committed relationship is much different than a casual hookup. In the former, the woman gains a much greater degree of emotional agency; her partner becomes responsive and attuned to her emotional responses, which gives her a good deal of control. Thus, even if her physical response is submissive, her emotional agency may be high.
The relationships of college women rarely give them that level of emotional agency. So in that context, a woman who is physically submissive has little agency at all. This is the scenario upon which this study is based, and it is a mistake to generalize it to all relationships.
And that, in a nutshell, is why committed sex is so much better than casual sex for many women.
Excellent comments, wave. I was going to point out the same thing. Submissive women can quite easily be wildcats in bed. Submissive does not mean always mean low-sex-drive, or reactive desire, or being a dead fish. Submissive equaling sexless is a bit of a stretch.
For Native America, it simply wasn’t about the different sexes playing apart. The adults were quite strict about what chores each would do. Their whole lives were quite segregated.
OTC – “Submissive does not mean always mean low-sex-drive, or reactive desire, or being a dead fish. Submissive equaling sexless is a bit of a stretch.”
Correct. but the article specified “sexually submissive”, not just submissive in general. I can easily see that a woman might be generally submissive to her husband, but tears him up in bed. I can also easily see that a woman might be a ball buster all day, but meek and submissive at home.
To me “sexually submissive” implies reactive, not active. So, if I understood the point correctly, it is claiming that if a man wants hot and heavy sex from his wife, he should NOT select a sexually submissive women. I don’t agree necessarily, and to be clear I’m not in any way defending this article. In fact, I read Wired because I’m in IT, and I happened on this by chance. This point in fact is what prompted me to send it to Susan, because I was surprised by the claim, and wondered what other folks thought about it.
Now, all that being said, I imagine it is far more likely to find a “wild cat” in bed from the more promiscuous pool of women. Surely a chaste woman could find that she greatly enjoys sex with her husband, and set out to give him a real run for his money from that day forward, but if I was a betting man (and I’m not. In fact I’m a VERY sore loser when it comes to betting…) I wouldn’t put much on this occurring. Perhaps over the time of the relationship, she may open up and become comfortable enough to really drive on occasion, but I HIGHLY doubt there are a lot of newlywed virgins ripping up the sheets. On the other hand, I expect that many promiscuous women are FAR past feeling uncomfortable about their sexuality by the time they marry. So in that case, it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume she might really rock her husbands world.
So for a guy, the question is: which is more important to you, a chaste women or a vixen in the sack? Because in most cases, you can only ensure one or the other, but not both. You might luck out, but again, I wouldn’t bet on it.
And just so you know, it pains me to even type this. Because in some ways, it actually promotes promiscuity for women, at least if wild and crazy sex is the end goal…
“I think divorces should be harder to get, not easier”
I agree is better to penalize divorce than to penalize marriage. Many studies show that most couples that stick together during bad times can go all around to their happy times, but most people don’t know this, so is likely that people that are actually suitable for marriage won’t do it because they don’t know. I also think the incentive for divorce is too high specially for the partner that breaks things off, that can’t be good, YMMV.
Ramble, girls and boys played separately when I was a kid, too. I think the “there are no differences between sexes” idea is wrong and foolish.
In my culture we could play coed till we started to reach poverty then any parent worth his/her brain will separate the kids by gender to avoid any “ooops pregnancy” too young.
I wouldn’t put much on this occurring. Perhaps over the time of the relationship, she may open up and become comfortable enough to really drive on occasion, but I HIGHLY doubt there are a lot of newlywed virgins ripping up the sheets.
I know you already crossed the line to the “women don’t know anything about themselves, men and myself do” but this is not how it works. Virgins are not afraid of sex, for the most part they are waiting for the right frame. Most of my friends married virgins and their husband’s can’t complain they are actually quite inhibited.
Knowing that English is not your first language, I don’t think I have ever corrected you. But, this was especially interesting: I think you meant “puberty”, and not “poverty”.
@Paul Rivers
The first refers to each person’s perception of the other. IOW, it’s great for relationships if you think your woman is the hottest, even hotter than she really is. And the same goes for her perception of you. It’s subscribing to an idealized version of your partner – this is quite common and correlates to happiness over the course of marriage.
The second is about the objective assessment of two parties. In cases where both halves of the couple are 6s, or 9s, there is no effect. When the woman has an objective SMV higher than the man, there’s a positive effect. When the man has a higher SMV than the woman, the man becomes dissatisfied, presumably because he starts to feel he can do better.
Ana – (I’m going to stick with this so I don’t screw up your handle again…)
“I know you already crossed the line to the “women don’t know anything about themselves, men and myself do” but this is not how it works. Virgins are not afraid of sex, for the most part they are waiting for the right frame. Most of my friends married virgins and their husband’s can’t complain they are actually quite inhibited”
I’ve only been with one virgin, and I must admit that she turned out to be pretty adventurous. BUT, it certainly didn’t start out that way. By the time we split after 4 years together it was a MUCH different story though. But to be clear, I’m not picking on virginity at all. I’m simply stating that a virgin probably isn’t too educated on sexual positions and isn’t likely to start out of the gate giving great oral sex to her husband. Of course, with the internet and easy access to porn, I may be WAY off base here. But, and here is the rub, how is a guy supposed to KNOW this? If he hasn’t had sex with her, how does he KNOW his virgin wife will rock his world? He doesn’t. So, if wild sex is a priority, it would be wise of him to at least consider looking elsewhere.
You know where I stand on casual sex, so clearly I’m not pushing the “hump like rabbits” agenda here. But I can honestly see the problem, and I don’t really know what the solution is, other than deciding if wild/crazy/whatever sex is a priority and choosing a mate based on that. A guy might get totally lucky and find a virgin nympho (so to speak), but once they are married his bet is placed and he has no recourse other than divorce.
I’ve never been on a virgin hunt, so for me this isn’t such a huge issue. However I AM all about low N, so although I may have a little more flexibility, I’m still fishing in a smaller pond, so to speak. I will say this: of my four LTR mates, my current SO is by far the most “sexually experienced” (and no, that doesn’t mean an N of 20+) and she also happens to be the best of them in bed. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I’m not willing to bet on it…
@Ms. Walsh #77:
“The second is about the objective assessment of two parties. In cases where both halves of the couple are 6s, or 9s, there is no effect. When the woman has an objective SMV higher than the man, there’s a positive effect. When the man has a higher SMV than the woman, the man becomes dissatisfied, presumably because he starts to feel he can do better.”
O: This tallies very well with what Roosh has said on the matter:
The Secret to Landing a Man
http://www.rooshv.com/the-secret-to-landing-a-man
Would you agree, Ms. Walsh?
O.
Could be some women are submissive because they need forplay to feel any tingle at all. They probably like the man to initiate so they get the tingle. Ive know women like this. Then there are women who are very easily turned on. Seems they have been the ones to start the action more often.
If the submissive ones have a man who isnt quick to initiate, it probably isnt going to happen “tonight”
When the man has a higher SMV than the woman, the man becomes dissatisfied, presumably because he starts to feel he can do better
Kinda like a male hypergamy?
Tom – “If the submissive ones have a man who isnt quick to initiate, it probably isnt going to happen “tonight””
And I truly believe that THIS is indeed the problem much of the time.
But here is the flip side: would you expect a woman that is easily turned on to be more promiscuous? I would, (mostly because being horny sucks and most people seek to “fix” it with sex) which means that if I prioritize crazy sex as important, and I’m already excluding a whole lot of women based on their N, I’ve narrowed my available pool by a substantial amount. And, of those low N women, just how many are “easily turned on” AND still truly low N?
Tom – “Kinda like a male hypergamy? ”
Or perhaps other women tend to throw themselves at such a man figuring he is an easy “poach” since his wife isn’t nearly as hot as he is?
But here is the flip side: would you expect a woman that is easily turned on to be more promiscuous.
I`d say that is probable. Most promiscuous women, not all, are on the horney side. Certianly not all easily turned on women are promiscuous, but the ones who are, are like you said….
I think a lot of promiscuous women “need” male attention for their self worth. So I doubt that “they” are always the horney ones. There reasons are different.
@david foster
I had to read that a couple of times myself. It means that a lower likelihood of suffering declines in love rose to statistical significance for couples who had idealized one another. In contrast, having idealized one another as newlyweds did not predict a significant increase or decrease in divorce. I would have expected it to predict a decrease in divorce.
I can’t find the full study online, but here’s an excerpt from an article about it:
Other factors include courtships where the level of idealization is high but so is the level of conflict.
The researchers found that the couples with extreme passion (high or low) or pace of courtship (very slow or fast) were most likely to divorce. Those who were more moderate in all ways were the most likely to stay married.
Knowing that English is not your first language, I don’t think I have ever corrected you. But, this was especially interesting: I think you meant “puberty”, and not “poverty”.
Heh I actually kept doing that and I managed to catch it before hitting sent all the other times. I do wonder if is a Freudian slip…mmm
A guy might get totally lucky and find a virgin nympho (so to speak), but once they are married his bet is placed and he has no recourse other than divorce.
How about some therapy or communication? This is something I notice most people think on this country that sexual difficulties are deal breakers I know plenty of couples with sexual issues that had managed to work around them and get a nice relationship. Is interesting that assuming that it doesn’t come naturally it will never come.
Sometimes people need practice to get better or you just need to understand the other needs and work accordingly. It might be a cultural difference of course, but still funny that of all things sex is the one people think remain the same for the rest of someone’s life, it that were the case people that sleep right away to know if they are compatible would show the highest level of satisfaction and success, not the case at all.
And you have reports of men that married experienced women that are also part of the sexless marriage cohort I wonder if there is a study that shows that being a virgin is correlated with a sexless marriage, just rambling on this point.
I’m not trying to sell virgins but is funny how even a low count guy that doesn’t believe in casual sex is still prejudice against it…
Their* (up above)
Tom – “Kinda like a male hypergamy? ”
Or perhaps other women tend to throw themselves at such a man figuring he is an easy “poach” since his wife isn’t nearly as hot as he is?
That is a distict possibility. They think he will be more attracted to them is they are higher on the pretty scale….Good think we men are not that shallow..;)
Tom – “I think a lot of promiscuous women “need” male attention for their self worth. So I doubt that “they” are always the horney ones. There reasons are different.”
Touché and point taken. But the problem is figuring which promiscuous women are horny, and which “need” male validation in the form of sex.
Ana – I am not prejudice against virginity at all. In fact, I would NOT prioritize “crazy sex” and would simply hope for the best while expecting the worst. Additionally, I am not in the camp that waits for marriage, so again not a huge deal to me. My SO and Inhave been loving together for about 2 years unmarried. I am fully sure that we are sexually compatible. But, as a man promoting conservative sexual mores, I have to acknowledge this possible pitfall if I’m going to be honest at all.
@Ana
Anacoana, I wish there was a big button next your comments that said “SUBSCRIBE” or “PROMOTE!” because you speak the truth.
Maybe some of the people who are waiting to have sex are doing it as an avoidance strategy. But if you are doing it (or rather, NOT doing it!) until marriage out of principle you are playing by a whole different set of guidelines.
For me, I will be SO GLAD to be able to have sex according to my values! Waiting, being rejected for my beliefs, being mocked by the pozzies as an ignoramus who is missing out– it’s not exactly the greatest fun, you know?
For me, I will do whatever it takes to find happiness in the bedroom because there is so much commitment I’ve already made. Think about it. Why would I give up or not try? On the contrary, I would try *everything* to make it work, because marriage means THAT much to me. Please give some credit to what Ana is saying.
I can see someone who has been repressed of subliminating that energy (into working out, creativity, etc) having to get used to the change, but that’s not the same thing.
*steps off soapbox*
@This is Jen
Yes, Ogi Ogas discussed this in his book A Billion Wicked Thoughts:
Jackie – I’ve had actual intercourse with a total of four women, one of them was a virgin prior. I’m certainly not trying to pass myself off as some expert, and surely I’m basing my opinion on a lot of anecdotal evidence. And again, I’m not attempting to put virgins down. But can you honestly tell me that a virgin is likely to be ready for multi-position two-way oral smack your ass down and dirty sex on thier wedding night? If you are, more power to you. But again, I can’t in good faith see that as a good bet for a guy, no disrespect intended.
And I’m not sure who the “credit” comment was for, but I give everyone credit based on thier posts. With me, Ana has a lot in the bank, so if it looks like I’m attempting to discredit her, it is completely unintentional.
@Ted D
No, the author’s point is that sexually submissive women take no responsibility for their own arousal. More sexually assertive know what turns them on, and they go for it. A sexually submissive woman either doesn’t know or is too submissive to initiate what she enjoys. Ultimately, this produces a woman who doesn’t enjoy sex much. It’s about her fun, not his, though clearly over time most men would enjoy sex less if the woman was clearly not enjoying it. I suspect this is how marriages become sexless.
“One of the most fundamental and influential psychological cues for women is irresistibility: the feeling that you are sexually desirable. Being desired is very arousing to women.”
Damn it… I really need to knock this out of my psyche. This describes my reaction to and desire for my SO to initiate more often. I get a HUGE boost to my ego when I feel like she can’t resist me.
@Firepower
Is that what Eric Barker makes from Wired? His blog has no ads, so that’s not producing income.
In any case, I expect him to be objective, not just publish the studies that benefit him personally.
This may sound a bit basic or silly, but I honestly do not see what the big deal is about who makes the first move regarding sex. Personally I don’t care who does it, me or Ms. Brown Sugah, as long as *somebody* gets the ball rolling, I’m good either way(!).
*shrugs*
O.
Susan – “No, the author’s point is that sexually submissive women take no responsibility for their own arousal.”
Thanks for the clarification. I’m usually not so bad at reading comprehension, but I just couldn’t puzzle this one out.
Obsidian – “Personally I don’t care who does it, me or Ms. Brown Sugah, as long as *somebody* gets the ball rolling, I’m good either way(!).”
For the most part, I agree with you here. However, from time to time, I really do “crave” some unrestrained desire from my SO in the form of her basically attacking me in bed. (or wherever we happen to be when it occurs. LOL) I know some of my male friends have complained before that their SO’s don’t make that kind of effort very often, but I don’t know if their reasons for desiring it are the same as mine.
I’m starting to believe that for me it is some form of validation, that I’m just SO DAMN HOT that she can’t resist me. If that’s the case, I’m deluding myself. LOL. I’m not saying I’m butt ugly, but I’m also not Brad Pitt. And realistically I know that my SO finds me “hot” based on many of my traits, including my looks. But somewhere in the recesses of my brain, a part of me wants her to be overwhelmed with desire based solely on my sexual prowess. And to be honest, this is why I have issues with promiscuous women. Because in the end, if they had a ONS, they did it because THAT man was indeed “hot” enough without being a “good guy”, and I want to at least be able to hold my own WITH HER against that.
@Ted
Ted, thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it.
Question– and I apologize for being so frank– Why couldn’t someone who is a virgin learn to do all that *eventually*? Maybe it might take more time, but you have the rest of your lives.
I am not an ice queen and WANT to please my husband. Like Susan says, with a weekend and someone you really care about– it’s not rocket science!
Again, this is just a value thing with me: I know that once I bond, it will be for life, and having the guy use me or just decide he didn’t care anymore would be beyond crushing. Having pre-marital sex with the wrong guy has SO many negatives that it’s hard for me to see how it outweigh waiting. Again, only my perspective and opinion. I know it sounds weird to most people. Oh well!
@81 Tom, in the case where a man has a higher SMV than the woman, his feeling he can do better isn’t necessarily hypergamous. If he’s a 6 and she’s a 5 maybe he simply wants a 6, or in other words, he is ISOGAMOUS. Of course, many 6 men would love to have women who are 7+ but most are realistic enough to know that isn’t going to happen and, the key point, will be quite happy with the female 6′s.
I think women tend more to hypergamy, especially in STR/hookups. Men, in practice, will be more hypogamos in hookups but tend to want isogamous LTRs. If you’re going to limit yourself to one woman then you want the best you can get in trade-off for the foregone other possibilities. But realism caps men’s aspirations.
I will have to admit, though, that sometimes men can get a slightly higher SMV woman for an LTR when said woman is finding a dearth of commitment minded men of her own SMV, especially when the woman is an 8-10 where the 8-10 men are more able to succeed at being a player. As much as I would love to think that I’m amazing I would have to admit that it was probably more this dynamic that allowed me to get a couple of hot gf’s I have had in the past.
@Just1X
It was The Social Pathologist who popularized that data in the sphere.
Here is the study you’re thinking of:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/10/infidelity-part-2.html
The data shows that 4 or more previous sexual partners among the married women increased the odds of infidelity by 23%. But get this: Having a college degree decreased them 483% (???!!!). SP says this most likely occurred because there were no college educated women among the 24 women who had cheated.
All in all, it’s an interesting but exceedingly weak finding, IMO. I have never seen another similar study, except for the one that looks at male promiscuity as well, and shows decreasing sexual satisfaction with previous partners.
It is perhaps noteworthy that both of these “one of a kind” studies were conducted at Brigham Young University.
In short, I think pair bonding is alive and well under a certain number. I’m not sure what that number is, but I suspect the BYU research sets is way low.
For me, I will do whatever it takes to find happiness in the bedroom because there is so much commitment I’ve already made. Think about it. Why would I give up or not try? On the contrary, I would try *everything* to make it work, because marriage means THAT much to me. Please give some credit to what Ana is saying.
Heh you are on the right path. Being finally free to do whatever I want to my husband, and he to me is actually highly erotic. We call this the “ring” effect ring as in boxing ring. Outside it you prepare and warm but you don’t fight but once the bell sounds IS ON! now that you are married everything that brings yourself and your husband pleasure is considered good on the eyes of God, so yeah unless the husband wants threesomes, orgies or gangbangs there is a lot of liberation on finally being on the side of the married ones. But then I’m sure this is one of the things you need to live it to beleive it. Most people find taboo’s sexy when I think we find taboos stupid and the blessing of our unions more sexy.
Also I have a lot of years of celibacy to make up for it, I think I only turned down sex once after working 12 hours straight and then after sleeping for an hour I was like “Wait I lost the chance of getting laid!” never again.
No to mention that with my aversion of cheating do you think I will be willing not to try something new so if my husband steps out he has an “excuse”? That would be very stupid and nonsensical. If he is going to cheat on me is because he is a bastard to not because he has to look outside the house what he doesn’t have in it.
So yeah lots to offer as virgins by choice, hopefully you will get to see it for yourself soon enough.
But can you honestly tell me that a virgin is likely to be ready for multi-position two-way oral smack your ass down and dirty sex on thier wedding night?
Heh you will never know the answer to that question
@david foster
I agree with this. It’s also related to what Mike C said earlier about evaluating potential. “Early bidders” do well snapping up men well before they peak. I’ve heard it said that when a woman at her peak believes in a man and chooses him before he’s proven himself, he rewards her by remaining with her even as she ages. I like that concept, I don’t know if it’s true or not.
@98 Jackie
I come from religious background that highly values virginity before marriage so I have a lot of female friends who were virgins when they married. I have a cousin who was a virgin and very sensual and talked about how she was going to ravish her future husband. She finally got married and I have no doubt he is loving life. She also seems like the type that would come up with awesome things to do and instigate.
Of other virgins I have known, most of them are just seething with desire and totally wanting to get it on and be “freaks” in the bed and ladies in the street. The fact that they’ve waited so long makes it even more desirable.
There is the flipside though, due to sex-shaming at church that some women take in the message that sex is wrong and they do really have problems when they marry because they don’t know their bodies, don’t know anything about sex, haven’t used their imaginations and feel a residual guilt and dirtiness after marriage about sex, even though doctrinally it’s all green lights then.
Bottom line, a virgin with a normal or high libido, good imagination and healthy attitudes about sex and marriage is going to be great in bed. I’m a man so can’t directly know maybe but I think the biggest part about woman being awesome in bed is the attitude she brings. If she has a sexy, sensual, even wild attitude (not necessarily all the time but can get into that state of mind) then she should have no problems and can learn whatever techniques relatively quickly.
Since the stereotypical dynamic is for men to pursue sex and women to “give it up,” to have a woman initiate is very much a huge ego boost and let’s him know that he’s not the beggar at the pussy door waiting for a crumb to be thrown his way. No! He’s the fucking king sitting on his throne!!!
@98 Jackie
I come from religious background that highly values virginity before marriage so I have a lot of female friends who were virgins when they married. I have a cousin who was a virgin and very sensual and talked about how she was going to ravish her future husband. She finally got married and I have no doubt he is loving life. She also seems like the type that would come up with awesome things to do and instigate.
Of other virgins I have known, most of them are just seething with desire and totally wanting to get it on and be “freaks” in the bed and ladies in the street. The fact that they’ve waited so long makes it even more desirable.
There is the flipside though, due to sex-shaming at church that some women take in the message that sex is wrong and they do really have problems when they marry because they don’t know their bodies, don’t know anything about sex, haven’t used their imaginations and feel a residual guilt and dirtiness after marriage about sex, even though doctrinally it’s all green lights then.
Bottom line, a virgin with a normal or high libido, good imagination and healthy attitudes about sex and marriage is going to be great in bed. I’m a man so can’t directly know maybe but I think the biggest part about woman being awesome in bed is the attitude she brings. If she has a sexy, sensual, even wild attitude (not necessarily all the time but can get into that state of mind) then she should have no problems and can learn whatever techniques relatively quickly.
Since the stereotypical dynamic is for men to pursue sex and women to “give it up,” to have a woman initiate is very much a huge ego boost and let’s him know that he’s not the beggar at the pussy gate waiting for a stale crust to be thrown his way. No! He’s the fucking king sitting on his throne!!!
@Susan, feel free to delete 103. It froze up when I posted so I reposted (and changed a word to one I liked better).
I’m basically a virgin blog commenter but after a little practice I should be able to comment like a pro!
lol
Susan, I think it’s safe to say that my wife married me before my peak. Certainly, I was not making much money and my prospects, which seemed OK, were still just prospects. She could not be certain that I would “pan out.” By the time we actually got married I had a decent job but when we got together, I really did not. (Time from first date to marriage was 11 months.)
In terms of how I looked, it might be a wash, I am more fit now and more muscular (in the sense that a praying mantis is more muscular than a stick-bug) but I am also older and grayer. So who knows.
The sense of gratitude that you describe is real in my case. Not that I ever think “Wow, I should leave her and test the market,” but I am mindful of the fact that she made a lot of sacrifices for me (us) and I would not be where I am today without her.
She could not be certain that I would “pan out.” By the time we actually got married I had a decent job but when we got together, I really did not. (Time from first date to marriage was 11 months.)
Hubby was freelancing and had to save all his pennies for seeing me when we were dating and I had to pay for many of this stays, he also had one car and lived with two roommates.By the time we were talking marriage he got a stable job, got a second car for me and moved to a house thinking that he will need the space again for me. I think someone mentioned that Chris Rock said that if a man can get laid in a cartoon box he will live there. I think most good guys that are not seeking to attract a goldigger (and my husband hates gold-diggers as much as Abbot hates sluts) are not going to have their life “in order” till they find a worth it mate for who to do it too. Most of his friends were like that too, interested on video games and other pursuits and living with the very minimum, till they were on serious relationships, on them even won us by marrying first and is about to have his second kid even though he meet his now wife two years after my hubby meet me, the bastard
…
In fact I will say that this could added to the list of white flags if the guy is not that interested on “material” stuff when he meet you, but starts changing things (let’s call it making a nest for you and your future kids) chances are he really, really is into you for the long run, YMMV.
@Ted D 97
Look at all the BS in pop culture tv and elsewhere, especially in the 90′s and 00′s, with men being portrayed as sex-hungry fiends (a lot of truth to it but big exaggeration too) and women not being into sex as much and it being some reward grudgingly given. I think in the last 5 or 8 years things portrayals of women not liking sex has shifted. One good thing about SATC was that it least showed that women like sex.
I grew up with a lot of sex-as-bad teachings, combined with the women aren’t that into sex and only want it to feel close, not to also enjoy the sex itself impressions I got off of tv (Mrs Roper from 3′s Company a huge exception). I was a virgin at the time and my gf was too. Basically kissing was as far as we felt allowed to go. But I remember her just keep kissing and kissing and kissing! I was the one that had to come up for air to breath and rest my numb lips every so often. It totally blew my mind that she actually loved kissing. And I could tell she would love sex too from the way she kissed…. The funny thing was that our respective N’s weren’t number of sex partners but number of kiss partners.
Anyway, the fact that she didn’t let up and was kind of instigating prolonging the kissing–I would have stopped after an hour but she kept going–made me feel like a king and it totally blew off the door and opened the world of female sensual and sexual desire to me.
So, to any women out there, due to the idea and reality that many men feel women aren’t into sex that much (or at least with them) and that many men feel like beggars at the pussy gate, you instigating sex and seducing him and rocking his world is a definitely awesome thing to do! It’s going to make him feel like the man. The analogy for a woman might be when the man you totally love “kidnaps” you for a very romantic weekend in a non-needy way and makes you feel incredibly special.
@79 Obsidian
R’s advice for women to overcome challenges finding a man:
1. Spend most of your free time improving your appearance.
2. Lower your standards.
I agree with these but would add that point #1 is really a specific case of upping your SMV and MMV. Looks are the biggest component but certainly not the only one. A 10 who is a relentless nag can’t improve her appearance but she’s probably driving away LTR-minded men with her crappy personality. I was dating a gorgeous woman who when she really did herself up left me with the open-jaw, punch-in-the-gut reaction but she went off every so often criticizing me for long periods of time over insignificant things and so I wasn’t happy when we were together. I stopped seeing her and later went out with a girl who was more cute than pretty but incredibly sweet and I honestly felt happier around her. So for LTR advice I would change them to the following, with one added point:
1) Up your MMV (yes, mostly looks, but personality is huge: stop nagging and start appreciating, don’t be a gold-digger, don’t be vapid, be interesting to talk to, have something good going on in your life, men don’t care so much about what your career is but don’t be a total slacker)
2) Lower your standards (or in other words, pare your list down to the most essential things and then realistically match up your MMV with someone that has the essentials)
3) Put yourself in environments where you can find the guys that would realistically make good matches. No matter how attractive you are you won’t attract anyone if they never interact with you.
It wasn’t submissive, it was sexually submissive. Which would make that statement an oxymoron.
Not gonna read the link, but if it tallies well with the study, I probably would.
@Tom
Haha, Tom, well done! You’ve learned a thing or two at HUS….
@Han Solo #108:
“I agree with these but would add that point #1 is really a specific case of upping your SMV and MMV. Looks are the biggest component but certainly not the only one. A 10 who is a relentless nag can’t improve her appearance but she’s probably driving away LTR-minded men with her crappy personality. I was dating a gorgeous woman who when she really did herself up left me with the open-jaw, punch-in-the-gut reaction but she went off every so often criticizing me for long periods of time over insignificant things and so I wasn’t happy when we were together. I stopped seeing her and later went out with a girl who was more cute than pretty but incredibly sweet and I honestly felt happier around her.”
O: You make a very legit point here; it is indeed entirely possible to have a smokin’ redhot HB10 who is. Crazy. As. A. Bed. Bug.
For real.
I’ve had a few run-ins with that…NOT fun…it’s definitely worth the one point tradeoff to get someone a weebit more sane.
“So for LTR advice I would change them to the following, with one added point:
1) Up your MMV (yes, mostly looks, but personality is huge: stop nagging and start appreciating, don’t be a gold-digger, don’t be vapid, be interesting to talk to, have something good going on in your life, men don’t care so much about what your career is but don’t be a total slacker)”
O: Tru dat…
“2) Lower your standards (or in other words, pare your list down to the most essential things and then realistically match up your MMV with someone that has the essentials)”
O: This is key…
“3) Put yourself in environments where you can find the guys that would realistically make good matches. No matter how attractive you are you won’t attract anyone if they never interact with you.”
O: Bingo, once again.
Of course, what’s the chance the ladies are actually listen to what we Menfolk have to say about such things, right…?
O.
Ted: “I would like to ask, do you work? I only ask because another thing I think tends to curb the sexual appetite of women I know is a stressful job. Makes sense since stress at work often does the same for men. Me? When I get stressed, I get horny.”
No, Ted, I don’t work outside of the home, though I do a bit of bookwork at home for the business. Kids do stress me out, though (I have an 11 year old autistic son whom I love dearly, but he is hard work.. He has climbed on the neighbours roof, ran off when he has been on outings with carers, because he likes being chased.. etc…Gotta watch that kid like a hawk.. Lol..)
Sex is also a stress reliever for me too. It puts me in a better mood, and just mellows me out, like a glass or two of wine would do.
I think that perhaps personality may play a part in whether a woman initiates or not. I don’t really think that a woman having had quite a few sex partners will encourage her to initiate more often.
I have only had two, my first husband (whom I married at 19 as a virgin) and my second husband.. I have always initiated, though I will admit that sex is much much better with my second husband. Partly because he has a higher sex drive than my first husband did, and partly because I learnt how to block out all distractions during lovemaking, and focus on the job at hand which resulted in more intense and multiple orgasms..(It’s true the most important sex organ is the brain!) For awhile there after having my son, it was a hard slog. Constant interruptions, night feeds, etc kind of ruined the moment sometimes.. So as time went on I taught myself to switch off.
Whereas once a phone ringing or a knock on the door would put me off, it doesn’t anymore. Last week my cell phone rang, just prior to me climaxing.. Never skipped a beat just ignored it. Mind blowing orgasms!
Now when ya get ‘em that good, well, I reckon it only encourages ya to initiate all the more.
Here’s the deal. I will be at home, doing some mundane task like washing the floor or something.. I start to think of hubby and invariably I get turned on. I’ll text or phone him, telling him what I’d like to do..you get the picture.. In actual fact it turns me on even more when I text him, so by the time he gets home, I am just about ready to drag him off to the bedroom(or any other conveniently located place (as long as the kids are not home)
If he has only a short time to spare, that’s fine, because I am three quarters of the way there by the time he gets home, and ten minutes is all it takes..
Of course I also enjoy those times when we have an afternoon to ourselves, and more time..say when the kids are at school.. But it can’t always be that way, so I have learnt to adjust and adapt. I have on occasion put our son in the shower for 10 minutes (he’d stay there forever, he loves it) and while our daughter was watching a DVD at the other end of the house, grabbed hubby by the hand and taken him into the bedroom for a quickie. It’s all good.
I enjoy the plotting and planning, and find that to be a huge turn on as well.
I also like to be surprised, by hubby. In the kitchen for instance..
Anyway, I think for me, this is just part of my personality. I have always been a groper (but only for my man..) and when the kids aren’t looking, I will often cop a feel. Othertimes will whisper sexually suggestive stuff in his ear.. I might pass by his office door, pop my head in and say quite casually, with a wink, “Feel like a ****” I have never ever gotten a knock back either. Heh heh heh.
I can quite comfortably say or do anything with my husband because we share a deep level of intimacy and trust, as well as an intense love that bonds us together like glue. I think that is most probably the key.
For the most part, I agree with you here. However, from time to time, I really do “crave” some unrestrained desire from my SO in the form of her basically attacking me in bed. (or wherever we happen to be when it occurs. LOL) I know some of my male friends have complained before that their SO’s don’t make that kind of effort very often, but I don’t know if their reasons for desiring it are the same as mine.
I’m starting to believe that for me it is some form of validation, that I’m just SO DAMN HOT that she can’t resist me.
==================================================
You have given me some things to think sbout, Ted. My hubby does most of the initiating. I do surprise him with a bj in the closet every now and then. We still have 2 little ones at home, so its not like it can be anywhere, anytime, tho I love giving him the iea to have sex with me at weddings and parties. But you have inspred me to increase the frequency and intesnsity of my iniation activity.
thanks
Sue: “It wasn’t submissive, it was sexually submissive. Which would make that statement an oxymoron.”
No, I meant what I said. Regardless of what the author meant by submissive, I meant sexually submissive more in the sense of D/S. A submissive woman isn’t necessarily unassertive and/or tame. I’m not an expert in the stuff like Herb, but have enough direct experience to make the claim.
There are women, lots of them, who are sexually submissive and in bed, who love being spanked, slapped, pinned down, restrained, commanded around, hair pulled, face grabbed, pushed against the wall, and so on. These are the wildcats I am speaking of. To the uninitiated, it looks like a man abusing a woman, and I have no doubt occasionally that happens, but what I usually see the dom is servicing the sub’s fantasy and ready to stop at any second.
@Han Solo
“There is the flipside though, due to sex-shaming at church that some women take in the message that sex is wrong and they do really have problems when they marry because they don’t know their bodies, don’t know anything about sex, haven’t used their imaginations and feel a residual guilt and dirtiness after marriage about sex, even though doctrinally it’s all green lights then.”
========
This is definitely true for quite a few women. Maybe even the majority– depending on their upbringing. Which is a shame.
I think it has to do with the lens through which their (and their faith) view sex. The association with sex/sexy/sexuality = TEH EVIL!!!!111 has messed up a TON of women, I bet.
For me, there is so much restraint and so much mental space occupied by “Where do I stop? When do I stop? How do I stop, without rejecting him outright?” Free rein is almost overwhelming– you’ve spent so long using a ton of self-control, that letting go probably will be awkward initially.
I think, also, the correlation between religious people and unplanned pregnancy is that these families are not talking about sex. Like they are thinking, “Hmm, let’s pretend it doesn’t exist! Saves us the uncomfortable conversation!”
That is a very dangerous attitude, in my opinion. The “religious” girls I knew who went slutty were from families like that.
My mom talked to me, and she even said it was MY decision. I remember being all shocked, at a young age!
Discussion works better than shaming, in my POV. With shows like Teen Mom, you can use them as a jumping off point. I think it works better, because you are able to talk about issues in a way that is more detached, less overtly personal, making it easier.
@Jackie, I love that you were shocked. haha Overall, getting back to your larger point before, I think virgins and religious women can be great in bed…as long as they bring the right attitudes. And you can convey this to the men you’re interested in at the appropriate moment.
I think you can stop without rejecting him outright by being sincere and saying that you’re really turned on and find him sexy but you have certain boundaries that you’re not going to cross until marriage, commitment, etc. If you were at a point where you’re both serious or engaged then you could let him know what you would love to be doing once you were married. For men, part of sex is sex but it’s also about feeling desired. Until marriage you can’t do the sex part but you can let him know he’s very desired. If he’s the kind of guy you’re looking for–and they do exist–he’ll respect the no sex part and feel good that you really do desire him.
@Ramble,
I don’t think women opt to be submissive only to escape responsibility; women also want to please their partners and will rather appear passive in order for men to display all their dominance and whatever qualities they have. For some reason I think leaving the guy in charge will make more confident and in control, therefore happier. I have rarely heard of women being passive to avoid responsibility outside sex. In that area, a woman can set it up so that when the guy feels confident when he makes his move, but he still has to take action and escalate.
Regarding that sexual submission thing, I knew it would be a complete unicorn for a lot of men. I don’t really think trying to associate sexual submission with “virtuous” behavior is a good way to see the issue. Some women push very hard for sex from the beginning thinking it gives them an advantage over other women, the guy falls for it expecting porn grade sex but end up with a wood plank because the end goal was sex/”commitment”.
Hmmmm…
#1 is very true, but isn’t it risk of imploding the minute you notice it’s true?
#2 is my ex-wife, well, was…I hope for her, her new husband, and their three kids’ sake it isn’t todya.
#3 I’m not buying…okay, I’m buying but I wish women had known that before I aged out of the daddy pool.
#4 really, I mean really. Maybe the kind of submissive women I know are what skews it but they complain much more about not getting enough than about being expected to have sex too much.
#8 is my ex-wife again, but how many women not from broken homes are left out there?
@Ted D
I think you’ve got it pegged. Most sexually submissive people I know (admittedly a skewed group although arguably the most hardcore in terms of at least sexual submissiveness) are very, very sexual.
As I said above, get a room full of subs talking and they are much more likely (men and women) to complain about not getting enough (especially not getting used enough) than the other way around. Given with women there is often a significant age difference with their Dominant (in that women are often 10-20 years younger) and the problem gets worse.
However, these women are not, on the whole, meek. In fact, the more submissive they are in the S&M sense (which generally means it spill more and more out of sex and into real life) the more assertive they are.
One of the contestants in this years International Master/slave competition opened her contestant speech this way:
I think most people, especially a lot of men in the ‘sphere, wouldn’t know a submissive woman (or man) if they were bitten in the ass by one.
@Herb, 118 Can you comment more on the submissive women you know? Are they submissive just in sexual situations or do you also know some that are in relationships where they want to be submissive all the time? I have a friend who has let me know that she feels she was born submissive and is looking for a man to be dominant always and in everything.
I sometimes play “Dr. Phil” with my friends since they tell me about their relationships and I find them fascinating and love to listen and give advice. What she told me, though, was so far from what my reality has been that I was kind of at a loss for what to say but want to learn more. Any good sites to read? Any insights on the spectrum of submissiveness in women and how to tell if this is healthy or unhealthy. I think in some people it’s totally healthy whereas in others it might not be. Thanks.
@Susan
I have a problem with your definition. Letting your partner take the initiative is not the same as being passive. For one you can be reaction but that’s not what I’m after.
A submissive partner can take a lot of actions to encourage initiation and make themselves available that do not constitute taking initiative.
@HanSolo
Well, I am HUS’s resident know it all in the realm of S&M (which mean I probably don’t know squat really).
What would you like to know. There isn’t like a script for them. They are a pretty diverse lot. Some are just bedroom types and others are hardcore slaves in M/s relationships. Most prefer some degree of dominance/control as part of the overall relationship dynamic. Most are into some degree of protocol. Most are very service orientated. I think most identify as slave instead of submissive.
As for your friend and healthy and unhealthy. In my opinion the healthiness of it is mostly in choosing a partner and in being in possession of herself. A submissive who isn’t in control of their life and wants a Dominant to save them is going to wind up in unhealthy situations. A submissive who can stand up and take care of themselves and has their shit together will wind up in healthy ones, just like vanilla people.
Do you know what reading she has done or efforts she’s made to find this. Also, do you know if she’s just into D/s or if she’s kinky as well.
@Susan
Do you really think I lie there like a fish? Do you think my friends do?
If anything, very dominant partners are more likely to be the less active party. If you have a slave girl make her do the work
Sometimes you’re not active and, hmmm, had to say this but there is not like just being plain used. However, most submissive partners I know spend a lot of active time. The submissiveness is in being told to do them and doing them on their partner’s schedule/whim/whatever.
@Susan
Okay, now I’m flying the bullshit flag.
At this point, I’m having a Inigo Montoya. You (not just Susan, but plenty of people, especially said author) keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Submissive: ” inclined or willing to submit to orders or wishes of others or showing such inclination”.
I don’t see a single word above passive in there.
A very popular tee shirt at lifestyle events is this one. It’s usually worn by submissives.
Much more of the brunt work of making those events happen is done by submissives than by dominants.
People heavily invested in being sexually submissive put a lot of time into learning a variety of skills, many sensual including dance (lots of belly dancers), manicure/pedicure, massage, oral sex, kegels for women AND men (they help with anal sex)…hell, I’ve been to a class on the basic operation of a vagina and they even had a stunt one for you to learn to find the g-spot.
Do these people sound like people who aren’t active in bed.
I don’t doubt the women studied exist, but really, they aren’t submissive or at least that’s not their identifying characteristic. They are passive.
If you haven’t read any of them I highly recommend reading some of P. G. Wodehouse’s Jeeves stories. Jeeves is a very popular role model among submissives, especially service oriented ones. He’s also a very active person.
Submission is the willingness to put another’s will ahead of your own. Passiveness is the state of not acting. You can easily do one without the other. In my experience, doing the first, however, is generally an active experience.
I think it has to do with the lens through which their (and their faith) view sex. The association with sex/sexy/sexuality = TEH EVIL!!!!111 has messed up a TON of women, I bet.
Many manosphere people blame it on the Puritan culture and I’m a bit more of evidence away from agreeing. In my country the sex talk done by the church says that sex is a wonderful present God gave to us to enjoy with our spouses, to bring us together and create life (babies!) and that he created marriage as a way to enjoy it best without the drawbacks of out of wedlock sex listing all the drawbacks logically (abortions, STD’s, heartbreak…) so there was never an idea that you were going to burn in hell if you had sex without getting married just that the consequences were not worth it. I was a Salesian not sure if that has to do with it, but hubby was really surprised to know that I wasn’t fucked up by my upbringing, also there was not expectations that the first time was going to be the best time ever ( I mean it is the best time ever on a way) but not in the orgasmic heaven. So the wedding night was good on its own but it was more the prelude for better things to come, so yeah totally different than what I heard is though here.
A very popular tee shirt at lifestyle events is this one. It’s usually worn by submissives.
Errr at the risk of sounding like a total killjoy the pyramids weren’t built by slaves: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/11/great-pyramid-tombs-slaves-egypt
@Herb
She says she wants him to tell her what to wear, always be tracked by GPS, really be controlled. That all kind of blew my mind but I’m open minded and prefer to observe and understand the world as opposed to judge it. She’s a strong-willed woman in some ways, has a successful small business and is smart. I don’t sense any noticeable low self-esteem but she is very pretty and doesn’t like to be assumed to be vapid or stupid. She says she reads a lot of stuff by the psychiatrist Jacques Lacan or based on his ideas. She’s kind of a nerd and loves science and sci-fi stuff. In the bedroom she says she wants to be choked, bitten, put on a leash and feel pain so that the next day she’ll remember who she belongs to. She also says she wants to find her soul mate that will dominate her. I think she has a good relationship with her dad. Of course, there could be a lot of stuff under the surface regarding self-esteem and her past that I’m not aware of. I don’t get the sense that she’s looking for a saviour. I think she wants someone that respects her mind and abilities and can have great conversation but will also control her and inflict some pain in sexual situations. She sounds to me like she has a kinky side but maybe that’s just relative to my tamer experiences!
Although she doesn’t use the word slave it sort of sounds like she wants to be a soul-mate slave. Are there very man dominants out there who are looking for lifelong soul mates or are they more into short term or non-committed relationships? Do male doms tend to want many women or just one? Since I don’t know much of anything I’m not totally even sure what to ask but hopefully you can provide a bit of insight. I guess I’m just interested in knowing if what she’s looking for seems realistic or if she’s looking for a unicorn.
As the relevance to this thread, point #4, I think she is a definite example of someone submissive who would be pretty wild and want lots of sex.
Thanks, Herb.
@OffTheCuff
I’m flattered but I’m not an expert either. I know plenty (and some of them are trying to rope me into teaching next year).
You’re cute when you talk dirty, but I’m already owned
Plus, you forgot choked
That depends…there are service tops out there, but for a lot of people it isn’t that way.
For a lot of us consensual non-consent (ie, we walk in knowing that the last thing we get to choose is walking into the scene) is what’s really hot. Our fantasy is “served” when it really isn’t about us beyond being used. That can be passive or active. It’s a wide range.
@Ana
I’m very aware of that…in fact, a lot of the time I have to bite my tongue to not tell the wearer that very fact.
Just go with it
@HanSolo
Plenty of both are around although ones I’d trust as the former are rarer. There are plenty of male ‘Dominants’ who are just looking to get laid and tend to like the new girls.
While I do know monogamous couples, the reality is Dominants out number submissives and poly/open relationships are very common.
Now, to the first part:
This pretty much tells me she’s inexperienced. This isn’t an uncommon fantasy but micromanaging Doms are rare and sane and responsible ones even rarer. Then again, so are submissives who thrive with it, fantasies not withstanding. If she was one of the rare ones who could do it and had any experience she wouldn’t be talking much to people outside the lifestyle. I think if she actually had some experience in a D/s relationship this would temper…although her first time out they’re going to have an awesome “Stephen and O” phase.
Is she reading S&M erortica? I mean more than 50 Shades (this weekend at the local dungeon “Fifty Shades of…” is the theme…I’ve been told we won’t be going). The Marketplace or Mr. Benson are great. Even Anne Rice’s Beauty books (now out in new covers mentioning 50 Shades) aren’t bad (they were my gateway drug).
Is she reading S&M how-to? The age when all we had was Pat Califa’s The Lesbian S/M Safety Manual ended 20 years ago. Given her expressed interests see if she’s read SM101. It’s my favorite of the introduction books and it has some good chapters on relationship and D/s issues as well as play. Come Hither is good but I was never a fan of Screw the Roses. Given she appears to have at least a bit of a masochistic streak she’d find some use (there are other good books and plenty of newer ones about which I can’t comment). If she’s seriously looking for control, I’d recommend she get Slavecraft (either Kindle or JT’s Stockroom if she wants physical…Amazon is insane with their real book prices) and Erotic Slavehood. The former is rough because it makes you think if you read it at all seriously. It’s also pretty hardcore.
Finally, is she out in the local scene such as at munches. Do not, I repeat, do not let her (in so much as you can) just hit Alt or B.com or Collarme and do “kinky dating”. That’s the best way to wind up with fakes or abusers. If she’s serious encourage her to go to a local munch, NLA meeting, or similar (if you let me know where you are I might have a contact or could possibly get one). If she wants to network online encourage her to use FetLife.
Okay, I think that’s enough thread jacking for today.
@Herb. Thanks for the insight, especially on the nature of doms, and the suggested reading. Not sure exactly what’s she’s reading but I think she’s just coming into realizing this is what she wants or thinks she does. Don’t want to threadjack so I’ll end here but just curious if you have a blog or email that I could send some follow-up questions once I read a bit of the sites you mentioned and have learned a bit more, that is if you feel comfortable with that.
@HanSolo:
Try herbhus@darketiquette.com
I left out choking intentionally, as not to scare Susan too much, but yes, mild choking too. My point was that women who aren’t active in the D/S community often enjoy lots of those elements of submission, and strike me as sexually submissive, while still being VERY assertive and owning their sexuality,
Does anyone know the percentage of couples who engage in heavy S/D sex?
I think we can assume that the study examining sexually submissive behavior in women was not channeling 50 Shades of Grey. We’re talking vanilla sex here, folks, not BDSM.
@Susan
It’s D/s…and, yes, to a lot of people even the capitalization matters
As for numbers, we’re outliers, that’s for sure. However:
I stand by my point that being submissive is not the same as being passive. I think Ted D had it right in that ‘meek’ is probably a better word. The author was using an excessively broad screen to label women submissive.
@OffTheCuff
At this point I figure Susan is pretty much like ER staff when it comes to relationship and sex material. I can’t come up with stuff that will shock her.
And more than mild choking…lots of people enjoy all out breath play although it’s controversial in the community. One of the books I mentioned up thread has an entire appendix on why the author believes it cannot be done safely (note, I agree with him and I’m not one of the people who does it despite how damn hot the idea is).
HanSolo – Ya know, I often forget that I spent my first 6 grades in Catholic school, and I certainly got my fair share of “shaming” as a child. Couple that with the fact that most virgins are probably religious and devout, and I can understand that many probably grow up with unhealthy ideas about sexuality. I had my own hang-ups, but once I decided the church was full of BS (not the faith mind you, the organization known as the Catholic Diocese) I had very little trouble shedding all that “original sin” guilt and moved on. I too easily discount that overwhelming sense of guilt and shame, and forget just how crippling it can be.
Kathy – “ I think that perhaps personality may play a part in whether a woman initiates or not. I don’t really think that a woman having had quite a few sex partners will encourage her to initiate more often.”
I’m sure that has something to do with it, but it isn’t the entire picture. Again, I’ll consider that my circle is small and select, but I’ve heard this reoccurring theme among men for many years. It isn’t a lack of willingness at all in most cases, but very few woman seem to get the same “urgency” as men when it comes to sex. And it is that urgency that shines through when my SO “attacks” me, so to speak. Since she has done so in the past, I assume she has the capacity, so it must be something else that changes, and I’m just working out the variables. And I’m not looking for an aggressive attack every week, but I’d like to puzzle it out all the same. I really think we are just too “active” LOL. By that I mean, she never builds that feeling of “urgency” because *I* build it much faster and take care of business. I suspect if something happened and we found ourselves sexless for several days, I would be at the receiving end of a swift and firm whooping. (and by that I mean she would probably work me over hard.) So it may just be a difference in sexual appetite. That’s OK, because she certainly doesn’t take issue with my frequent desires, but it does mean that although *I* may find myself rather worked up and anxious often, she really doesn’t.
“I will be at home, doing some mundane task like washing the floor or something.. I start to think of hubby and invariably I get turned on.”
Interesting… I’ve heard this from a woman or two, but not very often. I’m pretty sure that of the two of us, I am the one thinking like this far more often than not. But, my SO has a job in medical and most days she literally runs her ass off for 8 hours. She works with several docs at a time, and it isn’t uncommon for her to not even get a real lunch break. I completely understand that while juggling injections and scheduling surgeries, she simply doesn’t have time to think about my sexy ass. And she comes home wiped out a lot. It’s all good, I’m not suffering here.
This Is Jen – You are more than welcome! I’m all about happy couples. I think women just don’t realize that men like a little “desire” sometimes too. Since men are generally the initiator, I think it is easy to forget that they might just want some aggression directed back at them. When I talked to my SO about this, she was adamant about saying that she wants and desires me, or she wouldn’t be having sex with me, and of course I believe her. But, that is a VERY passive way of showing desire, and every once in awhile, I personally like something a bit more, blunt for lack of a better word this early in the AM. If you REALLY want to give him a good run, don’t just surprise him. Seduce him. If you can manage it, plan an evening around something, even if it all happens in your home. Dinner, music, the whole 9 yards. Or if time doesn’t permit, use some of Athol’s methods on him and start texting him early in the morning telling him you are hot and bothered. I’m telling you, just one text from my SO saying she is yearning for me sets my mood into orbit. I logically KNOW she loves me, wants me, and desires me. But I can’t stress enough how awesome it is when she just shows me.
Susan – “We’re talking vanilla sex here, folks, not BDSM.”
We may need to define that then. I’ve had a limited number of partners, but I assure you each one of them was a different sexual experience. Yes, the mechanics are always the same, but the devil is in the details. My point is what you consider “vanilla” and what I consider “vanilla” is probably not the same thing. Certainly in my current relationship, I would say our normal state sexually is on par with most of our peers, and there is assuredly some ass smacking and hair pulling going on. I can say the same for my group of male friends, but they vary from couple to couple a bit. By *my* definition of “vanilla sex”, we are WAY past it. To me vanilla indicates mostly missionary, mostly guy led, no toys, no smacking/hair pulling/etc. And if that is what the majority of couples are doing, its no wonder to me there are a lot of sexually frustrated people. I’m not saying everyone should go the Herb route, not that there is anything wrong with it. But certainly there should be a little experimentation going on from time to time. How else are you ever going to figure out if/what you like? Hell, I had no idea I would enjoy ass smacking, hair pulling sex until my SO told me SHE did, AND convinced me I wouldn’t hurt her. (She literally said “you will not break me!”, because I’m a big guy, and I honestly worried that I might hurt her badly.)
So what exactly IS vanilla sex? Is girl on top vanilla? Doggy? Reverse Cowgirl?! I mean, I can go to Urban dictionary and find all kinds of “interesting” sexual positions, but I truly don’t know what the baseline is these days.
@Ted D
Vanilla sex: Sex for people who find at least one thing I do unacceptable.
Kinky sex:Sex that includes everything I’ll do.
Perverted sex: Sex that includes things I won’t do.
Does that help
I must be vanilla submissive then. None of that pinchy stuff for me. Being commanded and pinned are okay, but I just don’t understand pain play. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. My husband and I both think there’s something a bit too “dark magic” about the BDSM, dungeon and props stuff, and the poly/alternative scene. We both prefer loving and light sexual stuff.
Sort of confused about the “sexually submissive” thing. Haven’t a lot of the women said that to be attracted they need the man to be dominant? Isn’t submissiveness the flip side of dominance? Can she get the dominance without herself showing some submissiveness?
Also, the “who initiates” test seems too simplistic as a gauge of sexual submissiveness; there are lots of different ways a person can initiate, some of them very assertive and other definitely not so.
@Rhen
When I read the study, it was clear that being proactive during sex turns women on, possibly because they’re attending to their own needs, which means they are more likely to orgasm. A woman who receives during sex is relying on the male to “deliver” and her chances of orgasm are decreased. Also, being more involved engages the female’s interest.
Many women like dominance in men, but they are not particularly submissive, myself among them. I don’t know what percentage of the female population would be described as submissive. A low number, I think.
I’m very aware of that…in fact, a lot of the time I have to bite my tongue to not tell the wearer that very fact.
Heh it most drive you insane. Is as bad as people claiming that they were built by Aliens NERDRAGETRIGGER!
I agree with Dark Magic bit, though I think that darkness-levels are an element of compatibility. Imagine either half having that dark thing in you, but not being able to reveal it, even in intimate settings where most other walls are coming down.
Add me to the people who are confused by the sexual submissiveness leading to marital dissatisfaction. I can’t even picture sexuality in which the woman is dominant, though I’m sure it exists somewhere. In my experience, women’s sex types have fallen into maybe four general categories.
1.) Body-based in-the-moment, experiential, carefree, simple giggling and fun. Clean, like drinking spring water.
2.) Mind-based female fantasy, transcendental, spiritualism. Enveloping when everything clicks, sometimes mind-blowing.
3.) Fear-based low-brain, dominance/submission, pain. Dark and inner-demon-y, oddly relieving for both parties.
4.) Orgasm-based aware, may incorporate some of the elements above, consciously aware of what gets to the goal.
The closest I’ve come to women being different from sexually submissive are the last type, which have been some of my least pleasant experiences. The “sexually submissive” problems might stem from one of the other types being poorly matched, or low libido/hormones generally.
@Ana
Nah, I just laugh…
As for the aliens, I actively listen to Coast to Coast AM and collect books about weirdness…Ken Hite is my master now (not in a BDSM but in a Joss Whedon way).
@Hope
Those definitions were meant as a joke
As for dark magic, well, yeah, but don’t get hung up on the dungeon and props stuff. One of the things that really appeals about the gf is how much physical play like that she just plain likes to do with her hands (or something very simple like gloves so a spanking doesn’t hurt her hands too much).
People can get so hung up on toys they miss the connection.
Ian, those seem like pretty accurate categories. I think I fall under mind-based for sure.
Herb, the pain aspect is the dark magic in itself. I see pain play as rituals to invite dark energies into one’s life, which is certainly exciting, but having known real pain I don’t need fake pain, if you know what I mean? I understand some people like to mess with pain to get some sense of control over it, but that’s not my thing.
@Hope
I get you…I’ve know real pain too. Oddly, getting boxer’s fractures set hurt more than a heart attack although I was doped up for the later (angioplasty can often feel like a heart attack).
Pain play done by someone who knows what she’s doing is a very different experience. While some people do it to learn to control pain it’s often more a thrill seeking or spiritual practice. Plus, a lot of things aren’t pain anyway: restraint, sensory control, mind fucks, and so on.
But I understand. Personally, I think S&M (and by this I mean all of it, I just hate BDSM as a term…almost as much as I hate “safe, sane, and consentual”) is too mainstream in many ways. People who try it to be cool or edgy risk bad experiences that were gained not pursuing something they need. It needs to be mainstream enough that people who are wired that way can find each other but not to encourage too many more to just experiment.
@Susan #100
okay. My recollection was that it was a set of statistics about ‘N’ and divorce, but it was mentioned on another site. Searching back through the comments on all the past posts…can’t face it.
A survey done by BYU wouldn’t be my go to choice to extrapolate to the general population.
Hopefully my zeroth suggestion that the ladies ask about the guy’s attitude to getting hitched stands. You know it makes sense…
1 2 »