|
|
Post by Lithium92 on Jan 12, 2017 17:03:33 GMT -5
Yep, to being used as a human dildo. I had that thought during the act, when there still was an occasional act. She's more or less admitted to as much since, oblivious that this wasn't fine for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by csl on Jan 12, 2017 17:39:26 GMT -5
My cynical description of a successful sexual encounter with a "responsive desire" partner ... You somehow manage to get them aroused enough to have sex. At which point biology takes over and they then use you as a dildo or fleshlight to finish the job. If it's a guy, he'll then roll over and go to sleep. If a woman, she will immediately get up, go into the bathroom to clean up, then put on her flannel best and slide back into bed- on her side, as far away as possible. The biological function you triggered is done, now it's back to business. And yes, their Sex Adversity Meter clicks up one more notch. Cynical is right... I'm really having a hard time with this bashing. Many of my fellow bloggers accept the fact that a majority of women do have this "responsive desire", that most (MOST!) women don't act like horndogs on spring break. A year or so ago, one of my friends wrote a post for her audience about understanding that her sexuality, her sexual response, wasn't like her husband's, AND THAT THAT WASN'T BAD! For too long, she believed that her husband's "constant" desire for sex, and constant badgering for sex, was an indication that something was wrong with him. But after reading on the topic, she realized that her husband's sexuality didn't have to look like hers. But it seems that many on ILIASM seem to think that if a woman doesn't process sex like they do, then by Billy Bedamned Hangtree, she's frigid!!! Wasn't it Woody Allen who pointed out that for a woman to have sex, she needs romance, but all a man needs is friction? If that joke can be accepted as a truism, then maybe, just maybe, there is something to this "responsive desire." "And yes, their Sex Adversity Meter clicks up one more notch." Or maybe not. Is it not possible that somewhere in this wide world exists a wife who might say, "Oh, you desire sex more than I do, and I realize that it's not often on my radar, so any time you want, just ask. The answer is 'Yes.'"? Yeah, there are. In 2010, Wife and I were in a SM, 11 times in 12 months. We talked and when she understood how much it meant to me, we turned it around. I learned from her that after about 2 weeks, she might get an 'itch', she might not. But where we stand now, I never initiate; I don't get a chance to. Due to arthritis pain, I have many nights in which I can't get upstairs, but on those nights that I do, she's asking if I wanna, if I'm up for it. Oh, she's still a 2-3 week itch woman, but she makes sure that I'm not. |
|
|
|
Post by novembercomingfire on Jan 12, 2017 17:43:53 GMT -5
My cynical description of a successful sexual encounter with a "responsive desire" partner ... You somehow manage to get them aroused enough to have sex. At which point biology takes over and they then use you as a dildo or fleshlight to finish the job. If it's a guy, he'll then roll over and go to sleep. If a woman, she will immediately get up, go into the bathroom to clean up, then put on her flannel best and slide back into bed- on her side, as far away as possible. The biological function you triggered is done, now it's back to business. And yes, their Sex Adversity Meter clicks up one more notch. Cynical is right... I'm really having a hard time with this bashing. Many of my fellow bloggers accept the fact that a majority of women do have this "responsive desire", that most (MOST!) women don't act like horndogs on spring break. A year or so ago, one of my friends wrote a post for her audience about understanding that her sexuality, her sexual response, wasn't like her husband's, AND THAT THAT WASN'T BAD! For too long, she believed that her husband's "constant" desire for sex, and constant badgering for sex, was an indication that something was wrong with him. But after reading on the topic, she realized that her husband's sexuality didn't have to look like hers. But it seems that many on ILIASM seem to think that if a woman doesn't process sex like they do, then by Billy Bedamned Hangtree, she's frigid!!! Wasn't it Woody Allen who pointed out that for a woman to have sex, she needs romance, but all a man needs is friction? If that joke can be accepted as a truism, then maybe, just maybe, there is something to this "responsive desire." "And yes, their Sex Adversity Meter clicks up one more notch." Or maybe not. Is it not possible that somewhere in this wide world exists a wife who might say, "Oh, you desire sex more than I do, and I realize that it's not often on my radar, so any time you want, just ask. The answer is 'Yes.'"? Yeah, there are. In 2010, Wife and I were in a SM, 11 times in 12 months. We talked and when she understood how much it meant to me, we turned it around. I learned from her that after about 2 weeks, she might get an 'itch', she might not. But where we stand now, I never initiate; I don't get a chance to. Due to arthritis pain, I have many nights in which I can't get upstairs, but on those nights that I do, she's asking if I wanna, if I'm up for it. Oh, she's still a 2-3 week itch woman, but she makes sure that I'm not. I only speak for myself of course, but i might not have an objection to the concept of responsive desire had it not been crammed down my throat that maybe my partner would respond if only i just trotted out more acts of service. Bitter and jaded i may be, but i didn't mean to slag an entire gender or group either. |
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jan 12, 2017 18:15:21 GMT -5
csl , in a reply I previously posted on this same subject I made it clear I don't deny the concept of responsive desire. But I think too many people hide their sex aversion behind that claim. Particularly spouses of people here. Most of which I do not believe are cave men who just want to stick it in and cum. I'm glad your wife came around. Mine never did. Do you think none of us ever talked to our refusers about our SM and what it did to us? If all it took was a simple convo none of us would be here.
|
|
|
|
Post by csl on Jan 12, 2017 18:18:25 GMT -5
Cynical is right... I'm really having a hard time with this bashing. Many of my fellow bloggers accept the fact that a majority of women do have this "responsive desire", that most (MOST!) women don't act like horndogs on spring break. A year or so ago, one of my friends wrote a post for her audience about understanding that her sexuality, her sexual response, wasn't like her husband's, AND THAT THAT WASN'T BAD! For too long, she believed that her husband's "constant" desire for sex, and constant badgering for sex, was an indication that something was wrong with him. But after reading on the topic, she realized that her husband's sexuality didn't have to look like hers. But it seems that many on ILIASM seem to think that if a woman doesn't process sex like they do, then by Billy Bedamned Hangtree, she's frigid!!! Wasn't it Woody Allen who pointed out that for a woman to have sex, she needs romance, but all a man needs is friction? If that joke can be accepted as a truism, then maybe, just maybe, there is something to this "responsive desire." "And yes, their Sex Adversity Meter clicks up one more notch." Or maybe not. Is it not possible that somewhere in this wide world exists a wife who might say, "Oh, you desire sex more than I do, and I realize that it's not often on my radar, so any time you want, just ask. The answer is 'Yes.'"? Yeah, there are. In 2010, Wife and I were in a SM, 11 times in 12 months. We talked and when she understood how much it meant to me, we turned it around. I learned from her that after about 2 weeks, she might get an 'itch', she might not. But where we stand now, I never initiate; I don't get a chance to. Due to arthritis pain, I have many nights in which I can't get upstairs, but on those nights that I do, she's asking if I wanna, if I'm up for it. Oh, she's still a 2-3 week itch woman, but she makes sure that I'm not. I only speak for myself of course, but i might not have an objection to the concept of responsive desire had it not been crammed down my throat that maybe my partner would respond if only i just trotted out more acts of service. Bitter and jaded i may be, but i didn't mean to slag an entire gender or group either. What you had shoved down your throat wasn't "responsive desire," but choreplay. Yes, the carrot was dangled before you, but it wasn't "responsive desire." RD refers specifically to response to arousal, as in, getting turned on after the show has begun. Many wives say that their desire is a response to foreplay. We guys can pop an erection to a thought; wives, not so much. Think about it; we guys are capable of going from zero to Done in two minutes; for most women, that two minutes requires foreplay interesting enough to stop thinking about tomorrow's to-do list and realize something is going on now. |
|
|
|
Post by Lithium92 on Jan 12, 2017 18:32:47 GMT -5
csl , in a reply I previously posted on this same subject I made it clear I don't deny the concept of responsive desire. But I think too many people hide their sex aversion behind that claim. Particularly spouses of people here. Most of which I do not believe are cave men who just want to stick it in and cum. I'm glad your wife came around. Mine never did. Do you think none of us ever talked to our refusers about our SM and what it did to us? If all it took was a simple convo none of us would be here. It took a 'this is a deal breaker' conversation to get my wife to read the book. She said 'I know it's not that', and to be fair, it hasn't made any difference... |
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jan 12, 2017 18:32:55 GMT -5
As a followup csl , I see nothing at all in your reply to me suggesting your wife is even responsive. If you can get up the stairs she's asking you if you want her to jump your bones. Sounds rather spontaneous to me. I don't see anywhere that you're doing anything to get that responsive desire going, other than one or a couple of convos 6 years ago. Compare that to guys here describing how they do date nights, give their wives long massages, try to sext them (which is usually replied with some form of "what kind of pervert are you?"). And their wives fall asleep during their massages and go straight to bed after an expensive date night is thrown their way. There is so much bullshit wrapped up in responsive desire I don't know where to start, but it's all well documented in this forum. There are a LOT of sex averse people out there, all hiding behind some curtain of bullshit, including responsive sexuality. |
|
|
|
Post by csl on Jan 12, 2017 22:40:03 GMT -5
csl , in a reply I previously posted on this same subject I made it clear I don't deny the concept of responsive desire. But I think too many people hide their sex aversion behind that claim. Particularly spouses of people here. Most of which I do not believe are cave men who just want to stick it in and cum. I'm glad your wife came around. Mine never did. Do you think none of us ever talked to our refusers about our SM and what it did to us? If all it took was a simple convo none of us would be here. I would agree that aversion is often hidden behind many things, not just responsive desire. But as I pointed out in another reply, "responsive desire" has a specific meaning, that of desire responding to arousal. I don't think it helps to label Choreplay and other carrot-dangling tactics as responsive desire. And no, I don't think that the folks of ILIASM are such troglodytes that they've never tried talking. Conversation, enforcing boundaries, separation, counseling, etc., are all things that need to be considered as possibilities. And as I say on my blog, each person has to decide whether or not a SM is a dealbreaker or not. I know that it's therapeutic to post here. I know of guys who posted for several years over on that over xforum, but after years of posting, nothing had changed. One of my favorite Mark Twain quotes says, "Thunder's good. Thunder's loud. But it's lightning that does the work." |
|
|
|
Post by csl on Jan 12, 2017 23:01:51 GMT -5
As a followup csl , I see nothing at all in your reply to me suggesting your wife is even responsive. If you can get up the stairs she's asking you if you want her to jump your bones. Sounds rather spontaneous to me. I don't see anywhere that you're doing anything to get that responsive desire going, other than one or a couple of convos 6 years ago. Compare that to guys here describing how they do date nights, give their wives long massages, try to sext them (which is usually replied with some form of "what kind of pervert are you?"). And their wives fall asleep during their massages and go straight to bed after an expensive date night is thrown their way. There is so much bullshit wrapped up in responsive desire I don't know where to start, but it's all well documented in this forum. There are a LOT of sex averse people out there, all hiding behind some curtain of bullshit, including responsive sexuality. I am lothe to give details of our personal, er, um, interaction, but I will say during the day, Wife doesn't think about possible evening activities, so it isn't on her mind. As well, many of those sessions are solely for my benefit. Lest you think that it's just a quick git-'im-done, let me stop that train before it leaves the station. We have times where I, er, um, git-'er-done first, and yes, she is very responsive. On those nights, there can be several explosions with me having to dive for a foxhole (oops!) if I don't want to get hit by shrapnel. So, yes, she is very responsive. As to one or two convos - We decided, during that first conversation, that we would go to bed together every night, and we have. We put on music and talk for anywhere up to 45 minutes a night (more if there's activity), every night. We've talked about sex more in the past 6 years than we've talked about it in 60 years. Plus, every article I've put up on my blog we've talked about. Heck, we've even talked about a few posts from ILIASM. All those things that you mentioned in your last paragraph? I haven't experienced them, but they are all the stuff of experience on xforum. "Maybe I'll be in the mood if you dated me"; "Maybe I would get in the mood with massages and footrubs"; "Maybe I would be more receptive if you did more around the house". Those and other statements like that are carrot-and-stick tactics, to keep the donkey moving along. Yes, I would agree that some who say them may be sexually aversive; others are simply bad-willed, operating a bait-and-switch racket; others truly believe what they say. |
|
|
|
Post by unmatched on Jan 13, 2017 1:05:31 GMT -5
I would agree that aversion is often hidden behind many things, not just responsive desire. But as I pointed out in another reply, "responsive desire" has a specific meaning, that of desire responding to arousal. I don't think it helps to label Choreplay and other carrot-dangling tactics as responsive desire. I agree that this is an important distinction. Responsive desire is about somebody only feeling the need to have sex after they get physically turned on. This is NOT the same as feeling desire after you [feel comfortable/feel loved/get massaged/have the dishes done/receive gifts/hear the right words/fill in your own personal blanks here...]. It basically says someone with responsive desire needs to start actually making out and getting turned on before they are ever going to feel any real desire for sex. |
|
|
|
Post by csl on Jan 13, 2017 1:26:19 GMT -5
To get it to its basic form, I would use the word "arousal". In essence, responsive desire means getting aroused, getting turned on.
I hope this is kosher, and I promise ILIASM that this will NOT be something I do, but I want to pull from four consecutive posts on xforum, from a few months ago. The thread was started by a guy who said that he wanted some help in understanding his wife's mindset. Frequency was barely sufficient (2x/w), but always on him. Among the many paragraphs of his initial post, he said,
The first to respond to him was a pastor's wife who refused for almost 2 decades but who, about four years ago, realized that was wrong and made a snap decision to never say no again. She came to xforum to have people hold her accountable. One of the things she said was
The next to respond was another former refuser, of some 20 years, and she wrote:
The next in line was another wife who wrote:
It seems that we need to be gracious and accepting of wives who, while not ravenous in outlook, are still more than willing to be open to being aroused, and take them at their word.
|
|
|
|
Post by unmatched on Jan 13, 2017 1:55:16 GMT -5
csl , also, just because a few Christian wives (who think the Bible/the Church compels them to sexual intimacy with their husbands) are open to being aroused doesn't mean that someone who has been in a SM is in the same situation. In my situation, there are obvious psychological barriers that cause my wife to not even want to be kissed some nights. Sometimes we can take spouses at their word; or, sometimes they are putting up resistance at a subconscious level and couldn't articulate what that is even if they wanted to. I totally agree with this. BUT if you are going to try to turn things around, you have to not automatically assume there is something wrong just because your partner doesn't feel like having sex until they get into it. And I think often they can assume they are sexually 'deficient' if they go through their whole day without ever feeling horny, so understanding responsive desire could potentially be very helpful for both parties. If, on the other hand, they are not even open to the possibility and not willing to give it a try, that is a whole different story. |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jan 13, 2017 2:37:08 GMT -5
Under the Brother @heraclitus model of trying to revive the marriage, you forget about your missus idiosyncrasies, as you can't control that anyway.
Under that model, you concentrate on what you can control - yourself.
Under that model, you conduct yourself like a husband exhibiting the actions and behaviours of a worthwhile spouse and person. In other words you sort your own shit out first..
Possibly, this may prompt the spouse to want to get herself fully involved with this person.
Possibly, this may reveal that the spouse has no desire (or perhaps capability) to get involved with this person.
And at that point, Brother heraclitus notes whether there is the partnership he wants or not.
If there is not, then Brother heraclitus, with his shit all sorted out, dumps his missus and moves out in to an environment where his life partner skills are likely to be in great demand.
Of course if Mrs heraclitus has taken her opportunity to sort her own shit out, she and heraclitus find themselves on a common path, and the revival (or more accurately "total reconstruction") of the relationship has taken place. And that may well mean a mutuality where their life partner skills have developed into something really worth preserving.
PS - I hope Brother heraclitus will weigh in on this comment, as I don't want to be putting words in his mouth. What I've written above is what his plan of attack - as I understand it - is.
And for what it's worth, it looks like a very sound plan to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by novembercomingfire on Jan 13, 2017 7:41:47 GMT -5
I would agree that aversion is often hidden behind many things, not just responsive desire. But as I pointed out in another reply, "responsive desire" has a specific meaning, that of desire responding to arousal. I don't think it helps to label Choreplay and other carrot-dangling tactics as responsive desire. I agree that this is an important distinction. Responsive desire is about somebody only feeling the need to have sex after they get physically turned on. This is NOT the same as feeling desire after you [feel comfortable/feel loved/get massaged/have the dishes done/receive gifts/hear the right words/fill in your own personal blanks here...]. It basically says someone with responsive desire needs to start actually making out and getting turned on before they are ever going to feel any real desire for sex. To try to be clear, I agree that this is an important distinction. My experience with "responsive desire" looks something like this: Wife says that she almost never is aroused, but she finds out about something called "responsive desire." Oh yes, that is what she has. Thus, as she tells me, I just need to initiate and "work on" her arousal, and then she will be interested. This becomes: (a) if I would do more housework, make more money, be less fat, be less fit, work out more, work out less, etc. ad nauseam, then maybe she would want to let me initiate, approach her. Ie, I can't even get a chance to try unless I am somehow a "better person." Thus, she has to respond to my acts of service to want to let me try to get her to respond to my attempts at arousing her; or (b) she knows that she would respond if only I gave back rubs, foot rubs, was more physically demonstrative, was less physically demonstrative, tried to kiss her more, tried to stop with the kissing, etc. Thus, she would respond with desire for me if only I somehow found that magical combination of romantic acts of service that worked for her. Which, as you may imagine, I never did, because such combination doesn't exist. So, maybe what I experienced was more avoidance and some gaslighting than responsive desire. But it was proposed point blank as a matter of my needing to understand her responsive desire. And this was a bunch of nonsense ... SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by csl on Jan 13, 2017 10:44:11 GMT -5
csl , also, just because a few Christian wives (who think the Bible/the Church compels them to sexual intimacy with their husbands) are open to being aroused doesn't mean that someone who has been in a SM is in the same situation. In my situation, there are obvious psychological barriers that cause my wife to not even want to be kissed some nights. Sometimes we can take spouses at their word; or, sometimes they are putting up resistance at a subconscious level and couldn't articulate what that is even if they wanted to. I'll be the first to admit that Christian and Jews have a leg up over the rest, since both supposedly teach that sex is God's creation, but compulsion is not condoned by either. Why is it compulsion if we say that marriage is a sexual relationship, that imposing celibacy on a marriage is wrong is tantamount to demanding "spread 'em or else"? If you agree with me that imposing celibacy on a marriage is wrong, then why couching it as "Christian wives compelled?" |
|
