How to keep your man - apparently

[nama]

I had an interesting conversation with a close male friend of mine. He was complaining about the lack of sex in his relationship and not having his 'needs' met. He went on to say, and all of his friends agree that a woman will get whatever she wants as long as she sexes him regularly and doesn't make him do all the work. Spontaneity.

 

* if she wants romance, oh he'll give it to her, it will be much easier if they have sex first so that when he's wining and dining her he won't be thinking 'i'm getting sex tonight' all the way through. He can actually concentrate on her.

* If she wants him to do stuff around the house/ chores/ listen to her - she needs to keep up her side of the bargain and not only when it suits her.

 

Do you agree? It pretty much boils down to sex at the end of the day?

[txsilkysmoothe]

Or at the beginning of the day!

[Els]

Only males who have never been in an LTR before would think that sex is the answer to ALL problems.

[sagetalk]

If he's only with you for sex then yes. If he's with you because he loves you, then no. Any guy that talks like that is a loser and sees you as a hole in the wall that he has fun with.

 

If a women had sex with me 5 times a day, I would not give her anything she wants because of the sex. I would try to give her what she wants regardless, as I would hope she would me. There is no, "if you do this, then I'll do this" in a healthy relationship. You're suppose to desire to make each other happy, not play If/Then games.

[anne1707]

I am curious - how old is your friend?

[nama]

My friend is 31 and has been in a LTR for 5 years. His friends are mostly in LTRs too. Sorry, let me rephrase it, he said that in a relationship both sides need to keep up the bargain - men typically want sex more than women. He loves his gf but they have different sex drives (same problems for his friends as well, so he says). His friends have cheated as 'they don't get enough of it at home' so they go looking elsewhere whilst still claiming to 'love' their SO. I personally see this as sh*t but he is adamant that this is what most guys believe and want. A woman to keep up her side of the bargain. Not much sex in a R = unhappy man.

[anne1707]

So an immature 31 year old then.

 

Maybe if he and his friends developed a better attitude towards women, the women in their lives might be happier to have sex more often. Maybe the women are unhappy with the men!

[Jersey Shortie]

If this guy friend of yours has friends that are cheating on their women just because they aren't getting enough sex, they really have no clue about what it entitles to make a relationship work. It very well might take more effort on the women to be more engaging in sex, but it also takes more effort on their end to communicate that need in a grown up adult way that the wife/gf can understand. They are failing at their own relationsihps. So taking the opinion of a guy that agrees it's okay for his buddies to cheat because of the lack of sex, doesn't sound like the best advice to take from a man.

[Els]

So he'll be fine with ANYthing his woman does, and will give her ANYthing she wants and romance her ANYtime she wants as long as she gives him enough good sex?

 

If I was single and in need of a doormat, I'd totally ask you to introduce me to him. Sounds like a total bargain.

[nama]

If this guy friend of yours has friends that are cheating on their women just because they aren't getting enough sex, they really have no clue about what it entitles to make a relationship work. It very well might take more effort on the women to be more engaging in sex, but it also takes more effort on their end to communicate that need in a grown up adult way that the wife/gf can understand. They are failing at their own relationsihps. So taking the opinion of a guy that agrees it's okay for his buddies to cheat because of the lack of sex, doesn't sound like the best advice to take from a man.

 

JS: Totally. Forget the cheating - that's not what this is about. It's about him saying that even if a woman doesn't feel like having sex or doesn;t have a high sex drive she should 'try' for her man. I find this disturbing. I just wanted to know if anyother men could 'sympathsise' with this?

[Vertex]

I think it's just another function of compatibility just like any other. If there's ever a differential that is too great with respect to supply and demand of a given trait or action, there are going to be problems. Does it necessarily mean we need to lower our demands or expect a boost of supply to meet in the middle? It may depend on other conditions, of course -- but at the end of the day, if it causes too much damage to other facets of the relationship, then obviously there isn't proper compatibility for that type of relationship. I think that if you force a trait that just isn't within your ballpark, it isn't sustainable and causes other problems.

[threebyfate]

What I can't figure out is why stay in a long-term relationship with someone who has a differing sex drive? It's such a needless power struggle.

 

Relationships have enough bumps in the road without jacking around with this one basic part of it.

[meerkat stew]

If sex and romance are separate in a relationship, the relationship is dead on its feet, so the question "give sex to get to romance" reflects a bandaid on dysfunction in its phrasing.

 

But would bet the odds that in most cases of "mismatched drive," at the start of the relationship, there was a much higher frequency of sex. Then as the relationship matures, or especially after marriage, the sex decreases and this is attributed to some supposed "difference in drive" when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Categorizing what results as merely a "difference in sex drive" is a lie. Why should giving a reasonable amount of sex to a partner be always a matter of one's own drive versus theirs. I may not want a full on session sometimes, but it's really not such an inconvenience to satisfy her within reason. I expect the same of women, but it seems the logic doesn't work that way for many women, that unless they want it at that moment, that fulfilling their partner's desire is of no concern to them whatsoever. What a ridiculous, but also pervasive attitude.

 

Now of course, if a couple is already having sex regularly and weekly, there is a point of reasonable boundaries if one person decides they "need" it twice a day. That's like someone saying they "need" to eat pizza twice a day.

 

However, in most cases of the topic I've seen, it's a matter of the couple having sex very infrequently, once or twice a month, in a relationship that is perfectly fine otherwise, because of the woman's excuses which are a transparent veneer on petty resentments and her seeking control. To be fair, have also seen this going the other way a couple of times (but it's usually the woman withholding sex), where the wife complains "he won't touch me." It is equally the man's fault for putting up with this unless he has been successfully trapped in marriage by one of these types.

 

Interesting that some female posters want to lay complete blame back on the men in question, it's the men who aren't doing something right, never the women, a large percentage of whom either a) gave a false impression of their sexual desire to keep the guy thinking they were on the same page, or b) are using sex as a medium of exchange or withholding sex based on imaginary slights or resentments against the man. Of course a male attitude that sex is all that matters in a relationship is immature, but it is also immature (as well as dishonest) to hold oneself out as being enthusiastic about sex on the front end, then pulling the ole switcharoo once the relationship is secure, or using sex as currency.

 

So the answer is case-by-case and requires more specifics. No excuse whatsoever for a relationship between relatively young, healthy people where sex is only happening once a month where the other partner wants more. OTOH, if it's happening 3-5 times a week for example, and the other partner wants more, it could be a matter of that partner's unreasonable expectations.

[nama]

If sex and romance are separate in a relationship, the relationship is dead on its feet, so the question "give sex to get to romance" reflects a bandaid on dysfunction in its phrasing.

 

But would bet the odds that in most cases of "mismatched drive," at the start of the relationship, there was a much higher frequency of sex. Then as the relationship matures, or especially after marriage, the sex decreases and this is attributed to some supposed "difference in drive" when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Categorizing what results as merely a "difference in sex drive" is a lie. Why should giving a reasonable amount of sex to a partner be always a matter of one's own drive versus theirs. I may not want a full on session sometimes, but it's really not such an inconvenience to satisfy her within reason. I expect the same of women, but it seems the logic doesn't work that way for many women, that unless they want it at that moment, that fulfilling their partner's desire is of no concern to them whatsoever. What a ridiculous, but also pervasive attitude.

 

Now of course, if a couple is already having sex regularly and weekly, there is a point of reasonable boundaries if one person decides they "need" it twice a day. That's like someone saying they "need" to eat pizza twice a day.

 

However, in most cases of the topic I've seen, it's a matter of the couple having sex very infrequently, once or twice a month, in a relationship that is perfectly fine otherwise, because of the woman's excuses which are a transparent veneer on petty resentments and her seeking control. To be fair, have also seen this going the other way a couple of times (but it's usually the woman withholding sex), where the wife complains "he won't touch me." It is equally the man's fault for putting up with this unless he has been successfully trapped in marriage by one of these types.

 

Interesting that some female posters want to lay complete blame back on the men in question, it's the men who aren't doing something right, never the women, a large percentage of whom either a) gave a false impression of their sexual desire to keep the guy thinking they were on the same page, or b) are using sex as a medium of exchange or withholding sex based on imaginary slights or resentments against the man. Of course a male attitude that sex is all that matters in a relationship is immature, but it is also immature (as well as dishonest) to hold oneself out as being enthusiastic about sex on the front end, then pulling the ole switcharoo once the relationship is secure, or using sex as currency.

 

So the answer is case-by-case and requires more specifics. No excuse whatsoever for a relationship between relatively young, healthy people where sex is only happening once a month where the other partner wants more. OTOH, if it's happening 3-5 times a week for example, and the other partner wants more, it could be a matter of that partner's unreasonable expectations.

 

MS: makes a lot of sense. My friend is probably getting it a couple of times a month, used to get it more before their child was born. I guess maybe his gf has issues. Not sure. But I have heard that everybody peaks at a certain age....?

[Barky]

As I always say there are only 3 things women need to do to keep a man:

 

1) Look good.

2) Put out.

3) Don't be a b*tch.

 

And it always amazes me how few women can do those three simple things.

[threebyfate]

What I can't figure out is why stay in a long-term relationship with someone who has a differing sex drive? It's such a needless power struggle.

 

Relationships have enough bumps in the road without jacking around with this one basic part of it.

To add to this post, trying to keep a man is a waste of time and energy.

[tami-chan]

LOL...is it just me? but that phrase "keeping a man" really bothers me...it is as if, men never want to stay that we women have to figure out ways to "keep them"......

 

If all it takes is sex to "keep a man"...then I do not think we would have all these problems. No, "keeping a man" by having sex with him on demand is too simplistic....or maybe it is that simple?