Advice for confused husbands...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And some sympathy, too.

This is a response to the "husband sucks in bed" thread that started in non-explicit, got moved, and then trolled to the point of futility. So, here's an attempt at reframing the issue and inviting discussion.

The original poster admitted to craving "dominate & agressive" men in bed. Meanwhile, DW loves her husband for his cooperative, egalitarian parenting and spirit.

My read is that OP is independent, direct, accomplished and assertive. DH probably finds this attractive, respects DW for it, and demonstrates this by not being a boor.

That said, how does this guy know when to be Alan Alda and when to be a bad boy?

(Note: this is posted on explicit, too, so if you want to offer that type of advice, hop over there. See, the inclination some of us confused guys have about treading lightly when we love strong, independent women?)

I am the "husband sucks" OP. It is really simple IMO. I am strong, assertive, and often no nonsense at work. At home, however, I am gentler and in the bedroom, I am even more gentle and eager to please. (I am at my gentlest with my babies.) It is like peeling off layers of an onion. Perhaps men just tend to lack the complexity that women often naturally possess, but I have definitely dated men who are courteous and professional on the outside only to turn into raging bulls in the bedroom. Do you really not have a side of you that longs to take control?

[Anonymous]

I started the "husband sucks in bed" thread and it was about a lot more than the sliver OP has focused on for his own purposes. My husband can be very lazy and selfish in bed. Won't perform oral sex, yet demands it. Won't get on top, yet wants me to ride him endlessly. Cums once and is done for the night. This goes well beyond just being a nice guy who does not want to be dominant because he is too sweet. OP has his own issues with women that he projected onto my thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's the point here of arguing with this troll man who's convinced women don't want sex? He's never going to own up to how selfish, lazy, dull, and bumbling he and a lot of men are in bed.

Actually I will concede to each of your insults: men are selfish, lazy, dumb and bumbling in bed.
Now please concede my non-insulting assertion: men are higher desire and it's not even close.

[Anonymous]

I think we all need to realize that married sex is just not the same as non-married sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous



What's the point here of arguing with this troll man who's convinced women don't want sex? He's never going to own up to how selfish, lazy, dull, and bumbling he and a lot of men are in bed.

LOL yes b/c women are never that way...selfish, lazy, dull, bumbling....sounds like 95% of the women out there. Most women are entitled when it comes to sex.

[Anonymous]

I think all men should know by now that women want you to be aggressive in bed. Look at how sexualized our entire culture is now. Women have seen porn, other tv shows and movies depict rough sex. Look at the popularity of 50 Shades. As a man, reading this forum in invaluable because over time after you read so many similar complaints, you begin to get that yes, women do want you to be dominate in the bedroom and have your way with her. It goes against everything our mothers taught us about how to treat women, but it's the damn truth.

[Anonymous]

Wait a sec. The op indicated the guy was selfish in bed. He demanded oral sex but never gave her any, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grammar police: "being dominant" not "being dominate".

The thing where woman want to be treated equally everywhere but the bedroom, in my mind, speaks to the privileged position women have when it comes to sex. Overall, the demand of men for sex exceeds the supply women will willingly provide, meaning women can demand more of what they want.

Having the other person be dominant means that the submissive person can be a little lazier. The dominant person has to be the creative one, has to be the one to bring the energy to the situation.

So, to a certain extent, this business about wanting to be equal everywhere but the bedroom suggests that women want the privileges of equality but not the burdens. It's not much different from women saying they still want men to pay for the date.

And, yes, it does send mixed messages to men who are constantly told not to objectify women.

Have you ever totally submitted to someone? Just because you're not in control doesn't mean you're lazy. Man or woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grammar police: "being dominant" not "being dominate".

The thing where woman want to be treated equally everywhere but the bedroom, in my mind, speaks to the privileged position women have when it comes to sex. Overall, the demand of men for sex exceeds the supply women will willingly provide, meaning women can demand more of what they want.

Having the other person be dominant means that the submissive person can be a little lazier. The dominant person has to be the creative one, has to be the one to bring the energy to the situation.

So, to a certain extent, this business about wanting to be equal everywhere but the bedroom suggests that women want the privileges of equality but not the burdens. It's not much different from women saying they still want men to pay for the date.

And, yes, it does send mixed messages to men who are constantly told not to objectify women.

Have you ever totally submitted to someone? Just because you're not in control doesn't mean you're lazy. Man or woman.

I doubt these women who are complaining their men are bad in bed and aren't "dominate" enough are contemplating submitting in any kind of energetic or creative way. They believe they can abdicate responsibility for their sexuality and be taken to orgasmic bliss.

[Anonymous]

And the answer is, "no," I have not ever totally submitted to someone because I've never been with a woman who was willing and/or able to take the lion's share of responsibility for any of our sexual encounters.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes it's not about wanting someone to "dominate" you, so much as it is about wanting someone to be overcome with desire for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the answer is, "no," I have not ever totally submitted to someone because I've never been with a woman who was willing and/or able to take the lion's share of responsibility for any of our sexual encounters.

I don't think you get it. Being a sub isn't about taking the night off.