Dating divorced dads....their enthusiasm level in bed (nonexplicit)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The same reason I’m excited to go to any store other than a Walmart when I am stuck on business travel in a small town with only a Walmart for entertainment.

Huh?

You're new and different and they've been shopping at the same vajay for so long that they get super excited

This.

DH has been divorced 10 years when we met. He got that new vajayjay mania out of his system before we started dating. He’s incredible in bed, but why anyone would equate teenage enthusiasm with good is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

100% is better than 50%. Always.

So, having cancer in 100% of your breast is better than having in 50% of it?

Math can hard, dear poster.

Please do not try if you do not know how to us it.

So can posting if the "1" appears before the "00%".

Actually, you’ll have a mastectomy either way, so your weird analogy doesn’t work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many divorced dads did you bang to reach this conclusion? Maybe stop throwing leg.

Sorry to be a nerd, but what does that mean? Literally throwing your legs at someone? That seems like kicking????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many divorced dads did you bang to reach this conclusion? Maybe stop throwing leg.

Sorry to be a nerd, but what does that mean? Literally throwing your legs at someone? That seems like kicking????

I loved reading the quote above. there's an irish saying to "throw the leg over" - you get the picture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a divorced dad, mid-50s, and I am a fantastic, hung, and kinky lover. My ex got it good from me for over 20 years, but never seemed to have figured out how superior my skills were. The new women I have been with have been thrilled with the way I love them.

That sounds amazing!
Signed, Woman(38)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well duh, they have had sex in months or years.
And why is that? When a spouse loses respect, trust, or connection with you, you stop having sex. You have to repair the respect, trust and connection to resume having sex.

That process is too difficult for some so they’d rather call it whites and bang new women after their divorce.

It is always better to spend time and effort getting new women than it is to attempt to reconstruct a failed relationship. Never root through the trash once the garbage has been dragged to the curb. You get messy, your neighbors see you do it, and what you thought was worth digging for is never as valuable as you thought it was.

I dunno, undivided assets? Full time with your children vs. part time? Maybe you don't value it. People are different.

Our assets, except for the house, were separate before the divorce. Financially I'll be better off without her. And I'll have 50/50 custody.

The bottom line is, no matter what I valued, she got a vote, too. She voted to make no effort to repair the marriage. Didn't matter what I did, nothing got any traction with her.

What a weird response. If I shoot one of your eyes out, would you be pleased you still have the other one left? If I chop off one of your legs and arms, would you be like, I still have 50% of them?

100% is better than 50%. Always.

Also, unless your wife brings no income, I don't believe you'd be better off financially. Two incomes afford a better lifestyle than one.

"If I shoot one of your eyes out, would you be pleased you still have the other one left? If I chop off one of your legs and arms, would you be like, I still have 50% of them?" -- in those specific cases, yeah!

"100% is better than 50%. Always. " -- Nope. It depends. 50% in a happy home is better than 100% in a violent, constant conflict home, for example. And this is also irrelevant. As I said, she got a vote in the decision to divorce.

"Also, unless your wife brings no income, I don't believe you'd be better off financially. Two incomes afford a better lifestyle than one."

LOL, no, just the opposite, I'd be much worse off if she had no income, because then I'd have to pay huge child support. She makes enough that there is no spousal or child support. After the divorce, she will have to pay for things that she does not have to pay for now, which means more money for me.

Wouldn't you, too?

Two incomes buy a better lifestyle than one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well duh, they have had sex in months or years.
And why is that? When a spouse loses respect, trust, or connection with you, you stop having sex. You have to repair the respect, trust and connection to resume having sex.

That process is too difficult for some so they’d rather call it whites and bang new women after their divorce.

It is always better to spend time and effort getting new women than it is to attempt to reconstruct a failed relationship. Never root through the trash once the garbage has been dragged to the curb. You get messy, your neighbors see you do it, and what you thought was worth digging for is never as valuable as you thought it was.

I dunno, undivided assets? Full time with your children vs. part time? Maybe you don't value it. People are different.

Our assets, except for the house, were separate before the divorce. Financially I'll be better off without her. And I'll have 50/50 custody.

The bottom line is, no matter what I valued, she got a vote, too. She voted to make no effort to repair the marriage. Didn't matter what I did, nothing got any traction with her.

What a weird response. If I shoot one of your eyes out, would you be pleased you still have the other one left? If I chop off one of your legs and arms, would you be like, I still have 50% of them?

100% is better than 50%. Always.

Also, unless your wife brings no income, I don't believe you'd be better off financially. Two incomes afford a better lifestyle than one.

"If I shoot one of your eyes out, would you be pleased you still have the other one left? If I chop off one of your legs and arms, would you be like, I still have 50% of them?" -- in those specific cases, yeah!

"100% is better than 50%. Always. " -- Nope. It depends. 50% in a happy home is better than 100% in a violent, constant conflict home, for example. And this is also irrelevant. As I said, she got a vote in the decision to divorce.

"Also, unless your wife brings no income, I don't believe you'd be better off financially. Two incomes afford a better lifestyle than one."

LOL, no, just the opposite, I'd be much worse off if she had no income, because then I'd have to pay huge child support. She makes enough that there is no spousal or child support. After the divorce, she will have to pay for things that she does not have to pay for now, which means more money for me.

Wouldn't you, too?

Two incomes buy a better lifestyle than one.

Only if both pull their weight. Which most women don’t. Like I said, post divorce she will have to pay for a lot of stuff she now gets from me for free.

[Anonymous]

So, having cancer in 100% of your breast is better than having in 50% of it?

Math can hard, dear poster.

Actually, you’ll have a mastectomy either way, so your weird analogy doesn’t work.

You are a moron. The original post said that 100% was always better than 50%. My point was that this statement is not true in that having more of a negative is worse than having less.

You did not get this because you are stupid. If you had cancer in 100% of your breast, your chance of metastasis is much higher than if you had it in just 50%. A mastectomy is an effort to reduce the potential spread of the cancer.

Actually, a mastectomy is more likely at 50% since by 100% the cancer would be advanced Stage 4b (and have spread everyone in the body) and the trauma of getting a mastectomy would be worse than leaving the breast intact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well duh, they have had sex in months or years.
And why is that? When a spouse loses respect, trust, or connection with you, you stop having sex. You have to repair the respect, trust and connection to resume having sex.

That process is too difficult for some so they’d rather call it whites and bang new women after their divorce.

It is always better to spend time and effort getting new women than it is to attempt to reconstruct a failed relationship. Never root through the trash once the garbage has been dragged to the curb. You get messy, your neighbors see you do it, and what you thought was worth digging for is never as valuable as you thought it was.

I dunno, undivided assets? Full time with your children vs. part time? Maybe you don't value it. People are different.

Our assets, except for the house, were separate before the divorce. Financially I'll be better off without her. And I'll have 50/50 custody.

The bottom line is, no matter what I valued, she got a vote, too. She voted to make no effort to repair the marriage. Didn't matter what I did, nothing got any traction with her.

What a weird response. If I shoot one of your eyes out, would you be pleased you still have the other one left? If I chop off one of your legs and arms, would you be like, I still have 50% of them?

100% is better than 50%. Always.

Also, unless your wife brings no income, I don't believe you'd be better off financially. Two incomes afford a better lifestyle than one.

"If I shoot one of your eyes out, would you be pleased you still have the other one left? If I chop off one of your legs and arms, would you be like, I still have 50% of them?" -- in those specific cases, yeah!

"100% is better than 50%. Always. " -- Nope. It depends. 50% in a happy home is better than 100% in a violent, constant conflict home, for example. And this is also irrelevant. As I said, she got a vote in the decision to divorce.

"Also, unless your wife brings no income, I don't believe you'd be better off financially. Two incomes afford a better lifestyle than one."

LOL, no, just the opposite, I'd be much worse off if she had no income, because then I'd have to pay huge child support. She makes enough that there is no spousal or child support. After the divorce, she will have to pay for things that she does not have to pay for now, which means more money for me.

Wouldn't you, too?

Two incomes buy a better lifestyle than one.

I’m recently divorced. I made 60% of our household income. Spouse made 40%. We share custody 50/50 so I pay child support, but not an outrageous amount. No alimony. We both kept our retirement accounts. I bought out spouse’s equity in the house and kept the house, spouse bought a house a mile away. Yes, things are tight, but it is do-able. I like having complete control over my money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a divorced dad, mid-50s, and I am a fantastic, hung, and kinky lover. My ex got it good from me for over 20 years, but never seemed to have figured out how superior my skills were. The new women I have been with have been thrilled with the way I love them.

That sounds amazing!
Signed, Woman(38)

Thank you. You sound like my type, but my dance card is full right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Early forties single childless female here. In the past couple years, have started dating divorced dads.

I want to keep this non-explicit.

But - there is just a difference in bed between divorced dads vs thirty and forty something men who have never been married. I swear the divorced dads have the enthusiasm and eagerness of teenage boys. They just seem so....excited and psyched to be hooking up with me. And....I think they are often better in bed. More skilled, more enthusiastic, more eager to focus on my pleasure, can spend hours fooling around, always up for it....

Now, my sampling size is not large enough to be statistically accurate. But has anyone else noticed this? Why would this be?

OP, it sounds like you have quite the sample size.

[Anonymous]

Older men who never married tend to be selfish in bed, whereas men who had a good run in a marriage have likely been trained to meet the woman's needs first and are better equipped to go to the distance.

My husband and I have been together since college, he's pushing 50 and still like a teenager in terms of interest and stamina.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the difference you've noticed and I have a few I've noticed over the years and my sample size is a lot bigger.
The uglier the guy, the better the sex. Shorter guys are better in bed. The biggest difference is cut vs uncut.
Was just thinking yesterday how I used to have to be like a snake trainer to get it up and going. At some point I thought it was the norm and that's how it's going to be. As luck would have it, I went back to uncut and haven't had to train anybody or anything.
Don't tell me you want to have sex, when it's clearly still sleeping. If I see you excited, I'll be excited. Don't come to me and ask to get you excited.
Ofcourse I'm generalizing when it some to age or person's size, but it has been true ca 95% of the time when it comes to cut vs uncut.

How common are complications? This depends on how you label a complication. For example, penal foreskin is anatomically the most sensitive part of the organ. It ensures satisfactory sex. It's therefore reasonable to argue that in this instance the complication rate is 100% because it decreases sexual satisfaction.

There's another aspect to circumcision that is never mentioned in the discussion of the pros and cons of this surgery. Today, erectile dysfunction (ED) drugs are being used by an increasing number of males, and not all of them are in their senior years. I admit I have no statistics on this matter.

But I wonder how many males who require ED drugs could have experienced a longer and more satisfactory sex life, if this sensitive foreskin had not been removed. I suspect more than we realize. This is a good project for some aspiring researcher!

https://chealth.canoe.com/news/chealth/30447?newssource=0