If you aren't sexually attracted to your spouse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a woman and I have this problem. I've been thinking about it and I think what I need is romance and spontaneity. I want my husband to pursue me the way he did before we got married and had kids. I want him to pursue me the way he would if we were having an affair. I want him to arrange weekend getaways, including babysitters for the kids. Surprise me with plane tickets. Make reservations for restaurants. Gifts: jewelry, flowers, lingerie. It's hard to feel sexy in your own home surrounded by needy children.

Anyway, give this a try OP. See what happens.

Many women get married and sex is always something with a quid pro quo. OP just wants his wife to desire him sexually. I'm sure your husband does too.

For whatever reason, women like yourself--most women being talked about in this thread, most in our society--despite being nominal "feminists," always seem to believe that their vagina is such a wonderful prize that the man in their life has to pay a toll for admission to it.

You sound like you have... issues. Perhaps you would not be the best person to be doling out advice... to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a woman and I have this problem. I've been thinking about it and I think what I need is romance and spontaneity. I want my husband to pursue me the way he did before we got married and had kids. I want him to pursue me the way he would if we were having an affair. I want him to arrange weekend getaways, including babysitters for the kids. Surprise me with plane tickets. Make reservations for restaurants. Gifts: jewelry, flowers, lingerie. It's hard to feel sexy in your own home surrounded by needy children.

Anyway, give this a try OP. See what happens.

Many women get married and sex is always something with a quid pro quo. OP just wants his wife to desire him sexually. I'm sure your husband does too.

For whatever reason, women like yourself--most women being talked about in this thread, most in our society--despite being nominal "feminists," always seem to believe that their vagina is such a wonderful prize that the man in their life has to pay a toll for admission to it.

Hey OP asked how he could turn this around. Here's one answer. Use it or don't, I don't care. I think it could work. Read the link about responsive sexuality. Men need to try harder to create erotic conditions to turn their wives on and set the "mood."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound like a real catch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be your wife, OP. I think I have always felt this way, but especially now that we have kids and I have some hormonal issues.

Before DH, I was in some really bad relationships. Amazing sex and sexual attraction, but emotionally abusive. When I met DH, I found him attractive and nice, but he didn't turn me on. I did not think that I could have both sexual attraction and someone who was a good guy. I wanted a good guy because I needed stability and wanted a great parent for my kids. This all worked out great for the first few years. Now it's taking it's toll. I am about to start therapy again to figure it out. Besides no sexual attraction, we get along great, have fun together, travel well together, etc. I have brought up therapy to him, but he is against it. So I figure I need to at least put myself in therapy b/c it's not fair to him.

Actually, I have to say, my DH is seriously like a 3rd child and that could definitely contribute to my lack of sexual attraction to him. I need a man, not another person to pick up after.

This. The guys I dated previously were either really nice but didn't turn me on, or turned me on but were jerks. I think I figured I couldn't have both.
I also married young and am just bored. I constantly wonder what else is out there.

To add, on my part at least, a lot of it is boredom. We've been together for so long that I have begun to view him as a companion rather than a "boyfriend" that I get excited about. He's handsome and a great dad, but after years of the same old day-to-day happenings, I think this may just be the nature of many marriages.
I am in incredible shape yet he rarely compliments me on my looks/figure, despite me communicating this to him. He never makes me feel sexy. He rarely wants to be affectionate unless it leads to sex. Over the years, I have found myself to be much more extroverted, and it annoys me when he doesn't want to attend events/parties/causal gatherings. He isn't a huge conversationalist (spends a lot of time on his iPhone and Nextflix) when I'd love to be out doing something or even staying in and doing something simple like cooking.

I have a fairly high drive and though he's attractive with a good body, I like the lights off so I can think of someone else. That sounds horrible, I know. (And I don't fantasize of move stars, but more everyday guys/dads that are flirty and complimentary).

What's up with that response? She sounds like a catch and is refreshingly honest. Too bad you are threatened by that.

OP here. Just want to make it clear that was not me. I admit a bit of frustration from some of the responses but I have made a point not to be critical of individual posts from spouses who are sharing their situation. I did enjoy the post on the flatulent bobcat thread that spoofed her post, though.

How would anyone even know it was spoofing HER post in particular?

$5 saying you posted it OP. Her response obviously got under your skin. Perhaps this explains the lack of sex with your wife...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these posts from both men and women display the exact same pattern---women riding the cock carousel with crazy sex with bad boys, UNTIL their fading youth drives them to "settle down" with dependable beta husbands who simply don't turn them on sexually. And it's always the husband's fault.

Selfish women married to nebbishy husbands. Ladies, you picked men to marry that you KNEW you could dominate, because that's the kind of marriage you wanted--to someone you could dominate. But a woman isn't ever attracted to a man she can dominate so easily.

Even the one woman said she was far more turned on by an ex who pushed her up against a wall, she called him a "lout"--then says "but it wasn't rape-y." Um, yes, it was "rape-y," and that's why it turned you on so much. But the women know that if they marry a man that dominates them sexually, they lose all power in the relationship to the man, and in a marriage, that is to be avoided at all costs. At least according to the typical "modern feminist liberated woman."

But if this didn't happen--women sacrificing their dreams for stable nerds--99 percent of men in the DC suburbs would be married to their right hands.

But they aren't really sacrificing their dreams. They marry the nerds because that's what they want. However, all of these women tend to be extremely neurotic. Neurotic people cause dysfunction in their relationships and do not have an effective coping mechanism. A well-adjusted woman would say "For marriage I need a stable guy. Therefore, I have to do everything I can to ensure that we keep things as sexual as possible, which is not going to happen automatically with a marriage to a stable guy." Instead, these women all basically say they're powerless to change anything because they'd rather be unhappy then do something constructive. They NEVER say "the sexual problems are MY fault" or "primarily MY fault." Or at least "I have the power to change how I feel and what my behavior is. Even if I don't feel like it, I can be more sexually active to get things going."

One poster said she expects her husband to hire baby sitters, buy plane tickets, vacations, dinners, and what not as pre-conditions to any effort on her part to have enjoyable sex with him. But even if he did all of those things--that NEVER works. Because the lack of plane tickets, baby sitters, vacations, and dinners, is not the problem. Her ATTITUDE towards her husband and her own sexuality is the problem. Only SHE can change that. NOTHING he can do will change that. No gift he can buy will change that. It will most likely have a counterproductive effect. Women NEVER respect a man who has to "buy" their sexual favors. Her misconception that the problem is her husband doesn't buy her enough gifts is neurotic. But a very common sort of attitude. She doesn't even perceive how neurotic her attitude actually is.

These women have to commit to the marriage and by that, they have to make a conscious choice to do everything they can to improve their sex lives and their attitudes towards sex with the man they married. ALL of these women view marital sex as a nuisance or at best as an occasional "bonus" that their husband is not really "entitled" to. They are not committed to making their sex lives better because they were never really committed to the marriage. They have always been half-in, half out, because the grass is always greener. Again--neurotic.

OP himself is typical of the way the husbands these women tend to marry perceive the situation. The clue is he talks about "asking" his wife for sex. That's the whole problem in a nutshell. You don't "ask" your wife for sex as if you are a supplicant and she is granting you a royal favor. You "tell" her that sex is going to happen. Or you don't "say" anything. You just initiate and have sex with her. And to all those women who think their husbands have to "ask" them for sex--why did you marry someone you didn't already want to have sex with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a woman and I have this problem. I've been thinking about it and I think what I need is romance and spontaneity. I want my husband to pursue me the way he did before we got married and had kids. I want him to pursue me the way he would if we were having an affair. I want him to arrange weekend getaways, including babysitters for the kids. Surprise me with plane tickets. Make reservations for restaurants. Gifts: jewelry, flowers, lingerie. It's hard to feel sexy in your own home surrounded by needy children.

Anyway, give this a try OP. See what happens.

Many women get married and sex is always something with a quid pro quo. OP just wants his wife to desire him sexually. I'm sure your husband does too.

For whatever reason, women like yourself--most women being talked about in this thread, most in our society--despite being nominal "feminists," always seem to believe that their vagina is such a wonderful prize that the man in their life has to pay a toll for admission to it.

Hey OP asked how he could turn this around. Here's one answer. Use it or don't, I don't care. I think it could work. Read the link about responsive sexuality. Men need to try harder to create erotic conditions to turn their wives on and set the "mood."

According to one PP, throwing the woman up against the wall and aggressively "taking" her seems to work pretty well.

Why is the burden on the husband "to turn their wives on and set the mood"?

Why isn't the burden on the wife to get herself turned on and into the mood?

Any situation where the man is a supplicant to the wife, asking her to grant him sexual favors, is never going to generate real sexual interest in the wife. Women simply don't respect sexually submissive men. Your premise is dead wrong.

The basic premise is that somehow, a husband can emotionally manipulate a woman who doesn't really want to have sex with him, to desire him, by "creating a mood," "jumping through hoops," "buying gifts," and doing everything OTHER THAN actually being "sexual" with her. Actually being "sexual" with her is a big no-no.

But that's the only thing that ever works. That's why women crave the loutish bad boys who throw them against the wall and "take" them.

Unfortunately for the women married to submissive men, they don't have that kind of personality naturally. (That's why she married him--he's "safe" and submissive.) So that means the WOMAN has to do everything she possibly can do to bring out HIS sexuality. She is the dominant personality in all of these relationships. He is the one "asking" for it or begging for it, she's the one calling shots. Since she is calling the shots, SHE has to take the responsibility for the poor state of the relationship, and primary responsibility for fixing it.

This whole analysis of course assumes these women actually want to be happy rather than unhappy. Most of them seem to preferentially want to remain neurotically unhappy in bad marriages, as long as they can blame their husbands.

[Anonymous]

OP himself is typical of the way the husbands these women tend to marry perceive the situation. The clue is he talks about "asking" his wife for sex. That's the whole problem in a nutshell. You don't "ask" your wife for sex as if you are a supplicant and she is granting you a royal favor. You "tell" her that sex is going to happen. Or you don't "say" anything. You just initiate and have sex with her. And to all those women who think their husbands have to "ask" them for sex--why did you marry someone you didn't already want to have sex with?

This whole Alpha/Beta stuff is rarely helpful or the cause of the problem. In the real world, neither women NOR men always married the boy or girl who was the absolute freak in the sheets. But they usually married someone whom they had a true connection with and whom they had good and frequent sex with until the babies came, and the relationship grew familiar and work, and mortgages, and occasional ED and dryness and real world problems that affect couples who are doing everything else reasonably well. This isn't just an issue of "throw your wife against the wall and fuck her." If it was that simple, it would be done.

I say this as about the most Alpha (I hate that term) male you can describe - C-Suite, tall, athletic, decision maker. We have date nights when we can get them in. Take trips to nice hotels. At the risk of being even more arrogant, I get hit on - it would be zero problem having an affair. And our sex life is what OP's is. A few times a month, usually decent, sometimes good, rarely great. Mostly for me, sometimes my DW gets into things as we go along.

If I threw her against the wall, she would say OK, go for it. But it is not going to turn her into an insatiable beast. The problem is the familiar, not the technique (which isn't to say there aren't some very shy and weak willed men that could benefit from being more assertive). Now I think OP might benefit from less talk, more fucking, but only because his wife is probably tired of trying to find a "solution" for what she doesn't see as a problem since they are having decent and semi-frequent and sometimes good sex. That is normal, and as much as it really does kinda suck for high drive "place a premium on sex" people like OP and I - to paraphrase - it is as good as its going to get.

But if he follows this "be an Alpha ass" routine to his wife, he will go from having average and sometimes good marital sex to less sex because his wife is going to resent his asshole routine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OP himself is typical of the way the husbands these women tend to marry perceive the situation. The clue is he talks about "asking" his wife for sex. That's the whole problem in a nutshell. You don't "ask" your wife for sex as if you are a supplicant and she is granting you a royal favor. You "tell" her that sex is going to happen. Or you don't "say" anything. You just initiate and have sex with her. And to all those women who think their husbands have to "ask" them for sex--why did you marry someone you didn't already want to have sex with?

This whole Alpha/Beta stuff is rarely helpful or the cause of the problem. In the real world, neither women NOR men always married the boy or girl who was the absolute freak in the sheets. But they usually married someone whom they had a true connection with and whom they had good and frequent sex with until the babies came, and the relationship grew familiar and work, and mortgages, and occasional ED and dryness and real world problems that affect couples who are doing everything else reasonably well. This isn't just an issue of "throw your wife against the wall and fuck her." If it was that simple, it would be done.

I say this as about the most Alpha (I hate that term) male you can describe - C-Suite, tall, athletic, decision maker. We have date nights when we can get them in. Take trips to nice hotels. At the risk of being even more arrogant, I get hit on - it would be zero problem having an affair. And our sex life is what OP's is. A few times a month, usually decent, sometimes good, rarely great. Mostly for me, sometimes my DW gets into things as we go along.

If I threw her against the wall, she would say OK, go for it. But it is not going to turn her into an insatiable beast. The problem is the familiar, not the technique (which isn't to say there aren't some very shy and weak willed men that could benefit from being more assertive). Now I think OP might benefit from less talk, more fucking, but only because his wife is probably tired of trying to find a "solution" for what she doesn't see as a problem since they are having decent and semi-frequent and sometimes good sex. That is normal, and as much as it really does kinda suck for high drive "place a premium on sex" people like OP and I - to paraphrase - it is as good as its going to get.

But if he follows this "be an Alpha ass" routine to his wife, he will go from having average and sometimes good marital sex to less sex because his wife is going to resent his asshole routine.

I agree with this guy. I absolutely loathe it when my DH asks me for sex. It is an instant turn off. I asked him to please just come on to me, it speaks volumes about how much you want to have sex vs asking about it. Sadly, he doesn't seem to listen to me as he last time he wanted to have sex he asked me. I said no. He is so selfish and stupid about this it is unbelievable to me.

[Anonymous]

"That she is willing to have sex with you is her gift. Accept it."

******

Sorry PP but the above attitude is dead wrong.

All these passive men including OP, with sexually denying wives, have to get to the point where they believe that if they are willing to have sex with their wives, it's a gift to the wife.

Or at least, they have to get to the point at which they understand that marital sex from their wife is not a "gift" which they must hungrily "accept." It is a MUTUAL, equal exchange, at a bare minimum.

OP, you need to get to the point where you can look your sexually denying wife in the eye and say "Honey I enjoy having sex with you but your pussy is nothing really special. It doesn't spit out $100 bills and is not made of gold. I am not going to beg you for sex. If you don't care to have it with me, enthusiastically and frequently, as befits married people, I will find someone else to have it with. If that bothers you, then you better start upping your game."

OP knows that's the answer since even HE said the only time she initiates sex with him is when she becomes concerned that she might "lose" him.

OP you will start generating sexual "desire" in your wife when you start treating her like absolute shit. Like your sexual slave. It's going to be uncomfortable for you because you have been brainwashed against that notion.

But every single anecdote from a woman about some man in her past who sexually excited her (before marriage) is always about some asshole who used her sexually and treated her like crap.

Yeah that's not in the feminist PC fairy tales you have been brought up with but it's true.

[Anonymous]

Many women get married and sex is always something with a quid pro quo. OP just wants his wife to desire him sexually. I'm sure your husband does too.

For whatever reason, women like yourself--most women being talked about in this thread, most in our society--despite being nominal "feminists," always seem to believe that their vagina is such a wonderful prize that the man in their life has to pay a toll for admission to it.

Hey OP asked how he could turn this around. Here's one answer. Use it or don't, I don't care. I think it could work. Read the link about responsive sexuality. Men need to try harder to create erotic conditions to turn their wives on and set the "mood."

According to one PP, throwing the woman up against the wall and aggressively "taking" her seems to work pretty well.

Why is the burden on the husband "to turn their wives on and set the mood"?

Why isn't the burden on the wife to get herself turned on and into the mood?

Any situation where the man is a supplicant to the wife, asking her to grant him sexual favors, is never going to generate real sexual interest in the wife. Women simply don't respect sexually submissive men. Your premise is dead wrong.

The basic premise is that somehow, a husband can emotionally manipulate a woman who doesn't really want to have sex with him, to desire him, by "creating a mood," "jumping through hoops," "buying gifts," and doing everything OTHER THAN actually being "sexual" with her. Actually being "sexual" with her is a big no-no.

But that's the only thing that ever works. That's why women crave the loutish bad boys who throw them against the wall and "take" them.

Unfortunately for the women married to submissive men, they don't have that kind of personality naturally. (That's why she married him--he's "safe" and submissive.) So that means the WOMAN has to do everything she possibly can do to bring out HIS sexuality. She is the dominant personality in all of these relationships. He is the one "asking" for it or begging for it, she's the one calling shots. Since she is calling the shots, SHE has to take the responsibility for the poor state of the relationship, and primary responsibility for fixing it.

This whole analysis of course assumes these women actually want to be happy rather than unhappy. Most of them seem to preferentially want to remain neurotically unhappy in bad marriages, as long as they can blame their husbands.

You are overthinking this. The reason why men often have to put in the work to have more sex is because 1) its usually the man that wants sex; and 2) most females have responsive sexual desire so you need to do something to have them respond. As much as I wish it were true, saying "lets fuck" or pushing her up against the wall isn't going to get her going.

Simple economics - the one who wants something more will pay more for it. By and large, men want sex more than women.

Analogy - women, in general, want a cleaner house than men. Who gets stuck doing more of the housework? Women. Because if a man doesn't care, he isn't going to be proactive about cleaning. If he is a good spouse, he will realize his wife wants a clean house and he will help her. But so long as its more important to her, she is going to be stuck initiating the cleaning, doing most of it, and if things get bad, having to verbalize to her spouse the need for him to clean too.

Sex is tricky because he wants her to want to have sex, not just have it. It is understandable, the need to feel desired is universal. Its just not realistic.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately for the women married to submissive men, they don't have that kind of personality naturally. (That's why she married him--he's "safe" and submissive.) So that means the WOMAN has to do everything she possibly can do to bring out HIS sexuality. She is the dominant personality in all of these relationships. He is the one "asking" for it or begging for it, she's the one calling shots. Since she is calling the shots, SHE has to take the responsibility for the poor state of the relationship, and primary responsibility for fixing it.

This whole analysis of course assumes these women actually want to be happy rather than unhappy. Most of them seem to preferentially want to remain neurotically unhappy in bad marriages, as long as they can blame their husbands.

You are overthinking this. The reason why men often have to put in the work to have more sex is because 1) its usually the man that wants sex; and 2) most females have responsive sexual desire so you need to do something to have them respond. As much as I wish it were true, saying "lets fuck" or pushing her up against the wall isn't going to get her going.

Simple economics - the one who wants something more will pay more for it. By and large, men want sex more than women.

Analogy - women, in general, want a cleaner house than men. Who gets stuck doing more of the housework? Women. Because if a man doesn't care, he isn't going to be proactive about cleaning. If he is a good spouse, he will realize his wife wants a clean house and he will help her. But so long as its more important to her, she is going to be stuck initiating the cleaning, doing most of it, and if things get bad, having to verbalize to her spouse the need for him to clean too.

Sex is tricky because he wants her to want to have sex, not just have it. It is understandable, the need to feel desired is universal. Its just not realistic.

[Anonymous]

So, if the husband doesn't take responsibility for his wife's sexual desire, then the sex isn't going to happen?

Who made that rule? How is that equality?

Why aren't they both equally responsible for their own, and each other's, desires?

Just how damn SELFISH does a woman have to be, to expect to be feted with gifts, dinners out, plane tickets, flowers, courting, before she will deign to have sex with her....husband???

Anyone who really "knows" and "understands" women, which unfortunately requires a great deal of cynicism, also understands that when the need arises, or the whim arises, most can turn their libidos on or off like a light switch.

Typically, if a woman thinks she needs to have sex with a man she desires to get into a relationship with him, then she will do whatever it takes. That's why so many guys experience a sharp drop off in variety and quantity of sex soon after cutting the wedding cake. The sexuality has accomplished its primary purpose, landed the fish, so she turns the switch off. EVERYONE knows this.

If a woman decides she wants to EAT PRAY LOVE she will easily generate sexual excitement for the most loathsome sorts of characters to have an affair with. Because it's all, or mostly, IN HER HEAD. Because she is quite frequently a total head case.

OP wife is the prime but typical example. She ups the sex a couple of notches ONLY when she feels she "needs" to--because she wants to keep him in the marriage--but just enough to keep him wanting more. But it's totally conscious and voluntary and it's all her doing. He's not doing anything to "build her desire" when she ups the sex. SHE decides to UP the sex for her OWN purposes. She uses the sex as a manipulative tool.

But this notion that women generally need men to do all kinds of things to "build the woman's desire" is utter b.s. It's a flim flam designed to keep confused men on a short leash.

[Anonymous]

Why is the burden on the husbands to set the mood?

Because they want sex with their wives and we frown on rape nowadays? I'm telling you, the trick is weekend getaways, romantic date nights, and creative fun dates planned by the men. It won't turn your wife into an insatiable sexual beast but you'll get laid at least every time yougo out on a date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, if the husband doesn't take responsibility for his wife's sexual desire, then the sex isn't going to happen?

Who made that rule? How is that equality?

Why aren't they both equally responsible for their own, and each other's, desires?

Just how damn SELFISH does a woman have to be, to expect to be feted with gifts, dinners out, plane tickets, flowers, courting, before she will deign to have sex with her....husband???

Anyone who really "knows" and "understands" women, which unfortunately requires a great deal of cynicism, also understands that when the need arises, or the whim arises, most can turn their libidos on or off like a light switch.

Typically, if a woman thinks she needs to have sex with a man she desires to get into a relationship with him, then she will do whatever it takes. That's why so many guys experience a sharp drop off in variety and quantity of sex soon after cutting the wedding cake. The sexuality has accomplished its primary purpose, landed the fish, so she turns the switch off. EVERYONE knows this.

If a woman decides she wants to EAT PRAY LOVE she will easily generate sexual excitement for the most loathsome sorts of characters to have an affair with. Because it's all, or mostly, IN HER HEAD. Because she is quite frequently a total head case.

OP wife is the prime but typical example. She ups the sex a couple of notches ONLY when she feels she "needs" to--because she wants to keep him in the marriage--but just enough to keep him wanting more. But it's totally conscious and voluntary and it's all her doing. He's not doing anything to "build her desire" when she ups the sex. SHE decides to UP the sex for her OWN purposes. She uses the sex as a manipulative tool.

But this notion that women generally need men to do all kinds of things to "build the woman's desire" is utter b.s. It's a flim flam designed to keep confused men on a short leash.

No! He doesn't have to! If he wants to wait to have sex when until she initiates, that's perfectly fine! No one has an issue with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these posts from both men and women display the exact same pattern---women riding the cock carousel with crazy sex with bad boys, UNTIL their fading youth drives them to "settle down" with dependable beta husbands who simply don't turn them on sexually. And it's always the husband's fault.

Selfish women married to nebbishy husbands. Ladies, you picked men to marry that you KNEW you could dominate, because that's the kind of marriage you wanted--to someone you could dominate. But a woman isn't ever attracted to a man she can dominate so easily.

Even the one woman said she was far more turned on by an ex who pushed her up against a wall, she called him a "lout"--then says "but it wasn't rape-y." Um, yes, it was "rape-y," and that's why it turned you on so much. But the women know that if they marry a man that dominates them sexually, they lose all power in the relationship to the man, and in a marriage, that is to be avoided at all costs. At least according to the typical "modern feminist liberated woman."

But if this didn't happen--women sacrificing their dreams for stable nerds--99 percent of men in the DC suburbs would be married to their right hands.

But they aren't really sacrificing their dreams. They marry the nerds because that's what they want. However, all of these women tend to be extremely neurotic. Neurotic people cause dysfunction in their relationships and do not have an effective coping mechanism. A well-adjusted woman would say "For marriage I need a stable guy. Therefore, I have to do everything I can to ensure that we keep things as sexual as possible, which is not going to happen automatically with a marriage to a stable guy." Instead, these women all basically say they're powerless to change anything because they'd rather be unhappy then do something constructive. They NEVER say "the sexual problems are MY fault" or "primarily MY fault." Or at least "I have the power to change how I feel and what my behavior is. Even if I don't feel like it, I can be more sexually active to get things going."

One poster said she expects her husband to hire baby sitters, buy plane tickets, vacations, dinners, and what not as pre-conditions to any effort on her part to have enjoyable sex with him. But even if he did all of those things--that NEVER works. Because the lack of plane tickets, baby sitters, vacations, and dinners, is not the problem. Her ATTITUDE towards her husband and her own sexuality is the problem. Only SHE can change that. NOTHING he can do will change that. No gift he can buy will change that. It will most likely have a counterproductive effect. Women NEVER respect a man who has to "buy" their sexual favors. Her misconception that the problem is her husband doesn't buy her enough gifts is neurotic. But a very common sort of attitude. She doesn't even perceive how neurotic her attitude actually is.

This is simply not true. Have you ever heard of vacation sex? It's a saying for a reason. Get your wife away from the kids, encourage her to relax, put her in a lovely, romantic location, and you will have sex at least once a day. No kids though. That is imperative.

[Anonymous]

So what is "enough" for you men? Once a week? You can't be happy with that?