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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?)