I just noticed in the most recent poll...that the people who get lots of sex from their significant other were the smallest percentage on the poll...

which leads me to wonder...are our significant others party responsible for us seeking sex elsewhere??

i can remember when my s/o and I were dating and the sex was nonstop. I never bothered to see a provider...didn't really need or want to.  you get married...the sex slows down...have a kid...your s/o is "busy" or "tired"...whatever...  as for us guys..our sex drive keeps going...but a lot of women don't get it...and the sex stops....or at least it slows down a LOT...not much of it

so where do we go to get it....

any of you think this is just a coincidence?

i mean, if your s/o is good looking, sexy, and fucks your brains out...would you still go out and look for something on the side???

There is no suitable answer, should be one for zero times per month, at least for me.  I have no desire to have sex with her though she is still good looking.  Good looks can't overcome the bitchyness.  

There would be a lot less divorce if wives sent their men of to work with a quick BJ. Providers would find business much more difficult if guys were not in need.

The entire world would change.
Family stability would improve.
There would be world peace.
The DOW would go up to 12,000.
We guys could get some work done instead of thinking with our schlongs like a bunch of bonobos.

Instead my patriarch TLS is off in the cold North of Toronto trying to decide which of these ultrababes to see for a bj tonight: Ela or Cassandra?
http://www.cachetladies.com/cachet/elite/cassandra/PIC-1.html
http://www.ela4u.com/
WWJTBD? Both!

Am I opening a whole can of worms if I ask a silly question - why does one remain attached to someone who can't for whatever reason give them what they need sexually?  Because I've heard just as many women complain they don't get enough from the old man, and it baffles me.  Divorce can be messy but surely it's better than living in a situation where you feel deprived.  I'm not trying to be flippant here, and I guess I can't complain about the current situation in some ways, but I know so many people personally in the same boat and I don't get it.  Everybody deserves to be happy.

And if you're expecting a bj every morning before work, have you ever tried a 69?  It might just work.

-Anya

I knew I was gonna get asked that.  It is a matter of convenience, ignorance, loyalty (yeah, there is still some of that left) and just laziness.  We genuinely do not like each other any more.  Sex was great for many years but its a mutual decision to abstain from each other.  We lead separate lives and apparently that's the way we want it to be.  

-- Modified on 11/21/2002 6:11:09 PM

-- Modified on 11/21/2002 6:31:04 PM

The relationship of frequency of sex with SO and provider is natural and proportional to the duration of the relationship with the SO and influenced by the physical age of the couple. As they grow older, women naturally loose their libido as they near or enter menopause, as well as by the number of children they have. However, men do not loose their libido, thus seeking sexual encounters outside the relationship when any of these events occur.  Sexologist also suggest that since men continue to produce sperm after most women have entered menopause, then it is natural for men to seek sexual encounters with providers other than their SO and thus the charge of adultery is a foreign to the laws of nature.

In centuries gone by, a wife was for bearing and rearing children, and managing the household. The provider, e.g. courtesan, was for sexual pleasure. For the most part, the wives accepted this arrangement, as it was a form of family planning. Evidence from the Greek and Roman Empires indicates that courtesans knew how to make herbal vaginal preparations that contained much the same hormone structure as do today’s birth control pills, also spermicidal and morning after preparations. They were ahead of their time. Their pregnancy rate was very low, as was their STD illness, much the same as today. However, like today, the Christians started to prosecute courtesans for witchcraft and immorality, thus the science they knew was lost for centuries.

The courtesan’s place in society changed in America with the Puritan influence of the law and society in the late 19th century when the Christians formed the Federation of Churches, the precursor to the Christian Coalition, after the Civil War. It is time that the courtesans honored place in society be returned. I salute those who provide such great pleasure to the world.

When we WERE having sex, what my wife really wanted was 68, not 69. She refused 69, complained it was "too much". WTF does that mean? Too much fun? Intercourse was always painful for her no matter how lubed (natural or otherwise) she was. Because she resented even having sex and it was always infrequent, I think she was just "out of practice" and tensed up "down there" (but what do I know, I'm just a guy). She did have multiple O's from cunnilinguis though. I got bj's (not bjtc though, and I could have lived with that). This was all years ago. She is still very attractive at age 45, but wants nothing to do with me as husband and wife in the traditional sense - she wants to live like a nun. It's said that a marriage cannot overcome differences in religous beliefs and sexual incompatibilities. This is true.

query, as I found it to be somewhat complicated. Sure, on the surface, one could probably say that for the most part there could be some correlation with the frequency of sex(or lack thereof) with the significant other and seeing professional ladies. And yes, you could also say, perhaps, the s/o is partly to blame.

But that is where it can get complicated. Could it also be possible that the men are also partly to blame? Perhaps the women no longer feel appreciated, perhaps they feel that they find it more and more difficult to communicate with their man, perhaps they feel that their man no longer makes them feel that they are special. These all could be factors why your s/o behaves they way she does. Maybe that is why she may be bitchy at times. This could be more of an issue of cause and effect. One goes to escorts because the s/o has changed which is because her man has changed. It can get very complicated.

It is of the utmost importance to maintain both verbal and non-verbal communication with your s/o. If one loses that, the relationship is unfortunately doomed. You need to talk, talk, talk with your mate. Just like you did when you were a brand new couple. Intimacy is just as important, as that is major communication. If you lose that, the relationship is in deep trouble. You cannot let it slip away, you need to confront the situation immediately. If you or your s/o feel uncomfortable talking about sex problems you need to bite your lip and overcome those inhibitions and discuss it. A relationship without sex really isn't a relationship. Those in this position that are still together are in it for reasons other themselves, such as children, house, etc.

And something else to think about, if you are not having regular sex with your s/o and she is attractive... just like you are getting sex outside your relationship, she probably is as well. Even if you think she wouldn't in a million years. And the real kicker is, she is probably getting more than you and not paying a single cent for it, as this is part of the advantage of being a woman.

The answer to your last question is, yes. Even though the s/o is still attractive and gives incredible head, some men still feel the need to occasionally wander. Could this be considered by some to be somewhat immature and stupid--very possibly yes. I know this for a fact, because at times I can be a dumb kid.

-- Modified on 11/21/2002 10:07:23 PM

"Divorce can be messy but surely it's better than living in a situation where you feel deprived."

If I got divorced, she would certainly get the kids.  I can't imagine being more deprived than that.

I would gladly try a 69, but she doesn't like me to go "down there".  Maybe it's the cobwebs.

Also: if it were really true that "just as many women" weren't getting it, then you would be out of business.  Think about it.

peace,

Max

I only know what I observe, but I'm not doubting what anyone's saying.  It's just like I said, I think everybody deserves to be happy and I just wonder why it is that so many people don't seem to be able to get what they need sexually from their permanent relationships. It doesn't seem right somehow.

-Anya

My previous SigO...the one I was dating when I started "hobbying"..was smart, good looking (I'd say she was a very solid "7", and based on some of the reviews I've seen, an "8" for at least some other guys) and really enjoyed sex. She was as "accomodating" as some escorts, but sex with her was great, and she wanted it often. Indeed, one of her infrequent, but occassional complaints was that *I* didn't seem to want it enough (something she reminded me of in our last conversation).

I realize now that my foray into hobbying had nothing to do with my sex life at the time. it had to do with my RELATIONSHIP. My most recent EX-GF was a selfish bitch, and that led for me to sccumb to my admitted problems with impulse control and self indugence. I wasn't happy...and I was medicating myself. Whenever she'd do something to piss me off, I'd make that call next time I was alone to "punish" her and to make myself feel better.

Now that I am in a healthy relationship and happy, my desire to hobby has gone away. It doesn't mean I don't like sex (fortuately my wife loves sex). And it doesn't mean I don't still have "urges" for kinky, freaky, no holes barred sex...the type I probably won't be having with my SigO (which is probably my fault...she has expressed an interest, but there is stuff I enjoy that I wouldn't enjoy as much with someone a care for...my hang up, my Madonna complex).

What it DOES mean is I now have a relationship that is more important to me than my "impulses" or my desire to "self indulge". And I think that is the case for most men. It really isn't about sex, it is about happiness. If you value your relationship enough that you don't wish to put at jeporady. If it makes you happy...if it gives you what you need (spousal medical issues that preclude sex as an exception), then you don't seek anything / anyone else. When it doesn't, then you do.

And even a good man with good intentions will be tempted. Maybe the first time will be resisted or missed. But once a man knows about an option.... We are doing to try it.... eventually.

I know a guy married to a fromer Playmate. She is simply awesome. She is totally devoted to him and their kids. Even he admits she is the wife of dreams. And every once in a while he has to play. He has carnal knowledge that would make even the most experienced here be green with envy.... and I think this knowledge pushes him out here amoung us.

Perhaps ignorance is bliss.... but I kind of groove on the kind of bliss found here.

My SO is hotter than any of the masseuses I have ever seen, with a better body and a love for gettin' wild.

But she is not into massaging me or oral, so every now and then I like to get those services outside the bonds...

Perhaps never again unless the economy lifts, but a boy can dream...

Someone wise once told me, "For every perfect '10' you see walking down the street, there's a guy sick of doing her."

It has nothing to do with beauty, etc.

Unfortunately I believe your odds of having a happy marriage are about the same as shooting yourself by playing russian roulette with a revolver with one bullet in the cylinder.  In other words about 1 in 6 or 16.67%.  Back in the late 70's and early 80's the divorce rate in this country especially in California was running between 50 to 60%.  During the same time frame a few physchologists did a rather extensive study /survey of retired couples who had been married for a number of years and asked them a number of questions about their marriage.  Of that group 60% stated that they had not been happy in their marriage.  If you consider that at the time only 40% of the people who got married stayed married and of that 40% only 40% were happy in their marriage you can see that marriage is a tough proposition (40% x 40% = 16%.  Since that time divorce rates have dropped due to a number of factors and there may have been some other surveys taken that came up with different results but IMHO being happy in a marriage seems to have eluded most people.

"It has nothing to do with beauty, etc."

Of course.  I'm sure most guys wouldn't give my wife a second look.  But I still think she's hot.

Too bad she doesn't think she's hot.

peace,

Max

You said:

"I just wonder why it is that so many people don't seem to be able to get what they need sexually from their permanent relationships."

Although this goes toward a tangent from the original post, I'd like to address that comment of yours.

Frankly, the problem is that North America teaches us to initiate relationships that aren't really fulfilling. The post-Victorian crap about how a marriage is really an economic arrangement, for example; and the movie-based romantic crap about how all you have to do to get the woman of your dreams is stalk her until she relents; the Puritanical view that sex is only appropriate with someone you "love and care for" and that "nice girls don't"; and so forth.

The "system" out there recommends that we engage in relationships with people for whom me might (later) find no compatibilities. But because the sex "isn't supposed to" happen until well after the "commitment" (because experimenting sexually with someone you "hardly know" is deemed inappropriate) it's NO SURPRISE that sexual incompatibilities -- and females who have engaged in very little sexual experimentation at all before commitment and / or marriage -- will crop up in large numbers.

If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, guys, then teach your daughters to fuck early and fuck often. As long as they're doing it with protection, with men who are "safe" (in the sense of, not axe murderers), then THEIR sexual openness will be what creates a world of women willing to SHARE rather than TAKE.

Currently, marriage means a woman gets a lifetime of economic support in exchange for a single act of coitus. What a surprise, that the married men prefer women whose rates are a little lower ... and how few of us, male or female, have actually engaged in a relationship in which the sexuality was spurred by mutual LUST rather than a perceived economic goal at the end of the long road toward engagement? I mean, how many women out there REALLY are turned on SIMPLY by the sight of tight abs or a round butt, and DON'T think in terms of whether or not he's a "good provider"? Biologically, it's POSSIBLE for females to be less economically oriented -- in fact, I'd even say it's probably more NATURAL for them to be less economic and more lustful. But that's not what I see them currently doing ...



-- Modified on 11/23/2002 8:44:58 AM

"As they grow older, women naturally loose [sic] their libido as they near or enter menopause, as well as by the number of children they have."

Although that is the typical understanding, I don't believe it. I do realize that many sexologists claim this is the case, but frankly I think most social scientists of that ilk aren't REALLY basing their conclusions on empirical evidence, since the only manner in which they experiment is by surveying living people from within their own culture.

To the contrary, a quick scan of the cultural history and variety of mankind's love affairs indicates that such a conclusion is probably based more on sexologists' preconceptions, than on the TOTAL BODY of available evidence. You've initiated a cursory scan of historical evidence, but again I feel the interpretation is unduly biased toward our current culture. For example, you've neglected that the courtesan was only accessible to the wealthiest .0001% of the population, and so is rather a moot development. Again and again, outside of the context of studies in the Humanities, people who try to elucidate the human heart come to dead ends whereon their own initial assumptions not surprisingly get reaffirmed. Excellent narratives from mankind's history explain it all -- Ulysses in bed with Calypso, and with Nausicaa, and then back to Penelope amid her twelve suitors -- but tend to be dismissed by the Social Sciences as "fabricated."

I would dismiss the Social Scientists' conclusions as fabricated, based as they are on such limited evidence, and prefer instead generalizations based on the conversations that creative minds, such as Homer's and Dante's, have had for generations through the medium of Humanistic study.

We agree that our current assumptions are dysfunctional, as this whole thread attests. So, I don't disagree with your general point, that there's some kind of problem out there. I do disagree with the specific, though, that it's "in the nature" of the female or the male animal. I think it's possible to bridge the gap, as long as cultural dictates are abandoned and a more "natural" (for lack of a better word) way of relating is allowed.

So, frankly, I don't believe it. There are ways to give women lust, no matter what their age. Men in some cultures know those ways, and understand that it's the men's role to make both partners' lives more lustful, and don't view it as an imposition on their otherwise preferred lifestyle. The women respond in kind. Unfortunately, that's not our current culture.

For me, the single idea I try to keep in mind whenever approaching a female potential partner, is simple. "She likes having her genitals tickled." I don't get into anything any more complex or economic, and because I can remain congruent to that attitude, and ALLOW HER to engage in that attitude as well, more often than not I get to tickle some genitals. It comes largely from ignoring economists and anything I see on the Discovery Channel about how women "really" behave, and remembering a little Shakespeare. Not that I quote the Sonnets at her -- too romantic; sets up all sorts of economic expectations -- but I do keep a few choice points in mind to keep my own tactics well-directed.


-- Modified on 11/23/2002 8:54:07 AM

You sound like a balanced happy guy who's got some issues figured out -- how to separate love from lust, for example. Congrats on a good arrangement so far ...

Because familiarity eventually causes a desire to stray, I conclude categorically that permanent monogamy is not a natural condition for any human. Serial monogamy might be appropriate for some people; serial polygamy or (perhaps) permanent polygamy is more likely a better arrangement for all people.

And yes, by "people" I mean females as well as males. The only thing your friend the Playmate's spouse did wrong, was that after a while he failed to send her back out here among the rest of us so we could have a crack at her.

The time required together to raise a child to a safe age, is about the amount of interest that most humans have in each other from a sexual point of view. Coincidence? I think not ...



-- Modified on 11/23/2002 8:20:04 AM

It all goes along with my theory that long term monogamy was for the pioneer days, when you were too busy trying to keep body and soul together to worry so much about having a really satisfying sex life.  Even if you're into monogamy, I think it only really works to anyone's satisfaction in the fairly short term - serial monogamy.  (I have this other theory that you can get along with almost anybody for about 3 years.)  And then there are some people who don't suit monogamy at all.  We need more flexibility in what we consider as acceptable relationships, to think that "one size fits all" is pretty silly to begin with.  And how to do all that and still create some kind of stable environment to bring up children?

Anyway, I have a lot of ideas on how to improve things, but maybe I should just keep them to myself - after all, if I fixed all the world's problems, I'd be out of a job.

-Anya

That's why paying for sex should be illegal. Who needs the temptation!

providers do this?

but the rational person inside me says "I doubt it", and ends up winning the argument and agreeing with the scientists.  People like you are, however, absolutely necessary!  Otherwise the world would a little too cold a place.

"If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, guys, then teach your daughters to fuck early and fuck often. As long as they're doing it with protection, with men who are "safe" (in the sense of, not axe murderers), then THEIR sexual openness will be what creates a world of women willing to SHARE rather than TAKE."

Well, I'm trying to teach my 3 y/o daughter to enjoy her body.  I have "bath duty" in our house, and I always make sure she puts a bit of soap on her hand and "cleans herself".  She seems to like it a lot.

I haven't yet thought of anything appropriate for when she's older.  Hopefully I'll think of something when the time comes.

peace,

Max

If the women would just realize that their husbands are very attracted to them, life could be better for both husband and wife.

I didn't say anything about scientists. I said derisive things about ...

SOCIAL scientists. Which term is, quite frankly, an oxymoron.

I have no problem with the rational use of the human mind. In fact, most people who know me (or are familiar with my posts) would categorize me as a rather "just the facts ma'am" type of linear, logical thinker. I have taught Latin (as a thinking exercise, cuz heck, how many Romans are dead?), mathematical logic, and methods of research, all at the graduate level. I'm WAY into making two plus two add up to four, the whole four, and nothing but the four (except for large values of two, when you get five).

So, when I cut down the Social Sciences and indicate that I prefer that they leave their subjects alone for the Humanities to investigate, it's not because of some fuzzy luvv for small animals. It's because I've SEEN the IDIOTIC ILLOGICAL MISTAKES that Social Scientists tend to make in allowing their assumptions to confirm their conclusions.

Anthropology that tells us what the Yanomamo Tribe did with their communal farm: good.
Anthropology that concludes that all humans love in a certain way (which, what a surprise, mimics exactly the anthropologists' upbringing! and disagrees with 9/10ths of human history!): bad.
Psychology that discovers the neuro-transmitter or endorphin for orgasm: good (very good!).
Psychology that concludes that humans always interact according to a specific body-language pattern (which, what a surprise, mimics exactly what the psychologist grew up with! and disagrees with 9/10ths of the world's body-language patterns!): bad.
Sociology, Political Science, International Relations, Economics, other "theories" of group behavior that use "empirical evidence" from the 20th Century: nearly always bad.

-- Modified on 11/24/2002 9:12:58 AM

Somewhere in there, for me, I'd suggest letting mommy do it (as long as mommy is open with her body). The childrearing experts say that comfort with nudity around the house, but not exhibitionism, is another good positive way to suggest to little Suzie that it isn't "dirty" down there. And of course, there's always the six-gear full-throttle fuel-injected seven-attachment turbo-whirly-gig Sybian vibrating carburetor-Fuelie whizz-bang ... egg beater ... in the basement.

I agree that most social science is chronocentric crap.  One of the reasons I find Jung and others who look at the connection between mythology and psychology interesting is that they go deeper and look past the 20th century.

"One goes to escorts because the s/o has changed which is because her man has changed".

You hit it right on the head and knocked it out the box. Amen! There is no easy reason, why this happens, but most people always tend to point the finger at the other person before taking that self examination in the mirror of their part in the problem.

"My wife doesn't desire me". Maybe a shower might help before jumping her.

"My wife gained weight after the kids". Oh and that beer belly  you developed is real sexy.

"My wife doesn't get me in the mood". When was the last ime you brought her flowers or treated her like YOUR girl friend. It is not soley her job to set the mood and that is the trap guys fall into with seeing provider's. Its their JOB to set the mood. Emphasis on JOB!

Bottom line, you get out of a relationship what you put into it. And for the guys who know their wife is still attractive, like the previous guy said, YES your wife is getting some on the side as well. The only thing is, they are better at keeping a secret, don't have to pay for it like he stated, and the only way a guy finds out is IF SHE WANTS you to find out. I have 3 "married friends". They make the booty call with me and then go back to hubby who thinks that they were just shopping. So the next time YOU KNOW you messed up, but your wife isn't bitching at you, she probably just came back from her Maintenance Man. (Read the book to find out if you don't know).