This has been a great string for me since I found out more about myself. I have been married to two beautiful women. When we weren’t wrangling my first wife and I produced three great children who are all now middle aged and leading worthwhile lives.

About ten years after I split from my first marriage I met my second wife in Cambridge where we were both attending a conference. It was a very romantic meeting. She was living in Norway, and I was living in the US. Eventually she came to the US, and we got married. We got into the same sort of wrangling pattern that I had with my first wife.

Then my mother died. When she died all my anger seemed to go in the grave with her. I realized what I was angry at and have been more or less at peace ever since. My marriage became tremendously happy, and every day is like a honeymoon some 27 years after we first met.

I am now in Australia because my wife was born and grew up here and went to Europe after university. She wanted to come home after I retired in 1987.

I realize now that had the situation been reversed and I had met my second wife when I met my first and the first when I met the second I would probably be living happily with the first and divorced from the second. The change was in me. However, the resulting children would quite likely not be as great.

Thank you, Mrs. Pierno, whoever you are.

[cont]

Despite Maximillion's overemphasis on genetic aspects of maleness, I think that he makes a salient point about marriage. I think that the institution itself retains elements of the kind of economic exchange for sex that some guys apprently still think is normal, such that it's easy for disaffected husbands to become resentful that they're not getting their part of the intrinsic bargain when their wives don't put out for them on demand.

I don't think it's a coincidence that by far the best relationship I've had (and I've been married and divorced twice) is the one I'm in now, where we considered getting married but rejected it - precisely because of the many implicit negative aspects of what ultimately is a contract between two people, in our society at least.

Max,
Cutting and pasting my comments as you have done takes that part of what I say out of context then you seem to comment on something that was neither implied nor explained. In short is not related to what I said except as either a miscommunication or a misunderstanding. I would suggest that words are meaningless like event if taken out of their original context. Specifically I didn’t advocate anything other than the topic of sex generates more heat than light and in the context of the original post over emphasised.
In the next topic by foxy the issue was double standards a whole other issue.

As I have said or tried to indicate that there are certainly studies that address nurture V nature. It has been demonstrated several times both anthropologically and psychologically that nurture is the dominant part of attitudes (60% depending on many fators). I gave examples from archaeological sources etc in the other topic.

I have seen cultures where multi partnered sex is the norm even amongst committed couples. The only logical conclusion in the context of Ms P is that the most elemental issues in a marriage are those related to companionship.
Simply put one can have sex without companionship. One can have a good marriage without sex but not companionship. I did not say sex isn’t an important issue but lets not focus too much on what is an important but periferal issue lest we swamp the companionship, as I submited is the more important.

*unless or until we stop denying genetic influences, we will fail in this.*

Exactly Max, but the pendulum has swung so far to focus on womans
needs and wants, that alot of well meaning and caring guys are
being clean forgotten. Its all on womens terms, never mind a fair
and reasonable balance here.

CJ, I think you are contradicting yourself here. Go and read your
own post about your wife's lack of sexuality and why you suspect
her relationships since have broken down. Next you are accusing
men who complain about the same thing, that men want women
to "put out on demand".

Clearly you don't think its unreasonable for people to expect
sex to be apart of a married relationship, otherwise they
might as well stay single.

My point once again is that if women want men to be understanding
of women and their needs, how understanding are SOME women of
men's needs?

I put it to you that some women are in fact quite selfish. They
want the security of marriage, they want the paycheck, they want
the kids (there is a genetic drive there after all), they want
the house, but when it comes to hubby's needs, they simply can't
be bothered. Lack of female libido after the kids have arrived,
seems to be a fairly common problem, as Bettina Arndt has established.

All that Arnd't is saying is that women don't have to be seen as
downtrodden victims, if they say yes occasionally, even if they
start off not being in the mood. Fair enough.

Pericles, I think you've nailed it. I would just add that many people simply pay too much attention to the topic and it’s often just a scapegoat for deeper issues. Emotions certainly don’t always seem logical but as we gain wisdom what we do about our emotions should be. Yes this is not how many people act all the time.
Of course there are those who fly kites, play mind games etc we are all people and this isn’t group therapy. I join in for the mental exercise in learning, new perspectives and having my IDEAS rebuffed/challenged to whereby I need to re think them all of which I welcome. However when we get into the area of emotional discourse things tends to become somewhat more tenuous. Highly emotive topics like this one can get away and do more harm than good.
Hence my aversion to hard core personal attacks as a method of making a point with a preference for the more logical if removed approach.

I agree with examinator. Sex is an important part
of a relationship - but its only a part - not the
entire relationship. In relationships - it is
the individual connection that matters. You've both
got to work out what's important to you, to make
that relationship work. That's why I brought up the
importance of good communication. Tell each other what
you want. Each of us is different, with different needs,
wants, and desires. What works for some, may not work for
others. We're all individuals. There are some men with
very strong sex drives. Yet there are some men whose
sex drives are not that strong. The same can be said about
women. Some have strong sex drives, some don't. We're not
all the same. Unfortunately, if the wrong two, pair up -
and don't communicate - it can be a case for disaster -
as happened with mrs pierno. A mismatch, by the sound of
it. Good communication was obviously lacking in their
relationship. Either that, or different needs, wants, and
desires, were so large that they couldn't be overcome.

We aren't in a position to judge - but as I said earlier,
blaming others for the marriage problems - in this case -
prostitutes - won't solve anything, but will hinder mrs
p. from moving on. As CJ mentioned earlier - age,
may have
been a factor (although, I suspect it wasn't - "If he dies,
he dies..."). It could simply have been "an itch that couldn't be
scratched" on the husband's side (variety - being the spice
of life for him). Some things in life - you have to simply
chalk up to being out of your control - (change what you can,
and can what you can't)...

I'll end on a lighter note...He said, she said.

He said: "Babe, since I first laid eyes on you I've
wanted to make love to you in the worst way."

She said: "Well darling, you have succeeded!"