Dear Pericles,

Thanks for the information.

It's been one of my favourite poems.

I'll now be able to enjoy it even more.

Dear Philo,

I actually don't spend that much time
in front of the mirror. I'm more focused on
running every morning and evening.

As for multiple-partners or soul-mates?
I guess it's to each his own...

Foxy,

I'll reply here as I've wasted my limit on the other thread, this thread has taken it over, and I've just read

'"One interesting effect of the changing
relationships of the sexes is that the responsibility for a
successful sexual encounter has largely shifted from the female
to the male partner."'

Too true Foxy:-) That's what I am talking about on the other thread that you are arguing against.

'It's going to take decades to re-educate
these men into understanding that their identity is not
based on erections and penetration. And even longer for
them not to pre-judge females for their lack of performance
in this area.'

I think someone's identity is their own, and they can base it on whatever they like. It's a bit twisted and 1984-like to attempt to 're-educate' these men.

'These men need to find out the reasons why their partners are
not being turned on by them. And not blame it on female
repression. The problem may just lie with poor male performance.'

People are responsible for their own sexual enjoyment, and communicating their needs, and if their needs aren't met doing something about it. Part of being an adult really. There is NO reason a male should have to 'find out' the reasons their partners aren't being turned on.

That's why I reject the 'he didn't do enough housework to turn me on' rubbish. Or the being 'used' for sex. If you're not enjoying it, say so and something can be done. You cant be being 'used' if you own your own enjoyment and you're an adult about it. 'used' is a massive flag to me of someone who just doesn't like sex and/or sees it as a tool for manipulation.

Besides, as I again quote Foxy to Foxy,

'Today, Robertson tells us that "frigidity, has all but
disappeared, instead the same problem is more likely to be
labeled as one of poor "performance" by the male."'

Thankyou Foxy. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Dear Houellebecq,

As I've suspected all along you really are a
sweetie. There I go, flirting again.
My apologies... but in the words of Marlene
Dietrich, "Can't help it ..."

Seriously though. Of course it takes both
partners to be involved for the relationship
to succeed,(Two to tango). That's why if something
isn't working - they need to both find out why.
I apologise if I didn't make that clear in my
previous post. And that's why I made that reference
to good communication being a part and parcel of
real intimacy in any relationship.

Anyway, Thanks for all your inputs to date.
All teasing aside, they are appreciated.

Thank you Foxy. I've heard you flirting with the others too. You little floosy.

I've read a constant theme here lately to do with men and sex. One topic equating a man finding sex outside the relationship with rape, and another equating the concept a woman pleasing her man when she's not much in the mood (or a man feeling his wife ought to try to please him sexually at all in a marriage) as some kind of abusive misogyny.

I find it all hard to relate to. What's so offensive to people about compromise and give and take in relationships with people who might have differing libidos?

I just cant understand people who think there is something morally wrong for a woman to ever give a man any pleasure unless she's getting exactly the same or more enjoyment out of it every time. What kind of non give and take, souless, uncompromising relationships do these people live in. I wonder if people with this attitude get any joy in GIVING pleasure to their partner.

Then we could even throw porn into the mix, and assumedly all the men of the world should be happy if they get married, never have sex, never see a hooker, never look at porn...

I think we've turned full circle from when women were expected to get no pleasure out of sex, to where a man is unreasonable to want a healthy sex life in his marriage at all. Yet on the other hand, if there is no sex, it's because the man should 'perform' better, or else do chores or some other task.

As I said, I prefer women be 'sluts' any day. It makes for a fun filled mutually enjoyable sex life in a relationship. Call me a misogynist, but that's important to me.

Houellebecq, "There is NO reason a male should have to 'find out' the reasons their partners aren't being turned on."

I think if a relationship is going to succeed a male should pay attention to that stuff just as a female who finds their partner finds a lot of other thngs to do should try and find out why the pleasure of their company is not as important to their partner as they would like it to be.

We won't always get the answer and when we do we may not like the answers we get but both need to be proactive and willing to learn.

R0bert

Dear Houellebecq,

Ah, yes, the art of flirting with a carefree heart...
Luverly!

Now back to the topic...

As I wrote in mrs pierno's thread - I wonder how honest
posters are really being when they present their opinions
on OLO?
I too can't believe that some of them are as "hard-nosed,"
as they claim to be. They couldn't be, when it comes right
down to it - especially in relationships, or else they'd
end up frustrated and alone. With no one to blame but
themselves. Sex is such a personal thing anyway. There's
got to be flexibility to make anything a success in life.
But especially when it comes to relationships - we're all
vunerable. Robert nailed it when he pointed out that BOTH
parties need to be pro-active and willing to learn.

Yes, definitely!