[WildChild]

Thank you for your response! I've found repeatedly that doctors are reluctant to place responsiblity for health on people. For example, I have a VCD and had figured out for myself (the medical community got it some years later) that it wasn't responsive to asthma medication (I don't have asthma). A few years back I met with a speach therapist, was evaluated and got soft palet and throat exersizes, which have virtually elimintated the problem. About the same time I became aware that I had mild apnea. Chemical sensitivities prohibited my having a sleep test (the gels used with the sensors were a problem) So I started researching and contacted my doctor. I told him based on my research that it seemed if I dropped some weight and did these soft palet exersizes that it should resolve the apnea. He said, yes it would. When asked why he hadn't presented that as a solution instead of expensive tests and sleeping with a mask and machine for life, he told me that no one would do it. I said, "Watch me". I took up running, dropped over 40 lbs, did my funny exersizes and no longer have apnea.

Apnea may well be a significant factor for a number of sexual disfunctions as well. Sleep deprivation messes up just about everything. You are right that as a society we tend to want the magic pill. Generally our health hasn't gotten messed up overnight and won't be corrected overnight either. There again, attitude is a factor. We have to own our bodies and our health and take responsibity for them. We can't abdicate. The ongoing research into the how the brain works and interacts with the body is facinating. I believe that in 20 years we will look back at what is done for many treatments now and just shake our heads in disbelief and horror. Technology and pharmacutical intervention cannot take the place of common sense and healthy living but should augment it when needed, not replace it.

Thank you for taking the time to put all this info together. Did you have fun doing your research?

[Guest]

Did you have fun doing your research?

Bwahahaah.. Ooooooh yes

[WildChild]

That's just simplifying things, but i hope to make clear how it is of paramount importance for a man to feel his woman is SEXUALLY SATISFIED by him before he can feel comfortable. In fact, a man's concern about his woman's sexuality is one his most primary worries -

As much as i would describe myself as a "feminist" ultra-liberal indivdual, when i had my issues, it was impossible for me to control my emotions. I rationalised that it was my natural hormonal cycles, that it doesn't say anything about me as a person, that there's more to life than sex - but despite trying to overcome my "ego", i couldn't control the fact that i woke up every day with this wierd resentment of my girlfriend and her high sex drive.

It's not something i could talk about either and confronting my gf's drive and talking to her about it just makes it worse - acknowledging a handicap that you deep down feel you're unable to control. Feeling like half a man, inadquate, low sense of self-worth, that nothing can pull you out of.

Oh, except all the drugs listed above. ****s like magic. Helps you conform to social norms and feel good about yourself! Mmmmmmm!!!!

Interesting observations, but why then do so many men, instead of learning a woman's body and to pleasure her - with or without intercourse - simply resort to withholding sex or affection, blaming her and adding to the general misery? Logically if your biological imperative is to ensure that your efforts are going to the support of your progeny through a stable relationship, making an effort to keep the woman in your life happy would make the most sense. That doesn't necessarily require that a man be constantly in rut but rather that the woman's need for closeness, affection and appreciation be met and that sex when it occurs provides a deep level of satisfaction. As a woman with a high sex drive, I know that I can be satisfied with less sex if I get more affection and feel loved and cared about. Self pleasuring will provide orgasm but it isn't emotionally satisfying. Too often from men the message is clear that sex is affection and if they can't perform for some reason there will be no other affection or caring. This is emotionally devistating to women and can cause them to disconnect emotionally from the man and the relationship or it will bring deep feelings of insecurity and unlovablity for the woman. Somewhere along the line this negative cycle has to be broken for a relationship to be what both need.

[Guest]

Interesting observations, but why then do so many men, instead of learning a woman's body and to pleasure her - with or without intercourse - simply resort to withholding sex or affection, blaming her and adding to the general misery? Logically if your biological imperative is to ensure that your efforts are going to the support of your progeny through a stable relationship, making an effort to keep the woman in your life happy would make the most sense. That doesn't necessarily require that a man be constantly in rut but rather that the woman's need for closeness, affection and appreciation be met and that sex when it occurs provides a deep level of satisfaction. As a woman with a high sex drive, I know that I can be satisfied with less sex if I get more affection and feel loved and cared about. Self pleasuring will provide orgasm but it isn't emotionally satisfying. Too often from men the message is clear that sex is affection and if they can't perform for some reason there will be no other affection or caring. This is emotionally devistating to women and can cause them to disconnect emotionally from the man and the relationship or it will bring deep feelings of insecurity and unlovablity for the woman. Somewhere along the line this negative cycle has to be broken for a relationship to be what both need.

Yes, but the body is built with "ego defence mechanisms". Depression is a defence mechanism. At a sub-concious level the mind is contantly "pinging" in social situations attempting to gather information on the persons social worth. Being paralysed by shyness, for example, is also an ego defence mechanism. The ego's overriding imperative (and i use ego loosely) is to create self-worth and self-preservation. It doesn't react rationally or how you think it should. Especially in situations where it reasons it is helpless. As i said, being able to sexually satisfy his woman is a prime imperative for the way a man thinks of himself. Ego defences means he would rather avoid the situation that deal with something that leads him to challenge his self-perception.

In my situation, when i had my "issues" i broke it off with my girlfriend who absolutely adored me. Rash and stupid now that i think about it, but at the time its the only way i could deal with it. I remember the conversation (and i only print this to give you an insight into the male mind):

"i can't handle you anymore."

"why?"

"Because i care too much about what you think of me. You've made me feel good about myself, and i'm attached to it. If you were just some girl it'd be different, but i feel vulnerable with you. I don't like it. If you thought less of me it would break my heart. And right now i'm spending too much time worried about how you do see me. I'm also feeling possessive and hopelessly inadequate. I can't be in a relationship like that, and your pity only makes me feel more insecure and inadequate."

Commence several weeks of loneliness crying in a corner and reflecting on the nature of manhood whilst reading Hemingway. Hehehe. All in da past tho. Get out bigger and stronger.

Actually, interesting you say that "cuddles" are a substitute for sex. I remember the worst thing my gf at the time said to me on her birthday when i couldn't get the motivation to rail her: "I think i should focus on nurturing rather than the whole sex thing". That was painful to hear. I dont agree with you. Sexual satiation is important in its own right, above and beyond emotional fulfillment. All i could think was that she'll stay with me for some emotional fix and get her rocks off somewhere else. NOT COOL.

[Guest]

speaking of ego defence mechanisms. One technique i used when trying to get my game up to scratch with various girls without getting emotionally attached was to label all girls "practice girls" hehe. I know that's bad, shows you the lengths a dude will go to

"It's ok, she's just a practice girl" "it doesn't matter, she's just a practice girl"

ya.

[WildChild]

As i said, being able to sexually satisfy his woman is a prime imperative for the way a man thinks of himself. Ego defences means he would rather avoid the situation that deal with something that leads him to challenge his self-perception.

Actually, interesting you say that "cuddles" are a substitute for sex. I remember the worst thing my gf at the time said to me on her birthday when i couldn't get the motivation to rail her: "I think i should focus on nurturing rather than the whole sex thing". That was painful to hear. I dont agree with you. Sexual satiation is important in its own right, above and beyond emotional fulfillment. All i could think was that she'll stay with me for some emotional fix and get her rocks off somewhere else. NOT COOL.

Your response is interesting, particularly the idea that a man prefers to avoid changing his behavior to what may be more effective because it challenges his self perception. You pick this up again in your last statement. I would point out that I didn't say "cuddles" (not a word I used) are a substitute for sex. Not at all. What I did say was, "I can be satisfied with less sex if I get more affection and feel loved and cared about. Self pleasuring will provide orgasm but it isn't emotionally satisfying. " Which is quite a different thing. A balanced relationship should provide for both persons fulfillment sexually and emotionally. Leaving out one or the other creates problems.

Yes, sexual satiation is important but it is not above and beyond emotional fulfillment. Not by any means. Empty sex is just that - empty. It's just about getting your rocks off, it fills a physical need and leaves a gapping emotional hole. For women at least, it can be very hurtful and damaging (I think ultimately for men too). The most amazing, purely physical sex in the world won't do for a woman, over an extended period of time, what ordinary sex with a man she feels a deep emotional connection with will do. The levels of satisfaction just don't compare.

You've put into words what I have probably been dealing with in a relationship. It started out amazingly. Probably the most intense feeling I've ever had for a man or from one and then the defense mechanisms kicked in and the old scripts came into play and it has become an emotional and sexual minefield. I'm giving it a last effort but will probably have to walk away from it before it destroys me emotionally and/or sexually. It's really a shame - we could have had it all - phenomenal sex and the emotional/intelectual, but he shut it down and reduced it to empty, infrequent sex and a sort of freindship. He's not letting it go but is purposefully holding back what I need.

Your last sentence shows you've got it (or had it - don't know where you are now) backwards...A woman who's emotional needs aren't being met is more likely to look elsewhere than one who's sexual needs aren't being met. Maybe you are assigning "male" thinking to women or just your thinking but I believe I reflect the feelings of the majority of women with this.

Reading Hemmingway made me laugh. Resorting to the hyper macho writing of a latent homosexual to ease your loneliness, sooth your wounds and reflect on the nature of manhood is amusing! Maybe you'd be better off with John Grey though in terms of developing a functional relationship -LOL.

Men's and women's expectations of each other have and are changing. It can be exciting and hold the potential for both to have much happier, more satisfying lives but it does require a different type of interaction and we may be a while sorting that out.