[Something_Awesome]

I read something a couple days ago on this forum that gave me a very curious itch, an itch that I finally decided to scratch yesterday. It was something Raindancer said in another topic. She said:

The most effective way to deal temporarily with libido issues for a woman is changing partners.

To me, that is a VERY bold statement/piece of advice she directed at another member on this forum. What really got to me was that I knew she was being honest by what she said. In other words, she genuinely meant what she said and she seemed to be in the know that libido issues by women could be addressed by changing partners. Her recommendation probably also suggests that libido issues in women are more psychological than physiological (I know, that is not new information for a lot of us). With men, libido issues are addressed by blood flow so our issues are more physiological than psychological (duh).

I know we have a lot of smart cookies here on this forum, and being aware of that, I would not start this topic if I did not think that there was something to gain from this for at least some members here (what I am posting about sort of challenges conventional wisdom). So if you'll indulge me, I'd like to discuss that "itch" that I scratched, what I learned from it, and how it's sort of changed my views on certain things.

I did some research about women with how monogamy and libido tie in (or don't tie in) together, and WOW! A lot of experts/scholars explain that studies have shown that a woman's libido crashes in long-term relationships. They lose their desire to initiate sex or to have sex with their partners. To put it another way, long-term relationships are sexually unhealthy for women because it causes sexual dysfunction. But I guess whether a long-term relationship is healthy for a woman or not depends on what your definition of a long-term relationship is. To some people a long-term relationship does not need to be a monogamous one. So in that case, a long-term relationship can be healthy (according to the experts/scholars/scientists/whomever), I guess.

The articles I read explain that women get bored much faster than men in long-term relationships. That's the reason that a woman's libido crashes. The studies referenced in one of the articles flat out said that women are far more likely to lose interest in sex with their partners than men are. Experts say that men actually have a much easier time remaining monogamous than women (a contradiction to what society has taught us).

BTW, this is not an anti-woman post (I am worried it's starting to sound like one), this is just me posting what I've learned (or at least my interpretation of the information I've read).

Now a reasonable reaction to all this might be to call it all bullcrap because, historically, women have committed to monogamy better than men. Well, that's a byproduct of women's libido taking a nose-dive in a monogamous long-term relationship. It's the losing desire to have sex that keeps a lot of women monogamous (according to what I've read). It's having sex with someone who is not the woman's long-term partner that can kick-start the libido (as suggested by Raindancer).

One of the studies that was referenced was one that suggested that women are much more turned on by fantasies of sex with strangers than friends (likely because the idea of being with a stranger adds novelty to the experience). Maybe this whole "monogamy struggle" also has something to do with the popular view that all women are, to a degree, bi-sexual. The idea that sleeping with different people and different genders is just another way to keep things fresh, to keep things novel.

And get this, there is a pill getting developed called Lybrido (why do I get the feeling that everyone knows of this already and that I'm late to the party) which is meant to "restore" a woman's desire for her partner. According to those who are developing it, the pill "will not work if the cause for reduced sexual desire is stress, fatigue, or an inattentive partner." The point is, that the fact the pill will work for those women who are no longer "sensitive" to the cues of their partner means that monogamy killing a woman's sex drive is actually a thing (that's a little discouraging IMO).

To me, all this makes sense I guess. Often, when women "cheat," you hear that it's because there wasn't a "spark" anymore with their current partner, or that their life was missing excitement etc. Furthermore, I hear all the time about people that swing and how when they have sex with each other it is still great (I guess it's because the woman is not just having sex with their long-term partner; they are keeping it novel by sleeping with other people too). My GF told me that her ex-fiancé's parents in Brazil do a lot of swinging and that, get this, they are also quite involved in their church. I wonder... Is all this is evidence that monogamy is unnatural? I always felt that there had to be a degree of naturality to monogamy because of the kid-raising aspect of it all, but I guess not.

I think my take away is that to keep my long-term partner interested in me, novelty will be key (aside from the obvious, like not stressing her out). However, things can only be kept novel for so long. Some of you may have read a couple of my posts about some novel things my GF and I tried, and I noticed her libido did sky-rocket (though her libido has always been extremely high), but eventually everyone runs out of tricks. I am not saying that my GF/eventual wife is bound to cheat on me, I am just saying that it would royally suck if her libido took a nose dive. Nobody wants their partner to lose interest in sex with them.

My GF would never cheat on me, in part because of her values and because she knows what cheating can do to people. My GF walked in on her fiance cheating on her and she found out not too long ago that her dad, who was a well known pastor, has cheated on his wife (honestly, that he was a pastor AND cheated sort of rubs me the wrong way).

This brings me to another point. I once posted on here saying that if someone cheated on me (I have never been cheated on to my knowledge) the relationship would be over in a heart beat. Some argued against my stance. They said that the circumstances matter before deciding to breakup. Like, what if your partner was drunk and unknowingly cheated? I don't know. My GF has a very high sex drive and she is nowhere near her peak yet, and I guess if she got bored (which, as I've just been made aware, may have to do with her psychological wiring) would I really be able to blame her if she acted out on that boredom and "cheated"? Should I expect her to do something as "unnatural" as remaining monogamous if it is sexually unhealthy for her? Also, if her cheating reignited her sexual spark with me (assuming we lost it), should I even complain? These questions are philosophical and I don't expect her to cheat, or even to ever suggest we have an open relationship (but I guess anything is possible). She'd get jealous, and while I'm not the jealous type, I'd get jealous.

I want to add that I am an extremely secure guy (at least when it comes to my GF being around other guys). I do not feel threatened by any guy that would make a move on her. Actually, I don't even mind it when a guy hits on my GF. Once in a blue moon my GF will even point out a guy she thinks is cute and I will say if I approve of her taste or not. I'll sometimes even ask what she likes most about the guy. Often times I will say that I do not agree with her opinion (not out of insecurity but because the guy just isn't good enough). Sometimes I will say that her taste in men sucks (this is always good for a laugh because she never knows how to respond since it's coming from another guy who is also her BF). The point is that if my GF says another guy is a good looking guy, I still don't feel insecure. I actually turn it into a conversation. With that being said, this whole "women struggling with monogamy" thing actually got me feeling just a bit butt-hurt, or, jealous? I'm not sure what to call it.

To be honest, I think I may have known all this in the back of my head all along and that this is just the first time it all "clicked" together, or it's the first time that the information was presented to me in a coherent manner. In the beginning, reading everything about women and monogamy was a little uncomfortable and caused a little bit of butt-hurtedness, but in the end I feel like all it does is make me doubt wanting to be monogamous.

It's funny, if you asked me how many partners I've had in the last four years, I would say one (my GF and I have been together for four years). Now if you changed how you phrased the question and instead asked me how many partners I've had since I was 26 (I am 30 years old now), I'd say one. Like, OMFG one partner since 26!? Are you kidding me!?

Having only one partner since I was 26 makes me sound like I've really missed out on the best part of my life. But when I really think about it, I do not think I could handle seeing more than one woman at the same time. I also like having an emotional bond. So I guess then the way to resolve that kind of problem for people like me is to stay committed to one person and, once I get bored, just move on to someone else on a whim. Maybe one year here, 6 months there, and another 2 years with someone else, whatever.

One last thing. While researching/reading up on the above, I also learned that having sex with socks on is better. Some Dutch scientists ran brain scans on people when genitals were being stimulated with socks on and off and found that both men and women had an easier time reaching climax with socks on (especially women). The rationale is that the socks helped add just a bit more to the comfort/relaxation side of things. So keep your socks on!

[atskitty2]

I don't take issue with this concept in general, but I do take issue with this statement: "long-term relationships are sexually unhealthy for women because it causes sexual dysfunction" from your 5th paragraph.
There are far to many factors to consider in whether long term relationships have less satisfying sex lives, or whether the relationship itself is unhealthy, bringing about the sexual dysfunction. Then, consider the natural sex drive of a person, the learned behavior & expectations of each mate, the religious, cultural & social norm within their group...etc.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that humans are not monogamous naturally, that we became this way by all these cultural influences, but I also think it's not unreasonable to believe we are at our best & most fulfilled in healthy, monogamous relationships. Bottom line for me, we just don't know. I think there's evidence & research to support what ever belief you choose to hold.
Personally, I am built for a monogamous relationship.

[Magnetism]

I have lost sexual interest in long term relationships before, but I think other factors were involved (communication issues, arguments, or just being with the wrong person). I think evolution can support a woman's non monogamous nature, because you may be looking for the next better partner. For my personality, I do feel monogamy is best. I would rather just focus on one partner, than absorb other partner's energies. once I found one partner, I don't want to try hard to find someone else I'm attracted to. Polyamory and swinging would be no different than a single person trying to find the right match for me. I have to assess whether I feel chemistry and whether im compatible.

[effy2014]

I have never believed that we humans, by evolution, are predisposed for or against monogamy. I do believe that, in a healthy loving relationship, there is nothing better than monogamy.

All of the issues raised by the "studies" can easily be explained by failed relationships, not the need to randomly change partners to keep a woman's interest. As so many of our posters have shown (and I have proven in my own life), we are not particularly good at selecting lifetime partners -- especially when we are young. Qualities that excite a 20 something woman tend to be characteristics that seem either unimportant or irritating to a 40 something woman after having children and a career. We often don't even know the qualities we need in a partner until we age and then find we are horribly mismatched. In my own life, it was only after 18 months of therapy that I realized what I needed to be happy.

So it is not a great surprise that people, both men and women labor in long term relationships. Women tend to shut down sexually when they are unhappy. Thus, the statement that changing partners is a way to cure a libido issue is certainly true -- and a reason that the divorce rate is so high. I am not convinced that this means inviting others into the bedroom of a married couple. Why would a temporary change ignite an already crumbling relationship. The OP in that thread was a chronically unemployed male whose wife just didn't want him anymore. To me, changing partners means finding a more satisfying relationship.

I think couples can maintain a satisfying monogamous sex life if they can keep a satisfying relationship. For a man, that usually means to stay present in the relationship, express appreciation, communicate your feelings and understand how relationship communication works, be romantic and attentive, learn to be a giving and caring lover and, for goodness sake, listen to all the cues that are are dropped on a daily basis. SA, you have a wonderful woman. You are a very giving and sensitive man. SAGF will not need a new man every few years if you keep reinventing yourself to be the man she needs at different stages of her life.

[kira]

Pretty much all the older people I know who have stayed in marriage have no sex life anymore. Some don't even sleep in the same bed but they seem to have a good relationship otherwise. They aren't unhappy with their lack of sex or lack of close physical contact. I wonder if that is cultural as well. It's stressed to them more that they should remain married than that they should pursue a more sexually fulfilling relationship or maybe just that sex is not as important. Maybe they just don't actually need that much sex. I've been in relationships where for no physical reason my sex drive went away and we were hanging out more as friends who live together and shared a bed. It wasn't a horrible relationship to do that. Eventually I did move on but most of the time not for lack of sex. Yet I just can't imagine ending up in those long term marriages that lose all sex drive like my mom's generation.

My sister has a huge problem with this. She cannot stay with a guy. She gets sexually bored and ends up doing something bad like after finally getting with her best friend she has had for nearly her entire life she then cheated on him with the foreign exchange student. For 2 years she planned a wedding with a guy she was living with at college but when it came down to the wedding she realized she was no longer interested. Most likely the excitement of a wedding kept her going for longer with that guy than normal for her. Then she truly thought about spending her life with just him. Now she has a new boyfriend about yearly. We always thought she would be the one to get married and have kids but she can't seem to find an engaging long term relationship.

I ended up married first but I solved that one by both of us agreeing to an open marriage and no kids. Sometimes it is tough. I got a bit upset when I found he was talking to someone about doing all sorts of things he never talked to me about trying first. Now we are exploring anal which I never thought I would do. I wonder though if anal will be required every time we have sex to keep things interesting. I don't know what is going to happen. Our 5 year anniversary was in Aug so we're kind of inbetween what people consider a new marriage and a long term marriage.

[raindancer]

Something_Awesome,

you've done something truly awesome: you went out there and looked for peer reviewed information.

So often people can't see beyond their own experiences, or some belief. Surely, some things may work for me, or you. But information is power. Why not get an interest for what science has found about some subject? And keep reading, because the more we study, the more we learn. That's the beauty of science. It isn't some truth one will be burned for disagreeing with. It is forever changing, because we're forever making it better, adding new results, improving our knowledge.

Something_Awesome, all women aren't bi, just like all men aren't bi. Did you read this in some paper? If so, I'd love to get that reference.
______________________

I'd like to share some random ideas. Outliers do exist, but I won't be talking about them.

For men, both the reproductive and the pleasure organs are the same/together. The penis is the conduit for sperm and its stimulation also gives pleasure. If it wasn't so, men wouldn't make the effort to procreate. Unless not till the newer parts of our brains developed. In women, reproductive organs are separate from pleasure organs. From embryology and anatomy studies one can see the clear separation between the vagina/uterus/etc organs (reproductive organs), and the "pleasure" organ: the clitoris, which is a underdeveloped/atrophied penis.

For evolutionary purposes, women don't need to feel pleasure. Women would only have sex for reproduction, then. Men, on the other hand, have sex for reproduction, but also for pleasure. Women would have sex forced upon themselves, or would agree to it to pleasure their men, to keep him around.

Then women learned to have pleasure by the stimulation of their atrophied penis: the clitoris. But that has always been "seen" as something to be rather embarrassed about. We "should" have pleasure from "intercourse". If we don't, there is surely something wrong with us. What is rather an exception, and I repeat, from an embryological and anatomical point of view, is seen as what should be the rule! That means a lot of hang ups from women about their sexuality.

In parallel: women know who their offspring are. Men can't be sure. One way to control it is to impose monogamy. Again, that's a "need" linked to reproduction, not with pleasure. And it is a male need, not a female one. With the years, that became ingrained. We don't question it anymore. Some do, but we're rather outliers, and I said I wouldn't talk about outliers.

Men have also some hang ups with things determined by nature/evolution. It is advantageous for a male to ejaculate fast. Premature, or, say, quick ejaculation is good for reproduction. He gets his seed there before she runs away, before another male attacks him, etc. Nowadays, men with PE are self conscious. It's a change in priorities. Truth is, we do very little sex for reproduction, nowadays. And we both have our struggles to make it work for pleasure purposes alone.

Only for reproduction, males don't need to stick around one particular female. Surely, it'd be good to protect offspring, but if he could reproduce more, problem solved.

I don't know how it got forgotten, but while women were expected to be loyal to one men, men have always been jumping around and that was accepted, expected, even. Exclusive relationships were expected only from women. There are so many things done to repress female sexuality. Nowadays there is still mutilation of clitoris. Anything goes when it comes to control female desire. That's always a male need, not a female one.
_______
Some people choose to accept rather platonic relationships with their spouses. Some people choose to accept one should bear the lack of libido, of desire.

I want to give my opinion about it, but I'm really not trying to make anyone change. I'm just sharing thoughts and opinions. I find it all amazing, but that's just me. If I knew somebody I love was missing out on something as special as sex, and if I knew there was a way to make him/her enjoy that part of him again, I'd do whatever it'd take. I'm not talking to anyone in particular. But there are so many of those posts about women and libido issues. And men in sexless marriages. I wouldn't let petty jealousy stand in his/her way. Or social conventions, such as monogamy, something completely artificial. If there was something between consenting adults that could help him/her, we'd at least give it a good try.

I wouldn't want him/her settle for the rest of good things in life. If his/her libido needed a push, I'd help him/her get that push. I'd encourage him/her to seek it, wherever it was. I see it as a main feature of being best friends, as well as lovers. I'd want him/her to get 100%. And I would be disappointed in him/her if he/she didn't feel the same way about me and my needs.

We only live once. And life is very short.

[Something_Awesome]

I really appreciate and like everyone's responses. I want to actually respond but I think I still need to process what I've read and I am pressed for time. I think everyone's post so far has had at least one interesting point. Will try to respond tomorrow morning.

Just wanted to let you guys know that I've been checking back and reading and glad to know WH is still kicking!

[LilahX]

We all know that the initial 'zing' we have at the start of a r/ship eventually cools down and if the r/ship is based on more than just sex then it settles down into something more 'comfortable' rather than 'exciting'. I think a large part of the cheating problem is that people (male and female) crave that 'zing' and know they will get it in a new liaison. That excitement, that anticipation.

While I do tend to believe that both men and women aren't really 'wired for monogamy', I also believe that if you understand that and know that eventually a lull in desire is inevitable you can work towards ensuring that you deal with it. My partner and I are swingers and therefore have the benefit of 'sex with strangers' or 'sex with someone new' while maintaining (and actually strengthening) our relationship. We don't hurt anyone by cheating and get to fullfill the desire to bed others - while sharing the experience and growing through the experience.

Thanks for an interesting topic.

[atskitty2]

Still waiting for SA's comments...

[Something_Awesome]

I know... In the process of sueing somebody and I've been out of it. It's almost 3 am and I'm still up. I am going to know by tomorrow morning if I am going to sue officially over something that happened recently. I'd say it is 50/50. It's Thanksgiving and yet I am going to spend my morning tomorrow to explain to some moron why it would be in their best interest to not go to court when they have no flippin' case.

It's nothing major. Just relating to money. Two other business are involved and one of them won't budge. We'll see what the other says tomorrow. I mean, I'm going to win, it's jusy a matter of who pays.