You can do that . . . but it's hard to do, said the priest.

**************************************

The Catholic Church teaches that the discipline of it's Natural Family Planning method can increase marital intimacy and bonding while reducing the chance of unintended pregnancy.

To us it seemed obvious that the ancient, fun, sexy, kinky, and even wild yet, highly disciplined, non-ejaculative, bonding practices that have been known and taught in Tantra for centuries would work perfectly to enhance Natural Family Planning techniques.  Instead of total abstinence, a couple could still share loving marital embrace at any time of month so long as the husband disciplined himself to save his ejaculation for the less fertile times of month.  (Yes, there might be potential pregnancy from sperm in the pre-cum, but not everyone pre-cums, and not every time, and not all pre-cum contains sperm, and there's certainly less sperm in pre-cum than in a full release.)

Easterners discovered long ago that prolonged intercourse without ejaculation seems to raise the male's energy level and sense of vitality while the temporary discomfort of "blue balls" passes, transforming into a pleasurable, almost ecstatic and very loving high.   (Tantra uses different language than I do here.)

For a Church that teaches that the closest and most bonding marital intimacy requires both openness to life, and discipline, something like the Tantric energy building practices would seem a match made in Heaven. 

Why, we wondered, hadn't anyone thought of this before?

As usual, a bit of research shot my arrogance down.  At least twice in the last 200 years the Catholic Church looked into and debated such bonding practices under the names of Amplexux Reservatus (Reserved Embrace) and Karezza (Italian for caress.)  

While the Church never officially (to the best of my knowledge) condemned the practice, it did condemn certain individuals and publications which were teaching and trying to popularize the practice.  Why would the Church try to prevent people from teaching a technique that would seem to be so in line with it's own theology?

******************************************

Duh!  Like the priest said, it's hard to do.  Most of us guys just want our squirt.  We aren't all that interested in learning a discipline that will bond us more closely to our spouse and make us feel good in the long term at the expense of our short term pleasure. 

Most of us won't even go to the gym.

It's a pretty fair bet that if the Church taught 1000 couples about "the reserved embrace," they'd wind up with 998 unwanted children and a whole lot of "spilled seed" - Catholic teaching says that it's sinful for a man to "spill his seed" outside of his wife.

It's safer to just give the wife a fair amount of control in saying "no" when she might be fertile.  In general wives are pretty good at saying "no."  That aspect of human nature can be counted on for a statistical reduction in potential pregnancies.

So, all in all, my respect for the Catholic Church just went up another notch.   The system allows for intense, advanced practices like "building energy," for those who are up to the effort, meanwhile it teaches a basic, practical, fairly effective method for the rest of us.  Just say no, or cheat and use birth control.
 
*********************************

If you managed to read this weighty entry, in an obscure blog, hidden in a remote backwater of the internet, maybe you are cursed / blessed to seek something better rather than settle for "good enough."  Nonetheless, The Church, I think, is right.  We shouldn't torment / trouble our more contented brothers and sisters.  We find what works for us, and we reconcile our practice to our theology, but we can't expect that what works for us will work for all. 

That said, the dungeon, too, is an interesting place that plays with marriage-type relationships, and often with control of the male ejaculation.  There are lessons to be learned there.  But . . .

His drop dead gorgeous wife of 20 years worked the room while he talked to me, his matronly wife of 10 years sat demurely at his side offering helpful thoughts.  His newest wife was away on business but wished she could be attending. 

During our conversation, his oldest love seduced, for him, the prettiest young woman in the crowd, a curious lass eager to experience the cutting, whipping, burning, suffocation and other pain / pleasure he so famously shares with those lucky enough to get a few hours of his playtime. 

They negotiated boundaries for the night.  Boundaries that invited him to take her to places that most of us have never imagined and fewer will ever visit.

************************************************************************** 

He appears to be a man living beyond the wildest extremes of male fantasy.  Nubile young women competing for the chance to submit themselves to the most perverse and painful of his whims.  Adoring wives eager to see him find pleasure, even with another.   How does one man wind up with many women while the rest of us can barely hold onto one and are, more often than not, left home alone with our beer, porn, and hand lotion?

**************************************************************************

He talked about communication, doing dishes, keeping things tidy, watching the kids, scheduling, shopping, celebrating special occasions, cooking, nursing those who got sick, healing those who got hurt, protecting, loving, listening, nurturing . . .

Want better sex?  Take a lesson from the dark side.  Pick up your socks without being told,  quit whining and love the girl.  Really love her, listen to her, know her and make her life easy but interesting.

If there is a road that leads to marital bliss, compromises are the dead end wrong turns along the way.  When we compromise, neither gets what he really desires.  When we compromise, we fail to acknowledge the truth that our partner may be trying to expose us to.  When we compromise, we may be selling short our own wisdom.  Far better, to lovingly engage until we grow into the point where we are guided to abandon errors and embrace wisdom, whether our own or our partners. 

Compromise may feel "safe" and "peaceful," but in the long run it is anything but safe and peaceful.

"Honeymoon is over"
"That's just puppy love"
"The way they are making out, they must not know each other very well"
"The way to man's heart is through his belly"
"You'll have more sex in the first year than in all the others combined."
"It's natural for a man's eye to wander."

This whole blog is devoted to the idea that great sex, deep intimacy and fulfilling marriage come through learning how to touch our partner on the deepest level and learning how to open ourselves so that our partner can know us and touch us deeply too.  I've argued that kink, just for kink's sake tends to be a rather empty and unsatisfying form of self-gratification.  Similarly, I've used kink, as a window into the soul that allows for progressively deeper understanding of our partner and deeper connection.

I just found a wonderful quote from a vanilla professional to back up that idea.  Dr David Schnarch, PhD., in his book "Passionate Marriage,"  writes:

"Notice that role play requires you to use your neocortex.  It permits unmatched sexual variety (and meaningful engagement) with the same person over a lifetime.  Contrary to the belief that sexual boredom result from time spent together, the reverse can also be true:  it takes a lifetime to explore the available sexual scripts.  It probably takes that ling to differentiate enough to do it!"

"The goal of our life should not be to find joy in marriage, but to bring more love and truth into the world. We marry to assist each other in this task. The most selfish and hateful life of all is that of two beings who unite in order to enjoy life. The highest calling is that of the man who has dedicated his life to serving God and doing good, and who unites with a woman to further that purpose." Leo Tolstoy

Sitting at our computers, I heard Judy groan.  She had just read the above quote (sent by a well meaning loved one.)  Google shows that it is a common anniversary sentiment, especially for 25 year celebrations. 

I am shocked that anyone would use Tolstoy as a source of marital wisdom.  His is among the most well documented of infamously miserable marriages.  His wife was passionate, he felt that indulging the flesh impoverished the spirit.  His wife loved luxury, he idealized poverty.  His wife's breasts hurt, he felt she should nurse their 13 children.  She was social, he was stoic.  These are some pretty normal marriage issues, but his marriage was hell because of how he dealt with these issues. 

In the abstract, Tolstoy's quote speaks to a basic truth of life, that is that when we strive to live only for our own pleasure (joy), we often find life empty and pleasure elusive.  When we live for God (higher purpose, our ideals, others) we often inadvertently find happiness.  

In practice, idealists like Tolstoy often fail to see that the primary way we serve God and "bring love and truth into the world" is by serving others, and that the most important other is our spouse.  If we can't love our spouse and our children, how can we truly love strangers.  Marriage is THE love school for most of us.

Folks who have lived much life would likely agree that a man who marries seeking "joy," that is because he wants a servant to make him happy, do his laundry, feed him, and service him sexually, will be disappointed.  Tolstoy, for all his brilliance, makes the exact same mistake.  Saying "dedicate [your] life to God . . . and unite[s] with a woman to further that purpose," is encouragement to put our needs/ideals/desires above those of our spouse.  Does anyone really believe that we can love God / the world if we can't even love our own spouse?

If we want to learn to love / serve God (or any ideal,) we need to start at the love school, marriage.  Tolstoy, used service to God as an excuse to neglect his wife's physical, emotional and intimate needs.  As a result, his marriage was a disaster, and his writing, though brilliant, became justification for tyrants in communist Russia. 

Today tyrant spouses and preachers use his quote to justify putting their own abstract agendas above the needs of their loved ones.    

Those who follow his advice are not serving God, but their own bloated egos.

Go love the girl.

We fucked this morning.  

Just back from Burning Man we found our house a sea of dog fur, our back yard full of poop, and our front yard a lake of mud from a flash flood while we were gone.  We and all of our stuff were "playafied" with the sticky alkali dust that coats everything at the week long party in the Nevada desert. 

We had chores to do.

Doing them, I brushed near her.  She looked . . . sooo . . .  cute.  I just happened to have clothes pins in hand.  One thing led to another.  My gut wrenched with passion.  Her eye said "I dare you."  I picked her up by her skin like a kitten and tossed her into position.  Lubed with silicone, I forced my way into her even though she wasn't anywhere near ready.  Her body squeezed me.  

From the moment the urge struck until we were done took all of two minutes.  I didn't ask her permission.  She never got aroused, not even a little bit.  It left her sore, and even "crampy" since I hit her cervix on purpose.  I didn't come either - - though my body wanted to - - at my age, we can't play as often as we like unless I exercise some discipline.

I took the clothespin from her traumatized nipple and put it in the bag outside where it belongs, ready to hold fabric to dry.  For the next 5 hours I unloaded and cleaned the truck and did some laundry as she cleaned the house.  The clothespin was used again, this time, the way it's manufacturer intended.

Was it a fuck?  or was it a kiss? or was it just a man taking advantage of his gentle woman?

Today is our 29th Wedding Anniversary.  It's been 35 years, maybe more, since I fell in love with her.  One would think that a brutal brief fucking wasn't a very romantic or loving way to celebrate, yet she says it was wonderful.  What gives?

*************************************************************************************** 

It's been almost 2 months since I wrote Part One on the "women's orgasm" topic.  I waited until after our trip to Burning Man because I thought the open, freedom worshiping people there I could provide some valuable insight.  As it turns out, most of the folks we encountered were having too much fun to talk much philosophy.  

Nonetheless, I've used the last 2 months to interview hundreds of people from as wide a background as possible.  I've found 3 responses to my question "Do orgasms matter to women in committed relationships?"  Invariably, men say "yes."  Women initially answer either "of course," or "wow, a man who finally wants to know the truth.  'HELL NO!'"

Men just seem to assume, as do many women that sex is all about orgasm . . . if their own personal experience is different, they just conclude that something is wrong with them or with their partner.  

Among the women, regardless of how they initially answered, every single one of them back peddaled when I probed more deeply.  In the end, universally, from age 25 to 85 women wound up saying that the question is just too complicated . . . that they really want to feel connected and emotionally bonded more than anything else.  Sometimes orgasms bring that feeling.  Sometimes orgasms are just too much trouble.

****************************************************************************

That, I think, is why our little fuck worked this morning.  She wanted to feel the connection with me, so she took the pain / discomfort in order to feel my desire.  At the same time, another minute more of that kind of treatment would have been too much. 
 
This morning, her first priority was cleaning up.  Two hours of foreplay followed by an orgasm or more would have kept her from doing what she really wanted to do, which was put our world in order.  By fucking her fast and getting back to work, I gave her what worked for her this very morning.  Another time she might want a foot rub, back massage, fine breakfast, deep conversation, or lots of orgasms.  

The fuck was fun, but our real intimacy and connection were shared in the doing of chores together, as much as in the physical touch.  Both mattered, but neither would have been complete without the other. 

Every day it's different for her.  The trick is to be in tune with her moods.  That makes her feel connected which is most of what she wants.  

*******************************************************************************

My question was a dumb one.  It's not about the orgasm at all.  It's about the connection.




 

Many ladies wish that their men were "better listeners."  Many lament that their husbands are just "too macho" to go to classes or get counseling. 

************************************

On a beautiful Saturday afternoon while the White Sox were playing the Tigers and while the PGA was wrapping up in England, strong men in black and leather packed the room. Cages, crosses, suspension beams, a rack, and several spanking horses were pushed to the perimeter to make room for folding chairs.  In back old leather masters oiled and caressed bullwhips.  Outside a vendor had a rack of floggers displayed.  Slave girls in skimpy outfits and collars attended their masters, either demurely sitting beside them, or kneeling at their feet.  

The speaker was greeted with a rousing ovation, and for the next two hours led the group in a lively discussion on the nuances of "active listening," and "improved communication."  An elderly female psychologist offered expanded insights, and almost every man participated actively in the discussion.  Women offered their thoughts as well.

The event was not free.  Men paid to attend, and it is an absolute certainty that none of the women kneeling on the floor nagged, pussy whipped, cajoled, or otherwise coerced any man to attend.  Bad things happen to slave girls who try that nonsense.  No, the masters were there because they wanted to be.

They asked detailed questions about how to create a comfortable environment where a woman feels safe expressing her feelings.  They encouraged one another, offering suggestions for how to grow more empathetic and how to be better attuned to body language and expressions.  They talked about the distinction between "needs" and "wants" and talked about how to be sure that the slave's needs were being met.  They discussed Gary Chapman's book, The Five Languages of Love, and considered how to reconcile / compromise / change / adapt when a slave's "love language" differs from the master's.  And, they talked about spiritual and emotional growth.

That night the folding chairs were gone.  The dungeon equipment was back in place.  Women submitted themselves.  Men took what they wanted.  Bullwhips cracked.

*************************************

It's a conundrum.  In the vanilla world, wives try and try to get their husbands / lovers to communicate better, and are met with "macho" resistance.  "I don't need anyone to tell me how to lead my family."  Yet, in the most macho of all worlds, a place where men whip, burn, cut, pierce, fuck, humiliate and trade women with impunity, the men willingly, and without any prompting whatsoever, give up a glorious, sunny, weekend afternoon of sports and loafing to improve their communication skills.

Maybe women long to submit to the sort of men who are macho enough to take what they want, yet strong enough to see their own weakness, humble enough to seek self-mastery, and diligent enough to hone their skills?

Maybe a man who knows he is entrusted with the sacred trust of a woman's total submission feels called to do right by her?

*********************************

All in all it wasn't a very good class.  We've seen much better.  My point isn't to say that there is some magic in the dungeon.  People are as messed up there as anywhere else.  But if the most macho of men, recognized masters of women, know the importance of relationship classes, the rest of us should be lining up for the next Mark Gungor or Gary Chapman seminar, or packing the David Deida workshop, or hiring a marriage counselor and going to our church's next marriage retreat. 

Our nation's Christian tradition teaches the words of Paul to the Ephesians that wives should "submit to your husbands."  Nothing feels better than when your wife does that.  Wive's themselves long to submit to a strong husband.  Most of us long to feel our wives submit, but we won't do the work to make ourselves worthy of their submission. It's up to us to learn to be the kind of men they will swoon for.   You'd better believe I'm signing up for the next professionally run marriage retreat / class I can find.

Take a lesson from the dark side and get your ass to class. 

The first in a series exploring whether the female orgasm matters, this entry looks at the question from the sole perspective of our personal experience.  (See the bottom of this entry for Judy's qualifications as an expert in orgasm) In later entries, we'll use outside research to go even deeper into the question of whether or not orgasm matters.

As we became more skilled, we began to notice that physical skill has very little to do with her orgasm.  She doesn't come because I use a special toy or technique on her in bed.  She comes most readily when she is well loved all day, week, month and year long.  Great orgasms aren't about what I do between her legs, they are about what I do between her ears.  Does she feel safe?  Are all of her domestic chores taken care of?  Have I been demonstrating solid leadership in our home and in life?  Am I confident, congruent, on my own path and on top of things?  Does she feel pretty?  Does our play area fit the mood?  

When all of these externals are in place, she is most likely to want intimacy and she's more likely to come.  When the externals are out of alignment, no technique will work, so ultimately, her orgasm is like a barometer of how we are doing in our lives and how I am doing as her husband.  She almost never just feels like having an orgasm.  She almost never acts sexual with me because she desires an orgasm.  She becomes intimate with me because she wants to connect.  Orgasms often follow, but they aren't her goal.

So for her, the orgasm itself rarely matters.  There are the (rare) days when she feels the biological urge, but mostly she makes love because she loves.  It's really about the connection, and the intimacy.  Often the orgasm itself is just more trouble than it's worth for her and she's happier to "just fuck."  

At the same time, her orgasms matter tremendously.  They represent the most important thing.  Her life revolves around the orgasm . . . because it is the barometer of our relationship.  Whether she chooses to come or not, she needs to feel like I have the love and the time and skill to take her there if she wants to go, and she needs to feel like I'm dealing appropriately with the problems in our domestic world, and she needs to feel like she's safe, and she needs to feel like she's important in my life but that I'm not needy or clingy and that I'm keeping an eye on my life mission.

When all of those things are in place, she can usually orgasm if she wants to.  From there it doesn't matter whether she does or not.     

See our next entry  --------------- for other women's experience gleaned from our research.

****************************************
Qualifications
****************************************
As best we can figure, Judy averaged about one orgasm a month from somewhere around age 8 to 18 (120 orgasms.)  Toward the end of that time she taught me how to give them to her.  From age 19-29, our early married years, she probably got off twice a month average. (240)  In our 30s, with more time, maturity and skills, she came about once a week. (520)  For the last 10 years it's been something like 4 times a week.  2080 more orgasms for a total of somewhere over 2,500 climaxes.  I was there for most of them. 

Then there are the times we play but she doesn't come.  For the first 30 years, she / we really tried to make sure she was aroused before we started and satisfied when we finished.  Still, about 10% of the time we just couldn't get her off. (100 times left hanging) More recently we deliberately get her highly aroused and "leave her hanging" at least twice a month (240) and with today's great silicone lubes we often just fuck a few times a week without doing much to arouse, so that would be something like 1,300 fucks with no arousal.

2500 orgasms
1300 fucks without orgasm
370 times "left hanging," aroused without climax

We've brought her to orgasm during happy times and sad.  On the birth control pill and off.  On anti-depressants and off.  In romantic elegant hotels, and balanced on the bathroom sink of a crowded house while the in-laws are banging on the door.  With lube, and without.  When sick, but mostly when not.  With endometriosis and without.  With g-spot alone, but mostly with clit.  Implosive and explosive.  In under two minutes and extended for hours.  Many times in an hour, and kept on the edge for hours with no relief.  With lube and without.  With toys and without.  Bound and unbound.  Girl on top, girl on bottom.  Squirting and not . . . and irritated from not.  With cervical stimulation and when she yelps if I near it.  During intercourse (just before our marriage I learned the "coital alignment technique" where you stimulate her clit with your pubic bone during intercourse) and every other way.

That's probably enough experience for her to know how she feels about orgasm.

Kinky Curious Wife got turned on watching the Dungeon Master demonstrate flogging technique.  After the scene she and Vanilla Husband asked questions and learned more.  A really nice man, Vanilla lives to please and would do almost anything for his sweetie of 3 decades.

A few weeks later she got up her courage.  Vanilla Hubby excitedly and enthusiastically dove into his new role of "Top."  The club didn't have a very complete dungeon, so he made do, using the club's flimsy velcro ties to secure her to the Jacob's Cross.  Then Vanilla planted a moderate swat on her gorgeous, clothed ass with his bare hand.  "Oww!  That hurt!  You did it wrong.  You're supposed to rub the skin first to warm it up."  

Vanilla slunk back in dismay.  Embarrassed for him, onlookers quietly started slipping away.  Confident Observer offered help.  "Here, let's tie her down better first."  Confident added good solid rope tied in a way to allow Kinky to grip and relieve the strain on her shoulders (so she could focus on what was going to be happening to her butt.)   With Kinky secured really well, Confident asked her "so we're supposed to rub the skin first, right?"  She nodded and he hit her with the flogger . . . much harder than Vanilla had swatted her.  Her knees sagged for a moment . . . then she realized that the game was really on . . . she regained her composure and waggled her ass for more . . . onlookers started returning.  

She dripped with excitement.  Eventually Vanilla Husband took her back from Confident.  By then she was so excited that she climaxed fast despite the room full of people.

********************************************************

So why did Kinky scold the husband who loved her and wanted to please her while she waggled her ass for a near stranger who struck her far harder than Vanilla had dared?

Actually, Confident knew nothing at all about flogging, while  Vanilla had been studying the idea for some time.   Confident did everything wrong.  He hit her far too hard at first.  He didn't warm her up.  He didn't set a safe word.  He didn't negotiate.  He interfered in another man's scene without real permission.  Yet Kinky responded to Confident and not to the more skilled and appropriate slow warm up that her loving husband started with.

Confident was . . . well  . . . confident, and he was paying attention to her body language, so she responded.

It all circles back to the idea that you can't please a woman by doing what she says she wants.  Almost always the feminine tests the masculine with criticism, correction, suggestion or rejection.  Even as she's laying out the test, feminine is hoping that masculine will confidently take the lead and guide her to the place she really wants to go but is afraid to ask for.

It's not about floggers and ropes, or wine and chocolate, or dinner and a movie, or Bible Study and prayer.  It's about really, really listening to our spouses, knowing them, and helping them on the journey to the place they secretly long to know.

It's Saturday morning, what do I want to do with my weekend?

For years she's offered me "any position, any time, any place," without limit.  We pretty much fuck every day (though I'm getting old enough that if I ejaculated every time, I couldn't do it every day) . . . and we make long sweet love often too.  Best of all she's eager for the emotional connection this brings even though she rarely really wants sex for herself (at least until we get into it a bit.) 

As you've probably gathered from reading this blog, there is no (legal) sexual fantasy that we can't indulge on this Saturday night.  We know the people and the places.  

She offers me this freedom, not because she's resigned to male libido, nor from lack of self-esteem, but from love.  She might say that if you love someone you will set them free, and if they love you, they will come back.

*****************************************************

So I can have anything today.  What do I want?

It's strange.  I find that the more free I am to be selfish, the more my thoughts go to "what would Judy like?"  There is something built into me that makes me my happiest when my wife is happy.  I think most of us guys are like that deep down inside (once our basic needs are met.)  Why do whores fake orgasm?  Because even in paid sex we want to feel like we did well by the woman. 

Judy didn't start off the way she is.  Like many women, she was jealous of my time, afraid of my moods and motives,  uncertain, unconfident in my love and she had the romantic notion that one should be "in the mood" before "making love."

I'm pretty sure that Judy felt safer to allow the mature, confident, sexual woman in her to appear during those times when I tried to make myself a better husband or a better man.  I didn't get great sex by asking for great sex.  (Trust me, I tried that too . . . a lot . . . and it didn't work.) 

So, today, I think we'll shop, dine and converse.  We'll hold hands.  I'll try to push the distractions away so as to listen better.  We'll go to church, and I'll keep trying to learn to be a better man.  

******************************************

It's strange, Jesus told his followers that desiring to possess a woman was just the same as actually having sex with her, and he challenged them to keep their hearts pure. 

Now through the researching of this blog, we often find ourselves in sexual smorgasbords of opportunity and theoretical temptation.  And I simply do not desire anything but her . . . oh . . . how I desire her.

I wonder about it all. 

Slave Girl simply stripped in the crowded room and lay on the bench as Master instructed.  Years into her collared service to him, she never would have dreamed of doing otherwise.  He blindfolded her and left her laying vulnerable and exposed in a room full of strangers for a long time.  When he returned, he shaved everything but her head, sometimes using a safety razor, and sometimes using a very sharp folding fighting knife which opened with the unmistakable "clack" of steel on steel.  As he used it, he wickedly allowed it to brush her vulnerable clit and lips from time to time.  It was clear from context that the shaving was just the opening scene in a play of torments they would act out all night long.

****************************************************

What's going on here?  On top of the public humiliation, she's going to suffer razor bumps and ingrown hairs.  What self-respecting woman would allow herself to be treated such?  And what sort of self-serving predator would so use an obviously weak willed woman?

Would it help our understanding if we knew that Slave Girl is a judge in the Superior Court of her state?

Maybe the secret lies in some subtle parts of the story that I omitted. 

Long before he ordered her to strip, he had turned up the heat so she'd be comfortable.  Before ordering her down, he had padded the bench with clean towels, and they were pretty towels so she'd remember the ambiance once the blindfold went on.  While she waited for him nervously in the room full of strangers, he was warming up a pan of scented water.  His first touch was a bathing stroke with a soft cloth, just the right temperature, not too wet, and not too dry, and only on her ankle.  He had scented shaving cream, her favorite.  The actual work began heel to calf and was followed by more washing and then drying with luxurious terry cloth.  He wafted scented lotion for her to smell before he lovingly massaged it in to each freshly shaved calf.  Each thigh was an erotic masterpiece of slow, tantalizing application of shaving cream followed by sensuous, slow strokes of the razor from knee to her more sensitive regions.  The entire process took over an hour (not counting the time he spent buying feminine products, planning and preparing the scene.)  For most of the time, it was clear that she had forgotten that she was in a room of strangers.  By the time he finished, her back was arching to let her meet the razor strokes brushing the fine hairs between her lips.

He knew what he was doing. 

What looks on the surface like a man showing off bossing his girl around in public really turns out to be a public demonstration of his adoration of her.  The reality is that he spent over an hour performing the most feminine of tasks.  Ostensibly she wears the collar and is in service to him, but who is really serving whom?

What wife wouldn't love to have her husband shop for dainty things, and spend a lot of time fussing over her without so much as taking his pants off or even hinting at sex?

So often wives wish that their husbands would serve them willingly and without being asked, yet so seldom are wives willing to submit and give their men a chance.  The whole dynamic would have been different if she had told him what to buy, where to buy it, and what to do.  Then he would have been a henpecked husband kissing butt.  Neither would have been happy with the result.

His gift to her could only be special once she relaxed and allowed him to have his way with her.   He could relax and worship her also knowing that he could take and use her too.  The choice was his because she gave it to him. 

All she had to do to spoil all his planning was say "no," or ask "why."

Husband explained to Tantra Artist that he could not satisfy his Pretty Young Wife's sexual needs as his medications had rendered him impotent.   It was Pretty's birthday.  Could Tantra satisfy Pretty for Husband as a birthday gift from husband to wife?

They all talked.  Tantra A. asked Pretty about herself, her desires, and her longings.  In due time they retreated to cushions where she disrobed.  Tantra created a safe place and led her into a fantasy as he began the ritual of "awakening the senses."

As T tried to create the mood, relax Pretty and bring her fully into her body, Husband kept jabbering about his impotence, Viagra, and the new implant that they planned to buy for him as soon as they could afford one.  He continued to break the growing mood saying how happy he was to see her get fucked by someone else.  T hushed Husband and showed him how to awaken the nerves of her skin with a light touch and then direct the energy with a deeper caress.

The ritual of awakening the senses might normally take an hour or two.  Within 15 minutes Husband had 3 fingers jammed into Pretty and was pumping her yoni like a Sawzall ripping though a two by four.  Tantra got out of the way as husband took over.  Predictably Pretty promptly faked a huge orgasm.   It was over.

******************************************************************************

Husband's problem wasn't impotence, but impatience.
A hard dick's not enough.  Awareness matters far more.

He laid out her toys, got her a drink, and waited quietly while she chatted with her friends.

When she was ready, she had him strip and allowed him to touch himself . . . briefly . . . for the first time in a long time.  As he became hard, she sensuously wrapped cord around his dick from base to tip then tied it out of her way.  With her long, sharp nails she coaxed his balls down out of his abdomen where they were hiding (in fear of what they knew was coming next.)  When she had them where she could get a hand around them, she carefully snapped a leather parachute around his balls . . .  then she started adding weight . . . sloowly.

Working from behind him where he couldn't see what she was doing, she stroked him all over his body with a cane to awaken the nerve endings, then when he was ready, she began to rhythmically flail him with it.  From time to time she'd vibrate, caress, or even smack his vulnerable balls.  She played with his dick just enough to keep him hard and added more weight to the parachute. 

He was so excited that he dripped semen . . . 

Had she had more time, she would have added more weight and used heavier and heavier canes until his skin wept and the endorphin transported him to a different world.  In a few weeks or months, she might even take him all the way to orgasm, but not today.  In this case, after just an hour she gently removed the toys, caressed and massaged his bruised balls, and locked the chastity cage back securely back in place.  He would not be able to become erect again until next time she wanted to play with him. 

They hugged tenderly, then he picked up and carefully cleaned her toys.

********************************************************

Ladies, do you find that your man is a tiger out in the business world but kind of a marshmallow around home and in the bedroom?  Do you find yourself playing "mother" to him, washing clothes, cooking, cleaning and running errands?  At the end of the day, when he shuts off the TV and looks at you hopefully, do you find that you are just too tired and disinterested to want to make the sexual connection with him that you know your marriage needs?

Maybe, just maybe, you have yourself a sexually submissive man.  I don't suggest that you should learn CBT, but the gal in the above story might know a few things that would make your life easier and more fun.

In the simplest and most colorful sense:   You pretty regularly spend time doing household chores right?  Your husband doesn't really appreciate those efforts all that much does he?  What if you could get him to do the chores, and all you had to do was spend a few hours kicking his balls around the house (figuratively) while he cheerfully and happily did the chores?

CBT is just one of many ways of connecting between a sexually passive man and more "take charge" kind of lady.  There are many, many other ways, and any couple might find themselves changing over time.  This blog isn't about how to use any specific kinky trick, it's not really the technique that matters.  What matters is that the woman understand what's going on.  Just because he's sexually passive doesn't mean that he doesn't want sex.  It means that he finds it difficult and unpleasant to take charge.  He probably fears rejection more than he desires connection.  With great effort he builds up his nerve to give that "hopeful" look which, if shot it down a few times leaves him afraid to try at all . . . until he's so maddeningly frustrated that he picks a fight, has an affair or worse shuts down completely.

Since women typically want to be romanced, it can be very frustrating to be with a sexually passive man.  Let's face it, you aren't likely to be "in the mood" unless he initiates and romances you a bit, but if he's passive, that won't happen very often, so you won't often feel like connecting with him, yet he still wants sex.  Either you do the "dead fish" thing and perform your wifely duty (which won't really please him,) or you reject his pathetic advances, or you just shoot him down so hard that he quits trying. 

When this happens, you both lose. 

Our CBT gal solves this problem by keeping sex on the agenda constantly and doing it in a way that builds his arousal and makes him less passive.  As I've talked about in other blogs, men's attitudes change after they orgasm.  Before he comes, he's loving, affectionate and eager to please.  Afterward he rolls over and goes to sleep or grabs a beer and watches the game.   

The wife in the story above, knows how to be sexual with her husband without giving him orgasm every time, (or even letting him sneak off and take care of himself.) She channels his sexual arousal into the kinds of closeness, connectivity, and communication that she loves and needs.   In his constant state of desire, he's happy to help out around the house or do other things she likes.  

"But I would never want to treat my husband like that" I can almost hear women screaming at me.

Nonsense!  Most women cut a little chunk off his balls almost every day.

"Not tonight."
"I've got a headache."
"All you ever think about is sex."
"Can't we just cuddle."
"You can't even wash the dishes right."
"What were you looking at that woman that way for!"
"We did it last week . . . wasn't that good for you?"
"If you need to whack off, just do it . . . I don't want to know about it."
"Typical man."
"Don't get that stuff in my hair."
"Go clean up . . . that's nasty."
"How about a hand job instead?"
Or, worst of all, "Yeah, whatever, just hurry up and come, I want to watch Oprah."

Enough of that, and the average guy just gives up and takes care of himself or starts looking elsewhere.  

In the above story, you have a woman who wants to touch his balls, who wants to see him drip, who plays with him constantly and keeps him aroused all the time.  Even when they are physically apart, every time he pees or goes through airport security, he's reminded that his wife is being sexual with him.

She not only meets his needs, she wants to meet them, and that makes him feel like the luckiest guy on earth. 

He may not get "release" very often, but he gets a lot more loving than the average guy.  She gives it to him by animating her "nurturing" energy instead of her sex kitten energy, and he loves it.
  

  

Off anti-depressants, she's cranky, emotional, difficult and resistant to sex, but once things get started, she orgasms in 5 to 30 minutes almost every time.  After coming, she's so sensitive that she'd cut his dick off if it was anywhere near her.  

On anti-depressants, she's stable, unflappable, happy and much more open to sex anytime, anywhere and in any position, but even if she's in the mood, orgasm takes anywhere from an hour to never . . . mostly never.    

The first situation is technically called "normal."  Doctor's call the second situation, "anorgasmia," and it's a common side effect of anti-depressants like Paxil and Prozac.

One of the reasons that the drugs make orgasm difficult is that they deaden sensation, so clitoral stimulation doesn't do as much for her as it would were she off the meds.  On the other hand, all is not lost, because having a clear head and being totally "in the moment" is also very important to female orgasm.  Worry is the single biggest obstacle to female orgasm, and anti-depressants are designed to deal with . . . well, worry.

So if we're patient enough, we can still build the excitement even though her clit's not as sensitive as it otherwise would be.  On the meds, she's more likely to relax, get into the moment and give herself the time she needs, because she hasn't got all of the worries.  Better still, with sensation somewhat deadened, she may be more willing to engage in play that's otherwise too intense, such as cervical stimulation and anal penetration. 

Best of all, once the excitement has been built, and she has come, it's easier to continue stimulation.  Again, the worries are less likely to be an issue, and her clit is less likely to feel pain as you continue to touch her, so she won't be as likely to push you away.  If you've spent an hour or more building up the excitement, it's a lot of fun to keep bringing her to orgasm over and over again while she's still excited.  

It's quite the "Catch 22."  If she's suffering from anorgasmia caused by anti-depressants, is it better to get her doctor to change meds, or is it more fun to just take more time and enjoy the positive side effects of the pills?

• "I was married for 20 years.  We had sex, I'd get wet, I'd get excited, my body would tingle.  I thought that's all there was.  It was nice.  After the divorce I met a man who really knew how to bring me all the way to orgasm.  I liked that . . . I wanted more of that.
• "I went out with all the doctors.  I loved the fancy cars, great shows and fine meals.  I loved getting dressed up and being on the arm of a handsome rich man.  I had more shoes than Imelda Marcos.  Those guys had egos the size of Texas but they didn't know what to do with me in bed.  I didn't care, the quicker they were done, the quicker they rolled over and went to sleep.  I was in it for the lifestyle.  Later, I fell in love.  That was the only really good sex I ever had. 
• "I got paid to entertain men, and I was good at it.  I gave Hollywood stars, mobsters, businessmen and politicians the time of their lives.  I still have furs, and jewels to show for it.  They had the looks, money, and lifestyle, but even the best of them lacked technique.  I rarely came with men.  Now I'm married.  My wife knows how to please me."

It's like men marry or become successful so they can fuck while women fuck to buy security or lifestyle.  Reality runs deeper.  What you really have in these stories is men "paying for sex" because they are too lazy to really romance and woo the woman, while the women are "buying lifestyle" with sex because they are too selfish to learn to really love the man himself.  

Women's bodies are wise.  We should listen to them more.  If our women aren't relaxing into us and responding to us, their bodies just might be telling us something about ourselves.   If a woman's body isn't responding and relaxing into the moment, it just might be telling her something about the relationship.

Sex by itself doesn't satisfy for long.  Each of those people learned that life is most satisfying when we take the time to learn another person and open to them, allowing them to know us.  Sex is a good barometer of our success in that.  

It's worth taking the time to get our sex lives right, because to get them right, we have to put all the other parts of life in order too. 

For millennia we conservative Christians have been trying to protect our youth from what we perceive to be the dangers of entering into sexual relationships too casually . . . specifically before marriage, and especially among teenagers.  Religious dogma aside many of us can make some pretty well reasoned arguments just based on human nature and the powerful emotions / bonding desire that sex evokes in us.  Yet no argument, law, or threat of hell has ever done much to keep youth from coupling irresponsibly, and often to their detriment.

In the church community, we even see the pastor's kids engaging in pre-marital sex.  Conservatives are fond of arguing that our permissive culture and media tend to lead the kids "astray."   

Exploring both the openly sexual and the sexually repressed worlds and everything in between, we've been noticing some strange things.  Conservative parents often lament something along the lines of "we raised her in a good Christian environment, and she still crawled out the window to go hook up with that loser and now she's a single mother."   We've also been hearing the most wild of sexually open people say things like "I don't really understand it.  We never hid our sexuality from her.  We always encouraged her to enjoy her body.  Now she's 19 years old, and she's still a virgin."

We've heard maybe a few dozen stories like these.  Obviously you can't draw conclusions from such a small sample.  At the same time, one could ask questions.  Is it possible that the kids are cluing into something other than their parents words?  Could the parents be saying one thing but living another and the kids learning a message from the life?

We've speculated over, and over again in this blog that women may not desire sex in exactly the same way that men do, that their desire leans more toward the relational than the frictional.  We've also speculated that women / some women may have an inherent resistance to sex.  They long for intimacy but perhaps not in an overtly sexual way.  We've also speculated that maybe we individuals aren't quite as unique as we think we are but that while we feel the same things and have the same instincts, we react in different ways.

From all of that, is it possible that the young women in our sample all are longing for intimacy, love and closeness?  Is it possible that the daughters of the conservatives seek that intimacy in the "forbidden fruit" of sex while the kinkier folks' daughters know that sex is really shallow without intimacy?  Is it possible that there are communication differences - that the sexually open have a vocabulary to express the distinction between sex and intimacy while the conservatives lump the two together?

What went wrong when a healthy, loving 19 year old, decides, against her parents wishes, that she would rather do without sex than have sex without love?

Is it just that kids often rebel against their parents values?
Or is there often a deeper truth / hypocrisy hidden under the parents stated values that the kids see?

There are a number of great sources that teach how-to get her off with your dick alone.  Here's a link to a Redbook article that covers a simple, basic approach that really works (assmuning you've taken the time to get her in the mood, relax her, and then arouse her with a ton of foreplay first.) http://www.redbookmag.com/love-sex/advice/making-love-4  Pretty much the same method was described in the Sept 1982 issue of Penthouse, so the knowledge has been available for most if not all of our sex lives.  Despite that knowledge, statistics still say that most women still don't regularly experience climax during intercourse.  http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/371

Then again, most women would say that it doesn't matter.  Some just don't think orgasms are that important.  They say they just like the intimacy of a good fuck, or a trip to the mall.  Some don't think they like sex that much at all, so they say they wouldn't want to be pinned underneath a sweaty husband for the ages it might take her to come. Others say they would rather have the easier, more intense stimulation of a vibrator or the emotional worship that comes with oral.  Some say they'd really just rather cuddle and talk.  

My wife swears it doesn't matter.  As we've talked about, she's rarely "in the mood" anyway.  It takes 4 hours to get her in the mood To the extent I get her "in the mood," she'd say that she's just as happy to cuddle and talk.  When she does want to come, she'd say she prefers a quick, easy method, to a long sweaty one.

As I've talked about in other blogs, never believe anything your woman says in matters of feelings and emotions.  If you give her what she asks for, you lose.
Mind reading for the expert husband (just ignore what she says) 
Communication is bunk
She may say she doesn't need or want the experience, but she does.

Orgasms are like candy.  They "taste good," but they are best enjoyes as treats or dessert, not meals.  If you are a gourmet chef of sex, intimacy is the main course and orgasm the dessert.  

Orgasm during intercourse only comes after a lot of intimacy.  Plus, it opens the door to even more intimate advanced techniques.  Margo Annand, in her book "The Art of Sexual Ecstasy" does a great job of describing these altered state orgasms.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Sexual_Ecstasy 
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Sexual-Ecstasy-Sexuality-Western/dp/0874775817

There's a biological aspect too.  Bonding hormones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin are released by her body during arousal and orgasm.  When she's bonding, it's nice to have your face in hers, not in her crotch. 

On another biological note, have you ever thought about why God (or evolution) gave women female ejaculations "squirting" and orgasms in the first place and then made them so elusive?  There are some pretty good arguments that female orgasm and ejaculation were semen selections tools.  Her body was built to reject the semen of undesirable men who forced her to mate, while washing / sucking in the semen of the strong, attractive man she loved. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jun/08/genetics.research
 http://ezinearticles.com/?Fertility-Boosting-Tactics---Why-The-Female-Orgasm-Is-Your-Best-Friend&id=918086

If you can't take her there, something in her may just long for the man who can. 

Imagine being inside her rubbing her g-spot, stroking her cervix AND skillfully stimulating her clit, all at the same time.  Imagine feeling the waves of her pleasure as her vagina pulsed and then ballooned open as her uterine muscles shoved her cervix to your penis and her female ejaculate fluids, hot and thin, flooded down your shaft to wash your semen deep into her.  This is what her body was built to do.  

Besides, it feels great.

So yeah, it's worth the trouble to learn how.   

Judy and I were having a wonderful, romantic evening, cooking together, but she stomped out of the room when I did what I felt was a totally innocent thing.

She  returned with that "look."    Schooled in sensitivity training, I knew that the book solution was to open up a dialog and discuss what had bothered her and why.  She'd have explained for the umpteenth time that I'm "always doing that."  Then I'd have dug deeper and asked what "doing that" meant to her.  Then I'd have offered to compromise by promising to try not to "do that" again.  Then she'd have complicated things by saying that, "no," she didn't want me to stop "doing that" because "that" was what makes me who I am.

Because we are good and patient communicators, well schooled in the "best" techniques, the discussion might have gone on for days, giving each of us an intimate understanding of the other's opinions and feelings with respect to "that."

In the last 35 years we've had some version of that communication hundreds, if not thousands of times.  We have our lines and our arguments memorized.

Like I said, "communication" is bunk, at least when it comes to matters of the heart and emotion.  We could talk forever about what I did, and why it bothered her, and how to prevent it from happening again, or even if we should try to prevent it from happening.  We could have made compromises, come to conclusions and written contracts regarding whether or not I would "do that" again, and how we would handle it if I did.

Nonsense!  It wasn't what I did that was the problem.  The problem was that when I did it, she felt hurt, neglected and unloved.  Worse, having stomped in and shot me a nasty look, she feared that our nice evening would be ruined, so she felt guilty, afraid and unsettled.  No amount of conversation would ever fix that.

. . . so I just smiled, asked her a cooking question and resumed our romantic evening with a twinkle in my eye.  Soon she was glowing and happy. 

Something happens that triggers us to feel hurt and unloved, so we do something to let the other person know.  What we want is for the hurt to go away so we can feel happy and loved again.  Getting into a big conversation on the details of whatever triggered the feeling just stirs up more fears and hurts. 

The answer is to love her when she hurts. 

(Yes, there are some tangible things that we have to discuss from time to time, but under most of it is just plain old hurt, fear, and unloving.  Fix that first, and then the real issues are much easier to solve.)

Many sources advise better communication as the solution to marital woes.  http://www.equalityinmarriage.org/dmtalk.html offers a pretty normal discussion of how to improve communication skills.  Also note that the advice is given by the Association of Matrimonial Attorneys.

That sums it up.  The road to divorce court is paved with verbal communication.  

They just shared a wonderful, romantic dinner.  He asks "would you like dessert?"  No matter how she answers that, he just laid another paving stone on the highway to dissolution.  Here's why:

The question is inane.  Of course she wants dessert.  Inside her is the primal beast that 
was made to walk across the African plains (or Garden of Eden) seeking out the sweetest fruits.  Do not get between that creature and the dessert tray. 

The moment you ask her if she wants dessert, you force her mind to wrestle with that primal instinct.  "Of course I want dessert, but it will make me fat . . . he must think I'm already fat . . . why did I marry this jerk who doesn't appreciate me."

When your woman says she wants better communication, she doesn't mean that she wants to have a more comprehensive conversation about dessert.  She means that she wants you to know that she wants dessert and order it for her without saying a word, or she means that you'd better not tempt her.   Ask her what she wants, and she'll give you an answer, but she will secretly resent you.  Guess wrong and you are in even more trouble. 

So when she says she wants better communication, what she really means is that she wants you to read her mind better. 

Kinky Girl feared from an early age that her fantasies were different, dark and forbidden.  Married at 19, she hoped that her new husband, Vanilla Boy, would ravish her.  When he didn't, she tried to give him little pointers "You could:  'Pull my hair'  'Spank me'  'Take me'  'Make me do your will'."

Vanilla Boy recoiled from KG's seemingly strange requests.  Already insecure about her "forbidden lusts," she was crushed by his disapproval.  Untrusted and unaccepted by him after sharing her deepest self, she soon divorced him.

A decade later, she knows men who will whip her and take her and share her and have their way with her . . . and she loves it, but she's still single.  None of these passionate relationships last.

This story touches me because I was a very kinky boy who married a very vanilla girl at 19.  Our story turned out different.

My lover is the kind of woman who would drive across town to return a dime if a vending machine gave her too much change . . .  yet for for years and years she hid her sexual fantasy from me.   Everyone has one.  I knew that she did, and I never stopped seeking it.

When she finally admitted to the dark imagery she had concealed for so long, the fantasy seemed innocent enough to me.  Still, her upbringing taught her that her visions were dark and forbidden and must be repressed at all costs . . . so much so that every orgasm brought her guilt because she climaxed to images from a fantasy which made her feel dirty.  She'd try to avoid orgasm to avoid the fantasy, and that didn't do good things for our intimate life.

I bet that KG's Vanilla Boy had a dark side that would have ravished her with abandon had he felt safe or honorable doing so.  We all have that carnal animal within us.  Some of us embrace it earlier than others, and some of us repress it or hide it until the day that we die . . . but this blog is about marriage.  

What would have happened if Kinky Girl had stayed married and worked at drawing out the beast hidden in  Vanilla Guy's heart?  Could that have been any more effort than the work she put into divorce, supporting herself, single life and dungeon prowling?

How many wives suffer in silence, afraid to express their deepest selves to their husbands?  

How many husbands labor to repress the beast lest they offend the supposedly innocent wife?

Even worse, how many of us scorn, rebuff, and hurt our lovers because we are ashamed or afraid of our own beast?

**********************************************************************

As a young man, I loved the "Penthouse Letters" to the editor.  Many of those stories start with the line "I've always thought your stories were BS and then I had this amazing experience . . . " 

Well . . . I always thought that the Penthouse Stories were BS . . . and then my wife of many years embraced her fantasy, and I embraced her and supported her, and this blog is our story.  Every word of it is true, (the names have been changed to protect the guilty, of course)  and everything that we tell here as been veiwed through the eyes of a marriage that started off like Kinky Girl's.

Consent?  Consent is a major question in relationships where we play with the emotions created by dominance and submission, power and control.  If we do something to our partner that they don't want and don't like, we are abusing them.  At the same time, if we don't pay attention to what they really want and like, we are neglecting them.

**********           ************

He said that in the future when she misbehaved, she would be spanked, but that first he wanted her informed and freely given cooperation.   He asked her to think about the proposition and tell him when / if she wanted to step up the intensity in that way.  Weeks passed as she thought about it.  Finally, after a great day when they had taken care of several matters that had been worrying her, she announced that "no, she didn't even like little love swats, so there was no way she was going to take a spanking."

In response, he set the timer for 15 minutes and said that she should be naked across his lap before the bell went off.  At 14 minutes she was. 

"Why," he asked, "are you here if you don't want spankings?" 
"I don't know,"  she replied.
"Put your hands behind your back."  She did.  He laid a solid one on her fanny and asked her if she was willing to take more.
"No" she squealed in pain.  He gave her a chore to do and asked her to return when she was ready.  In a few minutes, she was back in position.  
"Why are you here again if you don't want more?"  He asked.  When she said nothing, he told her that she would be spanked for sending such mixed messages and asked her if she understood.
She nodded.

Some time later, he took her pink butt to the bed where she orgasmed many times, much more easily, and much faster than she ever had before in her life.

How do we make sense of this?  She said "no," yet she put herself naked across his lap.  Did he abuse her by disregarding her words, or would he have neglected her by not listening to her body language?  Did her actions imply consent when her words did not?

More than that, why did her body respond so powerfully that day?

• Maybe, coincidentally, they just happened to be playing at the right moment in her monthly cycle when she was most easily aroused.
• Maybe taking care of the matters that had been worrying her had freed her mind to relax.
• Maybe the chemicals released into her body and the increased blood flow caused by the trauma made her come more easily than normal.
• Maybe she responded emotionally to the power dynamic when he disregarded what she said and did what he felt would work.  

None of this is to imply that doing anything to your wife against her will is going to make her cum like a jackhammer.  It won't.  At the same time, the wimpy guys favorite cop out is to ask his woman what she wants and then blame her when he does it and she's not happy with the result.  No matter what our lover says with her words, she wants you to know her better than she knows herself.  She wants you to take her on the magic ride to that fantasy place she feels exists but that her mind can't quite wrap words around.

She doesn't want to tell you what she wants.  She wants you to know.

Word of warning.  Spanking your wife when she says "no" can land you in jail . . . even worse, spanking her when she says "yes" can also land you in jail.  (If she felt coerced when she said it.  Or if the neighbors call the cops.)

The only way to stay out of both jail and out of the relationship doghouse is to really, really know your lover. 

If you are going to try this at home, don't start with something like spanking that can land you in jail.  Start with something safe, like asking her where she wants to go for dinner and then taking her where she really wants to go.

A lot of today's old folks sucked at relationships.  Many married young but then they got divorced or had affairs or drank too much, or filled their time with activities, or just plain weren't very nice to each other.  I'm talking about those now over their late 60's, and the generation now recently deceased (the GI Generation or Greatest Generation.)  Often told me that they couldn't have done any better in their intimate lives because the information just wasn't available to them.  "I didn't know that women could have orgasms."  or "I just did what came natural."   

I've wondered if lousy relationships and unsatisfying sex lives were just a fact of human nature, or if something when wrong in the intimate lives of those two generations.

When I was a young boy, I remember meeting some mightily wicked, very old women, who, with a gleam in their eye and bourbon in hand, delighted in letting a curious young boy know that the there had been a very good time before the prudes took over.   These gals would have been a lot older than the GI Generation.  They could have been the "flapper girls" of the 1920s, born in the the 1880s and 1890s.

Vibrators, foreplay, threesomes, oral sex, swallowing, multiple orgasm, bondage, spankings . . . I didn't first hear about these in the locker room or Penthouse, but in the nursing home.  Real live, if wrinkled, women bemoaned what they saw as the conservatism of 1960s and 1970's.  Those gals had grown up in the days when smoking weed was still totally legal.  They loved great sex and felt that men ought to learn how to do it right. 

Over the years I've wondered if I just bumped into an exceptionally frisky bunch of oldsters or if there had been a different sort of knowledge in the days before prohibition.   The book "Generations" by William Strauss and Neil Howe (1991,) posited the idea  that society goes through 4 generational types that repeat themselves.  Could it be, I wondered, that those old, old gals knew something that had been forgotten or glossed over by their more conservative kids.  

Browsing through antiques last week, I found a book published in 1918 "Married Love" by Marie Stopes.  It basically says that if you can't woo your woman and bring her to orgasm regularly, she's going to be unhappy with you and with your relationship and that she may even become depressed and neurotic.  In the same store, we picked up a book, "When You Marry" by Evelyn Duvall published in 1962.  It pretty much says that romantic love and happiness are a pipe dream and that one needs to learn compromise, budgeting, separate activities in order to endure a marriage that will certainly be dissapointing.

The older book devotes almost all of it's pages to understanding hormones and emotions and the importance of foreplay and romance.  The second book says that "satisfying sex" is important, but it describes that sex as taking place in a few minutes after shutting off the TV and before going to bed.  The rest of the book is devoted to disabusing the newly married of any expectations they may have of romance.  "What does it matter that he doesn't shave for her or that she has her hair in curlers at breakfast, they have gotten used to each other's coarseness by now."

Both books would have been available in timely fashion to one of today's 70 year olds.  Both types of knowledge existed.  I have the proof.  Yet, in my interviews, I mostly see today's old folks as products of the thinking of the 1962 book, not the older one.

Which approach is better?

"The romance is going to fade, so we need to learn to compromise."
or
"I need to know my woman and romance her often and well and in time with her natural hormonal rhythms."

 

It isn't easy to be Prince Charming.  Most guys can fake it for a few years while dating, but after marriage, it's not always worth the trouble any more.  They need to make more money, kids come into the equation, her expectations rise and, on top of all that, he discovers that she isn't always the cute, cuddly sex kitten he thought he was marrying.

So, when the honeymoon is finally over and she starts turning into the mother, bitch, nag, score keeper, or avoider, it's not so easy for him to turn Prince Charming back on.  "I haven't had a blow job in a month, you don't prance around in lingerie anymore, I just took a more stressful job so I could buy you the fancy new whatever, and now you are giving me a hard time because I forgot and left the toilet seat up."  Well guess what, it just might be easier for him to say "yes dear, I'm sorry," and then forget about the whole thing while he goes to do something he likes.  In fact, if he's annoyed enough, he may just be extra distant just to get even.

Stereotypically women complain that "he won't talk to me anymore," or "he acts like I'm not even here," or "he only is interested in me when he wants sex," or "all he wants to do anymore is grab a drink and watch TV."

Lots of guys, especially those in stressful, emotional lines of work, like police, attorneys, teacher, doctors, therapists, politicians, and fire fighters may not have a whole lot of emotional energy left after a week of dealing with people and problems.  These guys are tough.  She can mother, bitch, nag, score keep, or avoid and they can take it.  If they don't want to expend the energy communicating with her, they'll just smile, say "yes dear" and do whatever the hell they feel like.

Naturally, as a woman mothers, bitches, nags, score keeps, or avoids she feels less sexy.  Her desire fades.  He becomes less willing to put in the effort to woo her, so her desire fades more.  The marriage starts to feel flat, empty, or angry.  They start to think that they aren't "in love" anymore.

That's where spanking husbands comes in.  If he hasn't got the energy to keep tension in the marriage, she can do it.  It's a way for her to deal with the issue of the moment while still feeling sexy and loving.  Here's how it works.  As he's leaving for work, she dresses sexy, smiles, is cheerful, and, at the last minute in her most sultry voice,

the Mother chides;  "You left the seat up.  Over my knee naked tonight. I'll teach you a lesson."
the Bitch demands;  "Over my knee naked tonight.  You'll wish you'd put the seat down."
The Nag scolds;  "You left the seat up AGAIN.  Over my knee naked tonight.  You'll never learn."
The Score Keeper tallies;  "For leaving the toilet seat up, you must bend over my knee naked tonight."
The Avoider doesn't, saying;  "There's an issue we need to discuss. I'd like you naked over my knee tonight."

Anything that involves the word "naked" is going to feel sexy to him.  Done with a respectful heart and an attitude of love and play, she can be pretty sure that they'll be having an interesting conversation tonight, whether he chooses to submit not, and whether he gets naked or not.  

Next time he leaves the seat up, she might just smile, wondering if he did it on purpose.

 

Fat chance!

Young women may dream of a handsome, charming, mature, stable man who will love, cherish, and protect.  She might imagine fun, adventure, conversation, romantic meals and cozy evenings.  Maybe she ponders kids and pets, decorating a home and finding their place in society together.  

It's absurd to imagine very many young women dreaming of marrying a man who would take control of her life and humiliate her and inflict pain on her by spanking her. 

Strangely, we find quite a few older, more mature women who long for a husband who will do just that.  See http://www.takeninhand.com   We personally know a number of middle aged, educated, professional, financially independent women who long for or are happy with a man who will controls her.  One of these ladies is at the top rank in law enforcement.  If she felt that she were being abused, she could bring the wrath of the state down upon her "master's" head.  We also know a number of long married women who consider their husbands to be "just another one of the kids that I have to take care of."  "I have to do everything around here."

What deep primal need leads a healthy person from the starry eyed romanticism of youth to the dark, elemental pragmatism or jaded, defeatist practicality so common among the middle aged and older?

It's actually the same romantic need that she started out with.  Prince Charmings are not wishy washy, complacent, reticent, providers.  Women fall in love with guys who are charming, clever, independent, different, exciting, and fun.  Then they get married . . .

The Prince typically steps into his provider role and goes to work providing for a portion of the families physical needs.  Or he may more fully embrace his role as entertainer and adventurer while allowing his wife to do the hard work of providing.  Regardless of the roles they take, it's not long before the Prince doesn't look so charming any more.  Sooner or later he metaphorically leaves the toilet seat up one too many times.

• The "Mother" says,  "he can't remember, so I'll put it down myself."
• The "Bitch" says, "put it down next time or else!"
• The "Nag" says, "I've told you a thousand times, put the fucking seat down."
• The "Score Keeper" says, "I'll get even."
• The "Avoider" says, "We just need to rent a house with 2 bathrooms."

Repeat the same process a thousand times with a thousand different infractions, and you wind up with a relationship dominated by mothering, bitching, nagging, scorekeeper or avoidance.  That's not the romance that our starry eyed 18 year old romantic dreamed of. 

Some will grow jaded and just accept the new status quo.  Some will divorce and try again.  Some will keep dreaming the dream and come to realize that every single one of the approaches above kills romance and that a different approach is needed to keep the romance alive.

Women deal with all kinds of pain and discomfort in life, menstrual cramps, mood swings, athletic injuries, fatigue, and, of course, childbirth.  For a good cause, most women can endure almost anything.  I suspect that the vast majority of women would willingly stick their butts in a bucket of ice water every single day if doing so would guarantee her a perfect, happy marriage.  Why then, will they kill the romance of their marriage over a toilet seat left up?  

She makes a big deal about the metaphorical toilet seat because it is a symbol.  He didn't notice, didn't remember, didn't care.  It's not the cold wet koochie that kills her, it's seeing her dream die.  If he loved her like he used to he'd remember, so she has to do something about it.

From the man perspective, the seat up was just a little thing.  He forgot.  Big deal.  What hurts him is her reaction.  He didn't sign up to have a mother, bitch, nag, score keeper or avoider.  Her reaction turns him off.  If he's not paying attention to the relationship, he just shuts down a little and is that much more likely to forget next time.  If he's really paying attention, he'll remember that the toilet seat matters to her, but more importantly, he'll do whatever he must to keep the mother, bitch, nag, score keeper, avoider from ever entering his relationship. 

He might even wake her up at 2AM to have her lift the seat for him and then put it back down.  Part of her will hate it.  Part of her will know that he is thinking of her and is thinking of their relationship.  If he handles it good naturedly and with love, she'll feel some of those fuzzy idealistic things she dreamed of feeling when she was 18.  She'll feel secure knowing that the toilet seat won't be an issue much longer.

Wise woman knows that she can't really be happy living with the indifference symbolized by the toilet seat up, but she also can't be happy live with a man who forces / allows her to become the mother, bitch, nag until he remembers.  She dreams of a man who cares enough about her to be aware of her needs, even the little ones like having a clean, dry place to take a tinkle.

That's how a healthy woman can come to the point where she fantasizes about giving herself to a man who will be aware of every detail of her, who will honor the princess in her and will not be afraid to tan the hide of the mother, bitch, nag, score keeper or avoider when they show up unwanted in his home.

 


 

Google it.  Consent / desire seems to be the major point around which people try to discuss the topic of spousal spankings.  "If the spouse consents to it, it's OK.  If the spouse doesn't, then it's not OK."  

What nonsense.   Over the knee spanking, unlike a beating, requires the spankee to cooperate by assuming the position and remaining there.  Thus consent is given.  The question is why the consent was given.  "Bend over or I'm going to take the kids and leave you," or "God put me in charge of the household and if you don't bend over, you are going to hell."  There's also the silent treatment, or just staying at work late as punishment.  Worst of all there is the slow, quiet, disengagement where our lover gradually turns into our roommate.  

None of us is such a perfect spouse that our partner doesn't on some level fear one of the coercions I mentioned above.  So, yes, it is abusive to punish your spouse with a spanking even if you have "consent" because you used some level of coercion to gain the "consent."  

******************************************************************************************************************

When I was 10 years old, at the end of a really nice day, when everything was fine, and I felt no guilt or negative emotions, and when I was way too young to even know what sex was, I felt a stirring . . . an urgency in my gut . . . that was insistent and demanding . . . that wouldn't go away.

I knew that a spanking would fill that hunger like hot chocolate after playing in the rain.  That night, as my Mom was tucking me into bed, I asked her to spank me. 

Surprised, she pretty much refused.  I knew that I had asked for something wrong.  I have not desired to be spanked since (except perhaps to learn how to better deliver.)  Still, the feeling had been there, and it had been real. 

Now I have a better idea of what that hunger was back then.  It wasn't exactly sexual desire, but it was deep, elemental and primal.  I was wrong. A spanking would not have filled that hunger, in fact it would have fed it.  My Mom was wise to say "no," for if we had started down that road, I never would have gotten enough.

*******************************************************************************************************************

Now, married, I realize that the primal need was the need to consume and be consumed, to be joined, to be one, to be filled, and to fill.  I thought that I wanted a spanking.  Really, my soul was craving the completion that only another soul can fill. 

It's not about the spanking.  It's about knowing another soul well enough to know when it's craving and hungry.  It's about caring enough to want to feed another soul. 

It's about the moment of submission when one spouse willingly lies across the other's lap.  It's about being one.  

Just as it's abuse to spank, it's neglect not to try to see our spouses primal side.

Relationship guru David Deida talks about classic, stereotypical, masculine and feminine "gifts."

In this theory, the feminine tends to embrace beauty and connectedness, seeing and appreciating the nuances of color, mood, and detail.  The masculine tends to solve problems by cutting through color mood and detail to focus on the meat of whatever matter is at hand.

The gal was noticeably distressed, clutching a stack of home decoration catalogs to her chest.  A bit of conversation revealed that she and her husband of many years had just bought a big, beautiful new home.  She was feeling harried because she was having a hard time deciding on window coverings.  

Who to buy from?  What color?  What style?  On the surface, it seems kind of silly for a perfectly normal, affluent woman to get herself in a kink over drapery choices;  however if we view it through the lens of masculine and feminine gifts, it makes more sense.  Home decoration is the ultimate expression of the feminine gifts.  The right window coverings would make her home the warm, expression of her loving style and her mothering instinct.  Logically we think we are just talking about drapes.  In reality, we are talking about the relationship between her, her world and her loved ones.  We are talking about an artistic expression of the very core of her being.

On a deeper level, she had become so caught up in the complex mood flows of the feminine that she had kind of lost touch with objective reality.  The masculine strength lies in cutting through all the emotional baggage and dealing with the matter at hand, in this case, curtain choice. 

I suggested to her that her husband could probably help her make the decision in just a few minutes.  She looked at me, anguish in her eyes, and said:

"I know he could, but he'd just tell me to get whatever I want."

Why does the masculine imagine that it can please the feminine by just buying her what she says she wants?  She also wants his presence and direction.  We were built to fulfil and complete one another.

A woman writes to syndicated relationship columnist, Dan Savage, in the OC Weekly magazine http://www.ocweekly.com/advice/savage-love-411/, complaining that she's losing interest in her boyfriend even though he's her "best friend" and she doesn't want to lose his friendship.  She mentions that while she has vivid sexual fantasies, she's never achieved orgasm and "he's never created any 'macho drama' about that."

The columnist attacks the boyfriend for not caring enough to want to take her into the land of her fantasies and give her pleasure.

This column was especially poignant for me.  My sweetie made a rather unpleasant scene this weekend after I encouraged her to explore a new way of connecting with me.  In fact, I got slapped this morning.  She accused me of always "pressuring" her for "more."   In our case, that's not a new accusation.  For decades, we've danced the dance of:

Me; "come on, try it, I think you will like it" . . .
Her; "no way, I don't want to do that" . . .
Me;  "you know I'm never going to stop asking". . .
Her:  "if I do that, you are just going to ask for something even harder". . .
Me;  "you know it!". . .
Her;  "all right, I'll try it, but just once". . .
Me;  "once really isn't enough to get the hang of something new, let's try it 10 times". . .
Her;  "it's not fair, you are always making me do things I don't want to do, why can't you just be happy with me the way I am" . . .
Me; with glint in eye saying nothing, and getting busy.
Her, ten times later "Hey, I like that, can we do it that way again."

We've had some version of that conversation on probably hundreds of new ways to play.  We had basic female orgasms down pat when we were 15 years old.  We mastered simultaneous orgasms during intercourse when we were still teenagers.   Orgasms are just the starting point.  I can't imagine an adult man with a full grown woman who would not move heaven and earth to help her experience her first climax.

Some subjects are easier than other.  We once had the exact conversation above, over and over again, on a single subject from 1978 to 2006.  For those 28 years I kept trying to give her pleasure in a certain way even though she didn't think it was important and she didn't think she wanted it, and even though she got mightily mad at me from time to time.  She even complained to her mother about what a pervert I was (interestingly her Mom sort of took my side.)  Now the thing she refused for 28 years is her favorite way to play.  I'm glad I didn't give up.

I totally agree with author Dan Savage's advice to the young woman.  Find a man who cares enough to create some "macho drama."  In the young woman's mind she may not think that she wants her man to push her, but her fantasies tell a different story.  

We've seen sensitive, gentle, loving men try to please try to please smart, strong women by doing what the woman says she wants.   I call this situation "room mates."   A lot of the couples in these relationships call themselves "room mates" too.  

Lovers have tension . . .  sexual tension.

Every blog entry that I have written prior to this one has been edited by my lover.  This entry is mine, and mine alone.  We're still on our journey.  I know I can never satisfy my woman by doing what she says she wants.  I can only really satisfy her and fill her if I try to anticipate her needs and desires and fill them for her, even before she knows that something is missing. 

I'm not going to show her this blog, I'm just going to publish it and go love her.
 

In "Safados," second quality film in the, supposedly couples friendly, "Fashionstas" BDSM trilogy, the hero fucks, spanks, gags, stretches, spits on, humiliates and manhandles two women for over an hour while his very intelligent, skilled, desirable and creative girlfriend is in an adjacent room, aware, jilted and hurting.  There is no pretense at female physical pleasure or female orgasm.  The women just get fucked . . . brutally and protractedly.  The man only cums once, at the end of the scene.

Judy observed;  "It's all just animal sex."  "They are just giving in their base instincts."  "There's no love."  "There's no plot."  "There's no reason for it."  "They are just doing what comes natural."  "It's horrible that he's hurting his girlfriend."  

At first glance, her comments have merit.  What could be more base and instinctive than fucking strangers?

But maybe that's not quite so.  It's instinctive for a man to climax very quickly after entering a woman.  It is definitely not instinctive or natural for a man to be stimulated by beautiful women for a long time without giving in to his own desire for physical gratification.  Both the very real human actor, and the character that he portrays are delaying their gratification for what amounts to art.  The actor is doing it to create the movie (art in a sense,) and the character, as portrayed, is doing it to explore human emotions by stretching the women's boundaries. (Emotional art, or even philosophy as I would define it.) 

How about the women and their natural instincts?  Wouldn't the very real actresses rather be home with their kids, or out shopping or nibbling on chocolate and sipping wine while chatting with their girlfriends?   Sure they are doing it for the money, but on some level, don't we all have to postpone doing the things we want to do while we do the things we have to do in order to earn a living.  The best among us take pride in our work and seek the most challenging tasks.  Certainly the actresses in Fashionistas take pride in their ability to do things that few other women could imagine.   

So too, the female characters, as portrayed, take pride in allowing a skilled man to guide them into experiences beyond their normal boundaries. 

Even the girlfriend, as portrayed, battles her natural instinct of jealousy as she tries to understand her lover's "creativity" and "sexual artistry."

Typically us guys watch porn and whack off because it feels good and it's easier than dealing with the messy, complicated, emotional women in our lives.  Typically women resent porn because they feel it feeds unrealistic expectations among men, or because male porn viewing is tantamount to infidelity. 

In other words, we use or malign porn for our own selfish purposes.  Maybe the problem in our relationships is our own selfishness. 

If I watch porn, whack off, pop a can of beer and watch the game, while my wife cooks dinner, cares for the kids and cleans the house after work, it's a fair bet that she's going to hate porn, withhold sex and ultimately resent me.  If I skipped the porn, didn't whack off, cleaned the house, cared for the kids, cooked dinner and welcomed my wife home from work with a foot rub, things might go better for me.

So maybe there's a lesson hidden in the porn.  If the male actors did what came natural, fucking for 2 minutes then taking a nap, and if the female actresses did what came natural and went to the mall instead of the studio, the porn would never get shot at all.  If we want our wives to be the fantasy goddesses we see in porn, we have to do what the porn stars do, which is discipline ourselves and do the work that needs to be done instead of just seeking our self-gratification. 

If we want our husbands to be the heros of our fantasies, we have to do what the most important thing the female porn stars do, which is look at our men like we actually like them.

A happily married wife trying to put her finger on what works and doesn't work for her in sex.

"When we were young, my husband always gave me orgasms.  It's not logical, but I've discovered that most of the time I'd rather just fuck.  I often feel like I have to 'perform' by climaxing.  Most of the time, I'm not in the mood for sex anyway.  I do it because it makes me feel close to him, not because I want the sex itself."

"I can't come if I'm worried or thinking about other things.  Since it usually takes a long time for me to come, I start worrying about whether he's enjoying or not.  Then I'm worrying, so I can't come.  It's very frustrating."

"I'm always in the mood to feel, pretty, desirable, and close, but I'm rarely in the mood for sex.  That's why it's hard when he asks if I want to make love.  I don't want to make love, but I do want to feel close to him, so that's the wrong question for him to ask."

"It's usually better if he just grabs me and has his way with me.  I don't have to worry about whether I climax or not.  I can just feel his passion for me."

"Of course when that happens, I'm dry and it hurts at first.  Emotions flood into me.  I shouldn't like it, but strangely my body lubes up almost instantly.  If he's being gentle and sweet, it takes me forever to get wet."

"When he's feeling passionate he'll often swat me or spank me or grab a breast too hard.  It hurts, but I feel something else too, something primal and deep.  Emotionally it's like really, really passionate kiss.  I don't have to climax and I just feel alive and taken."

"I even like the rough sex better when he doesn't come.  He'll fuck me or "make me" suck him, but often he stops before he cums.  I know that it was me he wanted and not just his release.  I know he'll be hotter for me than he was before, and I know he'll be back for more soon."

"For me the sex is really all about the connection.  Orgasms are great, and I love when he gives them to me, but it's really nice to be able to connect physically without having to perform"



 

The three clerks in the women's department huddled at the dressing room entrance grumbling about how management had overstaffed, and then it had rained.  Someone would be sent home. 

A shopper asked them for help finding a price.  They referred the customer to the sales register on the other side of the store where there was a line and returned to their grumbling.   "It's just dead in here tonight.  It's not our fault it rained, why should we lose pay."

Seeing lots and lots of customers, I suggested that it didn't look so dead to me.  "Yeah, but it's almost Black Friday, there should be a lot more people in here."  The lady who needed help huffed, hung her garment on the nearest rack and left the store. 

Instead of complaining that there were too few customers, they could have been selling garments to the customers that they did have.

How often do we do that to the very real people right in our own home?  Maybe he's not quite Prince Charming, or maybe she doesn't have an easy, "on/off" switch like like the porn Queen we fantasize about, but the person in our home is already there.  With just a little effort we can make good things happen.  Instead we often bitch about what we don't have. 

The soldier was usually in the field, hot, tired, and sleep deprived, training his men.  For her special day he finagled some time off  to celebrate with her.  When he arrived, she bitched that if he really cared and loved her he wouldn't have been gone so long. 

He brought a carefully chosen, custom made, expensive gift.  She bitched that it was common and plain.

Miserable, he rushed back to his men using the excuse that they were deploying overseas and his presence was required.  She bitched that if he cared he'd have stayed a day or two longer. 

For decades she held this "sin" against him and reminded him of it whenever she was annoyed (which was often.)  Of course he hated that too and would find excuses to stay away.

If we look at this interaction through the lens of logic, we see a woman henpecking and nagging the life out of a man . . . chasing him away . . . but maybe that's not the only lens to view it through.  If the guy was tough enough to lead soldiers, maybe he should have been tough enough to stand against the emotions of one woman.

What if all that bitching was just her way of asking "do you love me?" 

If a man knew that that was what the bitching meant, then he'd know that all he had to do when his woman bitched like that, would be to, sweep her off her feet, look deep into her eyes, and say "I love you too," while totally filling her with his presence? 

That's the paradox.  When we run from our women's intensity, they chase us down and peck us to death with a million little hurts.  When we stand and love them back . . . good things happen.

From outside, it sounded like an exceptionally vigorous and violent scene.  The whistle and crack of leather drew a small crowd as the athletic young domina, her body glistening with sweat, flailed her lover's glowing red back with all her strength using a variety of cruel floggers and paddles.  

Remarkably, he was smiling and chatting with her casually about the pain inducing qualities of the various implements.  Nothing she could do fazed him.  He taunted her often so she'd try harder.  It was all fun to the two of them as they played in their little emotional cocoon oblivious to the onlookers. 

After some time, they noticed the crowd and started explaining the process to some young newbies.  Almost imperceptibly the energy shifted as they subtly began performing for the onlookers instead of to connect with each other.  Soon even the lightest touches had him calling out safewords instead of taunts for more.  The scene died.   

For the last week or so Judy and I had been building a lot of good energy and emotional tension in our relationship.  Yesterday a woman we love dumped on us and attacked us.  It killed our energy.  We were just flat after that and disinterested in each other or much of anything.

Pondering how to deal with the situation, I read my own last blog post about how a man can DESIRE to connect with a woman's feelings.  I really do want to stay connected to the woman, so the DESIRE was there.  At the same time, I felt hurt, and I feared treading into the minefield of whatever had set her off.  I felt she was being unreasonable and irrational.  Everything in my being told me to just stay away from her and let her cool off.  Instead, I followed my own advice, saying to her "I'd like to understand what you were feeling when you said that thing to us."  The woman began to explain in progressively nicer ways, and then she began to glow.  I could feel the anger and harshness flow out of her to be replaced with the radiant, loving, feminine side of her.   She responded to my desire to heal and my willingness to take some pain to get there.

That relationship is good again, and Judy and I have our mojo back.

Great spiritual teachers urge forgiveness.  But what is that?  What does it mean to forgive?

I wonder if maybe DESIRING to connect with the emotion in another that hurt us is really what forgiveness is, just like when the man was DESIRING to connect with his domina friend he could take every form of pain, but when he was thinking about the show they were presenting to others, he failed.

Maybe pain, emotional or physical, is sort of subjective.  When pain is connecting us or healing us, it can be almost pleasure, but when it's injuring us or alienating us, pain is magnified.

Maybe forgiveness is the good kind of pain?

In recent posts, we've discussed the idea that even if a person is not "in the mood," and even if they don't attain orgasm or physical pleasure, it's still very possible to experience intense emotional, intimate and connective feelings by just going ahead and "doing it" with your passionate partner.

Then we talked about how a husband might please his wife by doing something stereotypically feminine, like thinking about feelings and talking about them.  But why would a guy want to do something like that?  Talking about feelings is often like crossing a minefield; one wrong step and you get blown up.   

Why take the risk?  I say it's worth it because the rewards are incredible.

Watching my woman swoon, open and then heave and shudder with pleasure is about as good as it gets.  I know I'm not alone in feeling this way.  The whole porn industry is built around images of women in pleasure.  They always show the sultry eyes, pouty lips, and exaggerated moans of pleasure, not just the genitals.  If it's a turn on to see some airbrushed actress fake pleasure, it's incredibly intoxicating to see my very own woman in that place for real.  I, for one, can't get enough of it.  At the same time, we can't stay in bed all day.

That's what I love about having another way to connect with her that does almost the same thing.  When I enter her emotional world, and get inside her head by touching her feelings in a way she responds to, it's every bit as intoxicating as touching her body in a way that it responds to . . . and I can do it any time, any place, even if we can't take our clothes off.

"So, my love, I was thinking about that thing you were saying earlier, and I bet you were feeling _________.  Is that about right?"  That question is the emotional equivalent of a quick fuck.  I naturally love the body to body, sweaty embrace.  My gal naturally loves the soul to soul embrace.   Both are intoxicating.  "I was thinking about what it must feel like for you to stay home alone with nothing but the kids for company while I was at work today.  That must feel like ____________ ."   "I noticed you looking at those ______ shoes in the store.  I bet when you tried them on they made you feel ____________ ."

It's just like sex.  At first she resists, then she opens a bit, then she swoons.  When it's over, there's a nice afterglow. 

That's why:   
I learned to love the soul to soul mental embrace even though I wouldn't much think about feelings.
She's learned to love the sweaty, body to body fuck even though she's rarely "in the mood" for sex.

Our last two posts discussed the idea that quick, random, frequent fucks might be good for a marriage if they were shared in the spirit of emotional connection rather than physical self-gratification.    In other words, she could enjoy hiking up her skirt, smearing him with lube, and bending over for a quickie, not because she felt like sex, but because she felt like connecting with him . . . many men would be overjoyed to have a wife who actually desired to connect that way.

We implied that the thing that would make this kind of connection work would be her active desire.  If she WANTS to connect with him that way, he's going to feel loved.  If she's only doing it out of obligation, or a sense of "getting it over with," he's going to feel a bit empty and she's likely to start feeling resentful.

That brings us to today's topic.  Today's outrageous proposal is that it is possible for a husband to DESIRE to engage in some of the things that wives tend to enjoy. 

A prominant marriage counselor said that many women wish their husbands were better listeners . . . (duh)

A loving husband could take a minute or two before turning on the TV to randomly say to his wife "I was thinking about that thing you said earlier and I bet you were feeling ________ (fill in the blank)"  It would be kind of like a game.  Remember something she said, look into it to see what feeling she was trying to express, spend a minute connecting with her by talking about that feeling. 

Recently I wrote about Judy's idea that wives might make their husbands happy by giving them sex readily.

It sounds like a great idea, but there's a problem with it.  If she's "giving" him sex to "make him happy," she's effectively trying to buy his love.   It's no different than a man trying to "buy" his wife's affection with clothes and pretty things.  Sure she likes nice things, but she's likely to want more than just stuff.  Similarly, he likes sex, but a psychologically heathy guy is going to desire more than just a willing body.

Our needs and emotions are complicated.  If all a man wanted was biological release and few seconds of physical pleasure, he could give that to himself.  Why do we even bother asking complicated, emotional, demanding, messy wives for sex when we can just watch gorgeous women on porn and give ourselves as many climaxes as our bodies can rise for? 

I've written in other posts that my woman, like many, doesn't like sex very much and doesn't think about it very much and often finds orgasm not worth the time and effort required.  Wouldn't it make me happy if she just "gave" me sex whenever I felt like it? 

Well she does (it wasn't always that way) and I do like it, very much.  But, as I've matured and our relationship has grown and all of my adolescent fantasies are now real, I've come to realize that what I wanted isn't really what fills me. 

It isn't the sex itself, or the wild fantasy, that makes my gut flutter when I'm with her.  It's the emotion and relational energy that we communicate with each other as we play.   She usually doesn't even want the sex itself, but she too has learned the intoxicating power of the emotional connections that can be made in intimate passionate play. 

So maybe she doesn't necessarily want the act, but she craves the passion it can provoke.  Maybe I think I just want the act or the fantasy, but I get caught up in the passion, emotion, and connection too.  No amount of porn and masturbation ever brings two souls together.  That's why a 30 second fuck can be sublime rather than dirty.

The two become one.  That's intoxicating.

A prominent sex researcher told us that many husbands would like to have more sex than they actually get . . . (duh)

That got us thinking about what sex really means in a marriage.  Realistically, it doesn't take two minutes to bring most guys to orgasm.  If a husband really wants more sex, why couldn't a caring wife just hike up her skirt, blast him with lube, bend over the sofa and let him have a quick fuck as he's walking out the door to work?  It would be kind of like a kiss.  (If that sort of cold start intercourse proved too painful, she could always give him a quick blowjob or handjob.)

So, that's Judy's immodest proposal.  Just a few minutes a day to a satisfied husband.

I have been pondering this.  Over the years as our relationship has matured, Judy learned to love giving me any kind of sex, any time, anywhere, in any position . . . and I've become a happier (very, very happy) husband, so she thinks the same would make any husband happier.  We understand that some religions strongly encourage or even command wives to give their husbands this degree of access.

But is it the sex that made me happier?  

Is it possible that something else in the relationship changed that both made me happier and enabled her to enjoy the random, quick (no orgasm for her) bonk?  (Yes, we also still enjoy the nose to nose, all afternoon, cuddle, snuggle, massage with deep orgasms and great communication.)

How does it work?  Great sex = Great relationship? or Great relationship = Great sex?

 Lately I've been collecting comments about "judgmentalism" that I find ironic.  Here are some people who have been hurt and angry because they felt that they were judged unfairly.

• A stripper complained that she was "mocked," for pole dancing.  Ironically, other strippers, not the audience mocked her.
• A dungeon master complained that "most of them are always judging our kinks."  Ironically, he was referring to card carrying members of his own dungeon.
• A swinger speaks resentfully "all those judgmental people" who don't understand her lifestyle.  Ironically, she was referring to others swingers in her own club.
• A pastor complains about being judged harshly for preaching the message of "grace" instead of "holiness."  Ironically, it was his own church member who attacked him.
• A volunteer complains about being accused of laziness.  Ironically, the "lazy" volunteer showed up and is working. 

I don't know exactly what to make of this.  I'm still pondering . . . but it seems like we get judged by those closest to us.

If the dungeon master went to a strip club, he'd just enjoy the show.  No one would judge him, nor would he mock any of the dancers.

If the stripper went to the dungeon, she'd probably just enjoy the show (or run away,) but she wouldn't feel judged, nor would anyone judge her.

If the stripper, swinger or dungeon master showed up to volunteer at the Goodwill, their help would be appreciated, not criticized.

If the pastor went to the dungeon, no one would criticize the nuances of his preaching strategy.  Conversely, if the stripper, swinger or dungeon master showed up at church, he would welcome them.

Why is this?  Shouldn't the church member direct his indignation at real vice instead of at his pastor?  Shouldn't the strippers support each other and direct their judgment at the system that treats them as meat for sale?  Shouldn't the volunteers direct their efforts toward getting more people to help instead of berating the ones who are already helping?

 

We joined a group of like-minded, middle aged, long-married couples meeting every other week to learn skills to keep their good marriages vibrant.   We started off eager to learn, but each year we studied a less challenging topic until after 5 years the group doesn't talk about couple's issues at all anymore.

Year one was a challenging study guide that asked tough questions. 
Year two was light and cheerful book on love and communication. 
Year three discussed non-sensitive topics cherry picked from the above book. 
Year four we used some very broad discussion questions like "name one thing that you really like about your spouse."

It seems that even the most innocuous of topic, such as the challenge to "publicly compliment your spouse" would stir up some old  bitterness.  Then two well intentioned spouses would feel turmoil and frustration trying to communicate their complex feelings and emotions on sensitive subjects.  Lessons that were intended to help couples bond more deeply wound up causing strife.  Of course, personally Judy and I grew and learned quite a lot.  For us, the short term turmoil was a small price to pay for resovling issues that have festered for decades.

Now, in year five the group has all become close friends, but rather than stir up and deal with old hurts, we've chosen to do an entirely different study that has nothing to do with marriage, feelings, or intimacy.   

I suppose there's wisdom in sweeping issues under the rug, compromising, settling, putting up with, and accepting . . . but I want the passion and the heat - I want connection.  I didn't get married to have a partner to put up with.  I married for the fireworks we all dream about.

The pastors frequently lecture on the evils of porn, and they privately acknowledge that at least 50% of male church members including leaders have serious infatuation with porn or are addicted to it.  The church believes it's wrong.  The men believe it's wrong, yet at least half still indulge.  Now the pastor was taking the message to the ladies, admonishing them to NEVER watch porn with their husbands. 

In saying that, the pastor attacked the tiny minority of men brave enough to share their fantasy (porn) life with the wife, but he did nothing to address the underlying problem of discontent which would cause a guy to ask for that in the first place.

A church going man asking his wife to watch porn with him is opening himself up to anger, shame, humilation, and a possible lecture from a pastor.  A man who is willing to take that risk, really wants a great intimate relationship with his wife, or he'd just sneak off to be alone with his DVD player and fantasy plastic partners.

It's dumb for the church to urge wives to blanket reject a husband who is trying to create a closer intimate connection.  We all know that porn's not the answer to marital problems.  Communication is.  When the husband asks to watch porn with her, he's opening up the door to communication about his fantasies.   It's easy to answer "Yes, I'll watch it," or "No, I won't," but both of those answers are cop-outs.  How much better to embrace the man at that moment when he's made himself vulnerable.  Why not use the chance to find out what's missing that he thinks porn will fill?  

Instead, the pastor was urging wives to just slam the door in his face.  Sweeping the issue under the rug will not solve it.  Is it possible that 50% of the male congregation is watching porn because their wives don't really understand their husbands needs?   

There's nothing unusual about boundaries.  Everyone has them.  Still, I wonder if there is a difference between boundaries that we set for ourselves and boundaries that we impose on our spouses. 

In an intimate physical relationship like marriage, when one person say "I won't," it's the same as saying "you can't" to the other person.  The pattern that we follow was set in the  back seat of the car in High School.  She's kissing and getting him hot, but she won't let him put his hand in her blouse.  In serious adult dating, they have sex, but he won't commit to marry her.  In marriage she won't give him as much sex as he wants, but she won't let him have sex with anyone else.

When our intimate partner says "I'm not in the mood tonight" s/he is actually saying "I'm not going to meet your needs, and you'd better not mess around with anyone else.  Deal with it." It's like s/he owns our body and has a right to control our actions.  Ultimately s/he enforces that right with the threat of anger, or less sex, or maybe even divorce.  The divorce decree is ultimately enforced by  men with guns (the police.)  So, when we distill her "rule" down to the essence, she is using the threat of denying him things that he wants (including the access to the partner.) And that threat is backed up by the state.

We don't realize it but many of our most important marital expectations boil down to cultural, religious, or spousal rules enforced by the implicit threat of withdrawal backed up by the awsome violent power of the courts and police.  Maybe that's good enough if we just want our spouses to follow the rules that we set for them. 

Still, I wonder if there isn't a better way to interact.  What if our spouses behaved in ways that pleased us, not because we made rules or threatened them, but because they loved us and wanted the best for us?   

The hooker was trying to sell herself to a group and was willing to do anything with any or all, provided no one touched her (very tiny) breasts.    

Did withholding part of herself make her more desirable to the men buying her?  It seems like we always want the thing we can't have.

Or, was, even she, trying to protect some shred of dignity?

I was blessed to know a couple who had been married for 50 years and had been really, deeply, truly, richly in love (most of the time.)  The family was starting to plan for their parents 50th wedding anniversary.  All the adult kids were arguing with their elderly Dad.  

Mom had been fretting and fussing about how to make their 50th a memorable event.  She was looking onto booking a cruise ship for an evening of friendship and dancing.  She pondered renting a beach house.  She was making lists of friends and thinking of decoration colors.

The kids all felt that they should get onboard and help Mom with the plans.  Dad, the casual, happy veteran of 50 years of marital games, told the younger folks that he was going to set up a simple gathering at the horseman's club where they had been leaders for many years.  The young folks were aghast, "but Mom wants something fancy, like the cruise."  

The discussion went something like this:

Adult Kids:  "Mom wants to take everyone on a cruise, and you are talking about the stables?"

Dad:  "Our friends will actually come if we do it at the horseman's club."

Adult Kids:  "But Dad, you are always in trouble with Mom.  Remember the time she wanted a silk jacket for her birthday and you bought her a leather one instead?  She had to take it back."

Dad:  "And she told EVERYONE that I chose a jacket for her."

Adult Kids:  "Why not just do what she wants and make her happy?"

Dad:   "It makes her happy to complain a bit."

Adult Kids:  "Mom is going to give us grief if we don't do what she wants."

Dad:  "Yep!  And we've been making up for 50 years."  

He grinned. 

 

"Hey pervert!" In certain circles this is a friendly greeting and veiled snicker at the "vanilla" world.  (I'm referring to the serious community gatherings where people pay dues and attend meetings to socialize and share educational material on their "kinks.")

Just like any other place where people gather, the kinky communities have rules and traditions which are rigidly enforced.  It occurs to me that almost all of these rules mirror religious and cultural norms in the underlying society.

For instance, the common saying "Don't judge my kink and I won't judge yours" is almost word for word the biblical admonition that one should "judge not, lest ye be judged."

Similarly, swingers are fond of saying that there is "no adultery and no deception in the lifestyle."  That's a nod to two of the ten commandments "don't commit adultery" and "don't bear false witness (lie.)"

The Master / Slave folks have strong rules about the meaning of the collar.  In effect, collaring is marriage-like and often even includes traditional marriage like vows and ceremonies.

The Tantric practices are largely perversions of traditional Hindu and Eastern practices dealing with breath, chakras, postures, and meditation.

In communities exploring the most extreme of human behaviors, we discover that people are expected to behave like perfect, traditional, gentlemen and ladies.  

I wonder if these communities could even survive if it were not for the religious and cultural traditions that they thumb their nose at and rebel against.
   

Struggling with his emotional and volatile new wife, the young husband asked an older man's advice.  He was told that sometimes when the ladies get emotional they are just looking for a firm hand and reassurance.  He advised the young husband that a modest little spanking could sometimes help bring a wife some emotional centering.  (This was a long time ago in a different era.)

The day came when the young husband felt that his wife was being totally irrational, and unreasonable.  He flipped her over his knee and laid a moderate swat on her fanny.  Predictably, the feisty wife went ballistic.  In a flash she was off his lap and a hail of dishes pelted him as he retreated out the door and to his car.  He returned with flowers.

He learned his lesson.  He never swatted her again.  From then on, he went away when she was angry, returning with metaphorical "flowers" to placate her.

She leaned her lesson.  Don't let him get away with anything.

She spent the next 50 years teaching and reteaching him the lesson in myriad ways, chipping the life out of him with the spiritual death of a thousand henpecks.  She never was completely happy with him after that.  He tried to stay out of her way.  Their lives became separate.

Maybe the "little spanking" idea was bad advice.  Sometimes we do stupid stuff.  Still, when your woman is in an emotional tizzy, is it smart to either try to bully her into "behaving" or to retreat out the door and return with flowers?  (I'm not talking about abusive or violence prone relationships here.  I'm just talking about the normal healthy passions.)

How about staying fully present, hearing her, breathing in her passion and loving her though it?  Women don't like men who bully or who run.

As she beds James Bond in the movie, Casino Royale, the gangster's wife laments all the pain that bad men have caused her, and she asks, "why can't nice guys be like you?"

• If there was a man who was handsome, wealthy, generous, kind, honest, and insightful and
• If that man was the "perfect gentleman" escorting his lady properly, attending to her needs, never demanding, always attentive, and
• If he never challenged her and never demanded sex from her but could perform well when she desired him to, and
• If he would do whatever she wanted whenever she asked . . .

Would it be possible for a woman to be happy with him for a lifetime? or
Is there something in the feminine that cries out for a man who isn't always "nice" but who pushes, demands, leads and takes?

• I married the sweetest, kindest and gentlest woman, but something was missing.
• I had great sex and deep, meaningful conversation, but something was missing.
• I had close family, but something was missing.
• I loved her, but she too felt something was missing.
• I had meaningful work, but something was missing.
• I found my higher power and worshiped, and that was much better, but something was still missing.

 

There’s a popular religious expression that says “we all have a God sized hole in our hearts that only God can fill.” That’s true, as far as it goes. But we were also built with a “human sized hole in our hearts” that only an intimate lover can fill. The two are related, but this blog is about the “human sized hole.”

I was fortunate to have the time, resources, and inclination to study and learn. I was even more fortunate to have a wife, extended family, and spiritual community willing to share the journey and the load with me.

As you will see in these pages, Judy and I have spent decades traveling from the extreme conservative to the extreme liberal and even perverted fringes of society seeking those who quest for the “something missing.” In this blog, we hope that we honor the higher power who built us with hearts to quest, and our many close friends who are engaged in the quest.

I learned how to fill the “God sized hole” with the higher power that was always there, (though that’s not the subject of this blog) and I learned how to fill the “human sized hole” with the wonderful wife who was always there.

It can be done.  We found the "something missing."  I wish I could tell you what exactly it is, but even though we are living it, I can't quite put my finger on it and name it.  We are now on a journey to figure out why what we learned worked for us and to ponder whether it could work for others.  You are welcome to join us.

We recently met a beautiful, radiant, sweet young woman in her 20's who has never, ever, been on a date.  She'd like to get married and has imagined the dream, but she fears she never will.  She's even wondered if she might have lesbian tendencies, but thinks probably not.

Wondering why this incredible woman has never caught a man's eye, we dug a little bit deeper.  After much circular conversation, we found what we think may be the issue.

It seems that in 8th grade this gal took a "chastity vow," promising God that she would forsake sex until she's married.  Toward that end, she's extra reserved around men.  That makes it pretty hard to date.  Instead of the standard being "this guy seems nice enough, I'll go have a cup of coffee with him,"   the standard is "does this guy really love me and care about me and would he be willing to marry me, if not, I'd better not have a cup of coffee with him because that might lead to something more, and I vowed not to do that."

I like the idea of reserving sex for marriage.  Both my wife and I did the same, and we've never regretted it.  Certainly children and immature adults should not be engaging in sex.  Certainly many Americans believe that sex outside of marriage at any age is wrong.  Still . . .

if an 8th grader is too young to give informed consent to sex, how can she be old enough to give informed consent to a chasity vow? 

Maybe like Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy there should come a time when loving parents explain that, while the chasity vow was important, the now mature adult has now outgrown the vow and should form her own conscience.

The fat, dumpy little hooker with too much make-up and not enough clothes looked like she was actually enjoying the company of her ancient, wizened old john.  They danced, and talked and laughed.  He let her dance with the younger guys and visit the women her own age.  He was the perfect gentleman and attended to her as if he were on a date with a lady from the royal family.

When it came time for her to "put out," her eyes glazed over.  She stripped and lay back with a bored expression.  After the requisite 7 minutes, she began to moan and thrash, screaming "oh god" over and over again, her pelvis pumping and her pendulous breasts heaving.  Her eyes never changed.

He just smiled and touched her lightly with a finger tip, and then again.  Time passed, and a look of puzzlement crossed her face.  Her breathing deepened and she relaxed a bit.  More time passed.    He began to rub her in slow circles with his thumb.  She raised her head and looked at him in utter astonishment for a moment as the first little quivers began in her muscles.  It still took a long time, but she finally came with an almost inaudible gasp and a tiny little shudder.

He helped her dress and she walked out on his arm, a glowing lady.

I wonder how many marriages could be transformed if husbands would take take their wive's out, treat them like ladies, talk to them, be present with them, be attuned enough to notice when she faked, be skilled enough to do something about it, and then still treat her like a princess when it's over.   

Fundamentalist Christians say that Gay Marriage should be / remain illegal.  They argue that allowing Gay Marriage weakens the traditional institution of one man, one woman marriage for life that is central to their faith.    They also say that, today, co-habiting couples have plenty of civil protections in terms of hospital visitation, property rights, and taxation.

If Fundamentalists don't want their sacraments to be watered down or altered by civil authorities, maybe they should keep their sacraments away from the civil authorities.  Already civil society allows divorce.  In that way, society has already severely weakened marriage.  Do Fundamentalists want to be professing their most sacred, "till death do us part," vows in front of civil authorities who will later allow them to break the vow with impunity?

Fundamentalists could flip the whole debate on its head by eschewing civil marriage entirely.  They could all get civil divorces and tell their kids to refuse civil marriage.  Then then the marriage vows would be before God and the church alone.  The civil authorities could do whatever they wanted with the civil institution that they might call marriage, but that would have nothing to do with Fundamentalists as they would not be participating in that divorce ridden, gay friendly, amoral, tax garnering sham.

Marriages in the church would be binding before God and the faithful.  Those married in the religious ceremonies could still register for civil unions just like Gays and cohabiting couples do today.  They'd then have the best of both worlds.  They'd have true religious marriage and the property rights, hospital vistation and other civil benefits that any cohabiting couple would benefit from.   

One could argue that whole idea of marriage belongs in the realm of spirituality, not in the court house. 

Render unto Cesar?

So your husband wants you going down on another woman while he watches (or some shocking thing like that)  What do you do? 

In this sort of situation (and everyone lives some version of it) most of us focus on the details of what we think he wants.  "Should I or shouldn't I"  "Why does he / she want THAT?"  "What about our vows?"  "This isn't what I signed up for."

There's a whole different approach.  Instead of thinking about what he wants you to DO, and whether or not you should DO it, try thinking about what he wants to FEEL.  The stereotype says that most guys aren't very good at expressing their feelings.  Imagine how much harder it is for a guy to express a desire to have a feeling.  First he's got to identify the feeling he wants to experience, then he's got to express his desire for it to you.  Most of us guys just don't have that skill set, so we ask you to DO something.

To understand, look at this classic conundrum.  A woman who wishes her man would say  "I love you," but if she can't ask him to say it because that would spoil the effect if he did.  So she hints around.  Guys rarely get this one.  Guys say, if she wants me to say "I love you, why doesn't she just say so.  I can't read her mind."

On the other side of the simile, your husband wants to FEEL something.  He can't put his finger on it, and he can't explain it to you, but he's longing.  He's aching.  Sex doesn't quite do it.  Good cooking doesn't quite do it.  The ball game doesn't quite do it . . . Pretty soon he starts thinking " . . . if she would just ______, then I'd be happy."  Of course it won't work.  You can do whatever he asks and he still won't be happy . . . because he had to ask.

Fortunately guys are not all that complicated.  We all want pretty much the same thing.  We want to feel loved, respected and valued by our woman.  We need to feel those things outside the bedroom, but we most powerfully experience that feeling when our woman desires to give herself to us sexually.

If your husband is having strange fantasies involving his wife, he may be saying "I love you" in manspeak.  He's likely saying that he can't get enough of her, that he needs more, that he wants all of her, that he can't live with less than every bit of her mind, body and soul.  If he were just expressing some sexual kink or desire, he'd go watch porn and whack off.  That's not what he's doing.  He's risking a fight, and he's risking scorn to express his deep need and desire for her.

When wives learn to apply their intuition and "read" past the detail of what he's asking for and to feel the emotion and passion that he's expressing for her, the whole situation looks different.