Comments on: New phone ‘apps’ make it easier for pols to stray

By: Russ Wellen

Russ Wellen — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:13:45 +0000

Ann wrote:

Maybe it’s one of those things men don’t ask for explicitly?

Yes, we’re too proud or afraid of the reaction or something.

By: jeff watson

jeff watson — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:02:33 +0000

Russ,

An old joke among Southern Women of a certain level of breeding is that once one is married, the first thing to go is the oral sex…..how true:)

Jeff

By: Russ Wellen

Russ Wellen — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:54:52 +0000

Here’s something I always wondered and that I’ve seldom, if ever, seen addressed. Speaking as a man, how come wives who aren’t interested in sex (either at the moment or at all) rarely provide their husbands with manual sex?

Women may not see the difference between that and a man masturbating himself. But I think most men will agree there’s a huge physical and psychological difference. (For one thing, deep down, many men still think of masturbation as a blot on their manhood because they weren’t able to secure a sex partner.)

As a male, if the tables were turned and I was unwilling or unable to commit my whole body to the sexual act, I would gladly provide a manual orgasm for my spouse were she so inclined to receive it. Why aren’t women inclined to help out that way? (If many are, please correct me.)

By: bayside

bayside — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:47:03 +0000

No one has mentioned about taxpayers dollars taken for these love trysts. We would be put in jail for this..He should be too..He has paid 3,000 of one 8,000 bill but the 21,000 and more on still on the books. This is not about an affair its about stealing and no just because he pays it back in installments is not acceptable.

By: Ron

Ron — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:52:20 +0000

I’ll bet that 90% or more of men understand that sex, for a woman, is episodic, but less than 10% of women know or care that sex, for a man, is cyclic. Therein is the real problem. Insufficient sexual activity, for an aging male, can lead to prostate congestion, which can lead to eurgenital problems such as prostatitis and possibly even prostate cancer. But try to explain that medical fact to a woman? You might as well declare derision a necessary part of your existence once you even broach the subject, especially when you’re a young man. It’s ironic that a hundred years ago a woman with “soft hands” was admired, but today we’ve forgotten why. Ah, well. At least we have SUVs and diswashers.

By: Blynn

Blynn — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:03:24 +0000

I am always shocked when I hear about a married couple who no longer have sex, and I think that one of them must be going elsewhere, the other one possibly secretly glad. However, I think that a couple should try everything, including therapy, maybe even of an unconventional kind, before they surrender their sexual exclusivity. Intimacy elsewhere probably means the marriage will end in fact if not in name, and, of course, all too often there will be dashed expectations, a bastard child, an incurable STD, even a violent reaction to discovery somewhere in the mix. I might feel differently about a long illness that essentially, if not physically, kills one partner by robbing him/her of mental function and personality. I knew a man once whose wife was in a psychiatric hospital for decades, and he had a lovely, age-appropriate companion. He was a pillar of the church, but everyone knew what was going on. If he had divorced his sick wife, she would have been at the mercy of charity or Medicaid instead of the generous health benefits supplied by his (military) employer.

By: Russ Wellen

Russ Wellen — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:09:07 +0000

Thanks for responses. Ann shows just how complex the issue is. Credit goes to Jeff for not taking the John Edwards easy way out. Wendy, thanks for article; have just started reading. Thanks also, Lex and JThompson. Mike — you’re incorrigible.

By: Mike Sheehan

Mike Sheehan — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:49:06 +0000

“When one is denied sex, there is counseling, there is therapy… Then, you just have to suck it up.”

So autofellatio is the answer?

By: jeff watson

jeff watson — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:24:50 +0000

1. Cheating is never acceptable in a sexless marriage. It’s a violation of vows, and is dishonorable. This hit me personally when I was unable to make love to my late wife for a few years due to her health. She saw the pain I was going through and urged me to get some on the side, but I stuck by my vows and didn’t step out. I wasn’t even tempted.

2. Emotional affairs without cheating tread on dangerous ground, and probably end up hurting someone.

3. When one is denied sex, there is counseling, there is therapy, and in some cases, there is nothing one can do if your partner is terminally ill. Then, you just have to suck it up.

Jeff

By: Lex

Lex — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:18:59 +0000

Ann and JThompson have answered all three questions as well as they can be answered. Wendy’s pushing it deeper, and i think her question deserves closer scrutiny. Our closest relatives have a very different social structure, yet it has plenty of depth and commitment between individuals. Our ancestors didn’t behave much differently and it’s easy to see how the primate social cohesion would be deepened (and personalized) with the development of language. Marriage/monogamy is a very recent development if we start the time line at c. 5 million years ago to coincide with our split from the hairy cousins.

We should consider where and how these ideals originate. Were there ulterior social motives for the rise of idealistic monogamy? Why is monogamy beneficial? (If the benefit is in child rearing, can we say that monogamous parents are better at child rearing than the chimpanzee troop?)

What about the bonobo? They’re the only other species to have sex A. face to face and B. for reasons other than the primal urge to procreate. Not only do they tend to walk upright, but they look very much like us…disturbingly human in person. They have an extremely developed social structure. And if there’s one thing they are not, it’s monogamous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eubDSQrFako&feature=fvsr

By: Wendy

Wendy — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:24:44 +0000

Perhaps what needs to be re-thought is how viable a concept monogamy is in the first place, in a lengthy marriage. Maybe we as a society need to question the legitimacy of those romantic ideals that are so defining in the first place. How realistic is it, in most situations, that a single individual will meet a person’s every need over 50 or 60 years? Is monogamy essential for a solid, enduring marriage? The ebbs & flows discussed in this post are inevitable. Maybe the French are just more honest. At any rate, it’s a conversation worth having, yet it remains a verboten topic for most, wrapped in language of shame (”cheating,” “unfaithful,” etc. And no, I’m not making any defense here personally; just interesting social norms to analyze & critique.) There is an unusually candid and provocative article in the latest issue of Atlantic that discusses just these topics: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce

By: JThompson

JThompson — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:06:00 +0000

Is cheating a viable alternative to a sexless marriage? It depends on your definition of cheating. If secrecy is involved, no. If both people agree and are open about it…if it makes them happy, then yes.

Emotional affair? Is that like having friends? I agree with Ann. (As usual) If you’re keeping it a secret, it’s a problem.

If either or neither partner is comfortable with going outside the marriage, masturbation or divorce.