Caveman Creations wrote:

Do they have such a thing!?? For women?!

yes!

Damon Banner wrote:

yes!

I think you just became my new best friend! Just tell me that I don't have to answer any of those annoying emails you were talking about before......

Caveman Creations wrote:
Do they have such a thing!?? For women?!

Laura UnBound wrote:

Ah. Then yeah. It doesn't work. Right about now, I'm thinkin' Ambien.

Caveman Creations wrote:

Ah. Then yeah. It doesn't work. Right about now, I'm thinkin' Ambien.

They're not supposed to work on YOU, you asked if there was a libido booster for women

BlueMoonPics wrote:
Name: BlueMoon
Age: Old enough
Location: Wherever I am
Me...naked...

I was waiting for you to start bragging that that thing went up to eleven!

Damianne wrote:
You know reading this thread, I'm gonna have to get serious for a second.

Sex is part of a relationship.
You find a mate and they are compatible with you for your lifestyle, your hobbies, your life goals, and in the bedroom.

Being incompatible sexually is as big of a deal as developing incompatibilities with what you want to do, like if the person you're with wanted to move to Russia and you like living where you are.

It's not piggish for that to be considered as a huge problem. You don't have to just suck it up to be a gentleman or a lady.

I concur.
I also believe that sexual expression however so is a component of compatibility as you expressed and ultimately a facet of romantic chemistry.

Romance must exist in a relationship that is more than platonic.

Laura UnBound wrote:

They're not supposed to work on YOU, you asked if there was a libido booster for women

Oh, well. There's yer problem right there!

Kyle T Edwards wrote:

I was waiting for you to start bragging that that thing went up to eleven!

Actually, it does.

Rachel Reilly wrote:

Sounds about normal!
Im jealous you've found a man to be addicted to.. Where's mine?! ;-)

It's harder than people think! I suggest importing yours, that's what I did, lol. I always joke about ordering him from a magazine. To be honest I just couldn't be bothered to keep dating US guys, so I got me a brit.

Caveman Creations wrote:

Oh, well. There's yer problem right there!

no, she's right.  you are supposed to turn HER on.  So maybe try wearing some heels and lingerie around your wife.  Remind her why she married you in the first place.  next thing you know, you'll be smashing it out 3-5 times a week.

BlueMoonPics wrote:

Actually, it does.

Puts you back on my list.

Damon Banner wrote:

no, she's right.  you are supposed to turn HER on.  So maybe try wearing some heels and lingerie around your wife.  Remind her why she married you in the first place.  next thing you know, you'll be smashing it out 3-5 times a week.

I smell what yer steppin' in.... I've been going about this all wrong. Ima sit in my lil corner here, and contemplate wut I've been doing all this time. Dang..... "Wonder what other questionable choices I've made...."

Jojo West wrote:

It's harder than people think! I suggest importing yours, that's what I did, lol. I always joke about ordering him from a magazine. To be honest I just couldn't be bothered to keep dating US guys, so I got me a brit.

That's what I M talking about! :-)
What's the difference?

Damianne wrote:
You know reading this thread, I'm gonna have to get serious for a second.

Sex is part of a relationship.
You find a mate and they are compatible with you for your lifestyle, your hobbies, your life goals, and in the bedroom.

Being incompatible sexually is as big of a deal as developing incompatibilities with what you want to do, like if the person you're with wanted to move to Russia and you like living where you are.

It's not piggish for that to be considered as a huge problem. You don't have to just suck it up to be a gentleman or a lady.

I agree. On the other hand, if you find someone who *is* compatible with your lifestyle, hobbies, life goals and gettin' it on, and yet you find yourself incapable of compromise in at least one of those areas, the likelihood of fucking up the ideal relationship comes perilously close to 100%.

kickfight wrote:

I agree. On the other hand, if you find someone who *is* compatible with your lifestyle, hobbies, life goals and gettin' it on, and yet you find yourself incapable of compromise in at least one of those areas, the likelihood of fucking up the ideal relationship comes perilously close to 100%.

Why would you need to compromise if they're compatible

kickfight wrote:
I agree. On the other hand, if you find someone who *is* compatible with your lifestyle, hobbies, life goals and gettin' it on, and yet you find yourself incapable of compromise in at least one of those areas, the likelihood of fucking up the ideal relationship comes perilously close to 100%.

Damianne wrote:
Why would you need to compromise if they're compatible

Because people change. Because circumstances are not always ideal. Etc.

kickfight wrote:

kickfight wrote:
I agree. On the other hand, if you find someone who *is* compatible with your lifestyle, hobbies, life goals and gettin' it on, and yet you find yourself incapable of compromise in at least one of those areas, the likelihood of fucking up the ideal relationship comes perilously close to 100%.

Because people change.

That's where the work comes in, to change and develop together in a way that keeps you compatible, not to undo change or just be unhappy with something once you've already changed into incompatibility.

kickfight wrote:
Because people change.

Very true.

kickfight wrote:
Because people change.

Damianne wrote:
That's where the work comes in, to change and develop together in a way that keeps you compatible, not to undo change or just be unhappy with something once you've already changed into incompatibility.

Right. Hence the flexibility I referred to, which prevents reaching a point-of-no-compromise/compatibility ceiling.

kickfight wrote:

kickfight wrote:
Because people change.

Right. Hence the flexibility I referred to, which prevents reaching a point-of-no-compromise.

I'm not sure why you're going onto this tangent, but contextually it sounds like you're altering what I said, which indicates that you think it's acceptable to have incompatibilities and to just compromise. I do not, you work to stay compatible, and you stay honest with yourself (not just lie and say you're ok with it, like our buddy who for some reason burst forth onto a forum about how he's not having sex, which sounds like he's overwhelmingly NOT ok with it), but once you're incompatible, it's a Relationship Problem that needs Serious Work, and if it doesn't get that, it's going to end the relationship. Even if it's "just" your sex lives.

kickfight wrote:
I agree. On the other hand, if you find someone who *is* compatible with your lifestyle, hobbies, life goals and gettin' it on, and yet you find yourself incapable of compromise in at least one of those areas, the likelihood of fucking up the ideal relationship comes perilously close to 100%.

I think she meant that this sentence doesnt make any sense.

Youre saying "if youre compatible in A B C and D, but you cannot compromise on THOSE A B C or D areas...then it wont work"

if you have to compromise, its not a compatibility. If it works, theres nothing to fix.

If youd said "youre compatible on A B C and D, but you find an incompatibility on E and you cannot compromise on E"... then your sentence would have made sense.

Laura UnBound wrote:

I think she meant that this sentence doesnt make any sense.

Youre saying "if youre compatible in A B C and D, but you cannot compromise on THOSE A B C or D areas...then it wont work"

if you have to compromise, its not a compatibility. If it works, theres nothing to fix.

If youd said "youre compatible on A B C and D, but you find an incompatibility on E and you cannot compromise on E"... then your sentence would have made sense.

I think he's saying that eventually, the compatibility is always a lie.

Rachel Reilly wrote:
How long do you tend to wait before having sex with someone you're seeing?
And for those of you who are in a serious relationship/marriage, in a perfect world how often would you have sex with your partner and what's the actually reality of that ? ;-)

Discuss among yourselves!

LOL.. i just realized my average is like, a week.. i only once in a blue moon choose a new partner, though..

Jojo West wrote:
It's harder than people think! I suggest importing yours, that's what I did, lol. I always joke about ordering him from a magazine. To be honest I just couldn't be bothered to keep dating US guys, so I got me a brit.

Rachel Reilly wrote:
That's what I M talking about! :-)
What's the difference?

they speeks funny

Caveman Creations wrote:

Oh, well. There's yer problem right there!

Not my problem at all. Im not the woman with a libido problem (nor do I have a woman with a libido problem, but if I did, Id know how to fix it)

Damianne wrote:

I think he's saying that eventually, the compatibility is always a lie.

meh, thats when you move on.

kickfight wrote:
Right. Hence the flexibility I referred to, which prevents reaching a point-of-no-compromise.

Damianne wrote:
I'm not sure why you're going onto this tangent,

What "tangent"?

Damianne wrote:
but contextually it sounds like you're altering what I said

When did I alter anything you said?

Damianne wrote:
which indicates that you think it's acceptable to have incompatibilities and to just compromise.

Again. It's necessary to be FLEXIBLE to attend to transitional incompatibilities. That's because people change, and during these transitions, incompatibilities arise. Continuous compatibility is an irrational expectation. You compromise by adjusting to these transitional incompatibilities.

Damianne wrote:
I do not, you work to stay compatible, and you stay honest with yourself (not just lie and say you're ok with it, like our buddy who for some reason burst forth onto a forum about how he's not having sex, which sounds like he's overwhelmingly NOT ok with it), but once you're incompatible, it's a Relationship Problem that needs Serious Work, and if it doesn't get that, it's going to end the relationship. Even if it's "just" your sex lives.

Sure, that's an excellent example of someone who sounds like they are reacting because that flexibility is not available. Every relationship is going to hit some rough patches of incompatibility. You don't just bail because of some zealous vow of utter honesty to self. On the other hand, you don't sacrifice your happiness and become a monk. It's not quite that binary.

kickfight wrote:

kickfight wrote:
Right. Hence the flexibility I referred to, which prevents reaching a point-of-no-compromise.

Damianne wrote:
I'm not sure why you're going onto this tangent,

What "tangent"?

Damianne wrote:
but contextually it sounds like you're altering what I said

When did I alter anything [i]you said[/url]?

Damianne wrote:
which indicates that you think it's acceptable to have incompatibilities and to just compromise.

Again. It's necessary to be FLEXIBLE to attend to transitional incompatibilities. That's because people change, and during these transitions, incompatibilities arise. Continuous compatibility is an irrational expectation. You compromise by adjusting to these transitional incompatibilities.


Sure, that's an excellent example of someone who sounds like they are reacting because that flexibility is not available. Every relationship is going to hit some rough patches of incompatibility. You don't just bail because of some zealous vow of utter honesty to self. On the other hand, you don't sacrifice your happiness and become a monk. It's not quite that binary.

R U Ok.

/url.

Laura UnBound wrote:
if you have to compromise, its not a compatibility. If it works, theres nothing to fix.

Oy.

I mean on a continuum, not just in situ. The compatibility is the starting point. The compromise is what allows the compatibility to evolve.

Damianne wrote:
R U Ok.

/url.

Copy/paste distracts.

That's not a deal-breaker, right?

kickfight wrote:

Copy/paste distracts.

That's not a deal-breaker, right?

I can't even figure out what you're arguing about.
You're just like... you're just mad about it.

Your soapbox is leaking on our OT.

kickfight wrote:
Copy/paste distracts.

That's not a deal-breaker, right?

Damianne wrote:
I can't even figure out what you're arguing about.

You can't? I find that hard to believe.

Damianne wrote:
You're just like... you're just mad about it.

That's such a strange thing to say about this discussion.

Damianne wrote:
Your soapbox is leaking on our OT.

Your peanut butter complements my chocolate. Why recoil from the goodness?