People who are socially inhibited tend to also be sexually inhibited. If they don’t communicate well, that’s a sign.
This is bullshit. Someone (male or female) being shy or inhibited in bed isn’t the same as someone (male or female) who is bad at sex.
Reading between Dangerosa’s lines in a possibly dangerous fashion (I haven’t read the other thread), I would suggest that the attraction of a “fixer-upper” is only partly about your desire to change them, and a lot about their desire/willingness to change.
Plus the kinds of “bad habits” that tend to get complained about in men tend to be actually painful or immediately destructive of sexual desire for the woman, whereas a woman being a bit shy isn’t going to hurt a man or stop him from getting off.
Easy there, killer. These are threads dealing with gross over-generalizations. Naturally we don’t expect them to apply to you…or Dangerosa.
Nice turning it personal, 'tho
Yeah! So what if I just lay there? I’m fuckin’ great at it!
Oh please. Reread post #53 and try again. Like I mentioned in my first comment in this thread, for me it isn’t a matter of “him” or “her” at all. The gender is irrelevant to me because attempting to change someone else almost always doesn’t work.
Then another thread is brought up and in #53 he quotes one person from an unrelated thread and then makes a summary statement that it’s “ok” to “fix him” but not “break her”
If that isn’t a loaded bunch of bull, I’m not sure what is. Pretending it isn’t and that I’m just taking it personally when it has zero to do with me or what I originally said is just plan silliness.
And anyway, Dangerosa’s post was an answer to the question “why do some women stay in LTRs if the sex is so bad”; it was not an endorsement of the “fixer upper” mindset. Since it is a fact that some people think this way, the post did not require any rebuttal.
Whereas OP sought opinions on a plan of action so people obviously are going to comment on the plan, and the pitfalls therein.
Uh, he was agreeing with my original assessment that one over-generalization was accepted and another wasn’t. It’s not MY reading comprehension in question.
It’s a curious observation, and it’s obviously rubbing you wrong.
Just lying there would not necessarily be anything to do with being shy or inhibited. Possibly to do with that, yes, but also possibly to do with being inexperienced, selfish, lazy, unsure about whether you actually want to be having sex with that person, concerned that any move you make is going to make the painful thing they’re doing hurt worse, concern that any move you make is going to make them stop doing the thing they’re doing that feels good… or just being bad at sex, which I distinguished as a different thing from being shy or inhibited.
The only way to know is to get to know the person, which takes some time and means you risk “wasting” time on someone ultimately incompatible with you. It’s the same risk everyone runs in the dating/mating game.
Now, if you feel sexually adventuresome and the partner you’re dating says “no sex before marriage” that might be a warning sign to heed. But there are probably some very kinky, very Christian marriages out there, too, into all sorts of creative hijinks.
But someone who only wants “vanilla” sex in the dark is not someone to be “cured” unless that person wants to be “fixed”. Some people just done have as much sexual drive as others, and others aren’t as adventuresome as others. Focusing solely on that ignores everything else interesting in life. I’ve know people in long term, successful marriages that involved no sex at all and both parties seemed quite happy and satisfied. For other people that would be a living hell. Neither state of being is wrong or right, it’s just human variation.
Uh*, how is one accepted and one wasn’t in this thread? I hate to talk about YOUR reading comprehension* but like I had stated, I knew nothing of the other thread. He provided the link and then he came to the conclusion that it was okay for women to do that to men but not the other way around. I can only guess that it’s because those people who have a problem with “breaking” her in this thread didn’t rush right over to the other thread and take offense there?
I’m not going to read that entire thread because I have no more interest in it now than the first time I glance at it, but Hello Again answers the question right before your last reply here.
So, and I had no idea this could be a belief to argue about, I still hold the opinion that trying to change anyone is an exercise in futility at best. Just move on and find someone you’re more compatible with.
-
- The sarcastic “uh” to start out your comment, the “reading comprehension” foolishness… all you had to do was throw in a “fighting ignorance” and you could have had the trifecta of Straight Dope holier-than-thou. Oh well, we have a nice parting gift for you. It’s a strawman reference. Use it in good health
Jesus Christ you people are all jumping over a simple word choice. I can link you to a thesaurus if that would help.
Isn’t sex about communication? Shouldn’t you be able to open up to someone you’re intimate with? I’ve heard enough comments on this board in the past about women “training men to do what they want” in bed, but God forbid a guy want to try something outside the box with an inhibited girl. I guess he’s shit out of luck?
I made a poor choice of words with “break”. What I was trying to ask was, are women who are inhibited sexually to the degree I specified in the OP usually so set in their ways that they will never be willing to let the wall come down a little?
The word “break” refers to physically subduing an animal to make it do your will. Using it to refer to getting a woman to submit to your sexual bidding is not exactly sensitive or respectful.
There’s nothing wrong with just asking for something, necessarily, but you seemed to be asking advice on how to get women to things sexually they don’t want to do. The answer is, you don’t try. If they grow to trust you enough over time, they may change their minds, but there isn’t any strategy or “training,” other than just being safe and caring.
And when women use that language, they’re using it tongue in cheek. They aren’t talking about getting a guy to do things he doesn’t want to do, but teaching them how to do things they DO want to do more efficiently.
So you’re basically confirming that while it’s perfectly acceptable for women to “shape” men into what they want sexually, women hold all the power when it comes to sex, so for a man to even suggest that she try something outside her comfort zone is crossing the line.
No. I’m saying that you don’t try to get people to do things they don’t want to do. Period. Trying to badger a girl into doing something she doesn’t want to do isn’t “shaping” her, it’s just abusive.
No, it’s one thing to express to your partner what you want and for two people to experiment and grow together. It’s another thing entirely to ask how to break a woman.
Also, since you’ve posted a LOT on being a virgin, your OP comes across as kind of creepy. I mean, if you yourself have no experience on how to please a woman, why are you being so picky about who you’re choosing? You’re aware that most women would find the idea of a guy with little to no sexual experience trying to make sure he can pick out a girl who’s willing to swallow and be sexual adventurous kind of laughable, right?
I’m not sure why a thesaurus would help. I’m not thinking of “break” like a horse. I understood exactly what you were talking about.
It isn’t up to you to decide if someone needs to change their feelings about something as intimate as sex even if you think they’re all wrong or if you think their attitude is wrong.
Of course communication is important, that’s just silly. Lots of things in a relationship are important, but if your partner’s style of doing them is very different from yours then are you going to try to change all of those things? Wouldn’t it just be better to find someone that you’re more in line with?
Part of finding a partner is learning about them and looking for those clues that will tell us if we are or are not compatible. Hell, it isn’t just finding a partner. Finding a friend, a great job, a good place to live… all those things are about reading the situation and deciding how we will fit in with our likes, dislikes, attitudes, habits, and beliefs.
If you were buying a house and you looked at one and thought “It’s a nice house and has a good backyard, has a nice pool, big kitchen, etc. I wish the neighborhood was a little safer.” Would you buy the house anyway and try to take steps to make the neighborhood safer, or would you look for a house in a neighborhood you liked better? Sure you could set up neighborhood watches and work with the police department and other things to help, but you could also just find a neighborhood you liked better.
Yes, people aren’t houses but sometimes their foundations are just as solidly set and the walls are even harder to knock down. It’s one thing if you’ve been with someone for quite a while and discover they have some unhealthy attitudes about sex and you want to stay with them and work them through. It’s something else when you’re talking about getting signs early in a potential relationship. Use the path of least resistance and find someone you’re more in step with.
My reaction to your OP isn’t one of disgust and “how could you think that!” It’s more a suggestion to make things easier for you.
Except I’m not. I was curious as to what kind of wiggle room, if any, a woman as inhibited as I speculated in the OP would be.
Look, I’m not the kind of guy that any girl is going to spot from across the room and think “I want him. Now.” Any chance I would ever have for a relationship is going to grow from a long slow process where I get to know (and in all likelihood, fall for) a girl before anything remotely sexual happens.
I’m just trying to figure out how I can avoid a situation where I fall head over heels for a girl, and then after months finally get in bed with her, only to learn that I made a serious commitment with someone I’m not sexually compatible with. Because at that point it would be too late for me to back out, at least without looking like a complete asshole.
If casual sex (precluding a relationship) were ever an option I would certainly jump at the opportunity.
With all things pertaining to individuals, it depends on why they are the way they are. Some just might need a little encouragement because they are new to the whole thing. Others may have hang ups or are terminally shy about their bodies. And others too may be inhibited with one type of person, but feel feerer around another person.
Sexual Inhibition isn’t a disease that has one diagnostic approach or one prognosis.
Soapbox, this thread got me thinking about some of your past threads, so I did a search. You’ve been starting threads like this for almost seven years, now. And a lot of people, myself included, have been giving you the same advice: you’re over-thinking this stuff to an extremely unhealthy and counterproductive degree.
You don’t have to commit to an indefinite relationship to have sex. You never have to stay in a relationship that isn’t making you happy or meeting your needs, and you’re not an asshole if you enter one thinking it will last and it doesn’t. Don’t waste time worrying about the sex with a girlfriend you don’t have.
Just relax. Let whatever happens happen. The more you go into a potential relationship with a truckload of assumptions and expectations, you’re going to make things worse, not better.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting worked up over. And I’m obviously too invested to explain the minutiae if you’re not going to read the other thread. If you look at the timing of the threads, I’d be willing to bet THIS thread got created as a result of THAT thread.
It was an observation of a double standard…about a 2 on the a scale of 1 to 10. You’re one the calling my reading comprehension into question.
So are you going to discuss the issue constructively, or just take potshots?
How would YOU determine if a person was sexually compatible, long term?