I agree with this very much. As much as I love to go out and spread god's seed. I'm a big believer that a true relationship is not purely based on physical activities and can survive on a mental connection alone. Call me a romantic I'd deny it and never show it, but I know it's true lol.

_________________
Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. -Soren Kierkegaard
A woman brought you into this world, so you have no right to disrespect one - Tupac

I don't expect anybody who hasn't been in a 3-4 years LTR (or at least a two year one) to really understand what I'm talking about.... you need to experience it. But I'm trying to explain:
You just framed your view point around the term "sexually based" and you make is sound as if such relationships has no emotions and/or no romance.

Nobody said that. And you're also making it sound as if there are no emotions in any OTHER type of relationship. All relationships have emotions and feelings, I "like" / "love" all my friends, male or female. I share a connection, memories, similar values and such with all of my friends. But what makes your relationship with your girlfriend different is that it is also sexual.

Take out the sex and there is only a friendship. It may be a romantic one (you may still be holding hands, kiss, etc) but when the sexual attraction is gone, and I mean the kind of attraction that makes you want to really FUCK each others brains out at least a few times a week, that's a big big problem.

Your body craves this kind of FUCKING (and I'm capping this word on purpose - I'm talking real sex here) and will start looking for it somewhere else. As I said, you will start to build resentment towards your partner and everything will go to shit. It doesn't matter how much you will still love each other, your sexual needs will override everything else. It seems that our sexual needs are on a much higher level than our need for affection / friendship / stability / love / etc.

Look at people like Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, etc... these are people who have everything yet they risked it ALL just to have a little bit of action outside of their LTR. What does that show you about our need for sexual variety?
We are just not designed for LTRs. Divorce rates, sexual dysfunctions, the shape of our penis, multiple orgasms, sperm wars... it's too long to explain here. It's a very long discussion and if you are interested you should just read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehisto ... 0061707805

I was the same for the first 28 years of my life. We grow up on Disney movies, romantic songs, till death do us part, all that ... we are indoctrinated to have this view because it whats hold society together, so no surprise here. Good luck buddy... hope it works for you.

You guys are cute, but it appears you're quite confused. And I always thought that's a unique feminine trait....

As you already know, attraction is created through elements of variety and uncertainty, the stuff that you learn here. As for keeping a relationship it also takes a sense of security within that relationship as well as putting your partner's needs first. Only by contributing beyond yourself and making the relationship about her/him it will grow. This requires your partner to also live on that level of maturity. Otherwise it will deteriorate due to unfulfilled needs on your end.

Sadly I came to find out that the type of women you are out to chose are so frightened to open up and thus get hurt, that this level might not be achievable.

And yes, once you swallow the red pill, there's a lot of joy and fulfillment as well as pain you might have never felt before. So, remember this: The brighter the light, the darker the shadow.
The games will have to be turned down a notch, or she might perceive you as incapable to TRULY understand her. Picture this: She is upset because the dishwasher broke off and now woes through crazy emotions. She doesn't want you to fix her problem (not yet anyway), she wants you to UNDERSTAND her. You can only understand a woman when you look her into the eyes and feel what she feels. Don't worry about the shit that comes out of her mouth. It's of no consequence. Just be there for her, because being there, for a woman, is everything. Then you won't hear "he doesn't give a shit about me" or "he doesn't get it", in case you tucked in your tail and ran.

Since I coach men as well as women into their core this is a HUGE topic for me. I hope this is of any use for you and will help you to UNDERSTAND the female species a little better and much more thoroughly. There are still a few things I have to get a solid grip on in order to give you the kind of information I find of value and to raise awareness of HOW we really tick and why, so you can create that magic.

From the heart.

Joice Joker

_________________
Joice Joker

We all read "The Way of the Superior Man". You assume monogamy is natural or even desirable. The book assumes that too.

That's so "first 2000 years of humanity" (as in "That's so 2009")
She's upset because she wants to be fucked by four strangers who will cum all over her face but she is stuck in a monogamous relationship / missionary style sex with you and her frustrations come out in the form of complaining about shit that doesn't matter.

All theories about men/women/relationships/love ASSUMES monogamy is our default sexual behavior. Take monogamy out of the equation and all these books needs to be rewritten. And the fact that you coach people about this doesn't mean anything, in fact I would have a moral problem encouraging people to "work" on their dysfunctioning relationships because what you are doing is only perpetuating the problem.

Shit... I have tons of work to do but I'll give you more:

What is the #1 sexual advise people get from sexologists / magazines?

ROLE PLAY.

You dress like a policeman, she will dress like a prisoner... In other words if you want to "fix" your sex life what you should do is FAKE variety.

Now what's the logic here? The logic is that we are seeking SEXUAL VARIETY / NOVELTY from obvious genetic reasons and that variety /novelty is what initially attracts people together.

Think 60YC method - even TALKING with each other reduces the tension / attraction.

Now... when two people in a LTR fuck each other for 2-3 or 20 years... not only that they become "familiar" with each other and they lack this sexual variety which they crave because it is coded in them, and not only that attraction fades away... their bodies actually start to REPEL each other.

It's not that we are not attracted to our LTR partner after a few years... we are actually PUSHED AWAY from them.

Our bodies desensitizes to each other, like brothers and sisters. (this phenomenon has a technical term which I forgot). Our brain starts telling our body that we should NOT have sex with this person, much like brothers/sisters have no sexual attraction between them.

That's why many couples report to therapists that they have become like "brother and sister" because the sexual mechanism here - sexual unattraction mechanism - kicks in, the same one that prevents family members from fucking each other.


....

Good luck on your coaching.

EDIT:

Here I found it. The thing is that this "effect" can be developed after a few years of proximity, not only in childhood:

Westermarck effect

Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen in instances where two people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one become desensitized to later close sexual attraction. This phenomenon, known as the Westermarck effect, was first formally described by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck in his book The History of Human Marriage (1891). The Westermarck effect has since been observed in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.

In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups, based on age, not biological relation. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only fourteen were between children from the same peer group. Of those fourteen, none had been reared together during the first six years of life. This result provides evidence not only that the Westermarck effect is demonstrable but that it operates during the period from birth to the age of six.

When proximity during this critical period does not occur — for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another - they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults. This phenomenon is known as genetic sexual attraction. This observation supports the hypothesis that the Westermarck effect evolved because it suppressed inbreeding. This attraction may also be seen with cousin couples.

Hmmm....looks like I hit THE trigger. Interesting how you perceive it.
But since you seem to be interested in my beliefs, I give you this:
It was my perception that you were complaining about "whacking off"
and what sign that might be.
I simply gave you one possible solution for staying in a relationship,
just in case you should feel a bit awkward about not being able to keep her...
Take it or leave it.

And now move your ass over.
This seat is taken! *holding that whip*

_________________
Joice Joker

The Westermarck effect is based upon sociology not biology -
yes, there is a difference. Siblings as well as other biologically
and even non-biologically family members learn that attraction between them
is something out of norm and taboo.

Of course they can be highly attracted to each other and even happens
with socially integrated members of one family.

Your theory of people repelling each other just by spending time together
is highly illusive, since relationships, no matter of what constellation,
require a sense of certainty. If you can't provide that, then all you'll
ever get is sex - nothing else.
Since it's proven that the human species has a basic need for this
sense of security, you can't build lasting attraction on this level only.

_________________
Joice Joker

"Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen in instances where two people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one become desensitized to later close sexual attraction"

That sounds biological to me... not social.

And it's not my theory, it's a bunch of people with PhDs and such. But I can report from my personal experience that I know what they are talking about. Not being mentally satisfied after sex / an orgasm indicates that the sex was "unfulfilling" from a biological point...

Take Viagra and erection problems. Do you really think it is PHYSICAL? We can't get it up because our body is desensitizes (or repelled) by our LTR partner... it's all mental / biological but not in a "blood flow problem" way, rather in a "we need sexual variety" way.

Sad sad sad.... I used to be such a romantic fool. I still hope I'm wrong.

You think your relationship is over because you masturbate in addition to having regular sex with your gf? Seriously?

_________________
To download the 53-page Manual of Confidence for FREE, visit my blog
Why Men Suck at Sex (fun read) - LINK

"Reverse sexual imprinting is also seen in instances where two people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years in the life of either one become desensitized to later close sexual attraction"

That sounds biological to me... not social.

Children are highly sensitive towards all sorts of influences, such as even thoughts and the energy that's being released. Since most of our communication is non-verbal, yet children rely on adopting behavior which guarantees receiving love in order to survive, of course they will behave in a way that insures that this need for love is being met. Children, who represent a younger version of adults, depend on it.
In other words, those two things, the biological need for love in order to survive, as well as the learned behavior in order to meet that need on a specific social group's terms (where youngsters are being brought up) can't be separated. It's a symbiosis of physical and psychological needs complimenting each other. I find it interesting to discuss whether or not this makes sense, simply because everyone has developed their own belief system of what's true and what's not. Although it's far more challenging to find out what we will do with it....

And it's not my theory, it's a bunch of people with PhDs and such. But I can report from my personal experience that I know what they are talking about. Not being mentally satisfied after sex / an orgasm indicates that the sex was "unfulfilling" from a biological point...

I'm aware that this theory doesn't spring forth from you, but you adopted it in ways that makes sense to you.

Being mentally unsatisfied suggests that either your partner doesn't challenge you on an intellectual level (happens regularly with great thinkers) and/or doesn't give you what you need on an emotional level.

There's another link to this as well. It could be possible that within your model of the world, the way you see things, you came to belief that there is no real complete satisfaction in regards of emotions and intellectual/mental stimulus combined with sex with your partner.
And then who could ever satisfy your hunger for that? Who could give you what you crave? With this set of beliefs no one ever can! (If I'm correct, that is) And so it's working that hand until you drop or finally feel something rather then solely physical release. Masturbation gives you a very close intimate connection with yourself, perhaps the kind of connection you'd like to feel with a female.

Take Viagra and erection problems. Do you really think it is PHYSICAL? We can't get it up because our body is desensitizes (or repelled) by our LTR partner... it's all mental / biological but not in a "blood flow problem" way, rather in a "we need sexual variety" way.

Your statements are controversial. But that's alright, I forgive you - this time...
However, if you can't get it up, it's because of what you came to belief. That nothing ever lasts, that your finger is stuck in your nose, that she's not on the same mental or intellectual level.....all of that has it's influence. Now if you want sex every other hour and feel this totally fulfilled - I don't think that's even achievable, unless you find at least ......let me see....I'm lousy with numbers......around 8-9 occasions for sex a day PLUS feel this kind of satisfaction. If my idea is true, then you'd set yourself up for failure. Again - it's your belief system, unless you're a male nymphomaniac (God help us all ) and then....I'm sorry......I just interrupted my own pattern....hehe.

Oh, yes, then there shouldn't be any erection/Viagra issues at all....

Sad sad sad.... I used to be such a romantic fool. I still hope I'm wrong.

What exactly is sad and what is it that you're hoping to be wrong with? I can only guess. *smirk*

_________________
Joice Joker

Hey man,

You're not convincing me. Did you actually read Sex At Dawn? Are you a psychologist? Therapist? Personal coach?

It has nothing to do with my belief system because back in the day I had no idea about all of this and I 100% bought into the Disney version of love / relationship (find a girl, fall in love, live happily ever after) and then I started noticing that reality is not matching up to that picture.

Looking at other girls in the street even that I have "my own girl". Wanting to have sex with other girls. Fighting over shit that doesn't make sense. Having crushes on other girls and having emotions towards a few women in the same time. Wanting to jerk off even after having sex with my partner... and many other things, I can't turn this into a Phd thesis but anyway, nothing matched that picture of "love" that we grow up believing in, a picture which is very romantic and "beautiful".

Then you become older, you start talking with your buddies and it turns out that EVERYBODY is facing with the same problems and issues. Non existing sex lives, dysfunction, unhappiness... then you start reading on the subject of sex / relationships / evolutionary biology and start putting all the pieces together.

Then one day you wake up - oh my god - monogamy and love, and all the constructions around them like LTRs, marriages, sex advise on TV, Disney movies, Romantic songs on the radio, etc etc etc have NOTHING to do with our true nature or with reality - we are NON MONOGAMOUS creatures who are indoctrinated to believe that we are monogamous due to social / historical reasons.

Sperm Wars - 90% or 99% of our sperm is designed to attack the sperm of other men and are unable to penetrate the egg.

WHY? What does that mean?

It can only mean that in "nature" women were being sexed by multiple partners in a very short time period and the selection of which sperm will penetrate the egg was made internally in the woman's vagina. That is why women can achieve multiple orgasms - they were "designed" to have sex with a few men one after the other.

How the HELL do you explain Sperm Wars otherwise??? Here - you come with an alternative option... OK?

So if we are "designed" to have multiple partners, for hundreds of thousands of years, and then society comes and about 10,000 (or even much less... maybe 3000?) years ago decides that we should be monogamous (so private property can be accumulated and TAXED, before that everything belonged to everybody in the tribe) - so what do you think this unnatural construction that goes against our biology will result with?

With what?

With EVERYTHING you see around you. High divorce rates, sex crimes, unhappiness, sexual dysfunctions, men cheat on their wives, women cheat on their husbands... swingers, couple swapping... you name it. This whole theory explains EVERYTHING.

Sperm wars is just one example - GO READ THE BOOK, I won't argue with anyone who hasn't read the book....


So... in conclusion - what's sad? That everything around us is a lie, that we are being fed a fantasy from a young age, that the "beautiful" ideal of love and relationships we grow on are nothing but a social construction invented for the sole purpose of (drums rolling) - taxing property - MONEY.


If that's not sad I don't know what is.

And then, when you realize all this, you start to ask yourself questions - should I ever get married? Should I even try to be in a LTR? Should I ever start a family? Should I find a bi sexual woman so we can spice up our sex-lives with other partners? Or maybe an open relationship? How would I deal with jealousy? Ployamory?

Or maybe I should REPRESS all this information and LIVE A LIE like the rest of humanity? Find a girl, get married, start a family... then after 2 years we will start to have "problems" like every couple... so we will go to therapy and we will watch porn together, and role play, and do all these silly games to try to make our relationship "work" and better our sex lives. Or we will just stop having sex (the average for married couples is TEN TIMES A YEAR) , and I will cheat on her, or she will cheat on me... like so many other couples... and then I'll be guilty because I'm a good Jewish boy, and I will start hating myself, I will develop cancer.... Or she will catch me, and divorce me, take the kids, the house, the dog...

I honestly can't say I know ANY married couple who are happy. And if there are such couples - they the exception. It's a constant struggle, uphill, against your own nature, for the rest of your life.

No thanks.

@phangan - I think you are missing what I am getting at, which is all you are doing is focusing on the sex part and in turn making it as if the relationship need to be sexually based/focus for it work or else it will fail. I don't care what some PhD guy said. As in 10 years time they be saying something else. I was more replying to your statement about how if a guy needs to whack of just once the relationship is over. Well ya if its sexually based/focus. I am not saying there ain't emotions there but when sex dominates the relationship, guess what it will fail when that goes. Tho from reading what you posted you sound like you be better off with friends with benefits really and most probably about 3 to 5 of them.

Also I would like to point out that sexual views and views on marriage very much do changed. Part of the reason why the divorce rate is so high because the view on marriage is changing right now and is being redefined.

The sexual aspect is never just sexual. When the attraction goes away, when you are unsatisfied sexually, this is usually an indication of much deeper problems. It is just a symptom. It's like a litmus test.

Do you know how when you're happy and everything is going OK with your life you usually wake up with a boner? But then when you are depressed or stressed, things are not going very well, you don't get one? This too is a symptom for everything else that is going on in your life, it's not just a "boner", it's an indication that your mental state is optimal.

I should have seen you take up the Sigmund Freud school of thought that all our actions are sexually based or tied in some manner. I disagree with that school of thought. I am not saying our sexual side doesn't factor into relationships as it does. But I don't think everything is sexually tied or sexually based.