Post

Discipline

I have a very strong libido, which is fine because there are ways and means to have it satisfied, even when single, as I am right now. However, I'm getting to the stage where being a casual playmate or reliant on toys isn't enough. The problem arises when my sex drive is so constant that I feel driven to placate it and yes, it does sometimes feel like a separate being from me. I do so love that build up of desire and then the deep pleasure it gives when fulfilled, but it can also stop me from developing the emotional side of myself. I freely admit that I am an indulgent woman. I like pleasure, who doesn't, but how do I find the balance between giving into my needs and building something more substantial, more emotionally as well as physically fulfilling?
Cay12 Cay12 41-45, F 6 Responses Aug 4, 2012

Your Response

Cancel

Find a man who can either fulfill the physical need himself (unlikely) or is willing to allow you the freedom to find other outlets while still being in a committed relationship. Google polyamory. It doesn't have to be shallow. In fact there's strong evidence that multiple mates is more "natural" than monogamy. I could go on but I won't unless you actually want to hear it.

It's an intriguing thought, but is the multiple of women to men or equal. My mind says it's more likely that a man would have multiple women. Is that terribly cynical of me?

Yes, terribly cynical indeed. As many men get off on the idea of sharing a woman as on the idea of having a harem. Consider the prevalence of **** where groups of guys have sex with the same female. Even if you're right, that man with multiple women might be worth 3 men in the sack ;)

Or just exhausted :-)

LOL nevermind him. Human sexual organs are actually designed in a way that implies "***** competition" was an evolutionary norm. The shape of the penis makes it suck the last guy's ***** out when thrusting, the first spurt clears the way, the last leaves a poison trail for the next guy. There's more, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming that monogamy is nothing near our natural state.

Gosh, who knew that sex, when broken down that way, was so brutal.

Not necessarily brutal. Early humans lived in cooperative hunter-gatherer societies. Chances are that the non-monogamy was entirely consensual and every tribe was basically a wandering ****. Our organs resemble those of Bonobos more than any other primate, and you've probably heard of THEM

Imagine: a couple of hours a day devoted to necessities like food and shelter, and the rest leisure with a gang of super-fit peers! Why the hell did we ever invent agriculture?!

Oh yes, I've heard of them, but interestingly I don't like them, though I don't like chimpanzees in general. Possible because out of the animal kingdom they are most like humans.

Beats me :-)

6 More Responses

There's a quiz out there on the web telling you which circle of Dante's hell you belong to. I took it and I belong to Circle 2: Lust. I suspect you're right in there with me lol! More seriously, my wife and I met and fell in lust, crazy lust. But we're still together, and still in lust, 30 years later, so we have created something substantial and fulfilling from a chance encounter. (I have heard it said that coincidences are what happens when God wants to remain anonymous. I believe my wife and me meeting was a pure coincidence.)

lol I think I'd agree with you re: circle of hell, but I suppose it would only be hellish because you'd never be able to satisfy your needs. Now that would indeed be hell itself. I love that you and your wife have built a wonderful relationship from a purely lustful foundation. It gives me a sweet sense of hope xx

Well thank god I wouldn't be able to satisfy my needs. If I did, I wouldn't have anything to live for! Although, as I would be in hell, I'd probably be dead anyway... But I might be in a lot better company than among the saved. (I am not a great believer in hell, as you may have guessed...) Again, on a more serious note, my wife and I met when we were in our late thirties and we have friends who met in their fifties and who are still in love at age 80+ so there is always hope. Keep plugging!

That's a very good point and one that had evaded me. Hmmm not to satisfy one's needs is better than satisfying them. It's a thought.

Have Two sets of men.. One set to play and another set to take serious. The serious set practice being who you want to be.. The best of you .. The other set have fun but do not get emotional about .

Sadly, I've had a friend of mine choose me as part of the serious (sexless) group in an arrangement like this. For others in the serious group she might have had different reasons, but in my case, I think that while she knew I am struggling with the slow process of pushing through divorce without any cooperation, she still didn't want to be involved in the process.

Ultimately, it works for a while, but over time all the "serious" men feel rejected. I lasted longer than most but in the end it feels like a special snub: "Others share my body, but you're not in that group." So, now, like the rest, I've given up on her.

That's a sad state of affairs. I don't think in reality that I could separate men like that and anyway, I can't believe that there aren't men out there that can be both fun and sexual. In fact I know that's not the case because I have been lucky enough to find that combination.

Our ability to satisfy our needs and wants, our ability to achieve and complete relationships boils down to our attractiveness, our ability to be authentic, empathetic, and interesting. That is unless we are deeply flawed in which case there is no need for alarm. Just brighten your day with a bowl of corn flakes, a run, and 200 sit ups. Then go shopping. Don’t buy anything unless you want or need it and remember you are only as lonely as the distance you put between yourself and others.

your restrictions prevent whiteboarding response

You fr<x>ame the question beautifully, and I wish I had the answer. I so relate to a sex drive being separate from your persona. I dunno, find a kindred spirit who understands the problem so when the need overtakes you you can go to a safe place? The first rule is "Physician, do no harm." It trumps "Any port in a storm."