Remembering myself, Part II

[Lillieperl]

Dom said:

If that is soo important to him.. he should SEE A DOCTOR!
If he wont.. then that is his problem.
Meanwhile, his own problems, should not stop him from helping his wife.

Yes, it is his problem, and she is experiencing the fallout. My late H had penile implant surgery... and it helped some. But if a guy does not get a spontaneous erection, it's hard (pardon the pun) for him to know he is aroused. The hardon is the undeniable signal to him that he is aroused.

Going to a doctor may or may not help. Clearly this is a subject that you (happily) don't know much about.

And YOU sidestepped MY question: how many times have you experienced a loss of erection? Don't want to talk about it? How did you feel? What if you could never be sure that your penis would respond, no matter how turned on you might be.

Mojo, the penis is a physical organ, and when the blood vessels and nerves are damaged, it will NOT get hard. It won't. The man may mentally want to do it, but if the penis will not get hard it sets up a chain reaction of anxiety and self doubt within him. Mojo said:

it seems highly unlikely to me that a man who doesn't suffer from ED could perform oral or manual on a woman to the point of orgasm and not become aroused himself unless he had recently ejaculated

This statement tells me how (again, happily) clueless you are about the subject of impotence, a subject I know all too much about. Before I met my late husband, I would have probably said the same thing [sigh]. My bf can lie naked, spooned behind be with the appropriate parts touching and have no physiological reaction. Without the physiological reaction, a guy has nothing with which to proceed (in his mind).

Yes, impotence can certainly have psychological causes-- my only experience (that I'm sure of) has been with physiological causes. Several other women who've posted here from time to time have verified what I've said: my bf HAS viagra, but he won't use it. The whole subject is so fraught with anxiety.

I think there's more than this going on with mr karen, but one can't discount the anxiety-producing effects of a few bouts with ED.

And yes, by not practical, I meant "not likely" for him. He clearly has never had a high SD, judging by his experience before and with karen.

Keepin' it real.


ETA: after reading your post--- yes, I agree that a guy SHOULD be willing to please his wife physically even if he isn't aroused. A woman should be willing to have sex even if she isn't aroused. Now what?

[karen1]

Hey Dom - nice record! Congrats!

Let's clarify a few items. H has had an episode or two of ED but does not seem to have ED per se. So, it seems that my choice is not between penile IC and other sexual stuff. It is between penile IC (this is what I get when we have sex) and no sex at all. Are you saying that you believe I am getting sex only when my H is feeling fully functional?

If in fact my H was not able to have an erection I understand and agree that we could have a sex life. Since he does get and stay erect (though it sometimes waxes and wanes) then he doesn't seem to see all that kissy, licky, close stuff as necessary. If he did all that just caus he thinks I'm a great gal and he couldn't do the other I'm pretty sure we could still have a great time.

With the kids I am saying that H likes them underfoot, chooses it and would find it off putting if I suddenly started distancing him from them.

Good point on the telephone counseling. I just found someone from my area who will do just that. She is a sex therapist. I will probably fork over that $170 as soon as I can work out a time. I need to get my ducks in a row on it first. I need to write out some kind of synopsis or something to email to her so that I don't spend the whole time giving "history".

Also, a good point on giving him another choice other than what he thinks he can offer (dinner) and what I think I want (sex) and choosing some close approximation that he might be able to deal with. This may actually do some kind of good.

Karen

[MJontheMend]

PS: your fling guy, doesnt use words accurately.
he probably meant "every guy wants a nympho", not "every guy wants a slut".
Unless actually he wants to see you "getting busy" with other men, that is. yuk.

Hmmm...I don't think you've ever met an actual "nympho" or you'd know that the likelihood that she'd be getting busy with other men would be quite high also. What GP really meant was a woman who is sexually game, not necessarily high drive. I think we all would agree that the ideal would be a lover who is GGG- good, giving and game. Providing pleasure even when not aroused would probably fall under the category of "giving". However, I believe taking action or responsibility for one's own arousal within a sexual relationship is an aspect of being "good" in bed because to a large extent it is a matter of experience/self-awareness/confidence. Although, I'm sure genetics plays a part. My HD sister and I were talking about why we rarely turn our sexual partners down for sex and we discovered that we both did the same thing. If we aren't currently in the mood all we have to do was think about breast stimulation and we would become turned on enough to get started.

[Dom R]

To Lillie:

But if a guy does not get a spontaneous erection, it's hard (pardon the pun) for him to know he is aroused. The hardon is the undeniable signal to him that he is aroused.

Meh...you're overthinking things. (and pretending to be a guy, when you are not, still )
Plus.. you're dead wrong on your last sentance
(thats the problem with you not being a guy, an all )

A guy can be thinking about sex... in a positive way.. and not have an erection.

Also.. a guy can have an erection.. and not be sexually aroused!

It is certainly not "undeniable". I just denied it. So there

And YOU sidestepped MY question: how many times have you experienced a loss of erection? Don't want to talk about it? How did you feel? What if you could never be sure that your penis would respond, no matter how turned on you might be.

sorry, fair's fair.

maybe once, that I can vaguely remember.
obviously, i would be personally devastated, if i thought that would be a permenant state. i was certainly quite unhappy when it happened.

HOWEVER:

I would never be so selfish as to deny my wife sexual fulfilment, just because my balls got cut off/fell off/whatever.

This statement tells me how (again, happily) clueless you are about the subject of impotence, a subject I know all too much about.

As they say, "a little knowlege is a dangerous thing".
You know some things.. but you are missing essential basics. you didnt even know that a guy can have an erection, but not be sexually aroused!
So please dont think you know all about the subject, and definately dont claim it to others. It is harmful to others.

Without the physiological reaction, a guy has nothing with which to proceed (in his mind).

wrong.

Once again, "I. Happen. To Be. A Guy". Your "extensive research on the subject", falls short.

Dont claim to know what is going on inside a guy's mind. Because you dont know.

[SouthernGirl]

As they say, "a little knowlege is a dangerous thing".

Learning. It's "learning". *peevish look*

"A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring"

-Alexander Pope

Language Quotes should be used correctly, don't you think?

[Dom R]

Let's clarify a few items. H has had an episode or two of ED but does not seem to have ED per se. So, it seems that my choice is not between penile IC and other sexual stuff. It is between penile IC (this is what I get when we have sex) and no sex at all. Are you saying that you believe I am getting sex only when my H is feeling fully functional?

Hmmm.. I dont want to state anything like that. I am more interested in you stating what is actually happening. Which, happily, you did further down...

If in fact my H was not able to have an erection I understand and agree that we could have a sex life. Since he does get and stay erect (though it sometimes waxes and wanes) then he doesn't seem to see all that kissy, licky, close stuff as necessary. If he did all that just caus he thinks I'm a great gal and he couldn't do the other I'm pretty sure we could still have a great time.

Err.. the "waxing and waning" stuff. is "Erectile Disfunction", if it happens in the middle of things. (while you are actively having intercourse, not just fooling around, that is)
If his problem was "couldnt get an erection at all", it could simply be called "impotence", rather than "ED".



ED would be embarassing to him, and make him want to avoid sex with you, and/or "hurry up and get it over with". The classic response to ED, is to avoid the "kissy licky stuff", because it wastes time, and he wants to "get things over with" before he loses his erection.

Here's the thing: If he equates "sex = penile intercourse", and "penile intercourse = embarassment", then of course he's going to avoid sex.

So, it would definately be in your best interest, to reassociate sex (that is to say, sex for YOUR benefit, at least), with a wider range of activities.
You're a grown woman... I'm sure you are aware that "oral sex" is only one of many possibilities.

So, there is a two-pronged approach, that you can actually pursue both of at the same time:

1. help him out with his stress levels, so that it is less of a factor in his ED. Schedule relax time, etc.

2. be nurturing and supportive (and nympho? heh) by showing him that it isnt "all about the penis"..so that when he DOES have ED... he doesnt feel so much shame, because you're still really enjoying him. Which itself will help him relax more... which may funnily enough, lessen the severity of his ED to boot.

It SOUNDED like you agreed with my implicit assumption, that you'd rather have the general sexual attention from your husband more frequently, than penis play all the time. So I'll go with that as a given, for the future.

With the kids I am saying that H likes them underfoot, chooses it and would find it off putting if I suddenly started distancing him from them.

I am in no way suggesting that you drive them away, or "distance" them from him. Rather, that the focus is on allowing you and him to relax on a regular basis together.
IF, and only IF, you make it clear to him, that your primary motivation is NOT sex... then he should welcome it.
If on the other hand, he believes that you are just looking for sex... then he will try to avoid it, and use the children as an excuse, and complain about you pushing them away from him.

I will make the assumption that you WOULD actually enjoy the time with him, and it honestly wont be all about the potential for sex

Also, a good point on giving him another choice other than what he thinks he can offer (dinner) and what I think I want (sex) and choosing some close approximation that he might be able to deal with. This may actually do some kind of good.

Glad to hear it could be helpful. Please note: your first shot at this, should not be very "close" to sex in fact, quite the opposite. Think... erm... high school first date, maybe? where sex doesnt come into the picture until at least the 6th or so?

Ye olde "watch a movie and lean into each other" thing, could be just the ticket, i'm guessing.
if you make it a public place, that has no armrests inbetween, then you can be comfy, yet he will KNOW you're not going to be having sex.
(I think )

[Dom R]

Learning. It's "learning". *peevish look*

Language Quotes should be used correctly, don't you think?

Touché
heh heh

[RealJourney]

I have a technical question ( addressed to no one in particular): If a guy is struggling with ED issues/performance anxiety, wouldn't it be easier to work on intercourse from an on-top position or side position, rather than on bottom? Not sure why K's H seems to want bottom sex if performance is an issue.

[Dom R]

he probably meant "every guy wants a nympho", not "every guy wants a slut".

Hmmm...I don't think you've ever met an actual "nympho" or you'd know that the likelihood that she'd be getting busy with other men would be quite high also.

dictionary.com says,
[Slut]:

1. A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
2. A woman prostitute.

Both explicitly mean a woman with multiple partners.


Whereas a nymphomaniac is "merely" someone with ultra-high sex drive.
same site defines it as:
"abnormally excessive and uncontrollable sexual desire in women."

Sounds like the women you specifically had in mind, were specifically sluts.
*cough*.
either that, or they had lazy partners.

nympho can imply "sex addict".
There are some sexual addicts, that are specifically driven to have sex with multiple people. But again, that crosses over the line from nymphomaniac, to slut.

[Dom R]

I have a technical question ( addressed to no one in particular): If a guy is struggling with ED issues/performance anxiety, wouldn't it be easier to work on intercourse from an on-top position or side position, rather than on bottom? Not sure why K's H seems to want bottom sex if performance is an issue.

i would guess that it is because it is less pressure.
The person "in control" has an implicit responsability to make sure that things go well.
It is kinda assumed that the person on top, is "in control".

Thus, if he's on the bottom, he is not in control, so it isnt his fault/responsability if things "dont work right".

guilt avoidance tactic.