I accept your upgrade of Cassanova's image. But does it really matter exactly how Cassanova turned on women? Does it make it more "OK" because his methods seem more "socially redeeming"? It still invites the question about the reversed situation. I can't imagine any woman would allow her man's ED to be blamed on her for any reason. ironic, b/c every woman I know who has a h with ED, began by first blaming herself or assuming he wanted someone else more. Only repeated assurances and physical/medical explanations sufficed to reassure the wives. Anecdotal, but true.
I'm a bit shocked you cannot imagine that scenario when I cannot imagine it not happening, at least for awhile.
It gets into this unfavorable comparison I sometimes encounter about what turns on the typical man vs. typical woman. The hidden presumption in some of the discussions is that a woman's needs are socially redeeming -- better communication, talk, caring, closeness, helpfulness, etc. By contrast, what the stereotypical man needs to be turned on is less worthy -- attractive figure, revealing clothes, a direct grab for sexual organs, dirty talk, explicit visuals, etc.
Well I guess I do see feeling close and intimate as being more socially redeeming or "better" than directly grabbing sex organs, but as a woman I'm sure you will say I'm biased and maybe I am.
But I choose to think you meant something more along the lines of "how we get turned on SO THAT we can feel close", should not matter,
in which case I'd agree & say, to each his own.
But it goes back to GB's question which is, if you are not going to get sex in this marriage, are you accepting that or not?
IF NOT, then what?
M: 57 H: 60 M: 35 yrs S30,D28,D19 H off to Alaska 2006 Recon 7/07- 8/08 *2016* X = "ALASKA 2.0" GROUND HOG DAY I File D 10/16 OW DIV 2/26/2018 X marries OW 5/2016
