My wife has absolutely no libido anymore.

bleached, blendedchicken parts wrote:

This very thread has caused me to lose my libido. The trite advice is absolutely nauseating.

I would have to agree with this more than anything else I've read on this thread.

God, there are so many idiots on this board, and particularly this thread, it's unfvckingbelievable. The lunacy is so bad I don't even no where to start.

Oh, I'm an idiot? I am making these statements because I have research literature to back up my claims. Do you have any research literature to back up YOUR counter-claims?

Campbell TC. "The dietary causes of degenerative diseases: nutrients vs. foods." In: N.J. Temple and D.P. Burkitt (eds.), Western diseases: their dietary prevention and reversibility, pp. 119-152. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 1994.

Campbell TC, and Chen J. "Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: a summary of results from an ecologic study in rural China." In: N.J. Temple and D.P. Burkitt (eds.), Western diseases: their dietary preventation and reversibility, pp. 67-118. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 1994.

Esselstyn CB, Ellis SG, Medendrop SV, et al. "A strategy to arrest and reverse coronary artery disease: a 5-year longitudinal study of a single physician's practice." J. Family Practice 41 (1995): 560-568

Ornish D., Brown SE, Scherwitz LW, et al. "Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease?" Lancet 336 (1990): 129-133

MAdhavan TV, and Gopalan C. "The effect of dietary protein on carcinogenesis of aflatoxin." Arch. Path 85 (1968): 133-137

Huang HH, Hawrylewicz EJ, Kissane JQ, et al. "Effect of protein deit release of prolactin and ovarian steroids in female rats." Nutr. Rpts. Int. 26 (1982): 807-820

"Why was there such a massive variation in cancer rates among different counties when genetic backgrounds were similar from place to place? Might it be possible that cancer is largely due to environmental/lifestyle factors, and not genetics?" (-T. Colin Campbell)

See:

Li J-Y, Liu B-Q, Li G-Y, et al. "Atlas of cancer mortality in the People's Republic of China. An aid for cancer control and research." Int. J. Epid. 10 (1981): 127-133.

SerVaas C: "Diets that protected against cancers in China." The Saturday Evening Post October 1990: 26-28

"Several studies have now shown, in both experimental animals and in humans, that consuming animal-based protein increases blood cholesterol levels." (-T. Colin Campbell)

See: Carroll KK. "Dietary proteins and amino acids--their effects on cholesterol metabolism." In: M. J. Gibney and D. Kirtchevsky (eds.), Animal and Vegetable Proteins in Lipid Metabolism and Atherosclerosis, pp. 9-17. New York,, NY: Alan R. Liss, Inc., 1983.

National Research Council. Diet, Nutrition and Cancer. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1982.

United States Department of Health and Human Services: The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health. Washington, DC: Superintendant of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988.

National REsearch Council, and Committee on Diet and Health. Diet and health: implications for reducing chronic disease risk. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1989.

Expert Panel. Food, nutrition and the prevention of cancer, a global perspective. Washington, DC: American Institute for Cancer Research/World Cancer Research Fund, 1997.

Armstrong D, and Doll R. "Environmental factors and cancer incidence and mortality in different countries, with special reference to dietary practices." Int. J. Cancer 15 (1975); 617-631

Haenszel W, and Kurihara M. "Studies of Japanese Migrants: mortality from cancer and other disease among Japanese and the United States." J Natl Cancer Inst 40 (1968): 43-68

Guo W, Li J, Blot WJ, et al. "Correlations of dietary intake and blood nutrient levels with esophageal cancer mortality in China." Nutr. Cancer 13 (1990): 121-127

Horio F, Youngman LD, Bell RC, et al. "Thermogenesis, low-protein diets, and decreased development of AFB1-induced preneoplastic foci in rat liver." Nutr. Cancer 16 (1991): 31-41.

You want me to give you more?

Or do you think this is just propaganda?

Why don't YOU cite some science?

Sorry to get off topic, but I guess I must be an idiot.

Oh boy..... wrote:

Barry Badrinath wrote:

You're also an idiot if you think high consumption of plant products leads to a great vibrant sex life full of vitality in the long run. Looks like you're an idiot. Nothing makes the societies you mentioned any more traditional than the rest.

And get out of here with the "lifestyle" crap. Stop pushing your favorite diet/"lifestyle" {gag} as the cure for cancer and the road to a long life of happiness. The life-coach BS I keep coming across on this board Is starting to get annoying.

God, there are so many idiots on this board, and particularly this thread, it's unfvckingbelievable. The lunacy is so bad I don't even no where to start.

_____________________________________________

See my above response.

Yes, I guess science must be lunacy, right? As opposed to your unfounded, insulting opinions.

The situation you are describing is exactly what your wife wanted to happen, and it is exactly what the OPs wife wants as well. You're claiming you to be the selfish one, where in reality it is her for wanting all of this free stuff and to be worshipped, just because she is a woman.Essentially what you're describing is that you have "lost" the relationship battles.

Barry Badrinath wrote:

You're also an idiot if you think high consumption of plant products leads to a great vibrant sex life full of vitality in the long run. Looks like you're an idiot. Nothing makes the societies you mentioned any more traditional than the rest.

And get out of here with the "lifestyle" crap. Stop pushing your favorite diet/"lifestyle" {gag} as the cure for cancer and the road to a long life of happiness. The life-coach BS I keep coming across on this board is starting to get annoying.

I guess you had to call me an idiot twice, for rigorous emphasis, eh.

FYI, I meant "traditional" along the parameter of lifestyle, particularly dietary practices, which could be insinuated by most any "idiot" (but not you).

Most "idiots" would acknowledge that Industrial and Post-Industrial diets, like those practiced in the Western world, are vastly less natural and more processed, than traditional diets enjoyed by mankind for countless millenia before the Industrial Revolution, when societies were more intimately close to Agriculture and ate fresher foods, by and large. This is a pretty widely accepted notion.

Maybe you would have a right to be annoyed and be critical if your feelings and opinions had any support and grounds. But you have offered none so far.

Sorry to go on a tangent away from the topic of healthy sexual relations in monogamous relationships, but when Message Board posters can't abide by any semblance of civility or reason and supported debate, there is not much fruitfulness one can expect in the discussion of any topic.

read american savage wrote:

oh shut up wrote:

Yup. It is ALWAYS the man's fault. Every time.

LOL...agreed. There are plenty of men who would love nothing more than to please their wives who are in sexless marriages. The myth that it must be the man's fault is perpetuated by Dr. Phil, Oprah, Dear Prudence, etc. Why? Because the people that watch/read these things are mostly women, so of course they're going to tell women what they want to hear.

There's a lot of truth in all these comments. In my 40+yrs, all of the so called "happy" marriages have been situations were the husband fawns over the wife and will do absolutely anything to satisfy her. In other words, the woman dominates and controls the relationship. There are certainly many men who seek this type of relationship. This is really the only way a marriage between a man and a woman will ever be considered "successful" and without constant conflict. Problem is, most of us just aren't emotionally built that way. What you typically get is where both husband and wife are sparring constantly to gain the upper hand or at least be on what they consider to be equal footing. This is the situation in most marriages. I see it and hear it every single day. The end result is neither are happy and they "tolerate" each other till divorce or death do us part. Relationships start with the best intentions, but in the end, all is fair in love and war.

Relationships can be so complicated because there are so many variables involved. One party can be engaged in multiple behaviors over the same period, and the interaction between this complex behavior from both parties itself can be complex and hard to predict.

Most relationship experts agree on the general notion that chemistry (including sexual chemistry) and compatibility (at least including of personality) is key to a lasting or at least, sustainable relationship. But how this is accomplished is not universally agreed upon.

There are some dating and relationship realist types who say that a Ying-Yang type balance is necessary. A more submissive person combined with a more dominating person, and vice versa. These thinkers think that having two, very alpha and dominant people in a relationship is not sustainable over time. I think it may be more nuanced than that, because I have been in quasi-long term relationships (romantic w/ female and male-male) featuring strong behavior from both sides but mutual respect was attained and maintained. However, I am not nor have I yet been married.

While I admire selflessness, there is a distinction between excessive "fawning" and then, being the timeless classic, sophisticated Gentleman who can cater to his wife's needs.

There is at least one realistic relationship thinker who, from empirical experience, who clarifies the reality of the common behavior called "being a Gentleman" (scare quotes)--which is really passive, and rather a fake gentleman, via saying expected and flattering things because of lack of assertiveness, directness. The thinker does not explicitly lay out the recipe for being the Ultimate Ideal Gentleman, but surely such a possibility exists, without having to be passive, ineffective, etc.

Fawning is widely accepted to be counterproductive at the beginning of relationships (during pre-monogamous phases, i.e. Dating). I, as well as others, have found via experience that such behavior, at least early on in the relationship, never leads to much relative success and further fruit in the arena of romantic and competitive social relations.

There is less agreement over what is productive or counterproductive behavior deep into a monogamous relationship. To what degree must couples let their guards down and be honest, deep into a relationship? Alternatively, to what degree might behavior approach counterproductive fawning, which might invite exploitation? Some degree of exploitation can still occur even in your typical long-term monogamous relationship. I guess it depends on the behavior of the fawning party and the true attitudes and disposition of the receiver and how they respond to that.

I think to be truly selfless, the party needs to be at least cognizant of sometimes the realities of realpolitik, and work within these frameworks towards "the best result" (which, of course, even then is subject to opinion and debate). Sometimes, political dynamics are very important even deep into monogamous relationships.

I think monogamous couples SHOULD be on equal footing and have certain "rights"--that is the ideal. Monogamy is partly about that respect and mutual benefit, safety, security and love. I think this is as axiomatic as the social contract and unalienable individual rights in the sphere of human society and history.

I think selflessness should be practiced and valued. Clearly, though, it is problematic if both parties are always trying to gain an upper hand or are engaged, reacting and existing in this sort of process and dynamic. But, for one party to have to compensate by engaging in selflessness which may be not appreciated in the long run is unfortunate, too. I would love to hear from couples who have had success related to any of these issues--who have either navigated them well from the beginning, or overcome such problems.

Eminem ran the 800 wrote:

Blablablabla

There is something so familiar with every single post you make Eminem...what handle did you use the last months?

She has no such problems with me

Caught? wrote:

Eminem ran the 800 wrote:

Blablablabla

There is something so familiar with every single post you make Eminem...what handle did you use the last months?

I also post under this handle.

If you want to criticize my posts and their content, why don't you do so constructively? Actually provide some substantial opinions? Instead of acting so superior and cool. I bet you are a real deep and mature person, aren't you--actually, it seems you are like too many people in our society--your entire existence is soulless, unsubstantial, empty nonsense about being cool and social status and prestige. But please, prove me wrong.

When I do participate on the forums, I try to be civil, reasoned and productive. Maybe you should do the same.

When one and one's wife stop keeping score against each other (as in stop thinking of it as a "battle"), then there are no losers because you're supposed to be on the same team.

anapaix wrote:

The situation you are describing is exactly what your wife wanted to happen, and it is exactly what the OPs wife wants as well. You're claiming you to be the selfish one, where in reality it is her for wanting all of this free stuff and to be worshipped, just because she is a woman.

Essentially what you're describing is that you have "lost" the relationship battles.

All this comes down to a few things.

1) Girls and young women are usually very very cool. As women get older, many turn into "B's" I don't know if it is hormonal or they are emotionally and psychologically damaged by their surroundings or other people. Many of these women are overweight, insecure, and unhealthy.

2) Some men become the same things that their women do. In this case, neither wants or has the energy or desire for sex because of health habits.

3) Many women are unhappy when they see what their friends have and compared to what they have. You will be lucky to have a woman who doesn't care about how much money you make. They hold resentment because they don't perceive themselves as being as happy as their friends. If you watch the HGTV show "Love it or List It", almost all of the people who want out of their current homes are the women.

When you have an active healthy person, especially someone younger, they will be interested in sex. When you have someone who is overweight, listless, and has no self confidence, of course they will not want to have sex, no matter what you do for them. If she resents you because she feels unhappy, she will not want to have sex with you.

man that's gay

you are so stupid that it's hopeless. I give up. Glad I'm not you..

Kipketer_Pumpkin_Eater wrote:

I also post under this handle.

If you want to criticize my posts and their content, why don't you do so constructively? Actually provide some substantial opinions? Instead of acting so superior and cool. I bet you are a real deep and mature person, aren't you--actually, it seems you are like too many people in our society--your entire existence is soulless, unsubstantial, empty nonsense about being cool and social status and prestige. But please, prove me wrong.

That was my first post in this thread. I haven't read much of it but you clearly are in some kind of agressive argument with someone and think I'm part of your enemy. I'm not. I like your post silly.

Kipketer_Pumpkin_Eater wrote:

When I do participate on the forums, I try to be civil, reasoned and productive. Maybe you should do the same.

I do the same actually....maybe you should be agressive towards those who are agressive to you, and treat someone simply asking you a questions normal?

I apologize.

I thought you might be some anonymous individual who keeps changing their names and who has over the years, made intermittent, short and substance-less quips about my verbose writing style. They are rare but they have occurred with some frequency over a long period, and the anonymous name-changing poster always seems to suggest they "know" who I am (whatever that means).

........ wrote:

Coming from a woman... wrote:

Alright, I have to say most of the responses to this post are ridiculous .......

Wow! So because he was completely selfless to you, you, eventually, were kind enough to think of his needs too?!? Y

BINGO!

"a coming woman" might not realize it, but THAT Is exactly what she wrote.

Coming from a woman... wrote:

Not to forget the other part of the cycle however. You see, as my husband focuses on loving me and tapping into my love language (this works, I tell you), I begin to give back to him!

Well isn't that sweet! After going on and on for sentence after sentence about your husband kisses your butt literally and figuratively and does everything possible for you, you say: oh wait, let's not forget about the OTHER 1/2 of this partnership (your husband) and how you "begin" (again, only after he does everything possible to please you) to please him too as reciprocation.

If you can't see a problem with that your nuts. Why did he have to be selfless to you first?? Why couldn't you be selfless to HIM first, and then see if that makes him come around to please you? because if a man had written that garbage about how his wife lives to please him, always going down on him first and without looking for any return pleasure, and then, eventually, that makes him decide "to begin" to do nice things for her then you and all the feminists would have freaked the f' out about how she is devaluing herself, and she is not his slave, etc. it's a two-way street and both partners should equally want to nice things for the other.

But you're a troll, and I am not even sure why I responded. All your "love language" nonsense was a sure give away, and i've seen you've responded to yourself. Yes, sex AT LEAST once a day. Okay, sure, gotcha.

(and as far as all this stuff about: get your women off first, and she'll do ANYthing for you garbage, puh-leaze. plenty of guys get off on getting their women off, and gladly go their first, but the women aren't always so into returning that particular favor. It's no guarantee of getting back the same type of passion you are giving. )

Additionally, I misinterpreted your post as being disrespectful because instead of shorthand abridging my lengthy post to a neutral, professional form like "[...]", you instead wrote "blablablabla," which seemed, on the surface, to suggest you thought my verbosity to be nonsense.

Apparently you did not intend this.

Secondly, you did this (you replied and cited) to a post I made which was departed from my previous argumentative engagement about Nutrition--an earnest post about relationship related thoughts which had nothing to do with any give and take I was engaged in prior.

I did pour a bit of my intimate thoughts out in that post, so I was more sensitive to criticism there than in my previous posts, where I feel pretty secure that I've made my points clearly about my ideas about nutrition not being "lunacy" and actually supported by a vast amount of research. I do feel uncomfortable with, as I said, that occasional unidentifiable poster who always seems to ridicule my unique writing style and expression. They are being hurtful, but not revealing themselves or engaging in any discussion, and there is no merit to that kind of behavior at all.