I'm a woman in my 40s, and I've been happily married for 22 years. Unfortunately, my husband and I have never been very compatible sexually. I had read so much Cosmo in college that I believed sex was something we could work on. Well, he is quick in the sack and uninterested in my pleasure. It's been two decades of "Wham, bam, thank you, ma'am," and our old four minutes of intercourse now lasts for about two. And yes, I have asked him to attend to my needs -- for years. He just blows me off. He's always been satisfied, so he is not motivated to change. After a particularly quick encounter this morning left me feeling used, my thought was that I need a divorce. I'm distraught to think this way. Is there another option?
--Unsatisfied
Sex can sometimes be confusing, but timewise, it shouldn't leave you wondering whether you've been having it or poaching an egg.
There is only so much room for improvement if, in bed, two people go together like peanut butter and an oar. Still, Cosmo wasn't entirely wrong. Sexual technique can be tweaked at least somewhat by working on it -- that is, if both partners show up to the office and admit that there's a job to do. And then there's your husband, dead set on continuing to have sex on the "success in bank robbery" model: in and out before anybody knows what hit 'em.
Though your sex face is obviously a frown, the big issue here isn't bad sex; it's bad love. You don't seem to see it that way, perhaps due to "cognitive dissonance." That's social psychologist Leon Festinger's term for the psychological discomfort of simultaneously holding two conflicting views -- like the belief that you're worthy of love and the observation that your husband's about as attentive to you in bed as he is to the headboard. To smooth out an inconsistency like this, we typically grab for whichever explanation helps us feel good about ourselves -- which is maybe why you describe yourself as "happily married" to a man who acts like the clitoris is a rare exotic bird.
If, outside of bed, he's actually loving enough for you to want to fix this, you might say something like "I love you and want to save our marriage, but I feel deeply unloved whenever we have sex." Explain that if he isn't willing to take steps to change, you don't think you can stay with him. Specify the steps, like practice sessions in which you show him what you like and maybe some get-togethers with a sex therapist (a referee to call him on his sense of sexual entitlement).
Even if he were to agree to all of it, be realistic. Sex might start feeling more like being made love to than being bumped into by a naked man, but it's unlikely to ever be mind-blowing or anything close. Still, you might be happy if you just see that he cares enough to make an effort in bed -- one leisurely enough that you don't expect it to be followed by "meep meep!" and a cartoon cloud of dust.
This guy I'm dating had a mean, demanding girlfriend, and it left him kind of a relationship-phobe. He says meeting me two months ago made him want to change that. He is loving and seems excited to be with me, except for how he introduces me -- as his "friend" or "ladyfriend." Should I be worried that he doesn't call me his girlfriend?
--Irked
It's easy to go straight to all the worst reasons for why he won't call you his girlfriend, like that it would seem disloyal to that secret wife he has stashed away in the suburbs.
However, keep in mind that a label (like "girlfriend") isn't just a word. Labels actually have power over our behavior. Research by social psychologist Elliot Aronson finds that we seem to have a powerful longing for consistency -- for things to match. So, committing to a label tends to make us feel obligated to follow through with the behavior that goes with it -- and never mind figuring out whether it's what we really want.
Give the guy some time. He's (understandably!) slow to do a cannonball into a new relationship, but you say he is "loving" and seems "excited" to be with you. So, sure, he may still be on the fence, but he doesn't seem to be on the run. Until his answer to "What are we doing here?" is no longer "Not sure yet," you might ask him to drop the likes of "ladyfriend" and just use your name -- charming as it is to be introduced with what sounds like 19th-century code for "two-dollar hooker."
I've spent hundreds of dollars on a relationship coach, who instructed me to cut off all sex and even all contact with the guy I was dating until he agreed to marry me. I knew he loved me and wanted to marry me; I just wanted him to do it faster. Sadly, my ultimatum to him blew up in my face; he is done with me. My roommate, who thought the coach's advice was terrible, just moved in with her guy, despite his being kind of a commitmentphobe. Her approach was to just be loving and patient with him and give it some time (about a year). She said she realized that she had the option to bail if the waiting became too much. I'm confused. Men supposedly don't get hints. Why doesn't saying what you want work to get the guy?
--Direct And Dumped
Is your dating coach 8 years old? Because "I refuse to speak to you till you propose!" is a (slightly) more adult version of "I'm holding my breath till you buy me that Barbie!"
Welcome to Ultimatum Frisbee! A highly risky game. We tend to freak when our freedom is threatened -- including our freedom of choice. In fact, social psychologist George A. Youngs finds that when a potential loss of freedom looms, it unleashes a "motivational state," compelling us to try to preserve that freedom and fight off any attempts to yank other freedoms. In other words, the more you go all petty despot on somebody -- overtly trying to force them into doing your bidding -- the more likely they are to rebel, and maybe even do the exact opposite of what you want.
"Overtly" is the key word here. Your roommate also wanted to wrangle a commitment from her boo. But note the difference in tactics: making it attractive for him to stick around, as opposed to leaving a note on his pillow, "Put a ring on it!" -- along with the severed, bleeding head of My Little Pony.
This isn't to say you should keep your mouth shut about what you want. But consider the difference in controllingness in making a statement versus giving an ultimatum. A statement tells him what you have to do: "I feel bad that you don't seem to want to marry me, and I can't continue in this much longer." An ultimatum, on the other hand, tells him what he has to do: "Marry me or nothing, bucko!"
Also, consider that with "marry me or nothing," you're very distinctly putting "nothing" on the table. And maybe at a certain point, this is a trade-off you're willing to make. But, again, stating it in those terms is probably a bad idea. Keep in mind that typically, a man commits to a woman because he loves her and is better with her than he is alone -- much as he might admire her for her attempt to re-enact the Iran hostage crisis on a very small scale.
I'm a 28-year-old girl, and I've been with my boyfriend for several months. He never really apologizes. He'll say "I'm sorry you feel that way" and never "I'm sorry that I did that." When I confronted him, he said, "Well, I'm not sorry for my actions. I just don't want to hurt you, so I'm sorry I hurt your feelings." Am I parsing this too much? Is there a difference between these two apologies?
--Wondering
"I'm sorry you feel that way" is the Dollar Tree version of an apology. Sure, it has the words "I'm sorry" and the package seems kind of familiar, but it ultimately goes down like expired SpaghettiOs from Czechoslovakia.
This kind of apology doesn't make you want to forgive somebody; it makes you want to chase them with an ax. Basically, instead of taking responsibility for what they did or said, they're using apology words to blame you for feeling bad about it. Which is like saying, "I'm so sorry your window was too lame to open itself when my golf ball was heading toward it."
And sure, "Sorry you're offended" is sometimes appropriate, but when it's always somebody's apology, it suggests they have no connection to the possibility that they've done something wrong. This is a trait common to narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths, reflecting a lack of empathy. (Their saying "I'm sorry you're hurt" is just a sneaky way out, not an expression of care and concern.)
Consider whether the "I'm perfect; you're oversensitive" model will work for you long term. If not, tell him what you need and see whether he can or will give it to you. If you don't see a change, the best way to teach him may be by example: "I'm sorry, but the number you have called has been disconnected."
You responded to a woman who was very proud of herself for leaving the room to compose herself when she got really angry with her boyfriend. It is very unhealthy to stuff your anger. Why would you give this terrible advice -- encouraging her to keep holding back -- instead of telling her to vent her anger?
--A Healthier Way
Nothing like screaming obscenities into somebody's face to get them to respond, "Gosh, I forgot how much I love you. And I really want to make all of those changes in myself."
Also, unlike a box of Cap'n Crunch, anger does not rapidly get used up. In fact, Charles Darwin observed that raging on will make you even...rage-ier. But thanks to Freud, people still believe that "venting" anger is a healthy way to reduce it. Not because he had actual evidence for that but because he said so and accessorized so credibly, with the cigar, the iconic eyewear, and the groovy Viennese fainting couch.
One of the first modern researchers to debunk this myth (back in 1966) was Michael Kahn, then a Harvard grad student who'd actually hoped to demonstrate the benefits of venting anger. Posing as an aggressively rude medical technician, he made seriously insulting remarks while taking subjects' blood pressure, making them really angry. As part of the study, some subjects were allowed to vent their anger to a researcher posing as Kahn's supervisor. To Kahn's surprise, those who did got angrier, and their already-elevated blood pressure took off toward strokesville.
Some people will say, "I don't care what the dumb research says; I feel better after I blow my lid." Well, these people still experience all the ill effects of anger on their physical health. The relief they feel is emotional, coming out of how anger arises from the feeling that we've been treated unfairly. Raging back makes them feel that they've done something to right the balance. However, it also tends to provoke a defensive reaction in the person they're raging at, so it's a counterproductive tactic -- assuming they weren't aspiring to kick off 20 years of trench warfare in the condo commons.
The answer isn't stuffing your anger; it's expressing what's behind it -- in a civil discussion instead of a civil war. Controlling the body's role in anger is an essential part of this. The problem is that surging adrenaline and other elements of the body's anger response can't just be thrown into reverse. So, when you feel anger brewing, it's wise to take a step back -- or to do as this woman did and step into another room.
Keeping your cool allows you to present your case -- your feeling hurt by somebody's behavior -- in a way that evokes sympathy rather than defensiveness. This is important because sympathy tends to motivate us to do things to make hurting people feel better. This, in turn, bodes better for the future of a relationship -- sexy as it can be when a man interrupts a woman's rage-athon to whisper, "Baby, I don't mean to turn you on, but that pulsating vein in your forehead looks like an arteriovenous fistula about to blow."
My girlfriend wants me to compliment her more -- to notice how she looks and say something. I know I'm not Mr. Effusive. But honestly, if I didn't find her hot, I wouldn't even be with her!
--Still Here!
It may not come naturally to you to effuse, but civilization is all about doing what doesn't come naturally. Note that chimps in the wild are rarely observed wearing shoes, ties, and cuff links.
Many men complain that women's idea of communicating what they want is hinting, pouting, or slamming drawers while insisting nothing's wrong. You, however, have a woman who comes right out and tells you, "Here's what you could do to make me happy," and it doesn't even involve risking jail time or going on a double date with her mother. Her simple request: When she's, say, vacuuming in her new underwear and your jaw drops, run with that. Make it go up and down, and make words come out.
Basically, the terrorism prevention line applies: "If you see something, say something." Put a daily reminder on your phone if you have to. For added incentive, consider the fringe benefits. Research by social psychologist Sara Algoe finds that the stock-taking that goes into expressing appreciation for a romantic partner actually makes the person doing it feel more satisfied with the relationship. Not surprisingly, being appreciated seems to do the same for the recipient. And yes, you have to do the appreciating using the spoken word. Nonverbal creative alternatives are only (borderline) acceptable if you are a working mime or birthday party clown, and even then, there's always something lost in translation with balloon animals.
My girlfriend's "best friend" is a straight guy. I trust that she THINKS he's just her friend. However, as a guy, I know that if he could hit it, he would. FYI, I'm not really a jealous or insecure person, and my guy friends complain about this same scenario, so this can't just be my stuff.
--Annoyed
There's a saying, "A true friend accepts who you are and helps you become who you can be" -- for example, a person who's naked in her true friend's bed, feeling really guilty about cheating on her boyfriend.
Sorry to be less-than-reassuring, but you and your guy friends are right: For many men, the friend zone is a holding area where they wait to Mr. Sneaky back-massage their way into the sexfriend zone. In a study of 88 opposite-sex friendships by evolutionary psychologist April Bleske-Rechek, men were more attracted to their female friend than vice versa and more likely to assume she also had the hots for them -- a belief bearing little correspondence to how the woman actually felt. Women, on the other hand, tended to assume their male friend had only platonic intentions. And sure, some male friends are just looking out for their female friends -- but others do it in the way a hungry lion looks out for the limping gazelle.
Bleske-Rechek's findings align with research by evolutionary psychologists Martie Haselton and David Buss suggesting that we evolved to make protective mistakes in perception -- erring in favor of whatever assumption would be least costly to our mating and survival interests. Men tend to overestimate women's attraction to them because they lose more by missing a possible mating opportunity than by making asses of themselves hitting on a woman who isn't interested (and, in fact, would eat a live pigeon to avoid having sex with them). Women, however, tend to underestimate men's interest, because they have a lot to lose from believing a cad will stick around to be a dad.
You aren't without options here, though it's probably best to refrain from dusting off the old flintlock and challenging the guy to a duel at dawn. Showing jealousy suggests you have reason to feel threatened (like maybe he really is all that). Instead, simply be the better deal. Consistently show your girlfriend that you've got what women evolved to prioritize in men -- a willingness to invest time, energy, and resources -- like by really listening when she talks instead of uh-huhing her while blowing up alien invaders on your phone.
Do this stuff not because you're afraid of losing her (which stinks of desperation) but because you haven't forgotten that you love her. And as a show of how secure you are, maybe even encourage her to hang with him -- that is, whenever she's all "Golly, it's been months since I spent the better part of an hour at the mall trying to decide between two slightly different vanilla-scented candles."
I'm a 41-year-old male sports fan, and every girlfriend I've had has initially claimed to like sports. But once I'm all in, she admits that she never liked sports at all. Why can't women just be honest in the beginning?
--Bugged
Say you like camping. A woman who likes you claims she likes camping, too, perhaps believing that she could like camping -- not quite connecting it with everything she absolutely hates, like peeing in a hole and bugs that don't come in pink resin with a matching choker.
Of course, women aren't the only ones who claim to be a little more woodsy or literate or...sportif...than they actually are. However, men tend to lie to get sex, while women tend to lie to get love. But because women evolved to be the nurturers and peacekeepers of the species, they are probably more likely to say yes or okay to stuff they're not very yes or okay with. (Some confuse being a pleaser with being kind and giving in healthy ways.) Men, on the other hand, evolved to be the competitors of our species and are more comfortable with conflict -- starting in infancy, when they're beating up the kid in the next crib.
What's essential to figure out is whether the lie is a little "I like what you like!" stretchie or part of a disturbing pattern -- suggesting she's either a pathological liar or a gaping void looking to use love as Spackle. Expect hyperbole at the start, and ask probing questions to see whether a woman is truly into sports -- beyond challenging some other woman to a cage fight over the last pair of DKNY ankle booties in a 9 and a half narrow.