I believe the sex part will fizzle out after some time. So I don't think one should marry just because his/her partner are great lovers. Once the children come along, this would be the ultimate test of the marriage.
I am a fifty-five year old man with a brain that thinks its eighteen and a member that thinks its thirteen and the bedroom is one big romper room and my wife isn't complaining, so what can I say, but it's fun and I don't think God made sex for us just to procreate, although we do have six grown children and five grandchildren, but my family is my wealth, but my fifty-five year old body sometimes has a hard time keeping up with my little grandchildren, they can make you tired just watching them.
Gosh I hope so because I sure did! What would be the point of 'settling' - but then again, I'm of the mind that you can always, always, always make things better - as long as you communicate and are both open-minded enough to listen to the other person's needs and what works for them. Maybe it's a Polyanna type of mentality but it has worked for 35 years for me.
I don't think so. It is so shallow if they only pick one person because he or she is good in bed. You should be able to be more intelligent about that matter. Pick that someone who will love you and be your companion at all times and not only in bed.
I, good sir, am glad to be proven wrong. I truly expected your detractors to follow you here, and they did not. In response to your question, I believe that love does make your partner the very best, hands down.
Not trying to be rude, but I really think you want attention Harvey. No one really cares how many times a day you did it, or if it was the best. I think there are other sites where you could share that info, like adultfriendfinder.com or something.
I not as an insult; then why are you here and commenting? I just do things like this for fun. Someone else mentioned numbers and I responde with truth.
That was when I was 21-22. I honestly believed that every guy my age was like this. As I got older there wasn't time for this. When I got a little older I didn't desire to do it that often and when I got a little older I couldn't do it as often ad as long. That happens to every guy.
If a guy in his 30's tells you; he can go so many times a night, don't believe him.
I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence. In any case, I am not insulted, nor did I mean to insult you, if either of those is what you meant. SweetiePie is the one who thought you were seeking attention. If you want to say how often you did it, it's fine by me. Sex is fun, and it's fun to talk about it as far as I'm concerned. :-)
I know you aren't Harvey, but apparently Sneako disagrees with me. It doesn't have anything to do with me teaching the subject (since I teach sexual health to mostly college freshmen) but rather someone saying that 100% of a population does anything. It is not the case that the sexual interest of ALL men diminishes over time Sneako. It just isn't. Case in point: Shigeo Tokuda or Dave Cummings ( about the last name). For a couple of extreme examples.
Okay, let's just set the record straight right here. My man is 62 and he has gone 4 times in one night. So, I'm guessing he could go more than that when he was in his 30s.
On this particular subject, Harvey, you are mistaken. If a guy in his 30s tells you he can go so many times a night, you could believe him, and you could wonder why he felt the need to tell you in the first place. Most women would be thinking the latter.
to John Arumugam, I think Hervey's question is important, our sex drives, whether we admit it or not, is an important part of any relationship with our partners, it is an integral part that initially draws us together, it is even on a subconscious level that attracts us to a mate. Sex is a wonderful gift that God gave us, that is why for the majority of people it is so wonderful, it is a continual confirmation of love and commitment to each other, but like anything else you have to change it up to keep it interesting. If I worked out every day doing the same repetitions it would be very boring and one would eventually tire of it. God didn't make rules for the bedroom, so let loose, God gave us a wonderful gift between married people.
Seriously though, I think you have a bit of obsession about the age thing. No one cares if you are older, and you seem to think we should care. However, Hubpages is not exactly a site where I see long time hubbers posting these details, putting down other religions, or just plain looking for attention as you do. I am not some little girl looking up to you for inspiration, and that is the truth.
If you look to me for inspiration, I will reccommend you to a worthy source. I use my age as a frame of reference. As one ages their views change for a myriad of reasons. When I look back to what I believed in, in the late 60's.... The pics are now very funny.
Wait and see for yourself, but enjoy in the meantime.
Well, I am one of those people that takes others aback in my self-confidence and self-certainty. I know who I am and what I stand for, and I hardly see those core things changing. As I have said there are several hubbers on here that are in their seventies and eighties, and who are much more liberal politically. However, what you want to do with your personal life is your business. Maybe you should start admiring some younger people for a change also, and maybe you might learn something. Just a thought.
Not likely. I was a liberal and have studied history. None of the ideas our President has are new, except the tele-prompter. All of the things he wants have been tried and failed. Don't believe me, read it on your own. Try reading Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicalss."
I read all the time, which is what you fail to realize. You simply want me to follow your lead, and I shall not. As I said Ralph Deeds, who I admire very much, tends to be quite liberal. Blue Dog is also a bit older than myself, and he is not exactly what you would call a conservative kind of guy.
My own grandpa voted for Obama, and he does not have the hang-ups with him that you have. Many college professors I know that are in their seventies actually have a problem with Obama because he is too moderate for their tastes. There are all kinds of people in the world, and they will not take your lead. So if anything maybe you can realize not everyone is you, and your life story will not be everyone's path.
I hate to say it, but teachers have become a terrible source. Revisionist history is what the teachers unions want taught. If you thinkI'm crazy about unions, find outhow many jobs they create andhow many plants they close. They were great in the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's. They are the reason jobs go overseas.
If you have to pay your workers $80 a hour (with benefits)and it can be produced for $20 an hour someplace else; where would you do it as CEO?
Obama got in because he was an unknown. David Axelrod made a fool of the public. Obama never said how he would pay for anything and he read beautifully. Throw in the press and blame Bush for everything.
Highly disagree with you there! Actually in many cases Revisionist history sheds light on poor scholarship, especially since many historians now rely on a myriad of first source documents. For instance, William Bligh of Bounty fame was portrayed as a tyrant by the Fletcher Christian and Peter Heywood's families because they did not want their names sullied. Yes Bligh had a bit of a temper, but he was not the tyrant earlier books and Hollywood movies would lead you to believe.
The evidence has come out later on that a big part of the issue was Bligh chose too many personal acquaintances and friends to work with him on the Bounty, and allowed his command to become lax. When he finally wanted to clamp down he had lost control of his ship, but only later research has revealed some of this. So you see to say Revisionist history is wrong is a fallacy because if that were so we would still go with historical accounts that promoted eugenics, and the subjugation of women. Not everything is the way you want it to be just because you say it is so. Many well researched and respected people are more left of center than you would like, and that is just how the cookie crumbles.
Okay Harvey, that is your interpretation. If your friend felt that way he should have taught at a private school that likes to slant things. By the way much of what you say sounds like people in Arizona who advocate right to work, and lower wages for teachers and other professionals. It is not unionization that sent jobs overseas, but greedy corporations that wanted to save their bottom line. People across all party lines are guilty of it, but unions actually want to improve working condition and wages. With that being said I have not worked under a union contract for several years, but they are not a bad thing to have. People under a union contract have guaranteed health care and a salary, and I do not. Oh well, I have more flexibility, and since I do not have kids I do not need to worry about the benefits part as much.
Seriously, you sound like some of the hubbers that say we should not have health care reform and send that anyone without insurance to an ER. My friend is a PA, and tells me how too many people come to the ER for things a regular physician could do, such as filling basic prescriptions. I stand behind the candidates who actually want to improve the health care system, and not pander to the status quo.
Seriously I would say too many CEO's are over salaried, especially in today's economy. Unions are in place because there are people who deserve a living wage, and without unions these never would have been put into place. We know first hand there are several local employers that would only pay their employees the state minimum wage and offer no benefits if they had their way. This may not seem like a bad deal to you, but how can families support themselves on this?
I didn't take a salary if there was no profit, I'm a bad man! Do you complain about a surgeon charging too much to save a life, and then go to a concert or ballgame. Americans complin about fee's, but not when it is for entertainment.
I truly understand. Here is my best line at this time. "All I came promise you is two of the biggest inches you've ever seen, and five of the most exciting seconds of your life." Being married 31 years, it's always a joke.
I'm married 31 years, it will only end when one of us dies. So everyone that thinks I'm here to brag;try to match me on that. I do have a past and I'm not affraid to talk about it. Some of you folks take me back to the 1950's.
The sex doesn't dwindle for all couples. Some yes, most maybe... but definitely not all. I shadow in a geriatric office, they don't call for refills of their cholesterol meds but definitely their Cialis.
I'm in my fifties and what Harvey said is a reality but it takes on a more appropriate frequency considering our age and responsibilities. I got married when I was nineteen to my current wife and that part of our relationship is much, much tamer now! I don't even have the strength to think about what it was like!
I lived in a retirement center for 5 months. Sold my house and my condo wasn't built yet. I know what happens. As a "young" resident I received offers from women in their 80's, they knew I was married! I heard stories from many of them. I think I know.
I definitely did not! And now that I'm older, I'm glad. I have definitely found that there are more important things in a relationship. If you had told me that 20 years ago, I would have called you a liar, however.
...don't worry GO...soon you'll be able to marry yerself and live happily ever after....we'll eventually catch up to that woman in the Philippines (or where ever it was) that married herself....it's the divorcing yourself that will be kinda hard!
Why is it that when people in the armed forces are away from home .They feel like its there duty to get laid as much as possible in the war zone? Do they feel they have to do it because they may not return? Or do they...