Sex Dynamics On the "8 Tradeoffs" Article - #3

[TheEcho]

Hey all!

Based on: https://www.girlschase.com/article/8-tradeoffs-girls-men-must-choose-between-ltrs

Curious about the dynamics around #3. I'll give an estimated breakdown of my ex based on the numbers to better illuminate her (1-10, with 1 being the first trait, 10 being the second)

Spoiler: Traits

1. 7 - High Beauty vs. Low Maintenance
2. 6 - Great Appearance vs. Low Jealousy
3. 3/8 - Ample Passion vs. Low Drama
4. 7 - Vivacious Spirit vs. Submissive Devotion
5. 8 - Self-Starter vs. Follows Your Lead
6. well... it was 2, now 6 - Fertility vs. Experience/Refinement
7. 1 - Malleability vs. Pre-Training
8. 7 - Independence vs. Need

She was pretty low drama the entire relationship other than the constant issue of me not having a career yet. She increasingly dressed better and I got her to become a gym junkie which has continued after the relationship. I pretty much showed the world to her, she had almost 0 experiences before me (romantic and otherwise). She was a bit needy, was quite submissive, and liked me leading everything.

For the question... being low drama, sex happened A LOT. In 5 years of her living at home and coming over 3-5x/week, there's a tiny handful of times she didn't want to do it. There were more visits we did it 3+ times than visits we didn't do it.
On my Europe trip, tons of other dudes were coming out of relationships as well, but they all reported high rates of sexlessness towards the end.

So I wonder, did I strike gold to an extant? Did I break the usual dynamic? Is being a great lover a "cure" for otherwise low sex-drive girls?
Would be great to hear from other guys who also tend toward being great lovers.

Thanks all!

 

[Will_V]

I think the passion might be referring to the type of sex - as in wild, full of energy, try-new-things type of sex - rather than the frequency or availability. Submissive girls can be very sexual too but it typically will be more intimate and slow.

The tradeoff seems to hold true for my ex, it took a lot of maneuvering to keep the drama from getting out of hand (and sometimes it got way out) but she was by far the most adventurous girl in and out of bed I've known. Sometimes I wonder why I end up with these girls as I don't like drama but something in me just can't resist the energy. When they are under your spell there's nothing like it.

 

[Wick]

I think the passion might be referring to the type of sex - as in wild, full of energy, try-new-things type of sex - rather than the frequency or availability. Submissive girls can be very sexual too but it typically will be more intimate and slow.

Actually Chase did specify he meant passion and frequency.

Here's a quote from the article from #3:

• "The men with the lowest-drama, most tranquil relationships tend to have sex very infrequently once they pass a certain number of years in their LTRs

• The men with the most passionate, hottest sex relationships tend to have an annoying amount of aggravating drama even after many years in their LTRs

• Then there are the men in the middle, who have an average amount of drama + an average amount of sex"

////

I also dated a girl who was very low drama and there was not a single time where we did not have sex if we were in each other's presence. However she was very submissive and I was very horny, so I guess she was following my lead...

I feel like I need more experience to understand these trade offs more, because I just do not seem to agree with it. In my experience relationships tend to follow these patterns, but cannot be defined so black and white like this. Maybe this article should be treated more as a loose guide.

One of the few times I am skeptical of Chase's advice and that makes me question my doubts. I trust @Chase enough to suspend my doubts and chalk it up to lack of experience compared to his. Perhaps he can chime in and elaborate further.

I am also dating a girl where there is a LOT of drama and we are not having as much sex as I'd like. I'm very good at handling drama so I don't mind that part, but here's another example that doesn't line up with this "trade-off".

I will add that, I think the current lack of sex plus drama is more coming from my girl being very over worked and my inability to make enough money to allow her to take a few days off. Working on both these things.

So perhaps this guide is not taking into account the other factors that contribute to sex frequency and what causes drama.

 

[TheEcho]

I also dated a girl who was very low drama and there was not a single time where we did not have sex if we were in each other's presence. However she was very submissive and I was very horny, so I guess she was following my lead...

Yeah, she would say she wasn't really horny, so makes me think submissiveness overrides a low sex drive. There is also the possibility it overrides her tendency toward drama, so you have a lessening of the drama and an increase in sexual receptivity.

I also am not drawing off a ton of experience, but my first "girlfriend" (3 months) was crazy, but not much wilder in bed than my low-drama ex. Submissive girls seem happy to let you have your way with them. The dramatic girls just seem to get in everyone's way lol, though I also haven't experienced the upside (crazy sex from her).

Toying with the seeming paradox of not liking drama, so leaning more towards comfort pre-sex, but being very physically and psychologically dominant in bed, so much more conqueror during sex. Makes me wonder if my personality is currently not integrated well, assuming the bedroom-me is the real me.

This is including up to the very end of our 5 year relationship. She was increasingly unhappy with things (with cause), but sex stayed plentiful. I never stopped being dominant and adoring of her body, so that probably helped.

 

[Will_V]

• The men with the lowest-drama, most tranquil relationships tend to have sex very infrequently once they pass a certain number of years in their LTRs

Oh ok so frequency is part of it, but we are talking multiple years in. Maybe then she is just following your lead in the beginning, but things might wane once she gets too comfortable.

I've never been in an LTR with a very submissive (soft/sweet) type girl so I can't really say how that ends up.

The length of the relationship is a very big factor and I'm sure all the guys out there in sexless marriages didn't start out that way.

I will add that, I think the current lack of sex plus drama is more coming from my girl being very over worked and my inability to make enough money to allow her to take a few days off. Working on both these things.

So perhaps this guide is not taking into account the other factors that contribute to sex frequency and what causes drama.

Yes that's a thing, I too had some periods of relatively low sex interest when my girl was working, studying and commuting multiple hours - to which was added the drama of her thinking I should be doing more. In that case it became more valuable for her to get my investment in more boyfriendy ways, and part of the drama was me resisting that whole dynamic knowing that while I patched the leak the ship would be heading straight for the rocks anyway which didn't seem worthwhile to me.

It might be that the article is simply talking about innate tendency vs situational - and innate is what will always win out in the long term.

 

[Chase]

@Wick,

I also dated a girl who was very low drama and there was not a single time where we did not have sex if we were in each other's presence. However she was very submissive and I was very horny, so I guess she was following my lead...

How many years? And what was the commitment level?

@TheEcho,

For the question... being low drama, sex happened A LOT. In 5 years of her living at home and coming over 3-5x/week, there's a tiny handful of times she didn't want to do it. There were more visits we did it 3+ times than visits we didn't do it.
On my Europe trip, tons of other dudes were coming out of relationships as well, but they all reported high rates of sexlessness towards the end.

Yeah, she would say she wasn't really horny, so makes me think submissiveness overrides a low sex drive. There is also the possibility it overrides her tendency toward drama, so you have a lessening of the drama and an increase in sexual receptivity.

I also am not drawing off a ton of experience, but my first "girlfriend" (3 months) was crazy, but not much wilder in bed than my low-drama ex. Submissive girls seem happy to let you have your way with them. The dramatic girls just seem to get in everyone's way lol, though I also haven't experienced the upside (crazy sex from her).

Would make sense if a.) you live apart, b.) she's super submissive to your lead, and c.) no major emotional dissociation.

Interesting that you and Wick both had very submissive low drama girls who always were down for / submitted to sex long-term.

Come to think of it, when I think of the various guys whose relationships I have known, I don't think any of them had girlfriends who could be considered "very submissive." I've dated fairly submissive girls... briefly... but never long enough that I could comment on what they're like long-term.

That said, the tradeoffs seem to get clearest once a.) the guy and girl are living together and b.) commitment points are past. e.g., they are long-term monogamous living together, or married, or have children, or two of those or all three.

When still living apart, the girl is often going to be in "rope him down mode", and will still be using sex to get that -- at least until she starts emotionally dissociating, which happens at the end of most guys' relationships, at which point the sex dries up regardless of where they stand on the tradeoffs.

Chase

 

[Wick]

@Wick,


How many years? And what was the commitment level?

It was 6 months. I think she wanted something semi-serious (and I did too, although I foolishly ignored Valentine's despite setting a precedent with Christmas, and lost her).

I have a feeling you will say that is too short to really know her. And I'd have to agree. I have wondered if I had yet to see a different side to her, because she was so very calm. Even the way she ended things with me, she just said she was busy and then stopped replying to my texts.

 

[Chase]

Oh, yeah.

I wouldn't say "too short to really know her."

Many people you can figure out pretty quick, unless they have a whole bunch of skeletons in their closets or something.

But the sex/drama bullet point was specific to "courses of years":

I have known many men in many kinds of long-term relationships, and observed their drama and sex levels over time. Here is what I have seen:

• The men with the lowest-drama, most tranquil relationships tend to have sex very infrequently once they pass a certain number of years in their LTRs
  
  
• The men with the most passionate, hottest sex relationships tend to have an annoying amount of aggravating drama even after many years in their LTRs
  
  
• Then there are the men in the middle, who have an average amount of drama + an average amount of sex

I don't have quite enough info I could say it's 100% this, but it seems like the number of fully monogamous relationships with high sexual frequency follows a Pareto distribution over time, where:

• Most relationships start out with high sexual frequency
• Many have cooled off a fair bit by the end of the honeymoon phase (first 3 months)
• Many more have cooled off a fair bit more by the point of the 2-year drop (2 years in)
• Most have cooled off somewhere between 5-10 years in
• Only a few still have frequent, passionate sex past the 15-year mark

The thing with sex is that sex has a goal. The goal is pretty much always one of:

1. Suck the other partner in with passion/pleasure (to secure the relationship)
2. Dominate the other partner (to secure the relationship)
3. Make babies

The younger the relationship, the more high frequencies of sex is a given, because a.) the relationship is new and both partners are (probably) trying to secure the other, and b.) with all the hormones swirling around with a new partner both partner's bodies and lizard brains are trying to make babies.

Over time as things get stable, partners start taking each other's security for granted, and the need to secure the other partner drifts away. Bodies also shift to "conserve energy" approaches -- either there's a baby on the way already, so more sex isn't needed, or all that sex hasn't produced babies yet, so it's better to conserve energy for a few fertile days a month rather than keep wasting it on sex that doesn't produce offspring.

If you want to keep sexual frequency up, you need one of two things:

1. Something disruptive happening that causes the partners to want/need to re-secure each other again, or
   
   
2. Something to trigger a strong desire to make babies (e.g., one of the partners comes to grips with his/her mortality, etc.)

The farther right you go on the Pareto chart, the more you need a good reason for the parties to still have a high frequency of sex.

@TheEcho's is interesting, because he went 5 years with a low-drama girl having sex 3-5x per week. That's pretty rare. It's not rare at all 3 months in... not that rare 6 months in or even a year in... but 5 years in is rare. If I had to guess, possible reasons why:

• She had some psychology that made her fear losing him. Her dressing better over time (not worse, which is the pattern) is one clue... her acting needy is another.
  
  
• Or he may have been doing things that caused her to feel like she never had a firm hold on him. Guys won't always realize they're doing this... I did stuff to make my relationships less stable that I did not even realize I was doing until many years into dating.

That's all I can say for now though!

Chase

 

[TheEcho]

@Chase To your points, she did seem somewhat afraid of me being a player, though I was totally committed to her physically (would flirt with others and such, but never got another girl's number or was isolated with a girl). What kind of stuff did you do to make things unstable? I know she was nagging until the very end about me not reaching out to her first very often. We had a pretty set schedule of seeing each other most days, and I don't tend to ping people in general (unless I predict flakiness). I would say goodnight/good morning most days (I'd pause if she didn't occasionally go first, though)

She was a virgin going in, so may also have added to the ongoing specialness of our sex. I always pinned it to being totally focused on giving her a great experience every single time. I also naturally experiment with anything I do, so though we mostly did prone and missionary, on nearly a quarterly basis the entire 5 years, I'd verbalize to her noticing a "jump" in the quality of our sex. There was that little thing of her finding and reading my LR's, which though it made her very upset and seemed to hurt her sweetness, probably gave a hit of what being one-sided monogamous does. I will also add, I was openly using porn daily the entire relationship, and even encouraged her to explore more of herself. I was super intentional about imagining myself in the scene (I exclusively watch pov stuff), so may have helped stem my male need for variety, letting me continue to enjoy her for longer.

Somewhat random thought. Last January, we had a stint of me proposing bringing a second girl into the fold, which obviously she fought. I backed off it, as I was happy with just her and was mostly testing the boundaries. She kept bringing it up though, and eventually we got to the point where she had Tinder on her phone and set it to girls. She got a lot of pings, and I got cold feet because some of the bios sounded like the ladies focused on stealing straight girls. I got kind of scared and now was the one pushing to shut it down. Thinking about it, my fear about her being stolen may have been a large part in her loss of attraction... We did bang like rabbits until the very end, though