Douchebag Decree: Forty Beads

"ye olde douchebag decree" in blue letters with a light blue hand-drawn douchebag in the background, and "BITCH HEREBY DECLARES THE FOLLOWING PERSON A TOTAL DOUCHEBAG" in small letters in red underneath.

Every once in a while, a media savvy self-help writer makes the rounds with a book promising the key to heterosexual bliss. This is always annoying, but occasionally, a technique is so wrong-headed that it deserves a special dishonor. Without further ado, I bestow this week’s Douchebag Decree onto the book Forty Beads: The Simple, Sexy Secret for Transforming Your Marriage and The Forty Bead Method it promotes.

First things first: The beads do not go inside anyone. Instead, Evans promises, they will “save your [heterosexual, monogamous] marriage” by bridging the supposedly innate “libido gap” between women and men. Here’s how: Your husband drops a bead into a bowl when he wants sex, and then you have to have sex with him.

Yeah. I’ll give you a minute to recover from that one.

Forty Beads book cover, a photograph of the top of a wooden desk next to the edge of a white bed. The surface is empty except for a little white bowl with a red bead in it. The top of the cover reads "Forty Beads" in white; below the bowl is the subtitle "The Simple, Sexy Secret for Transforming Your Marriage" and the author's name, Carolyn Evans, also in white.

Specially coded for multiple ways to read the same regressive tripe!

“But, wait,” you might be saying, “this book is over 200 pages long. There must be more to it than that, right?”

There is not. The Forty Beads book begins with a chapter titled “Men Love Sex,” made up entirely of variations of that statement, and follows up with “Men and Sex and Trouble,” about how if you don’t give in to every sexual demand, your husband will cheat on you. Too subtle? Evans moves on to “Sex: His Magic Elixir of Life.” (I wish I were making that up, because it would be hilarious, but I’m not.)

I could use almost any paragraph as an example of how wrong this all is, but for funsies, here’s this one:

Here’s a hint, ladies: The house can be a total wreck and the baby shirtless in a sagging wet diaper, but if he’s getting laid regularly, he’s cool with it. All of it. Because there’s one thing that’s more important to your husband than everything else combined, multiplied by ten and raised to the fourth power: SEX.

Translation? “You, the woman reading my book, should stop all your housecleaning and childcare. I know that you’ve been taking care of those duties single-handedly, because, duh, you’re female! The thing is, though, kids and clean space are worthless if they don’t make your husband happy, and they don’t! Men don’t care about anything but heterosexual intercourse on demand. If they get it, they love life; if they don’t, they hate it. They’re more like light switches than people.”

In Forty Beads, men are hypersexual, uncomplicated, amoral slobs, and women are prudish manipulators. When she’s not writing about how much penises guarantee that Men Love Sex, Evans is announcing that wives “hold out” because they want favors from their husbands (nonsexual, natch). Forty Beads tells women they shouldn’t make excuses, eg. fake yeast infections, in order to avoid sex; I agree. Her solution, though, is to always say yes to your husband, because if you don’t, “he hates you.” (Yes, it actually says that.)

To whom is this more insulting, women or men? And while we’re at it, has anyone told her that not all husbands have penises and not all wives don’t? How would she squeeze that fact into one of her little beads… er, boxes?

Believe it or not, Evans addresses feminism (though not by name) between generalizations and bunk science, in a two-page chapter titled “What Would Gloria Say?” She thinks Ms. Steinem would approve of these shenanigans, because:

Most of us have moved past the whole “I am woman, hear me roar” thing. It was a useful mantra and worked well—when we needed it. The sexual revolution was a time for women to separate from the men and put themselves out in front—it was “me” time and it was necessary in order to reach certain goals. What I’m suggesting by way of The Forty Beads Method is that as women, maybe we’re ready to move past the “me” and are now just as interested in creating a happy “we”—as in, a thriving partnership with a man.

Oh my. What “certain goals” have we achieved that make feminism obsolete? Given the Helen Reddy reference, I’m assuming she doesn’t mean the right to vote. The implication is that feminists are selfish and keeping women from evolving past a “ ‘me’ time.” Her response to gender-related concerns is to sell “nudge cards” in addition to beads. The cards are for wives, to “suggest” that the husband use a bead. Got that? Men can demand sex; women can suggest that men demand sex.

Photo of the Forty Beads gift set: an open red box with forty red beads, a white bowl and a leather drawstring pouch inside.

In case you couldn’t find beads for less than $1 apiece, I guess?

As egregious as the sexism is, though, Evans’ concept is flawed on a deeper level. Even if the so-called Forty Bead Method were genderless, the idea that anyone should submit to hir partner’s sexual whims on demand is not okay. A relationship is not a tacit agreement to sexual service, period. Positing submission as the “secret” to happiness encourages readers to disregard their own feelings and desires.

And then there’s the idea that sex is a cure-all. When you’re loving, living with, and/or co-parenting with someone, intercourse is not a magic wand. (…I know. Sorry.) I’m dubious of the belief that obligation will improve sex lives, but even if it does, couples do have nonsexual problems. Not everything unpuritanical is progressive.

The absolute worst part of Forty Beads (totally up for debate; there’s a lot to choose from) may be the encouragement to not connect with your partner on a mental or emotional level. It’s assumed to be impossible since women and men are totes different. Alleged “Beaders” are filmed gushing about how they now have sex “without having to communicate.” This is awful. Be it in the bedroom or the grocery store, partners communicating their thoughts and feelings is a damn good idea, and probably a better way of solving problems than relying on inanimate objects to speak for you.

On the plus side, such that it is, Evans acknowledges that not everyone is straight. In the introduction to Forty Beads, she sets a paragraph in a separate font (so we know it’s different ) to explain that even though Forty Beads is about “the male and female libidos,” gay couples are welcome to try it. Uh, that’s great, Carolyn; I guess you’re less homophobic than some raging sexists, and you mention that not every woman or man is the same as the rest… on one page.

I have a better non-exclusionary idea, though: How about we all (female, genderqueer, male, trans*, cis, queer, asexual, straight, and more) laugh off Carolyn Evans’ bogus “secrets” and enjoy our Bead-free sexual and nonsexual lives?

Previously: The DC Comics “Re-Boot”, Sarah Palin’s Selective History Tour

by Deb Jannerson
View profile »

Get Bitch Media's top 9 reads of the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning! Sign up for the Weekly Reader:

58 Comments Have Been Posted

I am scared to ask...

This is terrifying. But why "40" beads?

Yes, totally my question. At

Yes, totally my question. At 40 do I get to indulge in a headache for a week, or what?

Because that's how many times

Because that's how many times it takes to teach the dutiful wife to keep the desensitizing lube at hand, I suppose. I haven't read the book and judging by this post, I don't wanna. This is SO many kinds of wrong.

40 beads

Her husband was turning 40. So she made it as a present to him. And also to take "sex of f the bickering block". ...

Why there are 40

This is correct: Evans thought the idea up for her husband's fortieth birthday and just stuck to the number. So far, I haven't seen her give a reason for this other than "Forty is a lot!"

Same question. Why are there

Same question. Why are there 40 of them? Do they get recycled at a certain point? Monthly? Yearly?

Thank you

Thank you Bob. The author of this review is more than harsh is is really writing about something she didn't look in to all that well. The author of this method has collaborated with a Pastor by the name of Mark Gungor, who teaches a marriage seminar called "Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage", thus, the term heterosexual. It is based on the fact that the three most important things to a man are, in this order, sex, food, and work. A woman's top three things are sleep, food and sex, in that order. All of it is generalization. I have not yet read the book but attended the seminar over the weekend. My husband and I are excited about the method. We have a great marriage. We lack in the sex department not because either one of us wants it less but because our lives are a chaos of busy, busy, busy and we find weeks going by with no intimate contact. The next thing you know we can't remember the last time we had sex. This , I believe, will help us be more conscience of our relationship and push us to find time.
Mark many times during his seminar will make a statement and then preface it by saying that it is not always the case, but typically is. (Such as men bing the ones with all the sex drive).
This review is taken out of context wih the bigger picture and no woman is forced to do this program with their man. It is consensual. The book is written in generalities meaning that for the majority this is the way it is. Does she need to add a disclaimer after every statement that says this is typical for men but not absolute? Most intelligent people will already understand that. This method isn't about forcing sex. It isn't about putting woman down. It is simply a method to get closer to your partner through an intimate relationship. It is not a fix all. Unless sex is your only issue. It doesn't state that it will fix every marriage. It is a small part of a bigger picture.


Hilarious. I literally laughed out loud. Actually, it makes me mad that I didn't think of this lame idea so I could have gotten this book deal.


Glad you enjoyed it, kirby! Please refrain from using the word "lame" in this space, though; it has ableist origins. Thank you!

Douchebag Decree nominee

Can I humbly nominate these douchebags for the next column?

My favorite parts is "we can't be homophobic! this one time, we had a gay lifeguard!"


this woman has surpassed even the "Rules" girls in absolute idiocy and merchandise-driven self-help twattle. that's all we need, a vehicle to help people stay in bored loveless marriages for the sake of maintaining the plastic middle-class facade for real-life desparate housewives everywhere...feh!

anyone even considering this crap should just take the beads and make a rockin necklace to wear on the post-divorce dates you'll have with men you WANT to have sex with and can TELL them when you want to.

It's forty beads because

It's forty beads because that's as many beads as you can shove up your butt. Duh. If the beads come pre drilled for sting and you use them anally, then maybe this wouldn't be that bad of a book. I mean, it doesn't look that thick, maybe you could use the book to level out a wobbly table.


I read a sample of this book and felt very much like you do on the subject!! Besides - I'm the one (yes, I'm FEMALE) that isn't getting enough sex and would love to plop out a bead requiring my husband to give into my every desire....

I'm sick of people catagorically putting people in He/She catagories of assumed "norms" when they often DON'T gel!

....I just found out that since I don't have the "magic elixir" I'd better go out and have an affair!!

I agree ~ DOUCHER!!!

male/female stereotypes

i'm female and i'm the one not getting enough either!! lol

i may just have to take the bead thing (as ridicuous as it is) and see if it works!

Maybe the author inherited

Maybe the author inherited 100 million red beads and just needed a way to get rid of them for a profit.

This author's portrayal of

This author's portrayal of men sounds as insulting to them as her advice to women is degrading to them.

Yeah. Her husband seems, by

Yeah. Her husband seems, by her portrayal, to be a "great guy".

I'm still mystified as to how this would work. Would she initiate, or expect him to initiate? Does she usually just turn him down whenever he initiates, and she promises that she won't?

Maybe it's because my sex drive is higher than my boyfriend's, and the idea of turning down sex just boggles the mind.

I know how my boyfriend would react if I "beaded" him.

I am a heterosexual woman who

I am a heterosexual woman who lived with a man who for the last two years of our relationship refused to have sex with me. I wonder how well this "method" would have worked for us.

Interesting point.

<p>I like that you mention this here. The author of this "self-help" piece, according to our journalist, posits that men are uncomplicated machines always hungering after sex-- sex, sex, sex, all the time, anywhere. Does the author see zero variation? That all women by nature aren't horny but manipulative and all men are entirely detached from their emotions is an outlook that demeans both sexes. Another way to represent contemporary feminism as not the blindly misandric support of a woman's interest but an outlook designed to improve society as a whole.</p>

I totally have a suggestion

I know what she can do with her 40 beads, Im just not sure it would be appropriate to post here.


I hate to say it, but I'll say it nonetheless, and it will be as equally sexist as Carol Evans -- women are more often the enemy of women than men. At least male stupidity is generally of a simpler kind, but this is a whole bunch of layers of psychological bullshit and dysfunction. Seriously -- in the 21st century everything is still about the penis?? This woman obviously can only find her self-worth and reason for being in relation to a man's feelings about her. Sad and pathetic and such a bummer that someone published this shit.

okay, so I got the name wrong...

Yeah, sorry -- "Carolyn," instead of Carol. But if she's going to publish such offensive shit, then should I really care if I got her name wrong?


"At least male stupidity is generally of a simpler kind"

This is the kind of stereotyping, where men are characterized as infantile and boorish, thus allowing for more excuses to be made about negative behavior, that sites like Bitch and Bitch's readers are trying to get away from. If you read the article, it states that Evans' simplistic views of women and men are equally insulting to both people, and completely regressive in their concepts. Men are people just like women are people, and relegating them to the "simpler kind" doesn't facilitate change. I, for one, find Carolyn Evans' stupidity to be quite straightforward.

Everyone pretty much said

Everyone pretty much said everything I thought while reading this article. Sex without having to communicate...that just makes me really sad. I'm surprised she hasn't included tips on how to fake an orgasm to keep the relationship alive. Le Sigh.

Honestly? All I can picture is a LOLcat dropping a bead into a bowl and going, "I CAN HAZ SECKS NOW??"


You should totally write a

Earl Grey spat all over my

What is disgusting and

What is disgusting and somewhat soul-crushing for me is that there will probably be many individuals who actually believe what this author is saying. It's been my experience that sex in a relationship, or lack thereof, is usually a symptom of a bigger issue(s) within the relationship.For Evans to simplify relationships down to just sex, and to then say that the progress of these relationships are predicated solely on women's willingness to submit to their (it's assumed) boyfriend/husband's sexual demands is ridiculous!

While reading pages of her book on Amazon, I thought, "Okay, even if my boyfriend's only care in our relationship is sex (it's not), I seriously doubt my he would really enjoy having sex with me while I'm staring him dead-eyed in the face. Better yet, let's see how much he wants sex when I ask him is he done yet, or while I'm overtly staring at my watch, sighing under his weight: what groceries should I pick up tomorrow?" Unless the assumption is also that men are not only hypersexual slobs, but uncaring/ unfeeling sociopaths. At which point, I'd like to know who would want to stick around with a person like that?

While reading the excerpts I was reminded of a drunk woman spilling her sad story over a bottle of vodka.

Lighten Up

I think you need to lighten up a little. Sometimes assumptions women make about men are correct. I wouldn't say all of us are hyper sexual slobs, but we are generally a little more motivated to set our standards a little higher when it comes to things such as house work and cooking if we are getting a little. I know this is definitely true about myself, the morning following a wild night in bed I would be going through the house like a whirlwind, I would stop and ask myself what is motivating me to do something so out of character. From experience I think this is true of a lot of men. The problem right now is that men are being overly feminized and are too often soft and give up all control in the relationship to women. This is because society has convinced us it is unacceptable to say you are feeling fine or okay, now you have to go into a complete essay on something which you could care less about.


So what are you saying, that if there is lack of sex with the husband or wife that it has to be a "bigger issue?" So what bigger issues are you suggesting? If you haven't read Evans book then "shhhhhhh". Some times life just gets hectic and busy and both partners put sex at the bottom of the list. Not that they mean to but long hrs at work, kiddos and what not most nights couples are exhausted. Also sometimes it's health issues so to sit there and think what cheating???? Get over yourself! Makes me wonder if you are still with your boyfriend.

The Perfect Formula

Step 1.) Get lots of beads.

Step 2.) ???

Step 3.) Profit!

OH BOY ...

wow, my eyebrows shot up so high i sprained a forehead muscle. Someone should send this to Lenore Tiefer for review.

There's nothing like a little essentialism to get your undies in a bunch.... [sigh]

Love this one Deb! It always

Love this one Deb! It always saddens (but also amuses me) that gender/heteronormative advice books treat the (binary) genders as opposites who will never understand each other and therefore can't communicate like two mature adults. Equally sad is the notion that sex is something you use to barter with your husband, as opposed to something you do for your own damn enjoyment because you want to.

I read this and think Evans

I read this and think Evans needs to get her hands on some Yes Means Yes! but I also have some compassion for the book. It's obviously written from the viewpoint of a woman trying to manage a complex part of her relationship. I get the desire to want to make sex simple, and that to a lot of women, that means going as passive as possible. Passive equals easy, equals sexy, equals happy man, and therefore (of course not really) happy woman. This is one of those books that I want to replace all the covers on, so when people think they are buying it, they really get Jaclyn Friedman, or an instant link over to Scarleteen. In my fantasy crazy bookstore, this also happens when people buy "What to Expect When You're Expecting" and instead get the text for Ina May's "Birth Matters."

Anywhoodle, this is obviously a terrible system to spread, but it does show how an entire middle/upper class somewhere thinks they've "all moved past the woman hear me roar thing" but never quite saw it in the first place.


Um, what about wives who have stronger libidos than their husbands? I ask my husband for sexy time way more than he asks me for it, and I usually always initiate it. Yes, men love sex, but so do women! OMG I have sex dreams all of the time, him, not so much.

I just hate her generalizations about men. As if sex is the only thing that makes them happy. Funny thing is, my husband doesn't want to have sex if the house is messy, if the laundry is piled up, and if there are dishes to be done. He's turned off by messiness. So apparently I have to rape him in order for him to not care if it's messy?

"Evans is announcing that wives "hold out" because they want favors from their husbands (nonsexual, natch)."

Um.... no? So not true! my husband holds out from sex until we clean the house! LOL

I've always hated the notion that all men want is sex, because it devalues them as human beings with thoughts, feelings, passions, and rationality. By asserting that men will be happy if and only if they're getting sex regularly, it's devalues them to the point where it's assumed that they don't or can't achieve happiness elsewhere, from either, say, a homecooked meal, a clean and neat house, happy children, a great and communicative marriage, their favorite team winning, success at work, friendships, and relaxation, as well as intellectual stimulation. Men can be completely happy if they're abstinent or only have sex every once in awhile.

Same goes for women. She assumes that women don't want to have sex, and fake ailments to get out of it, as if it's some chore. By asserting these stereotypes, she only sets the gender roles back a few decades and we're right back to where we started before the feminism movement, where men demand sex from their wives, they take it as a chore, as a task to keep them happy, and the women tend to the children and housekeeping, and the men go off to work.

Why can't people simply not make assumptions and stereotypes, and understand that yes, some men and women might not like sex, and that it's up to the couple to figure that out, and that yes, sometimes one half wants sex more than the other person, and they have to work that out and not demand it like Evans is saying, and that our sexual relationships all vary. Not every man can be content with just sex.

I agree with you that this

I agree with you that this book is completely reductive and narrow-minded, but I think the book demands bigger criticism that simply not being what you've experienced in your own life. You're right, plenty of women want sex more than their husbands, and plenty of men care about housework and want things other than sex. But I think the biggest problem with this method, as the author asserts and as you briefly touched on ("...and not demand it like Evans is saying") is that no partner, whether male or female, husband or wife, stronger libido or weaker, should ever be able to demand sex from their spouse. I know you get that, I just also think the book has problems that require more than a simple, "Oh well this wouldn't work for everyone because I love sex!"

And that plopping beads into

And that plopping beads into a bowl is really not a good alternative to straightforward, honest communiciation -- nothing is.

Danny Tanner maybe?

Sounds like your married to Danny Tanner......I'm sorry but your not his maid!!! The gull of him to deny sex cause the laundry isn't done?! Wow. I am a wife and I clean, cook, take care of the kiddos, do laundry and I work and go to school. My husband works, helps with cleaning, cooking and the kiddos. Sometimes I may have a load of laundry that is left to do for the next day, sometimes I don't feel like doing the dinner dishes till the morning and my husband could care less.

This is the funniest book

This is the funniest book review I've ever read.

While there's surely

While there's surely characters out there that fit the bill described in the book, I'd like to think that most partners out there have different priorities than Evan's. If I came back to a filthy house, ants hot on my heels, saw my crying child unclothed and in their own filth, I'm not going to be hunky-dory after dropping a damn bead in the bowl- I'm going to go change the diaper.

I can't believe this book

I can't believe this book actually has gotten published. Other than being very offensive to men and women alike, it sounds overall stupid and extremely simplified. What kind of publisher runs this thing through the press? It's ridiculous.

I think the problem with publishings like this is that many people/women unfortunately will think "oh, it's written by a woman, then everything is all right. A woman cannot be harmful in her opinions towards her own gender". I wonder if it would have been considered different if written by a man. Just like, if a person of color tells derogatory jokes about non-white persons, it's automatically not racist.

There are so many people who desperately want to fit into the 'normal' mold of nuclear families, normal lives, predictability and what's expected of one (if they want to make this choice and it makes them happy, fine by me, but I often see people where they don't know they can live in other ways).
They get impressed by the authority of books like this and buy the message, instead of reflecting on it and being critical of the contents and ideas. Maybe because they want life to be simple, they want men and women to be this predictable, easy to deal with and simplified, because it would be much easier to deal with, and they won't feel threatened because there are other ways to live your life than what they've chosen. Maybe they're buying into a dream of simplicity by buying and following books like this. It makes me sad they can't see beyond that, and that they violate themselves in the process.

Anyway, rant off. I hope this book turns out to be a complete flop.

That is just a horrible book.

That is just a horrible book. It's so degrading to both men and women, and personally, I feel so offended that she suggests that sex is a "cure all". There's so much more substance to a relationship than just sex.

Yes, and there's more to a

Yes, and there's more to a house than a foundation. But without a foundation, all you've got is a pile of sticks on some dirt. If a husband and wife have mismatched libidos, and the lower partner makes no attempt to compromise, there is no relationship. It's 2 angry people living in a house together.

My husband and I do something

My husband and I do something similar, but for both of our sexual needs. We have different color beads that each mean something different.

yellow=he goes down on me
blue= blow-job
red=foreplay for hours
purple=rough sex
black=blindfold and surprise me

And the list goes on...

Anyways, we both have mason jars on the side of our bed and on Mondays we make sure the jars are empty and through out the week we add beads to each other's jars as to what we want - not really at that moment, but whenever the mood strikes. Throughout the week we kind of cash in the beads. We both have to be in the mood though. By Sunday, whatever beads have not been cashed in, we make sure to take care of after Sunday dinner at my parents.

This really keeps things fun and sexy and intimate. I just love it!!!

I definitely like your

I definitely like your version better than Evans'. It's more equal and flexible for mood and circumstance. What happens if one partner isn't in the mood, though? Is the bead just declared null? If there are beads left over on Sunday night, must they be "taken care of" or are they allowed to just be left? I'm not sure anything is a substitute for honest communication, but I'm trying to work out the implications of your adaptation in my own head, because it's, at the very least, much improved.

If someone is not in the

If someone is not in the mood, then neither of us would ever push it. It’s more fun than serious. Sex is really important, but intimacy can come in so many forms. We actually have a bead (clear) for reading. I love when my husband reads to me from a book he is reading. It’s very soothing. His favorite bead is a checkered one, “the cook me chili” bead… LOL. He loves my chili and when is his craving it, he drops the bead in. The whole point of our beads to have fun and I have not always been the best communicator in any of my relationships when it has come to sex and “asking” for it. I had just always let the man decide when it was time. My husband and I have been married for a year but together for 5 and we have been doing this for about 3 years. There are many weeks where we just have to put the bead back in our own jars and save it for another day. No biggee… even if none of our “sex” beads have been used, (and we all have those weeks), we have plenty of beads that help nurture our intimacy needs.

I think we just have to make up our own rules in relationships. The 40 bead idea may seem a little archaic and sexist, but maybe it’s a good way for women to be more sexual – it does not come easy for all of us. Some of us have been raised like I was to not be overtly sexual and let the man make the sexual moves, but maybe the 40 beads method may help some women get more in touch with their sexual needs and eventually put their own beads in a jar. Am I giving this book too much credit? LOL

Great...more cookie cutter relationship books.

Stop with the cookie cutter relationship books, already! Everyone is different, every relationship is different, and it's up to the people who are in the relationship to decide what it is that makes them happy--'Nuff said!

Book of the month? :)

I wonder if this is the to-read-book for those new clubs "obedient wife" who are appearing here and there in some countries.
Because I can't see this as something different.

See... we had feminism, which said - equality and not submission is what one couple needs but according to her, that idea does not hold because it's about the woman. In order to be "we", women need to lose their identity and become again submissive. I say Gloria would say - BS!

I can imagine skipping

I can imagine skipping placing a real bead in a physical bowl as well, moving straight towards a Facebook app where a man can place a virtual bead in the bowl at any time.

Well, so far, most of the

Well, so far, most of the comments I have read are from folks who have not read the book. Fine, maybe you respect the opinion of the author of the story enough that you feel adequate in adopting it as your own. But LIGHTEN up, geez, have a little fun in life.

I've read it. I know the

I've read it. I know the author. I don't disagree with much of what she says. "Men are emotionally uncomplicated... Three basic states: OK, Not-OK, and Pissed." I don't disagree with that. And the premise that deeper issues lead to lack of sex? Not contested. The thesis is that by "punishing" a man's behavior by withholding sex, you are driving him to additional levels of unacceptable behavior. If you want to play tit-for-tat all the way to the goddamn divorce table, by all means do so. If a partner is abusive, if your partner is an irredeemable narcissist, if the marriage is irretrievably broken, or you just want out of a bad situation, this shit don't work. She addresses that. But if you've locked the bedroom because you're angry over XYZ, and your husband is Going all (XYZ)^2 because there is no serotonin diluting his testosterone, breaking that particular cycle might be a viable alternative to divorce.

But suit yourselves.

This works. You don't need

This works. You don't need beads. Find a partner that will submit to your sexual needs all the time and you will be happier in a relationship. There's really no reason to settle for less. There are people out there that match your sex drive and you just have to find them and discard the rest. If sex is not important then find someone that also isnt' very interested in sex to be with. If you like it every day, find someone just as horny as you and be happy. No beads needed.

Calm down. The book is about

Calm down. The book is about married people who get lost in everyday life. Kids, work and everyday issues get done first and sometimes sex is left out - it's the last thing for many couples. The bead is a way for the husband to say: "hey, let's not forget about us. I still love and want you." Sometimes women need a little nudge. She can think all day that she is desired. The point is, usually, the man is ready - anytime. Some ladies like the foreplay of anticipation - getting ready, planning fun stuff for the night. If you don't, that's great. This book is not for you. He is not demanding, by the way. He is saying, "I still think you are hot!" The woman who would get this book and beads loves her husband and wants to be reminded they he wants her, but ahead of time. She can get the kids off to bed early and grab a bottle of wine, light some candles and be ready. It doesn't have to beads. It's just a symbol. It could be notes left on a mirror or a call during the day.

Most of you are ridiculous!

Some people make me shake my head at the fact that have to read more into something then what it really is. To all of the narrow minded people who commented and to the narrow minded writer....really?! I saw this on a show and I thought it was clever and cute, sometimes marriages loose that fire. Sometimes health issues make it to where libido in men and women loose interest in sex. It can be a very hard and emotional time on a couple. So unless you have been there you wouldn't understand. Forty beads is to help make it fun again, instead of talking with your spouse about the issue or planning constantly when sex will happen (cause that is not a sexy thing) this is a flirty way to say "hey babe....;) ). It's a creative way to get the flirting, desire and anticipation back. For many many couples it has worked, so don't knock it. The author is NOT saying be lazy,. don't clean, don't take care of your moronic can some of you people be?????? She is simply stating that if your sex life is very good then everyday life won't get to you as bad. Why?? Cause if you and your husband/wife are insanely in love with each other then the both of you can get through all the good and bad without a doubt. Sex isn't just about sex it's so much more then that when you are completely head over heels in love with someone. That's how people stay married forever the way it should be.

You are bad at writing and

You are bad at writing and bad at ideas.
You don't seem to be getting that "bead in a bowl every time he wants sex and you must give him the sex" is pretty much neckbeard marriage.
Wow great a cute flirty way to put the spark back in your marriage, I'm sure there are so many other ways to do this that aren't sexist.

P.S. I hope your question-mark button breaks.

Add new comment