I found this blog posting quite interesting. I can recall in many relationships that when I kept pushing for sex, I would get a handj0b, and I was generally satiated, such that had I NOT gotten the handj0b, I would have lost interest. I guess as long as I am getting the ejaculati0ns, and a woman is doing the work for it, I don't feel like an omega loser.

http://marriedmansexlife.com/2010/11/breaking-out-of-the-no-sex-rut-in-just-30-minutes-a-week/

I hate just hand jobs. Its a no way shape or form a substitute for sex because the very act of hand jobs should lead to blow jobs and real sex. I'd rather watch porn and ejeculate myself then just hand job from a woman I already been with, because my hand is a better substitute for a better and fuller ejectulation then what she can do with her hand.

Unless she throws in a hand job with a t1tty fvck as the least of what she will do, then the deal is off.

She should at least give you a bj.

Hand jobs are for car parks, at the movies...not as a substitute for sex between a married couple, they are an add on impromptu sex act and NEVER EVER a substitute for sex

I have been married for a year and she has never not been in the mood. Whenever I want it she wants it too.

I suppose that it can't all be handjobs - that there must be some good regular vaginal (or other lower trunk orifice ) action in there as well. But I would not have a problem with a mix of the two. A lot of times, not having to get all exercised up can be nice, allowing all the energy to be concentrated on the ejaculati0n muscles. As typically after the 3rd ejaculation in a lovemaking session, I'm now having problems with #4, whereas a nice tug always seems to do the trick.

I knew a guy - a Brit in his 60's who would always go to the Philippines, where he would get the bar-girls to give him handj0bs, rather than straight sex.