LoveSync Kickstarter, for when asking your partner to have sex is too awkward, press our button instead

Pikelet

Member
Oct 27, 2017
468
I guess? I've been married over ten years and I feel like the reality is more like if something is a priority you find time for it, and if you truly *want* it you find time for it, not just when your partner pushes a button and then the impetus is on you to accept or reject, I don't see how it would help with feelings of rejection.
How exactly do you "annonymously tap your button"? There's only two of them. She's going to know it was you.
Uhh we have this already, it’s called texting your SO a 🍆 or 🍑 out of nowhere
I think a few people don't understand how this device works. If one person presses the button, nothing happens. The only time something happens is if both partners press the button. There's no impetus placed on your partner when you push the button - the whole point is that you can freely press it whenever you want and not worry about rejection.

It won't solve the issue, your partner just won't press the button.
It depends what the problem is. If the problem is that one partner literally never wants sex, then of course this device is useless. If the problem is that there's a minimal overlap of when both partners are DTF and that one or both are hesitant to ask the other because there's a fear of rejection, then this device could be helpful to them.

I don´t think the relationship is going to last when you need this.
Sounds like a good healthy relationship where the communication is A+
I really dislike this attitude and line of thinking. You are lumping everyone who might possibly benefit from this device into the "doomed relationship" bucket, and I think this only encourages people to not seek practical solutions to their relationship problems.

Sometimes relationship issues are more logistical than romantic.
 

nded

Member
Nov 14, 2017
4,407
On the other hand, jerking off and trying again tomorrow is free.

Couldn't they have just made this an app?
 
Last edited:

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,923
Sydney
I really dislike this attitude and line of thinking. You are lumping everyone who might possibly benefit from this device into the "doomed relationship" bucket, and I think this only encourages people to not seek practical solutions to their relationship problems.

Sometimes relationship issues are more logistical than romantic.
Who said it was doomed? Relationships require work and communication like almost any other sustained human interaction, farming out something as intimate as communication in a relationship around sexual desires to an app is just a dumb shortcut that only sounds good in an elevator pitch.

You can smash that button all you like , but what is to stop your partner ignoring it? Or pretending they don't see it? Nothing. It doesn't fix the underlying communication breakdown in the relationship.
 

Geist

Community Resettler
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
3,055
I hope I'm never in a relationship where this starts to sound like a good idea.

Still, if this helps some couples, more power to them.
 

Pikelet

Member
Oct 27, 2017
468
Who said it was doomed? Relationships require work and communication like almost any other sustained human interaction, farming out something as intimate as communication in a relationship around sexual desires to an app is just a dumb shortcut that only sounds good in an elevator pitch.

You can smash that button all you like , but what is to stop your partner ignoring it? Or pretending they don't see it? Nothing. It doesn't fix the underlying communication breakdown in the relationship.
The way you've written it here makes me unsure if you understand how this device works. When you press the button there's nothing for the partner to ignore or pretend they don't see. I don't mean to be rude in ignoring the rest of your post, but understanding the mechanics of the device is key to understanding why this might be useful for some people in very specific circumstances.

Isn't it still a silent form of rejection?
Kind of, but the rejection has lost it's sting because it's passive rather than active. Passive rejection has ambiguity which softens the blow. Active rejection is unambiguous and embarrassing.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,923
Sydney
The way you've written it here makes me unsure if you understand how this device works. When you press the button there's nothing for the partner to ignore or pretend they don't see. I don't mean to be rude in ignoring the rest of your post, but understanding the mechanics of the device is key to understanding why this might be useful for some people in very specific circumstances.

Kind of, but the rejection has lost it's sting because it's passive rather than active.
Passive rejection has ambiguity which softens the blow. Active rejection is unambiguous and embarrassing.
Oh god no this isn’t healthy
 
OP
OP
Bobo Dakes

Bobo Dakes

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
21,870
The way you've written it here makes me unsure if you understand how this device works. When you press the button there's nothing for the partner to ignore or pretend they don't see. I don't mean to be rude in ignoring the rest of your post, but understanding the mechanics of the device is key to understanding why this might be useful for some people in very specific circumstances.


Kind of, but the rejection has lost it's sting because it's passive rather than active. Passive rejection has ambiguity which softens the blow. Active rejection is unambiguous and embarrassing.
Should it be tho? Embarrassing? "Not tonight honey." "Sorry, I'm not in the mood."
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,923
Sydney
On the other hand, jerking off and trying again tomorrow is free.

Couldn't they have just made this an app?
If they made it an app it’d basically be Tinder, which is where they clearly lifted the idea from, but without really considering why the concept works on the nature of relationships that Tinder is for, and wouldn’t work for the kind of relationship being targeted.
 

FUME5

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,944
The way you've written it here makes me unsure if you understand how this device works. When you press the button there's nothing for the partner to ignore or pretend they don't see. I don't mean to be rude in ignoring the rest of your post, but understanding the mechanics of the device is key to understanding why this might be useful for some people in very specific circumstances.


Kind of, but the rejection has lost it's sting because it's passive rather than active. Passive rejection has ambiguity which softens the blow. Active rejection is unambiguous and embarrassing.
Mate, if you're hitting that button 5 times every morning for a month and it never lights up that's going to sting like a motherfucker.
 

Aegus

Member
Oct 29, 2017
186
I swear to god a lot of Kickstarters and tech startups are solutions that are looking for problems.
 

Protome

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,777
On the face of it I guess I could see the use of it for people in struggling relationships or where one or both partners have reduced libido because of medical reasons but...

Mate, if you're hitting that button 5 times every morning for a month and it never lights up that's going to sting like a motherfucker.
This is completely true. This doesn’t actually solve any problem, it just postponed the disappointment lol
 

RiOrius

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,246
Mate, if you're hitting that button 5 times every morning for a month and it never lights up that's going to sting like a motherfucker.
But it also confirms that the issue goes beyond communication and into drive. Which is important information for addressing the problem.

I get it. Taking initiative is hard, especially after repeated rejection. There are probably some relationships where this would be helpful. But yeah, putting it in an app makes way more sense.
 
Oct 25, 2017
170
Speaking as someone in a long term relationship which developed this specific complex around mismatched libidos and rejection, I doubt the button would help in a way that couldn't be preferably superseded by therapy or other means, but I can tell you that the problem can be very real, and need not indicate existential instability in the partnership, or poor sex. It kind of sucks to see people posturing about it, although I do get that it might be hard to imagine the relevant conditions that might necessitate this sort of intervention without direct experience of them.
 

Dr. Mario

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,447
Netherlands
I'm actually sympathetic to the idea. People who scoff at a lack of communication don't seem to get the communication is the actual problem. Outside of the Era bubble where all men have 20" orgasmatrons and women are DTF three times a day, a lot (I want to say the vast majority) of relationships have a huge imbalance in libido. Talking about it mostly only makes it worse. The one partner feels rejected and sexually frustrated, the other partner feels like it's never enough and the partner only wants them for their body. Since in 90% of the cases talking about it doesn't lead to sex, it only sharpens this divide.

So this way of talking about it without imposing is a pretty good idea, I just don't see anyone who feels pressured in their sex life install such a thing that reinforces the problem. An app is probably better.
 

TheMadTitan

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,748
If you need this, you shouldn't be having sex. And you probably shouldn't be in a relationship either.
 

massoluk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,852
Real talk, would be better to just rethink these a bit for sales to some bar with call girls. Like just grab one at the door if you're looking for service.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,985
Nottingham, UK
Better to be ignored than rejected and negatively judged.
Is it really?

Like negatively judged isn't necessary to the rejection. So let's just look at the rejection - it's at least communication, a conversation, resolution to a point

I don't really see how a person's libido or sexual needs being straight up ignored day in day out by a partner is all that much better to be honest

Obviously this doesn't take into account the way in which someone is rejected (IE, if they're are unpleasant, manipulative, vindictive, etc - then that's obviously basically abuse at that point, not rejection)
 

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland
It won't solve the issue, your partner just won't press the button.
If they don't, they don't feel like sex, problem solved.

But it's not that simple. The supposed "awkwardness" of asking your chosen life partner if they want to have sex will be replaced by the real, nightmarish awkwardness of trying to find a polite way to ask them if they've misplaced their button.

Come to think of it, asking my wife if I can help her to find her button would be a guaranteed way to let her know what I'd like to do. Laughter is a great aphrodisiac.
 

Miss Piggy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
118
As someone who listens to a lot of Esther Perel podcasts, the scenario whereby 'one partner gives up asking for intimacy due to experiencing frequent rejection' is actually quite common.

As a relationship tool to assist these kinds of couples, it actually sounds like a pretty neat product that could help people.
I am a big fan of her YouTube videos, didn’t realise she has a podcast!
 

Dr. Mario

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,447
Netherlands
Is it really?

Like negatively judged isn't necessary to the rejection. So let's just look at the rejection - it's at least communication, a conversation, resolution to a point

I don't really see how a person's libido or sexual needs being straight up ignored day in day out by a partner is all that much better to be honest

Obviously this doesn't take into account the way in which someone is rejected (IE, if they're are unpleasant, manipulative, vindictive, etc - then that's obviously basically abuse at that point, not rejection)
Yes of course, the sexual needs being ignored is the invariant, this will happen regardless. The only thing added is one partner feeling pressured or unable to satisfy needs and the other being rejected and unattractive, both of which will frustrate the future chance (and experience) of sex.
 

lacer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,690
this thread just reminded me that it's been like six years since the last Fuck Buttons album :(
 

Cuburger

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,279
Judging by their graph, it doesn't seem like this is made for people who aren't having sex or aren't communicating, like many seem to assume from the comments.
It's basically assuming in a healthy relationship people are going to be having sex when at least one person is really in the mood and the other person is at least somewhat in the mood. Their hypothesis is that there is a whole "zone" that intersects where both people have at least an interest in having sex but it just doesn't happen. I assume this would also be for long term relationships where people are busy or maybe regular sex is infrequent to where a chance to sync up when both people are at least moderately in the mood would mean more frequent sex, hypothetically as long as they are in the mood enough to press the button.

I can at least see the purpose behind it and can imagine scenarios where it could potentially help couples get past that slightly awkward bit of interaction that might routinely discourage some intimacy. This is all assuming they have a baseline of a healthy-ish relationship to begin with.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,985
Nottingham, UK
Yes of course, the sexual needs being ignored is the invariant, this will happen regardless. The only thing added is one partner feeling pressured or unable to satisfy needs and the other being rejected and unattractive, both of which will frustrate the future chance (and experience) of sex.
How does the product actually really change the situation. Other than giving the person rejecting an out?
 

Freakzilla

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
3,916
That would be perfect. At least I could get the message across without having to have an in person rejection.