What happend to REAL men?

The other day when visiting the Pool at my condo with a couple of mates, I noticed a strange trend. Well, in our minds anyway.

You see, we couldn't work out whether the men we were watching – many of whom had shaved legs, were sporting short, slightly see-through shorts and sunglasses so large they could have rivalled Nicole Richie's – were gay or straight.

Sure, they were chatting up girls. But, really, what the heck has happened to the blokey Malaysian bloke?

"We don't want shaved legs," said one of my friends, pointing out those who stood in droves in front of us.

"We like hair. Maybe not so much on the chest, but definitely in the leg region. We definitely like it in the other region too. Yes, men, we like your nether regions unshaved. Otherwise it's too feminine."

Really?

"Yes, I don't mind a bit of hair in my teeth. And we like shorts that don't show their package and that cover their region."

"Oh, and the sunglasses?" he ranted on. "We like to actually see your face. And my personal sentiment? Enough of the tattoos."

In short, he says the message to men should be this: "We like men hairy. We like them masculine. And we want the caveman back!"

To discover exactly where we're at in terms of the man trends (who can forget the technosexual or the retrosexual I wrote about in 2007?), I consulted Mark Simpson.

As part of the SensoTouch 3D launch, Philips commissioned Mark Simpson, the journalist and social commentator who coined the phrase "metrosexual" in 1994, to name a new male consumer segment identified during the extensive research and development work on the SensoTouch 3D. But before we get there, let's talk a bit about how he came up with the Metro.

Yep, the forward-thinking British journalist had seen the future of the male species when he visited an exhibition put on by GQ magazine in London in 1994.

"I'd seen the future and it was moisturised," he told me. The exhibition prompted him to coin the term in an article he penned for The Independent newspaper and suddenly the trend spread faster than the hot wax the men were using to wax their nads.

"It seemed to me that in the early '90s, male beauty came out of the closet. Man felt no more shame in his appearance."

While the concept didn't fully take off until the early noughties – "In the '90s people were in a little bit of denial about what was happening to men and why they were spending so long in the bathroom, but in the noughties it was impossible to ignore" – suddenly metrosexuals were everywhere.

Simpson pointed a well-manicured finger at metrosexual pin-up boy David Beckham, who wore a sarong, painted his nails and posed for a semi-nude photo-shoot in a gay magazine.

"At the time, this kind of behaviour by a football hero was unheard of in the UK. But when he started projecting metrosexual behaviour so openly, we quickly went from denial in the '90s to metrosexual mania in the early noughties when the word was overused … and men got a bit obsessed with facials and flip flops."

Nowadays, he says, metrosexual men are pretty much the norm.

"So many things metrosexuals do have just become acceptable and hardly worthy of

comment that these days it's not enough to draw attention to yourself."

Hence, these days, in order to get noticed, Simpson says some men are going one step further. Hence the new male consumer segment he's identified is the "Alphaesthete", with pin-up boys being the likes of football player Cristiano Ronaldo and comedian Russell Brand.

"Because metrosexuality is so commonplace, the new bloke manages to stand out despite that. What makes him stand out is generally the fact that he is not terribly concerned with what other people will say."

Apparently this new bloke is not just concerned about looking good and taking care of himself but he is not ashamed of being self-obsessed, pushing boundaries and ensuring that his outlandish behaviour isn't indicative of his sexuality.

"He is not worried about whether something is masculine, gay or straight; he just does what he wants. He doesn't need a product with the word 'man' in front of it – manscara or a manbag. Instead he just wears and does what makes him feel good about himself. He is cutting edge, avant-garde."

So is that what's happening to our Malaysian blokes? Are they so bored of being termed metrosexuals that they've gone one step further?

Of course the dudes we saw at the my pool condo are a small subset of men who (we hope) aren't exactly indicative of where the entire male species is heading.

While we can applaud these sorts for being so fearless that they don't give a toss what others think (or at least they purport to be that way), when it gets to a point at which men can't work out whether they're gay, straight or somewhere in between … perhaps something needs to be done.

Perhaps, as my friends says, we need an intervention. Perhaps we need a movement.

Perhaps we need to encourage blokes to bring their inner caveman back.

Either way, I think I'll start hanging out at a pub instead of a designer pool bar where sport is on TV and the only thing they're serving is beer. No designer cocktails or wet chiselled bodies (sans hair) in sight ...

STOP PRESSING!!

Male Sexual - Erection - Part II

I have five rules on male sexual function that can serve as simple indicators of the health of your sex life.

These rules indicates if you have healthy androgen levels (and other hormones like oestradiol, human growth hormone (HGH), gonadotrophins, prolactin, oxytocin, melanocyte-stimulating hormone, pheromones, and precursor hormone like pregnenolone that all influence male sexuality and sexual function in some way): healthy levels of nitric oxide (the messenger molecule necessary for vasodilation – to dilate the coronary arteries for healthy heart function, and the penile vessels for a good erection, among others): a healthy heart and lungs: good stamina: and sufficient qi (life-force)

Rule number one:
If you are not thinking of sex everyday, you don’t have enough androgens (and some of the other hormones mentioned above) to produce a healthy sex drive (libido)

Thinking of sex daily (but not all the time) does not meant having sex everyday.

In humans, the biological urge to have sex is modulated by many other factors like religious and moral issues, and work.

In contrast, for example, the lion can do ‘it’ up to 50 times a day without bothering who is watching!

Rule number two:
If you not having erections at least twice daily (a spontaneous one in the morning and at least once again in the day due to a sexual urge) you don’t have enough androgens (plus possibly several other hormone) and nitric oxide.

Spontaneous early morning erection are due to surges in testosterone levels, and are regular in healthy boys and young men.

Unfortunately, due to poor health and low androgen levels, many men stop having spontaneous morning erections after reaching 40. Their ability to achieve erections at other times also declines.

If you are really healthy, you will still have spontaneous erections even beyond 60.

Rule number three:
If you are not having sex at least three times a week, you are not having enough sex!

Of course, many out there may disagree with me, but I am just indicating what those who are fit and healthy, and have optimum hormone levels, are enjoying.

Many couple have resigned themselves to having minimal sex because they fail to seek proper medical advice to recover their lost libido and sexual ability.

They tell people they are living happily with little or no sex, when in fact, they wish it was otherwise.

They should not continue fooling themselves, when (in most cases) their condition can be easily improved or reversed.

Rules number four:
If your erection is not grade 4 on the Erection Hardness Score (EHS, see the list below) you are unhealthy, and lack androgens, HGH (and possibly other hormones too) and nitric oxide.

The EHS grades are based on a scale of one to four:

Grade 1 : Penis is large, but not hard

Grade 2 : Penis is hard, but not hard enough for penetration

Grade 3 : Penis is hard enough for penetration, but not completely hard

Grade 4 : Penis is completely hard and fully rigid

Erection hardness and duration correlate with sexual satisfaction, self-esteem and confidence.

They also correlate with hormonal and cardiovascular health, and qi

Obesity and statin drug therapy (to reduce high cholesterol) are also associated with poor erection.

While a woman may achieve climax through non-penetration sex, a man’s climax is achieve through ejaculation, which is impossible without a good erection (necessary even for masturbation)

However, premature ejaculation (ejaculating too early, before there is sufficient pleasure) leads to frustration instead.

The penis invariably becomes limp after orgasm. The refractory period (time lapse before erection is possible again) varies between minutes for healthy young men, to hours and days for unhealthy older men.

Achieving Grade 4 is easy for qigong masters who practice hard qigong

Through qigong exercises, we are able to achieve and sustain completely rigid erections. You may have read reports of some qigong masters carrying weights or even pulling trucks using their penis.

Sexual energy is qi

One of the signs of having enough qi is the ability to sustain solid erection for long durations.

Qigong masters can also have multiple orgasms, with zero or minimal refractory period.

Rule number five:
If your Grade 4 erection – don’t bother about this rule if you don’t even achieve Grade 4 – cannot be sustained for at least five minutes, then you are still not sexually fit.

And you should also produce above five milliliters of ejaculate to have a really good orgasm (two to six milliliters is considered normal).

The volume of ejaculate is corrected with sexual satisfaction.

However, as much of the ejaculate is seminal fluid (the sperm makes up only about 10% of the volume), even those who have undergone a vasectomy (where the sperm is blocked from entering the seminal fluid) ca still enjoy good orgasms.

Get yourself checked
It is desirable for the sex act, including foreplay, to continue for some to achieve sufficient pleasure.

Healthy young men may continue the sex act for much longer, but after 40, most men slow down, especially if they are unhealthy or unfit.

By age 50, very few can still sustain rigid erection for more than five minutes, unless of course, they use Viagra or its clones. And when they ejaculate, they only produce a few drops!

Surveys in many countries show that about 45% of men above 40 years old have some degree of erectile dysfunction (ED – the inability to achieve a good erection).

The percentages are higher with the older age groups, and in diabetics.

About 10 years ago, it was reported that Malaysians had the worlds highest per capita consumption of Viagra, which tells us tat our men ‘tak boleh’ (cannot) although they always shout ‘Malaysia Boleh’ (Malaysia can!)

We are indeed an unhealthy lot. The latest report show that the rates of hypertension obesity and diabetes are steadily rising.

It also means that the rate of ED must be rising, although this was not surveyed.

If this is not addressed, there will be many frustrated men (old and no-so-old) and their frustrated partner among us.

And the sale of Viagra and related drugs will continue to boom.

If you fail on the above rules, you should consider getting medical advice to have your cardiovascular fitness and sex hormone levels checked.

To achieve full mark, you need to be physically healthy and fit, have optimum hormone levels, and have the ability to produce sufficient nitric oxide.

For more information about the many way nitric oxide improves health, and how to improve your nitric oxide supply, please read Nitric Energy Healing at http://www.superqigong.com/articlesmore.asp?id=71

I know there are many men out there who are plodding along feeling tired on most days, have poor libido and even poorer erections, and are frustrated with their sex lives.

I hope reading this article will make them realize that such a situation is not normal, and that they can, and should, do something about it.

If your partner is one of them, talk to your doctor.

In the meantime, remember, good sex means good health. For those men who are fit and healthy with optimum androgens, there is no andropause, only Men-no-Pause!

Till then, I am glad to find this book and happy to share this with you'll.... especially we're a men, and they judge us from our performance.... so, be ready my friends.... 'happy sunday'

Male Sexual - Hormone - Part I

External male sexual development begins in the fetal stage inside the womb.
After birth, the male sexual organs develop very slowly due to low androgen levels.
However, even in young boys, androgens play a rule in ‘masculinizing’ the brain to influence boys to behave like boys, and to prefer more male-oriented activities and toys.

And they do enable young boys to have spontaneous erections.

By the time of adolescence, a boys upbringing would have shaped his masculine role and preferences, while the hormonal changes of puberty would have reinforced his external male characteristics (facial and body hair, voice change, testicular and penile growth, etc) and masculine behaviour.

Spontaneous nocturnal and morning erections (due to the testosterone surge and sexy dreams) and daytime erections (due to sexy thoughts, pictures or movie) become frequent.

Wet dream and sexual ‘exploration’ and ‘adventure’ are common as the testosterone surges to prepare him for the biological function of finding a mate, mating and becoming a father and protector of the family.

So, it is not surprising that testosterone not only causes male sexual development and male sexual behavior, but also, aggressiveness.

However, the effects of hormones on sexual preference is complicated and poorly understood, because many macho men loaded with testosterone are gays, who prefer other men instead of women.

In the majority of boys, however, the surge of testosterone causes them to be interested in the opposite sex, and there is the natural tendency to mate.

In civilized society, this translate to finding potential candidates for marriage and starting a family.

However, as we all know, there is plenty of sex going on outside of marriage, purely for its own pleasere.

After all, prostitutions is said to be the oldest profession. And even Kings and presidents have risked everything for sex.

This just goes to show that humanity is heavily sex-driven, thanks to androgens.
Note that even in women, it is the androgens that are the main drivers of their sexual urge.

Oestrogen is essential for female sexual development and female sexuality, but it is testosterone, working on the oestrogen-primed mind, that gives women their healthy libido.

Likewise, in men, healthy levels of both androgens and oestradiol are necessary for a good libido.

Till then, let me read more and will share with you here, catch you very soon

Can you be with ONE person for the rest of your life?

Can you be with one person for the rest of your life?

This was the question posed to me by the guy I was dating for the past four months, as he was contemplating whether or not to agree to commit to a man he'd recently started dating.

"Time is ticking on, so I'm not going to date guys forever," he continued. "But is this really going to be the one person I'm going to be with forever more?"

He seemed confused. Sure, he'd done his fair share of dating. And yes, he was pretty certain that he was in love. But, still, that question niggled at the back of his mind. "Is it possible to think like that these days?" he asked me. "I mean, do you believe you could do that?"

I wanted to scream:

"Yes! Of course I do!"

But realistically, I didn't have the answer. Nevertheless, his musings got me thinking: can modern-day singletons really see themselves settling down with just one person for the rest of their lives? Or has the transient dating scene made it impossible for any of us to contemplate such a thought?

"Absolutely not," said another friend of mine James, when I posed the same question to him over coffee a few days later. James’s reckons that if he had never moved to Kuala Lumpur City, he would have been married at 23 with two kids in tow by now.

"I would have never known anything different. So would I have been as happy? probably yes."

But instead, he says that with the abundance of choice available to him and ripe for the picking (for the record he's in his late 30s with sparking sea-green eyes and a hot-to-trot body), it makes it all the more difficult for him to pick just one. I've seen the boy flock around him, and I kind of know what he means.

"The problem is that there are too many ways out these days," he says. "And where I live now, there is always someone else around the corner. Or so it seems."

My friend Jake, who has a penchant for dating a number of men at once with the aim of "keeping his options open", concurs.

"I always have this mentality that the grass is greener. So nothing is concrete any more. You date, you live together, you might even settle-down together. But then someone else comes along and you think, 'Am I making the right choice?' The answer is often sadly a 'no'."

When I asked my single fortysomething mate Steve, he said that the fact there was so much choice made it all the more difficult to make a decision.

"That's why player-types will never become settle," he told me. "Too much choice makes it impossible for them to ever contemplate choosing just one."

"Are you a player?" I asked him.

"No. But that doesn't make the decision any easier for me either."

Author Barry Schwartz discusses this concept brilliantly in his book, The Paradox of Choice – Why More is Less. He writes that, while the freedom of choice we have nowadays is critical to our well-being, freedom and autonomy, nonetheless "we don't seem to be benefiting from it psychologically". Instead, he says that more choice only leads to depression and feelings of loneliness.

True, in the midst of the current non-commital sexual zeitgeist, we now come face-to-face with the fact that fewer people are settling down, there are higher divorce rates and the median marriage age has been significantly delayed.

But where does it leave those who might want to settle down? Do we simply go into it with the expectation that things will come to an end once they've run their course? Is "happily ever after" now a thing of the past?

For Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver, unfortunately, the answer seems to be yes. With their 25-year marriage suddenly kaput, it seems they really did go into it with the best intentions.

In fact, just a few years ago, Shriver told the media: "We are still engaged with each other, hot for each other, into each other. There hasn't been a moment when I have been bored. I have worked and worked on my marriage, and it has paid off."

But now? "Forever" is just no longer a certainty.

When I carried out an unofficial poll on the subject, the answers were split right down the middle. Fifty per cent said it was unrealistic to envision yourself with one person for the rest of your life and that it would never work; the other 50 per cent believed it could indeed happen.

Sir Paul McCartney has recently proposed for the third time – this time to millionairess Nancy Shevell - even though his previous wife took $50 million from him.

He says this time around it is indeed "real love", and that he won't be asking his new fiancee to sign a prenup. Third time lucky perhaps? Only time will tell …

What do you think? Can you imagine yourself being with one person for the rest of your life?

As for me here:

I met Angus when I was 29 and thought at that time I was settle. This is the person I'd be sitting on the verandah with, chinking a glass of wine and dribbling on my shirt as we both passed into the forever after holding hands.

Well, 11 years from that sashay down, the partnership succumbed to both our inability to keep the love alive.

Yep, I went off and had my mid-life crisis with the Green Eye William and the fabric of my partner and I's friendship was torn irrevocably.

I thought at the time that the Green Eye William would be my new companion on the verandah -- alas, after six months together it was not to be.

Since then I've met a couple of wonderful men that I got close to thinking that verandah scenario with. But... nope.

I still hold on to the romantic notion of that late summer afternoon, a glass of a decent champagne, holding hands and both of us looking into our watery looking eyes and feeling that moment when our spirits floated into the aether entwined for ever more.

So the concept of staying with someone for the rest of my life is real for me.

But finding someone else that will stay the distance that I don't annoy to death and does not annoy me to my grave is not as easy as it may seem.

And as we get older and more determined in what we want as well as more relaxed about what we tolerate... It's crazy out there.

My advice... live the best you can with the one you are with. If it goes pear shaped... start again!

Till then, catch you here soon

Too many fish is sea of love leave singles without a catch

Scientists have made a surprising discovery: the more options you have for choosing a lover, the more likely you are to end up with no one.

British investigators, in a study released yesterday, looked at the strange dynamics of choice in speed dating.

Speed daters race through a list of one-on-one meetings, judging each person for suitability after a conversation of a few minutes.

Assessing large numbers of candidates was not a problem in itself, the researchers found.

In fact, many speed daters found more potential partners when they were able to cast their net into a larger pool.

But this advantage only worked when the available candidates were all broadly similar.

When candidates were too dissimilar, speed daters became confused by many conflicting factors and often failed to choose anyone.

''There are models of human 'rationality' which posit that variety is a good thing,'' said Dr Alison Lenton, a researcher and lecturer at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

''[Our] results suggest that increasing option variety leads to chooser confusion. People are more likely to choose no one at all when faced with greater variety.''
The study, published in the British journal Biology Letters, tracked 1868 female and 1870 male participants at 84 commercial speed-dating events.

''Dealing with variety requires attention and memory, and we have only so much capacity for each,'' Dr Lenton said.

Amber Soletti, who runs a speed-dating company in New York, said grouping singles by interest or physical preferences boosted chances of a successful connection. Her company offers 75 niche groups, such as ''Asian Persuasion'', ''Fitness Singles'' and

''Worldly Singles'' who like to travel.

Ms Soletti started the company after failing to find anyone of interest at general speed-dating events.

''I only like to date men 6 ft 1 and taller … I always went to single events that had shorter men,'' she said.

How about me? am looking for nice 6ft tan skin with beautiful green eye.....

Where to find him?

Till then, hope to hear from you soon

Rough sex, tender sex or 'just right' sex?

So, I had a revelation the other day.

The ‘transAtlantic comic saga’ I’m currently reading involves a lot of philosophical musings on modern life and, incidentally, a graphic sex scene between a left-wing university professor and the young student daughter of his right-wing academic arch-nemesis.

‘Porno’ probably best describes her approach, prompting anxious bafflement on his behalf (“is that the fashion these days?” he wonders, as she propositions him, on all fours, ass in the air).

I couldn’t help but marvel at the author’s eloquent depiction of the kind of sex I’m sure is commonplace in many modern bedrooms – certainly among young ones influenced by the cruder, more ‘adult’ pop-culture of now. A culture that replaced ‘chick’ with ‘whore,’ ‘dude’ with ‘pimp’ and ‘sex’ with ‘fuck’. One that managed to make the liberal progressive of the '70s blush mid-coitus.

The shocking sexual question of our older gent's exploratory days would have been ‘can women have sex like men?’ Today it’s probably, ‘Can we fuck like porn stars?’

It was at this point I stopped to wonder, is ‘making love’ as opposed to ‘having sex’ or ‘getting fucked’ about due for a comeback?

Society, it seems, builds boundaries, breaks them down, regulates, then builds again – a process of creative destruction that applies, I believe, as readily to our love lives as it does to our economic ones (Victorian severity followed Georgian hedonism, 1950s conservatism from 1920s liberalism, etc).

It seems to me, in this era of fear, driven by consumption and governed by extremes – where Lady Gaga makes 90s provocateurs the Spice Girls look tame – the tone of interpersonal intercourse, verbal, sexual or otherwise, continues to push primal, animalistic and base boundaries.

Partly, this is the refreshing reality of major revolution – down with the social constraints of the past, up with the freedom of the future!

Though it seems as there’s a ‘correction’ occurring (Europe’s stepping away from the left, gays are getting bombed, more Americans are drinking tea), I’m really not keen on replacing one ‘extreme’ with another, particularly when there’s so much I believe is wrong about this reactive right.

But I do believe there’s something to be said for a bit of balance – a reminder that you can screw as hard, fast and consensually rough as you like, as long as you don’t forget to try a little tenderness every once in a while.

Perhaps you disagree – thinking the world is in order, sexual norms sound and relationships functional?

Perhaps I’m speaking as someone from a certain generation, about a certain generation, or my particular group of friends. Perhaps it’s just me and characteristics

I’ve observed in the way I have sex/make love/fuck.

But perhaps you agree?

I’m not suggesting repression is the answer, nor do I advocate a return to the cloistered ‘old days.’

Instead, I’m calling for a new approach to sex – not overly aggressive or excessively sensitive. Just 'right’.

How about you?

Till then, hope to hear from you soon

Good sex, bad feeling

Anti-climax ... sex can bring on feelings of sadness and anxiety in many men.

A third of all gay-man have experienced post-sex blues at some point, a study shows, but researchers still don't understand why.

The period immediately after sex normally results in feelings of well-being, and mental and physical relaxation. But the study of more than 200 young men reveals many have experienced the reverse, including feelings of melancholy, anxiety and tearfulness.

Friend of mine, Peter, who carried out the research, said 32.9 per cent of respondents had experienced the phenomenon at some point. That was despite the sex being otherwise satisfactory.

Peter’s said the cause of such negative feelings was unknown - but it was clear men wanted more information about the phenomenon. ''Research on the prevalence and causes of post-coital dysphoria has been virtually silent but internet searches reveal information on the subject is widely sought,'' he said.

''It has generally been thought that men who have experienced sexual abuse associate later sexual encounters with the trauma of the abuse along with sensations of shame, guilt, punishment and loss.

''This association is then purported to lead to sexual problems and the avoidance of sex.''

But Peter said his study had found only limited correlation between sexual abuse and postcoital dysphoria.

''Psychological distress was also found to be only modestly associated with post-coital dysphoria,'' he said. ''This suggests other factors such as biological predisposition may be more important in understanding the phenomenon and identifying men at risk of experiencing post-coital dysphoria.''

The next stage of Peter’s research will look at emotional characteristics of men who experience post-sex blues.

''I want to look at how men view their 'sense of self'. Whether they are fragile or whether they are strong men, and investigate whether this leads to their post-coital dysphoria,'' he said.

Till then

Is there space for 'solo' sex in a shared bed?

What with all the fuss being made about masturbation in the US these days, a conversation shared with an amigo not long ago has taken on new significance.

Guy was blue-balling at the time - his partner, lately, had not been up to getting down - and he was getting desperate.

So, after a perfunctory prod elicited nothing much more than getoffme dismissal, guy rolls over and decides to take matters into his own hands.

Literally.

As he recounted the events that ensued, trying to maintain an air of mild-mannered objectivity, I couldn't ignore the concoction of personal emotion permeating the air.

It smelt like anger mingled with frustration and a vague hint of shame - like he was trying to understand what was so bad about something that seemed so good and was drawing blanks.

Outwardly, he was questioning whether he had a right to react so outrageously. If he wasn’t up for it, why should he suffer?

He was master of his body – he respected that. So how was it fair – how was it allowed – that he prevent him from mastering his?

Poor guy was really upset. I wondered whether it was because he “had” to tend to himself, or the act of tending he found more disgraceful. (But men rarely seem to feel the same weird guilt about getting off boys do … was that why he was upset?).

He asked me how I would react.

I laughed.

One of three ways, I reckoned.

With mild irritation if I was tired or reading – slapping and sighing can be mighty distracting (Why the bed? Why not the bathroom?).

However, say I was un-horny but good-humoured. Bemusement, probably, would give me cause to observe for a bit, at least until the curiosity wore off, I grew bored, or fell asleep.

Of course, I pointed out, there’s always the chance self-satisfaction could invite the arrangement of a more mutually agreeable persuasion ...

“Everyone’s different, every circumstance unique,” I pointed out. “I can’t speak for all bedfellows.”

Which is why I put it to you guys … what’s your standard?

Absolutely not or just not in the bed? Or is personal playtime perfectly fine?

The thing about masturbation is that we’re all capable of it. There are times and places, sure, and not everyone feels as comfortable with the idea as others do. But there’s no reason to be embarrassed about it. Especially when it comes to the sex life you share with your partner.

So why, then, does guy feel like ''so many boys'' have a problem with it?

Agree/disagree and explain.

Happy Frisky Sunday!

How do you know when it's over?

Last week, I was talking to my friend Peter and described how modern men should "man up", especially when it comes to dumping their boyfriend.

"Do it on the phone or in person," I told him, hoping blokes out there would finally ditch the callous text dump.

But it seems, upon closer inspection, that many men would prefer to do something a little different than have to face the problem head on: they opt for the disappearing act.

"It's easier to just stop answering their calls then to have to tell them that you're ending it," one friend recently said.

He was referring to his four-month sojourn with a boy whom he was never quite into, although he stuck around for the sex.

When he started asking questions about "where this is going", he bailed. And simply never answered his calls again.

Sure it's coldhearted, insidious, insensitive and downright rude. But why then – when men are seemingly so capable of so much else – do they get cold feet when it comes to ending a relationship?

"It's because of the crying," one man said. "I can't stand it when they cries."

It's surprising to me how many men end a relationship this way without closure, without a reason as to why they've gone cold or without even a courtesy peck on the cheek to say goodbye..

In fact one stranger told me he recently ended something by inviting the guy over, reading him a letter he'd written to him saying thank you for the wonderful times they had together and then even going so far as to drop him home.

They're still great buddies.

So, was it so hard?

"Not really," he said. "Leaving him in the lurch would have been harder on both of us."

True indeed. Not making the call leaves the other person wondering what the heck is wrong with them, causing them to then blame their own actions for the break-up, when in fact, if they simply received an explanation - their ex had met someone else; had got bored! - they could have moved on without getting an emotional scar so big it would have made it impossible to date again any time soon, let alone get out of bed.

But with so many of us being dumped so often without a plausible explanation from the person we assumed was "the one" at the time, I told Peter and decided enough's enough.

"I asked him what his sexual fantasy was, and he said, 'three-sum’.

"He told me that we couldn't move in together because he'd feel guilty when he brought other boy home."

When I posed the same question to some of my friends, these were some of the responses:

"When he told me he didn't want me pursuing my passions / goals."

"When he asked me to go to couples therapy."

"When he sex becomes non-existent."

"When my friends staged an intervention."

"When he slapped me across the face on my birthday party."

"When his penis didn't work three times!"

But sometimes it's the medium, not the message, that stings the most.

‘Yep,’ says Peter.

These days the worst form of breaking up isn't the disappearing act, but doing it via social networks such as Facebook, Skype and Twitter, he says.

"When I read via Facebook that my boyfriend was 'no longer in a relationship', I knew that was his way of saying it was over," said Daniel, a recent victim of the Facebook dump. And the worst part? "He dumped me in front of all 150 of our friends! What a coward."

Indeed. Breaking up with someone is hard to do, no matter which way you do it. But at least "man up" and do it in style ... computers not included ...

I keeps asking my friend ‘What do you think? When was the moment you knew it was over? What do you think is the best way to break up with someone? The worst? – too many question?