My comment got to be a bit too long for
this post, so I decided to pull it out and continue the discussion here.
One problem with
this column is that it presupposes so much based on stereotypical assumptions that it's basically meaningless. What about men with low sex drives? What about women with high sex drives? What about men who
like talking about emotional stuff with their partners? What about lesbians and gay men? What about women who are not emotional talkers? What about couples that actually understand how to love each other and get along regardless of the amount of fucking that's happening?
I've got lots of problems with this column, but the bit I pulled out and quoted Friday was just some of the more egregious crapola — the idea that a man can't be inconsiderate and selfish in his pursuit of sex because
it's how he's built is silly. Even if a man is having a genuine sexual jones — one that's based on intense love and affection for his partner — if he's being a hound about it even as his partner is telling him no, for whatever reasons, that's being selfish and he needs to be called on it. The same goes if the sexes were switched.
Sex is not so all-important that we get to go around acting entitled about our right to have it. You can have as much sex as you want with yourself. But drag another person into it, and you better stop to consider his or her feelings about it every step of the way. There is little that is more toxic to a relationship than the feeling of being nagged to do something. A chorus men will sing "amen!" at that notion (about whatever stereotypical man-job you can dream up: Mowing the lawn, taking out the trash, etc.). Being nagged for sex is just as exhausting.
Cox said in the comments of the previous post:
Sexual urges are natural and healthy — not something to be ashamed of.
I think that's true. But I think an extension of this is
a lack of sexual urges is natural and healthy — not something to be ashamed of. People who want to fuck, people who don't want to fuck, people who
can't fuck — they are all capable of healthy, loving relationships.
This may be a revolutionary concept, but I don't believe that sex is absolutely essential for a healthy romantic relationship. There are people for whom sexual activity just isn't that important, and people for whom sexual activity is physically impossible. I can't imagine that these people are incapable of making long-term relationships work.
Sexuality, for everyone, exists on some sort of continuum that science has just barely begun to understand. Every person has his or her own preferences about sex. Some people have high libidos, others have low libidos. Everyone's libido likely fluctuates depending on life circumstances.
To embark on a long-term, monogamous relationship without understanding that your own sexual appetite is probably never going to completely synch with your partner's is short-sighted. We have to understand that things will happen in our lives that will shift sex's position on our priorities list. Or, if not our own, then probably our partners'. It may not be a permanent shift, but it will be a shift nonetheless. And if we're willing to run off and get our jollies with another partner because ours (whom we
love, we swear!) isn't capitulating to the awesome will of our horniness, then maybe we aren't entirely ready for a long-term relationship anyway.
Labels: relationships, sex
