This comment was by Julie Gillis on the post Men and Their Inner Goat, in response to Mike L.
I’ll speak idealistically here, but if men and women both could see the sex drive as similar in its dynamic as a hunger drive, perhaps we’d not be so hard on each other. Some people eat a lot. Some people don’t have a big appetite. But the ones who aren’t hungry would never say to the spouse, “You can’t eat, I”m not hungry, I won’t cook for you, I won’t dine out with you.”
I understand of course that food is quite different, both physically and culturally, but my point is this, why damn each other for our innate drives? I would never ask my husband only to eat my cooking, and if he read Saveur longing for French recipes, then I’d leave him.
Nor do I become angry if I know he has desires for images or fantasies. Our sex drives have waxed and waned over the years. I suspect that will continue. But we do seek the best for each other, and sex is a part of that.
For me, it’s the respect and communication that make the difference between a shut down or a “sex life” that spans decades and involves negotiation, discussions, feelings and understanding that each person in the couple is a singular person with differing desires.
And of course, how this winds up pragmatically is not as easy as it is to say.
–
Public domain image of Jack Sprat through PeriodPaper.com
About the Editors
The parallel between need for sex and food is good, and pretty valid.
As a matter of fact, the most basic needs are: air, food, sex, sleep (see Maslow’s pyramid of needs).
Considering sex as “optional” is a monumental distortion created (mostly) by religions – and ignorance.
Yet, this parallel cannot work, because humans attach heavy emotional baggage to sex.
Truth is, in our society most people want to “possess their partner’s genitalia”: that’s what fidelity is about, in practical terms.
Hence, even if a spouse is not interested in her/his partner’s genitalia (or body) anymore, he/she will likely freak out if that partner will have sex with someone else. Logic and rational, huh?
So, since human beings are NOT rational creatures (mostly), your very logic proposal is not going to work.
And that’s a pity. 8)
Sex is not on his hierarchy of needs, or else this would be under physiological needs. I find the comparison to food a little troubling, as we absolutely NEED food to survive. Of course we need sex to continue our species, but as for physically surviving, sex is not a need by any stretch of the imagination. It is a want, a rather strong want/desire, but by no means a need. And I am not religious at all nor a prude. I’m just saying it is absolutely ridiculous to compare sex to food.
Plus, if sex were a need, those who are asexual would have died from not having sex. But if you don’t eat for years, yes, you’re going to die before even a month passes.
Personally, I think that the English language fails when it comes to discussing sex, and this is a perfect example. It isn’t just a want/desire for some people, because sexual frustration can cause all sorts of personal problems. It’s not just strictly a need in the sense you’re using the word, because as you say, people can physically survive without sex.
Perhaps it’d be better to put a qualifier before the word ‘need.’ It could be described as a psychological need, or an emotional need…a need for intimacy. Also, a need that the majority of humans share but that some humans don’t (i.e. asexual people).
Well, I’m not comparing needs required for staying alive. I’m comparing hungers/drives and how our hungers and desires can vary. Like a metaphor, yes? It’s a way to look at the drive in a new way.
But, I will say touch and companionship ARE required for humans to thrive. People go mad in solitary confinement. And touch is required for infants to survive, flat out.
I think sex is a real need for human beings, as is play, touch and sensuality.
To marry someone and then basically say, you never get to have sex again because I don’t feel like it, is a cruel act. Because that person who wants sex, loves touch, would love the psychological support of feeling wanted and desired, is not only being denied the actual act, but all the things that go with it. And i think it becomes damaging after time.
You are comparing hunger and sex. Some people see it as similar and some don’t. Sex isn’t a basic need for individual survival at all. It’s ridiculous to compare it.
You weren’t talking about touch or anything you were talking about the sex drive. Some people go mad in solitary, but some thrive in it. Sex isn’t a need for individuals. Yes it is obviously a need for the race to survive but for the individual no. And touch being needed for an infant to survive has nothing to do with sex being needed for an adult to survive.
Your last paragraph is obviously true but very rare. What kind of loving partner would not let their spouse have sex exactly? Unless they got married for a cruel practical joke.
I’m not comparing it as a apples to apples. Think metaphorically.
Sex is a need. PErhaps a not life threatening need, but it is a strong and powerful drive. I know you disagree with me and you seem to have a very romantic view of love surpassing all, but sex can be a huge part of love. It can. I love love. I advocate for it. I also advocate for people being pragmatic about their needs.
Humans bond and communicate through words, sex, touch, art and more. Imagine if you were with someone who was a great partner in every way-paid bills, cooked meals, but would never talk to you. That wouldn’t be considered acceptable. Or never looked at you.
There are LOTS of people in sexless marriages. If a person doesn’t want to have sex and they insist on monogamy, then yes, they are not letting their partner have sex.
I think it’s also unacceptable to insist on monogamy and then refuse to be a full partner in the marriage.
I hope you find a long term relationship that works for you, I really do. I hope though that if you find someone who has a lot more partners than you, you don’t somehow hold that against her. You might be her last and best love and it would be really short sighted to assume that because she’s experienced she’d not make a good partner.
And then call me and Nick in 15 years and tell me how things are going
Pretty much it’s like saying we need our mobile phones to survive, or alcohol, or tv, or how a drug addict needs drugs to ‘survive’. Or since football is my passion, I need football to survive. But we don’t need any of these things to survive. Neither does an individual need sex like they need food.
Jamie, if sex wasn’t important and vital, then NO one would be worrying about it. And we wouldn’t have stories, poems, art, songs, conflicts about it since time began. It’s clearly waaaaaaaay more important than a cell phone.
You go on and don’t have sex, do have sex, it has no impact on me. You have my blessings to live your life the way you want, not that you need my blessings.
You seem entirely fixated on sex being completely unimportant, so why bother arguing with me?
I’m not saying it’s unimportant. I know it’s important. There’s a reason it’s important as well. But I’m saying comparing it to hunger is silly. Hunger represents a need for food and substinence which without we would be dead in a month. Yet there have been many people go without sex their whole lives and not had a problem. And yes I do believe love surpasses all, and those in sexless marriages when one of them has a very large sex drive while the other refuses to have sex have definitely married the wrong person.
And It’s not that no one would be worrying about it, it’s that if sex was vital, and I mean VITAL to living, surviving, then everyone would be worrying about it all the time. Even those who are celibate, abstinent or asexual in whatever way. But what you said, I can say the same things about phones or tv. I worry about what plot twist will be next in Breaking Bad and when we are talking about survival, the vital needs for existence, sex is really only as important to me as that plot twist. Because at times I want to have sex, at times I want to work, at times I want to watch tv, at times I want to play football. But at all times I need to eat and drink and breath. They are important for survival. Sex, while vital to one’s emotional and psychological aspects, is not important for individual survival.
Songs, stories, art…so what? People don’t write songs about breathing does that mean it’s unimportant? And I agree with you that it’s unacceptable to force someone into a sexless marriage. And I can safely say I wouldn’t be with someone who didn’t talk to me or look at me, mainly because that’s hardly ‘being with’ someone.
And trust me I wouldn’t hold having many partners against someone unless they hadn’t changed or had had many partners whilst they had known me. One of the reasons I have this view is because a girl I was hopelessly in love with decided she would rather sleep around than be with me, who at the time would have done literally anything for her. You could say she didn’t like me, but she was my best friend and talked to me every day, so I don’t see any reason other than her selfish sex life. The thing is, if I found someone who had many partners that say she didn’t know, then I would question her commitment and what she really was in this relationship for. When if someone who had waited for the right one all her life, and she decided I was the right one, well then I could trust her more easily. But if I found someone who had many partners but realised some of them were mistakes, well I could see she had learnt and grown as a person and wouldn’t hold anything against her. A lot of this comes with being a jealous guy as well
Good luck to you and your love life as well, wherever it takes you. Just be careful not to hurt anyone.
“You could say she didn’t like me, but she was my best friend and talked to me every day, so I don’t see any reason other than her selfish sex life.”
So first, I’m sorry you had such a bad experience. That being said, I think your analysis of what happened is a bit skewed. I mean I don’t know her, obviously, so yeah maybe she was being selfish. But I can talk about my own experiences…which is that I can be best friends with someone, and not want to sleep with them. Having a close friendship doesn’t mean you’re sexually attracted to someone. And similarly, I can be sexually attracted to someone I barely know. I’m not withholding sex from my best friends or something, even though I have sex with people I don’t know well. It’s not reasonable to assume that someone who has casual sex should therefore have no problem having sex with all of his/her friends.
Mind, do whatever you want in your own life. I’m not trying to tell you to date women with a long sexual history. I am saying that I think you are unfairly placing judgement on women who have longer sexual histories.
Why Would you assume I’d hurt someone?
This to me,
‘One of the reasons I have this view is because a girl I was hopelessly in love with decided she would rather sleep around than be with me, who at the time would have done literally anything for her. You could say she didn’t like me, but she was my best friend and talked to me every day, so I don’t see any reason other than her selfish sex life.”
is the crux of the issue. You have had a heartbreaking experience and I can tell from your words that it has cut you deeply and in a way that still is affecting you. I’m sorry for that. I can only agree with Heather that it’s possible that you two had different loves for each other, and the realization of that was a painful initiation into how relationships can work.
People do come together, explore, see what happens, and then for many many different reasons, part ways. Part of youth is to do just that-to learn what works, what conflict styles occur, to learn about boundaries, trust, selfish- and selfless-ness for BOTH need to take a role in relationships.
Pain happens in relationships, even ones that last. Heartbreak can happen in long term marriages. I can easily say that in my 19 year long relationship we’ve done our level best not to hurt each other, but pain has happened. Some things can be worked through. Some people choose not to do that. We can do our very very ethical honest best NOT to hurt someone, and still that partner can feel or experience hurt. What we do next is what counts. How can we stay connected is important.
I hope you find some salve for the pain you are in and to integrate it as information on the kind of person you are seeking for a long term partner.
Part of this is not the number of partners, as you said, but the ethics and purpose with which the partner enters the relationship.
No sorry, I didn’t mean it like that. I just said be careful not to, I don’t think you are the person that would.
And HeatherN, i said that is one of the reasons I have that viewpoint. I understand she wasn’t attracted to me, but I don’t see the attraction of sleeping around rather than being with someone. I wouldn’t have been as upset if she liked someone else or got another boyfriend, it’s just she seemed to have no reason at the time and went back to her party lifestyle crap at uni and eventually got a boyfriend six months later which I have no issue with. I mean she didn’t even discuss it and just avoided something that meant the world to me then acted like it didn’t happen. Now she doesn’t talk to me at all.
And I’m not judging women with longer sexual histories, but I do think less of someone who might sleep around with people they don’t know when they have someone who loves them right there that they know well. I don’t see the point? It can really hurt people. Why not go for the ones who love before the ones you don’t know?
And to be honest yes, I am getting the impression that I should lean more towards experienced women then inexperienced. That experienced=better. I’m sorry because I know that’s not your intent.
And Julie I appreciate your words, they really help and I agree with everything you just said. Thank you.
@Jamie P.: “I do think less of someone who might sleep around with people they don’t know when they have someone who loves them right there that they know well.”
Jamie, the problem is that people do not behave rationally; they follow their drive and istincts, whatever it please them.
Theoretically, it would be wiser mating with someone who love us, rather that someone who doesn’t. It also would be wiser eating healthy food rather that junk food; or reading a book instead of watching trash TV.
Despite it being wiser, many people do not do that. 8)
We (often) do not do what’s rational or – theoretically – best: we do what pleases us.
She did what pleased her, and – alas – you weren’t what she wanted. That’s how life goes; shit happens.
IMHO, your mistake was to take it personally (like “she did it to hurt me”), while she did it just for her own egoistical reasons.
The world doesn’t revolve around us: it goes its own way… and, sometimes, we are caught in the middle and we get hurt. Most of the time it’s not personal, it’s just “shit happening”.
I didn’t think she did it to hurt me, I just really took it to heart. The things that really hurt is that she didn’t care that it hurt me. And then lying about it claiming she didn’t know.
Good point, though there do seem to be some people who choose talking on a cell phone to having sex. I don’t understand it myself, but I could maybe if the call is to a 900 number? (I guess no reason one can’t do both….)
ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
“For the most part, physiological needs are obvious – they are the literal requirements for human survival. If these requirements are not met, the human body simply cannot continue to function.
Air, water, and food are metabolic requirements for survival in all animals, including humans. Clothing and shelter provide necessary protection from the elements. The intensity of the human sexual instinct is shaped more by sexual competition than maintaining a birth rate adequate to survival of the species.”
Sex is listed under physiological needs, it’s also a need for the race, not the individual. And I dunno about you but I sure feel more depressed with a lack of both sex and intimacy, it’s damn close to an individual need for the best quality of life.
It’s so much fun when non-psychology types bring up Maslow.
First, Amber, you are very much mistaken about sex not being among the drives.
But really, the pyramid at Archy’s is an interpretation of Maslow. It’s important to realize that Maslow was not talking about what is needed to stay alive. When he categorized some of the needs as ‘physiological’ he was referring to a distinction between drives that originated in the body from those that were cognitive (and Maslow himself used the quotes around physiological).
Maslow’s hierarchy is all about motivation. His paper, A Theory of Motivation, discussed organizing our drives in a hierarchy because on average, people will be more preoccupied with some needs than others. The average person, starving and with low self-esteem, will look first to address the hunger problem before addressing the self-esteem problem. He called this category of needs “pre-potent” and the idea served as the basis for suggesting a hierarchy rather than a mere list. I don’t think I can offer a psychology course in such a limited space as this, but I would only point out what Maslow said about the physiological nature of some needs:
In a previous paper it has been pointed out that these physiological drives or needs are to be considered unusual rather than typical because they are isolable, and because they are localizable somatically. That is to say, they are relatively independent of each other, of other motivations [p. 373] and of the organism as a whole, and secondly, in many cases, it is possible to demonstrate a localized, underlying somatic base for the drive. This is true less generally than has been thought (exceptions are fatigue, sleepiness, maternal responses) but it is still true in the classic instances of hunger, sex, and thirst.
So it’s not that language trips us up, as HeatherN suggests, or that it’s strictly metaphorical, as Julie states her intention to be, but rather that many of us lack the background knowledge to understand how to apply Maslow’s theory and how our different desires affect our motivations. Although there is a bit of a language game going on here, that I think will illustrate the problem most people have when questioning his inclusion of sex among the “physiological” desires.
People don’t die from hunger, they die from a lack of nutrition.
To explain it succinctly, hunger is a psychological condition, lack of food is a physical condition. So when we look at a comparison between hunger for sex and hunger for food they give rise to very similar psychological states and most people become preoccupied with satisfying those drives before they satisfy other drives. And herein lies the second point:
Obviously a good way to obscure the ‘higher’ motivations, and to get a lopsided view of human capacities and human nature, is to make the organism extremely and chronically hungry or thirsty. Anyone who attempts to make an emergency picture into a typical one, and who will measure all of man’s goals and desires by his behavior during extreme physiological deprivation is certainly being blind to many things. It is quite true that man lives by bread alone — when there is no bread. But what happens to man’s desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?
Here Maslow attempts to explain how our picture of the world is distorted by our needs being satisfied. When we make the claim that we’ll die without food, we are intentionally distorting our world view in preference for an extreme condition, a condition which obscures other needs.
And finally, this last point from Maslow:
Motivation theory is not synonymous with behavior theory. The motivations are only one class of determinants of behavior. While behavior is almost always motivated, it is also almost always biologically, culturally and situationally determined as well.
(emphasis mine)
When we live in a culture that is replete with sexual imagery yet simultaneously denigrates satisfaction of sexual desire, and denies our need for sexual love. It is no surprise then that we have such disparate views as to whether to consider it a need. To this I would say, if your needs are being satisfied (and to Amber’s asexual, that need may be very little indeed), and if you’ve been culturally conditioned to not see it as a need, it will be harder for you to understand why someone else might be preoccupied with filling it. All of which was described by Maslow.
Thank you Nick, your words make Maslow theory much clearer and understandable.
And, at the same time, demonstrates even more it’s validity.
Then, anybody is free to deny it, but it’s beyond doubt that we are motivated by our needs, and some need take precedence onto others.
My marriage ended December, oh, he was a naughty boy! He was cheating all over at a time I was providing a sex feast catered to his requests. Unrepentant adultrery. So anyways I am surprised at my voracious appetite, with no ‘food’ supply I feel I am starving myself to insanity and beyond. I need sex, I am 31 it is crazy and unfair my ex killed our marriage and my sex life. I am dating again, I want to be remarried and have a child, I just deserve sex, too. I am a Christian on Christian Mingle, been celibate against my will lol. Good analogy though. I am starving!
Where do you live approximately. I am sure there are many on here who are ready and willing. Or use plenty of fish. You will get 200 responses in 1 day if you post what you put above as your profile.
No one deserves sex. That is some disturbing logic. As for masturbation, by all means you are entitled to that because it involves no one else but you. But to say you deserve sex, no.
Please clarify your statement. Why on earth wouldn’t a person deserve to have a rich sexual life?
Bob-O, I think it’s clear from her earlier postings that Amber has some very strong feelings that are either poorly informed or poorly expressed.
As to Rachel’s statement I would offer this by way of clarification:
We all deserve to eat, but no one is obliged to feed us.
Why do many men say that a woman is either a man hater, angry at men, is poorly informed, or was hurt by a man, when they say sex is not important or not a need. why can’t men understand that many, many, women have other important needs, just as a man has a strong sexual needs. We must not scold women for not having strong sexual feelings all times of the day as men do. Women do enjoy sex, but sex to many, many, women is almost like “sharing feelings” is to men. You know hoaw a guy hates to talk feelings with his woman??
Jean, first I would say that if a man were making a similar statement I would have leveled the exact same criticism. You might notice that Jamie is, by his account, a man and I have been just as critical of his statements as I was of Amber’s.
Second, you are perpetuating the exact same gender-speak that I am most critical of. Men don’t say anything about women. You won’t find me saying that women are poorly informed and I won’t even go as far to say any particular woman is a “man hater” as that presumes a knowledge I can not have.
As for Amber’s claim, in context we are discussing the sex drive, Maslow’s hierarchy, and whether or not sex is a need. If Amber had said, “I don’t need sex” or “I don’t deserve sex” or “sex isn’t important to me” then that’s a statement about her and again, while I might quibble with the “deserve” part, it would be presumptive of me to tell Amber what she does or does not need or feel is important. However when she made the claim (and again it doesn’t matter that it was a she that made the claim, it could have been a FTM asexual for all I care) that her views applied to me—indeed all people in general—I felt that her views were either myopic or she lacked a facility with language which would have enabled her to better communicate her intent.
No, I don’t. I’m not friends with any of those guys you’re talking about. You are making sweeping generalizations about what men and women are like based on outdated gender stereotypes that aren’t my reality. If you have a problem with <em<your guy not sharing his feelings with you then I suggest you take it up with him. This website is all about men telling their stories and sharing their feelings, so I’m not sure how much mileage you’ll obtain from that postulate.
I took her view as more along the lines of people shouldn’t just be entitled to a rich sexual life as you said. You don’t ‘deserve’ sex just because you exist. And if your actions have hurt people then you deserve sex less than others.
I am 25 years old, a woman and single. Every month without fail. Say 2 or 3 days before my period I get HUNGRY for sex. If I get drunk on one of these days – I’ll try a booty call or on occasion, I’ve had a one night stand. Ive had a 4 year fairly healthy relationship and a 18 month train wreck, where my heart got broken. The 4 year I left by committing adultery, that was my way out, with the 18 month train wreck guy. Yuck.
So over the last three years Ive been getting over my heart break, facing personal demons and growing as a result….
On January 4th I was getting sick and tired of my sexual partner number growing, this added to confusion over my strong sex drive and the usual pressure from society for women to keep their legs closed contributed to a vow of celibacy – one year without sex. I also thought that this would be a good lesson in self control. Now in the month of April, I had sex last week. I failed.
Was I wrong to try this? Shall I carry on? Any thoughts much appreciated…
Sounds like the hormones and sex drive are in overdrive to get you pregnant, which I am sure you’re aware of. There’s nothing wrong with having multiple partners but do remember to use protection since each additional partner is a new risk of STI’s, and of course contraceptives since I doubt you want a baby at the moment.
4 months is a good stretch, maybe invest in some sex toys and try the year of masturbation alone, that way you can still eat the breakfast menu without starving. Do you have a steady and trustworthy male friend whom you could possibly be Friends with benefits with? That could provide a safer outlet for the sexuality if you feel the abstinence is too much. I’d also suggest working on any emotional issues if you’re still suffering from the heartbreak and when you’re ready you can go back on the dating scene.
Totally up to you though, these are just options and hopefully no judgment has been passed by me as that’s not my intention. And no you weren’t wrong to try it, it’s not a right or wrong choice since you have many options to pursue.
Archy, that’s some mighty sound advice
Natty, most of us have been where you are, a lot of us will be where you are again. You need to figure out what you want. Don’t abstain because of social pressures (but do be aware that they exist), abstain if you decide it’s the best course of action to promote your well-being.
Thanks for the reply Archy.
But….I find most of your reply patronising.Yes I use protection. Yes I own some dildos. Yes Ive been in therapy for 3 years now. I have had a few friends with benefits and the guy usually wants more after a while or I start to get confused…damn hormones.
I didn’t ask for advice in those areas – enquired about the high level of my sex drive and I was also commenting that I could relate. I really DONT want anymore casual partners and would like a committed meaningful relationship now – but something seems to happen to me at those times of the month. I literally feel like I’m on heat and sizing up every man that comes my way. Urgh….lol
Natty, so where do you live and when is your next “time of the month?” I was thinking of swinging by 2-3 days before.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. It’s just that sometimes I feel like I have those “times of the month” as well but never really thought of it that way.
Maybe men do have some kind of cycle – ? duno, interesting if they did.
I might just double check with my new therapist that all is ok and I’m not acting out some sexual prowness due to repressed sexual abuse…
My cycle is daily, latenight/early morning is when I am in heat. It’s quite annoying without a partner!
The sex drive can be a very powerful being!
“Was I wrong to try this? Shall I carry on? Any thoughts much appreciated…”
They were my thoughts and I wasn’t trying to judge. I said the stuff about protection not to assume you don’t use it but simply to reinforce protection is good, and because this is an open site where others can view I posted advice for others who may be in that situation. I have no idea on your life so basically read the comment as a whole bunch of random advice that may or may not help you, or others that read it.
If it read as patronizing I totally did not mean it, for some reason I felt you may have wanted additional advice on options. I guess I was raised in the way that someone opens up like that, they want advice so it becomes automatic. Folks like me like to help where we can, so I apologize if it felt patronizing as my intention was simply to be helpful without judgment.
Hey Archy
The ‘was I wrong to try this’ was related to my attempt at celibacy. Ive now decided to stop this abstinence. Maybe another year. No worries, no need to apologise. I just find this subject very interesting and a little confusing right now. A meaningful relationship develops when yo least expect/the right time. Looking at comments about marriage, I am very scared that when I do finally settle down and have kids I’ll lose my sex drive that I am getting slightly frustrated with at the moment! my worse nightmare is a sexless marriage….please noooo
I have a feeling when love comes around it’ll stoke the fires n keep em burning for you. Sex is confusing for the best of us, my first few times left me so nervous that I panicked n withdrew from intimacy. It was like a major overload of human contact and my mind didn’t know how to take so much of it at the time, especially as it happened very quickly on meeting her and I was in my mid 20′s with very little human physical contact before that.
A lot of people destroy themselves with food, and I think it a lot of people would agree that many out there should curb their appetite for food. However, when people compare food hunger and sex hunger, the gist I get is that this is the reason people should NOT temper their sex drives.
(No, I’m not saying that people shouldn’t have sex or enjoy sex, I know someone will interpret my comment like that.)
Sex is NOT a hierarchical need.
Women have suffered for hundreds and maybe thousands of years, when their man did not want to talk, share feelings, be cuddly, shop, etc. Women have needs and for a long time, we put our feelings aside. We would grin and bear it. We did not go out and find another man to meet those emotional needs needs, that our man ignored. Women would suffer in silence, bearing babies, cooking, cleaning, going through cramps, hot flashes, girdles
, and all the other stuff. Now all of a sudden in this modern era, we as human beings, seem to think it is appropriate to start scolding women for not being as sexual feeling as a man, and threatening women and making jokes, and telling them they are ugly, fat, and then saying, if you are not feeling as sexual as your man, he will desire every hottie on the planet, and he will cheat, because, woman, it is your fault for not being like a man. DO YOU ALL SEE THE UNFAIRNESS, THE EVILNESS, IN WHAT WE ARE DOING TO WOMEN? We are blaming women for being women. God created us, just like he created man. Psychologists, male groups, women who hate women, and others, tell us not to try to make a man be chatty and want to share feelings. But yet we don’t threaten men for not meeting the woman’s strong needs, do we?
Um….I don’t see evilness in encouraging men and women to communicate to each other their romantic and sexual desires. I don’t see evilness in realizing that often, but not always, men and women may have varying levels of desire.
I’m not quite sure how to address the rest of your comment.
Julie,You may be a little confused.You read something that I did not say.
You responded to my comment and included in your comment was “DO YOU ALL SEE THE UNFAIRNESS, THE EVILNESS, IN WHAT WE ARE DOING TO WOMEN?” If that was not directed to me, please let me know.
Julie, how in the world did you perceive this comment as being only to you? The part of my comment that was in response to something you said was the part where I addressed sex as a need !! Then, once I made the sex need comment, I forgot about you, and went on to make my views known that have been on my mind long before I read your comment. My other writings were about my perception of this male-female situation, not addressed to you. Like I said, I forgot about you, since you are not the only one on the blog. I am not being rude, but that is the way I see it. I wrote that comment to respond to other comments as well, as far as the whole topic, even to those that are in my mind about men and women that I have read through other media.
Simply because it was threaded in the list as responding to mine. Never mind then.
Ummmm, what? I see plenty of material both for and against your arguments. Material which wants men to open up more, men to close up more, women to desire more sex, women to desire less sex, it all depends who you listen to. Do you honestly think in all of history men have not put their needs aside for their partners ever? My friend and his partner had a child, no sex after birth for 6months and rarely after that, this is a guy that was VERY sexual. He put aside his “needs” because he knew she was going through some stuff, he’s been very patient. I’m sure there are plenty of men and women that have put their needs aside for their partner, and up to a certain point it’s a necessity in a relationship.
There is also the problem with mismatched partners, if her need to talk, cuddle is at 150 and his is 50 then there will be a problem just like if his sex drive is 150 and her’s 50. It’s possible she desires way too much cuddling to the point it becomes a problem, maybe it’s taking too much time of the day, maybe it’s way past his comfort level. So does he forgo his comfort to appease her needs?
It all requires balance, communication and respect.
I think the point being made is that everyone is different. Meaning everyone has different needs. For some people the level that they desire sex is as strong as if they are starving. I can’t say I’ve gotten to quite that point in desire, but I’ve gotten close. I don’t feel I have a generally high sex drive. Twice a week would be good for me. I just wonder if I can have such strong urges, others must be suffering much, much more. If men and women weren’t condemned for stepping out of the relationship once in a while, relationships might become stronger. Compromises need to be made. No one can stop their spouse from cheating. Why not find a healthier way to handle it? Instead use communication, forgiveness, and understanding.
I have a very strong sex drive (as I think I posted in comments to the original article), but I should also note that I went through a period in my 30′s where I was celibate for quite a long time due to some personal issues. It is possible to adapt psychologically to a sexless lifestyle, although it’s lonely and not much fun.
I think a lot of the reason that so many women dismiss or disrespect the male sex drive is because very few women ever face actual scarcity. To use the food analogy, women are living in a grocery store; whenever the urge to snack hits, they can satisfy it immediately. High-quality, low-quality, the point is that they never have to worry about where to find food or how to get access to it.
Most men, meanwhile, are living under a bridge. When you’re hungry… too damn bad, get a job or go out and beg for awhile.
This is exactly right. Women, in general, can pick and choose from a variety of men, whereas men in general are made to present their cases to women.
I wonder if this fact was the reason some societies became polygamous? No idea, just throwing that out there.
That’s so wrong and such a typical sexist attitude toward women and their ability to find sexual partners. You are confusing “women, in general” with “attractive women.” This attitude completely ignores the women that you see as less-than-women, who are not desired in the same way and do not fit into your grocery store analogy. It seems that many men feel that they “deserve” the best, most attractive women to have sex with, but that women should settle for “good” or “average” men. What about the women who these men aren’t interested in “presenting their cases to?” Using the grocery store analogy, women are NOT the shopper getting to survey and select the best “snacks.” Men judge women by appearance as either sexually desirable or not, and then ignore those who are not but are angered and cry injustice if rejected by those who are.
You’re also failing to take into account the societal pressures upon women, attractive or not, NOT to have casual sex; so, again, this notion of women being able to have a quick fix at any time is totally fictitious.
@MP: “Men judge women by appearance as either sexually desirable or not”
You seem forgetting that many (if not most) women do exactly the same about men: they judge looks.
PLUS, women judge men for their money (or lack of it); something most men don’t care about women.
So, who is the most judging?
Truth is, “ugly” looking people have a hard time, regardless of their gender.
Having said that, a woman asking “Would like to have sex with me?” will likely hear a “Yes!” soon (even if she’s not pretty)…
A (not gorgeous) man asking the same question, will just get insults and – maybe – a lawsuit.
@Valter, you’re right, women do judge on appearance as well. However, research has shown that women tend to be much less harsh when judging physical appearance. (I don’t have the exact sources to cite but a quick google search should do the trick if you want to read up on it)
You make a very good point though about “ugly” people in general having a harder time; but, it is easy to forget that “ugly” women face rejection and are having a hard time, just as “ugly” men are.
Your last point, however, also fails to address the social pressures I previously brought up. A woman asking “Would you like to have sex with me?” may hear a “yes,” but at what cost to her reputation, socially constructed feelings of self-worth, societal standing, etc.? Thus, women are not as sexually free and perpetually satiated as you suggest. There are more factors involved than simply sexual willingness of the opposite sex.
@MP: “research has shown that women tend to be much less harsh when judging physical appearance”
I wonder if that’s what they SAY, or what they DO.
In fact, women – on average – are quite harsh when judging themselves and other women; so I don’t think they are much softer when it’s about men.
They would SAY they are softer, of course (nobody likes to appear cruel).
@MP: “women are not as sexually free and perpetually satiated as you suggest”
I never said that. I said that, on average, they have more chances to “score” then men.
Who has more chances to turn a friendship into a “friends with benefit” status?
Of course, social pressure and shaming is a big problem, that I fiercely oppose.
This is slowly lessening, though, while men’s sexuality is getting more and more shame (see: http://goodmenproject.com/sex-relationships/masculine-sexuality-what-gets-overlooked/). So, shame affects any gender, actually.
You know, looks only count for so much. I can’t speak for the men, but I do know that for alot of women (at least those I know in my specific geographic location and age group and country-specific cultural values) attractiveness of our male counterparts in a combination of looks and personality.
In all my years, I never got the bad-boy thing, nor have I really been big on men who had money. I’m not going to B.S. you and say looks have no relation to attraction, but give men a man who is kind, has humility and who is not uptight, and the Kevin Smith type looks alot like Ryan Reynolds to me.
You know why men’s sexuality is getting more shame……. because, men have a stronger sex drive than women, whether you all will agree or not, it’s true. And…. men try to make women feel guilty because women’s desire for sex is not the same as the man’s. Women get tired of hearing the word sex all the time. It is overkill and over-rated for us. You know how you all dislike sharing feelings, right? You know how you all hate it when you say we nag you about something we want you to do around the house, that is important to us, right? Well….think of sex, the same way. We get tired of you all talking about it. We do enjoy it sometimes. We want to satisfy our man, we want him to be happy, but the man soon seems like the nag. You all have this ongoing insatiable sexual need, that WE don’t have. We are not built like you. But because we care about our man, we compromise. We don’t initiate it,we don’t run after it…. just like you don’t initiate sharing feelings, making brownies, and changing the drapes in the den. You are not built like us. We as women have to make more comromises and adjustments for a desire that we really are not that into to begin with, but we try. Do you understand how it is on our side of the fence? Maybe not. But, maybe, if men and women would learn how to respect one another and compromise, and stop demeaning the other gender, and work towards a solution to what seems to be a big problem between the sexes, then we could all get our needs met.
Noting that there is a lot of generalizing in this comment. Please try to focus on specifics or use qualifiers.
Is there not generalizations flying all day long about women, that we allow?Let me know if I am not correct. It seems as long as the males make generalizations about women, it is okay.
We note when threads are reaching those points on all sides, Jean. But if you keep generalizing, you’ll be moderated. Just like anyone else coming in disparaging women, or men, or trans, or gay, or bi, or race related issues.
It’s not ok when anyone uses them heavily. Your comment comes across as misandrist which is probably not what you intended.
Pardon me, but I make some kick-ass brownies. All the same, I don’t forbid my partner from eating someone else’s brownies, just as I don’t forbid her from anything else she might want.
By the way, just in case you weren’t aware, you don’t speak for all women. At first I thought there was a slim possibility that you had been elected spokesperson for the double-x set, but no, in fact, that position doesn’t exist. As such, I presume you are speaking from personal experience and not as the collective voice of women. If you’re feeling harangued to have sex you’re not interested in having, might I suggest you take that up with your partner. Perhaps on top of the communication issues the two of you are sexually incompatible, in which case you have my sympathies.
“You know why men’s sexuality is getting more shame……. because, men have a stronger sex drive than women, whether you all will agree or not, it’s true.”
It’s certainly true, in a general sense but I’m not sure why that’s a valid reason for men’s sexuality to be “getting more shame.” Should the sky “get shame” for being blue? Should water be ashamed of being wet?
“And…. men try to make women feel guilty because women’s desire for sex is not the same as the man’s.”
You don’t say! You know, “women” (as in a vaguely unidentifiable quantity) make “men” (a vaguely unidentifiable quantity) feel guilty for exactly the opposite reason! I’m sensing a connection, here.
“But because we care about our man, we compromise. We don’t initiate it,we don’t run after it…. just like you don’t initiate sharing feelings, making brownies, and changing the drapes in the den. You are not built like us.”
Personally, I *have* initiated those things. All of them, even the brownies. And I think a fair number of other men have too. But that goes back to the GMP moderator’s point about speaking in gross generalities.
See, we learn early on that if we have to be asked to do something (even something that would not occur to us otherwise,) actually doing it doesn’t “count.” We’ll still do it, but we’re just barely breaking even at that point. We have to learn to be proactive, to anticipate, because the “asking economy” that “men” are used to, no longer applies.
And you know what? We enjoy those things, sometimes. We don’t mind cleaning up messes we didn’t actually make, planning “fun” things to do around town on weekends when we’d rather just rest and play a video game. We can grow to enjoy making Spaghetti A La’ Bolognese for our wives/girlfriends when we’d rather just order takeout, because we like to think we get “points for effort.” We know we actually don’t, at least not in any short-term meaningful sense, but it’s a useful delusion.
I’m not saying that earns a guy sex. Not at all. What I’m saying is that neither gender has the market cornered on compromise. “Some women” think they make 300% more compromises than “men,” and “some men” think they make 300% more compromises than “women.” Seriously, stop. We’re both at a stalemate in the compromise wars. No, really, we are.
Who says men and women don’t have anything in common? We’re dead-wrong about the exact same things.
The fact that you introduce other considerations like societal reaction, reputation, and self-worth is itself proof that women fundamentally don’t have to worry about access to sex. They have the luxury of including other factors when weighing their choices, because sex will always be there whenever they want it.
Men, as a rule, do not have that same privilege.
“There are more factors involved than simply sexual willingness of the opposite sex.”
Yes, and calorie-counting and nutrition and freshness are considerations when it comes to food–but not when you’re starving to death.
Men dream and despair over the simple willingness of the opposite sex; women take it for granted and move on to more elite choices.
Why persist with this gender binary?
There are women who despair as well.
And there are women you wouldn’t touch.
What MP points out is simply this. Taking your grocery store analogy, only attractive women are allowed into the grocery store, where they can pick ad choose among the men on offer. (As for the unattractive women and unsuccessful men? Sorry, there’s a bodega 2 miles away, on the other side of the tracks. Be certain to wear sturdy shoes.) Only before the attractive women are allowed into the store, they’re given a 2 hour lecture on how if they eat anything in the store they’re a disgusting person with questionable morals. Meanwhile the successful men are told to feel free to sample whatever it is they like, it’s all good, only be careful not to buy anything because the maintenance fees are quite steep.
This view of human sexuality is quite harmful and it does no one any good to engage in a round of Oppression Olympics about it. People have it hard out there, let’s not make it harder by reinforcing stereotypes that can’t be generalized to half the planet.
Precisely, Nick. There ARE women who despair, women who cannot have their sexual needs/wants willingly met.
Right on with the extension of the grocery store metaphor. There are few women who can have anyone they want. Even the very attractive ones have faced rejection at some point.
Ugly women can’t get the guys they want; ugly men can’t get anyone, period. You’re still skipping over the difference. Women are still living in the store. Sure, maybe only the lucky few enjoy the choicest meals; but the unattractive ones can still load up on junk food any time they feel like it. Bad sex is still not the same as NO sex.
There’s an enormous gap between “I can’t get the ones I want” and “I can’t get anyone at ALL, EVER.” And the number of women who experience that deprivation is vanishingly small compared to the huge number of men who live it every day.
Rejection? Women are sometimes rejected by the guys they seek out, but they always have the option of “settling” for someone else. Men, meanwhile, live with rejection as a way of life and have no ‘settling’ option at all.
Not true, Copyleft…I’ve seen plenty of physically unsttractive men with women. The difference being the setlling that is done in those cases often surounds the string-age.
An ugly woman can still find someone to sleep with her, but has a hard time getting someone to stay with her. An ugly man can get sex, but usually has to fully engage in a relationship to get it.
@MP: A popular dating site (OK Cupid) published statistics a while back that showed that women using that site rated 80% of men as below average. Men were more lenient. Which suggest that at least in that context women judge men more harshly.
That study study showed that 2/3′s of men’s messages go to the top 1/3 of women aka the most attractive women.
While women have healthier message sending habits going to most ranges of attractiveness.
Women may be harsh on judging men but they still send messages to such guys while most guys only send messages to the most attractive women.
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
You didn’t read it very well huh?
“As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway.”
“Females of OkCupid, we site founders say to you: ouch! Paradoxically, it seems it’s women, not men, who have unrealistic standards for the “average” member of the opposite sex.”
Now where do I find data on which gender messages more?
Apparently you didn’t read it very well.
Apparently you didn’t read what you quoted.
“On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. ”
What you quoted actually supports my statement that women have healthier message sending than men.
Women may be harsh on judging men but they still send messages to such guys while most guys only send messages to the most attractive women.
That study showed that 2/3′s of men’s messages go to the top 1/3 of women aka the most attractive women.
Eh fair point, just wokeup and misread it, apologies. When they say about the message sending, do they mean the women initiated conversations first or does that also include replies?
Seems like you didn’t read it rather than you misread it as if you had read it you would have the answer to your question.
That answer being the women initated the conversations first.
Wonderful MP, well said!! This comment explains the confusion, that so many on this blog may have. You really told the truth. Men don’t want women to be picky, but they indeed are very picky, as we can often hear them say “Wow, she’s hot, I sure would like to get next to her.” If they would stop having these picky attitudes about women’s physical traits, then they could have all the sex they want. There are many decent, clean, ordinary looking women, who are not considered hotties, who say, “Why won’t he look my way?”
@Jean: “If they would stop having these picky attitudes about women’s physical traits, then they could have all the sex they want.”
Baloney. And this speak volumes about your scarce knowledge of your own gender.
Oftentimes, not-pretty girls are the ones going after the handsomest guys (for compensation of their own insecurities, maybe).
They are not waiting to be picked up by average men who “settle” for them…
unless they’re really desperate.
There are no men who “could have all the sex they want”; even the handsomest and the richest face rejection.
Everything you said could be flipped between the genders. There are quite a few average girls and guys that have a hard time getting attention from the opposite sex. Do those women who say “why won’t he look my way” actually look his way and initiate, hit on the guys? Do they ask the guys out or do they expect the guys to do it all?
A wise elderly lady married for over 60 years once said:
“If you can’t offer your husband 6 minutes a few times a week, you shouldn’t be married”
“If you can’t offer your husband 6 minutes a few times a week, you shouldn’t be married”
How wise!
(it’s true with gender reversed as well, of course)
I wonder how many people live marriage thinking only about what they’re getting, and not what they’re giving…
To you Mydaed : ” A wise man once said “If you can’t give your woman 5 minutes of foreplay or 5 minutes a day, of chat time, then you should not be married.”
5 minutes of foreplay? Sounds easy. Some make it sound like you need 2 hours of foreplay, the stars to align, the weather perfect and the right time just to have fun with a woman.
I know many women who follow a similiar mindset when married.
Some gritted and beared it, some just laid there, some said hurry up and get it over with. They made sure to do their offer, obligation, or duty.
They are no longer married because their husbands despised their offer.
Seems many guys dislike when women treat sex as a duty they dislike despite believing sex is a duty that shouldn’t be denied without good reason (implying consent/desire isn’t a good reason). I guess whether she genuinely wants sex doesn’t matter only that she doesn’t show her dislike during.
I’m quite unsure of why she can’t show her dislike wives after all the sex is a duty no denying without a good reason makes it seem more like rather than having sex with your wife it’s about having sex with you wife’s body. As whether she as her feelings, desires, and possibly consent don’t matter.
I’m not sure I buy the analogy between hunger and sex drive, if only because one of those two things necessarily involves the participation of another person. I would never deny a spouse the right to masturbate, but just because we’re married, doesn’t mean that my spouse gets automatic and unquestioned access to my body. I have a very low sex drive, and, for me, it’s not simply a matter of “giving my partner what he wants.” Having sex when I am not mentally or emotionally desiring it can be a very damaging experience for me. Has this lead to problems in my relationship? Certainly. But I don’t think the answer is that my spouse “deserves” sex and so I should just make the sacrifice and give it to him. And I don’t think I’m cruel for this, either. However, I would like to make it clear that this was discussed at the beginning of the relationship; I didn’t just marry someone under the guise of a high sex drive and then cut them off completely.
I’m curious why you read an obligation into the idea of your partner deserving sex. Do you make a distinction between your partner deserving sex and your partner deserving sex from you?
Even then, that question seems to me a bit odd, like asking if someone deserves cake in their relationship. Who even needs cake? I can think of a few ways to reframe the question that makes it less certain.
Does your partner deserve to have a happy sex life?
Does your partner deserve to not have a frustrated sex life?
Does your partner deserve to be sexually dissatisfied?
When we frame sexual satisfaction like “cake” it’s easy to dismiss. When we frame it in terms of emotional well-being it becomes less easy to disregard the feelings of our partners. With that in mind, do note that some people do have a problem with their partner having a sexual relationship with someone else, with their partner seeing a sex-worker, with their partner’s use of pornography, or with their partner masturbating — all of which is in the context of imposing a restraint on their partner’s sexual fulfillment rather than being sexually neglected by their partner.
That comment was in response to Devon – not sure why it didn’t link up properly.
A lack of sex may not kill in the same way that a lack of food does, but it is an equally strong urge. The fact that the urge is not as “justified” is an entirely arbitrary distinction in the first place. And in the moment-to-moment crush and press of life, it’s not a very meaningful distinction either.
By the way, I sure hope those who are dismissing the need for sex as less important than the need for food don’t eat more than the absolute minimum calories required to sustain their bodily function That would be hypocrisy. I assume that they get these calories from raw fruit and vegetables, as meat and starches are luxuries to which no one is entitled.