Sexual imbalances and what to do
[Please note: This issue is about sexual imbalances between partners. Because of the specific example raised in this post more than a few commenters have reacted as if low libido is a problem that affects only women or that only men complain that their partners have lower libidos. I wish to be very, very clear that no matter what stereotypes we have the problem of libido imbalances between partners has nothing at all to do with gender. Case in point: AlwaysArousedGirl, who's post I quote from below, has a much higher libido than her partner nor is she the only woman in the world with a higher libido than her partner. So, not to repeat myself or anything but... the problem of libido imbalance isn't a gender problem and to imagine otherwise is a mistake that does disservice to all parties involved. I have spoken! :-) --fl]
Interesting discussion over at AlwaysArousedGirl.
The basic question is what to do when some decides they're done with sex and, especially, what to do when they decide their partner should be done as well.
My take? Asexuality is a sexual orientation. It's legitimate, as legitimate as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It's less spoken of but no less real.
Since one of my core principles about sex is that consent is required I emphatically feel that if one's partner feels asexual then it's not ok to pressure him or her to have sex.
On the other hand, if asexuality is an orientation it's equally impermissible for an asexual to try to impose her or his orientation on you.
The issue is clouded by traditions of abstinence and virtue, and that tends to give a(n invalid) moral boost to the asexual. But if there's virtue in abstinence the virtue lies it's precisely in *abstaining* from something you desire. Foregoing sex when you don't want it in the first place is no more virtuous than not eating coat racks or not collecting celebrities' band-aids.
As with DTG's acquaintance who's partner realized she's a lesbian, the answers aren't as black and white as "he should dump her if she won't put out" nor as simple as "just hire escorts." In all such cases communication is important because, ultimately, the relationship is going to be strained no matter what the unwilling partner does.
Too bad it's not taught that asexuality is a sexual orientation. Plain old "gay" and "straight" are not nearly enough.
It's always impossible to judge a relationship from the outside, isn't it? But my friend is in trouble deep; that much is clear.
Hey, I actually like the occasional coat rack. Nicely marinated in a good herb sauce...
[Oh yeah, he's in trouble. It appears his partner insists he adopt her sexual orientation. That amounts to coercion. That's trouble. On the other note, I'm too virtuous to eat coat racks. I'm shocked that you're not!. :-) --fl]
I was asexual with my ex (near the end of our marriage) now like a homeless starving transient I wonder where my next meal will come from.
I had a man show me the err of my ways and now I'm as bad as a horny dog in heat although these carnal thoughts seem to center around Him.
As far as your earlier question? Yes, if you want to munch at the Y just name the time and place and believe me, you be there long. I'm a push over for the tongue.
[Good points, Boo. Thanks. --fl]
Virtue, eh? I demand an award of some sort for my virtue.
Seriously, though... That's a really good way to look at it.
[Thank you, Virgin. I know it's hard for you. That makes you virtuous. (Whether I agree with your position isn't the point -- virtue means being true to your principles, not mine.) --fl]
I agree it's never appropriate to force one's sexuality on another, no matter what that sexuality is. (Wrote more about it on AAG's blog). The thing is, though, what IS to be done when suddenly the drives of two people diverge?
Having been involved in a relationship with a man whose drive suddenly became significantly lower than mine (he wanted it almost never, and I would have been happy having it almost always), I know what a strain it can put on a relationship.
At the time, it seemed the height of shallowness to leave an otherwise wonderful person because his drive didn't match mine. Yet, the situation, even if you are trying to work on it, ends up creating a very difficult environment where ultimately only one person is constantly dictating when the sex can happen, and the other person has no other option but to concede at those times dictated or risk another long, dry spell.
So in my experience, even if the low-drive person is not completely asexual and consents on occasion, it doesn't really relieve the stress of the situation, and in fact, can often feel almost like a "forced" sex option for the higher-drive person due to the "now or never" nature of the lower-drive person's needs.
Difficult thing, that.
I stayed with my SO for quite a long time, and tried to deal as best I could with the situation. Ultimately, we broke up, though that was not the reason why. But looking back, I don't think I gave credit to how unhappy the whole thing made me both physically and emotionally, and I often wonder now if I that shouldn't have been a reason to leave earlier than I did. Can a loving relationship really be truly happy and healthy if the couple feels so distanced from each other physically? I don't know...
[I don't know either. Or actually I do. Since I experience it to a certain extent I can say I could be happier physically but we're quite happy, and I think healthy, otherwise. Having had a couple of my own libido slumps over the last 30 years I can say that it's difficult physcially and emotionally for both partners, not just the one who's on the high-libido end. Thanks, Syl. --fl]
Hi, Figleaf. I tried to make the same point in response to AAG's post, but you did it better.
The point is, masturbation is _always_ permitted; your partner isn't allowed to control that, except in cases of a D/s relationship where the submissive partner _plays along_ with the game. You ALWAYS have the option of reclaiming your own autonomy.
[Thanks, TR. --fl]
Miss Syl; Yes, in my opinion, a sudden change in sexual appetite _can be_ a reason to split up. Doesn't HAVE to be, but let's face facts; sex isn't the ONLY part of a relationship, but it's a very big part - possibly the biggest single part - of any relationship.
As the old joke goes, sex isn't the ONLY thing, but it's way ahead of whatever is in second place!
[Hi TR. I can't say I agree completely. I do agree sexual compatibility makes relationships much more stable. On the other hand, I was *only* sexually compatible with the partner previous to my current one. And I mean tit-for-tat, blow-by-blow, in-and-out fantastically compatible! Otherwise it was hell. Come to think of it, by the end *I* was the one with the low libido -- stress and endless differences in very fundamental beliefs and attitudes made desire evaporate no matter how well she could make a partner pant and moan. --fl]
Compatible sex drives, incompatible values; compatible values, incompatible sex drives...it's amazing any of us manage to stay together at all, much less procreate!
I agree, fl, that it's difficult for both partners. I didn't mean to imply that it was only difficult for the high-end person at all, only that that sense of being somewhat cooerced into something you don't necessarily want kind of works both ways in that situation, and I think people often don't realize that.
I also think you're wise in that one simply has to expect, since people constantly grow and change, that a relationship will have its adjustments, both up and down, until it levels out again. It's more an issue of if it's *only* going down, establishing how far down is just too far to be repaired.
Hm, not a very uplifting topic. Here's me lifting my glass to more perfectly balanced matches for all of us, all the time. Cheers.
Oh, and p.s.--lovely bit of writing in your hot tub post.
[Glad you liked the hot tub post, Syl. Also I figured you were reporting your side of the experience and not making a blanket statement. As for changing preferences I think there's a difference between libido ups and downs and blunt declarations such as "I'm done with that" or "we've been married all these years but I can't deny I'm a lesbian any longer." The first we all have to weather (it's one of the ways I've always interpreted "through sickness and health," by the way) while the second typically requires more dramatic responses. Thanks, Miss Syl. --fl]
sometimes being principled sucks.
a bit virtue smirtue; yet still i wait.
[Thanks, J. As Kennedy put it "We do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard." It would be easy to be principled if it didn't frequently suck. --fl]
There is more to it than that from a womens perspective. There are more issues than just insert cock, come, fall asleep. Perhaps men should understand these things before they bitch.
[That argument cuts two ways though, Leela. If that were all there was to it then Aag, who's made pretty miserable by her partner's very low libido, might ask her partner "how hard can it be?" Also, harking back to the tradition of "womanly virtue" it's historically been very difficult for women to disclose that their partners have lower libidos, just as the tradition of "manly virility" makes it difficult for men to dislose their own, but I think we'd find this kind of sexual dissatisfaction not at all gender specific. --fl]
I've had this problem in a few relationships. My sex drive is high, and theirs isn't so much. And you get tired of initiating, feeling like you're some kind of nymphomaniac or something.
I think that any part of the relationship that you're not happy with, be it physical, emotional, spiritual, etc., is a valid enough point to be unhappy about if you're in totally different places. For myself, I'll never put up with practically begging for sex again. It was humiliating and frustrating. And I also wouldn't accept someone telling me I couldn't masturbate! Yeah right! And the sky is orange!
[Aye, when you're a man you're a sex fiend, when you're a woman it's nymphomania. Great! Real supportive little culture we've got here, eh? The English language has 800,000 words and growing and that's the best we can do? Feh! I'm sure if I'd been willing to beg for sex i'm sure I'd have had a lot more of it over the years but, like you, I wouldn't have been any happier for it. Thanks, Camo. --fl]
As someone who has to beg her husband for sexual attention... it is really really tough on the self-esteem.
Yes, I found other ways to cope. I just had to!
[Yeah, it's not always one gender always waiting for the other. Thanks, Sonja. --fl]
it's one of the ways I've always interpreted "through sickness and health," by the way
Yeah, that is pretty much how I think of it. We have a lot of "through sickness" in our marriage. Ups and downs in sex are just part of that.
[Thanks you, Lynn. --fl]
You know, all these mismatched libidos have me thinking again about an article I saw over on Yahoo...
The Pill apparently causes 30-40% of women to have decreased libido, difficulty achieving full arousal, and difficulty achieving orgasm. And a researcher just discovered that the hormonal imbalance they beleive causes this may be long-term - it persisted up to a year after stopping the Pill in patients they studied.
What got me most about the article was the quote from another researcher, saying this was "A lot of fuss about nothing" and nothing that women should worry about.
A lot of fuss about nothing? If a medication caused 30-40% of men to lose their libido and become unable to get an erection, how many men would take it? How many doctors would prescribe it? But apparently because sex *can* take place without a woman being aroused in the least, this is "a lot of fuss about nothing."
Why is damage to women's libidos apparently no big deal?
[And of course people feel the same indifference to loss of men's libidos. Either way it's a problem. Or, more properly, it's a problem when one partner (*OF EITHER GENDER* -- I can't be more clear about this!) has a libido that's much different from her or his partner's. (Note, I've updated the main post to make it more clear that this isn't a women vs. men libido issue no matter what conventional stereotypes say.) Thanks, Taatje. --fl]
Actually, even sexual side effects of medications to men can sometimes get downplayed, simply because people are reluctant to mention sexual side effects to their doctors. Instead, they either put up with them, or go off the medication.
My husband and I have encountered a lot of people through our bipolar and bipolar family support groups who have gotten sexual side effects from one or another medication, and, unfortunately, just going off the medication has really bad results if you're bipolar. In my family-to-family class, when they were discussing why people go off their meds, they pointed to sexual side effects and weight gain as big factors.
On the other hand, you know, given that the whole point of the Pill is to let people have sex more freely, it's hard to see why sexual side effects should be considered minor here.
[That's an excellent point, Lynn. Two, actually. One that certain medications explicitly affect our ability to have sex while other, sometimes more radical effects of other medications are disregarded. Thank you. --fl]