What if no one could be blamed for sexual imbalances?
Lynn Gazis-Sax of Noli Irritare Leones has a wonderful post about sexual imbalances. I love her title "I wear my nicest negligee, and find him reading Plato …" (Full disclosure: I've discussed this earlier, and Lynn has a link to that post in hers.)
In this post I discuss how two people might be thoroughly in love and attractive to each other, with each being a fully-capable, unrepressed, and sex-loving individual... and yet wind up sexually dysfunctional together even though neither is at all to blame. I address (and dismiss) the stereotypical impression that men always want sex more than their partners. I present some fairly contrived hypothetical situations. I compare those hypotheticals to the real problem of large differences in libidos. Finally I explore what this might mean in terms of our traditional definitions of fidelity. I don't propose one solution (I'm not sure there could be only one but I'm also not sure how even one would work.) I do hope that separating our assumptions about blame, sin, and guilt -- and getting over our shock that there might not be any blame, a possibility I admit I hadn't considered either -- might allow a solution to reveal itself.
Dan Savage finds that advising people to go ahead and cheat on their spouses pisses people off. Via Marriage Debate. Be warned that Savage Love is not, in general, work safe.
…A couple of weeks back I advised WILLIE and FS–two sex-starved married people–to go ahead and cheat on their respective spouses. It seems that advising married people to cheat really pisses some people off. Read responses to that column–most con, some pro....
Notable in this flood of letters - and Savage notes it - is the lack of any rush to the defense of the husband of the sex-starved wife whose cheating Savage condoned. Savage suggests that men are being blamed for all sex problems, but I suspect it’s more a case of fewer men being willing to admit to being the low libido partner, so we don’t hear what high libido women might be doing, if anything, to turn their husbands off.
She really hits this nail on the head.
First because it's automatically assumed that it's the man who's ravening lust is wearing out his saintly, put-upon wife when (I'm guessing) it's probably closer to a 50/50 split (since, barring a perfect balance, one partner or the other is going to have a stronger urge than the other.) Also, because our assumptions are so deep we're beyond neglect and into denial that women might be frustrated by their husbands. And finally, as well as overlooking the woman the outraged correspondents on both sides of the debate have overlooked FS's husband. Those inclined to blame men will assume he's having sex with someone else and so has no time for his wife. Those inclined to blame women will assume she's "gone to seed" or something so that she's undesirable. In fact it could just be that he's got a lower libido than him. Or maybe hers is higher than his. He might just be the way he is because he's the way he is, and not because he's cheating elsewhere and not because she's undesirable.
Going one step further, he might be under the impression he loves her madly, thinks she's the hottest pepper since the Scotch Bonnet, and is ready to jump her bones whenever he wants. He might think their sex life is fabulous! I think in many cases assuming he's a monster or she's a harridan solves nothing. In *any* case disregarding him and whatever role he may play, let alone FS's role, is a big red flag that attacks on Savage's column from either side is at best premature.
---
I want to take just a second to explore the libido imbalance problem for a second before moving on to the limits of negotiation. One of the big pop economists, Steven Landsburg I think, wrote about the problem of couples who want to talk on the phone at different intervals. If one wants to talk every two days, and the other every three, then the one who wants to talk every two days will always be the first to call because each call resets the other person's three-day clock. Each may be absolutely into the other, fully committed, and looking forward to talking, but after a few weeks apart the two-day person's going to start feeling unappreciated because the other never calls. The three-day person may begin to feel harassed, especially if the two-day person starts feeling insecure, unloved, unappreciated, etc.
Now, let's talk about the limits of negotiation. One can easily imagine a situation where the two-day and three-day phone people work something out. The two-day person can feel reassured and compromise at two and a half days. The three-day person can overcome their lack of desire (which would fully manifest at three days) by putting reminders in their Daytimer.
What if the obligation, instead were that it was very important to both parties to split every meal. And in this case one partner really gets hungry every two hours (low blood sugar, maybe, or they exercise more?) and the other gets equally hungry every three.
A compromise there may or may not be possible. The two-hour person would spend half an hour, 20% of her time, hungry and low-blood-sugary. The three-hour person isn't just not as hungry, they actually have to overeat at every meal. After a certain point the two-hour person might think about boiling her shoes for a between-meals snack. And after a certain point, say, when the 3-hour person is now two or three cumulative meals more than he's comfortable with, the idea of eating again may actively revolt him. And all that without either the two-hour or the three-hour person loving their partner, or food in general, one iota less than the other.
Sex falls somewhere between phone calls and food. But the two (admittedly) artificially constructed examples might indicate that a) one party might feel starved for and the other revolted by sex and b) that it could happen without either party having an unnatural, abnormal, sinful, or wrong libido on his or her own.
But what to do?
In the case of phone calls negotiation would work just fine, nor would the two-day person be satisfied by "stray" calls to another person. In the case of the two-hour and three-hour eaters it's obvious the two-hour person really needs to find an occasional dinner-partner on the side.
The facile answer is that one party needs to masturbate. This works if one assumes the only issue is pure physical release. The other facile answer is that the other needs to lie back and think of England but this assumes there's no psychic or interpersonal cost to allowing one's self to have sex without desire. It also introduces the very real problem that to some degree your "clock" is still being reset each time your partner avails his or her self of you and so your very real and perfectly natural desire never or only rarely manifests.
Practically speaking most people have fairly similar needs and so they're able to work things out pretty well. In other cases one partner is satisfied with masturbation or the other enjoys the exercise. But in other cases, and I think particularly in those where both parties meet the social ideal of a) wanting sex for psychic rather than orgasmic release and b) not wanting to be a simple receptacle for someone else's lust that problems are going to arise.
If we can't define a traditional solution more helpful than "life is full of suffering" that doesn't handle the situation under consideration, then it's important to recognize that exceptions to our standard definitions of "sin," "fidelity," and (as you correctly pointed out) "violence-by-withholding" need to exist.
I'm not making excuses either for Willie or FS, but if occasional trysts let them remain in sync with their partners, and as long as they don't tryst so often their partner become the deprived parties instead, then it doesn't seem like a bad solution to what one can see is a perpetrator-less/victimless circumstance.
---
Ooh! Ooh! In a follow-up post Lynn points to this hilarious, hilarious (and pretty well-performed) music video that illustrates the point rather well.
---
Update: Since it's a pretty reasonable objection I want to answer the suggestion that I'm proposing or approving of "no strings attached" sex as a solution. First because it's pretty clear that at least in the case I've outlined (where more than physical release is sought) a sustainable ethical solution may not exist. If it does it's certainly not obvious. Nor is it a necessary condition that such a solution should involve no strings. (I also ought to note that I wouldn't object to a no-strings solution either, even if I'm skeptical that there's really such a thing.)
Anyway, I'm not so worried about the solution. I just want people to consider the idea an imbalances can lead to dissatisfaction despite mutual good will, normal libidos and no blame to both parties.
figleaf - I just watched tripod - thank you so much - I now have a reason to live. and to have a five way with geek comedian game loving songsters from Australia and Gander.
much love
goose
ps - gander will send you the photo!
[Oh you are so sweet. Also, notice *I* didn't say the solution involved five-ways from Aussie geek comedian game-loving songsters... but I'm not saying it doesn't either. Thanks, Goose. --fl]
Hi fl,
You said:
"I'm not making excuses either for Willie or FS, but if occasional trysts let them remain in sync with their partners, and as long as they don't tryst so often their partner become the deprived parties instead, then it doesn't seem like a bad solution to what one can see is a perpetrator-less/victimless circumstance."
Maybe so, but don't forget there's also a third person in the equation here--the other person in the "occasional tryst." This can throw an entirely other wrench into the works that can affect both sides. Not only can the low-libido married partner get hurt, but so can the person in the tryst with the high-libido partner. I know of a number of people (well, okay, the examples I know of are all men, but I'm sure it works both ways) who "step out" occasionally on their spouse to satisfy a libidinous need, who do not make it clear to the person they're trysting with that this IS just a tryst for them--or even that they're married, sometimes. And then I know of women and men who were aware of their married partner's paramaters for the outside relationship, and thought they could handle it, only to realize they couldn't and wanted more from the married tryst-partner. Which creates a whole OTHER set of mismatched urges, and of course creates a whole set of new problems for all three people involved.
So I wonder if in any case having a tryst to solve a libido difference is ever a very viable option. Nothing in life ever seems to be strings-free.
Just a thought.
[First of all you're absolutely right that a solution that doesn't take all immediate relationships into account would be no more sustainable than the conventional ones. Also I'm not proposing we seek only simple no-strings solutions. Strings are fine, and might be necessary. Easton and Liszt's "The Ethical Slut" discusses a lot of the permutations, and they've persuaded me that if a generally acceptable solution exists it must have it's own ethics and not just ground rules. Anyway, while I acknowledge complications in any potential solutions I'm still trying to wrap my head around the problem that imbalances can arise through no fault of either party. If that can be resolved then other arrangements might not be needed. If it can't then we wind up needing more, different string rather than less or more of the same. Thanks, Syl. --fl]
Thought-provoking post, figleaf. Glad to read it. I wrote about something similar a few months ago (my 2 cents!)
[I might have known, Amber. I'm glad you did. You have some very articulate commentators by the way. Maybe not always right, and sometimes a little pissed off, but not stupid either. Thanks for the link. --fl]
this is my life!! it's funny you brough this up as it is what my partner and i have been dealing with lately. i'm 25, hypersexual and oversexed. he's 35 and what i'm guessing is "normal."
I want it all the time, and then some - he gets worn out.
it's a dificult situation in that i don't want him to feel like a "receptical for my lust" (or however you put it) or inadequate - but i often feel just my having the desire he does feel that way (inadequate at least).
I'm sated with masturbation (although the battery budget is killing me!) and more than happy to crave him in the inbetween times - it only makes it that much more exciting when i do get to taste him - but just my active desire or need seems to make him question himself.
I don't see a problem with him at all - i see it more as myself having an overactive need, but i can't seem to supress that and just the act of wanting , even without need for action, seems to make him feel a less competant lover.
[Looking down the list to Amber's comment I think she reinforces this idea very nicely: you can't be oversexed; you can't be sexually inadequate. At least not in comparison to one other person. If that were true then the hypothetical two-hour eater is mystically transsubstantiated from overdemanding to inadequate when the three-hour eater takes up exercise and becomes a one-and-a-half-hour eater. In other words the roles can reverse without one person changing at all! In other words you and your partner are both active, just at different rates. You don't have to change anything except any sense of guilt or anger. Frustration's fine, but it sounds like you're finding ways to accomdate each other's different levels of the same need. Who knew you were so cool, Femi? --fl]
I adore my husband. He's sexy, he's sweet, he takes fabulous care of me. He always wants sex in the morning. I usually want sex at night. When a week or so goes by and there's no sex - for whatever reason: time limitations, work, health, stress, just whatever - then he gets whiney. And I have to tell you whiney isn't the biggest turn ON ever.
My husband and I have some things laid out for this situation, though right now everything is in a state of flux with the move. I've hinted at this before, but I think I'll refrain from commenting on it here. (One shouldn't advertise anything on the internet one doesn't want found out.) However, email me, and I'll be glad to talk to you about it.
[Oh cool! That's a perfect, perfect example Autumn. If it were a matter of blame then who would be to blame? You for not wanting sex in the morning when he did? Or you for wanting it 12 hours later -- on the same days -- when he didn't? :-) Nobody! One can have perfectly matched libidos and still get collisions. There's obviously no one solution to the general effect since in your case it would probably be absurd for each of you to find someone to satisfy you at your preferred times of day. So thank you, thank you for the wonderful example. --fl]
femi wrote:
I'd be careful not to view the situation as indicative of something being wrong with you either. (I say this as a fellow hypersexual 20-something female.) There's nothing "wrong" with either of you, you just have different sex drives. And that, in the immortal words of Stewart Smalley, is okay. If you can find a way to make it work for both of you (which it sounds like you have) then there's no problem.
[Yup. Since I read ahead I've responded to this point, Amber, but I wanted to thank you here for making this point. If we've all been thinking in terms of finding the right person to blame then this is a good way to say we're looking for something that isn't isn't there. --fl]
Wow. This is one of my favorite posts you've written. I've been both these people. I was the "lust recepticle" and now I'm the higher libido. What I can say is you've illustrated how both parties can feel and how it truly can be no one's fault- something I never considered.
Thanx Fig, excellent post!
[Yeah, I've been both people too, with the same partners no less! Usually I've been hornier than my partners but while one was on some kind of medication and another was pregnant the roles reversed. And sure enough I managed to think it was my fault -- both ways! :-) Thanks, Beach! --fl]
I think you have hit the nail on the head in your analogies of the phone calls and food. As someone experiencing what you are investigating, the frustration and guilt arise time and again, regardless of the proposed solutions.
The female experience with a higher libido is not discussed as much as it should be. For a long time I thought there must be few out there that feel similarly to myself.
Yes, masturbation helps. Psychologically speaking, the conflict remains a constant problem. I have no doubts my partner is faithful to me and finds me desirable. The asking about the other partner’s level of desire or interest is tough. Yet, to remain confident in the knowledge that one is desirable to one’s partner is tricky to negotiate.
I have to say; I don’t think there is a ‘no-strings’ attached solution. My lower libido partner would never agree to such a solution. As much as I would like to live guilt free with the decision I made to pursue a secondary sexual relationship, it hasn’t been possible.
My third person is in a similar situation to myself. Both of us feel conflicted by our choices, even with the help of professional counseling on both of our parts. The whole situation leaves me wondering if I should continue the relationship. I have trouble seeing myself in 10 years at the same level of frustration.
[Thanks, Anonymous! I think you're right that the *real* imbalance is in stereotypes. Not only don't we acknowledge women with higher libidos, we also don't acknowledge men with lower ones. So men get blamed for being horndogs, women get blamed for being frigid, as if it was a gender thing. When it might not be a "thing" at all but a circumstance. I also agree that a calculatedly no-strings (isn't that an oxymoron?) solution isn't the way out. Hmm... technically, I suppose, the problem might be that there aren't *enough* strings in our current relationships! For instance one string that's missing might be "always come home to me!" Another might be "talk to me." The point here being that we always think of strings as binding -- not that bondage is a bad thing :-) -- but never remember they brace and strengthen too. Thanks again. --fl]
Lustful fantasies and masturbation works pretty well for us.
That video...awesome! There should be one for "Not tonight honey, my period's knocking on the door of my cooter and he's barging in past the bouncer and pissing me off."
[Cool, Mona. Thanks. --fl]
Hmm a very thoughtful post Fig. It's always a shame when people can't get what they need out of the relationship they are in - and it doesn't just happen with sex. I wonder if many bloggers are not getting something out of their relationships that they need and so their blogs are, in some form, a little tryst to satisfy this need.
Not that I'm making any accusations or anything - I'm just postulating.
[Great point, Shay! It's certainly worth pointing out that society in general benefits from a certain degree of individual sublimation. There are obviously bloggers who use their posts to work things out that they're missing somewhere in life. I don't mind making the accusation because I don't even think it's an accusation, per se. More of an observation. Thank you. --fl]
Figleaf stated:
I just want people to consider the idea an imbalances can lead to dissatisfaction despite mutual good will, normal libidos and no blame to both parties.
Yes, it is possible to be sexually out of sync even when both partners have the best of intentions and normal sex drives. By way of analogy, many couples experience the death of a child, despite their best intentions and vigilance. The death of a child does not automatically bring about the end of the marriage or partnership. It is the manner in which the two partners confront the pain and the loss that will determine if the relationship will survive.
Similarly, if two partners are inexperienced in expressing emotion without assigning blame, they will not be able to to reestablish their sexual intimacy. Something -- be it work, children, the in-laws -- will always interfere with their plans and their desire.
Do I think that the majority of the blame rests with insensitive high libido husbands? Definitely not, based on my experience and those of my friends. Each situation is unique to a specific couple. Sex may not even be the source of the discord, but it may very well be the arena where unspoken anger is manifest.
When my husband began experiencing the effects of andropause in his early fifties, I had difficulty accepting the decline in his sex drive as normal, due to my own ignorance. When he was diagnosed with prostrate cancer, he was fortunate to find a surgeon skilled in nerve sparing techniques. Nonetheless, it took three years for Mojo to move back into our house. Sometimes I was understanding, sometimes not. But we had enough respect for one another not to end up like Willie and his unfortunate spouse.
I think Wendy of Housewyfe and Caveman explained this dilemna best: Until 2005, we let whole years go by without having sex. It was not about libido problems, though his is lower than mine...It was more about apathy and being timid with each other.
Unfortunately, it is easier to nurse resentment than take the risk to express what we really feel and want. Would an outside tryst have helped? No, it would have been another obstacle to our intimacy. If it works for others, fine -- that is their private decision.
Thank you for reintroducing this and other provocative subjects. In particular, I appreciated your excellent posts on Martin Luther King, censorship, and abortion rights.
Best regards,
Kochanie
[Thanks, Kochanie. That's very well said. You're right. --fl]
Just once I'd like to see how the other half lives and meet someone with a stronger libido than me. I doubt it's possible, but it'd be interesting.
Good post, fl (as usual).
[Careful what you wish for. Me? I wish just once you met someone who could match you stride for stride and be content. That might not be possible either but that's my most sincere wish, Camo. Thanks. --fl]
Of course, if sex were just a matter of mathmatical libido equations, things would be sorted out rather easily, wouldn't they?
It's not. Wanting sex, not wanting sex, withholding sex, all of it is totally bound up with other issues--personal, emotional, relationship issues. My X and I have similar libidos, but I hated--hated--having sex with him because he was passive-aggressive and controlling while in the guise of Genuinely Nice Guy.
I picked him, a man I knew I wasn't sexually attracted to, because he seemed so good for me in other ways and because i wanted to choose differently than I had in the past. The end result was pretty disastrous for both of us, and our libidnous levels had nothing--nothing--to do with it.
It's a messy, tangled, labrynthine issue, this issue of sex, and to reduce it to the simple power of biological will to fuck is doing it--and those who are suffering--just a massive disservice.
[Eek! Good point, of course. What I was trying to do was highlight how problems can arise even with the best intentions between parties who have no other differences. I feel that's an important point to make because it rewrites the basic social assumption that if we're "normal" (yeah, whatever that means) then problems shouldn't (whatever *that* means) arise. Nothing about that conflicts with your real-world point that we don't always enter, or wind up in, ideal relationships to begin with. Thank you, CG. --fl]
Hi Fig -
I just wanted to throw in my personal experience.
In every sexual relationship I have ever been in I was the one with the "oversexed" libido. I simply can not get enough.
This has led several lovers to become very insecure at their lack of ability to "keep up" and I've been called "nympho" in a not so good fashion more times than I care to recall.
In my experience, as much as men believe they crave a high libido aggressive woman, when they encounter a woman with a higher libido than themselves they simply feel threatened and react by trying to undermine the women in some fashion to compensate for their bruised egos.
Rey
[Oh! You just hit the nail right on the head, Rey! Here's the deal: it's not just men who do that to "oversexed" women. Women may have different strategies but they have *EXACTLY* the same reaction to "oversexed" men! It's not men or women, it's *people* who feel threatened or inadequate and it's common for people to react defensively and undermine their partners as compensation. Oh *thank* you for opening that window, Rey. --fl]