The "no-sex" class: creating a bad business climate
Madame X of The Madame X files totally nails one of the biggest consequences of men's idea that women are the "no-sex" class:
Dear Madame X,
Why can't my wife be more like you?
What follows, or precedes, that question is usually a comment about my love of sex or blow jobs or how I am so willing to masturbate alone or with a partner, how they find my attitude and my sense of humor toward sex a turn on and how the writer's wife never wants sex and when they do have sex it's never very exciting.
Why can't my wife be more like you?
Maybe because I am not married to you.
See, what happens in a relationship when you believe, to the bottom of your shoes, that your partner doesn't actually like sex but puts up with it in order to stay in a relationship with you? Answer? You have no ability to distinguish reasons from excuses, and bad timing or different preferences or different arousal frequencies from plain old disinterest. In other words, when people believe something we're typically *very* good at finding evidence to support it... even when it isn't true!
If what I'm saying isn't making sense consider a trivial example of the effect I'm talking about that's not related to sex. When I saw my first Subaru station wagon at a used car dealer I honestly hadn't realized they existed. I thought it was cool that it had 4-wheel drive, and it was less expensive and way more practical than a Jeep, which I'd previously thought of as the only choice. Anyway here's the deal. As soon as I bought the car and started driving around in it I went from never noticing other Subarus to noticing they seemed to be *everywhere!* The actual number hadn't changed, instead my *perception* of the changed radically.
So let's take that back to Madame X's point about the "no-sex" class paradigm. If you believe she's not that into it, and you come up behind her and try to nuzzle her neck while the kids are howling, there's unfolded laundry all over the kitchen table, and she's frantically wrangling pots on all four stove burners. She brushes you off, maybe snaps at you, and you decide "goodness, what was I thinking, this is probably the worst possible time I could try to start something with her!" Right? No. If you're bought into the paradigm you say to yourself "geez, she's *never* into it." And steam out of the room and start surfing channels in the den.
Extra credit: you hear about this book called Porn for Women and it's supposed to be all about women being turned on by guys folding laundry and helping with the dishes. So next time you come in and the kids are howling and dinner's running late you fold the laundry on the table and help with the dishes after dinner while she's putting the kids to bed and soon after she hands a glass of wine and twenty minutes later there's a little trail of mixed clothing that tapers out halfway to the bedroom. And you think "wow, if I help her clear the decks so she's got a little time to relax before bedtime she's still as crazy about sex as she was when we were back in college?" Of course you do, right? No. If you've bought into the paradigm you're either outright baffled or, after contemplating it for a while you maybe decide "hmm, she's so into housework it turns her on to watch me do it."
Oh, and hey, let's back up just a little bit here and examine *another* way we create evidence for things we already believe are true: what the Sam Hill gave you the idea in the first place that the best time to try a little slap and tickle would be when supper was late and the household was in chaos? Well, radical feminist "sex class" theory would say it's because you're an arrogant, insensitive me-first clod... always a possibility but really most guys are neither that arrogant, that insensitive, *or* that stupid. So what's the deal? Well, I'd like to suggest that *if* we're already looking for "no" from partners we're convinced are just humoring us then *what better time* to get *the answer we're looking for?*
Oh, and in case you think I'm talking out of my hat again here's another non-sex example: back during the depths of the Reagan recession of the early 1980s I took a free job-search class offered by the local YMCA. At one point the instructor had us do mock job applications (never a bad idea, by the way) and it was kind of stunning how many of us started by saying "you're not hiring right now are you?" The instructor, who'd seen it all before, waited till we'd all done our schtick before pointing out how for all but the most desperate employer the easiest answer to "you're not hiring right now are you" is "no we're not." She said "you're not coming in looking for *work* that way, you're coming in looking for *no work!* (Then she made us do mock applications all over... and over... and over.. till we stopped sabotaging ourselves from the get go.) Oh yeah, and the funny thing? Later, when I had a job and was actually in a position to hire people myself it was kind of amazing how many people came in, often when I had customers or orders backed out the door, saying "you're not hiring anyone right now are you?" And it's not at all amazing that I was *way* more inclined to hire people who came in when I wasn't busy and said "I'm looking for a job, do you have any openings?"
Oh, and one more variation on the consequences of men being caught up in the "no-sex" class paradigm. If you're sure your partner isn't really into sex, and you're going out looking for "no," then what are you going to do when your partner readily agrees to, say, blowjobs? Well, you're going to say "cool, I love blowjobs!" Right? Wrong. If you're really bought into the paradigm the blowjobs are going to fade pretty quickly and you're going to start pining for, say, anal sex. And if she's fine with anal sex you're going to say "wow, she enjoys all kinds of sex!" Right? Well, I'm just basing this on myriad conversations and my own early experience so I could be wrong but... I'm guessing sooner or later to suggest something instead like "how about anal *then* oral" or some other activity that only a small, small fraction of people actually get off on and when she finally balks you're going to say "oh well, everybody's got their limits." Right? Silly me! You're going to say "I knew it, she doesn't really like sex after all."
To bring all this back to Madame X's point, when a guy tells her his partner isn't in to sex like she is, chances are pretty good that if she spent a little time together with him *she* wouldn't be into sex like she is now either!
---
Oh, and as long as I'm illustrating relationship problems with old business-training examples I might as well drag out one more. There's an old business maxim that a customer who has a positive experience with a service or product is likely to tell only five or six other people. On the other hand, quoth the maxim, a customer who has a negative experience will let eleven to thirteen people know. Well, when it comes to men anyway (since we have that men don't tell thing) if we're completely satisfied with the variety and frequency of sex with our partners we're not going to tell *anybody.* On the other hand if we *aren't* happy then even if we don't come right out and say it chances are *everybody's* going hear about it one way or another. So. Bonus question: how does *that* dynamic contribute to the paradigm that women are the "no-sex" class?
Now. Do we as men *make* it that way for ourselves? Yes. Do we *want* it to be that way? Definitely not! Now, does it *have* to be that way? No. In fact it's not even that hard to *stop* being that way, and here's one good way to start:
1) Stop looking for evidence that your partners *don't* like sex, and start looking for evidence that they *do.*
2) *Definitely* work to stop actually *making it true* by sabataging your relationships by outright *creating* situations where she's going to say no!
Update: In comments AlbinoSquid raised one reasonable concern: "the wording in your statement of "start looking for evidence that they *do* [want sex]" struck me as no less problematic than the assumption that a woman doesn't want sex. The gut interpretation I got was 'even when she says no, she really wants it.'" Since it really might have been read that way here's a clarification: What I meant, of course, was that instead of collecting evidence that one's partner is by nature asexual one should collect evidence that she's no less sexual than you. Because that opens up the possibility of looking for *external* reasons why *neither* of you is having sex, rather than focusing exclusively on why *you're* never having it.
Figs
I have to confess that you've sort of left me behind on a lot of the 'no-sex' class posts, but this one really nailed it.
"If you believe she's not that into it, and you come up behind her and try to nuzzle her neck while the kids are howling, there's unfolded laundry all over the kitchen table, and she's frantically wrangling pots on all four stove burners."
Let's add, 'and she's already put in 8 or 10 hours at a job, helped kids with homework, done the shopping, ferried kids hither and yon, can look forward to getting kids to bed, then sitting down and doing the bills (taxes/bank statements/fill in the blank'.
Let's also add 'and she's wondering why the FUCK is she doing all this? Why does she have to ASK for 'help'? And why does she have to swoon with gratitude when you do, very grudgingly. Isn't there another supposedly responsible adult who lives here, too?'
If I sound bitter, that's because I am. I also wish you luck in changing the paradigm.
[Talk about a missed opportunity! I almost added a section on how, if you confuse "folding laundry" with "creating time to unwind" then the next time you try folding laundry and it doesn't work because (as in your example, a ton of other stuff like bills still needs doing) you just ask "what do women want?" Instead of, well, "there's still tons to do." Now! That said I do want to do just a little pushback on two points: first, the entire weight of social convention dictates that no matter how much the man "helps out" the woman in a couple is responsible for setting and maintaining all domestic standards. Resist that. If he's doing the dishes you *both* need to be clear with yourselves that he's doing the dishes, not "helping you out around the house." Second, if you believe yourself to be ultimately accountable it's not ok to simply add something new to your queue for every task he takes on. (When I was a kid a friend's family got a dishwasher and his mom said "Now I'll finally have time to keep the driveway scrubbed." Not ok.) Thanks, Captain. --fl]
Hey Fig,
Not to derail the discussion too much...but I wanted to point out a slight wording/phrasing/framing issue: Being perceptive of your partner's needs/signals and providing the oppurtunity for them to express themselves is great, however the wording in your statement of "start looking for evidence that they *do* [want sex]" struck me as no less problematic than the assumption that a woman doesn't want sex. The gut interpretation I got was "even when she says no, she really wants it". I know that's not at all what you meant, but it might be good to recognise, perhaps in an aside to the main post, that the spectrum of human sexuality also includes people with very low (or no!) sex drive at all, and that incompatabilities don't always mean someone is at fault or that 'she just needs the right environment/circumstances to discover/rekindle her true sexual potential'.
[It does sound sort of like that. I meant, of course, that instead of collecting evidence that one's partner is by nature asexual one should collect evidence that she's no less sexual than you. Because, in part, that opens up the possibility of looking for *external* reasons why *neither* of you is having sex, rather than focusing exclusively on why *you're* never having it. I'll update the post. Thanks, AS. --fl]
Okay...after re-reading the post you do sort of cover this area when you say "You have no ability to distinguish reasons from excuses, and bad timing or different preferences or different arousal frequencies from plain old disinterest." My apoligies if I jumped the gun a little. However I still would prefer to see it a little more clearly mentioned.
Despite my nitpicking, this is really only a minor issue and overall I totally enjoy and applaud your writing. Carry on!
[It feels like a huge topic and one I'm still struggling to articulate so I really *really* appreciate the pushback. Without basically sympathetic challenges like yours I'm not sure I'll ever be able to communicate it clearly enough to satisfy harsher critics. So thanks, AlbinoSquid. --fl]
Okay, some comments ...
Firstly, we have a Subaru 4-wheel drive station wagon too. Sorry to make your condition worse.
Secondly, Madame X's write up on that little scenario is hilarious, very deft, love it.
Thirdly, that's a beautiful bedhead you've got there Figleaf, I am envious.
Fourthly, I understand how many men can't grasp basic house-keeping skills and spending all week pottering around inside a car seems an absolutely necessary objective that they see as balancing out the household duties - but sometimes guys do this temporary and then slip back into bad habits, this creates a horrible cycle where each person is pulled and pushed from the issue through temporarily band-aiding it, one circumstance will blind the other, to be sure. Causing sex to be a kind of tap on when the going is good, tap off when it is not, get the good going, tap comes on, purpose fulfilled, then the good stops as does the sex.
Also go too far the other way, becoming more anal and uptight about your environment, can be just as much a destructive force.
Rups
["Causing sex to be a kind of tap on when the going is good, tap off when it is not..." Yeah that's a *huge* side-effect of the (generally incorrect in my opinion) assumption that marriage is "glorified prostitution" where the husband provides wherewithall and the wife provides sex. Given how many men say they've been "cut off" compared to the number of women who say they'd never do that I'm left suspecting it's guys who just *assume* they're cut off and never make overtures. (hmm. gotta think about that.) Anyway there's a huge difference between "mad right now" and "doesn't like sex," and the "no-sex" class paradigm won't let you distinguish that either. Thanks, Rupert. --fl]
"On the other hand if we *aren't* happy then even if we don't come right out and say it ..." Once upon a time a member of our circle of acquaintances frequently did just that, in the presence of his wife, to whoever would listen. When he then tried to give me some advice on my own relationship, my British reserve suddenly left me.
[Yup. In a nutshell "if you're bored you must be boring" is the best advice. For either gender, incidentally. Though actually "have you considered that your wife is probably bored too" might be a better jolt for men really caught in the "no-sex" class paradigm. Thanks, A. --fl]
Very interesting. I got a big kick out of Madame X's rant:) And I agree whole-heartedly. I consider myself a very lucky married woman because my husband is exceptionally helpful, thoughtful, and attentive. Too bad that's such a rare phenomenon.
It's taken me while to wrap my brain around your "no-sex" theory, but I'm coming around. Like janeway, I'd have to say this post provided an excellent illustration to that concept.
Also, I think you're a brave man, figleaf. Not many guys would have the cojones to tackle this issue. I appreciate your sincerity and humility.
[I'm not surprised if it takes a while to soak in, Ruby, it's taken me the better part of four score and seven years... ok, closer to *two* score and seven but you know what I mean. And by the way, you pointed out an interesting paradox about paradigms: it's surprisingly common for people to discount their own experience in favor of the dominant view. The classic example is the old Click and Clack joke that all Volvo owners believe two things: first that all Volvos run great, second that "mine's the only exception." The other is the astonishing number of people who believe all Congressmen are useless hacks...except for theirs. Thanks! --fl]
i read that post with great glee and your follow-up is even lovelier.
my current lover has a bit of a different take on it. i was telling him about my ex and how my ex used to always make sure there was a glass of water at my side of the bed before retiring for the night and how i once said to said ex 'i have to try not to get spoiled by this because it will stop' and he said "oh no i like to buttle" and then, of course, six months later it stopped.
man would go to the kitchen and come back with a drink for himself and never look twice at me... so i was right to try not to get spoiled but spoiled i got.
cut to said discussion with current lover and he says 'it's the drive them to the airport theory, if you're not going to want to do it later then don't do it now.'
he's nailed it you know. it isn't that i need a man to get me water, but don't spoil me and then 'take it back' once you have me. that's more devastating by far than if you just acted like the inconsiderate lout you actually are right from the get-go.
i'm a considerate person and would like to date same, he is welcome to someone more his... speed :)
---
and for all our sakes people stop pretending to be someone you aren't when dating!
[Yeah, there's that too. One thing the "no-sex" class mentality *also* masks is that some women *really aren't* interested in sex and *really do* misrepresent themselves before marriage. But demographically that's a pretty small number... roughly equivalent to the number of *men* who similarly misrepresent their (low) interest in sex. It's worth pointing out, too, that the paradigm makes it almost impossible for us to look for those men, and almost impossible to hear the complaints of their partners. Thanks, BIG. --fl]
Good Friday afternoon, Figleaf !
Very good post, and how true about the different ways a man can approach a woman with regards to timing and thougtfulness - or not.
And what effect that has on desire and responsivness.
[Dead right, Annie. Men sometimes complain about being turned off by "conniving women" trying to get something out of them. And yet we're raised to believe *the only way we can have sex* is by conniving it out of our partners. Sooooo how would that not be equally annoying for our partners if that seemed to be *the only way we went about it?* Thanks! --fl]
Oh boy. Yeah, I was always the girl this was said to, too. With my harem of dudes in college, every one of them, when they had a girlfriend that is, would say "Why can't my girlfriend be more like you?" to me. It used to drive me batshit, and of course especially so when I was interested in them.
More recently, boyfriends of friends have said this to me. And where before it made me angry, now it just sort of annoys me and makes me sad. You know, I know these girls, and they are fun, cool chicks. But when you treat someone like they're a drag; when you related to them as though they are a burden and a ball & chain ... they become that to you. Yeah, I'm cool and laid back, but you treat me in a way that enables me to be that way ...
So spot on with this one (as usual).
["When you treat someone like they're a drag ... they become that to you." You said a mouthful, Watergirl. Thank you for putting it so succinctly! --fl]
Hello, I haven't posted a comment before, but I've been reading your blog for a few months and I think you have some very good insights, especially about this "no-sex class" thing.
I was a psychology major, and in one of the random theories I learned about there's the idea that people will unconsciouly set up situations to confirm beliefs they already have. Like your first example about the folding laundry--it's much easier to say, "Oh, she's never interested in sex" when you set yourself up to fail! Another example is waiting until the last minute to study for a test because you think you'll do poorly on it. Well, if you end up doing poorly, it's probably more because you waited to study. If you had studied before, you might have done okay. The trick is that people are often unaware they do things like that.
So, I think it is important for people to stop making things true, but we also have to realize that sometimes it's an unconscious process. Once you recognize that pattern of behavior, then you can address the actual behavior.
Just my two cents, hope it makes sense...
[Thank you, Christy! I agree it's an unconscious process. It's been unconscious to me for decades! But what's totally frustrating is that it *has* to be unconscious because, really, would anyone in his right mind *want* it that way? No, of course not. Because it's *insane!* As are the considerable consequences! Thanks! --fl]