Reflections On Old Assumptions
"If one partner withdraws from sexual contact with the other, is the second partner still bound to a vow of fidelity?"
Boy that's one of the big questions that turned me around on prostitution. I used to have pragmatic beliefs about it (it should be legal so prostitutes can go to the police when they're assaulted or robbed or when they can provide tips and evidence without fear that officers will want "some kind of action" afterwards.) I used to have "libertarian" beliefs about it (between consenting adults and all that.)
But until I started reading other people's blogs, and reading your comments here over the years, I never questioned the basic premise that there will always be prostitutes because men always want more sex than women do.** Talk about eye-opening. Talk about paradigm shifting!
Until I started reading other people's blogs, and reading your comments, and scrolling through comments on "dating sites" for people in relationships, and talking to people in person or through email, I'd have assumed with almost 100% certainty that the sentence in quotes at the top of this post had to have been written by a man.
I'm always amazed how one person -- in this case me -- can be so wrong about so many things at once. Nor is it any comfort knowing it's not *just* me.
And no, I don't exactly have an answer to that pseudonymous but heartfelt question. Just more questions, mostly about a) how we as a society got here and b) what we as a society are still doing here. I haven't even gotten to questions about what c) we as a society can do about it.
Update: And just to be clear, I'm not saying any of that makes prostitution an answer, nor that it makes it irrelevant. It's just one more complication.
[** Or that there are things women will do only for money. Or that, without direct payment, women would never be sexually interested in men who are less "worthy" in terms of age, wealth, height, accomplishment, suavity, etc.) And so on. --fl]
Oh, I'm so glad you're still doing towel shots...
You may remember me in another incarnation, back when I was doxy/jo and a sex worker myself. That has changed now. I fell in love with a john!
Would I have been attracted to him if he had not been? Yes. Would I have crossed his path if he had not been? Um, perhaps. Am I glad I met him? Most certainly.
And yes, it is a complication, in my personal experience and a larger sense. But it is the world's oldest profession for a damn good reason.
[Hey Jo! I certainly remember you. Nice to hear from you again, and congratulations on your new relationship. --fl]
As to the question listed at the start of this entry, there's no simple answer, but there is probably a reasonable one. I would answer how to deal with it like this:
If it (the situation) is not maliciously brought on by the other person and not likely to be permanent, just tough it out the best you can.
If it is likely to be permanent, or you don't think it will be but there's no end in sight, talk it out with your partner. Try to be as polite and reasonable as possible, and point out that your sexual needs don't go away just because theirs did. Bring up the possibility of seeing other people, but only for sex, not for love. (That is, if you can separate the two...) Even if you don't really mean it, this should bring up how important the issue is. Be willing to make compromises (say, if you're a guy, they give you a handjob a few times a month even if they're not in the mood) if necessary.
If you're certain that the other person is being malicious, or if the above discussion results in them becoming insanely possessive (no, you can't even look at other people, oh yeah don't even masturbate 'cause it's icky) then you may need to consider dumping, separation, or divorce. This decision should not be made in haste, and your partner should know you're thinking about it awhile before it's made, and why. Perhaps they'll be more reasonable later and you won't even have to decide. Ultimately, this is a matter of your personal feelings and priorities.
And ignore it if the other person calls you "selfish" or something similar. Yes, you're probably being selfish. But also probably, so are they. While two wrongs don't make a right, sometimes two wrongs aren't any worse than just one. Meaning, if someone's going to suffer about equally one way or another, you don't have to let it be you.
Don't cheat during this process, unless lack of human touch is putting you on the verge of suffering a psychotic break or something similarly extreme. Even then, don't expect it to be excused.
There you go. Not simple, not easy, but probably about as reasonable as you can get.
[Except maybe for the part about mercy releases (hand jobs, cunnlinugus, etc.) I think it's a good list, especially in the context of present social conditions. But I've got this hunch that there's something, probably pretty deeply twined with various permutations of madonna/whore culture, that we probably ought to be looking at outside immediate relationships thought. Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Nightfall. --fl]
Well, I was writing this in the intended context that the reader is monogamous, in love with their partner, and cares what other people in "the present social conditions" thinks of them. And also that their partner probably still loves them, has no children with them, and is not cheating on them. If few or none of those things were true, then I would have very different advice.
However, I'm not sure what "madonna/whore" has to do with anything here, because nothing I said negates the possibility of both both partners being the same sex.
I agree that "mercy releases" is hardly an ideal solution, and probably a last resort, thus the "if necessary". I have no real knowledge or experience in this area of sexual negotiations and couldn't come up with a better example. But I suspect that if it comes down to this (they don't want to do anything and don't want you going outside the relationship), there probably aren't any good examples. But isn't anything usually better than nothing?
[Yikes! I was totally sincere when I said I appreciated your answer. And "madonna/whore" does sound way more gendered than I was thinking so thanks for that catch. I was just thinking how it didn't threaten my family when others brought over food after our babies were born and we were otherwise done in, for instance, even though for some food is an integral part of domestic life. I'm not directly equating food and sex (this time anyway) but there's something proprietary we feel about sex in relationships that makes other temporary possibilities more difficult for *all* parties. Anyway, pardon my woolgathering. Thanks again, Nightfall. --fl]
Nightfall's list looks mostly reasonable to me (though I can't really imagine, personally, negotiating the "seeing other people for sex and not love" thing - not being allowed to fall in love with the person I'm having sex with would be, to me, kind of like coitus interruptus, and in that case, sex with someone else doesn't give me a real benefit over masturbation). I'm very firm that cheating's not an acceptable option, not even if the other person never intends to have sex with you again in this lifetime. One oughtn't to make promises about important things and then lie and break them, period. Not always an easy thing to live, but a necessary one.
Telling the other person that abstinence isn't going to work for you, on the other hand, is entirely fair, and where you go from there depends on the other person's response.
I think, personally, if it were me on the not up for sex end, with someone I still love, I'd be OK giving mercy handjobs, but not mercy sexual intercourse (too much possibility for outright pain with sexual intercourse you don't want to be having). Not that mercy sex of any kind is ideal, of course; I'm just not sure every variety is beyond the pale bad. Or at least, it's legitimate for a couple to jointly decide that their other alternatives are worse.
Yeah but, if I were a man, and my partner agreed to give me a hand job when she didn't want to, I would not be very satisfied. Men have hands so I don't see that as even a temporary solution. I think it would be really hard to deal with the feelings of rejection, whatever the cause of the withdrawal.
[I agree it's not very satisfactory, not least because whatever else we might say about it, it's only good sex if we have it *with* someone, not if we just get it *from* them. Thanks, Mag. --fl]
I really think the workableness of the mercy handjob (or cunnilingus, or whatever) depends heavily on the reason for the no-sex. For instance, suppose a big part of the reason the husband isn't having sex with his wife is that he's having trouble getting an erection? And, maybe his desire is flagging partly because of that, rather than the other way around? Or vice versa, suppose the wife is finding intercourse difficult for some reason, and that's a big part of her flagging desire?
It's not so much about the stimulation - obviously people have their own hands for that - as about the reassurance that the problem isn't that you're actually put off by your partner's body and desires.
On the other hand, if you are in a space where you're put off by it, for whatever reason (whether a relationship problem or something else entirely) and you're still going through the motions, then it's not going to be much of a solution for anyone. Because the main benefit of having it by your spouse's hands or tongue or whatever doing the pleasing would be having the person you love still happy to carress you in some way, and if that's not there on some level, sure, there's no point to it.
I think one reason you get these people like Michelle Scheiner-Davis who swear by "just do it," and other people who are horrified by that idea, is that all sexual problems aren't alike, and so "just do it" can be anything from the kickstart you needed to get over a solvable bump, to a disaster which makes everything much, much worse.
["All sexual problems aren't alike..." Yes! I actually tend to endorse experimenting with *both* Scheiner-Davis's approach *and* its opposite (and other approaches as well) because you just can't be sure of some things till you try them. Scheiner-Davis because I think for a lot of people expectations of how one believes it's *supposed* to be can trump learning to enjoy how it *really is.* The opposite because if you've *always* just forced yourself and there's nothing there then maybe it's a good idea to call a big time out so both parties can reassess. But to say "this is it" because it worked for me, or you, or someone else isn't really going to work. (Sorry Dr. Phil.) Thanks, Lynn. --fl]
Just to be clear, though - mutually consenting "mercy sex" of some kind may or may not be OK, depending on what the nature and emotional tenor of that "mercy sex" actually is. But I'm thoroughly opposed to "duty sex." When it goes beyond someone having a sexual encounter with a partner they care about, at a time when they're maybe not in a particularly spontaneously hot and enthusiastic mood, to someone being guilted into having whatever sex their partner wants - no solution for anyone. Not for the one who's feeling pressured, not for the one who's feeling rejected; "duty sex" doesn't meet anyone's needs.
That makes sense. Speaking for myself as a tired mom who has sometimes felt "touched out" after a day of caring for children, there have been times when I did "just do it" even though I didn't particularly feel like it and I ended up having a good time and feeling very glad that I put forth the effort. I would never tell someone else to have sex if they didn't want to, but "just do it" is not always a bad thing, if that makes any sense at all. You are right, there is no one size fits all solution.