This weekly Saturday column "Ask Professor Foxy" will regularly contain sexually explicit material. This material is likely not safe for work viewing. The title of the column will include the major topic of the post, so please read the topic when deciding whether or not to read the entire column.
Hi Professor Foxy,
My partner of four years doesn't have as high of a sex drive as me. I would enjoy having sex every day, but he has never cared to do it more than once every few weeks, even in the best of times. Since our first child was born a year and a half ago, we've been having sex only once every couple of months and, frankly, I'm just not okay with that.
Our current problem isn't a matter of not having the time or energy, and he says that he's found me sexier than ever since I became a mother. He just doesn't seem to have the drive that I have. I don't think it would be healthy to demand or insist that he have sex with me. He's my partner, not my sex slave, and I would only want to make love with someone who was willing and eager to participate, not someone who was just carrying out a chore.
Still, enough is enough. We've talked about it many times, and our problem seems to ultimately just be a biological incompatibility: I'm horny and he's not. Other than our sexual problems, our relationship is excellent, and I don't want to throw it away because of a sexual difficulty alone (especially since we are co-parents, not just partners, at this point in our lives).
In an equitable relationship, will it even be possible for us to reach a point of sexual compatibility, or does my vibrator just need to keep filling the void?
Thanks for your Help,
Out of Batteries Again
Hello-
I need advice! I am in a committed lesbian relationship with my girlfriend. We went from having sex for a couple of hours a day in the beginning of our relationship to now a few months later I am lucky if her and I have sex once a week. I am a very sensual person and this dramatic drop-off in our sex life is really difficult for me. I have tried to talk to her about it numerous times but she doesn't want to hear about it anymore. She simply says that she hasn't been feeling very sexual and she will not have sex if she doesn't feel like it.
Is this a sign of a bigger problem or should I just accept that this is the natural flow of things?
-Lesbian Bed Death
Hi Batteries and Lesbian Bed Death-
I am running both of your questions to prove my first point: yours is one of the most common, and frustrating, problems of all couples. To find a great partner with a matching sex drive feels like the holy grail of relationships.
For many people, relationships start off intensely sexual. You are both new and exploring; the relationship and the sex are central. As we stay in relationships, life tends to intrude, the relationship is no longer central, and sex drops off as we become tired, busy, etc.
It is also important to realize that sex in a relationship is often not just sex. It is an important way of connecting with our partners. It communicates things that words cannot. It validates that we are still attractive, that our partners want us. It may also be the only time in our busy lives that it is just the two of us.
Incompatible sex drives are especially difficult for feminists: where is the line between pressuring partners and compromising ourselves? Differing sex drives is like many things in a relationship, a good resolution is based in compromise.
While we should not force our partners to have sex (ever), we should expect them to compromise. If your ideal amount of sex is 10 times a week and theirs is twice a month: can you agree on a number in between? Does it have to be full on sex, can it be making out? Them making you cum without reciprocation? Friends of mine, married for over thirty years, have very differing sex drives. She - rarely, he - every day. The compromise: twice a week and he gets to choose: Saturday or Sunday and then Wednesday or Thursday.
You can expect your partner to compromise, but you can't expect them to be able to up their sex drive. They may not desire sex as much as you, so you have to deal with the feeling of "why aren't they as into this as I am?"
Try and compromise on acts, level of nakedness, frequency. For some people, the only way to resolve this is for the person with the higher sex drive to have sex with other people. Could that work for you if it is limited to sex? How will it impact your relationship?
At the heart of all good relationships is compromise. Sex is one of the more difficult places to do it, but it is the only way to even begin to resolve your issues. Differing sex drives may not be a reason to end a relationship, but an unwillingness to compromise often is. List out what you want, have them list out what they want, and then try to find the place in between.
If you have a question for Professor Foxy, send it to ProfessorFoxyATfeministingDOTcom.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Ask Professor Foxy: How Do I Deal With My Partner's Low Sex Drive?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13288
Is lesbian bed death a genuine phenomenon or (as I would guess) a suspect extrapolation from anecdotes of the kinds of sexual incompatibilities that arise in all sorts of relationships, rooted in (patriarchal) mythology?
Am I getting it correct when I assume that you think that Lesbian Bed Death's post is a sarcastic grab at the expense of Professor Foxy?
I thought the signature "lesbian bed death" was a joke.
But if you accept that on average men have higher sex drives (obviously this means nothing in the case of any individual couple, but there may be an overall statistical difference), then statistically, relationships with more men would have a statistically higher collective sex drive and relationships with more women would have a lower one. However, I have no idea if its really true that men on average have higher sex drives, or if they just don't talk about it as much when they don't. Anyone have a study?
I found this paper a while back.
It can also be searched on google:
Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen R. Catanese, and Kathleen D. Vohs
Department of Psychology
Case Western Reserve University
Most of the data cited was from N.American and some European studies. And while relatively less time is spent on the nature vs nurture issue, the data is otherwise exhaustive--for example, they looked at the full spectrum of sexuality including a study of individuals who took vows of celibacy (nuns vs priests), which certainly threw me for a loop :D
If anyone else has any relevant studies I'd be interested in seeing them.
Here's the abstract:
The sex drive refers to the strength of sexual motivation. Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual
desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women)were found. Hence we conclude that the male sex drive is stronger than the female sex drive. The gender difference in sex drive should not be generalized to other constructs such as sexual or orgasmic capacity, enjoyment of sex, or extrinsically motivated sex.
No, I'm not responding to the question and answer per se, but just the concept, 'lesbian bed death'.
It's been scientifically disproved that lesbians suffer "bed death" more than straight or gay couples. I think it sticks out more because it confirms stereotypes, and also because there's a possibility that lesbians are more likely to admit that it's happened.
What does "bed death" mean? I've never heard of this.
I believe it just refers to a couple being together for a long time and not having sex anymore at all.
From what I understand, this supposed "phenomenon" has more to do with the male, heterosexist notions of what "real" sex is rather than with the actual patterns of behavior in woman-woman relationships. Remember that according to the mainstream, "sex" is penis-in-vagina, "oral" is mouth-to-genital, and "mutual masturbation" is hand(s)-to-genital(s). Whilst men in relationships with men have an analogous act to PIV if they so choose (at least, analogous to mainstream thinking), women in relationships with women do not unless they strap on or use some kind of toy, which not all of them do. Thus, if two women in a relationship cuddle a lot and give each other clitoral stimulation, a heterosexist researcher, whether he or she is aware of his or her bias or not, might deem that "lesbian bed death" without realizing that as long as both partners are happy with the relationship, there's no "phenomenon" occurring and there's no reason to worry about it.
It's not so much that women don't crave "sex" as much as men, a lot of them simply don't crave penis in their vaginas as much as men crave vaginas around their penises, or at all, in the case of women who only like women. The patriarchy just hates it when women *gasp* neither need nor want penis, and pathologizes the phenomenon.
Oh, and to clarify: this isn't intended to make any female who is experiences a lack of sex with her female partner feel like I'm invalidating her situation, this is just to address the common myth of "lesbian bed death."
Awesome post, and I think this is one of the most common "problems" that many of us have. I would never have even thought to ask about this, though it applies to me as well. My partner has a lower sex drive than me. And for me, sex isn't just about sex, but is a means of affection and connecting. We've made adjustment and have been together for six years. For me, I've just had to accept that less sex that I would like does NOT equal less of a bond between us for him.
I wonder why Professor Foxy didn't mention that there could be health reasons for low sex drive? I've seen similar questions/columns and that is usually one of the first things they suggest you investigate.
Well, its worth checking into but on the other hand there are lots of people out there who just don't want to have sex all the time, and that's worth addressing. I don't think you can always write it off as a medical issue.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that. Of course medical problems are by no means the only factor; I was just curious as to why Foxy didn't mention that at all.
Its always a toss up what you can fit in a column. Some columnists *always* say you should see a doctor/therapist, and it gets annoying. It comes down to whether its very likely to be a medical issue. In this case, I think that if the husband was having trouble, say, maintaining an erection, then the letter would have mentioned that, or not written in at all given the widespread use of viagra these days. On the other hand, if the husband is capable of performing but just doesn't want to have sex, I don't think its all that likely to be a medical issue. It still *could* be (if House has taught us anything its that anything and everything can be a medical issue) but it doesn't seem all that likely that a doctor would be able to find and fix something like that. Instead its just turning someone's personality into a medical problem.
On the other hand, one of the first Prof Foxy columns mentioned a woman who had physical pain and problems with intercourse, and a lot of people commented that she should see a doctor and Prof Foxy should have mentioned that. I agreed in that case because it sounded mostly like a physical problem. This one doesn't though. So yeah it doesn't hurt to have it checked out, but what they really need is advice for how to deal with the state of things now.
Antidepressants and birth control pills can both affect sex drive, not just sexual performance.
What about psychological or mental health problems? Seems like sex drive is often affected by depression, stress, anxiety, and so on. It's worth talking to a professional therapist/ counselor, I think.
That too.
True. I think birth control might be my problem. But there's often not a whole lot you can do about that-- usually someone taking antidepressants or blood pressure medication really needs them, and as for birth control, I think I'd be even less into sex if I was worried about getting pregnant.
Like I said, it certainly could be a medical issue, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can be fixed. There are lots and lots of couples who are going to have to deal with this state of things whether or not it is medical.
Although if antidepressants are killing your sex drive, and that's a problem for you, you should mention that to your doctor. There are a TON of different medications, and finding the right one is often a delicate process.
Don't just take the first one your doctor gives you and be satisfied with that. A good doctor will ask you how it's working and what side effects you are having, and will consider switching it out for a different one or changing your dose.
Now, there could be a variety of reasons why switching doesn't work in your case. For example, some SSRIs are lot less expensive than others, and interaction with other medications might be an issue. I don't mean don't trust your doctor, but I am saying that a good doctor will listen to you and should consider your libido a valid part of your livelihood.
Agreed, muchly. I'm actually glad that she didn't immediately jump to suggesting that (which yeah, is the most common one), because while it definitely can be a factor, it puts the onus on the one who has a lower sex drive to solve the problem. It changes the problem into a different one.
(I've been there too and I could've used her advice. Instead I embarked on a hunt for external solutions, like trying all the kinds of birth control I could imagine. Aside from all the stress that put me through, there were mass amounts of guilt, which only put us in a cycle by making sex even more loaded than it already was. That relationship didn't survive (for more reasons than that). It was only by accident that I stumbled on birth control that allowed me to rediscover my libido.)
Agreed, muchly. I'm actually glad that she didn't immediately jump to suggesting that (which yeah, is the most common one), because while it definitely can be a factor, it puts the onus on the one who has a lower sex drive to solve the problem. It also changes the problem into a different one, one that can be 'cured' instead of solved.
(I've been there too and I could've used her advice. Instead I embarked on a hunt for external solutions, like trying all the kinds of birth control I could imagine. Aside from all the stress that put me through, there were mass amounts of guilt, which only put us in a cycle by making sex even more loaded than it already was. That relationship didn't survive (for more reasons than that). It was only by accident that I stumbled on birth control that allowed me to rediscover my libido.)
low levels of testosterone CAN affect the desire to have sex (for both women and men)... Women who have lower levels of estrogen and other hormones have less energy... men with really low testosterone have similar symptoms (people in their 20's could even be dealing with this issue). If low levels of testosterone/estrogen/progesterone (and I've even read that vit D levels are important to look into) makes a person tired, maybe their desire is muted because of the lack of energy, RATHER than desire.
but it could be medical (testosterone levels for example). All humans have drop-offs in their hormone levels that can affect sex drive... Some people really desire to have more of a sex drive but just don't; that can sometimes be an indication that it could be hormonal (usually there are other symptoms though besides just a low sex drive).
I've noticed that the amount of women that have higher sex drives than their husband has skyrocketed since the explosion of internet porn. Coincidence?
not at all. anonymity makes it easier to disclose things like that without fear of repercussion, and easier to access information about them.
anti-porn is anti-sex.
anti-porn is anti-sex
Not buying it.
Me either. But I'm not anti-porn... I am, however, anti-porn industry and pro-erotica/pro-female friendly porn.
And ultimately, anti-censorship, but there are some serious problems with the major porn-industry.
And to bring it back on topic -- sometimes I can go weeks without sex and my partner is more sexual. I have no problem with him using erotica for masturbation when I'm just not in the mood. That's our compromise.
I'd argue the opposite. Porn is anti-sex. The commercialization of women's bodies for men's consumption is not sex. The acts depicted in porn tend to emphasize degradation, humiliation and coldness. I don't think that's pro-sex. How many women out there are regularly rejected by partners who would rather be beating it off alone in front of a computer screen? I'd say it's a problem that's become pretty commonplace.
I am pro-sex: Pro-sensuality, pro-pleasure, pro-intimacy...
Accusing those of us who have problems with porn of being anti-sex makes no sense.
Anti porn is anti masturbation (or at least anti male masturbation) and I don't care for people who put political litmus tests on sexual fantasies.
I support women's liberation in real life (where it actually matters) - but my fantasy life belongs to me and me alone, and the sexual fantasy aides I use are my business.
You aren't able to masturbate without images of sexual humiliation and degradation?
Exactly! That's bullsh*t... or at least sexual dysfunction.
I think he (like many men) is arguing that men *need* misogynist images in order to get off, even though they're like, totally feminist in "real" life (as though their beat-off sessions occur in an alternate reality). "Don't shame me!" Because what gets them off is beyond analysis and is not up for examination. We ladies have to accept it because what the menz say, goes.
I love how the same people who claim that they need their porn or say that being anti-porn is anti-sex/masturbation are the same people who deny the notion that porn is addictive.
The only real needs in life are food, water, love, shelter.... The rest are simply wants. Men don't need porn anymore than women need to wear highheels.
If you "get off" to men disrespecting women - that you truely don't respect women. Maybe you do seek out porn that is pro-woman, that loves women but I doubt it. I have never dated a guy who watched porn that wanted or even desired to watch porn that didn't humiliate women...
I'm anti-porn until men start seeking out porn that LOVES women - Porn that treats women like human beings, rather than cum dumpsters.
Oh and by the way - I'm anti-porn but I'm not anti-masturbation. In fact, I do it all the time without visual aids because you know what? I'm not a dull boring person and the fantasies in my head are so much more creative and original than the repetitive boring/generic representation of human sexuality porn presents.
Religious puritans have nothing on some feminists when it comes to judgmentally nattering on about other people's baser sexual desires.
I'm so tired of the "all porn is bad" comments.
There are feminist porn companies like tiny nibbles (violet blue's company) that feature safe & sane sex.
There is tons of porn with REAL lesbians having REAL loving sex.
So to label all porn as immediately bad and "humiliating women" is not only harshly judgmental of those actress' choices, but also isn't really true.
I think it was Gail Dines who said that saying someone who is critical of porn is anti-sex is saying something who is critical of McDonald's being anti-food.
But porn is such a broad word. Saying you're against ALL porn is like saying you're against all TV, even the science channel, or you're against all restaurants, even the local vegan deli. Saying you're against, say, mainstream hardcore porn or degrading porn makes more sense.
Yeah, it's a bit rash to make a blanket statement on porn in general as being misogynistic and degrading when there is lots of porn out there that isn't like that, as hammered home by this individual: http://stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Porno.html
an avid consumer of porno who is very careful to make the distinction between good and bad porn. In fact, the adult section of his site's "favourite movies" page has quite a few examples of what qualifies as "good" porn, though I don't know how much of a percentage misogynistic porn has of the market.
I have a relatively low sex drive, but one of the things that turns me on is good (classy) erotica. The availability of that on the internet has HELPED our mutual sex life, not hurt it. Its a great way to boost a low sex drive and get interesting ideas of new things to try.
I still hate roughly 99.9% of the porn on the internet, but there's so much of it there that you can easily find sites you like.
yep - I always tell people that when I start finding porn that isn't degrading to women in whomever I'm dating's computer - THEN I will be pro-porn. But I have never dated a guy that actually sought out porn that really treats women like human beings and with respect. AND I've never found porn that represented more than one narrow view of female beauty. When these two things change and men start to open their minds to different types of porn in my life - than I will be open to it... but until then, I won't tolerate it in my house.
One thing I do question though is the objectification of sex in general... Not necessarily of just women or men. To have sex is not a thing, it's a verb and I really place a critical eye on anything that tries to turn a verb into an object... Like diamonds = love - that sorta thing. It still sort of sets standards that are unoriginal and often times - not real.
I think we can come to an agreement that the word 'porn' doesn't exactly bring up images of awesome, non-misogynistic, feminist porn.
I'm glad somebody besides me said it!
sex and porn are NOT the same thing. One is an "act", the other is real life. I'm so tired of people saying porn = sex. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. If I'm against supporting hollywood movies - does that mean I'm rejecting life?
I could believe that women now have a safe and discreet way to access a wide variety of porn/erotica* and thus can find material that they like, raising their overall sex drives.
*As the old joke goes, erotica is the classy stuff *I* like, porn is that disgusting stuff *you* like.
Very true. It could also be a secondary thing about a medical problem (I had a medical issue recently that didn't effect sex at all but made me feel so bleh in my own body that I just couldn't manage to feel sexy at all), or a psychological thing too.
But all these things are things that you really have to talk to your partner about; no stranger can tell you what's going wrong, as good as she may be at giving advice on these matters.
Well, what do you mean by 'noticed?' Do you just mean in your experience, or do you read more about it? Is there a study?
Yes. You make it sound like women with high sex drives are a bad thing. I consider us a solution, not a problem. :P
It may also be at least partially a case of "woman unhappy with man's lower sex drive" getting more attention precisely because it's much less common than the inverse, and therefore more interesting. Like the teacher/student sex thing, watching the news you might think it's almost always a female teacher and male student, but actually the reason those cases make the news in the first place is because that's the uncommon configuration.
This is a really complicated issue, because negotiating and making compromises really doesn't always work. I mean you might agree to have sex every wednesday or something but if one person is not into it it's just going to be a chore and no one will have any fun. And if you negotiate compromises like that, the person with the lower sex drive may ultimately come to resent the new arrangement and may view sex as even more of a obligation than they did before.
I think a better piece of advice would be to explore new ways of turning each other on. Even when I'm really not feeling very sexy there are certain things that my boyfriend does that will get me aroused every time. When people have been in relationships for a long time they may tend to just fall into habits and do the same old things in bed. So, if the relationship started off very sexual but someone's sex drive waned over time it might be a good idea to talk to each other and think of some new and exciting fantasies that you've never tried. This may not work for everyone because some people just aren't very sexual at all, but it may work for people who used to have tons of sex but don't want it anymore.
" And if you negotiate compromises like that, the person with the lower sex drive may ultimately come to resent the new arrangement and may view sex as even more of a obligation than they did before."
But otherwise the person with the HIGHER sex drive gets screwed and may ultimately resent the other person. You can't have it both ways.
You need to feel for both people. Sure if someone doesn't want sex alot and they feel they need to do it more that is a compromise and it may not be their ideal situation - but the opposite position is EQUALLY JUST AS VALID.
The person with the higher sex drive should NOT always be the one who has to compromise. Else that is an unfair relationship that should probably not continue. Both sides need to give and take.
What I was saying is that these types of compromises don't work for either partner and both of them end up disappointed in the end. If you agree to very specific arrangements, like once a week, the person with the low sex drive is still not going to want to have sex and they may now view it as just a weekly obligation. And as a result, the person with the high sex drive loses out too because their partner becomes even less enthusiastic about sex than they were to begin with.
That's why I was saying that a much better solution, and one that would make everyone happy, is not to negotiate about sex like its some sort of business deal, but rather to try to solve the difference in sex drives by experimenting with new fantasies that turn both partners on. Finding ways to make sex more exciting and fun for the person with a low sex drive will also help out the other person because they now have a partner who wants to have sex simply because they enjoy it, not because it's an obligation.
This. I've been both the high-desire and the low-desire partner at times, and both really stink. Scheduling sex like a chore doesn't help out either person, really, unless you enjoy having sex with someone who is just not into it. In my experience that makes the high-desire partner feel creepy/unsexy and the low-desire partner feel irritated/resentful.
I don't want my partner think about having sex with me the same way they do about mopping the floor.
The solution I've found is to figure out what activities BOTH people can enjoy. For example- right now my sex drive is shot because I'm nursing too children, but I'm perfectly happy to curl up with my partner and help him masturbate. He'd like more, sure, but not at the expense of my enjoyment of our activities.
"But otherwise the person with the HIGHER sex drive gets screwed"
Actually they don't get screwed, that's the problem. (Just wanted to point out the funny word choice).
I think "compromise" is a nice way of saying "pressure them." If my boyfriend said to me "I want it twice a day, you want it once a week, so we're going to compromise and do it 5 times" I'd feel very pressured and be super pissed off.
Um, I think she meant a real true actual compromise, not one person giving orders to another and calling it "compromise".
We were having this very issue in my relationship where I was the one with the lower sex drive and he was feeling neglected. We talked about it over and over, very respectfully, and I finally came to realize that I was turning him down because I didn't have the time or energy for a full blown, 45 minute all out session. I love him, and I don't want or need to orgasm EVERY time we have sex. So now I don't. Now that I don't pressure myself to orgasm every time, I can relax and he gets more sex. Win/win!
But what is the alternative? Why is it ok that he has to just not get what he wants, and you get everything you want? Don't you see how one sided the non-compromise position is? It's the exact same thing only reversed.
I think it comes down to whether its worse to not have sex when you want to, or to have to have sex when you don't want to. People are going to have different perspectives on this, but personally I think its the latter. Lots of people don't have sex for months or years at a time when they're single, and its not that big a deal. But having to endure sex when you don't want to do it, especially on a regular basis, can get pretty painful. For women at least, its often physically painful as well as mentally.
I do think, however, that if you don't want to have sex you should still make an effort to help your partner be satisfied. That might mean doing something one-sided to get them off without actually having sex.
All of this, so very much. You can't just go "well, this partner wants sex this many times a week, the other wants sex that much less, it's equally unfair to them if they don't get what they want" because not having sex when you really want to and having sex when you really don't want to are two very different things. And I'm not saying the latter must always be worse than the former - it definitely depends on the people involved, their attitudes, the specific situation, etc. I'd just like it if people remembered that someone having sex when they don't want to is treading a dangerous line (when is it coercion? When is it rape?) and can have bad consequences, both physical and psychological. (Which is why talking about what kind of activities are acceptable in what kind of mood is undoubtedly *very* important.)
Right.
If a man pressures a woman into having sex when she doesn't want to, that is usually called rape.
If it isn't okay for a man to pressure a woman into sex, then it shouldn't be okay for a woman to pressure a man into sex.
And a compromise that involves someone having sex when they don't want to...that is a very sketchy, sketchy compromise.
Yes!
i think something that's important to keep in mind in this discussion though is that sex drive is not the same as the in the moment desire for sex. i used to date someone, and we only had sex once a week. he would make very timid advances, which i would generally ignore. however, the times i let him lead me down the primrose path, i did end up really enjoying the sex. i just didn't feel that interested until i was already aroused. the whole thing was completely insufficient for both of us, but it was a rut. he was unwilling to initiate more than once a week, because it felt like coercion to him, i was unwilling to initiate ever except occasionally after drinking, because i was horribly depressed. *shrug* but when it did happen, no matter how unexcited i had been at the start, it was always a good time. sometimes there's just that initial bump.
Fair enough, and I agree with this. Your compromise points about helping the other person get off are good, and I believe this is what alot of couples do.
Another similar compromise is instead of going 50% between the 2, you go 25% or something similar in order to create a balance. Many possibilities. Important thing is to respect your partner and try to find a solution where you can both be happy sexually, not just the one with the lower drive.
I think that if I really don't want to have sex, I shouldn't feel like I HAVE to. That's no fun for anyone. But I should be willing to give it a shot-- meaning, if my boyfriend wants to initiate cuddling or something that turns me on and see if it turns me on enough that I end up wanting sex, then that's great. If it doesn't make me turned on enough to have sex then we still don't have sex. Instead we might do something more one-sided, or one person might just masturbate on their own. For us the reason we don't have sex much is usually that we're both very busy and overworked, so its easier for one person to take a few minutes and masturbate on their own than it is to find a time when we are both in the mood and can devote an hour to foreplay and sex.
Another thing is that if you don't want to have sex, I don't think you should get upset if your partner wants to masturbate and/or look at porn. That's different, of course, than the cases where one person would rather look at porn and ignore a willing partner. But if you refuse them all the time when they're horny, I think its good for them to enjoy their own sexual outlet alone.
One alternative is breaking up and moving onto relationships that make you happy. But for some reason, a lot of people think that it's not a good reason to break up with someone unless the relationship is completely miserable or abusive. That's really too bad---ours would be a better world if people parted ways amicably more often.
Some people have relationships for multiple reasons in addition to sex. To some of those people, having just one of the many reasons they are in a relationship be less than ideal is not a good enough reason to DTMFA. If the-exact-amount-and-type-of-porking-that-I-desire is the baseline for one's relationship, one should perhaps look into a kept lover instead.
I mean, obviously this is sort of an overblown way of putting it. I agree that one should probably do some serious soul-searching if you're just completely unwilling to continue dating someone if they aren't somehow magically exactly what you wanted in bed, but I really do think that more people should probably just part amicably when they find that they aren't very sexually compatible. I really do think that we should prioritize our (and our partners'!) sexuality more than we do, and no one is doing anyone any favors by martyring their own legitimate needs. Again, I do think that compromise and exploration and communication and so on are key, I just think that maybe a person shouldn't resign themselves to slow, simmering resentment and frustration just because they can't come up with some other "good" reason to part ways.
Why soul search? Why is anyone obligated to be in a relationship with someone else if they don't want to be? Why do you have to have extenuating circumstances? I would hope feminists could see that the "you must stick it out thick and thin" is another form of patriarchal oppression, designed in no small part to make sure that women don't hold men to higher standards in order to be with us.
Oh, no, I completely agree with you -- my "soul searching" comment was meant as a sort of snarky response to the exaggerated example I was responding to, of someone who breaks up with any lover who isn't *exactly* what they had wanted right out of the gate, since in that case I'd image that that someone would get a lot more of what they want if they actually communicated what they want, rather than breaking up with people and moving on in the hopes of finding someone who will read their mind or something. But mostly I just meant it as a dismissal to get out of the way in order to make my point, which is basically the same point you're making.
Yeah, I think its an unrealistic goal to find someone who will always want to have sex with you whenever you want it. There's no way that can be maintained forever, especially if you want to have kids. However, its probably a good idea to avoid marrying someone who has completely different ideas about sex than you from the start.
Yep, in addition to sex. You have a relationship for companionship, fun, and sex. If any of those fails, though, instead of making everyone miserable for years because we believe Relationships Are Work, maybe it's better to move on.
You're right on the money - if people who are sexually dissatisfied would leave early on, rather than sticking around out of some kind of "moral duty" and being miserable, the world would be a better place.
I've heard lots of married guys I work with who complain about how their wives stopped having sex with them after the second or third kid - maybe they'd be happier if, instead of complaining to me, they called a divorce lawyer instead (in New York State - the last state in America that requires formal "grounds for divorce" - refusing to have sex with your partner is considered mental cruelty and is grounds for divorce) and found a wife who actually wanted to continue having sex with them.
You're contradicting yourself. Leaving someone after the second or third child is NOT leaving early on in the relationship.
Also, if the wife doesn't want to have sex after having kids, it's usually because she's too tired from having to do most of the housework and childcare (and often, hold down a job outside the house). So, instead of betraying their wives by talking to an outsider about a very personal issue, these jerks should contribute more time to doing their share of the housework/childcare.
A lot of these idiots complaining about their wives not wanting sex do a lot of things to secure that...
One situation that I was in - I was with a guy who was awesome in the beginning... We had sex like almost twice a day... But then it started to decline (which I DID expect to happen a little) and then I realized he was jerking off to internet porn and that's why he wasn't really interested in sex anymore (he went from wanting me twice a day, to like once a week). I started to feel a lot of resentment about it. He stopped saying nice things to me on top of it (before that he would say how cute/beautiful I am and do other things to make sure I knew how much I turned him on). I stopped initiating sex completely. Maybe it's the stubborn in me but I was just like, hell - if he isn't going to show me that I'm desireable and much more important - more desireable than those dumb fake blonds he was jerking off to, than why would I show him that I cared?
You can blame the girl but there is a lot of things men do (or don't do) to their wives that leads them to not feel sexy.
90% of the time, when a woman doesn't want sex it's because her partner does not make her feel attractive in HIS EYES or she simply doesn't feel attractive in the first place. Sometimes having a couple of kids makes it hard for women to feel sexy. And if those husbands really wanted the sex, than they'd get over their pride and cator to her needs to go out on a limb to make her feel sexy - in the same way that they did when they were on the chase for her.
The thing is, people don't have a RIGHT to sex when there's another person involved, not the way they have the right to refuse sex.
A two-person act needs consent by both people. Anyone can masturbate, but if you want to interject another person into your sex life you need that other person's consent, and it is their perogative to refuse.
Yes, this means that people aren't guaranteed all the (interpersonal) sex they want, but really, when isn't this the case?
A relationship usually involves some manner of exchanging a wide pool of people to seek out sex from, for a greater likelihood of getting it from one person, and that's the doing of our culture where monogamy is the dominant relationship paradigm. If someone wants more than they're getting, they can renegotiate that exchange if they find that to be worth it (end the relationship, work to find a viable compromise within it, or request an experiment with inexclusiveness or polyamory), but they don't have the right to demand sex from anyone, any more than they do at any other time.
im like the two people who sent in the question, i want to have sex more than my partner does, cause i want it like ALL the time but he likes it mm maybe 3-5 times a week! Which is fine i got my vibrator. But i think the people who wrote in dont WANT to pressure their partners! but i had to admit my feelings were hurt when i got turned down sometimes. so i did something CRAZY! i talked to my partner in a loving rational way! Omg! haha! and I listened to him! woah! And he had his reasons and i had mine! See sex to me wasnt just wanting to feel good, i felt connected to him while snuggling and all sorts of things. And when he saw i wasnt trying to pressure him and I say he didnt find me unnattractive, we both felt better! And while i didnt ask for more sex, i did request more cuddling, which made my heart happier, and well i LOVE making him feel good so on the days we dont have full on sex I give him a blowjob! This makes him feel wanted too so we are both happy!
I think its good for people to have a general attitude of compromise, but there's a problem with a strict compromise of how many times a week you're going to do it. I think Dan Savage said this recently, and I agree-- what's going to happen is the person who wants to have sex once a week is still only going to have sex once a week. They might agree to compromise on three times a week (when the other partner wants 7) but it won't make them want to do it or enjoy it. Inevitably it will drift back down to once a week and the other partner will be even more resentful because they were promised more.
I think its a better idea to compromise on what exactly you're going to do. If I don't feel like having sex I just don't, and if I force myself to do it when I'm not into it its going to hurt and make me want to do it even less next time. Instead, if he's horny and I'm not, we do things that get him off and don't involve much work for me (or he does it on his own, but its nice to do it together too).
After the first flush of a new relationship has worn off, I'm just not up for having sex very often. Obviously "very often" is relative, but lots of people probably feel that way. Telling me that I have to "compromise" by having sex, say, 3 times a week for the rest of my life when I don't want to is not going to go over very well.
However, I do think people need to make an effort to make sure their partner is sexually satisfied. It shouldn't mean they have to submit to unwanted sex on a strict schedule, but they should try to work out a system that works-- one sided acts, for example, or being ok with porn and masturbation, or making an effort to spend time doing things that turn both of them on.
This is a perfect example of why I think it's extremely important for people to have sex before marriage. Because you need to know before it gets too too serious whether or not you will be sexually compatible enough and whether you will be ok with the frequency, acts, schedule, etc. that the other person is comfortable with.
Of course it depends on how important sex is to you, but for many people it's very important. For some people, it's a dealbreaker if it it's frequent enough, etc., and thus it's only fair to BOTH parties to know as soon as possible, to avoid a bad breakup, resentment, etc. that can come later if this issue can't be resolved to both parties satisfaction.
Of course it's important to realize that some weeks or even months might just be really bad and not be "normal". But if it's clear the frequency will never be above a certain level, and the other person is not ok with that, then it's best to establish this early to minimize the hurt each side may feel.
Yeah, I think its very important to live together and have sex for a decent period of time before getting married (or at least before having kids, since its far easier to get divorced with no kids). Its also important to realize that things will fluctuate no matter what you agree to at first, no matter how much you both love having sex all the time, at some point one of you is going to be pregnant or throw out their back or something. But its easier if you establish general compatibility first.
"This is a perfect example of why I think it's extremely important for people to have sex before marriage. Because you need to know before it gets too too serious whether or not you will be sexually compatible enough and whether you will be ok with the frequency, acts, schedule, etc. that the other person is comfortable with."
This is what many people may assume. If I were not 40 years old and not 13 years married with two children, I might agree.
This is based of course, on the assumption that one's sex drive or that of one's partner, is relatively stable. That the sex in a relatively new relationship will represent the sex in a long term relationship, or that sex after years or decades of marriage will be anything like the dating and honeymoon period (even if that initial period lasted years).
That may be completely unrealistic. When my wife to be and I first began having sex in 1995, she not only gave enthusiastic consent, she would initiate even when my mind was not on sex at all. When we had sex, it would go on for hours. Yes, there was foreplay, with mutual stimulation, oral stimulation and orgasms. She liked it. She made requests. She asked for more. She gave instructions.
What killed our sex lives? First of all, marriage (in 1996). After a few months of sex every day when we were married and lived together, perhaps even more than once a day, it just kind of took a nosedive. Then when my wife got pregnant, there would be months without sex. Then after our second child (in 2000), my wife announced that she did not need sex anymore, because she had had our planned two children. She suddenly announced that sex was for procreation (not for bonding, love, pleasure or pleasure giving).
Furthermore, she brought up her past as a sex abuse and sex assault victim, saying me touching her reminded her of the kinds of men who molested her in public. (My wife is Japanese, from Japan.) I knew from early on in our relationship that my wife was a victim (beginning at age nine). However, it never served to put a damper on her sex drive or enthusiasm for sex before.
We have had entire years without sex. There have been times (like now) I could not longer remember the last time. When my wife does give in, she treats it like a chore, something that prevents her from sleeping, reading, watching TV or doing sudoku. We have had sex WHILE she watched TV. I am not joking. We have probably not made out this decade. Seriously. And in 2000, my wife once woke me up with a handjob, because she wanted me to wake up and look after our daughter while she went out. That was the last time I recall my wife initiating, and it was for ulterior motive.
My wife's *physical* response to sex remains the same. She is stimulated and achieves orgasm and multiple orgasm as quickly and easily as in 1995. She has simply decided she no longer wants or desires sex. Or even physical intimacy from me. Our cats get more affection than I get. Seriously.
Talking or compromise are not options. I can either live with what she wants (or I should say, what SHE does NOT want), take her up on her offer to have an affair, or divorce her. Posters here talk about compromise when the partner with low sex drive is a man, but I know from experience that I will be criticized or condemned when I talk about my experience with my wife, a woman with low sex drive.
Quite frankly, I felt like my wife had deceived me, using sex while dating or during our engagement, to keep me around, then cut me off after she reached her goal of marriage and two children. Marriage and two children was my goal as well. We had talked about it since before we were married (again, beginning in 1995). But I kind of assumed that married people and parents continued having sex as well.
I do think its much more unfair to announce you never want to have sex again ever. I think so far we've mostly been talking about people who find themselves with a lower drive than the other person, not people who announce they have no interest in sex ever again. Dan Savage would say your wife did the right thing by telling you you can have an affair. I don't know what I would tell you; that situation sucks.
I don't want an affair, even if say, I could have young, no strings attached Japanese women (which was an option while living in Japan). Sex for money was also an ever present option in Japan. Options are also available while working as a male nurse and attending nursing school with unattached women as young as 19. Never acted on any of them. Call me strange, but it's my wife I want to be with.
you sound like a nice guy. i'm sorry about your situation :( i hope it works out for both of you and that you guys can find a way to make each other happy. you deserve to be happy too.
I'm happy with my wife, and it's not a lack of sex which makes me unhappy. My overriding issue in life is not acting on opportunities (education, career, pre-Assault Weapons Ban, IPO on Yahoo! and Google, Apple Computer at $3 a share, houses in Hawaii at $100,000) when they presented themselves.
Thanks for sharing your story.
It does sound familiar - I've worked with guys who had similar experiences... their wife was very sexual when they were dating, and in early marriage, but after she had the number of kids she wanted, she totally shut down sexually.
I hate to say it, but perhaps it's time for a divorce.
Because you deserve to have a sex life - and your current partner is NOT going to give you that.
No one DESERVES a sex life - you have to work to get it and to get the one you want. I have a feeling that the men you work with, don't work for it themselves. They probably just go for the cooch without making their wives feel sexy (i've dated these types - they just shuv a dry finger in there and just expect me to be in the mood).
I've been in a number of long relationships and guys just get really lazy. When they are trying to secure the relationship - they are the biggest sweet hearts, can't tell you enough how hot you are, constantly grab at your ass and other behaviors that make you feel sexy... but once the relationship is secure, they stop doing those things and just continue to think that all that crap they said in the past, will still stand... It's an on-going thing... If they want to continue to get sex, they have to treat their ladies with the same passion they did in the beginning.
It just bugs me so much that there are men who still think they are entitled to a woman who is ready and willing, without being ready and willing to meet her needs.
Funk dat!
This is a very powerful post, thank you for sharing.
Quite frankly, I think you were deceived and betrayed. IMO not only is it completely unfair to make such an announcement and not put any effort into ever trying to understand how you feel or work on satisfying you somehow, but it is a complete betrayal.
Now that you have kids and a life together, it is like she is banking on the fact that you won't leave because of it. I don't know what to advise. If it were me, it wouldn't even just be the lack of sex but the betrayal. I'd have to seriously consider leaving, even if I didn't find sex with anyone else but just on the grounds of deceit and betrayal. But I cannot know your situation and if you love her and have a life together that is not easy. Yet I don't think I could get past how uncaring and uncompromising and unwilling to even consider someone else's needs it seems.
Best of luck to you and I hope I did not offend you with my reply. I will need to think on this.
It sounds like betrayal to us americans, but maybe from a japanese perspective he would be the one committing a betrayal by insisting that his wife continue having sex past the time when she would normally expect to move over entirely into the role of mother.
I don't really know becuase I'm not japanese, but if they didn't actually talk about these expectations at the beginning of the relationship, there might have just been different cultural expectations there and they might both be surprised to find out that their expectations aren't the same.
As Americans I think we assume that the goal is to continue having a happy sex life as long as possible and if we aren't planning to do that we should say so. But other cultures might have other norms.
I've been here a lot. I think there are three options:
-Deal.
-Get some from outside (I'd talk about it first if I were you).
-DTMFA.
Good luck!
I'm all for DTMFA when the person is a loser, abuser or any of those other relationship osers. How about we don't refer to people with low sex drives as mother fuckers?
Denying one's partner the amount of sex they need is - while not quite abuse - not conducive to a good relationship either.
So it might be best for all concerned if the high sex drive partner found somebody who was sexually compatible.
One thing I'm curious about - how could you be with somebody for 4 years, actually get married to them, and THEN discover the sexual incompatibility?
I don't know because I've never been married, but isn't that one of the conversations that people have a really long time before they tie the knot?
If not - no wonder so many people get divorced!
"One thing I'm curious about - how could you be with somebody for 4 years, actually get married to them, and THEN discover the sexual incompatibility?"
Because people like my wife exhibit change AFTER *years* of marriage, and AFTER having children. It's not "incompatibility," my wife CHANGED.
Again, let me suggest that, perhaps, you should divorce her.
You sound miserable - and you deserve to be happy.
I know you want to have a sexual relationship with your wife - but she doesn't want to have a sexual relationship with you!
So perhaps it's time to leave her to be asexual by herself, while you find a new wife that will have sex with you.
"So it might be best for all concerned if the high sex drive partner found somebody who was sexually compatible."
What about the low sex drive partner?
Call me crazy but I'm gonna say you have a high sex drive. That's great but not all of us are all sexual all the time. Can't you get yourself off and let us read a damn book in peace?
Why not leave the mismatched partner and find someone with a matching sex drive? Isn't it kind of a bad situation for both?
Have you changed? Do you treat her differently than you did when you were on the "chase"?
Here's my advice - make her feel sexy... Tell her she's hot, that her ass looks hot in those jeans, that you can't get enough of her...
If there is one thing that has been common in every single relationship I have ever been in is that men get lazy. They stop being super passionate about their wife/gf. I understand that some of that is going to settle but you need to pull it out again (no pun).
A lot of times we think it is just the other person changing but sometimes we contribute to that (actually MOST of the time, the problem is a fault of both people). For example - I was with a guy once who had trouble getting it up all the time (a few months into the relationship) and I would get really upset. I felt completely worthless - like he totally just wasn't into me... Everytime I got upset, I was setting our next sexual encounter up for the same problem. It was a vicious circle. When I learned to not take it so personally - it stopped happening and things got better...
And maybe when you talk to her - maybe you make it about YOU not getting sex, rather than "us"... Do you know what I mean? If she feels like the sex is what you miss, rather than connecting with her on that intimate level - she's going to be less enthusiastic.
Another thing - are you selfish sexually? Were you more concerned about what felt good to you, than what felt good to her? I've dated a lot of guys who were selfish (and really unaware of it) and couldn't understand why I just sat there like a dead fish... Do you touch her and feel her when you make love or do you just lay there?
There are definitely certain things men do and don't do that can lead a woman to have poor sex drive...
If she does desire to have a higher sex drive - have her check her hormone levels. She can have bio-identical hormones made that can change all of this very easy if that is the problem.
Some people do naturally have low sex drives. Also, medical conditions and medications can cause a lower sex drive and that can't always be fixed.
One of the medications that manages my heart disease very well happens to dampen my libido substantially. I also experience chronic fatigue. Yet I realize that sex is an important component of our relationship and a vital way to feel closer to each other. So I push myself to say yes more often, and I'm always glad I did because I enjoy it more than I thought I would as I considered sex in the abstract with my lack of desire and low energy level. I also don't feel a need to have an orgasm every time.
I also noticed that I felt more like having sex if we cuddled for awhile with no pressure. So we talked about that and we started having more no-pressure cuddles. Often they lead to sex, with me initiating.
Sex is one of the things we expect when we join our lives with our partner and I think there are lots of different ways to compromise. How about having sex twice as often and in between, hold your partner while he or she masturbates? How about participating in a make out session before your partner uses her vibrator? Do some hot dancing together on a day you aren't having sex and show your partner he or she is really sexy to you. There are so many activities that fall under sex that can validate your partner's sexual side and need to feel attractive. I'm sure you can find something in your comfort zone.
I was just about to say that I am the one with the lower sex drive in my relationship but would rather be more willing more often, and ask for suggestions. Thanks for beating me to it. :)
I also wish I were more horny more often. Too bad there's no miracle pill for women. I want to have sex but I don't get horny that much. The way I explain it is the difference between wanting to eat some food you like because you know it will taste good, and actually being hungry. I want to have sex because in theory I know that its an enjoyable thing, but I rarely have this drive to do it like some people seem to. The result is that I need a LOT of foreplay to be able to have sex without too much pain, and that means it takes a lot of time and effort and we don't end up doing it as much. I *wish* I could enjoy a quickie here and there, but I just can't.
Heh, I think my problem is the exact opposite. I want quickies more often than he does but my SO likes to take a long time, which usually gives me too much time to think about all of the other things I have to think about and kills my mood.
I guess that just goes to show that every woman likes something different. ;)
This is how I am. I used to do the long foreplay but that doesn't really work for me because my body just doesn't respond until actual penetration (or a brand new sexual experience but at this point, i've tried so many I'm not willing to try any more for a while) so now I just endure the pain for a moment. My vagina soon responds by lubing up and being more receptive and it is enjoyable within seconds. Not a perfect solution but it works for me. I'm hoping my body will eventually take the hint. Also, I'm going to get of hormonal birth control soon and see if that helps.
Also, my sex drive is just lower than my husbands so I try to do other things like parallel masturbation (with some partner motivation and participation), cuddling, making-out, flirting, etc. cause it's fun and because it lets him know that even though I have a lowish sex drive, I'm still madly in love with him.
When I first started having sex, it was painful for me. It turned out to be a hymen problem, but at the time I did a bit of research into what it could be, and turned up some info about lubrication.
Drinking more water and getting exercise during the day can help you lube up at night. It's also a good idea to avoid alcohol before the act, but you probably knew that.
You might try the water and exercise thing, and see if you respond faster.
Emily: I pretty much always have pain with initial penetration also, and then it goes away. It worked ok for the first year or so of sex but now its really starting to bother me more. I guess the initial novelty of sex is wearing off and I'm more apprehensive of that pain, even if it only lasts a couple seconds. I saw a doctor and she recommended some vaginal stretches, so we'll see how that goes.
Sabriel: I know alcohol officially makes your body do bad things like constricting blood vessels and being more dry. But I've found that having a drink or two before sex is the only way lately for me to get really into it. I don't want that to be a requirement for sex, but it does work very well.
I also suspect I'm dry because of birth control pills, but I never had sex before I took them so I can't compare. And I don't want to go back to worrying about getting pregnant and having unexpected heavy periods, so I think I'm stuck.
I'm dry because of statins and I just use lube every time. Plus I'm getting closer to menopause so I expect that will affect me too.
Oh man we use so much lube. I've never done it without lube. I find myself wondering how people can. We've tried water based and settled on silicone. It helps a lot but doesn't completely eliminate the issue.
You're welcome!
I used to have a much stronger sex drive and I suspect if I went off one of the heart meds I'd be back to normal in that respect. But my meds are doing so well for my heart that I don't want to mess with the balance.
I would talk about having an open relationship. I just couldnt imagine wanting sex everyday and having it every couple weeks or once a month. Thats a BIG difference in wants/needs. Sex is not everything, but I think their wants are so different there has to be another option.
Whenever he gets questions similar to this, sex columnist Dan Savage suggests that if both people agree, they open the relationship (physically, that is). I think this makes an awful lot of sense.
Insisting that your partner compromise is like a nice way of saying "pressure your partner to engage in sexual activity when they don't want to," and I'm pretty sure we don't do that here.... You and your partner both have an equal right to desire as much sex as you want. If either of you is unsatisfied, have an adult conversation about it and decide what to do. If you can't both be happy, you can leave or you can choose your own unhappiness. You can't ask your partner to be unhappy for your own benefit. Period.
"You can't ask your partner to be unhappy for your own benefit. Period."
But isn't that what you're doing to the high sex partner if you don't agree to some sort of compromise...
ok don't have sex more, but there are other options.
"But isn't that what you're doing to the high sex partner if you don't agree to some sort of compromise..."
No, I don't think so at all. I mean, to me it reads like you (and Dr. Foxy) are suggesting that we have a responsibility to offer our bodies up to our partners in order to make them happy, and are just using prettier language to sort of dance around that root sentiment.
Our individual happiness and our individual bodies are in our own control. If the partner with the greater sex drive is unhappy, they should be looking to change their own behavior to find happiness, not their partner's. If they can't find happiness by changing their behavior within the bounds of the relationship, they are welcome to leave said relationship.
This is not to suggest that the partner with the lower sex drive might not want to change their behavior too, in the interest of maintaining the relationship. That's what you find out through conversation. Maybe the end result wouldn't be that different from what Prof. Foxy suggested, but the advice in the column makes me uncomfortable because of the perspective it takes.
The advice in the column (as I read it), essentially says: YOU, happy partner, must change YOUR behavior in order to make ME, unhappy partner, feel good. What I'm suggesting is that the advice should be: I, unhappy partner, need to explore ways to make ME happy, in collaboration with YOU, the happy partner.
"The advice in the column (as I read it), essentially says: YOU, happy partner, must change YOUR behavior in order to make ME, unhappy partner, feel good. What I'm suggesting is that the advice should be: I, unhappy partner, need to explore ways to make ME happy, in collaboration with YOU, the happy partner."
Why is the one who wants (more) sex, yet not having it; the frustrated one who writes in to the advisor, called the "happy" one? Is it not the opposite? It is the person with the LOW sex drive who is satisfied with little or no sex (like my wife, who has already successfully procreated).
"YOU, happy partner, must change YOUR behavior in order to make ME, unhappy partner, feel good," would mean the LOW sex drive partner make the effort please their partner sexually.
I don't really understand how the high sex drive partner is supposed to make themselves happy in this regard without the help of the other person.
Are you suggesting an affair? Because that's about the only solution I can think of that doesn't involve the other partner helping them out in some way.
What is your idea?
"Our individual happiness and our individual bodies are in our own control. If the partner with the greater sex drive is unhappy, they should be looking to change their own behavior to find happiness, not their partner's. If they can't find happiness by changing their behavior within the bounds of the relationship, they are welcome to leave said relationship."
This is unnecessarily adversarial. I am (right now) the low desire partner in my relationship. My partner is unhappy with the frequency of our sexual interaction. I love my partner. I want him to be happy. I am unhappy that he is unhappy. We want to find a solution that helps us BOTH be happy.
If my partner decided that because we weren't having sex often enough and he couldn't find a way to be thrilled with the status quo, he should just up and leave, my contentment with not having sex would be rapidly replaced with deep unhappiness that my partner was gone.
I agree, but at the same time, I feel that the less horny partner should at least try to have sex a little bit more. I feel that one should enjoy making their partner happy, and sometimes you have to things that you don't enjoy to do that.
I don't particularly enjoy giving blowjobs, but I do enjoy making my partner happy. I don't enjoy baseball, but my partner does, and I can enjoy the smile on his face when we're at a game.
I don't think that anyone should have to have sex if they don't want to. But sometimes you do things that you don't want to do, because other people want you to do them.
I can understand not having sex if sex is painful or for some reason a negative experience. But not having sex because it's boring or you'd rather watch TV just seems a little selfish. Selfishness is OK sometimes, but not all the time
I agree, and an effort can be made to try and get in the mood more often. Like consciously thinking about sexual scenarios with your partner before you come home. I'm rarely in the mood on my own, but when I try to be, I can be more often and I often find when I don't want to have sex, it is just that I would rather surf the internet, which is not fair. While it is not OK to make someone feel bad if they don't enjoy sex or it is a bad experience for them, it isn't wrong for one partner to actively try to become hornier and for the other to accept cuddling, flirting, and making out instead of sex sometimes and perhaps less often then they would like.
"You can't ask your partner to be unhappy for your own benefit. Period."
But isn't that what you're doing to the high sex partner if you don't agree to some sort of compromise...
ok don't have sex more, but there are other options.
I am so glad I read this post. My bf and I are in a similar situation with him having the lower sex drive. His is partly about his spirituality and wanting to refrain from physical pleasures, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been hard for us. We have managed to compromise in a way that works for both of us though, and we made sure that it isn't something so rigid that if one of us isn't in the mood, it doesn't have to be a pressured situation. We agreed on about once a week, but it could be more, or could be less. Also, he has agreed to pleasure me only in between the times we have sex. Someone mentioned they should just leave and find someone more compatible? My bf is absolutely my best friend. He is the most compassionate, kind, funny, sensitive and understanding person I have ever had in my life, and there is no way I would give that up because our sex drives are not exactly the same. What if one of us being paralyzed and were unable to have sex? I still wouldn't dream of leaving him, and neither would he.
While I agree completely with the rest of your post, I am pretty sure that paralysis does not mean that a person can't have sex and/or doesn't want to. It may be different from able-bodied sex but that doesn't make it not sex.
I totally I agree, I should have capitalized the IF we were unable. I am totally aware that people with varying degrees of paralysis are able to have sex. I was just trying to make the point that I am thankful in a way to not be so attached to the physical aspect of our relationship, as it (as it is now) could be taken away at any point. I am glad to know that we have a sold foundation that is separate from anything physical.
"What if one of us being paralyzed and were unable to have sex? I still wouldn't dream of leaving him, and neither would he."
I'm glad you mentioned this. Lack of sex is no reason to give up my wife. I dated and later married her because we had fun in cooking class and talking on the phone. After 14 years together, I can't imagine meeting someone better or investing that amount of time in again, to have that kind of relationship. And we're 40 now. I assume there will be even less sex at 50, 60 70, or 80, if we last that long.
"Lack of sex is no reason to give up my wife."
Actually, it kinda is
It's grounds for divorce in my state - and, let's face it, you deserve a wife who wants you sexually, and she deserves a husband who dislikes sex as much as she does.
Neither one of you can be that for each other.
"And we're 40 now. I assume there will be even less sex at 50, 60 70, or 80, if we last that long."
Is it even mathematically possible to have less sex than you're having now?
That's a depressing way to think - I'm 40 too, and if I thought the way you did, I'd be miserable.
There are lots of single women out there our age - no, they are not your wife, but they are women who want to have a sex life, and I'm quite sure a lot of them would love to have that sex life with a guy like you.
So why cheat yourself - and them - out of that opportunity?
And why cheat your wife out of an opportunity to live a guilt-free asexual life?
You can keep complaining about your problems.
Or you can solve them.
It's up to you!
Seriously, gregory butler:
your comments here and elsewhere make me cringe so, so often; it seems to me this isn't really the space for you. Telling another guy to leave his wife because he isn't getting any? On a feminist website? Where are your manners?
I love how the only way he can see fixing the problem is to leave the wife (no wonder divorce is such common place)...
Sometimes the lack of sex in a relationship is a symptom of something bigger, not the other way around.
Like maybe the guy up there that doesn't get any from his wife never tells her how much he appreciates her, maybe he ignores her all day long, except for that moment he tries to get some. Maybe he doesn't make her feel desireable, so that when he does try to have sex with her - she feels like it's about doing the "chore" rather than sharing an intimate moment. Maybe he watches too much porn and thinks sex with his wife can and should be devoid of any kind of affection.
Not to mention - I've been with a lot of guys who were just plain selfish when it came to sex... Even after telling them that I don't like a dry finger jammed up there, they didn't mind doing it again. Or expecting me to do all the work while they just lay there...
Any woman in these situations is going to become disenchanted over time - and the same is true for men who are treated thus.
"There are lots of single women out there our age - no, they are not your wife, but they are women who want to have a sex life, and I'm quite sure a lot of them would love to have that sex life with a guy like you."
True but I'll tell you what - most of the guys who have shitty sex lives with their wives - will have shitty sex lives with the women they hook up with in the future (if not at first) and it's because of THEM. The lack of sex in relationships can have many dynamics, none of which can be blamed on ONE person.
Another thing you completely ignore is that a lot of women and men decline in hormone production as they get older. This can be fixed easily with bio-identical hormones (depending on which needed), most people don't know about this. Sometimes the lack of sex isn't about desire but totally biological. To suggest a man should leave his wife due to something that is beyond her control (or that she is unaware of) is completely messed up.
I don't agree with Gregory's post, or his position, but don't you see a little logical problem with this statement:
"True but I'll tell you what - most of the guys who have shitty sex lives with their wives - will have shitty sex lives with the women they hook up with in the future (if not at first) and it's because of THEM. The lack of sex in relationships can have many dynamics, none of which can be blamed on ONE person."
So, the guys "will have shitty sex lives" and "it's because of THEM" but none of the problems in a relationship "can be blamed on ONE person"?
The man is to blame for the sexual dynamic of the relationship, but no individual can be responsible for the dynamics of a relationship?
To suggest a man should leave his wife due to something that is beyond her control (or that she is unaware of) is completely messed up.
That kind of depends who you ask. Many feminists would say that you need to ensure your personal happiness first.
I'm the one with the low sex drive. Most important thing is to talk, talk, talk. We've agreed to cuddle more and to be ok if cuddling doesn't lead to sex. My partner is happy if I get her off, and I'm okay if she masturbates. She knows that my lack of drive has nothing to do with her--she is the most beautiful, desirable woman I know. But all of this is worked out slowly, frequently, sensitively.
For me, I found I was often too tired or stressed at the end of the day to have sex. Once we talked, I realized I felt like I had so much to do that I didn't have energy left for sex. So my partner took over some things like taking the dog out in the evening, cooking more often, helping with the laundry. These little things surprised and pleased me. It demonstrated her love for me in a very real way. She also appreciated me more, the things I had been doing around the house. And it left me with more mental and physical energy at the end of the day, which led to more sex. We also tried to go to bed earlier, before we were drop-dead tired.
Morning sex is yet another way to cope with the obstacle of being tired or having chronic fatigue, as I do. :)
My girlfriend and I had this problem for a while. Now we're non-monogamous. It has become much less of an issue. It also helps her a lot because she's bisexual and gets some bio-cock this way. Now a bigger percentage of our together-intimacy comes through cuddling. I can see why this wouldn't be a good solution for a lot of other couples, but it's helped us.
Bio-cock? What is that?
Biological cock. Non-silicone phallus.
Anyone who uses the term "lesbian bed death" and believes in it is definitely NOT a feminist.
Well. Glad to see the Feminism Police showed up to clear that one up.
LOL I second that.
Anyone who uses the term "lesbian bed death" and believes in it is definitely NOT a feminist.
anyone who uses the term "lesbian bed death" and actually believes in it is definitely NOT a feminist.
I'm really surprised at the number of people who have said that comprise is about enforcing a set of conditions on one party. That is not compromise. Insisting that one's partner perform a certain number of times per week (which is either less than or more than the partner's ideal number) is not compromise. Compromise is when both parties agree, not when one party enforces their solution on the other. The party of the higher sex drives agrees that they will accept some lower amount of sex than is ideal for them. The party of the lower sex drive agrees that they will accept some higher amount of sex than is ideal for them. If they are lucky, the amount more and less of sex that they agree to results in an acceptable frequency for both. If not, they negotiate some more. If there comes a time when one party feels that the agreement isn't working, then the agreement is renegotiated.
It's not so different from cooking dinner or washing the dishes, really. Say you agree that 3 nights a week one person cooks, 3 nights a week the other person cooks, the last night you eat out. Then one person gets a shift change and has to work 5 evenings a week and can't cook more than 2 nights per week. Now you renegotiate. Say they cook 2 nights a week but make enough for leftovers so that the other person is not stuck with more cooking. Or maybe the other person agrees to do more cooking. Many solutions are possible.
Negotiation in a relationship should not be something that happens once. People change, their situations change, their needs change, they mis-estimate their needs and find that they can't actually live with the solution they suggested in the first place. Negotiation of relationship parameters, sex, finances, child care, is a constant process.
When both people are happy and agree to do the same thing, that's a situation where you don't need compromise. In general the word compromise refers to choosing a position in the middle in between two extremes, or to both people making concessions that they may not be thrilled with.
I think sexual relationships should always cater to the lower sex drive as far as that person's autonomy. Honestly, if you have a higher sex drive it still doesn't mean you have a right to another person's body. There are toys. There are hands. Just because you are in a relationship does not mean that you require another person's help to get you off. It just seems to me to be the height of selfishness to require one's partner to assist them simply because they are biologically different.
And "well, you help me in the bedroom and I'll help you outside the bedroom" shouldn't enter into it either. Tit for tat in a sexual relationship makes it a zero sum game, and that's not healthy either.
What I think would help these couples is to analyze why they feel that partnered sex is SO important that they are letting this become an issue. We are programmed by society to think that sex = love when somewhere in our brains we know this is not always true. If you think of sex as the only/best way to bond, then why on earth would you pressure someone to compromise into having sex every Monday and Wednesday just because you want it every day? If they're doing it out of obligation and not love, it loses all the meaning. If it's about your horniness ... there are toys. (No, "just orally/manually please your partner" is not better than "just have sex." It's the same thing.) It's not a matter of "if you love me, you'll do it." It's a matter of biology and brain chemistry. You really can't force someone to be horny, no matter how much they love you.
Focus on things that are not inherently sexual, like cuddling, talking, and doing activities together. There are other ways to bond as a couple that don't require the physical dedication that sex does. And we should know that not having sex with someone doesn't mean you don't love them. But not talking to/hugging/hanging out with someone might. If your partner doesn't want to touch you, then there may be an issue. If your partner doesn't want to have sex with you, don't jump to conclusions and just take care of it on your own if you have to. (If your partner takes offense at you taking care of it on your own, that's another matter.)
yes, but it is and can be extremely damaging to the relationship, and to the higher sex drive partner to be rejected constantly.
cuddling, taking walks, going to yoga class together, making dinner together--all of those things are great. but i could do some of them with my mom, and some of them with my friends, and some of them with my other friends. sex is unique to a romantic partner.
a compromise doesn't have to meet that the low sex drive partner has sex with the high sex drive partner on demand. it could mean that the low sex drive partner watches his/her partner masturbate, or gets him/her off manually or whatever.
but speaking from experience, and having had boyfriends who would say no 99% of the time, it is devastating to one's self esteem. sometimes sex can be used as a weapon, or to control the other partner's self esteem. and saying no constantly can border on emotional abuse, in many respects.
It's true. I can think of situations where refusing sex can be a form of emotional abuse. I remember reading a posting over at BitchPhD about a woman who had been with a man who always refused her and was only ever interested in sex when she was half-asleep and not able to enjoy it. In that case it did seem to be about destroying the self esteem of the partner and denying them what they need.
However, I think that is a very different case from somebody who just has low sex drive, and it's not really fair to compare the situations.
Yes sex then often becomes a tool of blackmail too - I have been there.
You work so hard to try and do all these things for your partner, in the HOPE, the HOPE, that maybe then they will have sex with you. You become a slave to the other person, never want to get mad at them (even when you are), etc., etc. because you are afraid any little you thing you do or don't do will hurt your already low chances of getting sex.
So the person with the lower sex drive gets ALL THE POWER. It becomes a big power imbalance, the person with higher sex drive self-esteem just plummets, they become completely disillusioned. It spirals. It can be terrible.
Again it depends on the extent, but just as perhaps some of us aren't fully understanding the low sex drive position - some people here definitely are not understanding the higher sex drive position either. That's why compromise and discussion is key, since both sides need to understand the other, and meet somewhere in the middle, even if it is more on the side of the low sex drive partner, it doesn't have to be 100% in their favour, else isn't that just selfishness? At least talk about it and understand the other person's feelings and position and try to help them somehow, that is all people are saying here.
I'm the low sex drive partner in my relationship, and I think people are glossing over that there are vastly different reasons for low sex drive. In my case, it's not about controlling my boyfriend, it's not about health, it's not about "not trying new fantasies", it's CERTAINLY not about lack of interest, it's because sex is emotionally painful and traumatizing to me (due to some past stuff). If he were to pressure me to have more sex with him, I'd have to leave him. I am not abusing him by withholding sex, I am simply putting my own emotional needs surrounding sex higher. We both make enough efforts to be non-sexually intimate with each other and talk it over enough to know where we stand on it.
I think the dialogue should do more to recognize that they are SO many different reasons for the low sex drive partner to not want or be up to sex. Some reasons can be fixed by switching medication, some by trying new sex acts, and some need a long time or therapy to overcome. And yes, sometimes it's an act of abuse. But conversely, pressuring your S.O. to have sex when it's painful (emotionally or physically) is also an act of abuse.
It sucks to be the low sex drive partner too. To constantly feel that you're not fulfilling your partner, to wonder if they think you don't find them attractive, etcetera, takes a toll on self-esteem too.
A few years ago, I saw a French movie called "Romance." I wasn't as aware as a feminist when I saw it, so I can't recommend it as a feminist film or anything, but this conversation reminds me of that movie.
It is about a woman who has a high sex drive whose husband denies her sex. He is a real bastard about it. She eventually starts looking for sex outside the marriage, in a lot of different places. It is a very explicit film. I really wouldn't call it a porno because it's not about the sex. I will admit that I don't get turned on by porno very easily, but the sex scenes seemed to be more about what was happening on a character level and less about providing the audience with wank material.
In any case, one of the things the movie is about is how damaging it can be to have a high sex drive and be in a relationship with somebody who you love and want to be faithful to who will not have sex with you.
I am pretty sure there is also a message in there about what it does to women in general when our sexuality is suppressed and ignored by society.
You should be aware that the movie is not very sympathetic towards her husband, and I think it may be banned in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_(1999_film)
Since when does the U.S. ban films?
yeah, I thought about that after I posted it, LOL. I had done a quick search on it so that I could link it, and a few of the links said "banned in the U.S." and I didn't question it. *sheepish grin*
Somewhere later I read that it was in the U.S. with an R rating. So much for that. I do remember that when I saw it 5 years ago my friend had a hard time getting a hold of it, but that is probably just because it's not mainstream.
I officially retract what I said about it being banned in the U.S.
Wikipedia seems to indicate it was edited down to an R rated version for US theaters, and the original version was unrated in the US (presumably only available on tape or something).
I don't think the U.S. as a country bans any movies. However, they might give them NC 17 ratings ( or higher, is XXX a rating?), and individual theaters might refuse to show them.
I want to be sympathetic to some of the stuff in this comment, but I think part of the issue here is that there is a lot of shaming out there regarding sex, those who desire sex, and especially women who desire sex -- and so all of this "Hey why do you *think* you want sex anyway? Can't you find some other way to bond?" stuff really rubs me the wrong way. Sex is important. Very, very important. I don't think there is any somehow objectively right frequency or that it is even necessary for love or any of that, but, well, I really like my sexuality, I think it is a precious and beautiful and powerful thing, and I want to be able to share it with someone freely. If I can't, I am leaving them. I can explore various compromises, but if I am ever made to feel as if I am somehow wrong for prioritizing this part of my life, I should find someone else to spend that time with. It's not because they're somehow bad people for not caving to my desires, or something. It's that there is this very rich part of my life that I desperately want to share with my romantic partner, and if I can't share that with them, then -- for me, personally -- there's no reason that I shouldn't just be friends with them and look for someone else who does want to share that with me. And I am tired, and I am mad, at all the noise out there saying that I am somehow bad and cruel and perverse for wanting the kind of love and life that I want.
I think more people should just be up front and unequivocal about what they want, and not date each other if they have mismatched ideas of what they want, and more generally, not view dating as some kind of objective reflection of their character (e.g. dating someone or not dating someone because on some abstract level they "deserve" it).
I used to be a high sex drive person so I remember what it was like. I also spent a number of years without a partner, recovering from domestic violence from my first relationship. I agree with you, sex is an important component of the relationship, and remembering what it felt to have a fairly high sex drive and NOT have a partner is part of what inspires me to try to meet my husband half way. Yes I used vibrators and hands and anything else...but none of those objects provide the experience of making love. When that feeling of loving and being loved is there WITH the pleasure and the orgasm, it can be transcendent.
So I'll keep working on finding a balance between my current low desire state and my husband's current high desire state. I think it's worth it.
To those who suggest an open relationship would be the way to go, I add that it wouldn't work for me. I'm far more willing to increase my frequency than deal with my emotional fallout around that. It works well for others I'm sure. I just doubt that I will ever be in that headspace.
Idiolect, that's unfortunate if you're feeling like your sexuality or desire has been unfairly criticized, but I read most comments in the other light. I didn't see shaming of those with high sex drives, but rather calls for the person with the high sex drive to leave their partner. No doubt you can see how damaging stuff like that is to individuals with lower sex drives-- the message I get from posts like that is "You're defective! You're ruining this relationship! You're not doing enough!"
Frankly, the people proudly proclaiming their constant horniness and how very, very important sex is to them, and how they always want to be sexual w/ their partners rubs ME the wrong way. Maybe it's because we're coming at it from different sides, but I'm just as sick of the noise on this post telling me that I'm selfish, cold, or undeserving of my partner simply because I don't want sex as much as he does.
I'm not saying anyone is selfish and cold, and others shouldn't be saying that high sex drive people are somehow wrong for being that way (which is what I took from the comment I was responding to, particularly the frankly kind of condescending call to "analyze why they feel that partnered sex is SO important that they are letting this become an issue"). Let me say this a different way:
People should be able to communicate with each other, try to help each other be happy, and ultimately break up with each other if they can't be, without all this language of judgment on each other's character. My being upset about being sexually unfulfilled is not a character judgment rendered against my partner, and their being upset that I'm upset shouldn't be a character judgment against me. And we shouldn't be afraid to call it quits and go in search of a better match somewhere else if it turns out that we just don't connect well sexually (both in terms of frequency but also quality), and I mean that for both partners or any people anywhere regardless of particular level of sex drive.
So I guess what I'm asking for is a little bit of respect, here, and not all this suggestive questioning about whether I really *should* be this sex-oriented, whether it somehow points to a fault in my character (e.g. being brainwashed by society to believe that sex is important to me when it really shouldn't be, as in the comment I was responding to). In return I promise to extend the same sort of respect to someone with a low sex drive. This is exactly why I'm advocating people having the nerve to break up, actually, because if you really do have mismatched sex drives and there really isn't anything you can do about it, the options are: 1) just be miserable, for the sake of maintaining the relationship** 2) begin a disrespectful dialogue in which you are both in a constant struggle of mutual armchair psychoanalysis wherein you both accuse the other of having priorities that are somehow objectively wrong, or 3) break up.
**I do think that this is a reasonable choice sometimes, I just don't want people to choose it out of some outmoded notion of nobility where sex is dirty and shameful and should be given up for the sake of "higher" pleasures like playing scrabble together or whatever.
I couldn't agree more, Karumi.
P.S. I don't think of sex as the "only/best" way to bond. I *do* think it's a pretty fantastic way, though.
Yes, people can use vibrators or porno, but at the end of the day, isn't sex the very POINT of a romantic relationship?
I mean, you can do all that talking and activities and bonding stuff - and even some of the hugging and cuddling stuff - with your friends.
Look, if two partners have very different and incompatible sex drives, it would probably be in the best interest of the partner who likes sex more to find another partner - one who likes sex as much and as frequently as they do.
Or, there's always the polyamory and sex worker options for the partner who wants sex more (assuming the partner who wants sex less is cool with that).
Yes, people can use vibrators or porno, but at the end of the day, isn't sex the very POINT of a romantic relationship?
I mean, you can do all that talking and activities and bonding stuff - and even some of the hugging and cuddling stuff - with your friends.
Technically, yes. You can. But do you look at your friend with googooly love eyes? Do you feel tender toward, and thrilled by, your friend? Does your friend make you feel that passionate "ohmygodiLOVEyou" rush when he looks at you a certain way?
You're more than oversimplifying. I understand you want to point out the importance of sex, but doing it by minimizing the power and uniqueness of a romantic relationship ruins the credibility of the rest of what you're saying.
Yeah, I have to agre with kit. I can do those things with other people, but it's not the same as doing them with my partner. Spending time with my partner is unlike spending time with friends or family, and it's ALL of that time, sexual or otherwise, that makes a relationship.
I agree too, though I also agree/think that having sexual fun with your partner is not the same as masturbation, for the exact same reasons doing things with friends aren't the same. Quite a parallel actually.
Yes, people can use vibrators or porno, but at the end of the day, isn't sex the very POINT of a romantic relationship?
The existence of non-aromantic asexuals disproves this statement.
It may be that for you, the sole thing that distinguishes romantic relationships and friendships is sex, but it is certainly not the case for many other people. And I'm not saying that anyone who thinks that this is true or that sex is an essential part of a romantic relationship is wrong or shallow somehow, just that opinions and needs in this regard *differ* and there's no need to erase the relationships of, among others, a group of people that's already made invisible far too often.
Thank you Professor Foxy for including both hetero and lesbian situations.
As the one with the higher sex drive, I want to say that it is not as easy as just compromising more days to have sex, and that's that. Because on the days where my boyfriend typically doesn't want to, if I felt like he was forcing himself to have sex with me, I'd be so turned off I'd rather just wait a day or so until he really wants me.
Also, Thank you Professor Foxy for including both hetero and lesbian situations. I don't believe we give enough praise to the OP sometimes.
No problem. People who use that term should get off feministing and read up on their beloved Frued(pathetic misogynist who inspires people like Dr. Pepper Schwartz to this very day)
oops. that was suppd to read Freud. anyway you get the idea.
What do you mean by "sex," exactly? In the past I tended to think of sex as heterosexual intercourse, and I was surprised to discover that my husband had a much different definition. For him, "sex" is most activities that involve touching genitalia.
Discovering that we had this different definition was key to resolving our different levels of sex drive. When I say I rarely want "sex," I mean I rarely want to have intercourse or have my genitalia touched, but I am frequently delighted to kiss and pet and cuddle my husband while naked. When he says he frequently wants "sex," he wants the intimacy of being naked and the sense of being wanted that comes from being petted and cuddled and kissed and given a hand job, and intercourse is highly optional.
So we deal with our differing levels of sex drive by having different amounts of sex, even though we're doing the exact same activities together. We do what he classifies as sex frequently and what I classify as sex rarely.
Before going for numerical compromises, I strongly suggest clarifying exactly and explicitly what you mean when you say "I want sex." Certainly it won't always be the case, but sometimes the conflict may be that one person doesn't want to give what the other person isn't looking for.
There's a great anecdote about two people who both wanted a whole orange, but there was only one. So they compromised and cut it in half. One person grated their half of the peel for zest and threw away the fruit, and the other ate their half of the fruit and threw away the peel. And they were both upset that they didn't get the whole thing.
For me when I say sex I don't just mean vaginal intercourse. I mean any shared activity that results in an orgasm. So definitely I am including touching, oral, etc. too. Those count (for me at least).
Actually, Honeybee, I'd like to tweak your definition of sex a little... I don't believe that sex is defined by orgasm. You could do all the things you mentioned and not orgasm (happens). It'd still be sex though. And as not having sex with your partner doesn't equal not having orgasms, orgasms can't be the only point about the original posts... so I can't offer a good "definition", but for me, sex would mean physical intimacy, probably involving genitals in some way, that is not "cuddly"...
Excellent point!
It's late and I couldn't read all of these comments, but I'm astounded that the option of polyamory hasn't come up. I've been in a successful long-term relationship with two men for a couple years now, and I never have to worry that my sex-drive might be too high (which if I was in a monogamous relationship, I'd probably find).
I think a good resource for both of these people would be Tristan Tarimino's book "Opening Up," about discussing non-monogamy with their partners. It does work for some people, you know, if you work it :}. I couldn't live any other way.
Polyamory one answer - and like you, I'm surprised that in 81 comments nobody brought it up.
There are other answers too - like no strings attached sex or sex workers.
Say Jane wants to have sex every day, but John only - reluctantly - wants to have sex once a month.
So Jane has sex with John that one time a month, but tells him that she's not going to pressure him to have sex more than he wants to, but she's going to look elsewhere for her sexual needs to be fulfilled.
They'll still have an exclusive emotional relationship - but the sex won't be quite so exclusive anymore.
Thanks to the magic of Craigslist, it's easy to find an N.S.A. sex partner (now Craigslist is Craigslist, so it's important to be careful, and meet the person in a public place in broad daylight with lots of witnesses and get the person's drivers license or other ID to make sure it's not a setup for a robbery or some kind of police sting)
And it's really important to be really upfront about this to all concerned - feelings might still get hurt, but it's important to try and be ethical and open about this from jump.
Women don't really have the option of professional sex workers on the kind of scale that men do, so the risk of a woman's N.S.A. partner catching feelings is high - and the risk of the woman's partner getting jealous is high too.
But it's still an option.
The high sex drive partner gets sex when they want it and the low sex drive partner isn't coerced into doing stuff they don't want to do.
Keep in mind that, for hetero women, there is a certain amount of danger out there in the world that they face if they're getting themselves into literally physically compromised positions with people they don't know all that well -- which, on a practical level, probably limits the options that are out there much more so than might be readily apparent to hetero men.
I actually do understand that - and I'm sorry that didn't come across in my post.
I do understand the safety issues, which is why I went on at length about the importance of meeting the person beforehand in a public non sexual place and getting a legitimate ID and correct contact information on them.
I could have gone into greater detail on the safety stuff - but I didn't think it was necessary.
What I'm saying is that no amount of ID-getting and seems-like-a-nice-guy-over-coffee will really build trust in the way that it is built within a more traditional relationship; you're just running entirely off of intuition and snap character judgments in a situation like that. I think that is a huge, huge hurdle for a lot of hetero women, which ends up making craigslist or, say, sex clubs, or whatever other NSA-finding venue, not as "available" of an option as one might think.
Also, while I'm not against having open relationships at all, I think the way it actually plays out is a little like emotional blackmail -- one partner approaches the other and says something like "I am unsatisfied, and that's fine, but I'll have to look elsewhere," which amounts to sort of a unilateral decree with the force of a threat to leave behind it. I think there's a real mutually sensitive conversation that can happen that might culminate in one party explaining their feelings by saying something like that, but I do think that part of the reason open relationships get a sort of bad rap is because people don't actually do them right, and end up just doing hurtful things under the guise of "open relationships" which only makes the situation even more confusing.
"Polyamory one answer - and like you, I'm surprised that in 81 comments nobody brought it up."
"There are other answers too - like no strings attached sex or sex workers."
I've brought up for quite some time the fact that my wife is the one who suggested I get myself a girlfriend or lover.
I hope someone understands that it's my WIFE I want a sexual relationship with. The 40 year old woman I've spent 14 years of my life with. It would be quite possible for me to find other women, including younger women, particularly working as a nurse or going to nursing school. It would have been even easier while still working and living in Japan when Japanese women were offering themselves to me despite me being married with children. I don't give it serious thought.
I do understand you want to have sex with your wife. I don't know what advice to give you though. That situation sucks. I think she's in the wrong for refusing to ever even try sexy stuff, but telling you you're in the right doesn't really help-- its not like you can force her.
If she said she was too busy and stressed, or didn't get turned on, or whatever, there would be solutions to try to those problems. But if she's just categorically refusing to even consider it, there's not a whole lot you can do. You could still try things like romantic vacations, but if she's not open to the idea...
I suppose it could be a cultural thing-- you assumed that married couples keep having sex, she assumed that after having kids the man gets a mistress and moves into a platonic relationship with his wife. I've heard that's very common in Japan, although I don't know if its truly the norm.
Of course, when I say your wife is in the wrong I'm saying that assuming that everything in your relationship is going well otherwise. Its possible she doesn't want to have sex because she feels badly treated by you or there are some other problems in your relationship. But if everything is going fine and you're both healthy and have free time and she won't even consider trying to rekindle sexual desire, then that's a kind of tough position.
Would she consider counseling?
It sounds to me like this is a trauma issue for her, and it really might help her to talk to a therapist. It could be that she has PTSD for one thing, if she can't even stand to be touched, and she obviously has negative associations with sex. When you first started dating in 1995, she was doing a better job of coping, but something has changed for her since then.
Perhaps couples counseling would also be an option, if she is not happy with the idea of going to therapy alone.
(The part about the trauma and the PTSD I am inferring from one of his other posts further up, so if my comment seems out of place, look for his other comments).