Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Friday Genius Ten “Enchilada Sauce Vs. Writer’s Block” Edition Previous entry: Classic commercial break: Easy Bake Oven

When is dysfunction not dysfunction?

Sex

I’ve seen this story all over the blogs—-according to ACOG, 44% of women suffer from sexual dysfunction, usually low desire.  But only 12% said it bothered them.  Which makes a reasonable person wonder if, in a world where we respected women’s opinion of themselves as we respect men’s opinion, we wouldn’t be showing that only 12% of women have sexual problems.  In fact, it seems that the researchers themselves are open about how we frame the expectations put on women in terms of what men want.

In an editorial accompanying the published study, Dr. Ingrid Nygaard, a urogynecologist and professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine, told the story of a female patient “who, not bothered herself by her lack of interest but very bothered by her husband’s distress at her lack of interest, asked, “‘Why am I the abnormal one?’”

“What I see on a near daily basis are women of all ages who feel that because their sex drive is less than their partners’, they are inadequate and in the wrong,” Nygaard said in an interview.


It flips the other way, too.  If you’re a woman whose sex drive outstrips her male partner,  you are also made to feel like a freak. Having been in that position in my life, I can remember swinging between feeling hideously ugly and freakish, because we’re just so used to defining “normal” as male.  Luckily, we’ve gotten past thinking of women with high sex drives as dysfunctional, probably under an onslaught of porn that portrays women as insatiable.  But does that mean that there are lots of women out there who are happy with a lot less, but who are being classified as dysfunctional?

According to the most widely accepted clinical definition, such problems should cause “distress” before they rise to the level of a treatable dysfunction. The paper’s results would seem to support those who argue that “female sexual dysfunction” has been over medicalized.

One way to approach these issues, Nygaard said, is to “focus on symptoms that are bothersome to the person. A condition is not abnormal until it’s bothersome, and that is a little bit of what the authors of the article did. I think you have to define normal in the context of the society in which we live.”

She was cautious, however, about how perceptions of normal are generated. Pop culture has created widespread sexual anxiety by making us believe that great sex is being had by all.

To my mind, one problem is that we automatically think the vast majority of problems that afflict heterosexual relationships can and should be addressed by changing the woman.  The man or the relationship is not eligible.  I was alienated by Mary Beth Williams’ blog post on the subject, where she layered on the guilt on women with low sex drives, or women who’ve given up.

I’d be less skeptical of these writers’ claims about their respect for sex if they had indicated an understanding of it in the context of a fully sensual life. And the thing that makes me despair in all of this public discourse is the nagging suspicion that for so many women, the great refusal isn’t just to intercourse, it’s to all that other great stuff that might lead one there—to touch and scent and taste and everything messy and complicated and physical that we so deeply crave. It seems so tragically fearful, so mired in embarrassment. Sexuality isn’t just sex. When Slater says she wants to separate those private moments from “the daily wheel of life,” it seems to miss the point spectacularly. If you lock it up in a box, of course it’ll wither. The loss isn’t merely of those moments of naked sweaty passion, it’s all those human-to-human moments in between, the ones that only come from being open and vulnerable and, yeah, sometimes scared.

Boy, she’s assuming a lot, and the first thing she’s assuming that jumped right out at me is that good sex with all the extras is available to all women, and that therefore they only have themselves to blame if they don’t really see what the big deal is.  But there’s a lot of bad lovers out there, to begin with, and a streak of bad luck with a few might make you wrongly think that no one can really do it for you.  Add to that all the shame and weirdness layered on women, which means that even if you’re in bed with someone who cares to get you off, you might be too nervous to go there.  I’ve had nights when the fear that my thighs were looking dimply meant that no amount of effort was ever going to get me to relax, and I’m pretty chilled out about these things. 

But even if you roll the dice and end up with patient, caring lovers and a healthy self-esteem, you might just not really be that into sex.  Some people aren’t big eaters, and some people aren’t too interested in music.  I don’t understand these things, either, but I certainly believe the people who hold these opinions.  Maybe it’s nature and maybe it’s nurture.  Maybe a lot of women actually really like sex, but they get classified as dysfunctional because they only want it every two weeks instead of 3 times a week like their husbands do.  I fail to see what guilt tripping them will do.

In fact, I’d argue that the problem is not that women with low sex drives exist, and that they are perfectly happy about it.  The problem is that such women end up partnering with men who want a lot more, and then they end up in a miserable struggle over it.  And by guilt-tripping women about not wanting it as much, we’re encouraging this unhappiness to continue, by dangling the false promise that medical intervention will make her better able to satisfy his desires.  Better would be a world where people accept their own diversity, and where judgment-free relationship negotiations occur.  If you accept yourself, you’re in a much better position to present yourself as you are to potential partners, and if you find out that your sex drives are incompatible early on, then you happily go your separate ways before you get entangled, and the inevitable going your separate ways turns into cheating and heartbreak.  Why does this have to be so hard?  I’m sure that I’d find out early on dating someone if he didn’t like music, and so I’d have to move on. 

By the way, this letter at Salon cracked me up:

As a man, I have often wondered if women have a sex drive. Seeing what passes for a sex drive in the media, I’m not convinced; “upgrade me” has no relationship to reality, for example. Ordinary women seem to rarely look at men with desire (no, I’m not talking about solely myself here; I’m an avid student of the human spectacle).

On one hand, guys like that need to be reminded that they’re the common denominator.  But it’s another example of how being female is the grounds for saying you’re broken—-women who don’t gaze are broken, but women who do are weird.  Anyway, I suspect he never sees it because women have to learn to look surreptitiously for our own comfort and safety.  If you eyeball one guy, even if he ignores you, you’ve just told every man in the room that you’re a slut and you’ve invited attention you don’t want.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:56 PM • (226) Comments

I’m in one of those relationships, although I think it depends on the level of difference in the sex drives that determines if it is worth breaking up over or not. And how much importance one side attaches to the sex. I don’t get hung up over masturbation or pornography, I don’t flip out on him for indulging in those when I’m not particularly in the mood.
However, I have also gotten into mind traps along the lines of “well even though I don’t particularly like this I don’t want to hurt his feelings / ruin the mood / whatever” and not spoken up for my own pleasure. I would not be surprised if this is not limited to me. I think there is a lot of cultural pressure to be amazing in bed EVERY time you’re with someone, including the first time, and if you aren’t, then you and/or your partner are dysfunctional. Instead of just needing a little instruction in each other.

Comment #1: Tenya  on  12/12  at  12:13 AM

If it works, it works.  But both people who are higher and lower than their partners are victimized by people who try to make them feel bad about it.  If people are struggling like that, I see no reason to continue an unhappy relationship.  There’s just way too much pressure in our society to stick by failing relationships, which means that when they do fall apart, it’s usually after years of entanglement that makes it harder.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  12:20 AM

I suspect one of the problems is that early on in a relationship, both partners are more likely to be pretty into sex, even the one who naturally has a lower drive, because of the excitement of a new relationship, new partner. I suspect in many cases, it is not immediately apparent that there is a discrepancy in each other’s libido, or if there is a discrepancy, it is much slighter. The problem is that by the time it becomes clear there is a big difference between what the two people want or expect, they are already entangled. And whether it’s the man or the woman who wants more than they’re getting, the one who leaves because of lack of sex will be cast as the selfish one.

Comment #3: chingona  on  12/12  at  01:02 AM

That’s very interesting. I’m in a high/low relationship. I’m the “high”. I never thought that it was my wife that was the abnormal one though. Given the anecdata from friends regarding their relationships, I just assumed I was odd for having a high sex drive.

Comment #4: Mark  on  12/12  at  01:39 AM

As a man, I have often wondered if women have a sex drive. Seeing what passes for a sex drive in the media, I’m not convinced; “upgrade me” has no relationship to reality, for example. Ordinary women seem to rarely look at men with desire (no, I’m not talking about solely myself here; I’m an avid student of the human spectacle).

There’s just no way you can say this without sounding like a giant loser. At least he seems to realize this and tries to cover his ass at the end, even though he only succeeds in sounding even more pathetic, which is more than you can say for most “that no woman wants to sleep with me means there’s something wrong with women” guys.

Comment #5: junk science  on  12/12  at  01:40 AM

My wife has a massively lower libido than I do.  So I masturbate.  And we’re all good.  Problem solved.

Comment #6: phalamir  on  12/12  at  01:40 AM

Chingona, I agree with you, but I have found that after several long-term sexual relationships, I have a pretty good idea of how frequently I’m going to want sex once things with a new partner simmer down. This time I’ve told my new partner the baseline that things will probably drop down to, and he can work with that. It’s nice to finally have a better idea of who I am sexually, and definitely, it helps to be with a partner who will accept you as you are.

Comment #7: She-cago  on  12/12  at  01:42 AM

If you’re a woman whose sex drive outstrips her male partner, you are also made to feel like a freak.

Yes indeedy.

And, if you are a woman who has a high sex drive but you don’t feel like fucking everything that moves, you’re made to feel like a fraud.  Because you’re not allowed to be both horny and choosy.

Comment #8: LauraB  on  12/12  at  01:42 AM

I’m speculating, but I would guess that at least a few women who have low(er) sex drives and aren’t bothered by the lack of sex because, in their experience sex, means being used as a hole in a mattress. I don’t think many people have a smoldering insatiable urge to let their partner objectify them in that way.

To go even further some of these women may feel great dissatisfaction with the level of intimacy, or respect in their relationship, but they don’t report that as dissatisfaction with their sex life because in their experience sex has nothing to do with intimacy or respect.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that ‘sex’ is simply too broad of a term to really be meaningful.

Comment #9: Starfoxy  on  12/12  at  01:43 AM

The problem is that such women end up partnering with men who want a lot more, and then they end up in a miserable struggle over it.

I’d split that personally. That people with mis-matched sex drives might pair up and feel inadequate or unfulfilled is probably unavoidable even in a fully equal society. It’s probably pretty low on the list of compatibility-checking features for most people when getting into a relationship.

The problem is that a sexist system adds baggage to the issue, and refocuses the blame. In general, the male libido is catered to, and the woman’s suppressed by the culture at large, then the onus is placed on the woman to perform in the relationship. So this universal problem becomes both more likely, and the woman bears the bulk of the blame if they experience it.

I think it’s important to split that because too often, threads like this discussing racial, social or class issues tend to devolve into ‘Hey, I (Insert privileged group here) have those problems too!’, which really isn’t the point. The point is that the societal expectations tend to magnify the problem for, and place it on the shoulders of the disadvantaged group.

Comment #10: Left_Wing_Fox  on  12/12  at  01:46 AM

Woody Allen summed it up like this:

[Alvy and Annie are seeing their therapists at the same time on a split screen]
Alvy Singer’s Therapist: How often do you sleep together?
Annie Hall’s Therapist: Do you have sex often?
Alvy Singer: [lamenting] Hardly ever. Maybe three times a week.
Annie Hall: [annoyed] Constantly. I’d say three times a week.

But only 12% said it bothered them.  Which makes a reasonable person wonder if only 12% of women have sexual problems.

I know, right?  That’s a weird thing to have a report about.  If something isn’t damaging a person’s life, what is the big deal?  They’re coming close to saying “almost half of women have below average this or that!”

Comment #12: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/12  at  01:56 AM

I know my sex drive actually is influenced by how frequent and good sex has been lately. That is, I can delevope or lose a taste for it. I suspect I am not terribly unusual in this respect.

Comment #13: Samantha Vimes  on  12/12  at  02:12 AM

I think it might be more appropriate, for the sake of research, to determine the proportion of couples whose mismatch in sexual desire causes distress in the relationship.  Even then, the study would have to allow for the fact that sexual dysfunction—on the part of either partner—can be a symptom of a distressed relationship rather than a cause.  Of course, this line of research excludes people who are not in a monogamous relationship at all.  I’d also be curious to see if mismatched sexual desire is as big an issue in gay and lesbian relationships as it is in heterosexual ones.

But, yes, labeling 44% of women as sexually dysfunctional, especially due to low desire, seems excessive if only 12% identify it as a problem.  It seems more fair and accurate to frame it as an issue of unequal desire, with no one being singled out as the “abnormal” one.

Comment #14: Captain Bathrobe  on  12/12  at  02:17 AM

I second Samantha on sex drive being depended on the quality and quantity of recent sex. 

Also, I always find it bizarre what isn’t men’s first response to wanting sex more often then their partner.  Isn’t the logical first through five steps trying to make it really good for her?  Promising, oh, we can do that thing you like, etc. Getting her in the mood with sensuality… Promising to do all the work, whatever.  But in practice that isn’t the usual solution men try first or even second.  Why?

Comment #15: Victoria  on  12/12  at  02:21 AM

What Chingona said.  All of it.

Comment #16: Seraph  on  12/12  at  02:32 AM

Isn’t the logical first through five steps

Actually, the “logical” first step is to try and figure out just what’s changed.  As Chingona pointed out, there’s a certain period at the beginning of a relationship when both partners can’t get enough (side note: don’t the wait-til-marriage folks often brag about how wonderful their sex lives are when they first get married, how much the wait was worth it?  Any stats on how many are still bragging a few years later?), but it’s the rare and lucky couple that can keep up that pace, or even slow down at the same rate. 

A lot of guys (forgive me for assuming that it’s a heterosexual couple and the guy is the one with the higher libido, but that’s what the study is about, after all) find themselves saying: “Wait a second…for awhile there, everything was going great, but now other priorities seem to have taken my place.  Is something wrong?  Is she not that into me anymore?”  And of course, the MRA-types - the paranoid and resentful, in other words - follow it up with “That bitch led me on, then cut the level of sex down to where she really wanted it all along.  False advertising!”

Comment #17: Seraph  on  12/12  at  02:51 AM

Also, I always find it bizarre what isn’t men’s first response to wanting sex more often then their partner.  Isn’t the logical first through five steps trying to make it really good for her?  Promising, oh, we can do that thing you like, etc. Getting her in the mood with sensuality… Promising to do all the work, whatever.  But in practice that isn’t the usual solution men try first or even second.  Why?

The typical male attitude (in my experience, anyway) is that there’s just something *wrong* with women who aren’t interested in whatever the guy has to offer.  And then later guys run into women who’ve never enjoyed sex, and these same guys assert their amazing ability to do much better than all those others before.

It’s a comforting fantasy.  If your current girlfriend doesn’t enjoy sex with you, there’s something wrong with her.  If your potential girlfriend hasn’t enjoyed sex with other guys, there’s something wrong with the other guys.  *Then* there’s something wrong with her once she’s with you.

Comment #18: Ferox  on  12/12  at  02:55 AM

I also wonder how much the social indoctrination of female purity and gatekeeping plays into lower sex drive in many women compared to men?  After receiving messages about female sexuality that are intended to stifle it, it shouldn’t be hard to believe that almost half of women report having low drives—we’ve been taught our whole lives to repress our desires, it’s not like they can just be unleashed the moment we get in a long-term relationship.

On the other hand, how many men with lower drives are actually hiding behind their female partner’s low sex drive in order to participate in the male bonding exercise of whining about lack of sex without losing face?  I wonder how many men are secretly relieved that they aren’t expected to actually have sex more often but will never admit it.  Left_Wing_Fox mentioned that women have to perform sexually, but so do men; men are expected to perform the role of sexual aggressor/initiator. Isn’t the cliche that the man is always asking and woman always saying no?

It’s a double-edged sword, no?  Almost half of women have their sexual drives pathologized as dysfunctional when it sounds like it’s closer to average, while men aren’t really free to admit that they have anything but a high sex drive (seriously, I’ve never met a man who did not make this claim while simultaneously suggesting he was unusual).

Even then, the study would have to allow for the fact that sexual dysfunction—on the part of either partner—can be a symptom of a distressed relationship rather than a cause.

Yes. This.

Comment #19: history_mom  on  12/12  at  02:57 AM

My old girlfriend was unable to achieve orgasm.  She must’ve been some kind of freak as I was always able to attain sexual satisfaction in 60 seconds or less, under exactly the same conditions as her.  Just to show you how twisted people’s perception can get, she blamed ME for her sexual failings and we eventually grew distant and parted.  From what I hear, she’s some kind of nympho now, having sex on a regular basis.  I suspect she fantasizes about me whenever she’s with some other feller, and this is the sad source of her newfound satisfaction.

Comment #20: Rugged in Montana  on  12/12  at  02:57 AM

It takes work, Victoria, and from experience it goes more like this:

“Oh my God, what can I do to make you perform more, if I do this will it make you perform more, if I do that will it make you perform more, I have a manual which says you’ll perform more if I…I hear testosterone injections will work, you should do this, change diets, etc…”

And repeat that several times a day, for months.  It’s very, very off putting.  In my case, it was partnered with them insisting I did things I hated because they had heard women liked it and that might increase my sex drive.  Which was far more important than me enjoying myself.

I had no idea I had a low to zero sex drive until I got married.  I’d never slept with anyone prior to it, so I thought things would simply ‘happen’ - that chemistry would cause me to want it.  When ‘things’ didn’t, I put up with it, but frankly if you’re female and enduring sex when you don’t want it, there’s a fair amount of physical damage every time (and associated infections, oh the countless infections).  I try to force myself through it every so often because my partner has a drive, but it’s pretty painful and kinda weird frankly.  It’s as though I were a plant watching an animal eat food with their mouth - how very peculiar and odd, works for them, but not how _I_ eat.  You know, they have saliva, and what’s with that tongue thing?  Weiiiirrd.

I’m perfectly happy without it, aside from the backlash that I get from everyone around me when they discover what a selfish, cold, nasty person I am to have ‘trapped’ my partner into marrying me…hey, there’s nothing as awesome as having _your_ friends tell your partner how sorry they are for them.

In all seriousness, the only time it causes me ANY distress is when it a) distresses my partner (which is a lot, and we work on it) or b) I get called names by people.  I experience zero physical, mental, or emotional worry on my own account.

Comment #21: SP  on  12/12  at  03:06 AM

Of course this is all going on while pharma is looking for the female equivalent of Viagara.  This is about profit and not dysfunction.  The fact that they had to create a medicalized excuse for this crap makes it so obvious that it is not about the best interests of women.  All of big phrama wants you to believe that something is wrong so that when they come up with a success like a female viagara that they will have the same financial boon as Phizer.  It’s all about the money honey.

Comment #22: Renee  on  12/12  at  03:17 AM

Isn’t the logical first through five steps trying to make it really good for her?...Getting her in the mood with sensuality

These are great ideas of course.  Treating your partner as a masturbation tool and/or only having contact with her when you want sex are pretty mortal sexual sins.  On the other hand:

Promising, oh, we can do that thing you like, etc.… Promising to do all the work, whatever.

Did this come out right?

I know that if more men did their share of the housework (leaving their lover under less stress) and took an interest in their partners’ interests, it would be good for the relationship, which would have beneficial effects on the sex life.  But this makes it sound like the man should offer service (all of the work) and activities as a flat-out bribe.  If he’s only doing those things as a bribe, and the woman is so uninterested in sex that she only does it when so bribed, it sounds like the relationship might be better off dead.

Comment #23: Seraph  on  12/12  at  03:18 AM

SP, I am so sorry.  That is terrible.  And incredibly, depressingly, easy to picture.  I have no idea how your friends could react like that.  No one should ever have to endure painful or unwanted sex. 

I know that men do react as you say, “you should do X” or “will me pressing button Y get you to do Z”, but I don’t really understand the strategy.  As you say it’s very offputting and it’s obviously offputting, anyone with a brain should know that’s not an effective way to go about it.  I don’t understand why a man instead of trying to argue a woman into sex, or talk her into sex, won’t try to seduce her instead.  If she wants to have sex with you she will!  So, make her want to.  Figure out what she likes.  Yes, it’s work, and one sided work at that, but if having sex is that important to you… you should be wiling to put in that effort right?  Is it really that hard to imagine what might feel sexy to a woman or get in the mood?

SP, I don’t want to give random unsolicited advice (and I’m sure that you’ve read plenty of it elsewhere) but surely there are times when it is more pleasant?  Somewhat understandable and at least not painful.  I believe strongly in compromise in relationships and caring for your partner’s needs but pain is not acceptable, I think that’s a black line that should be an absolute stop.  Is your husband working on figuring out what makes the better times for you better and how to replicate that and make it better?  Because having sex rarely is completely fine but having terrible painful sex, even rarely is not.  And unless you’re asexual, there must be things that would do it for you.  Might be specialized kinks or moving at the pace of the glacier but please tell me he’s at least trying to figure out how to change what he does to make you feel good.  (More then, touch you in place X).

Comment #24: Victoria  on  12/12  at  03:24 AM

YIkes.  Well, after reading these examples I’d say couples SHOULD move checking their sexual compatibility ‘WAYYYyyyy up the priority list.  Esp. if they’re not into making provisions (i.e. polyamory, whatever) for their partner’s needs.

And the above about the rush of interest at the start not staying: I know of a very sad marriage that is JUST that situation: long distance relationship in college, followed by marriage.  Turns out HE didn’t want it very much at all.  Much heartbreak all around.

Comment #25: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  12/12  at  03:25 AM

Seraph,

Ooops, I didn’t mean housework, I meant sex work.  Heh. 

From my experience sometimes the cons of having sex is, I don’t have the energy, I don’t want to have to physically work that hard and mentally work on making it good for the other person.  But if the other person offers to let the first person just lay there and get to feel good that con disappears and a yes is much more likely.  Now, that’s not fair as a long term situation but hey, if you want sex that badly you should be wiling to work for it.

Comment #26: Victoria  on  12/12  at  03:27 AM

I don’t think she meant housework. Sometimes if someone isn’t adverse to the idea of sex, but doesn’t have the energy to start things or do the more physically demanding parts, it can help if their partner, well, does the work.
And I’m pretty sure “that thing you like,” isn’t working in the garden.

Comment #27: McFish  on  12/12  at  03:32 AM

Dan Savage has talked at length about sexual compatibility being an important part of matching two people. That said, I’m inclined to think that there’s a lot we really don’t understand about human sexuality, especially female sexuality—how much of reduced sex drive is normal and how much of it is societial/environmental conditioning? Either way, I agree with Eric—partners with wildly varying sex drives are in a seriously difficult situation, and it’s a huge argument against both waiting till marriage and perhaps obligate monogamy in general.

I will say that based on what I know about sexual biology, it doesn’t make sense from an evolutionary standpoint for one gender to have a tendency towards a lower sex drive, especially since humans happen to live on a particularly promiscuous twig of the tree of life. Now I don’t pretend to draw any conclusions from that, but I will say this: it’s got to be one of the most shameful facts of medical science that the furthest we’ve come in sexology since Kinsey is the “seduction community”. Hell, figuring out the baselines of human sexual response could be someone’s PhD project… too bad funding would be hard to come by.

Comment #28: Brian X  on  12/12  at  03:38 AM

Ooops, I didn’t mean housework, I meant sex work.  Heh.

Ah.  I assume I can take “do that thing you like” in the exact same spirit.  That changes a lot. 

From my experience sometimes the cons of having sex is, I don’t have the energy, I don’t want to have to physically work that hard and mentally work on making it good for the other person.  But if the other person offers to let the first person just lay there and get to feel good that con disappears and a yes is much more likely.  Now, that’s not fair as a long term situation but hey, if you want sex that badly you should be wiling to work for it.

Sounds like a great deal to me, actually.  Are there actually guys out there who are fool enough to turn that down and yet complain about not getting laid enough?

Comment #29: Seraph  on  12/12  at  03:38 AM

And I’m pretty sure “that thing you like,” isn’t working in the garden

I was thinking more of the stereotypical “night at the ballet”. 

Hey, I’ve seen so many iterations of this conversation where women talked about how little energy they had left to spare for their libido after doing all the housework and childcare in addition to their day job, or how unappreciated they felt that their husbands or lovers didn’t want to pursue any activities with them but fucking, that I missed the obvious when someone brought up something more basic.

Comment #30: Seraph  on  12/12  at  03:41 AM

Are there actually guys out there who are fool enough to turn that down and yet complain about not getting laid enough?

I would not be in the least surprised if that were so. Amazing as it may seem, when a man complains that he and his wife don’t have enough sex, his principal issue rarely seems to be a worry that his partner is not having enough orgasms.

That is, some men do not seem to approach this as they would approach the problem of their wives refusing free trips to the day spa, or refusing to accept a raise at work. They do not generally seem hurt or perplexed that their partner is turning down a wonderful treat or is denying herself the pleasure that they are so eager to provide. Rather, the tone tend to be more along the lines of a complaint that one’s shirts are no longer being laundered with the accustomed care, or that dinner is arriving on the table late, burnt, or not at all. So, for those men who consider sex to be a personal service provided by a woman to them, one of the wifely arts, yes, I can assure you that wrapping their minds around the concept of sex as a husbandly service, provided by them to another person, is an altogether new experience. And while a reasonable person might be deeply hurt by having such a thoughtful gift refused, that is not the quality of hurt that sex-deprived husbands tend to express. It’s certainly not the way public discourse about the issue is structured.

Comment #31: sophonisba  on  12/12  at  04:05 AM

Even people with equally high sex drives don’t necessarily like it the same ways. I prefer less frequent but extremely epic & athletic sessions that involve props, supplies, excellent settings, loads of energy, and are worth committing most of a day or an entire long evening to. Ideal scenario: very good night’s sleep, wake up, shower & brush teeth, return to bed, proceed rampantly until absolutely ridiculously beyond exhausted. Quickies have never been my thing, and I don’t ever like to fuck tired or drunk (if it can’t be done well, I will not bother doing it). So by numbers of instances per week, it might look like I like sex ‘less’ than someone who wants to do it every night, but by time investment & quantity of orgasms I’d guess I’m generally coming out evenly or ahead.

Knowing this about myself, I aim for partners with similar preferences to mine.

I have wondered how much of this way my preferences swing (the ‘less frequent, lengthy session’ vs ‘lots of quickies’) is biological in nature. Like many other women, I ride the multiple-orgasm train, and it gets better the longer I go for & the more times I come. Since I fuck other women, who are frequently also multiply-orgasmic, there isn’t really an end-point until we’re both so completely wrung-out of energy that movement has ceased to be possible.

The way I fuck would be completely incompatible with someone who can, or wants, to come only once, which might happen fairly quickly. Were I to attempt hetero relationships, I imagine I would be quickly deemed dysfunctional, because despite being a raging nympho who likes to do it hanging from the chandelier with a screaming soundtrack that alarms the neighbourhood dogs and upsets the neighbours, I’d be pretty lukewarm about doing it for an allotted hour-or-so three times per week.

So yeah, when I read about studies like this I wonder how much of the ‘dysfunction’, ie disparity, comes from defining the way men want to have sex as the ‘normal’ way to have sex, and even when making allowances for what might get women into the mood, still defining successful sex by whatever gets the guy off.

Comment #32: so totally anonymous for oversharing this much  on  12/12  at  04:12 AM

Hear, hear Brian X!

And wow, so totally anonymous, I haven’t heard that one before but now that you mention it that seems so self evidently true.  Huh!

Seraph, mmm, it certainly seems that way to me.  Often it seems that men are complaining not so much that they’re not getting sex as that they’re not getting sex on their terms.  It just doesn’t seem to occur to them that effort on their part makes a different, or suddenly with the effort involved its ‘not worth it’ any longer.  It’s easier to just back out of and avoid sex then insist on the things you want for women. 

Of course, actual real libido differences do exist.  I’m just not sure they can be separated from other problems with any ease.

Comment #33: Victoria  on  12/12  at  04:21 AM

If there’s pain involved in intercourse, of course there may be a physical reason. Isn’t odd that wasn’t the first advice given? I can’t imagine a man experiencing pain with sex and not running off to a doctor immediately—and certainly, if he admitted to it, being advised to do so.

Why a woman experiencing pain with sex isn’t an immediate warning sign, says something very sick about our culture.

One not even picked up by all health professionals, in my woeful experience.

I’m 58, and I spent over two years explaining to nurse practitioners, interning doctors (4 or 5), and what have you, that they couldn’t complete a pap smear I was scheduled for, because insertion caused too much pain.

I was refused pain medication, told that it might be psychological, or just that I’d need to come back for another appointment. I asked, repeatedly, why I was experiencing the pain, and what could be done about it—to the sound of crickets.

Finally, in a call to an old friend the same age I asked her, if she’d gone through anything similar, and she said yes, but she’s married, and so her doctor simply prescribed a topical vaginal hormone cream, which solved the pain problem in a week.

Get it? Didn’t matter that I couldn’t have sex (or get a pap smear) because I was in too much pain from insertion—no advice or solution from gynos.  However, a married woman in the same position—my dear god, some man would be going without sex, unless we fix this woman immediately!

The next time I saw a doctor, I demanded a prescription for the hormone cream, which I was given—but got no answer as to why none of the medical professionals I’d seen over a period of years had taken my pain seriously enough to even note my age, and hazard a guess that it may have had to do with menopause.

Makes me wonder how many easily treatable cases of women’s sexual dysfunction are untreated simply from sexism.

My married women friends with careers and small children are exhausted, and yes, resentful.

How many women have partners uninterested in the woman’s sexual needs, patterns? (I’ve had a couple of those boyfriends, if briefly.)

And how many women are experiencing physical problems that are overlooked and undertreated?

Comment #34: judy brown  on  12/12  at  04:38 AM

But both people who are higher and lower than their partners are victimized by people who try to make them feel bad about it.
Where are the articles “44% of men suffer from sexual dysfunction”? I don’t say they don’t exist at all, but it seems that there is a tendecy to blame women for wanting sex too much or too little. Have you seen an article, telling men with low libido to go down on their wives to satisfy them? I haven’t. And have seen many telling women give blowjobs and lie and think of England. Otherwise, they’re told their husbands will cheat.

Comment #35: reader  on  12/12  at  04:39 AM

judy brown:

Another example of what I’m talking about—without solid study of female sexuality, it’s literally impossible to know what normal is.

Comment #36: Brian X  on  12/12  at  05:01 AM

Yeah, I have to third/fourth/fifth what Samantha said - if I’m getting lots of good sex then my sex drive is higher. When I was with my ex-bf back in the dark ages, and his idea of sex was no foreplay, pumping away for five minutes, and rolling over to sleep whining that he’s too tired to have energy to pay attention to my pleasure (I promise, no exaggerations), I lost most interest in sex. And how is that surprising, thinking about the prospect of bad sex turns women off? Perhaps any guys wondering why their partners are so abnormal should try an experiment - “sex” involves only direct clitoral stimulation with little or no attention to his penis, and no orgasm for him but always one for her, repeat for months or until he gets the picture. It is an extreme example, but it’s an exact reversal of what I went through, which, based on pop culture, seems like a pretty common occurrence. (I’m also aware that I’m leaving out women who prefer vaginal stimulation, but the majority of women need clitoral stimulation to get off and are likely the ones that are most dissatisfied with inattentive partners. From my experience, at least)

I’ve been wondering if having lots of pleasure and orgasms creates a kind of behavioral conditioning for myself, the more positive reinforcement I get for getting horny and doing sexy things, the more I’m going to get horny and want to do sexy things, etc etc. It seems like pretty simple psychology to me. The other possibility is finally going off any form of hormonal birth control, and having my natural inclinations finally come back to me. That stuff KILLS my sex drive, enough so that I consider it not worth it to use any more - I wouldn’t be surprised if there were plenty of women like me in that study there.

Comment #37: HeatherMae  on  12/12  at  05:02 AM

That is, some men do not seem to approach this as they would approach the problem of their wives refusing free trips to the day spa, or refusing to accept a raise at work. They do not generally seem hurt or perplexed that their partner is turning down a wonderful treat or is denying herself the pleasure that they are so eager to provide.

And while a reasonable person might be deeply hurt by having such a thoughtful gift refused, that is not the quality of hurt that sex-deprived husbands tend to express.

I think of it more like a bandmember who seems to have lost interest in playing, myself.  Sure, we still have an occasional concert that will make your ears ring, but they almost feel like reunion concerts sometimes; we don’t get together and jam much anymore.  If it were as simple as changing the repertoire so performances were a bit less demanding for her (and a bit more for me), I’d be all about it.

Rather, the tone tend to be more along the lines of a complaint that one’s shirts are no longer being laundered with the accustomed care, or that dinner is arriving on the table late, burnt, or not at all. So, for those men who consider sex to be a personal service provided by a woman to them, one of the wifely arts, yes, I can assure you that wrapping their minds around the concept of sex as a husbandly service, provided by them to another person, is an altogether new experience.

Yeah.  I can see how that attitude might cause some resentment and loss of interest.  Since you’re ascribing it to men as a whole, can I take it that it’s a very common attitude, and I’ve simply been lucky that my circle of friends includes very few such louts (to the best of my knowledge)?

It never ceases to amaze me just how few men are willing to act in their own best interest when it comes to their relationships with women if that means giving any ground whatsoever. 

It’s certainly not the way public discourse about the issue is structured.

This probably answers my question in itself. 

Seraph, mmm, it certainly seems that way to me.  Often it seems that men are complaining not so much that they’re not getting sex as that they’re not getting sex on their terms.  It just doesn’t seem to occur to them that effort on their part makes a different, or suddenly with the effort involved its ‘not worth it’ any longer.  It’s easier to just back out of and avoid sex then insist on the things you want for women.

Idjits.  See above in re. “own best interests”.

Comment #38: Seraph  on  12/12  at  06:09 AM

I really shouldn’t comment. I’m a middle-aged male with zilch for a sex drive and fairly limited experience. It still strikes me that the supposed asymmetry between the male and female appetite for sex may be mostly due to the guy’s ineptitude or indifference, treating his partner as little more than a fuck-puppet.

A tangential aside: my nephew related that his father-in-law was shocked to learn that he was an atheist. “What’s to keep you from fucking a dog?” Um. And then um. We all love dogs; said nephew has two huskies. I regard a German Shepherd I grew up with as rather difficult sister, and I used to stroke her ten tits lovingly, but that was about as much love as I ever wanted to make to her (regularly having to pry her jaws from another dog’s throat tended to temper my ardor).

So, does not wanting to do something count as virtue?. Aside from the species, genus and order mismatch, where’s the fun in fucking without consensuality?

Since I have nothing personally invested in an exclusive sexual relationship with another person, I feel free to suppose that we ought to decouple copulation from pairing. One has the charm of novelty and exercise, the other the comfort of conversation, convention and convenience.

If two people are happy to spend their lives together but don’t quite match in bed, is it that bad an idea to turn a blind eye to an evening out, or even to wish “bon voyage”?

Comment #39: bad Jim  on  12/12  at  06:53 AM

I just want to put in my agreement that determining sexual compatibility and talking about it before a relationship gets too entangled is a very good idea

The more of those kinds of subjects you discuss at the front end, the more likely you are to have a lasting, satisfying relationship.  Even if your needs and wants don’t coincide exactly, at least you’ve both understood how the other person views the subject, thereby avoiding unpleasant surprises, misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and resentments.  (Of course, the other part of this is that you both tell the truth, and you take each other at your word.  This implies that there needs to be a certain level of trust and honesty at the start as well.)

Comment #40: Rumblelizard  on  12/12  at  07:04 AM

seriously, this is way too distorted as far as the standard of “normal” is concerned.  i like sex.  i really like sex, like sometimes i’m a sex-crazed nutjob and i can’t get enough of the stuff.  unfortunately, some of those times are like, when i’m stuck in traffic or at work or otherwise unable to like, make a booty call to my boyfriend.  then i’ll for a week or two maybe where i’m just not feeling so into it.  i’ve always been this way and i’ve often felt like maybe i’m somehow off or dysfunctional because my desire doesn’t always match up with that of a guy i’m seeing.  i wish i could make our most sex-crazed moments coincide, but i just can’t.  thankfully i have a lovely significant other who seems to deal with being shot down for sex fairly well, but i do sometimes still feel bad for not being “in the mood.” 

this may be an entirely personal matter, because when i was younger i had too many guys just turn into total shitbags about sex or because i’m so into personal space, but one of my biggest pet peeves when i’m dating someone is when they just will NOT leave me alone when i’ve made it clear i’m not feeling like sexytime.  there are definitely times when i’m not committed either way and i’m open to at least fooling around, but when i make it explicit that IT is NOT GOING to HAPPEN RIGHT FUCKING NOW SLASH TONIGHT, it’s not because i’m a bitch or withholding sex for some mystical female strategic purpose or even that i’m a prude, it’s because I DON’T FUCKING FEEL LIKE IT RIGHT NOW AND I DON’T CONTROL THE TEMPERAMENT OF MY LADYPARTS.  i try to improve communication and make it more obvious when i am outright saying no and when i’m open to a persuasive argument, so to speak, but sometimes it is hard to get across and when a guy continues, even if it’s in a nice and non-threatening manner, it just makes me incredibly pissed off in a way that few other things do.

Comment #41: chareth  on  12/12  at  07:04 AM

as a side note, this is also perhaps a little embarrassing to admit, seeing as how i’m a grownup modern uninhibited feminist type gal, but i sometimes opt out of sex because i feel like it’s too much work.  not like, it’s a chore or i don’t like it or anything, but because i hear the distant murmur of some cosmo copy from a decade past telling me that i have to make sex like, a Big Deal for the Guy and be all feisty and shit and frankly, sometimes that’s not the kind of sex i want to have at all, but i don’t want to be Boring or perceived as Not Into It by cosmo slash porn standards and so, given the choice between sex with a lot of effort or sleep, i’ll pick the latter.  is that wrong?

Comment #42: chareth  on  12/12  at  07:11 AM

Man, imagining some of the causal reasons for this is depressing. I recently re-read my journal from the first sex-having relationship I was ever in - and the young man in question was trying really hard, we just weren’t really that into each other and had terrible communication and I have a diary page where I concluded that maybe I just didn’t like sex at all, ever.

Then I dated someone who was a lot more into me (and vice versa) and with whom communication was good, and - it turns out that I am one of those females whose sex drive far outstrips her male partner’s, at least so far, which is good because one of us has to remember that things like sleep and getting up to go to work is necessary.

The thought of having given up at Not-Really-A-Relationship # 1 - I mean, imagine if this was those mostly-fictional Olden Days and I’d had to marry that guy - is really depressing.

At the same time, just because I like to get it on now (in my early 20s) doesn’t mean things won’t change. Many women who I’ve known experienced drastic changes in sex drive after giving birth, during periods of clinical depression or ill health, as side effects from other medications, and, depressingly, after menopause - there’s nothing like hearing the term “vaginal atrophy” kicked around to make you seriously reconsider where your sex life might be headed. Which is one reason why I am kind of determined to get what I can now, before anything’s damaged by childbearing or decides to start withering. Any anecdotes to comfort me on this front are welcome.

Comment #43: anonymous here  on  12/12  at  09:32 AM

SP, I don’t want to make value judgments on your libido.  But I must say two things to you.  One, I am shocked, absolutely shocked, that your husband continues to have sex with you when it hurts and you get infections due to no lubrication.  I am shocked that he has sex with you when you don’t want it, period.

Second, if you are going to have sex with him, please use KY jelly or some similar product.  It might make things more pleasant for you, it will certainly control the pain aspect.

And chareth, I was in a situation with a guy where we were hooking up, and it was just horrible.  Awful.  Literally made me sick.  Granted I was drunk, but I think if the sex were better, I wouldn’t have been laying there thinking of how I was starting to feel sick.  So I shoved him off me, told him it was over, I don’t do bad sex, and I’m going to go vomit now.  As I was heaving into the toilet, this jackass was rubbing my ass, tits, and everything else, thinking, I shit you not, that we were going to continue having sex.  I had to kick him out in the middle of my vomit.  Some guys, there is no dealing with them in a reality-based world.  They just don’t get it.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with choosing sleep over sex.  I do it often.  And if he doesn’t like it, he knows right where the door is.  I think, if 44% of women are really “dysfunctional,” the article would have delved into what the men are doing wrong.  In my experience, many of them might as well just cut a hole in the wall, lubricate it, and go to town for all the attention they put into my needs.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, as soon as the penis rears its ugly head out of the pants, it’s all over for the woman.  It becomes all about his wang and how to get him off.  I kick them out.

Comment #44: speedbudget  on  12/12  at  09:53 AM

Some interesting ideas in this thread, but there’s something a bit absurd about all the people generalizing about what “most men” or “most relationships” are like.  Assuming for a moment that the folks doing this aren’t just extrapolating from a couple of experiences they’ve had personally…  Seems like there might be a bit of selection bias if you’re working primarily on information you’ve gained when some man blabs to a relative stranger about how his wife/partner doesn’t have sex with him enough. 

My wife and I have our issues, just like any other couple.  But since we respect and love each other, for the most part they are between us; not cocktail party conversation.

Comment #45: anon  on  12/12  at  10:03 AM

“Any anecdotes to comfort me on this front are welcome.”

I don’t know if this is comfort—I’m in my mid-late twenties, and I’m going through one of those cycles of low sex drive that you mentioned—in my case, the side effect double whammy of birth control and anti-depressants.

My newfound lower sex drive actually has changed my mind on a lot of things about this issue. I used to think that a lower sex drive would feel like a problem—but physically, it really doesn’t. Some people here seem to assume that it’s… missing something, when in actuality it’s just that you don’t want it anymore. It’s not that the sex you have isn’t good, or there’s anything wrong with your partner, or that there’s a big gap in your life. There would be a big gap in your life if your sex drive was higher and you weren’t having sex, that’s true, and I think a lot of people think about having a low sex drive in those terms. But when you don’t want it, you really just don’t. No distress in your own head. Just interest in other activities.

On the one hand, I’m speaking, obviously, only about my own low sex drive, which is clearly attributable to a cause. I’m sure there are people out there who would like sex more if only their partner did this, or circumstances were like that, or sexism disappeared. But I feel like my side effect stint has given me a different feeling about asexuality than I had before, when I was more sexual. (Though I am not asexual: I still have sex with my partner; and there are periods, when the confluence of mood and hormones is right when I have a higher sex drive than my partner; and in a lot of ways I identify with what chareth is saying about having a sex drive that fluctuates from low to high over shortish periods of time—which I’ve always had, but which is all operating on a lower wavelength due to medications than it used to.)

I point this out because if it does happen to you, you may not care as much as you think you would.

However, on the more traditionally comforting anecdote front, the people I know who want to fuck and have problems like the ones you mention with menopause that aren’t dampening their desire—they fuck. A lot. Without desire, there’s no real point; it’s like offering a ski trip to someone who has no interest in skiing. Thank you very much; I’d rather read a book. But with desire, damn it, you’ll find a way to get up to the slope even if money’s tight (to strain the metaphor).

Comment #46: Mandolin  on  12/12  at  10:12 AM

If you accept yourself, you’re in a much better position to present yourself as you are to potential partners, and if you find out that your sex drives are incompatible early on, then you happily go your separate ways before you get entangled, and the inevitable going your separate ways turns into cheating and heartbreak

I’m afraid even that is too simple a solution. In my experience, sex drive has the capacity to ebb and flow. When I met my husband, and through the majority of our relationship pre-marriage, it was definitely flowing. We’ve been in ebb for about the last two years now. I’m totally comfortable and satisfied with it, but unfortunately am distressed at the married=less sex myth playing into perceptions about my now low sex-drive. However, this was a pattern established long before I met my husband, it just so happened that a lot of the time I’d find myself in a relationship during times of a high sex-drive and then uncoupled during low sex-drive periods, feeling equally whole and satisfied in both distinctions.

Sometimes a match is difficult to make, or even ball-park, when sex-drive is marked more by a pattern than an established intensity.

Comment #47: Jenn  on  12/12  at  10:28 AM

And, if you are a woman who has a high sex drive but you don’t feel like fucking everything that moves, you’re made to feel like a fraud.  Because you’re not allowed to be both horny and choosy.

Perhaps it’s just me, but I have had crappy luck so far finding a male partner who wants what I do: a monogamous relationship with a lot of sex.  And then every so often some wannabe sex-pozzer comes along and tells me I must really be some kind of right-wing sex-hater if I don’t want to have one-night stands.  Gaaaaaaaaah.

If two people are happy to spend their lives together but don’t quite match in bed, is it that bad an idea to turn a blind eye to an evening out, or even to wish “bon voyage”?

That would not work for me.  I’m happy to have a partner go out and have hobbies, friends, etc. without me, but I’m sexually jealous and I don’t feel like getting over it.  It’s also hard for me to decouple sex from intimacy; they bleed into each other. 

I’m not saying everybody is like that or should be like that, but I am.

Comment #48: killjoy  on  12/12  at  10:49 AM

Hello ‘anonymous here’, I have some anecdotes for you that you may or may not find comforting. They have to do with female-female sex, so I won’t assume they’re universally applicable, but. I’m in my mid-20’s, and have had lovers of a very, very broad age range (in the past 4 years I’ve had lovers aged between 18 and 50). In the older lovers I’ve had the strongest trend I’ve noticed is for an increasing sex drive over time (to the point where I have found that even at my horniest I can’t keep up with the sex drive of a 45 year old), and increased sexual satisfaction, even in women who have physical sexual changes- forgive the crudeness, but women who are experiencing a very different vaginal landscape to the one they were getting used to when they first started fucking.

For the most part these have been casual-sex interactions that have gone on more than once but not led to partnership, so obviously there is selection bias: only women with sex drives are out looking to hook up, so I’m not fucking women who don’t have sex drives. But I am, on not-irregular occasions, fucking women who have what might be considered some physical sexual difficulties. Post-menopausal women for whom vaginal penetration at all, even highly lubricated, is now difficult or uncomfortable. A woman who gave birth a few years ago, whose vagina is a different shape and who experiences sensation differently to how she used to. A woman who is undergoing treatment for ovarian cancer who cannot be penetrated at all. And so on. Obviously their sex drives haven’t been effected or we wouldn’t be crossing paths, but I would like to allay your fears of physical changes being necessarily linked to the vanishing of libido. Sure your libido might disappear for unrelated reasons, but just because you’re experiencing a problem like a total absence of natural lubrication, or an all-round tightening, doesn’t in my experience mean that sex is a no-fun venture. There are loads of fun ways to have sex that aren’t remotely Tab A-Slot B, or predicated on the state of one’s genitalia. If there are nerve endings to stimulate, and the desire to stimulate them, fun can be had by motivated parties.

I recently had reasonably major surgery that meant that a) I was weak and feeble for quite a while, certainly far too feeble to have sex, and b) I was unable to lie flat on my face in my usual position to masturbate. This was unacceptable to me, even in a painkiller haze I couldn’t accept going for weeks without orgasm, so I figured out an entirely new & different technique to get myself off that I wouldn’t otherwise have explored. It worked. Necessity is the mother of invention, is the moral of my story. As long as you retain a willingness to explore other ways of doing things, there is no physical infirmity that is going to consign you to a sexless hell. Sure, go ahead and have all the awesome sex you want right now, but don’t be doing it out of some fear that a sexless future awaits you. It’s not like a bank, where you can store up memories of sexual satisfaction now to keep you going later. It’s more like training: by keeping your skills & interest levels up, you’ll be in a better position to overcome difficulties in sex drive & ability in the future.

Comment #49: so totally anonymous for oversharing this much  on  12/12  at  11:06 AM

Chin, I think that’s all the more reason we need more honesty and self-acceptance.  That way a high/low couple discovers the discrepancy despite the newness because they open their mouths and talk about it.

Comment #50: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  11:23 AM

I’ll add that the social stigma against women speaking up in bed—-but that it’s slutty and it seems unforgiveably critical of a man—-probably means a lot of women’s experiences in bed are less and less exciting until their drive shuts off.

Comment #51: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  11:32 AM

There’s a lot of good commentary in this article, and I don’t disagree with a lot of what’s being said.

I do, however, wonder about the assertion that it’s always the woman who is assumed to be “broken” in relationships that have sexual incompatability issues and that men are always assumed to be okay and right in one case.

I’m a man (let’s get that out of the way right now, I suppose) who has a somewhat cyclic libido but it generally cycles between “very low” and “moderate”.  Pretty much all of my partners have higher libidos than I do.  I can say from my experiences (and I do realize that the plural of anecdote is not data, so these may not be generalizable) that if you’re a man who does not want sex 24/7 and is not “ready to go” 24/7 then you are by golly the broken one.  In fact, even one instance of your partner wanting sex and you not wanting sex will usually invite all kinds of questions about your masculinity.  Sometimes these are redirected into blaming the woman, of course: is she maybe just not appealing enough anymore, etc.?  But it’s always a “problem”, even if you’re okay with it, and it’s most of the time squarely blamed on the man: you need to see a doctor, maybe you can get some viagra, are you depressed, you need to work out more, are you gay, maybe you should drink less soy milk, etc., etc. 

Furthermore, there’s a lot less recognition for the idea of “no means no” when it comes to men in partnered relationships who don’t want sex all the time because there’s a lot less recognition of the fundamental idea that it’s even biologically *possible* for men to not want sex all the time.

I should note, partly since I wouldn’t be surprised if some of my partners read this blog but also partly to not paint the wrong picture here, that most of my partners have been very good and supportive about this, and sometimes even just knowing that I have their understanding if I’m not in the mood or ready or want to stop can help improve my libido by removing some pressure, but by and large they’ve been understanding, and we’ve worked things out amicably between us in ways that satisfy us both, although I admit that in some cases it took a lot of work to get there.  Most of these judgments and pressures seem to come from outside.

Also, there’s probably been a lot of change in this over time.  I imagine that women used to be much more stigmatized, as described here, if they had a high libido at all, whereas now having the higher sex drive in a relationship, for a woman, is a badge of being ‘hip’ pretty much.

I think that understanding needs to develop for the full spectrum of libido and sexual interest for all people.  I mean, that’s why there’s an asexual movement.  I’ve never myself felt entirely asexual, but I believe those who say they do and I don’t see that that’s a problem, whatever their gender.

Comment #52: Maize  on  12/12  at  11:34 AM

Don’t worry, Rugged, there are plenty of fish in the sea.

Comment #53: Notorious P.A.T.  on  12/12  at  11:37 AM

Honestly, my wife and I both alternate between who is more/less active. We’ve also discussed it at length and decided that neither of us should feel awkward for our desire/lack thereof, as often two people just aren’t in the same headspace at the same time. Since we’re willing to communicate on this whenever it comes up, and since we take the time to review our relationship, we’ve been very happy. Generally it’s outside issues, like end of the semester stress, that make things difficult.

Sexual relations shouldn’t be difficult if you’re willing to accept that you don’t know what your partner wants better than your partner does, and if you’re willing to discuss things, make changes, and be responsive.

Comment #54: anonymous  on  12/12  at  11:44 AM

That said, I’m inclined to think that there’s a lot we really don’t understand about human sexuality, especially female sexuality—how much of reduced sex drive is normal and how much of it is societial/environmental conditioning?...

I will say that based on what I know about sexual biology, it doesn’t make sense from an evolutionary standpoint for one gender to have a tendency towards a lower sex drive, especially since humans happen to live on a particularly promiscuous twig of the tree of life.

The idea that low/high matches are always female/male, in that order, is a fallacy. It’s reversed….a lot.  But when it’s reversed, the man is rarely pathologized to the same extent that a woman who wants it less is.  In fact, more often what you’ll see is the woman getting pathologized again, usually holding the blame for being too fat, too ugly, having the nerve to age, etc.  If men are pathologized, it’s usually only if the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, and they’ve got Viagra for that.  But when the woman who’s being left high and dry is undeniably attractive, then you’ll hear about men having low sex drives.  I have never heard of a woman’s low sex drive being blamed on a male partner’s weight gain.

SP, not to “diagnose” you, but if you don’t like sex and it feels foreign to you, you sound like you’re asexual.  That’s not a disease or a condition—-it’s increasingly regarded as another kind of sexual orientation, like homosexuality and you can get support.  However, it does mean that you should cope with it in the same way that people cope with being gay.  This can be very good news.  A lot of people enter straight marriages, and then one person collapses under the pressure of being in the closet and comes out as gay or lesbian, and they are able to dissolve the marriage and still continue to be great friends.  Because mismatched sexual orientations are no one’s fault.

No matter what you do, remember you’re not alone.  AVEN is a great organization and they can help you.  They have an online community of people who have been in your situation, and who can give you advice.

Comment #55: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  11:56 AM

I suppose the “shocking” part of the study is supposed to be that so many women are totally OK with not wanting sex.  Why is it so shocking?  If we weren’t bombarded with the meme that everybody has sex on their minds all the time and are only at work because they have to do something between orgasms, discovering that some people are all meh about sex should not be revelatory.

The reasons why some women are all meh about sex should be the interesting part.  (Although why women are being studied as the deviants for which we are generating data is a whole ‘nother issue.)This thread has given ‘way better theories than in that article.  To name 3, we have:
1. A subset of women don’t like bad sex.
2. A subset of women are too exhausted by other stuff in their lives.
3. A subset of women who have highly variable libidos.

Hello, study authors, I’ve been in one of these three categories at least once in my life, and I’m not even that old.  Call me back when you figure out something really interesting.

Comment #56: Original Lee  on  12/12  at  12:03 PM

Chareth, if the guys you’re sleeping with want it to be porn-style every single time, it might be worth discussing with them the idea of diversity.  If you eat spaghetti every meal, that’s boring.  If every sexual encounter is porn-style and you never do anything else—-maybe something more intimate—-then that’s also boring.

Comment #57: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  12:08 PM

The problem is that such women end up partnering with men who want a lot more, and then they end up in a miserable struggle over it.  And by guilt-tripping women about not wanting it as much, we’re encouraging this unhappiness to continue, by dangling the false promise that medical intervention will make her better able to satisfy his desires.

Equally frequent and equally ugly is often seen is the other way around.  Take part of your quote and change it to “And by guilt-tripping [the men] about ... wanting it [more], we’re encouraging this unhappiness to continue, by dangling the false promise [some day it will get better if the man only does X Y or Z].  I noted this in a previous post: in relationships where the sex drives are markedly different the uninterested partner often engages in emotional abuse of the “wanting” partner: if only you were prettier / slimmer / more handsome / earned more money / cared less about your job and spent more time at home / talked with me me more / didn’t spend all of your time trying to talk to me / spent more time with me / spent less time with me / nag me / give me the silent treatment / touch me at other times / don’t touch me at other times [and on and on and on and on].  Such abusive partners get around their own low sex drive by making the partner with the higher sex drive feel dirty/pushy/whatever for wanting something perfectly normal:to have sex with their partner.

Better would be a world where people accept their own diversity, and where judgment-free relationship negotiations occur.  If you accept yourself, you’re in a much better position to present yourself as you are to potential partners, and if you find out that your sex drives are incompatible early on, then you happily go your separate ways before you get entangled, and the inevitable going your separate ways turns into cheating and heartbreak.  Why does this have to be so hard?

Because there are a myriad of sanctions in our culture for admitting your own sexual needs.  Hell, listen to Dan Savage’s podcasts: frequently the biggest problem to sexual fulfilment is a partner who stands in the way and refuses too concede that their bf/gf/husband/wife is even entitled to HAVE sexual desires other than the ones that the refuser thinks appropriate.

As for ” you happily go your separate ways before you get entangled”... Well, it was my experience during my miserable years in divorce practice that this sort of shit generally comes up when the husband or wife feels that their spouse is sufficiently trapped within the marriage—either fiscally, emotionally, or child-wise—that they can unilaterally impose sexual misery on their partner knowing that “making your partner sexually miserable and your life together a sexual desert” isn’t a ground for divorce that most people will feel comfortable advancing to a court or family.  Say “(s)he hides the fact that we don’t have money” and your family and friends and the court will show sympathy.  Say, “(s)he won’t fuck me at all” and they look at you as if you are a selfish asshole, that since sex is a luxury and frivolity you aren’t entitled to kill necessary things like marriage and commitment for it.  Indeed, the deprived spouse often feels deeply ashamed (sometimes on their own, but usually with the cruel help of their spouse) for even wanting sex or feeling it necessary and so that corrosive problem is hidden away even when all other problems are discussed with friends of family.  The very humanity and sense of self and worth of the `refusee’ is ripped out and they’re the ones made to feel guilty.

Comment #58: seeker6079  on  12/12  at  12:17 PM

Maize, I believe you.  It’s the larger problem of trying to make a diverse group of people match to a single standard, instead of accepting that we’re all over the place.  We accept that people need to be matched by orientation, lifestyle, attraction, but for some reason we haven’t moved to adding sex drive to the list.

Comment #59: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  12:20 PM

Since you’re ascribing it to men as a whole, can I take it that it’s a very common attitude,

Well, no, I wasn’t. I was very fussy and careful about saying “some men” and “these men” and “those men who” and all that qualifying stuff.

I think it is a very common attitude among those men who complain about the quantity of sex in their relationship. How common such complainers are, I don’t know. I think they are so loud and make such an effort to normalize the service discourse of sex—the “putting out” model—that it’s hard to get a real idea of their numbers, and I hope there are not as many of them as it seems.

Comment #60: sophonisba  on  12/12  at  12:21 PM

seeker, it’s complicated.  I think it can both be true that people abuse high sex drive partners like you say, but it’s also true that the women in this thread aren’t fucking kidding when they say that sex with some men will turn you off sex forever, especially if, for some reason, you think that’s just how it is.  I mean, I’ve ended up in bed with the guys who act like touching you with a hand or a tongue is some horrible waste of time and that something is wrong with you for wanting that.  I’m super fucking lucky in that I’m well-read on the subject and have had lots of experience with men who don’t treat women’s pleasure like a chore.  If I didn’t have that benefit, I can easily see a situation where I’m like, “What’s the big deal?  This is boring.”

But it’s true that people with higher sex drives of both genders are told that they’re too ugly, or that there’s something wrong with them that they don’t appreciate the “higher” things in life.  Usually because the person with the low sex drive is defensive.

Human beings being imperfect, it’s nearly impossible for people with wildly divergent desires with no hope in sight of change to maintain honest, non-hostile communication indefinitely, though.

Comment #61: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  12:28 PM

What history_mom on 12/12 at 12:57 AM said; and chingona and Victoria, and the “hole in the mattress commentors.

Regarding the last-mentioned, I would add, in my agreement, only one minor caveat.  A lot of sexually miserable couples that I saw operated in a dysfunctional dynamic: woman has low sex drive, usually says no to sex; when it is available the man, like a starving person fearing that a meal will be snatched away, “wolfs it down”, as it were*; frantic, seen-as-selfish coupling reinforces the woman’s disinclination to have sex; cycle reinforces itself with each repeat.

* - We should be cautious of the notion that sexual refusal happens before any contact is initiated.  More than a few of the sadder of my files had situations where the sex began and the refuser partner ends it in the middle.  That produced loads of rage, despair and a very frequent desire to “get off quickly before she** changes her mind again!!!!” in the partner, hence the wolfing.  The ones I saw who were most fucked up in ye heade were the ones who kept going back to their spouse, hoping that “this week/month/year it will be different!”.  The equally-unhappy but less despairing/crazy spouses were the ones who stopped running up to the football when their personal Lucy was holding it.

** - As noted in earlier threads, I never saw the man as the one doing the refusing and/or head games in the relationship.  Judging by my reading since, my experience was a statistical anomaly, and the sex refusal games are far more gender-balanced than that across the societal board.  But if I’m writing of my own professional experiences then I have to limit it to those experiences and not pretend that I had a kind of file that, in reality, I never saw.

Comment #62: seeker6079  on  12/12  at  12:31 PM

I blame the Boomers. They seem in general to subscribe to the idea that (hetero) sex is the ultimate point of life. Sex is the Boomer God. If you’re disinterested in It, or even if you admit that It’s fun and all, but not the driving force of your whole life, why, that’s heresy!

From my experience on the hairy fringe of a certain much-derided Internet-based fandom, I’ve decided that when it comes to sexuality, hardly anyone knows anything. It’s hard to take any generalization seriously.

Comment #63: wapsie  on  12/12  at  12:33 PM

In a very long term relationship, housework IS an issue that spills into the bedroom.  If my husband plays the “because I’m working” card to drop all of the getting kids to school work on me and all the cooking and dinner chores and kid minding duties, etc., while I myself am working 50 hour weeks and commuting further than he is ... well, there isn’t too much of me left!  If have to get to sleep at a reasonable time so I can get up with the kids because he worked late at night and needs to be in early despite my needing to get in my hours too, I am not going to waste a precious minute of that sleep time.

I am much more willing and accomodating when I don’t feel like I am a service provider to The Working Man.

Comment #64: Ms Kate  on  12/12  at  12:33 PM

Treating your partner as a masturbation tool and/or only having contact with her when you want sex are pretty mortal sexual sins and absolution should be granted only after the sinner does the penance of being forced to sit in a box and watch “Transylvania 6-5000” for one solid week.

Fixed that for ya.  Some sins deserve a cruel, cruel penance.

Comment #65: seeker6079  on  12/12  at  12:35 PM

</i>Such abusive partners get around their own low sex drive by making the partner with the higher sex drive feel dirty/pushy/whatever for wanting something perfectly normal:to have sex with their partner. </i>

Constantly trying to get someone to sleep with you when you know beyond a doubt that they don’t want to is, in fact, pushy. Textbook definition, kind of. I know it is mean and abusive to let a pushy person become aware that they’re being pushy, because it makes them feel bad, but there you are.

If you don’t want to be married to someone who doesn’t want to touch you, you feel free to get divorced. Oh, hey, you already did. That’s fine. In fact it’s more than fine, it’s a good idea. Generally speaking, we should only be married to people who like us and want to show us affection. Calling someone abusive for not being physically attracted to you, though, that’s pretty messed up.

if only you were prettier / slimmer / more handsome / earned more money / cared less about your job and spent more time at home / talked with me me more / didn’t spend all of your time trying to talk to me / spent more time with me / spent less time with me / nag me / give me the silent treatment / touch me at other times / don’t touch me at other times [and on and on and on and on]

Just to be clear, you are saying that when a spouse loses all physical attraction to the other spouse, they should A. never tell them, and B. never tell them why, even when asked?

Because you know, sometimes there’s honestly no reason, but sometimes there is. Sometimes there’s a very good reason. I don’t think it’s ever, ever justifiable to insult a sexual partner’s physical appearance, but if they don’t want to screw you because you’re not sexually attractive to them, they just don’t. Being cruel about it is abusive, but the fact of it alone is not. Most people stay sexually attracted even as their partner changes and ages because that’s what love does for us. If love doesn’t compensate for physical changes, that’s a awful truth, but again, it’s the truth, and the fact that your spouse stops loving you doesn’t make them an abuser.

That’s really the bottom line. When you accuse someone of ‘ripping your humanity’ because they wouldn’t put out, you lose all rights to claim they were the one trying to make you feel guilty. It’s painful and horrible when someone you love doesn’t love you anymore, we all know it. But calling it abuse is just bizarre entitlement. What it is is incompatibility and the death of a marriage, and that’s all. Surely that’s enough.

Comment #66: sophonisba  on  12/12  at  12:40 PM

erm.  my wife and i have pretty different libidos.  she’s got a muuuch higher sex drive then me, and yes, sometimes it really upsets her—which is the only time it really bothers me.  but—it DOES bother me at that point.  but we don’t treat it as a medical problem—we just figured out how to work around it.

it’s not just het couples that have differing sex drives.

Comment #67: lisag  on  12/12  at  12:42 PM

Victoria:

but hey, if you want sex that badly you should be wiling to work for it.

Seraph:

Are there actually guys out there who are fool enough to turn that down…?

Yeah.  Me.  I was under the quaint impression that sex was supposed to be a mutually pleasurable experience.  If I’m told “earn it, asshole!  you do all this,with no input from me, then I might reciprocate… might…” then, oddly enough, I’d rather be celibate.  I want to be somebody’s happy partner, not their servant.  Weeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.

I don’t want to have to physically work that hard and mentally work on making it good for the other person…

.  There’s a phrase for men who think like this: selfish assholes.  And you are different because….?

Comment #68: seeker6079  on  12/12  at  12:46 PM

Talking about libido as though it’s a fixed condition rings a little untrue to me. My libido is always in flux, unlike my eye color, or how much I love avocadoes. It’s dependent on my mood, my stress level, how tired I am, etc, but more importantly it varies according to how in touch I feel with my current partner and whether there’s currently unresolved anger, resentment, boredom or a generalized malaise going on in the relationship. The same seems to be true for my partner/s (whether the relationship is three days or ten years in the making).

It’s so odd, threading out the desire to be sexually close from the thousand other ways couples are close. Sex is just one component of any coupling- so yeah, if I’m always doing the dishes, or a partner is on a run of being detached or unplugged from my overall needs or interests, I’m not so inclined to want his parts all up in my parts, either emotionally or physically. That’s not pathology, that’s human interaction.

Comment #69: mir  on  12/12  at  12:48 PM

“To my mind, one problem is that we automatically think the vast majority of problems that afflict heterosexual relationships can and should be addressed by changing the woman.  The man or the relationship is not eligible.”

I think this might be a bit of an overstatement given the rather enormous amount of pills, devices, etc. that are sold on the basis of addressing actual or perceived male sexual inadequacy. I think it might be more accurate to say that it’s more likely that when there are problems of mismatched libidos afflicting heterosexual relationships, the woman will be the target of intervention. Although I can’t say I know the amount or quality of research on these points.

Comment #70: rbc  on  12/12  at  12:55 PM

sophonisba:  “If you don’t want to be married to someone who doesn’t want to touch you, you feel free to get divorced. Oh, hey, you already did.”

I’ve been acutely careful to never, ever address my own personal experience within my marriage in this blog, on any topic whatsoever, other than the odd compliment on my former spouse’s positive qualities.  We might have been fucking like rabbits until the divorce came through, or we might have stopped three days after the marriage, and you’d never know; the one thing I’m damned sure of is that you’ll never hear any information on that—or any other personal marital information—from me.  I’ll thank you, therefore, not to be a vulgar shit indulging in petty ad hominem accusations like the one above.  They’re contemptible and you ought to be goddamned ashamed of yourself for lowering the debate.  If you can’t debate this issue without sneering something like that then you might want to find a high school cafeteria more suited to your lack of skill of debate and palpable lack of maturity.

The other points in your post might have been worth addressing.  But if you are going to splash in the gutter then you will, I trust, forgive me if I don’t want to engage.  We’re judged by our associates and I wouldn’t want somebody to think that I was trash like you.

Comment #71: seeker6079  on  12/12  at  01:11 PM

“I masturbate.  Problem solved.”  How nice for you.  Just like the old “Confucius Say: Man with sex problem on mind have solution in hand?”

Great.  Why is it that the person with the high sex drive has to acquiesce to the one with the low drive?  I masturbate too, but it’s not a preferred activity.  I truly enjoy the warmth and touch of a loving woman, far beyond the mere fucking of it all.  Fortunately prostitution is legal where I live.

Comment #72: Miathuna Yoga  on  12/12  at  01:33 PM

I think what’s clear from all these comments is that there simply is no “normal.” There’s no consistent standard for libido and there’s no easy way to separate the concept of libido from the state of a relationship, the stresses in life and physical issues.

Ebb and flow of desire is certainly my experience, both in the macro and the micro sense. My sex drive has generally increased over the decades, with some notable dips in years of extreme stress and depression. It ebbs and flows with my monthly cycle - around day 12 I’m almost guaranteed to be climbing-the-walls horny, but come day 25, I’m all, eh, whatever.

I’m fortunate in that my partner and I are generally well-matched in our sex drives. We both love sex, but we understand that it takes energy and focus, so we understand when we’re not in sync on our desires. We both feel free to say we’re not in the mood because, honestly, there are a thousand things that can get in the way of desire, from stress at work to a bad burrito. And sometimes when one is more interested than the other, the answer to the question “want sex?” is “if you’ll do all the work.” And sometimes, that’s fine. It’s all part of finding a larger balance.

I’ve been on the high drive end of an unbalanced relationship, and I have to say, it sucked. My ex-husband went on antidepressants, and they totally killed his sex drive. Up to that point, sex had been the only good part of our marriage. Once the sex was gone, there was no avoiding all the other problems, and we were divorced the next year. (Had we had a healthy marriage, I’m sure we could have weathered the sexual problems, but as it was, the lack of sex became one of the final two or three nails in the coffin.)

Comment #73: Phoebe Fay  on  12/12  at  01:37 PM

We might have been fucking like rabbits until the divorce came through, or we might have stopped three days after the marriage, and you’d never know

Many years ago, the State of Oregon instituted manditory personal finance curriculum in the high schools as a means of curbing the then-exploding divorce rate.  Why?  They surveyed divorcing couples, and found that the #1, hands down, absolutely top reason for divorce was Fighting over Money.

I somehow doubt that “sexual incompatibility” has budged that from the list in recent years.  In fact, I’ve seen more recent surveys that say that few couples divorce over sexual incompatability and many stated that sex was the only thing that worked in the relationship - it is the other hard stuff of living together in an intimate legal corporation that got in the way.

Comment #74: Ms Kate  on  12/12  at  01:39 PM

@Laura 11:42
Word.  You sleep with everybody, and you’re a slut.  You sleep with all but one guy, and you’re a bitch.

Comment #75: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  01:43 PM

So have we then come full circle back to the 1953 Life magazine article that said:

[The female] “simply by virtue of her own physiology and through no coyness or stubbornness of her own, disinterested, unresponsive, and in fact sometimes downright frigid…. The average woman… can certainly take sex or leave it alone.”

(Mentioned by Max Fisher in his TNR blog post on Bettie Page—seemed appropriate here).

Comment #76: Scott P.  on  12/12  at  01:48 PM

phalamir, what, do you love her or something, you freak? You must be one of those people who values his partner as something more than a wet hole. Anyway, yours is probably a reasonable approach: presumably you don’t hok her about it or make her feel inadequate.

Comment #77: Hershele Ostropoler  on  12/12  at  01:48 PM

#1, hands down, absolutely top reason for divorce was Fighting over Money.

Word, Ms Kate.  That fits.  It’s like a poison that sleeps into other parts of the relationship.  A couple arguing about sex may really be reflecting the fact that they’re stressed out to the max about job security and retirement.

Comment #78: seeker6079  on  12/12  at  01:54 PM

Phoebe Fay: that’s pretty sane stuff for a Valkyrie.

Comment #79: seeker6079  on  12/12  at  01:56 PM

@SP,
Not to pile on with the advice, but if you have pain still, after you’ve been having intercourse for a while, maybe you should see a doctor.  You may have vaginitis.  I know the whole thing of this article is how we think there’s something wrong when women don’t want sex, but I do know a couple of women who had this, got treated, and can now really enjoy sex and being sensual with their partners without fearing the pain.

Comment #80: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  01:57 PM

@miathuna,
LOL Really?  How much do you pay for the warmth of the touch of a loving prostitute?  Do you see what’s wrong with what you are saying?

Comment #81: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  02:09 PM

In women’s magazines articles, when men don’t want to have sex, it’s because they are cheating, or you are fat.  How is it that in this article the 44% women who don’t want sex aren’t getting it on the side from their hot co-worker, or just disenchanted with their partner’s weight gain or hair loss?

Comment #82: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  02:12 PM

“How is it that in this article the 44% women who don’t want sex aren’t getting it on the side from their hot co-worker…?

Because they are, but are too smart to admit it to some damned stranger with a clipboard? 
Now gimmie my cookie.

Comment #83: seeker6079  on  12/12  at  02:20 PM

As noted in earlier threads, I never saw the man as the one doing the refusing and/or head games in the relationship.

I suspect that women react differently on average to these head games.  They go on diets, buy lingerie, wonder why they’ve become so unfuckable.

Comment #84: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  02:29 PM

I agree with much of what has been said, but I think you have failed to adress one reason why some women have a low sex drive. It does have to do with sexism, but at another level: Most of my girlfriends from school married men they weren´t really attracted to because they had other priorities: someone decent who would treat them well, marry them fast, be financially secure and want a family. None of them finds her husband revolting but they don´t find them specially attractive either, so they only feel like having sex with them when they are very sex deprived. It´s not that they married a millonaire, they married the “nice guy”, and this is what happened.

Comment #85: anonymous 3  on  12/12  at  02:29 PM

Am I the only one that has different sex drive with different partners ? It goes a bit like what Samantha said - if I’m getting lots of good sex then my sex drive is higher - but also my sex drive pretty much died, when my marriage was in it’s last throes.  But rekindled again with my current BF pretty fast!

Maybe current BF is very good in bed and it’s just better sex, but I do remember enjoying sex with my ex-husband, before things got bad between us. I hate to say it because it sounds soo antique but at least for me, love for the person does indeed make a big difference in my sex drive.

On a side note, jerky ex told everyone, including my family, that I’m a cold fish and it destroyed our marriage, (it wasn’t him visiting massage parlors every week then wanting sex with no condoms, it was me being cold… jerk!).

Comment #86: Renmiri  on  12/12  at  02:34 PM

Calling someone abusive for not being physically attracted to you, though, that’s pretty messed up.

Well, it is abusive to lie to someone, and marrying them does tend to carry the message, “I love you and want to have lots of sex with you” in our culture.  You make it sound like a bad thing if a man or woman divorces a withholder.  I think it’s a great thing.  The reason people push for sex is they’ve been told falsely that leaving someone over a sexual incompatibility is selfish and shallow.  If we believed that sexuality is a crucial part of life, we wouldn’t put that on people. 

I’m sort of amazed at how many pro-gay people will nonetheless come down like a hammer on other people for having sexual desires that, if stifled, will drive you mad.

Comment #87: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  02:40 PM

I truly enjoy the warmth and touch of a loving woman, far beyond the mere fucking of it all.  Fortunately prostitution is legal where I live.

Er, that’s not the touch of loving woman.  That’s the touch of a woman who would have nothing to do with you if you weren’t paying her, and probably thinks you’re an asshole.  And this is why feminists are wigged by sex work.  Johns generally seem incapable of grasping that women are human beings.  They think “love” is a body temperature or an acting job, instead of what a woman feels in her heart.

I’m not bashing casual sex for its own sake.  But it’s not love.

Comment #88: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  02:44 PM

Yeah, I’ll be going anonymous for this one. Time for an illustrative anecdote!

Some years ago, my wife went to visit her family, and I was on vacation at the time. I promptly spent a considerable amount of time masturbating. So much, in fact, that I gave myself a mild case of friction burn, which wasn’t healed by the time she got back. Because any attempt to do anything involving my genitals just made things worse, and it took about a week to heal, the entirety of our sex life consisted of me servicing her.

Boy, was that ever an eye-opener. I don’t think I’d ever had quite so much fun for quite so long, and neither had she. It made me realize just how selfish I’d been, without even thinking about it, because I’d primarily been focused on myself, and she’d been enjoying herself as a pleasant side effect. Concordantly, she spent most of that week jumping my bones (well, my mustache) with more fervor than I’d seen in a very long time, and I’ve kept the lessons I learned that week in mind ever since.

I’d recommend temporary genital injury to any sexually-active heterosexual male. It’s quite an eye-opener.

Comment #89: Anonymous  on  12/12  at  02:48 PM

and absolution should be granted only after the sinner does the penance of being forced to sit in a box and watch “Transylvania 6-5000” for one solid week.

Fixed that for ya.  Some sins deserve a cruel, cruel penance.

Dude.  That’s not penance, that’s Hell.

Comment #90: Seraph  on  12/12  at  03:00 PM

SP, not to “diagnose” you, but if you don’t like sex and it feels foreign to you, you sound like you’re asexual.  That’s not a disease or a condition—-it’s increasingly regarded as another kind of sexual orientation, like homosexuality and you can get support.

Not to be a dick, but there’s probably no not-dick way to ask this, but why shouldn’t asexuality be pathologized?

Because asexuals get along just fine? Well, obviously; one definition of unhappiness is unfulfilled desire, and they don’t have the desire. Similar to people with no appetite, or persons who can’t experience pleasure (anhedonia) - they may not even know what they’re missing. Similar to red-green colorblindness - are the red-green colorblind substantially impacted and depressed by their condition? Not usually. Like asexuals, they often live a substantial portion of their lives completely unaware that there’s a dimension of sensation they can’t perceive. Do we classify red-green colorblindness as a condition, or as a “visual orientation”?

I don’t think it does people who have dysfunctions or conditions any favors when we pretend like they’re completely fine. I don’t think it does the people their condition places a burden on any favors, either. Yeah, I know it makes me sound like a dick but I think people who are going to embrace their asexuality as an orientation have a responsibility to not get into sexual relationships with sexual people - much as I think that persons who have embraced a gay or lesbian orientation have a responsibility not to marry straight people. Sex is something that sexual people want, and certain relationships carry an expectation of that kind of intimacy, and it’s a dick move to not even feel bad about letting your partner down in that way - male or female.

I think if you care about someone, and you’re intimate with them, yeah, you owe them good sex. Just like you owe them your help around the house and your half of the rent and bills. Relationships obligate us. Obviously, in practice, those obligations shake out against women more than men, I recognize that, but they do exist. (Nobody’s said that they don’t exist, of course, I’m just trying to make my position more clearly not “I think these frigid hoes should be givin’ it up.”)

Comment #91: Chet  on  12/12  at  03:02 PM

so totally anonymous for oversharing this much -

i’m hetero, and i enjoy the same kind of sex as you. i have a wonderful guy now who also likes it like that. so, it’s possible even with guys.

Comment #92: casey  on  12/12  at  03:18 PM

Why is it that the person with the high sex drive has to acquiesce to the one with the low drive?

Well, it is abusive to lie to someone, and marrying them does tend to carry the message, “I love you and want to have lots of sex with you” in our culture.

Such abusive partners get around their own low sex drive by making the partner with the higher sex drive feel dirty/pushy/whatever for wanting something perfectly normal:to have sex with their partner.

It’s fucking damaging to your emotional well-being to be used as a masturbatory aid by someone who allegedly loves you, especially once it (inevitably) becomes a habit.  You participate in your own devaluation when you have sex when you don’t want to, on someone else’s terms - basically, when you lie back and think of england. 

I’ve done plenty of “acquiescing” to the higher sex drive person in my day.  Once, I acquiesced because the asshole convinced me I ought to, because I’d cruelly withheld it from him for four whole days following surgery.  How selfish and abusive of me, lying there trying to cope with blinding pain when he had a stiffy!

Convincing your partner that she owes you her body on demand, that her desires and feelings are worth less to you than your orgasm?  That’s abusive. Inflicting pain on your partner because you want to get off?  That’s abusive.  Coercing your partner to comply with your demands for sex, harassing her endlessly until she does, ignoring her repeated “no”?  How the hell is that not sexual abuse/rape, especially when it’s ongoing and in the context of other forms of control?  Just because you’re married, it doesn’t mean you are now your husband’s sex-on-demand dispenser.

Withholding sex from your partner for a prolonged period of time, without any explanation, may be obnoxious, but you know what?  Bodily autonomy means I get to decide who gets to put what where and when on my body.  It’s never abusive to exercise my own bodily autonomy, and comparing “not having as much sex as you want” to “being abused” is unbelievably offensive.  For one thing, no man ever had to go to a shelter because he was afraid his wife wouldn’t have sex with him.  Jesus fucking Christ.

Comment #93: also anonymous because of oversharing  on  12/12  at  03:26 PM

i also want to reiterate what others have brought up, that it isn’t something that is immutable like eye color.

and it isn’t necessarily something that can be communicated early in the relationship, either, because it isn’t something that is always a known quantity.

for example, having a baby, aging, and/or taking anti-depressants are examples of things that can have a profoundly negative effect, and people (women) don’t always know to expect that these things are going to occur when at the beginning of the relationship.

however, it’s interesting to read through all the comments in this thread.  there is a significant group who sticks to the “he or she is being unreasonable and unfair” and there is a group that says, “eh, it’s tough but you work it out and find a balance that both people can live with because that’s what you do when you love each other”.

count me in the latter camp, though both my spouse and i had to spend some time in the former camp, working with a counselor, to get there.  but it’s worth the work.

and what someone else above said is true - if everything else about the marriage is strong and healthy, these issues can be resolved.  sexual imbalance is highly unlikely to kill a happy marriage, as long as it’s addressed and not ignored.  but then a happy longterm marriage/relationship is one where problems are addressed and not ignored, so it all comes around to that anyway.

Comment #94: trishka  on  12/12  at  03:30 PM

Are there actually guys out there who are fool enough to turn that down…?

Yeah.  Me.  I was under the quaint impression that sex was supposed to be a mutually pleasurable experience.  If I’m told “earn it, asshole!  you do all this,with no input from me, then I might reciprocate… might…” then, oddly enough, I’d rather be celibate.  I want to be somebody’s happy partner, not their servant.  Weeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.

And I’d rather do the cooking every night than go hungry.  To each his own. 

That said, I think that you and I may be coming at this from different angles.  You seem to have seen so many cases of deliberate malice that it’s become your baseline assumption, while I haven’t had that experience.  My wife and I have any number of problems that may finish us yet, but deliberate cruelty has never been one of them. 

I didn’t see Victoria’s statement as a demand for servitude so much as a call for servicing, if you see the distinction I’m drawing.  And considering all of the reports I see in this thread and others like it of men using their lovers as sexual appliances, that doesn’t seem unreasonable.  Even so, she acknowledged that the man doing all the work wasn’t a good idea in the long run, but it seems like a good idea for kick-starting things and breaking bad habits.

Comment #95: Seraph  on  12/12  at  03:34 PM

This is one of those where I’m going to lump my reactions to comments into one huge comment that I’ll have to actually post in two parts, so let me get my own thoughts on this out there first (the link goes to a lame-ass comment on an absolutely brilliant blog post on the subject) :

[F]or a number of people it is always the woman’s fault when there are mismatched libido issues, [though] the reasoning is different depending on which parner is hornier: if it’s her, she’s broken because she’s “oversexed,” and if it’s him, she needs adjustment because she’s not providing him the sex he’s entitled to.

Comment #96: Hershele Ostropoler  on  12/12  at  03:39 PM

Not to be a dick, but there’s probably no not-dick way to ask this, but why shouldn’t homosexuality be pathologized?

Changed one word for you to show why you’re wrong.  See how easy it is?  If an asexual person don’t start sexual relationships, I don’t see how it hurts anyone.  A percentage of people are amusical—-they can’t hear music.  Instead of bullying them or getting in a snit about it, why not just go, “Huh, the world is weird,” and move on?  I don’t know what it’s like to have synasthesia, but I don’t think that my life is so much poorer because there’s a human experience that I just am not built to perceive or enjoy.

Comment #97: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  03:42 PM

I mean, obviously, an asexual person has a responsibility to not get into relationships.  But that’s more, not less, likely if they aren’t pathologized.  If they are pathologized, they will start relationships because that’s “normal”, just as gay people get into straight relationships while in the closet.  Breaking open the closet means the asexual person is happier and doesn’t make other unhappy.

Comment #98: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  03:44 PM

The idea that low/high matches are always female/male, in that order, is a fallacy. It’s reversed….a lot.  But when it’s reversed, the man is rarely pathologized to the same extent that a woman who wants it less is.

Amanda, I don’t disagree, but my point is that a lot of this seems to be about perception and mindset as opposed to an objective understanding of the science involved. And yes, there’s a long way to go as far as eliminating the whole virgin/whore dichotomy thing, as well as generally respecting female sexuality overall. Consider what a shock to the system it must have been for a great many people when that paper on promiscuity in young British women came out this week—while a lot of professional sexologists probably weren’t too surprised, I think it turned a lot of people’s perception of female sexuality in general on its head.

Comment #99: Brian X  on  12/12  at  03:45 PM

also anon, no one is saying to acquiese.  We’re saying that making fun of someone for wanting to have sex or using guilt to keep them in an unhappy relationship is abuse.  If you don’t feel attracted to someone, for the love of god, don’t marry them.  And if you make that mistake, let them go without a fight.  You can’t be a good partner to them, and so why not own that and let them find a better match?

Comment #100: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  03:46 PM

trish, that’s all well and good, but if I were in a relationship with someone who unilaterally dropped the sex, the only “working on it” that I would accept is one where getting laid again on a regular basis is in my future.  If they aren’t interested in working towards that goal, then I’d be ending it.  And I wouldn’t be made to feel like a bad person because I didn’t give up a very important part of life because someone else wanted me to.

Comment #101: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  03:49 PM

My wife has a massively lower libido than I do.  So I masturbate.  And we’re all good.  Problem solved.

It’s good that works well for you.  Thing is, while that can certainly help relieve some pressure, there are emotional aspects to sex with a partner that it can’t really replace, at least not for most.

Comment #102: Seraph  on  12/12  at  03:52 PM

If not for the sexism, there wouldn’t be so much defensiveness about sexual incompatibilities, and partners who discovered they were not sexually compatible would be free to either reach a mutually acceptable situation or part without rancor.  The patriarchy hurts everyone.

Comment #103: Gavel Down  on  12/12  at  03:55 PM

Is it possible that the surveyed levels of “low” sex drive have any relation to the prevalence of use of oral contraceptives? I’ve had several girlfriends in the past who had low sex drives on some types of pill.  One just wasn’t fussed by it and just accepted it as a new norm, but one didn’t like that she didn’t really feel like herself anymore, in terms of lowering her sex drive. Other pill formulations she tried gave her the sex drive back but brought on awful PMS instead, and so we went back to the low-sex pill and worked with it.

This is just anecdote so I hesitate to make generalisations, but maybe in the reported study’s data there are a large group of women who just accept low sex drive if its caused by contraceptive use as a least bad option, and therefore aren’t “distressed” by it? Even though its already a medically-induced problem already.

Comment #104: mister z  on  12/12  at  04:07 PM

<<Another example of what I’m talking about—without solid study of female sexuality, it’s literally impossible to know what normal is. >>

I think female sexuality (and physiology) has been studied enough to see that pain (especially recurrent) as a signal that something may be wrong physically with a woman. Something that requires a trip to a good physician (or two) in order to save her health.

I got the “advice” to use lube, too—which, as it turns out, could have damaged me further. When the doctor I demanded the hormone cream from actually took a good look into my vagina, she said, “The skin is actually cracked, so thin it might tear.”

So lube might have damaged me further.

It’s sexism to overlook a woman’s pain, and only assign a psychological reason to it.

I’m worried that the warning sign of SP’s recurrent pain during intercourse has been ignored: by her, her husband, and this thread.

Since I have no way of contacting SP, would you please advise her from me to see a doctor (or two, or three) until she finds one who takes her pain during sex seriously enough either to check out whether there’s a physical cause and, if so diagnose and treat it.

Comment #105: judy brown  on  12/12  at  04:08 PM

As a male with a female fiancee:

My fiancee and I have a real ebb/tide thing going on in both directions. We currently live apart—our households are like overcomplicated jigsaw puzzles—so that reduces the opportunities we have. Most of the time, I’m the one who wants sex more. This usually includes a back-rub and lots of touching for both of us, though sometimes not an orgasm for her. This baffles me, but she says the closeness and connection are still there—they are!—and things still feel good. To me, that would be frustrating, but I’m not sure if there’s been any recent literature on the female equivalent of blue balls.

However, when she is orgasmic, they can be multiple. Then we get into more marathon sessions described above, especially if we’ve decided “This will be the day for marathon sex.” I’m perfectly willing to keep going after I’ve finished with whatever body part or appliance I can use to continue the romping until one of us taps out. Those are the times when we’ve got the metaphorical trapeze/circus/workout gym rented out.

Recently, the reverse happened, I was the tired party, where she was ready to grab me and have her way. We’ve also had moments where we both want to, but then just drift off before we get started—so we’ve gotten used to letting things happen as they happen.

Comment #106: El Mocho  on  12/12  at  04:26 PM

“That’s the touch of a woman who would have nothing to do with you if you weren’t paying her, and probably thinks you’re an asshole.”

I’m sure she wouldn’t, that’s why I pay her.  I’m not under the illusion that it is “love”, and I’d rather have it for love, but if I can’t, then I’ll have it any way I can get it.  I’ll ask her if she thinks I’m an asshole.  Because she’s a professional, I imagine I’ll get a professional answer.

Comment #107: Maithuna Yoda  on  12/12  at  04:33 PM

@amanda:

“the only “working on it” that I would accept is one where getting laid again on a regular basis is in my future.  If they aren’t interested in working towards that goal, then I’d be ending it.”

well, my experience has been that part of working on it is coming up with a definition of “regular basis” that both parties can live with.  and i agree that if one of the partners is not working towards that goal, that’s not really working on it.

according to my OB/GYN, this is a surprisingly common phenomenon in marriages after the birth of a baby.  it’s partly hormonal, it’s partly psychological, it’s partly a function of exhaustion and stress.  i know that isn’t part of your life or your life plan, amanda.  just pointing out that quite a few couples are going to end up addressing this problem and figuring out how to cope with it, if they haven’t already, at least those who ultimately have kid(s).

and reframing it away from it being the woman’s dysfunction is absolutely a critical first step.

Comment #108: trishka  on  12/12  at  04:37 PM

@mister z:
Yeah, the pill fucks you up.  Another symptom of how science never works for the woman.

Comment #109: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  04:41 PM

“You participate in your own devaluation when you have sex when you don’t want to, on someone else’s terms - basically, when you lie back and think of england.” 

“It’s never abusive to exercise my own bodily autonomy, and comparing “not having as much sex as you want” to “being abused” is unbelievably offensive. “

Fine with me if you don’t have sex when you don’t want to.  I certainly don’t want to have sex with someone who lays there like a sack and lets me masturbate inside her.  Just don’t tell me that I can’t go out and find someone who will have sex with me if I want to.

Comment #110: Able Baker Charlie  on  12/12  at  04:57 PM

Chin, I think that’s all the more reason we need more honesty and self-acceptance.  That way a high/low couple discovers the discrepancy despite the newness because they open their mouths and talk about it.

Amanda, I just don’t think it’s that simple. As others have said, desire, for many people, is not a constant thing. It ebbs and flows over the course of a relationship, and external things - job issues, money issues, health issues, kid issues - can all affect it. Sometimes there are real reasons why desire ebbs that can be addressed, and sometimes it just is, but often I don’t think it is something that could have been addressed ahead of time. Certainly, if you are sexually incompatible NOW, early in a relationship, you might want to rethink moving in together or getting married, because it probably won’t change. But I’m really not sure these problems can be completely avoided. Like Left Wing Fox said, sexism certainly makes the whole thing more of a mind-fuck, but even in an equal society, you still will have this problem.

Comment #111: chingona  on  12/12  at  05:11 PM

trishka:

“well, my experience has been that part of working on it is coming up with a definition of “regular basis” that both parties can live with. “

That’s a great insight.  I know that a lot of the problems I’ve experienced have been the result of not coming up with that definition.  I may *want* sex three times a week, but I can certainly live with twice a month.  But when that’s not well-defined, the resentment and guilt that can build up can result in a couple that has sex much less often than EITHER partner would prefer.  That’s not healthy for anybody.

Comment #112: anon  on  12/12  at  05:15 PM

If you get infections, and if you mean bladder infections, then I wouldn’t use KY jelly, or if you do, take careful note if your infections increase.  As someone who has battled regular UTIs for over 34 years now, I can relate. Oddly enough, the joy of sex isn’t worth pissing blood for hours on end.

Comment #113: JB  on  12/12  at  05:16 PM

Okay, I assumed she meant vaginal infections. All of which adds up to she should not be diagnosed by any of us over the Internet.

Comment #114: chingona  on  12/12  at  05:29 PM

So I just re-read through the thread again, and sadly, I can easily imagine the kind of vicious cycle seeker described. I have a suspicion that in those kinds of relationships, sex is just one area of many where very unhealthy patterns play out. I think the kind of self-awareness and openness that Amanda is describing have the potential to allow libidinously incompatible couples to come to an arrangement or compromise where the overal health of the relationship is maintained. But those are going to be relationships that are generally functional overall.

I’ve been trying to write about this in a really abstract way, but here’s what I’m talking about: I’m the one with the higher libido in my relationship. Didn’t used to be that way, but that’s anti-depressants for you. It used to be very, very painful for me to be rejected. Especially as a woman, I felt like the man is “supposed to” want it all the time, so there must be something wrong with me if I couldn’t get his interest. Masturbation was no consolation because it just depressed me more. Now, I’ve come to terms with the fact that this has nothing to do with me, that it’s just the way it is. Not taking it personally allowed me to get to a place where I could live with this and enjoy masturbation again. Now, I’m relatively fortunate because we still have good sex, sometimes very good sex, just less often than I would consider ideal. And I have to initiate more, which sometimes makes me sad, because it’s nice to be wanted and all, but it’s not the end of the world by a long shot. So the honesty and openness gets us to a place where the lack of compatibility in this one area doesn’t damage the rest of the relationship. But all the honesty and openness in the world wouldn’t have prevented us from ending up in this situation and it’s not going to “fix” it either.

Comment #115: chingona  on  12/12  at  05:51 PM

It may not be simple, but if you use the few basic, simple rules, then it’s a lot easier to figure out what you’re going to do.  Obviously, extenuating circumstances are not a reason to dissolve the relationship.  A new baby, a disease, a trip, etc.  Because the deprived person has hope, and a set date where, if things don’t improve, renegotiation is on the table.  We’re not talking about ebbing and flowing where the person ebbing promises a flow in the near future, and a renegotiation and possible termination of the relationship should that not come. Forcing someone to despair is abusive.

But what we’re talking about is unilateral deprivation without discussing alternatives. If you cannot or will not meet a desire another person has, then you need to either open it up so they can get it met elsewhere or cut them loose.

This is true, I think, of anything.  If there’s something you want and your partner doesn’t, then they suck if they’re willing to deprive you.  I like to go out to shows more than Marc.  If he made me feel bad for going by myself, he’d be a dick.  He doesn’t, though, so there you go.  We have other activities that are like monogamy.  I wouldn’t dare watch a new “Mad Men” episode without him. But if he were to cut me off and claim he doesn’t like that show anymore, he’d be a monster if he tried to stop me from watching it.  Of course, if we have an episode DVR’d and I’m on a trip, we can wait until I get back to watch it together.

Comment #116: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  05:56 PM

And I’m not talking about reasonable gaps, either, like one person wants it once a week and one wants it three times a week. There’s couples where a man or woman can go months without, and refuses to discuss it or makes the person who wants a regular sex life feel bad for despairing.  But honestly, even small gaps should be taken very, very seriously by the person doing the rejecting.  Most of us get really tired really quickly of being the person doing all the asking, and it can corrode a relationship.

Comment #117: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  06:03 PM

Something that I’d like to address is the whole “anti-depressants kill your sex drive” thing. While this is true, another thing that kills your sex drive is untreated depression, which is the alternative.

I have very little energy - not enough to work and get everything done around the house that I would like to, let alone work out or have a fulfilling sex life. For six months I was seeing a personal trainer multiple times per week, and I had even less energy. I’m on an antidepressant augmented with a stimulant, which together gets me somewhere below normal energy. Without them is much worse.

My wife has a much much higher sex drive than I do. Something I figured out pretty early on is that it’s LESS work for me to help her masturbate than it is to have full-on vaginal intercourse type sex. It’s not something I can do when I’m completely knackered, but it’s still doable on a lot less energy.

Comment #118: Dolbia  on  12/12  at  06:03 PM

Agreed, chingona.  I am the man in the relationship, but I agree with everything you just said.  I wouldn’t quite call it “sexual incompatibility” since I am attracted to my wife, she is attracted to me, and we both enjoy sex with each other a lot - I feel like “sexual incompatibility” exists when one or more of these things is not the case.  Maybe “libido incompatibility” is a better term.

Regardless of the terminology, you’re absolutely right that in a healthy, working relationship, you can get to a point where the issues are still there, but they aren’t causing suffering, or at least where the suffering is minimal.  You have to work at it, and you have to be willing to compromise, to see the shared responsibility in things that are comforting to think of as the other person’s fault, and to do all the other things that you have to do to work things out when you’re in a long-term (or, in my case at least, a lifelong) relationship. 

If you’re in a fucked-up relationship, and sex stuff is giving you a good justification to get out, go for it.  But if you’re in a GOOD relationship that’s being sabotaged by different levels of sexual desire, you can get through it.  You can’t necessarily FIX it, as you mention, but you can come out the other side.

Comment #119: anon  on  12/12  at  06:06 PM

Something that I’d like to address is the whole “anti-depressants kill your sex drive” thing. While this is true, another thing that kills your sex drive is untreated depression, which is the alternative.

Just want to acknowledge this statement. I get more now, on the meds, than I got in the six months he was severely depressed and not doing anything about it. In no way, shape or form do I want to suggest that someone who should be on anti-depressants not do it because of the whole sex drive thing. We’re not going to get divorced over the differences in our libidos. If he had continued without getting treatment, we would probably be at least separated by now.

Comment #120: chingona  on  12/12  at  06:10 PM

And I’m not talking about reasonable gaps, either, like one person wants it once a week and one wants it three times a week. There’s couples where a man or woman can go months without

Believe me, we know.

Comment #121: chingona  on  12/12  at  06:16 PM

SP can be perfectly healthy and have a husband / partner that likes some kind of painful sex that is not fun for her, i.e. anal. 

We should not assume she is sick. We can definitely conclude her partner is a jerk that ignores her discomfort and pain though.

Comment #122: Anonymous  on  12/12  at  06:17 PM

Weighing in again on the pain at intercourse issue.  While the physical issues might be the problem as suggested above there could also be nothing wrong, physically of psychologically.  For some women intercourse without sufficient arousal simply hurts.  And casual sex, with no ability to predict sexual skill of partner and the inability to relax with strangers is straight out.  Annoying maybe, but nothing wrong with that.  The key is just not to attempt intercourse without the arousal. 

And in the spirit of oversharing, and in response to some of the recent posters who are all about those evil mind playing bitches who play Lucy by pulling the football away.  (What kind of decent partner doesn’t see that their lover isn’t having a good time and changes things before she can call a stop?)  Why do some men seem incapable of following simple directions?  Even if you’re outspoken and all and tell them to touch you there in such and such a way… just not happening.  Communication is not always a solution.

Comment #123: Victoria  on  12/12  at  06:19 PM

Changed one word for you to show why you’re wrong.  See how easy it is?

To put words in my mouth that I didn’t say? Sure, pretty easy. But I don’t see how you’ve done anything except present a circular argument. I get that you think asexuality is an orientation just like homosexuality.

But gay people still have sex. Still want to have sex. I don’t see how it’s comparable, or how you’re not just assuming what I asked you to defend.

A percentage of people are amusical—-they can’t hear music.  Instead of bullying them or getting in a snit about it, why not just go, “Huh, the world is weird,” and move on?

It’s bullying to point out that a sick person is sick? How about this - it’s condescending to tell a sick person that they’re fine. I notice you don’t address any of my examples, which is too bad, because I think they’re a lot better analogies than homosexuality. How about anhedonia? If a quirk of someone’s brain chemistry prevents them from feeling all pleasure whatsoever, who are we to tell them something’s wrong with them? Who are we to pathologize red-green colorblindness if its sufferers often don’t even know they have it?

I don’t know what it’s like to have synasthesia, but I don’t think that my life is so much poorer because there’s a human experience that I just am not built to perceive or enjoy.

I think objectively you’d have to conclude that your life is less rich for not being able to hear the sound of numbers. Look, you like music; suppose for a moment that you did lose the ability to perceive it. I don’t think you’d argue that your life would be substantially less rich as a result. If you suddenly forgot all the music you’d ever heard, as well, can you really tell me that you’d regain the same amount of richness as a result?

The pathology here is such that not only is the experience lost, but the capacity to experience the loss is gone, too. That doesn’t strike me as better, in the “better to have loved and lost” vein. And it doesn’t strike me as the bright line between pathology and orientation, either, since there’s plenty we pathologize on either side. Are you arguing we should take anhedonia out of the DSM, next?

But that’s more, not less, likely if they aren’t pathologized.  If they are pathologized, they will start relationships because that’s “normal”, just as gay people get into straight relationships while in the closet.

On one hand that’s very truthy. On the other hand, the evidence is that you’re wrong. We pathologize AIDS, after all (because its a pathogen) but that didn’t stop gay men from essentially halting the AIDS crisis on their own by sero-sorting. Not having unsafe sex because that was “normal.”

Comment #124: Chet  on  12/12  at  06:28 PM

Chet, what’s it to you if some people don’t care about sex? I like yoga. Some people like jogging. I like cooking. Some people hate it. Whatever. Asexual people should not get into relationships with sexual people, but in and of itself, who cares? Even if you want to consider it a disability, like deafness or blindness, yes, I would notice and feel the loss if I suddenly couldn’t hear. But I don’t think a deaf person’s life is not rich and fulfilling. Some deaf people chose to try to gain some hearing with cochlear implants. Others feel the pain and trouble of surgery for less than optimal results is just not worth it. I guess I feel the same way about asexuality. If the person is troubled by it and wants to “solve” it, they should try whatever they think might work. But if they’re okay with it, it troubles me not.

Comment #125: chingona  on  12/12  at  06:36 PM

to anonymous here who wants anecdotes:

I turned 50 this year. I’ve always loved sex (a lot), although the abilities of the partner(s) are relevant with regard to the fun to be had in many individual incidents.

That said, it just keeps getting better for me. Yeah, I’m old, and lumpier, and greyer, and so are my partners, but in some ways, that actually works out as a positive. (And, knock wood (heh; I said “wood”), I don’t have the health issues that some people have.) In short, frankly, my dear, at this point in my life I seriously don’t give a damn about expectations. Let’s have some hot sex—a marathon, or a quickie, or whateverthehell (they all get recommendations in my book, depending on time & inclination).

One bit of advice: find an engineer. Their basic approach seems to be: what happens if I do this? How about that? How about this AND that? Oh; THAT worked; let’s see if I can make THAT happen again. Eventually I lose the power of speech.

Comment #126: yeah, also anonymous  on  12/12  at  06:38 PM

I’ve spent a good amount of time in discussion groups that talk about the high/low libido mismatches.  I discovered that relationships where women were the high level partner are more common than I thought.  Quite often each side thinks the other is the “abnormal” one.  The low drive partner usually has very little idea how awful the higher drive partner feels at what seems to be constant (see Annie Hall) rejection.  The rejection is not just a rejection of genital stimulation and sexual pressure, it feels like a rejection of the love that sex in a committed relationship symbolizes and over time it saps self-esteem in a big way.  The 12% just think they don’t have a problem—their problem may well be that the imbalance between their libido and their partner’s makes their partner miserable. 

It is good to consider sexual compatibility before entering in to a long term arrangement, like marriage.  But that’s no guarantee the problem won’t arise later.  It is a real kick in the head to know compatibility is important, look for and find a partner whose sex drive is similar and then to have life events severely alter the situation.  Others have pointed out that sometimes significant life events, like childbirth, destroy the libido of women, at least for a period—sometimes forever.  I don’t feel betrayed or intentionally trapped as Seeker’s clientele often feel, but I understand the feeling.  I’ve done enough reading and talking about it to know, at least in my marriage, that it didn’t happen by design. 

If SP’s situation is severe enough that her friends know about it I would guess that she significantly underestimates how much pain her partner is in.  And one of the components of that pain is the knowledge that she does not enjoy sex with him.  I would add to the unsolicited advice to SP by saying that if she does not have children with her partner yet, she would be doing him a big favor in the long run by breaking up with him.  He would be hurt for quite awhile, a year or two if he really loves her, but that would pale in comparison to decades of pain he’ll suffer if he stays with her, whatever the compensating positives are that make him stay.

Comment #127: MiddleageLiberal  on  12/12  at  06:46 PM

Chet, what’s it to you if some people don’t care about sex?

If we don’t care that they have a condition, we’ll stop looking for a cure.

I guess that bothers me. I think we should be trying to cure diseases, not convince their sufferers that everything is normal. Other than that, I don’t really care. But do you really think it takes a lot of effort to post on a blog?

But I don’t think a deaf person’s life is not rich and fulfilling. Some deaf people chose to try to gain some hearing with cochlear implants. Others feel the pain and trouble of surgery for less than optimal results is just not worth it.

Disturbingly, some others embrace the “deaf lifestyle” so completely that they have their children surgically mutilated to rob them of their sense of hearing. I just don’t see that normalizing pathology is a net positive.

But if they’re okay with it, it troubles me not.

What if “being ok with it” is part of the pathology, like it is for anhedonia?

Comment #128: Chet  on  12/12  at  06:49 PM

Others have pointed out that sometimes significant life events, like childbirth, destroy the libido of women, at least for a period—sometimes forever.

While this certainly isn’t a universal experience (and wasn’t my experience), it seems to be common enough that I’ve often wondered if it doesn’t actually have some sort of evolutionary purpose, like nature’s way of limiting the number of children a woman will have. I understand I’m on just as shaky ground as every other bullshit evo-psycho theory, but it doesn’t stop them from throwing shit out there, so I thought I could play too.

Comment #129: chingona  on  12/12  at  06:56 PM

“Yeah, the pill fucks you up.  Another symptom of how science never works for the woman.”

Wait, what?  The pill can fuck you up, libido- or lubrication-wise.  It’s hardly a foregone conclusion.  Some formulations will kill an individual’s libido while other formulations won’t affect that same individual in that way.  The fact that a lot of doctors don’t mention this as a possible side effect to women who’ve been prescribed the pill, or that there is way more than one pill out there if a woman has had a bad go-round with one, is utter crap.  However, there are also women who owe the fact that they can have normal lives without crippling pain from periods or cysts to hormonal birth control, and the whole reason so many fundies get their britches in such a bunch over it is that it allows women to actually control their own fertility, which not being able to do kind of put a damper on previous expression of female sexuality.

Comment #130: preying mantis  on  12/12  at  06:56 PM

@ Chet. Sure, posting on a blog doesn’t take much work, but you seem really worked up about the topic. I guess that’s what I don’t get. Fortunately, I don’t think asexuals will be surgically mutilating their children to make them asexual because they won’t have any.

Comment #131: chingona  on  12/12  at  07:03 PM

Of course, back in the day, the Shakers adopted orphans and abandoned kids and indoctrinated them into their celibate ways. Nonetheless, I have little fear of asexuals who don’t want to be pathologized trying to impose their asexuality on the rest of us.

Comment #132: chingona  on  12/12  at  07:05 PM

Chet -

“normalizing pathology”

As a deaf person - I just had to said this. FUCK YOU!

That was very offensive. I don’t support people who mutiliate their children in accordance in their wishes to accomodate some kind of ideal (whatever that ideal is - being deaf, having the proper set of gentials, or whatever).  Just because someone in a minority group does something that is morally wrong, doesn’t mean all the other members of that group are suffering from the same type of pathology.

But seriously, fuck you.  I don’t suffer from a pathology. I just adapted. I’m fine.  I don’t feel the need to reach for an arbitrary norm that is accepted by the majority to be “normal”.  Black people don’t feel the need to dye their skin white in order to become white, and neither do I feel the need to undergo invasive surgery to become a hearing person.  That is not pathology. That’s just being who I am.  Being deaf and being fine with it is not a pathology!

Seriously, just.. fuck you!


Sorry for derailing the thread, but Chet had to be called out on that.

Comment #133: melaka  on  12/12  at  07:06 PM

Sure, posting on a blog doesn’t take much work, but you seem really worked up about the topic.

Well, I wouldn’t say I’m particularly worked up about it, and if I’ve given that impression it was unintentional.

I’ve had the conversation before, with other people, so I started from a premise of already having some arguments up my sleeve, but it’s a smart bunch around here and I wanted to know what other people thought.

Fortunately, I don’t think asexuals will be surgically mutilating their children to make them asexual because they won’t have any.

You don’t think so? I don’t see that asexual automatically goes with childlessness any more than being homosexual does. An asexual might lay back and think of England, or perhaps they’d avail themselves of numerous techniques to overcome infertility.

I’d be very surprised to find that asexuals were always childless.

Comment #134: Chet  on  12/12  at  07:07 PM

Oh, and by the way, my arguement would also apply to asexuals as well. They’re fine, as long as they’re being honest about their needs and not pursuing sexual relationships under false premises. I would say that about any closeted gay/lesbian.

Comment #135: melaka  on  12/12  at  07:08 PM

Just because someone in a minority group does something that is morally wrong, doesn’t mean all the other members of that group are suffering from the same type of pathology.

I never said - or even implied - that they were, melaka, so your anger is surprising and unsupported.

I don’t suffer from a pathology.

I don’t understand. Didn’t you say you were deaf?

That is not pathology. That’s just being who I am.

Do cancer patients have a pathology, or are they just being “who they are?” Please explain the difference. Seriously - if restless leg syndrome is a recognized pathology it’s incoherent to suggest deafness is not.

Comment #136: Chet  on  12/12  at  07:12 PM

Chet, they’ll only lie back and think of England if they are conforming to pressure to be “normal” and be in sexual relationships. If they accept themselves for who they are, they won’t be in sexual relationships. Even if they used some sort of ART to have children, I doubt they would “impose” it on their children any more than gay parents make their kids gay. I’m sorry. Your argument is really weak.

Comment #137: chingona  on  12/12  at  07:12 PM

Being deaf is not a pathology. It’s part of human variation. Some people are fat, some people are tall, some people have blue eyes, and some people are deaf.

It’s only from your viewpoint as a hearing person, that being deaf is a pathology.  From the viewpoint of a christian fundie, being homosexual is a pathology.  From the viewpoing of a Nazi, being born jewish is a pathology.

And you wonder why I’m telling you you’re being an asshole?!

Comment #138: melaka  on  12/12  at  07:18 PM

Chet, cancer and AIDS can kill you. Deafness and asexuality do not. For that matter, neither will restless leg syndrome. Again, the question is how much does it affect your life? How much does it bother you? Do you want treatment? People are within their rights to answer that question for themselves and come to whatever conclusion they want.

Comment #139: chingona  on  12/12  at  07:19 PM

Chet, they’ll only lie back and think of England if they are conforming to pressure to be “normal” and be in sexual relationships.

Or if they want children. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear but that was the part of your statement I didn’t understand - the idea that no asexual could ever want to be a parent. I don’t see why that follows. I’m hoping you can elaborate.

I doubt they would “impose” it on their children any more than gay parents make their kids gay.

Suppose there was a procedure a parent could use on their unborn child, some kind of gene therapy perhaps, to make them gay. Do you really think nobody would ever use it? Really? I’m not saying it would be popular, but there seems to be a ton of people who are prepared to do dramatic damage to their children to make them more like their parents - like, say, cut the end of their dick off - and I don’t see why gay parents would be immune in that regard. Or asexuals.

Comment #140: Chet  on  12/12  at  07:19 PM

“like, say, cut the end of their dick off”

Hyperbole and you are having a grand old time today, aren’t they?

Comment #141: preying mantis  on  12/12  at  07:24 PM

Being deaf is not a pathology. It’s part of human variation.

How is it not a pathology? Or, if you prefer - why is deafness a part of human variation but cancer is not? It seems pretty arbitrary to me. Apparently it’s self-evident to you. Sure, maybe I’m the asshole speaking from a position of privilege - normal hearing.

Or maybe you’re the asshole who told me to fuck off, simply because I challenged the self-serving narrative you need to feel better.

Deafness runs in my wife’s family. Heart disease and cancer run in mine. The open question for both of us is whether she’ll be deaf before I’ll be dead. Why should I believe that I’m the one with a pathology and she’s the one with “normal human variation”? Either outcome seems pretty sucky to me.

And if deafness is normal human variation, why do they sell hearing aids? Vanity? You’re telling me that a hearing aid is the exact same thing as a colored contact lens or tanning cream? Really?

Comment #142: Chet  on  12/12  at  07:24 PM

So we should pathologize gayness on the off-chance that if some kind of in utero gene therapy is developed to make your kid gay, they won’t use it? What?

You are conflating so many things that it is impossible to even discuss this. You are making no sense.

Comment #143: chingona  on  12/12  at  07:25 PM

Let me try this again. Cancer and AIDS can kill you. Deafness won’t.

Comment #144: chingona  on  12/12  at  07:26 PM

Amanda Marcotte: ...You can’t be a good partner to them, and so why not own that and let them find a better match?

Because of the kids, of course.  Ol’ Dad can either a.) give up sex for the rest of his life or b.) mess up his kids’s childhoods.  There is no c.).  That’s the way it is, there is no happy choice, pick the alternative you find less horrible.

Comment #145: W. Kiernan  on  12/12  at  07:27 PM

Hyperbole and you are having a grand old time today, aren’t they?

What about that statement do you find hyperbolic? I asked my parents - I was circumcised as a child to make me more like my dad. It had nothing to do with religion since they weren’t religious at the time.

To make my dick more like my dad’s. Since we don’t, you know, whip ‘em out and compare, it seems somewhat uncompelling as a reason for me not to have part of my dick. Hyperbole? I don’t see it.

Comment #146: Chet  on  12/12  at  07:27 PM

@anonymous 4:17
anal doesn’t have to be painful.  But I do agree that if one of the partners is in pain, sex should stop no matter what.  And if someone is in pain, they should say so.  Pain face can be hard to distinguish from other sex faces.

Comment #147: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  07:28 PM

@Chet
I see your point a bit. If we think asexuality is ok, we run into the danger of considering it a DESIRABLE condition for others. Like fundies want to stop everyone from having sex - but themselves - and like parents perform female circumcision on their daughters to make they dislike sex and “be chaste”.  Or like “Ashley’s” parents : “Three years ago, Ashley’s parents made a decision.. The bedridden girl had surgery in July 2004 to remove her uterus and breast buds, and then received large doses of hormones to halt her growth”.

But to go from there to affirming that people afflicted with it are incapable of deciding to live with it and refuse treatment is going too far. It is up to the handicapped person to chose the way she sees him / herself and decide whether to seek invasive treatments or not. Sometimes the treatment is way worse than the condition itself, like melaka tells us above. Melaka is the only one who should decide how to deal with her condition, not you and me. The same goes for an asexual person who is not hurting anyone.

Comment #148: Renmiri  on  12/12  at  07:28 PM

Let me try this again. Cancer and AIDS can kill you. Deafness won’t.

Relevance? As you pointed out, neither will restless leg syndrome but it’s still a pathology. “Pathology” doesn’t mean “fatal.”

Comment #149: Chet  on  12/12  at  07:28 PM

But to go from there to affirming that people afflicted with it are incapable of deciding to live with it and refuse treatment is going too far.

I didn’t affirm it, I just asked. Remember? I’m not saying one way or the other, but we should check before the big effort to normalize asexuality.

Comment #150: Chet  on  12/12  at  07:30 PM

So we should pathologize gayness on the off-chance that if some kind of in utero gene therapy is developed to make your kid gay, they won’t use it? What?

Wow. Just… wow. How do you even get that from what I wrote?

Plus - “you won’t die from it, so nothing’s wrong with you.” Again, wow. Condescend, much?

Comment #151: Chet  on  12/12  at  07:33 PM

“Hyperbole? I don’t see it.”

Removing a piece of skin from the head of the penis and removing the glans itself are not even remotely the same thing.  I don’t support infant circumcision by any means, but you’re coming off like one of those nutbars who claim that the doctor might as well have just cut off their entire dick along with the foreskin.

Comment #152: preying mantis  on  12/12  at  07:34 PM

I don’t think there is an effort to normalize asexuality. More like an effort to decriminalize sexuality in all it’s forms, from zero sexuality to high sex drive, from hetero to homo or anything in between. People who have consenting partners should be left in peace to do (or not do) whatever floats their boat.

Comment #153: Renmiri  on  12/12  at  07:36 PM

@preying mantis,
Yeah, but if they were reallt interested in women’s health, they would not treat your loss of libido as a side effect that we should just deal with on our own.  I can’t take the pill, because I get really not-horny.  Then what is the point of taking the pill if I won’t want to have sex?

I guess my point was that the pill makers probably think that if ladies want to be baby-free, they’ll just have to go orgasm-free too.

Or it might be that it pisses me off that I don’t have the cojones to get an IUD already.

Comment #154: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  07:36 PM

People sell hearing aids because some deaf/hard of hearing people want to hear better.  That’s all it is. 

I don’t give a fuck about your wife.  She has the right to deal with it in her own way, whatever it is.

But it’s not pathology. It’s part of human variation. I don’t need a self serving narrative to make me feel better. I’ve never felt the loss that you imagine I feel.  I’m fine.  I’m sorry that becoming deaf seems sucky to you, and that’s your problem, not mine.  You’re the one that pathologizes it, not me.  I mean, you compared it to CANCER. 

I’m finished debating with you about this, Chet. I don’t want to derail the thread, and it’s obvious to me that you’re much too invested in the idea that having hearing is better than having none.  You don’t seem to have the ability to step out of your shoes and see it from the perspective of someone who has been born deaf.

This is the exact same arguement, by the way, many LGBT people have had with straight people who refuse to understand that being LGBT is not inherently pathological or harmful in any way.  The problem is not being with gay, it’s assholes like you, Chet.

I’m done.

Comment #155: melaka  on  12/12  at  07:37 PM

I do see a big problem with advocating asexuality as something desirable though…. Look at this poor girl’s parents talking about her. I agonized more over neutering my dog (I didn’t) then they did about neutering their own daughter!

“Ashley’s parents say that although the surgery and hormone treatment seems drastic, keeping her small will actually protect her health by reducing the risk of bedsores and the other conditions that commonly afflict bedridden patients. And keeping her from going through puberty will remove the discomfort of periods, which often terrorize severely disabled girls. Having her breast buds removed means that she will not develop breasts and therefore the risk of breast cancer, which runs in Ashley’s family, will be much less.”

See the slippery slope ? If being barred from sex is considered “normal” then there are some very logical benefits to neutering kids. UGH!!!! And the worst part is that it happens to millions of young women all over the world, who have their genitals cut “for their own good”.

Comment #156: Renmiri  on  12/12  at  07:43 PM

oh.. linkies
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/126984.html Ashley’s story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting Female “circuncision”

Comment #157: Renmiri  on  12/12  at  07:47 PM

@W. Kiernan
Dad’s leaving will not necessarily mess up kids’ childhoods.  At least not as long as he keeps sending money.

Comment #158: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  07:48 PM

Remiri, I don’t think anyone is advocating asexuality as something desirable.  Just as something that does happen, that is part of human variation, and we should be able to accept that some people are asexual, and that is perfectly fine for them.  Also if we are more willing to recognize that asexuality is nto some pathological derivation, it will allow people who are themselves asexual to “come out”, to be themselves, instead of pursuing sexual relationships or developing some kind of complex about it.  it is perfectly okay, along the the same lines, to prefer to be single, to not want sex, and to be perfectly content with a sexless life.  I wouldn’t be, but I’m not asexual, so who am I to determine what is best for them?

Comment #159: melaka  on  12/12  at  07:48 PM

Do cancer patients have a pathology, or are they just being “who they are?” Please explain the difference. Seriously - if restless leg syndrome is a recognized pathology it’s incoherent to suggest deafness is not.

From Merriam-Webster:

pathology
1: the study of the essential nature of diseases and especially of the structural and functional changes produced by them
2: something abnormal: a: the structural and functional deviations from the normal that constitute disease or characterize a particular disease b: deviation from propriety or from an assumed normal state of something nonliving or nonmaterial c: deviation giving rise to social ills


Deafness is certainly “abnormal”, Chet, but to define anything as abnormal as also being pathological is to say that anyone who is disabled, whether that person has Down Syndrome, is paralyzed, or is deaf, is suffering from a pathology.  It’s also not that far from defining anything unusual as abnormal, which would be an easy thing to do to gays and lesbians who make up only 5-10 percent of the population.  Are they suffering from a pathology?

You’re free to define “pathology” that way if you wish, but don’t get pissy when you rightly get called an asshole for it.

Comment #160: keshmeshi  on  12/12  at  07:52 PM

@Chet,

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree.

For someone who likes music, of course deafness is going to seem like a terrible, awful condition.  And if you like colors, ditto for color-blindness.  But asexualism is a very different thing.

The deaf can’t simply choose to hear.  It’s not that they tried music and decided they didn’t like it, or that they have the option but did not take it.  Same thing with color blindness.  It might seem sad to those who love someone deaf that they can’t enjoy music and sound as readily, so we’ve been looking for cures for these things. 

But asexual don’t have a condition where they could never have sex.  They just happen to not like it, and they were born that way.  What is pathologic about that?

Comment #161: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  07:55 PM

Well, you say “what’s the difference?” You are suggesting there is something wrong with someone who doesn’t seek treatment. It’s a lot easier to justify a decision not to seek treatment for something that doesn’t bother you and doesn’t shorten your life span than it is to justify not seeking treatment for something that could kill you. The question about “pathologizing” started out as a question of whether “something ought to be done” about asexuals.

Seriously, you ask why your wife’s potential future deafness should be a “normal human variation” and your heart disease and cancer is a disease. Well, your wife will be deaf and you’ll be dead. As a hearing person, I would prefer to continue to hear. My father is losing his hearing and hearing aids don’t really work for him and it has a negative impact on his quality of life. So I’m aware of the implications. This isn’t totally abstract for me. But I’d way, way, way rather be deaf than dead, so much so that I cannot believe you would even compare the two.

Comment #162: chingona  on  12/12  at  07:58 PM

rasberryjamba, get the IUD already. The insertion really wasn’t that bad - like a bad Pap, basically. I loved, loved, loved mine and I loved not having any hormonal side effects and basically never having to think about BC at all. I had the non-hormonal one, and I did have heavier periods, but my cramps weren’t any worse.

Comment #163: chingona  on  12/12  at  08:02 PM

melaka, I want to apologize to you. I was the one who first brought up the analogy to deafness. I thought it might help Chet see things differently. I didn’t realize it would result in these kinds of things getting said.

Comment #164: chingona  on  12/12  at  08:06 PM

chingona,

It really doesn’t hurt?  BAD PAP!!!??? 
Man, I’m such chicken shit.  Maybe I’ll get myself an IUD for Christmas…  I’m really getting sick of having to use condoms with my own husband.

Comment #165: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  08:11 PM

“Yeah, but if they were reallt interested in women’s health, they would not treat your loss of libido as a side effect that we should just deal with on our own.  I can’t take the pill, because I get really not-horny.  Then what is the point of taking the pill if I won’t want to have sex?”

“They” don’t.  Some uncaring or uneducated physicians do.  Like I said before, the pill does not zap libido across the board.  Some women actually wind up more horny after they start on the pill than they were before.  If you wind up with unwanted side effects, from lack of the horny to severe mood swings to rapid weight gain to *insert unwanted side effect here*, the proper response is to recommend switching to a different version of the pill if the woman in question is committed to hormonal birth control as the best option for her or is deriving significant health benefits beyond contraception from being on the pill.  I know there are doctors—a lot of doctors—out there who are more than willing to treat a side effect like that as what the patient just has to put up with because we live in Soviet Russia where pill chooses you or whatever, but it ain’t so.  There are plenty of doctors who don’t act like that, care about what unwanted side effects the pill may be causing, and work to get patients set up with a pill that’s right for them or, if they don’t want the pill, a more suitable form of birth control.

Are there going to be some women for whom no version of the pill works without fucking things up?  Sure.  Just like there are women for whom latex condoms and dental dams are out because of latex sensitivities, women for whom copper IUDs are out because of copper allergies, women for whom diaphragms and sponges are intensely problematic because of the chemicals in spermicides, etc.  That doesn’t mean that science is trying to wreck our health in the pursuit of turning us into walking, talking sextoys.  It means that there’s probably never going to be a one-size-fits-all magic bullet to deal with any medical issue due to the variability within the human population.

Comment #166: preying mantis  on  12/12  at  08:16 PM

Chingona,  no, it’s not your fault. It was actually a good analogy. I agreed with it.

Chet’s the one who’s being an asshole that can’t see beyond his own biases and his experiences as a person to consider that there are other equally valid, rich and fulfilling ways of living. 

Just because you might not understand it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work fine for others.

Comment #167: melaka  on  12/12  at  08:17 PM

Melaka, I agree with you. I think people can be happy in all kinds of ways and what works for me might not work for someone else. I just have a lot of my own misgivings about glorifying the low libido / no sex type of woman.  Funny because I was once considered one myself!

I consider myself lucky that I never saw myself as “sick” but on the other hand my life only got happier and better when I decided to do things to change, to get away from being “comfortably numb”. I even, to my surprise, rediscovered my libido and found pleasure in sex again. I was just having sex with the wrong guy! But to get to find that out I had to ignore what everyone else told me was “normal” and I had to find my own way.

I gave away money and status but consider myself a lot happier now, so I can really sympathize with you being happier without hearing. Some things that make others happy don’t work for me, and vice versa.  It’s life with all it’s wonderful variations.

Chet does seem to have a different view than mine though. While I see danger in glorifying asexuality I also see the fact people are diverse and some can be happy where I was not. And I’m happy for them

Comment #168: Renmiri  on  12/12  at  08:18 PM

Remiri -


Thanks!  And just a correction - I am not “happier without hearing”.  I never really had it in the first place.  This is just the way I was born (with a little bit of hearing which is mostly useless other than at a rock concert).  And yes, I had to find my own path and ignore what is considered “normal”. 

Hence, which is why I really do symphatize with people who lost their hearing - they do feel a loss, that I’ve never felt.  I would feel the same way, I suppose, if i lost my ability to see. NOW that scares me!

Comment #169: melaka  on  12/12  at  08:23 PM

raspberryjamba: Dad’s leaving will not necessarily mess up kids’ childhoods.  At least not as long as he keeps sending money.

All I can say to that is, try it some time.  You get your five-year-old hanging on to your leg saying, “Daddy, don’t leave,” and you reply, “But I’ve got to, or else I can’t get me no piece of ass.”

Comment #170: W. Kiernan  on  12/12  at  08:23 PM

It’s bullying to point out that a sick person is sick? How about this - it’s condescending to tell a sick person that they’re fine.

Define “sick” without using “out of the norm”, because by that definition, homosexuals are sick. If someone is not hurting, is perfectly healthy, is hurting no one else, is not suffering, and is perfectly happy the way they are, then what’s it to you?  Your attitude is exactly the attitude that got homosexuals put in electroshock therapy.  They’re “abnormal” and that’s good enough.

It would be one thing if it was just like, “Huh, some trick in your brain means you don’t get sex.  Really, it’s not a sickness anymore than being colorblind or tone deaf is a sickness.”  But that’s not what asexual people get, and nor is it what you’re suggesting.  You’re suggesting they’re broken and need fixing.  I’m suggesting that they’re different and need acceptance.

Comment #171: Amanda Marcotte  on  12/12  at  08:23 PM

“It really doesn’t hurt?  BAD PAP!!!???
Man, I’m such chicken shit.  Maybe I’ll get myself an IUD for Christmas… I’m really getting sick of having to use condoms with my own husband.”

Supposedly insertion is less painful if it’s done during your period, when your cervix is already a bit chilled out, as it were.  If you really want one but are skittish of the insertion and after-effects, you might want to check out some of the message boards and whatnot devoted to IUD use.  Most women really seem to love theirs, and if we have ways of helping people not freak out and run for the door during LASIK procedures, it stands to reason that there are ways to reduce discomfort or mental stress associated with insertion of IUDs.

Comment #172: preying mantis  on  12/12  at  08:29 PM

@ raspberryjamba ... Well, YMMV. But for me, it really was more uncomfortable than painful. I was told to take an ibuprofen before I went in. The worst part for me is they don’t use lube on the speculum because the IUD is sterile and they don’t want to risk dragging lube, which isn’t sterile, into your uterus with the insertion. I should also mention that I have had a kid. I’ve heard a lot of stuff that says the tendency here (in the US) to steer women who don’t have kids away from IUDs is misguided, but from reading on message boards, the few women who did have problems with their IUD - mostly with it coming out on its own - were the ones who hadn’t had kids. But seriously, I loved mine. The only reason I got it out is because we’re planning another kid. I’m totally getting another one if/when we’re successful. I had to pay out of pocket and it wasn’t cheap, but it was so worth it.

Comment #173: chingona  on  12/12  at  08:30 PM

I don’t know. If there were a pill I could take that would make me straight, I doubt very much that I would take it, but if I were deaf and there were a pill I could take that would let me hear, I would probably take it. I’m definitely speaking as a privileged hearing person, but that’s what occurs to me here.

Comment #174: junk science  on  12/12  at  08:32 PM

junk science -

funny. I know deaf people who are straight, who would feel the same way, but in reverse. They wouldn’t want to be gay, or to be hearing, either.

Comment #175: melaka  on  12/12  at  08:39 PM

Yeah, good point. I don’t actually know what it’s like to be straight or deaf, so I don’t know if I’d be happier that way.

Comment #176: junk science  on  12/12  at  08:40 PM

I don’t think that attaining a privilege status automatically makes anyone happier.  Life is easier, maybe, but happier? No.

Comment #177: melaka  on  12/12  at  08:41 PM

@W. Kiernan,
Just because daddy will feel guilty does not mean that the five year old’s childhood will be messed up.  That’s not a messed up kid you’ve described, that’s a messed up daddy.  The kid will most likely just resume TV watching as soon as daddy is out the door.

Comment #178: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  08:45 PM

raspberryjamba:
Don’t let the back-and-forth with W.Kiernan let you accidentally go down a “dads are pretty much disposable (at least in all things except money!)” path.

Comment #179: seeker6079  on  12/12  at  08:47 PM

@melaka,
So, if there were an easy way for you to be able to hear, you wouldn’t take it?  Why?

Comment #180: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  08:53 PM

@seeker,

LOL Sorry, didn’t notice that.  Thanks for pointing out.  It’s just that I hate it when couples pull the “doing it for the kids” card.  Do it for yourself, and you’ll be doing your kids a favor.  I feel like “doing it for the kids” is always just an excuse to drag things out, to not make a difficult decision, to stay in denial a little longer.  In the meantime, you teach your kids that it’s OK to silently suffer a life of boredom and resentment, and that you are doing it for their sake.

Comment #181: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  08:57 PM

raspberry -  I don’t want to.  It’s not about easy way/hard way. I just really am not interested.  Also, being deaf, has led me down paths in my life that have been very beneficial and enrichening.  It took me out of the small town I grew up in.  Being part of the deaf community gave me the opportunity to live in Washington DC, New York City, and now Seattle.  I take advantage of a extremely dense and developed deaf network to travel to international conferences to meet with other deaf people and learn bout their culture and language.  I teach ASL and linguistics as a faculty member at a community college.  I wouldn’t be where I am today if I wasn’t deaf.  Seriously.  My life is so rich and full because of it.

Comment #182: melaka  on  12/12  at  09:15 PM

oh, raspberryjamba, quite agreed on that score. 

As for the other, I am only to glad to point out the potential but as yet unrealized small errors of others.  It is part of my plan—a plan so cunning that you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel—to distract folks from my actual, large errors.

Comment #183: seeker6079  on  12/12  at  09:20 PM

I wanted to put this on the diamond thread, but it was closed.

Sarah Haskins take on the diamond commercials!!!
http://current.com/topics/32967823/comedy/new/0.htm

Comment #184: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  09:30 PM

W. Kiernan,
To the extent your last comment says that the reason Dads leave the marriage when there are young kids is just so they can get laid, I say Fuck you.

And this is coming from one who has stayed for 27 years and started thinking about leaving 15 years ago.  The major factor was the kids but it was my desire to be a part of their day to day lives.  I didn’t want to be the weekend dad, for my sake more than theirs.

Comment #185: MiddleageLiberal  on  12/12  at  09:33 PM

MiddleageLiberal,
I hope you can say what you are saying without an ounce of resentment to yourself, your wife, or your kids.  You’ve been thinking about leaving for 15 years?  Wow.  Aren’t you afraid that someday you will finally leave and think you should have left 15 years ago?  I guess only a few more years until the kids are out of the house anyway.

Comment #186: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  09:43 PM

...Surely I’m not the only one on the pill *because* of the hormonal side effects? No period cramps = no crippling pain once a month! I’m not having sex with anyone so the no-babies-thing is pretty pointless, and I haven’t noticed a change in my libido (at least, nothing even approaching the SSRI side effects. I used to joke that *all* the teenagers should be on ‘em, to keep those crazy kids from fucking all the time!)

I get kinda ticked off when people go straight to the monolithic “science/scientists don’t care about women/queers/POC whatever” and I’m always like “really? no women/queers/POC are scientists? Oh, you mean that *some* scientists are *assholes* just like there are assholes in *every* profession!”

(And Chet needs to stfu for a while, and go think about what it is that he’s saying that is so hurtful and offensive, and why it’s hurtful, and *why* is he even *saying* it?)

Comment #187: Bagelsan  on  12/12  at  09:51 PM

Hey! four-year-olds cling to your leg and say “Dad, don’t leave!” when you’re just going to the bathroom. I’m really offended at the “just keep the money coming” line, but then again you can really mess up your kids’ lives by staying with a partner when you don’t get along either…

I think what Chet is doing is more like the craziness that pathologized being short in the days when Human Growth Hormone was first being tried out. Sure, there are sometimes medical conditions that lead to short stature, and whose correction can lead to more-socially-acceptable stature, but shortness by itself is not a pathology. (And one friend listed this thanksgiving one of the things he was most thankful for that his parents never enrolled him in one of the HGH trials that were available when he was a kid, because so many of the kids in those trials ended up dying of viral and other infections passed via the HGH…)

And meanwhile, I’m also with history_mom and others—it’s hard to talk about how women’s sex drives are pathologized in relation to men’s without working around the fact that men’s sex drives are often defined in weird counterfactual terms involving how often a guy claims he would want sex if only his frigid partner(s) would put out. (The whole idea of women as the less libido-driven sex, btw, tracks pretty well through history with women’s emancipation and education. From Chaucer and Boccaccio throught some time in the late 19th century, it was taken for granted that women with their fallen natures and deep connections to fecundity would naturally be more lustful than men, and would drag men down with them into the pit of concupiscence if given half a chance. That strain still persists in a lot of “conservative” typings.)

Comment #188: paul  on  12/12  at  10:10 PM

@bagelsan,
I could say that my comment about science not working for women was light hearted, but no.  Because I don’t think enough research goes into women’s health and sexuality and well being, and I hate that we are supposed to be content with what we have and not ask for better solutions. 

Also, are you saying that women/queers/POC get the same kid of attention from the medial and scince community than do rich white men?

Comment #189: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  10:12 PM

raspberryjamba,
The thought of leaving hasn’t been constant, it just started 15 years ago.  The end result of counseling (a little joint and more solo) was a conscious decision to stay, with the classic lists of pros and cons. Sometimes the cons against staying felt more numerous than others. Meanwhile my own libido took some hits so it hasn’t been quite so hard the last couple of years.  The youngest kid graduates college next spring.

Comment #190: MiddleageLiberal  on  12/12  at  10:15 PM

Oh, and there’s NO resentment toward the kids.  They’re terrific, joys of my life.  Occasional resentment toward the wife, but it comes when I think she has no clue there is a problem or when I think she knows but doesn’t care.  I wasn’t trapped.  I chose to stay.

Comment #191: MiddleageLiberal  on  12/12  at  10:21 PM

Middleageliberal,
I guess you loved them and decided to make do with less sex.

It’s hard for me to understand…  my husband and I hardly ever have sex with each other anymore (I think it’s been a month), but we have sex with other people constantly.  I wonder, if we weren’t swingers, would we be dissatisfied, or would we have more sex with each other? 

I think we would be dissatisfied, since whenever we go on long trips together, and only have sex with each other, we don’t have as much sex.  A couple of times, when we’ve been away, one of us would want sex, the other wouldn’t, and it was frustrating, or sad.  We still do a lot of other stuff, like make out, cuddle, cook for each other, surprise each other, date and other stuff.  But no sex.  I wonder if maybe if we weren’t swingers, our relationship would be in shambles because of our lack of sexual interest in each other would mean we would be sexually frustrated.  Would I think I was fat?  Would he develop an ED?  Which one of us would be blamed for losing their libido?

Comment #192: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  10:29 PM

@ raspberryjamba. I find that fascinating. Especially the part about not even having sex when you went away. At first I was thinking if you weren’t swingers, maybe you would have more sex. I was thinking about how if I masturbate sometime during the day, it can sap my desire. If he initiated, I would still be game, but all the urgency is gone. No need to push it or bring it up. So if it’s been a while and I’m starting to think it’s important that we actually have sex with each other, I’ll hold off on doing anything else. But see, with us, when we go away, we go at it like nobody’s business. And that part makes me think maybe it is good you’re swingers. (I don’t know that I’m personally cut out for an open relationship, and I don’t know anyone in real life you is in one, so I find their dynamics fascinating. Thanks for sharing.)

Comment #193: chingona  on  12/12  at  10:55 PM

That last bit should be “who is in one” not “you is in one.”

Comment #194: chingona  on  12/12  at  10:57 PM

It’s probably too late in this thread to make much of an impact, but as a sex therapist/sexologist in training I very much agree with this post. I also want to stress that the medical model of pathology endorsed by the DSM and the researchers that Amanda discusses is NOT reflective of the field as a whole. There are a LOT of sexologists and sex therapists out there who place a criticism of the way our culture socially constructs sex and sexuality at the foundation of their philosophy.

There is a substantial and growing movement that rejects diagnoses like Female Hypoactive Desire Disorder in favor of something more along the lines of a relational desire discrepancy. Basically, there is a problem in the relationship if there is a big enough difference between the partners sex drives to cause subjective distress for one or both partners. This works any way in any configuration of genders and any configuration of sex drives. The key is that neither partner is pathological and neither partner is to blame. Both partners contribute to the problem in different ways.

Comment #195: swarmofseals  on  12/12  at  11:11 PM

Forcing someone to despair is abusive.

My God, Amanda, thank you for saying this.  I needed to hear it.

Comment #196: whinger  on  12/12  at  11:15 PM

@chingona,
Thanks!  Anytime!  You know how I love to overshare!  wink

Well, I still find the dynamics interesting too. 

We used to have tons of sex with each other and with other couples.  Now we only do other couples.  I can’t even think of when this change happened, it must have been gradually starting two years ago.  We’ve been together close to ten years, and I guess most couples would experience this decline in sex and assume their “sex drives” are diminishing.  But we know ours are not, because we sleep with others. 

This became evident when we were outside the country for a couple of months earlier this year.  We tried to find swingers there, but couldn’t find anyone we liked.  I think we had sex 3-4 times in two months.  We started trying things like lighting candles, getting drunk, going to romantic places… lots of making out and fun talking would ensue, but no sex.  The only times we did have sex was when we would catch each other masturbating and feel interested enough to “help”.

So whenever I read articles about putting the romance back in your life, I’m a little skeptical.  Ditto with the ones that blame resentment, stress, weight gain, soymilk, etc.  What if people are not too stressed out, tired or busy to have sex?  What if it is normal to not want to have sex with the same person again, and we just want to believe that it is the individual relationships that are broken?

Comment #197: raspberryjamba  on  12/12  at  11:39 PM

So how do you feel about that? Does it bother you at all that you don’t have sex with each other, or do you just sort of figure that that’s the way it is and it doesn’t really strike you as anything worth worrying about?

Comment #198: chingona  on  12/13  at  12:16 AM

“So whenever I read articles about putting the romance back in your life, I’m a little skeptical.  Ditto with the ones that blame resentment, stress, weight gain, soymilk, etc.  What if people are not too stressed out, tired or busy to have sex?”

It’s not an either/or thing, though.  In a lot of the cases where people are looking into “putting the romance back into their lives,” it’s not like your situation where you’re both having plenty of awesome sex with other people.  It’s not their partner that isn’t doing it for them; their libido has tanked across the board.  In a lot of other cases, it’s not just the sex that’s not happening—the partnership has hit a rocky patch above and beyond that.  Sure, there are also a lot of people who’ve stopped being attracted to each other who are trying to fool themselves into believing that there’s some series of moves they can make that will end in them going back to the way it was and staving off a dissolution of the relationship with all the mess that a break-up entails.  But it’s probably not nearly as common a thing as one or both partners feeling tapped out, or taken advantage of, or completely unsexy and gross due to _______, or stressed and miserable and disinclined to fuck.  This is particularly likely when you factor in what was pointed out up-thread, where a bout or two of bad, unsatisfying sex tends to lead to further problems with avoiding or tensing up about sex.

Comment #199: preying mantis  on  12/13  at  12:18 AM

the big effort to normalize asexuality

There’s no “big effort to normalize asexuality.” There’s a quiet effort to make it OK to be asexual without jackasses condescendingly insisting that being “fixed” is for your own good. Some may want to seek treatment. Some are fine with life as it is. It’s not a third party’s call.

Comment #200: annejumps  on  12/13  at  12:18 AM

Basically, there is a problem in the relationship if there is a big enough difference between the partners sex drives to cause subjective distress for one or both partners. This works any way in any configuration of genders and any configuration of sex drives. The key is that neither partner is pathological and neither partner is to blame. Both partners contribute to the problem in different ways.
I absolutely agree.  I saw pretty quickly on the discussion boards on this topic that my level of preferred frequency and type of sex could easily put me on the low end of the scale in a different relationship.

Comment #201: MiddleageLiberal  on  12/13  at  12:25 AM

Chet:

You don’t have a vagina. There’s a whole realm of human sensation that you’re missing out on. Why don’t you get a sex change?

Your answer there would probably be something along the lines that you weren’t born female (cis or trans) and feel no need to experience that sensation. It might be interesting, sure, but your life is not massively inconvenienced or harmed by the lack of it. There’s really no point to seeking it out, especially as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

And most asexuals don’t get into relationships with sexual people. The ones that do are usually the ones in the closet, so to speak.* That’s something that patholigizing asexuality will completely not help.

*I have known some asexual/sexual couples, mostly where the asexual partner didn’t loathe having sex, but just wouldn’t seek it out for themselves. They seemed to work it out in roughly the same way low libido/high libido couples did.

Comment #202: luzzleanne  on  12/13  at  12:43 AM

@chingona,
You know, I don’t know.  It bothered me when we were abroad, because we couldn’t find anyone to have sex with.  I know it definitely doesn’t bother me now, but it worries me that I don’t know if it might be bothering him and he just doesn’t want to tell. 

I know now we aren’t doing any of the romantic things we were doing to try to get horny for each other again, like we were in the summer.  And I know we aren’t shaving for each other anymore.  But we are cooking for each other, getting concert tickets, giving massages…
 
Also, when we went out on these dates that were supposed to make us horny for each other, we would end up saying things like “OMG, Alice and Mark would LOVE this restaurant!”  Or talking about other couples in other way.

Comment #203: raspberryjamba  on  12/13  at  12:52 AM

Fap fap fap…..

Comment #204: Fapper Vance  on  12/13  at  03:02 AM

Is it possible that the surveyed levels of “low” sex drive have any relation to the prevalence of use of oral contraceptives? I’ve had several girlfriends in the past who had low sex drives on some types of pill.  One just wasn’t fussed by it and just accepted it as a new norm, but one didn’t like that she didn’t really feel like herself anymore, in terms of lowering her sex drive. Other pill formulations she tried gave her the sex drive back but brought on awful PMS instead, and so we went back to the low-sex pill and worked with it.

Why use pills then? I have yet to be in sexual relationship, but reading about pills makes me want to use them less and less. And then some men will complain about their wives having low sex drives. Why should I destroy my sexuality and only men will have fun? Why not use condoms?

Are most men now so selfish as to demand women to take pills, even if she is very much against it? I know somebody who got much more than lower sex drive and hormonal problems didn’t stop after being off the pill for half a year.  It’s not always reversible, unfortunately.

Another point: some girls start taking pills before having sex, so the pill can kill their sex drive and them not even suspecting it since they never tried without it.

Comment #205: reader  on  12/13  at  03:47 AM

Why should I destroy my sexuality and only men will have fun? Why not use condoms?

Different contraceptive methods work for different people. If you’re having sex with a new partner, you definitely want to use a barrier method to avoid STDs. But condoms have downsides - loss of sensation, and the inconvenience of having to keep them on hand.

My wife LOVES her Depo-Provera - she only has to think about it 4 times a year, and she doesn’t have periods. It totally works for her, which is great. And she doesn’t get any side-effects. If she had adverse effects, we’d figure out another form of birth control.

Comment #206: Dolbia  on  12/13  at  04:07 AM

Reader:  Trust me when I say that fear of an unplanned pregnancy is a much bigger libido killer than the Pill for many women.  For the two years my husband and I used only condoms as our BC before deciding to get have our child, I rarely could relax enough to enjoy sex.  If the migraines had not precluded continuing on the Pill, I would have stayed on it, regardless of the lowered sex-drive.  In any case, the tri-phasic pills don’t have nearly (in many cases) the same effect because the hormone levels mimic natural hormone cycles, which means you tend to have friskier times of the month, it’s just not as strong an urge as produced by your natural hormonal cycle (in my experience).

For some reason, post-baby and returning solely to condoms again, I no longer have this overwhelming fear of an unplanned pregnancy and have seen my libido re-surge. Of course, this could be just a natural increase in libido related to age, as I’ve also found masturbation is a necessity at least every other day if there is no sex.  I’m tending toward the camp that thinks that libido is cyclical and changes for a variety of reasons that are hard to predict when entering a relationship.

Comment #207: history_mom  on  12/13  at  04:15 AM

Pathologize homosexuality? This thread would indicate that it’s the hets who have problems with sex.  You freight it with too much importance.  If it’s something your partner wants and you don’t then at least give him permission to get it elsewhere, otherwise it does kind of make you a selfish jerk.

Comment #208: pablo  on  12/13  at  05:57 AM

44% of men live in homes that do not meet their female partners levels of tidiness expectations

12% of the men gave a sh*t

How should we report this problem?

Comment #209: No More Mr. Nice Guy  on  12/13  at  08:50 AM

I just wish to add my own applause for Amanda’s comment “Forcing someone to despair is abusive.”  It doesn’t matter whether it’s sex, money or any other damned topic: “Forcing someone to despair is abusive.”  And there’s always no shortage of assholes or fools who minimize this.

And kudos also to raspberryjamba* and chingona for letting us listen in on such a balanced, interesting take on things.  It’s a real pleasure to hear such an offbeat and oft fraught topic handled with such relaxed and human honesty.

And pablo @ 0357h wins the Euclid award for the shortest distance between two points.

Comment #210: seeker6079  on  12/13  at  10:01 AM

* - I love that name.  I hate the fact that it’s a keyboard word that forces me to s l o w r i g h t   d o w n l e s t I m i s t y p e.

Comment #211: seeker6079  on  12/13  at  10:23 AM

If it’s something your partner wants and you don’t then at least give him permission to get it elsewhere

Easy enough, as long as it went both ways, but a lot of guys who think they should be allowed to fuck other women if they’re hornier than their partners emphatically don’t think their partners should be fucking other men if it went the other way. You have to do something about gender inequality first.

Comment #212: junk science  on  12/13  at  11:00 AM

Good point, junk science.

Why use pills then?

Hormone regulation, I should think; regulation of periods, lessening of acne, reduction of cramping, etc. Some IUDs provide hormone regulation, but not all women go for those.

Comment #213: annejumps  on  12/13  at  12:08 PM

Reader:

Because not all pills are the same, and not everyone takes hormonal BC just for the BC part.  If I’m not on BC, my periods are pretty irregular, coming anywhere from 3 to 5 weeks, which really stresses me out.  Hence, I love BC for the regulating effect.  The generic version of the Pill that I was on a couple years ago totally sapped my sex drive, while the Ring seems to have a much milder effect.

As to the general topic, how can one even parse out problems with sex drive from relationship problems or life stress?  How would they measure my sex drive, since it varies from summer (moderate) to winter (through the floor)?  It’s not like everyone’s libido is the same day to day or year to year, anyway.

Comment #214: Karinna A.  on  12/13  at  12:35 PM

reader,
I have friends who say the pill makes them more horny, not less! 
SO not fair…  angry

Comment #215: raspberryjamba  on  12/13  at  01:05 PM

seeker,

Thanks!  I love your name too!  It makes me think of Harry Potter.

Comment #216: raspberryjamba  on  12/13  at  01:07 PM

“Why use pills then? I have yet to be in sexual relationship, but reading about pills makes me want to use them less and less. And then some men will complain about their wives having low sex drives. Why should I destroy my sexuality and only men will have fun? Why not use condoms?”

“The pill” covers a pretty wide variety of formulations these days.  If one messes with you, there are others (triphasic, low-dose, etc.) that probably won’t.  If those do, well, you may be one of the people who hormonal bc just doesn’t agree with, and you can stick with condoms or look into copper IUDs, diaphragms, etc.  Hormonal bc happens to be popular because it has a very low failure rate, is completely woman-controlled, does not (strictly speaking) require implantation or any other type of doctorly falderal aside from a scrip before you can start using it, is easy to use, has a number of desired non-fertility side effects, and, if you decide it’s messing with you or you really do want a baby, you just stop taking it.

And if you do experience mild unwanted side effects on the pill, such as a slightly lower sex drive, the desired non-fertility side effects can outweigh that.  If mean, if you have really bad periods, or wildly unpredictable periods, or bad acne, or whatever, the amount of sex you feel like having at any given time can tank pretty hard anyway.  The choice can be between “want sex a lot, actually have it less” and “want sex less but still often, actually have it most of the time.”  Which you would pick is going to depend on the person.

Condoms are something you should be using anyway, though.  If you’re with a new partner, if you and your partner aren’t monogamous, if your partner has been diagnosed with something like HPV which can be treated but not cured…barrier methods keep you safe in addition to keeping you from getting pregnant.  Thinking of them as just birth control is one of the reasons STDs can spread so quickly amongst elderly populations.

Comment #217: preying mantis  on  12/13  at  01:28 PM

I don’t need a self serving narrative to make me feel better. I’ve never felt the loss that you imagine I feel.

I don’t imagine you feel any loss. That’s my point. Were you reading?

If you were deaf from birth then sure, you have no idea what you’re missing. Since I’m not a synasthete, I can’t hear the sounds of colors. I have no idea what I’m missing. But how could either of us objectively claim that our lives don’t lack that richness? What, we get all that richness back because we don’t know what we’re missing? Absurd.

Not knowing what your missing doesn’t make it better. That’s stupid.

There’s a whole realm of human sensation that you’re missing out on. Why don’t you get a sex change?

For one thing, they’re not completely reversible; for another I don’t think a sex change could give me an authentic, just-like-someone-would-be-born-with vagina. But maybe the sex-change science is better than I think. Sure, if there’s an easy way to go back and forth, ala Steel Beach, maybe I’ll give it a try sometime.

You are suggesting there is something wrong with someone who doesn’t seek treatment.

Alright, look. If you people aren’t going to even try to grapple with what I’m actually saying, this is done. I’ve been as clear as I possibly can; at this point it’s obvious that I’m being misrepresented because that makes it easier to dismiss me.

Comment #218: Chet  on  12/13  at  02:15 PM

Chet and Melaka are both arguing for ridiculous extremes.

Deafness is not a disease (a “pathology”), but it is a disability. (Literally, as in some human beings are able to hear, and others cannot.) Disability can be no obstacle to a happy life. It can and is the basis of identity and culture. AND it can be “corrected” by medical technology. Which sets up a philosophical bind neither Chet nor Melaka seem able to grasp as such.

Asexuality is a similar and serious grey area. It can be reasonably compared to a sexual preference (like homosexuality) and to a pathological state (anhedonia).

I tend to think of it more as the latter, because I personally get very unhappy when my sexuality diminishes from sickness or depression.

But since sex is as much personal, psychological and cultural as it is biological (and more, probably), if an adult chooses to regard a lack of sexual feeling as no problem for her, then there’s nothing to do as a matter of policy but shrug and move on. There’s no harm done to any of us by her choice.

Comment #219: wapsie  on  12/13  at  02:16 PM

This is so typical of Chet. He argues some really extreme position, is really rude to anyone who disagrees with him at all and then gets super bent out of shape and pouts about how misunderstood he is and why is everyone deliberately misrepresenting him.

@ waspie. I’m not really sure how melaka is arguing from an extreme position. She doesn’t say that no one who is deaf should try to correct it, just that she has no personal desire to change this aspect of herself. I think it’s pretty presumptuous to say that someone who actually is deaf has not “grappled” with what that means.

Comment #220: chingona  on  12/13  at  02:28 PM

chingona: You may be right about melaka. I may be inferring too much from her affect.

Comment #221: wapsie  on  12/13  at  02:35 PM

Reader, some women dislike condoms more than their male partner does. I found that I missed skin-to-skin contact so much that I was doing things like suggesting we forget them because it would be fine according to the math I just did in my head. That is, ironically, how I was conceived, so I know how stupid it is, and I am not a person who usually makes poor decisions.

My S.O, on the other hand, was determined that I not go on the Crazy Pills for his sake. So I did for my sake (along with the ritualistic insistence that everyone disclose all their previous partners and trundle off to get tested), because it seemed like the best insurance against bad judgment on my part. And you know what? Low-hormone birth control pills do make me crazy (and a cup size more buxom, which is actually painful and kind of horrible) but regular-dose bc does nothing but make me slightly crankier and give me a bad case of the munchies, and lower my sex drive enough that twice a day is sometimes sufficient. As someone well-acquainted with other people’s pregnancies, I will take my modest weight gain and occasional snappiness over knocked-uppedness.

Comment #222: anonymous here again  on  12/13  at  05:57 PM

If you were deaf from birth then sure, you have no idea what you’re missing. Since I’m not a synasthete, I can’t hear the sounds of colors. I have no idea what I’m missing. But how could either of us objectively claim that our lives don’t lack that richness? What, we get all that richness back because we don’t know what we’re missing? Absurd.

Not knowing what your missing doesn’t make it better. That’s stupid.

Of course it doesn’t make it better.  But a deaf person’s life can be just as good as a hearing person’s life.  An asexual life can be just as good as a sexual one.  If I understand you correctly, one of your main points is that perhaps people aren’t happy with being asexual and you want there to be medical treatment for that.  OK.  That’s a reasonable position.  But there is also the competing social desire to not stigmatize people who are having a perfectly happy life not having sex with anyone.  These are both good things:  enable people who want to have sex to have sex, and allow people to be happy being themselves.  That these good things often find themselves contradicting each other is a side-effect of being in a human society.  We’re not Vulcans.

And you should seriously lay off the “missing richness” thing.  One could say that the logical conclusion of your argument is that heterosexuality and homosexuality should be pathologies based on the “lost richness” of not being bisexual, and we should mourn the “lost richness” of not being a hermaphrodite.

Comment #223: Denise  on  12/13  at  06:04 PM

“I’m speculating, but I would guess that at least a few women who have low(er) sex drives and aren’t bothered by the lack of sex because, in their experience sex, means being used as a hole in a mattress. I don’t think many people have a smoldering insatiable urge to let their partner objectify them in that way.”

Agreed.  Perhaps more women would be into sex if more men didn’t suck at it.

Comment #224: Sheesh  on  12/14  at  02:14 AM

Well, let me just say from the perspective of a young woman whose sex drive was driven into the ground by hormonal birth control (I am not saying this happens to everyone, but this was my experience), I rather enjoyed having a high sex drive and was most distressed when I didn’t have one at all anymore.  I am gradually starting to get it back, thanks to a study drug and getting on a non-hormonal birth control pill, but for it to be so low was just not normal—for me.  I’m not saying this is everyone’s experience, but there are some women who are genuinely upset about this.

Comment #225: hk8312  on  12/14  at  03:48 AM

Sheesh:  “Agreed.  Perhaps more women would be into sex if more men didn’t suck at it.”

Wow.  The sexism, it burns.

Why do we not try, “more men would be less likely to want other women if the women they were with weren’t so shitty at sex.”

Both are utter, sexist crap.

Comment #226: seeker6079  on  12/14  at  12:13 PM

“a non-hormonal birth control pill”

Would you mind elaborating on this?  I’m intrigued.

Comment #227: preying mantis  on  12/14  at  02:49 PM

So which number is the bigger problem:
the 44% because it overmedicalizes the issue,
or the 12% which says that women’s opinions are marginalized?

Sounds to me like you are trying to burn the candle from both ends.

I have never heard of a woman’s low sex drive being blamed on a male partner’s weight gain.

I guess you’ve never seen ads targeted for improving male-looks. If you are a man, the ads (and therefore the society) is telling you that you better have rock hard abs.

Comment #228: MarkusR  on  12/15  at  11:23 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.