Over at Feministing this morning, Jessica links to this appalling piece that ran in the London Times: Not tonight, dear . . . in fact, not ever. Written by Dr. Pam Spurr, it’s subtitled: Feminism gave women control of their sex lives, but has it gone too far? Author and sex expert Dr Pam Spurr argues that many women are risking their relationships by saying ‘no’.
Here’s the whopper:
At the risk of being called old-fashioned (though I don’t think that old-fashioned should always have negative connotations) and antifeminist, I’d go so far as to say that for both partners sex could be considered a duty, if it is something that one partner knows would make the other happy.
Does he really want to go up on the roof to repair a leak on a Sunday afternoon?
Does she really want to take out the rubbish in the pouring rain? No, but partners in relationships do such things because they know that it makes the other happy. Sex should be seen in the same light.
Jessica takes it apart very well, and there’s a thriving discussion in the comments section at Feministing as well.
Writing from a Christian feminist perspective, I addressed this issue in July. Some excerpts:
…each partner is called to be deeply concerned with the well-being of the other — and of the partnership itself. That concern will manifest itself in the higher-sexed partner practicing self-control, not only in terms of physical restriction but also by refraining from nagging and pestering. The higher-sexed partner can’t come from a place of entitlement.
The bottom line is that the “Yes†or the “I will†of the wedding vow is not a permanent disavowal of the right to say “No†in the future. Whether we are married to our sexual partners or not, none of us has the right to demand that another human being please us. In practical terms, it’s safe to say that the greatest enemies of true eros are entitlement and expectation. Nothing is a greater turn-off than a petulant insistence that someone “owes†us an orgasm (or even a kiss).
From a Christian feminist perspective, our sexuality belongs to, in order:
1. God
2. Ourselves
3. Our partner(s).
Sexuality is God’s gift, and we honor God when we use our sexuality to bring delight to ourselves and to others. We dishonor God not merely by using our sexuality selfishly or self-destructively (such as in extra-marital affairs), but by forgetting that our sexuality is always that — ours. The Christian life often calls for sacrifice and service, but we make a theological error, I think, in assuming that our sexuality ought to be sacrificed for the pleasure of another. Christians make this error in misinterpreting Paul’s words:
The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
We miss the mark badly when we assume that this passage makes sex mandatory for the lower-desire person. Rather, each partner is called to be guardian of the other’s sexual autonomy. That’s not a paradox. It means a sacred responsibility never to assert dominion over the other, and to never coerce, manipulate, guilt, or pressure a partner into “obligatory” sex. For me as a husband, that means a moral obligation never to put my wife in the position where she must choose between her own needs and mine. I dishoner our marriage and the God who brought us together if I insist that she do what she fundamentally does not want to do. I am entitled to long for her, and she for me. But unless our longing is genuinely mutual, rooted both in a desire to experience pleasure for ourselves and give pleasure to the other, then whoever is the higher-desire partner needs to restrict and to wait.
Does she really want to take out the rubbish in the pouring rain? No, but partners in relationships do such things because they know that it makes the other happy. Sex should be seen in the same light.
“Yes, dear, screwing you is a dirty, unpleasant job that nobody enjoys. Now lie back and let me do my disgusting duty.”
Anybody who would do sex as a chore deserves some pity, I guess, but anyone who could happily accept obligation-sex is a sick twist. My body’s not trash; anybody who has sex with me like he’s taking out the garbage would be out out out. If you don’t want to do it, you don’t do it. What kind of men does this woman know, who would welcome that?
(Of course, some of them will probably show up in the comments to educate me on that point.)
Of course, some of them will probably show up in the comments to educate me on that point
I’ll be pretty rigid on the moderating if they do. It is an appalling analogy she makes.
Funny how every feminist critic who reads this article seems to latch on to the notion that it’s saying “It’s your duty to put out more, ladies (and ladies only).” And yet she specifically says in the article: ” I oppose the idea that anyone should feel pressured into sex”. As far as I can see, what she says in this article is: It is inconsiderate to decide that sex is of no importance to you without considering its importance to your partner/spouse.
Now, I do think it’s probably unfair of her to attach the issues she’s describing to feminism; these kinds of differences in attitudes towards sex aren’t necessarily correlated with feminism. I also think it’s a bit unfair to classify it as a female problem (even though I’d personally suspect there are at least slightly more frustrated husbands than wives out there.) But I think the above point is completely correct. It’s not necessarily a matter of giving in more when you’re not in the mood, either. Sometimes, lack of interest in sex is just a product of having decided that a sex life is not important to you and thus always opting to put your mental energies elsewhere.
One more thing, just to deflect the fully anticipated response: Yes, I know that sexless marriages could be as much the fault of the husband being inconsiderate and not paying sufficient attention to his wife’s needs, or not doing his share of chores, or whatever. I just don’t buy that this is always the full explanation.
This hierarchical approach to viewing the problem of mismatched libido is part of the problem. You offer the order of 1) God 2) Yourself and 3) Spouse. In a long term relationship defined by trust, history, and memories this context changes. If a husband is interested every night and the wife is interested once a month, which is not wildly uncommon based on my selective sampling of early 40s friends with kids, then deciding each night individually based on these criteria means he will be frustrated 29 nights out of 30.
1 Corinthians 7:5 pretty plainly says “do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time”. Anyone deprived unilaterally 29 nights out of 30 is reasonably frustrated, and it is difficult to argue that this is God’s intent for the married relationship.
All marriages have an ebb and flow of passion, but the key word in addressing this is “mutual consent”. Your “I don’t need to because I don’t really feel like it and God says that I come before you” formula may provide justification on any given night for wives who later bequeath upon their husbands years or decades (rather than “seasons”) of frustration with a distant and loveless marriage. The reality of the situation is that, once either of the spouses tries to apply a formula night in and night out, this decision becomes more of a self-sustaining habit. But the resulting situation with a wife who either now can’t or doesn’t want to put forth the effort bridge the gap with a husband who sleeps in the basement is certainly not God’s plan.
If sex is pleasurable for both partners in a marriage, then libido or desire issues can be navigated with some baseline agreements. I have a fairly low libido, which I define as the conscious desire to have sex. I am, however, easily persuaded. The worst combination for me is pairing with someone who has a higher libido who resents initiating sex.
Married Tom, the “mutual consent” of 7:5 is surely a requirement as much for having sex as for not. And as I’ve written elsewhere, mutual enthusiasm is the sine qua non for “right sex.”
Having sex with someone who is having sex with you out of obligation rather than genuine desire ought to be horrifying to any decent person. Sexual frustration is unpleasant (masturbation can be a fine remedy), but knowing that you pressured or nagged someone into being sexual with you is surely soul-scarring. Or it damn well ought to be.
And I fail to see why the husband has to sleep in the basement. You can sleep together without sleeping together, as it were. YMMV.
I’d like to add a personal anecdote here. One of my older friends is a feminist, but offered a very different approach to this issue. I want to make it clear that she and her husband are madly, madly in love. In fact, I know of no happier couple that been married for 25+ years. However, they really struggled with unequal sex drives early in their marriage but got through it. The solution to her issues is not something most feminists here might agree with, but it worked for them.
She was molested by her brother as a young girl, which had a negative influence on her sexuality/sex life during much of her teenage/early adult years. In her case, she often choose to have sex (especially earlier in their marriage) even though she didn’t initially “feel like it,” because she didn’t not want her experience with molesation to control her. Through this, she retrained her mind and body from thinking sex is a terrifying, scarring experience to one that is supposed to be enjoyable and fun. Part of that healing, for her, meant having sex even though every muscle in her body initially screamed, “NO! STOP!” Of course, that doesn’t mean she says yes to sex EVERY time her husband is in the mood. It just means that, had she not confronted her fears and retrained her mind and body, she and her husband would probably have a pretty poor sex life. She hinted that, uh, they have a pretty good one now.
Her story is unlike the “wifely duties” speech many women get on the morning of their wedding day, which is why I decided to post about it here. The reason she did not want to have sex -especially when they first got married – was less about general reluctance and more related to the abuse she experienced. That said, having sex even through you don’t initially feel like it is not always an anti-feminist choice.
Mermade, clearly it was still HER CHOICE to put herself through this therapeutic experience, as you say “she did not want her experience with molestation to control her.” The emphasis here is on her desire to heal, and I’m fine with that — and glad it had a good outcome. From the way you word it, this didn’t come about as a result of her husband’s expectations.
Exactly. It was her choice. She told me that her husband would never – and has never – demanded sex, not only because is just a kind and wonderful man, but also because he knows that she was working through her issues. In her case, I think her willingness to have sex even though she did not initially feel like it was, arguably, a feminist one, given that it allowed her to enjoy a great sex life and enhanced her relationship with her husband.
This can be an issue in a same-sex relationship.
With my partner, I have the much stronger libido. She wants affection often but sex no more than a few times a month. I’d like it just about every day. She is very understanding about masturbation, but that’s only part of it. I don’t just want to have an orgasm every day (though that’s pretty awesome), I want to be intimate with her emotionally and sexually more often. Toys are great, but a vibe is only partly a substituete for what I’m craving.
I just have to say that 3 kids and 30 years later, I do sometimes have to work at getting my head in the game…but then, 30 years later, the BH sometimes needs to remember that a bit of foreplay is in order.
It seems to me that being considerate of your partner’s sexual needs means making sure s/he enjoys the sex you’re having, not having sex when you don’t want to. Which, keeping in line with the sexist stereotypes of the original article, turns the problem on its head: it’s not that the mythic uninterested wife needs to give in to the larger desire of her husband, it’s that the theoretical husband needs to figure out how to please his wife.
Don’t want sex? Fine by me.
Just means when I want it, I’ll be having it somewhere else, and will spare someone else the “bother.”
But why should knowing that you are leaving your spouse constantly frustrated and feeling rejected not be soul-scarring in any way? You’re saying that one should not impose on the one you love in such a way. Fair enough – but yet, continual denial of sex to someone who has pledged fidelity to you is itself a less direct imposition. Now, I wouldn’t conclude that the answer to this is to make the other partner give in, of course, but you seem to regard the needs of the higher sex drive half of the partnership as essentially disposable here, which hardly seems fair-minded. I think the issue merits more regard then “Sorry … just go beat off.”
(My answer to this, of course, would simply be to never marry someone I wasn’t highly confident of sexual compatibility with. Of course, that’s not foolproof.)
The basic problem with saying that you will have sex only when you want it is that then your prospective partners will also say the same to you one day.
Just means when I want it, I’ll be having it somewhere else, and will spare someone else the “bother.â€
Hmmmm…could this be the reason why strip clubs, massage parlors and escort agencies have large numbers of married men as their clients?
The basic problem with saying that you will have sex only when you want it is that then your prospective partners will also say the same to you one day.
Why would they even have to say it? Why would that ever be a problem? This is the basic assumption that reasonably ethical people go into relationships with. It’s kind of expected practice that we don’t guilt our partners into sex or whine for a quickie. It’s not an unpleasant surprise when someone’s too tired or busy or just not in the mood. It’s a normal part of human life. If I’d signed a contract granting me at-will access to my partner’s genitals, I suppose I’d feel like I had a grievance when he acted like they belonged to him, but I didn’t, so I don’t. Presumably some people feel that marriage is such a contract, but that’s, you know, fucked up.
I cheated on my first girlfriend in the worst way, after being sexually unsatisfied for a long long time. I consider it the biggest mistake I have ever made. In retrospect I wish I had respected my partner, and myself more, which in turn may have benefited both of us.
A word of advice to the people whose libidos know no bounds: make some bounds for yourself (done in love, not resentment) and you may find your partner come round, intrigued by this new discipline, and sudden scarcity of sex whenever that lesser-desiring partner wants it. A person who wants it all the time is neither exciting nor challenging.
Don’t want sex? Fine by me.
Just means when I want it, I’ll be having it somewhere else, and will spare someone else the “bother.â€
Notice that “good sex” is absent here.
Sheesh, I wish we were back on TT. Absent oft-repeated context…frankly: sometimes, and 30 years later, the boys we love need to be gently reminded about the “zones.”
Particularly during menopause. Somehow, “lie back and think of England” has lost its relevance. Happily, I know I’ll walk with at least half of the household, should the Better Half not get it, and seek easier digs. And in this economic climate, I’m pretty sure cute stablehands would be eager for work.
So Gonzman…and I’m only telling you this because you appear to be an idiot…
50, raised 3 sons, and recently menopausal…and if the BH is gonna bring the limblocking, it damn well better be considerate and “good.”
Notice that “good sex†is absent here.
Same reason I don’t mention not wetting the bed when I have sex. It’s a given.
Happily, I know I’ll walk with at least half of the household, should the Better Half not get it, and seek easier digs. And in this economic climate, I’m pretty sure cute stablehands would be eager for work.
One reason I will never get married again. I am keeping what’s mine. And not being a theif, I have no interest in what belongs to someone else as a form of petty revenge.
So Gonzman…and I’m only telling you this because you appear to be an idiot…
No ma’am, I am a 24 kt, plu-perfect S.O.B. If you’re just going to stoop to ad hominems, for pity’s sake, use an accurate one.
And I am nearly fifty as well, and have done my time in the trenches for Mom and Apple Pie. I have many friends. Many of them women, who I do not have sex with.
Doesn’t hurt my feelings any if a woman doesn’t want to sleep with me. Plenty of others do. And while I have a half dozen or so hard limits, I’m perfectly willing to attend to any needs or requests, and at my age, I have learned how to do so very well.
Neurosis, hang-ups, and mind games, though, are between them and their therapist. My only psych degree is an associates in educational psychology, and I am unqualified and unwilling to fill in for them in such cases.
Oh – and since the unspoken apparently needs to be said – yes, I do indeed hold myself to the same standard: If I am not “doing it” for a woman, she is cheerfully invited to seek greener pastures, either on a temporary or permanent basis.
Every day I am reaffirmed in my decision to never again give any other single human being veto power over whether or not I have sex.
The “you’ll just have to wait until I work through my issues” strain of married femininity in general and this thread in particular reaffirms it even further.
Did the piece (or anyone clueless enough to accept it as truth) ever attempt to asceratain why someone in a relationship may have a low libido? Was the potential sexual/relationship incompetence of the partner ever discussed?
Speaking from strictly anecdotal experience, the only people who’ve claimed a low libido I’ve know where those with partners that were either terrible in bed or terrible in relationships effectively killing the libido in the other and, often times, too arrogant/stupid/lazy/etc to do anything about it.
The “issues” of the partner with the low libido aren’t the only “issues” causing it.
Hugo,
I think we are in agreement here, if your interpretation of 7:5 is that is posits “quid pro quo” (since we are quoting Latin to make our point). As you pointed out, the scripture is a requirement for both having and not having mutually consentual sex. This seems to be contrary to your hierarchy when applied on a night-by-night basis, or at least the results of your approach will yield an untenable result when applied constantly every time.
There are two sides to the incompatible libido/unhappy sex life coin. I would argue that living with the expectation that most advances to your spouse will be met with a “not interested tonight, and since ‘I’ come before ‘us’ that is justifiable” can have equally “soul scarring” results. The sense of rejection, demoralization, and ultimately apathy that builds up over time from constant, predictable rejection is just as real and damaging as the bleak feeling that must come from being “pressured or nagged” into sex. Neither is good, yet you are implying that one is morally acceptable while the other is damning.
To suggest that masturbation is an acceptable alternative while posting anti-pornography sites along your website is interesting to say the least. One does not necessarily lead to the other, but it is naive to think that sending an alcoholic to a bar to get a glass of water will not in most cases lead to negative results. While masturbation arguably may be an occassional acceptable alternative, along with marital abstinence, it is almost certainly not what the higher-libido spouse anticipated when committing eternally to a partner.
As for your final comment about the figurative term “sleeping in the basement”, most frustrated types do spend each night across the bed from their spouse. But knowing that they are untouchable makes this arrangement even more frustrating, not better. Sleeping together without sleeping together is the reality of many situations, but if it is not a mutual decision it is certainly not ideal, or even justifiable.
You are saying that regardless of whether the decision is mutual, you should learn to accept the situation and be happy with it. Many spouses do just that, I believe it is an example of the factors behind what Thoreau observed behind the “quiet desperation” in many men. Failing to see why the anxious spouse can’t just learn to “deal with it” is not particularly helpful–a strange mix of pragmatism and sanctimony.
“Failing to see why the anxious spouse can’t just learn to “deal with it†is not particularly helpful–a strange mix of pragmatism and sanctimony. ”
Interesting. And Agreed. However, this is still a two way street. Does the “anxious” spouse attempt to look inward at their own behavior to see if they are exacerbating the problem? Are they attempting to be understanding? Or are they simply expecting the other to put up and shut up while failing to see why the other just can’t learn to “deal with” having sex when they don’t want to?
Fair enough: I ought to do more than just espouse a “deal with it” philosophy. Next week, a post about how to take positive action as the higher-libido partner. It will go beyond masturbation, I promise.
Can I just object to one little thing? Why is there the assumption (in heterosexual relationships, anyway) that is is always the woman who has the low sex drive? I am offended by that assumption because it has never, ever, been true for me in my 28 years, whether the relationship was of the everything-but variety or I was actually engaging in intercourse with the partner.
And I have to say, it absolutely is disheartening to be repeatedly shot down by a partner. I’m not saying I want to be physical with someone who has no interest in doing so, but it bruises ones’ feelings to feel that your partner is simply not physically interested in you at all.
That said, you’re right, no one has “claims” on your body but you.
Donna, I agree with you. This can only be viewed and addressed as a mutual issue, calling for a willingness to put forth an effort on both accounts.
From a high libido standpoint, the wrong perspective is “well, we are married, so I am entitled to sex regardless of my loutish behavior and lack of respect, interest, and affection for my spouse”. I am simply arguing that, from a low libido standpoint, the position of “I don’t feel like it now (or for the last two weeks), nor do I ever have to do anything I don’t want to do” leads to equally disastrous results.
I suspect that the reality of most troubled marriages on this viewpoint is that there is probably too much of both of these attitudes. I don’t believe either one is defensible, thus my concern with Hugo’s position on this, which implies that one is less problematic than the other. If either spouse feels like their position in this impasse is more “right”, it perpetuates the problem.
Incidentally, if it sounds like I know too much about this, I do. I lived through a season of it with my wife for five or six years. It was only after we accepted Christ, began learning and discussing this topic through small groups and Christian friends, and praying about it that we got through it. It is a cancerous, painful condition with plenty of blame to go around. It leaves a legacy of mistrust that takes effort, love, and prayer to overcome.
My primary concern, leading to my posting extensively on a relatively obscure website that I happened across, is that to posit that one side of the relationship is more defensible than the other is worse than wrong. I think it makes the problem more intractible, discouraging the kind of loving compromise necessary by giving one side of the discussion the perception of being on the moral high ground.
Hugo, I look forward to your next posting. I hope I have contributed to the discussion. Without having lived the emotions of it, one should take caution in issuing theoretical frameworks which may not exhibit equal compassion for all involved in the sad situation.
Married Tom, I’m grateful you think this site only “relatively” obscure!
The follow-up, dealing with how the lower-desire partner can respond in ways that are healthy and not shaming to the self or the other, will come next week sometime.
While you are at it, Hugh…please take into account that the lower desire party may have lower desires because the sex has become all about the higher desire partner.
I’ll never forget the breakthrough…a few years ago.
After months of resentment and frustration, I just came right out and said…”there’s the hole..go for it…let me know if it wasn’t good for you, because I’d feel real bad if you weren’t happy.”
In a nutshell. I know what to do, and how to do it, and I do it well. The Better Half got lazy and selfish, and I lost interest and motivation.
These days, he’s motivated and I’m interested, but had he ever threatened me with “put out or I’m gone”…the BH’s ass would have been out the door.
the position of “I don’t feel like it now (or for the last two weeks), nor do I ever have to do anything I don’t want to do†leads to equally disastrous results.
No, that’s not the position of the “lower-libido” partner, and nor is it the case that declining sex at a particular time for a particular reason necessarily has anything to do with a low libido. Let’s try this one more time. We are all aware that you have to do lots of things you don’t want to do, in life and in marriage. Every decent person does things they don’t want to do, every day–yes, even people who don’t put out on command.
Try stepping away from the easy, comforting “anything I don’t want to do” generalities for a second and put it in concrete terms. You’re not talking about having somebody do “something” or “anything” they don’t want to. You’re talking about having them have sex they don’t want to have. Not quite so vague and fluffy, when you look it in the face.
Speaking from strictly anecdotal experience, the only people who’ve claimed a low libido I’ve know where those with partners that were either terrible in bed or terrible in relationships effectively killing the libido in the other and, often times, too arrogant/stupid/lazy/etc to do anything about it.
Speaking from strictly anecdotal experience, I have a completely different sampling of relationships with low libido partners; many of the people in my husband’s support groups experience libido side effects from medications which they nevertheless need to take; that is neither the fault of the higher libido partner for being terrible in bed, nor the fault of the lower libido partner for wilfully not investing enough in their sex life.
On the other hand, I thought I was low libido all through my single life because I was always running into men who claimed to be interested in sex with far more partners than I could ever imagine sleeping with; I’m less convinced, now that I’m married, that my libido is all that low. So, whether your libido is low or high does depend on circumstances (but those circumstances can be biological, as with medication side effects, as well as social).
Sophonisba,
You make an excellent point. Making love with your spouse is certainly more powerful and significant than the quotidian “lots of things that I do not want to do” that we face daily. It should be viewed as sacred and profound, as you have pointed out.
This important distinction helps the point that I am trying to make. To deny your partner such an essential part of their existence on a consistent basis is cruel, damaging, and heartless. Particularly if he or she is making an attempt to reach out and rectify the situation. We are not talking about just “something” or “anything” that is being denied, it is certainly much more than that.
To avoid vague and fluffy language, when you are telling your spouse on a consistent basis that you are interested in “sex that they do not want to have”, you are also rejecting your partner and his or her confidence and love and destroying the trusting bond upon which the marriage was founded. Pretty stark when you look this in the face as well.
Should I ever find myself engaged I’m going to lay out these
terms for my wife-to-be prior to marriage:
In the event that your libido drops way below my own, to the
point where you no longer wish to sleep with me at least 2-3
times a month (unless we both agree to less) you have three
options.
A: On occasion (not every time I’m horny, and not if our
relationship is going through some serious crisis) give me sex
even if your not in the mood, this may not necessarily mean
intercourse and may be a “tide me over” blow-job hand-job, or
some other form of sex play.
B: Allow me to have an affair/masturbate to porn/go to strip
clubs and get lapdances etc.
C: Make a reasonable effort to work with me to get to the
bottom of why you no longer want to have sex with me, and
rectify it. If no progress is made within a resonable amount
of time then do A or B.
If she doesnt like these terms or breaks up with me as a
result, then I doubt I missed out on something.
No I dont think I’m a pratt for thinking this way. Would you
want to marry someone who thinks it okay to beat their wives
(“I’m not saying I would do it to you honey I just think
theres a time when the bitch deserves it”)? Or if you want a
less dramatic example, someone who believes a husband shouldnt
have to shower before sex? Well in the same way I dont want to
be trapped in a marriage where I will be unhappy, and I risk
that if i marry someone who thinks along the lines of this
articles critics (which basically amounts to saying “His
sexual needs DON’T MATTER”). A marriage of forced celibacy or
near-celibacy is not something I want to or feel I should have
to endure.
discuss.
Or if you want a less dramatic example, someone who believes a husband shouldnt have to shower before sex?
Wait, what?
As for the rest of your comment, LB, I would certainly hope that C. on your list comes before having an affair. And while the sentiment behind your post makes sense (wanting to enter into a marriage being on the same page about your sex life) I’m not sure most people would respond well to their significant other making bulleted lists about their expectations. Making sure you’re on the same page about important things in life (sex, finances, children, religion, etc.) is part of dating and is usually focused on the COUPLE, not YOURSELF (ie – “If we came to a point where you didn’t want to have sex with me anymore, I’d want to make sure your health isn’t in danger or that we’re not having other marital problems,” not, “ME ME ME MY PENIS.”) Marriage isn’t a list of “terms,” it’s a relationship of give-and-takes.
Lots of conditions for someone you’re supposedly in love with. And don’t get me wrong, I’m the higher-drive partner in my relationship. I have been that in every relationship. I do sympathize. But I also realize that, while sex is important, it’s not the only part of my relationship, and I have a pretty good one. We have both shown to the ability to have hard conversations sometimes, and so I know I don’t have to extract demeaning promises from him.