One of my guilty pleasures is perusing a men’s site where married men complain about a lack of sex with their wives. Maybe I have way too much time on my hands; perhaps it’s grist for the mill. Who knows? In any case, the subject fascinates me for some deep-seated, perverse reason.
If I was in a relationship and my man wasn’t having sex with me, I wouldn’t stay in that relationship, period. In fact, the second I disentangled myself from it, I’d probably immediately solicit the first man I came in contact with in a pathetic attempt to elevate my flagging self-esteem. But that’s me. I’m trying to understand what compels couples to stay together even though they’re unhappy.
Yeah, yeah. The kids. I know that reason well. I’m not even going to argue it, even though I’d be hard-pressed to choose which is the lesser of two evils: Divorce or Staying for the sake of the children, thereby teaching them that marriage = a miserable, emotionally-void existence.
One of the major problems couples experience within a marriage seems to be a mismatch of libido—specifically, the man needing or desiring sex much more than the woman. Maybe it’s God’s little biological joke, or brainwashing by the media, or simply a result of our oversexed culture.
Ironically, when half of a couple states that sex shouldn’t be the most important thing in a relationship, it’s almost always the woman. Of course, it isn’t the most important thing, but as the saying goes: “When the sex is good, it’s 10% of the relationship, but when it’s bad, it’s 90%.”
A woman made a comment in the sexless thread this week, giving me pause to think.
FACTS: 23-year-old female with an admittedly low sex drive; in love with attractive boyfriend of one year; engages in infrequent sex with him to make him happy, even though she has no desire for it.
DILEMMA: She knows their mismatch of libido will eventually drive them apart.
Now here’s the interesting part. This female claims to have an extremely fulfilling life with many interests, and sex to her feels like a big fat waste of time. She’s not repulsed by it; she just deems it unnecessary. Why then, should she submit to something she doesn’t want to do?
It’s very easy for a man to say, “If she loves me, then she should want to show me by having sex with me.” But if the man truly loves his woman, why can’t he give up sex for her sake?
Why does this woman have to be the one to change if she wants to keep her man? She doesn’t equate sex with love; therefore the act of sex doesn’t hold the same significance for her as it does her boyfriend. Why should her man’s sexual needs be more important than her own?
In her words, “Why should I spend my life alone just because I don’t feel like having sex with my partner? Many men do want sex much more than women. That could be put the other way round: women may want no sex in their relationships. WHY SHOULDN’T THOSE WOMEN’S NEEDS BE FULFILLED? The women who don’t want to have sex, but still want to have a loving (=caring) man in their lives?”
She continued, “This has been very difficult for me, and to have to choose between a lifetime of loneliness and obligatory sex to sustain a life partner is not the kind of a future decision anyone would want to have ahead of them.”
At this point in time, her boyfriend seems to be under the delusion that they’ll eventually work the situation out, or that the problem might magically disappear. That the woman compared learning to like sex with learning to like liver is not a good sign, in my opinion.
Until someone comes up with Viagra for women, I imagine this discrepancy of libido will continue to be a bone of contention between men and women. Best thing to do? Keep a sense of humor in the meantime.
“My love life is terrible. The last time I was inside a woman was when I visited the Statue of Liberty.” –Woody Allen
What do you think of this woman’s dilemma? Is there a solution? Can she and her man live happily ever after?