Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, September 20, 2011
Savage Love SL Letter of the Day: Crushed Out? Take a Time Out
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM
I am a gay man and have been with my partner for over 6 years. We recently met another gay couple and have become pretty good friends. Both of our relationships are open, in that we play with others only when both partners are involved. But we don't play with others as often as our new friends do.
I've noticed a slight mutual crush between myself and one of our new friends. I'm not leaving my partner for him or anyone else, so I'm not too concerned about that. My problem is that I get a little jealous when my crush tells me about the other guys he and his partner fool around with.
My first question is, do you have any suggestions on how I can decrease my crush and thereby the jealousy that goes with it? Second, we have all talked about the four of us fooling around together. Do you think that once the sexual tension is no longer there my crush will diminish, or do you think this will backfire after sex is introduced and we'll ultimately end up losing the friendship?
Partnered With Mixed Feelings
My response after the jump...
·················
I'm less concerned about the future of your new friendship, PWMF, than I am about the future of your six-year relationship. Your partner, not your crush, should be your first concern, your top priority, the-thing-upon-which-you-are-ever-focused-like-a-giant-gay-laser-beam. And as you clearly feel somewhat wary and/or conflicted about sleeping with these guys—otherwise you wouldn't have written—I'm gonna urge you to give this proposed foursome a pass.
For now.
Crushes on the novel-and-new tend to fade once the novelty wears off. If and when your crush begins to wane—you'll know the crush is lifting when you stop feelings pangs of jealousy when he tells you about his adventures with other men—maybe then you can revisit this proposed foursome. And before you revisit this proposed foursome, PWMF, you're going to need to tell your partner, if you haven't already, how you feel/felt about this guy before you sleep him and his boyfriend. That way your partner can opt to exercise his veto.
Again: adding sex to the mix now, when you're feeling crushed out on this guy, is a bad idea. Sex is just as likely—it's likelier—to intensify those crushed-out feelings as it is to diminish them. These guys are hot and in open relationship now, PWMF, and odds are good they're still going to be hot and in an open relationship six months from now.
Wait.
1
I could not possibly agree with this advice more. Having sex with this guy is a recipe for getting even more crushed on him and doing something incredibly stupid. It might even be worth it to tell his partner NOW what he's feeling and why he can't sleep with them now, but that he might like to revisit the prospect later, when he's less infatuated.
2
I'm a bit sad you didn't go for Tom Petty.
I think this song fits better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMyCa35_m…
I think this song fits better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMyCa35_m…
4
Also - PWMF just met this couple "recently." See them socially, and pay attention to how they treat the other people in their lives, and how much drama they attract. Couples in open relationships tend to be happier when they avoid fucking crazy people, or people addicted to drama. Like Dan said... wait and see.
5
If your advice to PWMF results in his going on a murderous rampage that ends with you being shoved into an oven, Dan, you brought it on yourself.
7
Don't listen to Dan, Slick-
Go For It!
You're Gay-
no one expects you to conduct your relationships
with any integrity anyway so
Go For It!
Go For It!
You're Gay-
no one expects you to conduct your relationships
with any integrity anyway so
Go For It!
8
I'm confused. I thought the whole point of an open relationship was to have sex with people you have crushes on?? Not trying to be sarcastic here, seriously could use some further illumination and perspective.
9
@8: I think different open relationships have different rules. Open for sex doesn't necessarily mean open for emotions/crushes/love. I guess the definition of "crush" varies too. This jealousy makes it seem like this crush could be pushing the boundaries of what's safe for the original/primary relationship.
10
@8- EMOTIONAL involvement with outsiders in an open marriage is a recipe for DISASTER! No, strictly taboo. I share an open marriage, but our openness demands no emotional involvement. The second I feel anything (crush, infatuation, longing for or daydreaming about) for an outside man, I run like hell, because I will not betray my partner of 19+ years emotionally.
That's why and how open marriages work. IF the partners aren't mature enough to handle that item, they've got no business in an open relationship. Gay or straight- same for all.
LW- RUN LIKE HELL FROM THIS CRUSH. IT WILL DESTROY YOUR SIX YEAR MARRIAGE IF YOU DON'T.
That's why and how open marriages work. IF the partners aren't mature enough to handle that item, they've got no business in an open relationship. Gay or straight- same for all.
LW- RUN LIKE HELL FROM THIS CRUSH. IT WILL DESTROY YOUR SIX YEAR MARRIAGE IF YOU DON'T.
11
@10 - I'm glad you found something that works for you, but that's not how it works for everyone.
People who call themselves "polyamorous" generally do allow each person to experience whatever love/emotions arise, and then face the consequences. See below:
10 Realistic Rules for Good Non-MonogamousRelationships
by Andrea Zanin
http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/…
1. Know yourself. (What are your values? What are your needs within relationships? What are your shortcomings within your relationships? Are there any predictable patterns in your attractions? What does your life look like? Your schedule, your energy levels, your health, your obligations, your stresses, your joys? What would you like to change?)
2. Love yourself. (You gotta take care of yourself.)
3. Be happy ALONE.
4. Communicate. (Now comes the time where you take all that brutal honesty with yourself, and translate it into brutal honesty with your partners. ...Is there something on your mind that you don’t want to tell your partners? This is almost a guarantee that you should be telling them!)
5. Know what you want. (What joys do you think polyamory will bring to your life? What challenges do you think you will face? Do the benefits you want match up with what you have to give in return in terms of time, energy, availability, etc.?)
6. Go for content, not form. (We often get caught up in the packaging without remembering that relationship is about what’s inside...Think of polyamory as a state of openness to love in whatever form it comes to you, and then take responsibility for managing that abundance when it arrives...)
7. Be nice. (Polyamory is not about the technicalities. It’s the spirit, not the letter of the law that counts. Polyamory is not all about you getting laid. Don’t date someone else’s partner behind that person’s back just because it’s not “technically” your problem...Know your boundaries and respect them; watch out for other people’s boundaries too, even if that’s not “technically” your job.)
8. Have safer sex. (This doesn’t just mean use a condom. It means figure out how to talk about sex with all your partners. It means figure out what acceptable risk looks like for you and your partners.)
9. Be strong. (choosing a polyamorous relationship style is a radical thing. It upsets people – some of those people may include your parents, your friends, your work colleagues, members of your religious or spiritual groups, your kids, and more...To handle this, it’s really helpful to have strong friendships, a strong philosophy, an independent streak, a lot of self-confidence, a good sense of boundaries, some well-articulated knowledge and words with which to defend or explain your choices.)
10. Go with the flow.
More...
People who call themselves "polyamorous" generally do allow each person to experience whatever love/emotions arise, and then face the consequences. See below:
10 Realistic Rules for Good Non-MonogamousRelationships
by Andrea Zanin
http://sexgeek.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/…
1. Know yourself. (What are your values? What are your needs within relationships? What are your shortcomings within your relationships? Are there any predictable patterns in your attractions? What does your life look like? Your schedule, your energy levels, your health, your obligations, your stresses, your joys? What would you like to change?)
2. Love yourself. (You gotta take care of yourself.)
3. Be happy ALONE.
4. Communicate. (Now comes the time where you take all that brutal honesty with yourself, and translate it into brutal honesty with your partners. ...Is there something on your mind that you don’t want to tell your partners? This is almost a guarantee that you should be telling them!)
5. Know what you want. (What joys do you think polyamory will bring to your life? What challenges do you think you will face? Do the benefits you want match up with what you have to give in return in terms of time, energy, availability, etc.?)
6. Go for content, not form. (We often get caught up in the packaging without remembering that relationship is about what’s inside...Think of polyamory as a state of openness to love in whatever form it comes to you, and then take responsibility for managing that abundance when it arrives...)
7. Be nice. (Polyamory is not about the technicalities. It’s the spirit, not the letter of the law that counts. Polyamory is not all about you getting laid. Don’t date someone else’s partner behind that person’s back just because it’s not “technically” your problem...Know your boundaries and respect them; watch out for other people’s boundaries too, even if that’s not “technically” your job.)
8. Have safer sex. (This doesn’t just mean use a condom. It means figure out how to talk about sex with all your partners. It means figure out what acceptable risk looks like for you and your partners.)
9. Be strong. (choosing a polyamorous relationship style is a radical thing. It upsets people – some of those people may include your parents, your friends, your work colleagues, members of your religious or spiritual groups, your kids, and more...To handle this, it’s really helpful to have strong friendships, a strong philosophy, an independent streak, a lot of self-confidence, a good sense of boundaries, some well-articulated knowledge and words with which to defend or explain your choices.)
10. Go with the flow.
13
@12: I know it seems contradictory (even to me) but as a poly person, I love spending time with my partners but I also absolutely revel in time alone. Time my partners spend with each other or metamours = time alone for me = win/win situation.
Total security came with seeing my partners completely in love with someone else, but still completely in love with and wanting to be with me. Well, it's worked well for me for 15 years, anyway.
But in the context of an open relationship where people have agreed to casual outside play only, I completely agree with Dan. It's a whole different ball-game than polyamory; an additional love relationship could be deeply threatening to PWMF's partner if it's not what he signed up for.
Total security came with seeing my partners completely in love with someone else, but still completely in love with and wanting to be with me. Well, it's worked well for me for 15 years, anyway.
But in the context of an open relationship where people have agreed to casual outside play only, I completely agree with Dan. It's a whole different ball-game than polyamory; an additional love relationship could be deeply threatening to PWMF's partner if it's not what he signed up for.
14
@11 I agree that poly people are able to handle more than one emotional attachement, but don't poly people identify as such more than saying they are in an "open relationship"?
I could be wrong about the terminology, but my impression is that people who identify as "open" are usually not poly, or they'd say so. Generally it's understood that you are to have one love/support/childrearing relationship but are allowed to have more than one sexual partner. The details vary wildly in terms of numbers, how well you can know them, how many times you can see them etc. but I don't think it's usual for people to say they are in an open relationship when actually they have one husband and a boyfriend or two who may even live in the same house. However I'm not poly and you write like you are so I'm glad to be corrected: Do poly people typically say they are in open relationships or that they are poly?
Semantics aside the important thing is mutually agreed upon rules, whatever they entail. If two (or more) people are comfortable with the rules of their relationship and are not harming others, it doesn't really matter whether that would work for anyone else.
I could be wrong about the terminology, but my impression is that people who identify as "open" are usually not poly, or they'd say so. Generally it's understood that you are to have one love/support/childrearing relationship but are allowed to have more than one sexual partner. The details vary wildly in terms of numbers, how well you can know them, how many times you can see them etc. but I don't think it's usual for people to say they are in an open relationship when actually they have one husband and a boyfriend or two who may even live in the same house. However I'm not poly and you write like you are so I'm glad to be corrected: Do poly people typically say they are in open relationships or that they are poly?
Semantics aside the important thing is mutually agreed upon rules, whatever they entail. If two (or more) people are comfortable with the rules of their relationship and are not harming others, it doesn't really matter whether that would work for anyone else.
15
@8: I agree with you completely: it seems insane to me to have a non-monogamous relationship but avoid people you have crushes on. But then I'm poly. I think the part about only playing together, and the fact he wrote in about jealousy concerns, may have clued Dan in to the idea that this couple is cautious about emotions. Also, I think this is probably the type of setup Dan himself has ("monogamish"), and it may be very common for gay couples in some communities; I'm curious if anyone knows what the most common kinds of non-monogamy are for long-term gay couples.
The term "open relationship" also tends to get used for the kind of thing 10 is talking about.
But yeah, my advice would have been: Talk it over with your partner, tell him how you're feeling, and go for it. Playing with the couple will probably decrease the jealousy, since you'll get to play with him. The crush will eventually fade but enjoy it while it lasts by fucking him!
The term "open relationship" also tends to get used for the kind of thing 10 is talking about.
But yeah, my advice would have been: Talk it over with your partner, tell him how you're feeling, and go for it. Playing with the couple will probably decrease the jealousy, since you'll get to play with him. The crush will eventually fade but enjoy it while it lasts by fucking him!
16
@14: Poly people typically say they're poly, but there are a lot of people who don't like the term poly and just describe themselves as non-monogamous, or in open relationships. "Open relationship" can refer to anything from occasional threesomes to being able to date and fuck and have emotions for other people on the side, but usually the common factor is having a main primary relationship that takes precedence. But there are definitely some people in "open relationships" who are allowed some love and support with the outside sex.
17
I agree with @3. Giant Gay Laser Beam is the phrase of the day. Also a great name for a rock band.
Oh, yeah. Also, don't sleep with your crush. Really friggin bad idea. If you're in a relationship you're much better off only doinking other people as stress release instead of those you have an emotional attachment to. Even if all of you involved THINK you're poly, odds are it's still going to go up in smoke. Stick with the dude you're in love with. And sex up only the ones you don't care about.
Oh, yeah. Also, don't sleep with your crush. Really friggin bad idea. If you're in a relationship you're much better off only doinking other people as stress release instead of those you have an emotional attachment to. Even if all of you involved THINK you're poly, odds are it's still going to go up in smoke. Stick with the dude you're in love with. And sex up only the ones you don't care about.
18
I can attest that crushes pass - sometimes quite suddenly. I had a massive crush (largely kept quiet, because he was married) on a guy I thought was perfect in every way. But one day a friend said to me "But don't you get the sense that he's never been tested in any way? That he's never had to overcome anything? Doesn't that kind of bother you?" And it set me to thinking. I realized that a lot of his virtues and beliefs were those of someone who'd never had to confront anything that threatening, even though he was well into adulthood. It made me realize he was just a very nice, good-looking guy - a human being, but not the superman I'd envisioned him as. That I'd had a lot of experiences he couldn't really relate to. Heck, if he was unmarried, I'd pursue him, but I no longer saw him as this paragon of everything good and wonderful and sexy. Just a cool guy, but not that much cooler than the next. It's those little things that can put things into perspective - remind you why your long-standing relationship is something to be valued over a fantasy.
19
This is good advice regarding crushes and being honest with your partner about them. I can tell because I've followed it recently and it improved my relationship.
20
@12 agreed.
@14 we call ourselves "open," not "poly." Mostly because we haven't had any longterm relationships with anyone else. But emotions have certainly come into play. In fact, if you're straight and don't want to see yourself as using people, it's hard to avoid dealing with emotions -- very few straight women have experience having sex with people they don't care about.
@16 - yes, the important thing is to communicate with your partner so you understand what you each are hoping for, as far as connections with other people.
@14 we call ourselves "open," not "poly." Mostly because we haven't had any longterm relationships with anyone else. But emotions have certainly come into play. In fact, if you're straight and don't want to see yourself as using people, it's hard to avoid dealing with emotions -- very few straight women have experience having sex with people they don't care about.
@16 - yes, the important thing is to communicate with your partner so you understand what you each are hoping for, as far as connections with other people.
21
@8: This might be too late for you to read it, but in much of the poly community, jealousy is seen as a red flag. If you are poly or in an open relationship, you're theoretically someone who's less prone to jealousy and more prone to delight at those you love having fun experiences. So, if jealousy is happening, particularly if you've gone 6 years without much jealousy, something's up that you should pay attention to.
If the jealousy was happening within PWMF's primary relationship, the main questions would be about what can he do to solidify his sense of security in the relationship.
When the jealousy occurs outside of PWMF's primary relationship, I do end up wondering whether the crush is actually a threat to his primary partnership. If PWMF had a crush on his friend with no corresponding feelings of jealousy, I'd be much more inclined to say they should all go for it and enjoy (giving his primary partner full info and veto power). Jealousy towards the friend, though, makes this an unusual situation, which deserves unusual carefulness.
If the jealousy was happening within PWMF's primary relationship, the main questions would be about what can he do to solidify his sense of security in the relationship.
When the jealousy occurs outside of PWMF's primary relationship, I do end up wondering whether the crush is actually a threat to his primary partnership. If PWMF had a crush on his friend with no corresponding feelings of jealousy, I'd be much more inclined to say they should all go for it and enjoy (giving his primary partner full info and veto power). Jealousy towards the friend, though, makes this an unusual situation, which deserves unusual carefulness.
22
I have a question for straight guys out there.
In some Slog threads, guys have insisted that they don't just want "a hole to fuck" -- that the reason sex is so necessary in a marriage, is because sex makes the guys feel appreciated and connected to another person. (I think of this as: most women need connection to enjoy sex; most men need sex to feel connected.)
But in other threads, guys act as if they are totally capable of having emotion-free sex. "It didn't mean anything, honey, it was just sex!" So, which is it, for you -- does sex involve intimate connection to another human being, or is it just about a good physical sensation? Or do guys say whichever seems most convenient at the time? Or does it vary by guy?
(Apologies for the sexism in my question; yes, women are capable of having sex without emotion, and of saying to their partner "but honey, it was just sex." But I'm curious about straight guys, so that's what I'm asking about.)
In some Slog threads, guys have insisted that they don't just want "a hole to fuck" -- that the reason sex is so necessary in a marriage, is because sex makes the guys feel appreciated and connected to another person. (I think of this as: most women need connection to enjoy sex; most men need sex to feel connected.)
But in other threads, guys act as if they are totally capable of having emotion-free sex. "It didn't mean anything, honey, it was just sex!" So, which is it, for you -- does sex involve intimate connection to another human being, or is it just about a good physical sensation? Or do guys say whichever seems most convenient at the time? Or does it vary by guy?
(Apologies for the sexism in my question; yes, women are capable of having sex without emotion, and of saying to their partner "but honey, it was just sex." But I'm curious about straight guys, so that's what I'm asking about.)
23
No easy answer, I'm afraid, Erica. It isn't either/or, it varies. Men are much more complex than generally understood by the society.
Varies by guy, varies by situation, varies by partner, varies by needs/lifestage. And within a given relationship, it varies. Sorry, but sex is a very powerful expression of underlying needs, so of which just aren't apparent.
I don't think that most guys are manipulative, and just "say whichever seems most convenient at the time". I think many of us lack the self-empathy or emotional intelligence to fully understand what drives us, especially in the moment.
I think your generalization is accurate about 75% of the time: "most women need connection to enjoy sex; most men need sex to feel connected."
Varies by guy, varies by situation, varies by partner, varies by needs/lifestage. And within a given relationship, it varies. Sorry, but sex is a very powerful expression of underlying needs, so of which just aren't apparent.
I don't think that most guys are manipulative, and just "say whichever seems most convenient at the time". I think many of us lack the self-empathy or emotional intelligence to fully understand what drives us, especially in the moment.
I think your generalization is accurate about 75% of the time: "most women need connection to enjoy sex; most men need sex to feel connected."
24
I still don't quite get it. If I see a guy who's not my partner that I think is hot and want to fuck, isn't that *some* sort of emotional reaction/connection? And if I frequently think about fucking him, isn't that a crush?
25
@11- Hi Erica-
I wasn't refering to poly relationships. I'm in an open relationship, but definitely not poly. Neither of us want a 3rd or 4th emotionally. But we do want sex outside of our primary relationship.
The whole 'poly' concept causes confusion when discussing open marriages, sex outside of primary relationships, etc. It seems important to make these distinctions when discussing.
As I see it, 'poly' = multiple folks involved both physically and emotionally in a committed relationship, whereas 'open marriage' = sex outside, but little or no emotional involvement.
I could not do poly (I think), but sex outside the primary relationship is not only desired, but required for the continuing stability of my partnership.
RE: @22- Men are odd creatures. Yes- we do need sex to feel connected, just as you say. But some (most?) of us are also capable of having sex just for sex's sake. A man can lust and need another body, but not want that emotional connection at all. But the emotional connection during sex is key to a primary relationship. Hence, Dan's preaching on fidelity, yet sex outside of monogamy. It's a guy's point of view.
My question back- are there any (many?) women capable of sex for just the act's sake, or is the sex act always wired to the heart for women? It would seem so, at least more so than for men.
I wasn't refering to poly relationships. I'm in an open relationship, but definitely not poly. Neither of us want a 3rd or 4th emotionally. But we do want sex outside of our primary relationship.
The whole 'poly' concept causes confusion when discussing open marriages, sex outside of primary relationships, etc. It seems important to make these distinctions when discussing.
As I see it, 'poly' = multiple folks involved both physically and emotionally in a committed relationship, whereas 'open marriage' = sex outside, but little or no emotional involvement.
I could not do poly (I think), but sex outside the primary relationship is not only desired, but required for the continuing stability of my partnership.
RE: @22- Men are odd creatures. Yes- we do need sex to feel connected, just as you say. But some (most?) of us are also capable of having sex just for sex's sake. A man can lust and need another body, but not want that emotional connection at all. But the emotional connection during sex is key to a primary relationship. Hence, Dan's preaching on fidelity, yet sex outside of monogamy. It's a guy's point of view.
My question back- are there any (many?) women capable of sex for just the act's sake, or is the sex act always wired to the heart for women? It would seem so, at least more so than for men.
26
@23, thanks for your thoughtful (and helpful) response.
@25 - women certainly exist who love sex for the immediate physical pleasure they get, though they are hard to distinguish in practice from women who say that's what they love, but who also have other motives (liking attention, hoping for a relationship, wanting to feel sexy, hoping to please, etc. etc.)
I think if you always screw new people, you can avoid the emotional connection, but the trade-off is more frequent bad sex, which is worse for women, I think, since (like pizza), even bad sex is okay for the guy, whereas bad sex is pretty awful for the woman.
If you see the same person again and again, presumably you're having good sex. But I don't see how you avoid having an emotional connection of some kind emerge over time.
@25 - women certainly exist who love sex for the immediate physical pleasure they get, though they are hard to distinguish in practice from women who say that's what they love, but who also have other motives (liking attention, hoping for a relationship, wanting to feel sexy, hoping to please, etc. etc.)
I think if you always screw new people, you can avoid the emotional connection, but the trade-off is more frequent bad sex, which is worse for women, I think, since (like pizza), even bad sex is okay for the guy, whereas bad sex is pretty awful for the woman.
If you see the same person again and again, presumably you're having good sex. But I don't see how you avoid having an emotional connection of some kind emerge over time.
27
@24: Again: I think it falls to how you define these words -- you're leaving out the jealousy aspect, which I think is important in this case.
28
FWIW -- yes, there are many women who just enjoy a good fuck, and don't need/want you to call unless that's what's on offer. I dearly love my partner, and he fufills me in many, many ways. But sex is not really possible with him. I have not sought outside our relationship yet, but I'm reaching that point. I haven't decided whether to tell him that or not; it would hurt him if I told him, and if he found out another way.
But I am human, and desire sex. I really don't need the emotional attachment because I already have that in spades.
But I am human, and desire sex. I really don't need the emotional attachment because I already have that in spades.
29
@28 - write back after you've been having sex with other men for a while, a couple of years. You may have a different perspective on whether you can avoid attaching emotions to your sex. Or you may not.
30
@22: I suspect that it's more that being rejected causes a painful emotional reaction. That is, it's not that sex leads to a connection as much as it is that rejection harms a connection. So a guy could have sex without any emotions, but given a rejection in the context of an existing emotional connection, experience emotional pain. (To be clear, "I don't feel like sex right now" is a rejection and a lot of guys take it very personally.)
@21, 27: I'm not really understanding what you mean about jealousy being a red flag and being important here. If there were someone I thought was attractive (that is, had a crush on) and she was talking to me about other guys she fucked, I'd feel a little jealous because they got to fuck her and I didn't. It wouldn't have anything to do with my other relationships at all. It would be basically the same as my reaction to someone telling me they took some other people to Disney World and not me. This type of jealousy seems completely normal to me. Even though I'm poly and trying to deal with jealousy, it's certainly something that comes up for me and isn't unusual.
@21, 27: I'm not really understanding what you mean about jealousy being a red flag and being important here. If there were someone I thought was attractive (that is, had a crush on) and she was talking to me about other guys she fucked, I'd feel a little jealous because they got to fuck her and I didn't. It wouldn't have anything to do with my other relationships at all. It would be basically the same as my reaction to someone telling me they took some other people to Disney World and not me. This type of jealousy seems completely normal to me. Even though I'm poly and trying to deal with jealousy, it's certainly something that comes up for me and isn't unusual.
31
@17: So you're against any polyamory?
Also, I'm kind of confused about the use of "crush" and "emotional attachment" here. If I am very attracted to someone or think she is hot, I'll refer to that as a "crush." I don't see that as a deep emotional connection, though in some sense it does affect my emotions. Are people suggesting that you should only bang the people you're not attracted to/crushing on when in an open relationship? That just doesn't make sense, even for people who aren't poly.
@25: My experience is not necessarily representative. But I have found that women are very frequently attracted to a guy, want sex with him, and don't have a deep emotional connection or feel the need for a continuing relationship.
I think there's some confusion here about what "emotional" means. I think women, in general, need to feel very attracted to a guy's personality in order to sleep with him -- they're generally pickier than guys. While there is some emotional component to this, it definitely does not mean that women generally need or require a close emotional bond, in the sense of a deep friendship and connection, in order to want sex with a guy. In other words, the feeling of attraction is very different than the feeling of an emotionally intimate connection.
Also, I'm kind of confused about the use of "crush" and "emotional attachment" here. If I am very attracted to someone or think she is hot, I'll refer to that as a "crush." I don't see that as a deep emotional connection, though in some sense it does affect my emotions. Are people suggesting that you should only bang the people you're not attracted to/crushing on when in an open relationship? That just doesn't make sense, even for people who aren't poly.
@25: My experience is not necessarily representative. But I have found that women are very frequently attracted to a guy, want sex with him, and don't have a deep emotional connection or feel the need for a continuing relationship.
I think there's some confusion here about what "emotional" means. I think women, in general, need to feel very attracted to a guy's personality in order to sleep with him -- they're generally pickier than guys. While there is some emotional component to this, it definitely does not mean that women generally need or require a close emotional bond, in the sense of a deep friendship and connection, in order to want sex with a guy. In other words, the feeling of attraction is very different than the feeling of an emotionally intimate connection.
32
@31 - if I have sex with a guy a couple of times, I can walk away and forget about him. But if it goes on for a dozen times, then it's likely we were also having long conversations -- and the combination means that the guy gets into my head, become a part of my history, and someone I have feelings about, even after our sexual relationship ends.
I happen to think that's true for guys too, but maybe they don't think about their feelings that much (as Krunch suggests, @23).
I also appreciated what you said @30, that guys may have a standard expectation of emotional stability, and getting rejected (esp. by a partner) brings them below their bar. Sex with a new person can then help boost them back up, but doesn't necessarily mean that they spend time thinking about that new person, wondering what blogs she reads and when she'll get in touch again.
Along those lines, maybe one of the strengths of the PUA scene is that it helps men see the positive side of rejection: instead of protecting yourself by building a shell, rejection proves you are out there, exposing yourself. Sure, you get shot down more often than not, but you're also getting more positive responses than you would if you stayed in your shell.
I happen to think that's true for guys too, but maybe they don't think about their feelings that much (as Krunch suggests, @23).
I also appreciated what you said @30, that guys may have a standard expectation of emotional stability, and getting rejected (esp. by a partner) brings them below their bar. Sex with a new person can then help boost them back up, but doesn't necessarily mean that they spend time thinking about that new person, wondering what blogs she reads and when she'll get in touch again.
Along those lines, maybe one of the strengths of the PUA scene is that it helps men see the positive side of rejection: instead of protecting yourself by building a shell, rejection proves you are out there, exposing yourself. Sure, you get shot down more often than not, but you're also getting more positive responses than you would if you stayed in your shell.
33
@32: Yes, I also think it's true for guys that sex a couple times doesn't lead to a close connection, while sex many times likely will.
I think it's less about an expectation of emotional stability and more about "What did I do wrong? Why did she reject me? I must be unattractive/too nice/too accommodating/not sexy enough/not masculine enough" (or whatever someone's insecurities are).
As I mentioned before, I'm a big fan of the PUA scene, and I agree it helps a guy deal with an initial rejection when he first approaches someone. But that's very different than a guy getting a rejection from someone he's already in a relationship with: it either means you don't have control, or you do and you fucked it up by the way you've acted (being taken for granted, being too needy, whatever), and both of those are scary thoughts. In fact, I think the PUA scene makes that type of rejection worse because it increases awareness of the fact that you do have control over how your girl sees you, and the rejection indicates that your value or status may have dropped (at least in her eyes).
I think it's less about an expectation of emotional stability and more about "What did I do wrong? Why did she reject me? I must be unattractive/too nice/too accommodating/not sexy enough/not masculine enough" (or whatever someone's insecurities are).
As I mentioned before, I'm a big fan of the PUA scene, and I agree it helps a guy deal with an initial rejection when he first approaches someone. But that's very different than a guy getting a rejection from someone he's already in a relationship with: it either means you don't have control, or you do and you fucked it up by the way you've acted (being taken for granted, being too needy, whatever), and both of those are scary thoughts. In fact, I think the PUA scene makes that type of rejection worse because it increases awareness of the fact that you do have control over how your girl sees you, and the rejection indicates that your value or status may have dropped (at least in her eyes).
34
@30/33 This is depressing to read, BlackRose:
"(To be clear, "I don't feel like sex right now" is a rejection and a lot of guys take it very personally.)" And "What did I do wrong? Why did she reject me? I must be unattractive/too nice/too accommodating/not sexy enough/not masculine enough" (or whatever someone's insecurities are)."
You're saying when these insecure guys are in relationships, any time their partner doesn't want sex, their self-esteem plummets. But women don't exist as fuck-toys. And sex is never going to be as fun for most women as it is for men. Our physiology just isn't as optimized for intercourse-as-sheer-pleasure. It may be fun, but not as fun. Most women are not perfectly compatible sexually with their partners.
If guys are experiencing "honey, not tonight" as "I must be unattractive/too nice/too accommodating/not sexy enough/not masculine enough" -- they fucking need to get their head together. That is some fucked up shit.
"(To be clear, "I don't feel like sex right now" is a rejection and a lot of guys take it very personally.)" And "What did I do wrong? Why did she reject me? I must be unattractive/too nice/too accommodating/not sexy enough/not masculine enough" (or whatever someone's insecurities are)."
You're saying when these insecure guys are in relationships, any time their partner doesn't want sex, their self-esteem plummets. But women don't exist as fuck-toys. And sex is never going to be as fun for most women as it is for men. Our physiology just isn't as optimized for intercourse-as-sheer-pleasure. It may be fun, but not as fun. Most women are not perfectly compatible sexually with their partners.
If guys are experiencing "honey, not tonight" as "I must be unattractive/too nice/too accommodating/not sexy enough/not masculine enough" -- they fucking need to get their head together. That is some fucked up shit.
35
@ 34: Trust me, bad sex can be really unsatisfying for the man, too. And as for "sex is never going to be as fun for most women as it is for men", don't forget that multiple orgasms are a lot easier for women than men, and women don't have the long remission time between orgasms. I think you have a pretty distorted view of male vs female sexual experience. If anything, female physiology is better optimized for enjoying sex - the problem is that our sex-negative society is so terrified of female sexuality that we program women to think it's disgusting and undesirable.
36
@35 I don't think sex is disgusting. But I like intercourse, blowjobs, cunnilingus and anal less than the guys I've met do. I like those acts, but if I never had any of them again, I wouldn't be devastated.
Conversely, I love massages, backscratches, a good beating, and my fingers/vibrator on my clit. I need someone else for the first three (and would be devastated if I couldn't ever have them again), but have never been as happy with the orgasms I get from other people as the orgasms I get myself.
You can call me terrified or unusual if you like. My feeling is that I just have to deal with the fact that people don't want to give me massages or beatings as often as I want to get them. No point in taking that personally. I'm flummoxed why guys take it personally that the woman in their life doesn't want intercourse as much as they do. It doesn't reflect on him, so why take it personally?
Conversely, I love massages, backscratches, a good beating, and my fingers/vibrator on my clit. I need someone else for the first three (and would be devastated if I couldn't ever have them again), but have never been as happy with the orgasms I get from other people as the orgasms I get myself.
You can call me terrified or unusual if you like. My feeling is that I just have to deal with the fact that people don't want to give me massages or beatings as often as I want to get them. No point in taking that personally. I'm flummoxed why guys take it personally that the woman in their life doesn't want intercourse as much as they do. It doesn't reflect on him, so why take it personally?
37
@34, 36: I don't think your claim that "sex is never going to be as fun for most women as it is for men" is at all true. We're not just talking about intercourse, and we're talking about sex with someone you're in a relationship with, who you're supposedly very into and attracted to. Women may be more selective than men, but we're talking about someone who has already been selected.
And you seem to be saying that any guy who takes sex personally and emotionally is "insecure." Well, everyone's got insecurities, but I think you don't really understand. Sex is personal and emotional. So is rejection. You mentioned once your surprise at realizing that sex is important emotionally to men: well, this is part of that. At least for me -- I can't claim to speak for all men, but I think this is pretty common -- sex means that someone likes me and accepts me, thinks I'm a really awesome person. and finds me attractive. Rejection means the opposite.
You say rejection doesn't reflect on a guy, but this clearly isn't true. Someone who is very sexually successful is doing things to be that way; someone who isn't getting enough sex could probably stand to improve various parts of his life. It's not just random. This is even true within a relationship: for instance, a guy's GF will probably be more attracted to him and more likely to have sex if she sees him flirting with other girls, being hit on a lot, and generally showing that he has options and he's attractive. Your behavior does affect your desirability.
Sexual compatibility is really important in a relationship: this comes up in this column over and over. I like sex several times a day, and it's very important to me, so I don't date people who only like it once in a while and who don't think it's that important. People should prioritize sexual compatibility and look for it in people they date. Being rejected a lot is a very personal thing: Dan's described it as "emotional violence" to deprive a partner of sex. It's a pretty clear message that the person doesn't care about you, your needs, and your happiness.
More...
And you seem to be saying that any guy who takes sex personally and emotionally is "insecure." Well, everyone's got insecurities, but I think you don't really understand. Sex is personal and emotional. So is rejection. You mentioned once your surprise at realizing that sex is important emotionally to men: well, this is part of that. At least for me -- I can't claim to speak for all men, but I think this is pretty common -- sex means that someone likes me and accepts me, thinks I'm a really awesome person. and finds me attractive. Rejection means the opposite.
You say rejection doesn't reflect on a guy, but this clearly isn't true. Someone who is very sexually successful is doing things to be that way; someone who isn't getting enough sex could probably stand to improve various parts of his life. It's not just random. This is even true within a relationship: for instance, a guy's GF will probably be more attracted to him and more likely to have sex if she sees him flirting with other girls, being hit on a lot, and generally showing that he has options and he's attractive. Your behavior does affect your desirability.
Sexual compatibility is really important in a relationship: this comes up in this column over and over. I like sex several times a day, and it's very important to me, so I don't date people who only like it once in a while and who don't think it's that important. People should prioritize sexual compatibility and look for it in people they date. Being rejected a lot is a very personal thing: Dan's described it as "emotional violence" to deprive a partner of sex. It's a pretty clear message that the person doesn't care about you, your needs, and your happiness.
38
@37, but if you have a basic fit, so that maybe you'd like it 7 days a week, and she likes it every other day, and you've decided you can live with that... Then how can you act as if the days when she's not in the mood are about your failure as a man, as a person? Doesn't she get to have an opinion about the use of her body, without it reflecting on you?
39
"someone who has already been selected" -- but women don't promise to provide sex on-tap, any time of any day that the guy wants, regardless of her career, her mood, her hormonal levels. If you will accept giving a massage to me as sex, then, fine, I'll have sex with you every ten minutes around the clock. But as long as men define sex as "intercourse, blowjobs, cunnilingus and anal" -- they're going to find that (most) women want that less often than the man does.
In your experience, do the women in your life want something from "intercourse, blowjobs, cunnilingus and anal" as often as you do?
In your experience, do the women in your life want something from "intercourse, blowjobs, cunnilingus and anal" as often as you do?
40
@39: Yes, they do. But there's some selection bias here. I wouldn't date someone who didn't; we wouldn't be compatible. And I generally look for a high sex drive in the women I date. As I said, sexual compatibility is really important.
I think it's a myth that women generally have low sex drives and don't enjoy sex that much, which seems to be what you're saying. And I think it's harmful to tell guys that that's just how women are and guys just have to deal.
People can set up relationships however they want, in whatever way works best for them. But to me, it makes the most sense for people to promise to provide sex to each other whenever possible. Obviously it's one thing if someone needs to sleep, go to work, or has the flu, but otherwise, why not take some time to please someone you care about?
I personally wouldn't want a relationship where we can be free to turn each other down for no good reason. That just seems hurtful to me.
@38: Are we saying that it's a fixed fact about her that she never wants sex more than every other day? That that doesn't change, no matter what I do or say? That's not always how people's sex drives work. But let's say it is. And let's suppose I was in a monogamous relationship with her. Then even if her sex drive has nothing to do with me, she's still making the choice not to have sex with me. She could still have sex even when she's "not in the mood." I'd still feel upset that she was turning me down so often. Is there a reason she's choosing not to? There's nothing about my behavior that's relevant? And especially if we were monogamous, she's then effectively taking away any option I have to have sex with anyone else, leaving me with no other option than to be deprived.
Even if it doesn't mean anything about me, I'd feel upset because she's showing that she doesn't care about pleasing me or making me happy. Because I'd be feeling deprived, and I'd feel like she thought having sex with me was such a huge burden that she couldn't do it just to make me happy. It's not her fault; it's just that we'd be incompatible. Which is why I wouldn't date someone like that, not monogamously at least.
But I'm poly, and this is where being poly comes in handy: if I'm also dating other people, then I may only see her a couple times a week anyway, so it wouldn't be a problem.
More...
I think it's a myth that women generally have low sex drives and don't enjoy sex that much, which seems to be what you're saying. And I think it's harmful to tell guys that that's just how women are and guys just have to deal.
People can set up relationships however they want, in whatever way works best for them. But to me, it makes the most sense for people to promise to provide sex to each other whenever possible. Obviously it's one thing if someone needs to sleep, go to work, or has the flu, but otherwise, why not take some time to please someone you care about?
I personally wouldn't want a relationship where we can be free to turn each other down for no good reason. That just seems hurtful to me.
@38: Are we saying that it's a fixed fact about her that she never wants sex more than every other day? That that doesn't change, no matter what I do or say? That's not always how people's sex drives work. But let's say it is. And let's suppose I was in a monogamous relationship with her. Then even if her sex drive has nothing to do with me, she's still making the choice not to have sex with me. She could still have sex even when she's "not in the mood." I'd still feel upset that she was turning me down so often. Is there a reason she's choosing not to? There's nothing about my behavior that's relevant? And especially if we were monogamous, she's then effectively taking away any option I have to have sex with anyone else, leaving me with no other option than to be deprived.
Even if it doesn't mean anything about me, I'd feel upset because she's showing that she doesn't care about pleasing me or making me happy. Because I'd be feeling deprived, and I'd feel like she thought having sex with me was such a huge burden that she couldn't do it just to make me happy. It's not her fault; it's just that we'd be incompatible. Which is why I wouldn't date someone like that, not monogamously at least.
But I'm poly, and this is where being poly comes in handy: if I'm also dating other people, then I may only see her a couple times a week anyway, so it wouldn't be a problem.
41
"women generally have low sex drives and don't enjoy sex that much"
That's not what I said. I said that most women want one of these choices "intercourse, blowjobs, cunnilingus and anal" less often than most men do.
Of course, some women want one of those acts more than some men. A few women are probably more hungry for those acts than even most men.
But plot the bell-curves of how often 100 women actively desired one of those acts: "intercourse, blowjobs, cunnilingus and anal" and how often 100 men actively desired one of those acts, and I believe that the bell-curve of the women would be shifted over from the bell-curve of the men. I think higher testosterone in men pushes them to want one of those particular sex acts (on average) more often than women do (on average).
Your belief that your partner should have sex with you routinely when she doesn't desire it is fine when balanced with you doing just as much for her that you don't particularly feel like doing for its own sake (massages, say). But the mere fact that she doesn't desire it herself on a given occasion shouldn't be taken as a statement that you are less of a person, less of a man.
You say you enjoy being poly, because you can have sex with other women when one doesn't match your sexual needs. Suppose you had two girlfriends, and you saw them on alternate nights, and each one eagerly jumped your bones when it was her night. Would you feel they were rejecting you, would you feel they were saying you were "unattractive/too nice/too accommodating/not sexy enough/not masculine enough", by not objecting to you going to have sex with the other woman?
That's not what I said. I said that most women want one of these choices "intercourse, blowjobs, cunnilingus and anal" less often than most men do.
Of course, some women want one of those acts more than some men. A few women are probably more hungry for those acts than even most men.
But plot the bell-curves of how often 100 women actively desired one of those acts: "intercourse, blowjobs, cunnilingus and anal" and how often 100 men actively desired one of those acts, and I believe that the bell-curve of the women would be shifted over from the bell-curve of the men. I think higher testosterone in men pushes them to want one of those particular sex acts (on average) more often than women do (on average).
Your belief that your partner should have sex with you routinely when she doesn't desire it is fine when balanced with you doing just as much for her that you don't particularly feel like doing for its own sake (massages, say). But the mere fact that she doesn't desire it herself on a given occasion shouldn't be taken as a statement that you are less of a person, less of a man.
You say you enjoy being poly, because you can have sex with other women when one doesn't match your sexual needs. Suppose you had two girlfriends, and you saw them on alternate nights, and each one eagerly jumped your bones when it was her night. Would you feel they were rejecting you, would you feel they were saying you were "unattractive/too nice/too accommodating/not sexy enough/not masculine enough", by not objecting to you going to have sex with the other woman?
42
@41: Ok, I see what you mean. As a statistical matter, you might be right. I suspect that there are ways of making things match up more. You mention how often women "actively desire" one of those acts, which suggests that some women may be able to have and enjoy sex more often by going along with their partner's active desire. (This lines up with the suggestion of some researchers that female sexuality is more receptive than male sexuality, though this is obviously still being researched and determined).
The other side of that is that there are certainly situations and circumstances that would make women actively desire sex less, such as stress, depression, or an unhappy relationship. So it's also possible that given the right relationship, or the guy acting or treating her the right way, or getting enough really good sex, women might actively desire sex more, especially if at least some of the disparity is due to cultural conditioning, which could be overcome. Further, hormone levels can change over time due to behavior and circumstances, so even if the difference is hormonal, it's possible that a guy could still make his girl hornier/less horny based on how he acts.
My point in all this is just to say that sex drive isn't just an unchangeable fact about someone; it can be a response to a relationship or to a guy's behavior. It can sometimes reflect on a guy. There are probably PUA/flirting/relationship management techniques that can improve the situation. That said, it's still probably a better idea to find someone who's more naturally sexually compatible, instead of trying to shape them in your image.
As far as balance in relationships, it really depends on how the relationships are structured. In some D/S relationships, it's not always equally balanced. (And giving a massage is pretty clearly work: while it's nice to be able to give massages and do nice things for each other back and forth, if having any kind of sex with your partner is as much work as giving a massage is, there's something wrong. Granted that giving oral can also be work though.)
Agree completely that "Girl X does not desire sex at a certain time" does not necessarily mean "The guy X rejects is less of a person." That said, a change in Girl X's sex drive may well mean that something is going wrong in the relationship or that she doesn't respect her guy as much. (Or it could mean something completely different, of course.) What I think you are missing is that it's still not pleasant to be rejected, and it's still a very personal thing. And the feeling of pain and rejection can be less about someone not desiring sex herself than it is about her not being willing to please someone that she supposedly cares about and wants to make happy. (Same goes if it's a man doing the rejecting.)
If you mean that it's more productive to try to find a way to match sex drives, open the relationship, or just find a new partner than it is to mope and feel all hurt and rejected, I'd agree. But I definitely don't think that someone should just accept that sex drives won't always match up, not take it personally, and resign himself/herself to not being satisfied. It is a problem, and there is something you can do to change it. No one should live a life where they're not getting as much sex as they want.
I am confused by your last paragraph: why would I feel rejected by a relationship being poly? It's the other way around. If someone did object or feel jealous, I'd feel a little upset or inadequate, like I wasn't doing something right, but it would be something we'd talk about and work through (if they really couldn't handle it, the relationship probably wouldn't work out).
More...
The other side of that is that there are certainly situations and circumstances that would make women actively desire sex less, such as stress, depression, or an unhappy relationship. So it's also possible that given the right relationship, or the guy acting or treating her the right way, or getting enough really good sex, women might actively desire sex more, especially if at least some of the disparity is due to cultural conditioning, which could be overcome. Further, hormone levels can change over time due to behavior and circumstances, so even if the difference is hormonal, it's possible that a guy could still make his girl hornier/less horny based on how he acts.
My point in all this is just to say that sex drive isn't just an unchangeable fact about someone; it can be a response to a relationship or to a guy's behavior. It can sometimes reflect on a guy. There are probably PUA/flirting/relationship management techniques that can improve the situation. That said, it's still probably a better idea to find someone who's more naturally sexually compatible, instead of trying to shape them in your image.
As far as balance in relationships, it really depends on how the relationships are structured. In some D/S relationships, it's not always equally balanced. (And giving a massage is pretty clearly work: while it's nice to be able to give massages and do nice things for each other back and forth, if having any kind of sex with your partner is as much work as giving a massage is, there's something wrong. Granted that giving oral can also be work though.)
Agree completely that "Girl X does not desire sex at a certain time" does not necessarily mean "The guy X rejects is less of a person." That said, a change in Girl X's sex drive may well mean that something is going wrong in the relationship or that she doesn't respect her guy as much. (Or it could mean something completely different, of course.) What I think you are missing is that it's still not pleasant to be rejected, and it's still a very personal thing. And the feeling of pain and rejection can be less about someone not desiring sex herself than it is about her not being willing to please someone that she supposedly cares about and wants to make happy. (Same goes if it's a man doing the rejecting.)
If you mean that it's more productive to try to find a way to match sex drives, open the relationship, or just find a new partner than it is to mope and feel all hurt and rejected, I'd agree. But I definitely don't think that someone should just accept that sex drives won't always match up, not take it personally, and resign himself/herself to not being satisfied. It is a problem, and there is something you can do to change it. No one should live a life where they're not getting as much sex as they want.
I am confused by your last paragraph: why would I feel rejected by a relationship being poly? It's the other way around. If someone did object or feel jealous, I'd feel a little upset or inadequate, like I wasn't doing something right, but it would be something we'd talk about and work through (if they really couldn't handle it, the relationship probably wouldn't work out).
43
"if having [intercourse, blowjobs, cunnilingus and/or anal] with your partner is as much work as giving a massage is, there's something wrong."
I think you underestimate the annoyance of these sex acts when one is really not in the mood. Would you rather give someone a massage or let them pick your nose for fifteen minutes? Sure, it's not much hassle to lie back and let someone stick their finger in and out of your nose, but, you know, if you're not in the mood for it, it could seem gross and disturbing.
Or here's a different analogy - conversation. What if I like to have conversations with you, and we have great conversations most evenings, but sometimes, you just don't want to talk. On some of those occasions, you put up with my desire to have a conversation, and give it a decent go, but on some nights, I have to accept that you're not in the mood, and I can go out on the internet and find someone else to talk to. If that happened a lot, then, sure, I'd feel rejected, and sad, and it might lead us to break up. But one partner does not exist to service the other partner and people get to make their own decisions about how often they will put up with conversation (or sex) that they don't want.
"No one should live a life where they're not getting as much sex as they want." - That can go in a utopian box with "everyone should get as much conversation, food, sleep, shelter, companionship, laughter, and sunshine as they want." The US Declaration of Independence says we're entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- no one ever promised us happiness, just that we're allowed to go out and try for it.
And explaining my last paragraph @41 -- If you see it as rejection when X turns you down, then isn't it still rejection if X turns you down but Y says yes? What about if X says "never on Tuesdays," and Y says, "Hey, I'll pick up the slack on Tuesdays"? Has X rejected you? I thought you would take all those scenarios as equivalent. Any night when X doesn't want cock is a rejection of you and makes you sad, regardless of what alternate plans you come up with. Now, from my perspective, X is her own person, with her own set of priorities, impulses, and desires. She doesn't exist to service her boyfriend. She may want sex on Monday, and put up with sex on Wednesday, and want it again on Thursday, but if she says no on Tuesdays, that doesn't mean she thinks less of her man on Tuesday.
You and I agree that in the long run, both people need to be roughly compatible as far as how often they both want sex and conversation. But "roughly" allows for some give and take.
I myself am in a D/s relationship where I don't say no, even if I'm really not in the mood. But I would never tell my daughter that it's her job to service her man every time he wants it, whether the servicing comes in the form of sex, cooking dinner, or making conversation when one is really not in the mood. "Just lie back and think of England" is a joke, not a mantra.
More...
I think you underestimate the annoyance of these sex acts when one is really not in the mood. Would you rather give someone a massage or let them pick your nose for fifteen minutes? Sure, it's not much hassle to lie back and let someone stick their finger in and out of your nose, but, you know, if you're not in the mood for it, it could seem gross and disturbing.
Or here's a different analogy - conversation. What if I like to have conversations with you, and we have great conversations most evenings, but sometimes, you just don't want to talk. On some of those occasions, you put up with my desire to have a conversation, and give it a decent go, but on some nights, I have to accept that you're not in the mood, and I can go out on the internet and find someone else to talk to. If that happened a lot, then, sure, I'd feel rejected, and sad, and it might lead us to break up. But one partner does not exist to service the other partner and people get to make their own decisions about how often they will put up with conversation (or sex) that they don't want.
"No one should live a life where they're not getting as much sex as they want." - That can go in a utopian box with "everyone should get as much conversation, food, sleep, shelter, companionship, laughter, and sunshine as they want." The US Declaration of Independence says we're entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- no one ever promised us happiness, just that we're allowed to go out and try for it.
And explaining my last paragraph @41 -- If you see it as rejection when X turns you down, then isn't it still rejection if X turns you down but Y says yes? What about if X says "never on Tuesdays," and Y says, "Hey, I'll pick up the slack on Tuesdays"? Has X rejected you? I thought you would take all those scenarios as equivalent. Any night when X doesn't want cock is a rejection of you and makes you sad, regardless of what alternate plans you come up with. Now, from my perspective, X is her own person, with her own set of priorities, impulses, and desires. She doesn't exist to service her boyfriend. She may want sex on Monday, and put up with sex on Wednesday, and want it again on Thursday, but if she says no on Tuesdays, that doesn't mean she thinks less of her man on Tuesday.
You and I agree that in the long run, both people need to be roughly compatible as far as how often they both want sex and conversation. But "roughly" allows for some give and take.
I myself am in a D/s relationship where I don't say no, even if I'm really not in the mood. But I would never tell my daughter that it's her job to service her man every time he wants it, whether the servicing comes in the form of sex, cooking dinner, or making conversation when one is really not in the mood. "Just lie back and think of England" is a joke, not a mantra.
44
@43: I wouldn't say "Lie back and think of England." I'd say, part of being in a relationship is pleasing your partner (particularly sexually but other ways as well) even when you're not in the mood, and often you'll start to enjoy it once you get started. This is pretty standard sex therapist advice: make regular sex schedules and just do it, and don't feel the need to wait for some intense desire or feeling "in the mood" because that's often just not how sexual arousal works, especially for women. (This is true for guys as well. I don't really ever feel "in the mood" to start with, I just think that sex feels good and I have the chance to have sex with someone, so I'll do it, and then I start getting in the mood.)
Going back to earlier in this discussion, when we were talking about sex and emotional connection: you're right that people could have a generally good relationship, but where sex drives don't line up some of the time -- and of course people have the right to make their own decisions and just decide not to please their partner sometimes -- but my point was that, well, this is going to lead to some emotional pain and disconnecting sometimes. I don't think it's reasonable to say "it shouldn't hurt, it has nothing to do with you." Maybe it shouldn't, but, for many (most?) people, it does. Even if logically it doesn't mean someone thinks less of their partner, it feels like a withdrawal, and it's often not an easy thing to deal with.
You keep saying "people don't exist to service their partners" and of course I agree. I don't think I said otherwise. What I do think is that people underestimate the importance of sexual incompatibility. I keep seeing people write in to Savage Love or post on internet forums talking about how great their relationship is, how much they love their partner, except for this little thing where they're rejected often and it really hurts them. And it's not just the rejection, it's the fact that the low-drive partner doesn't seem to care about the emotional violence they're causing or that the high-drive partner is unhappy with the situation. I just don't think people should settle for a relationship where they're not really fulfilled sexually. Agreed that we're not promised sexual fulfillment, just the right to try for it, but all I'm saying is that people should try for it more, and leave or fix relationships where it's not working.
I misunderstood your poly question before, so I hope this answer makes sense: As far as rejection goes (and this applies whether poly or not) I think a lot of it has to do with the reason for rejection. Someone not having sex with me is not always a painful rejection. An obvious example is if someone is nauseous or has the flu. Then it's pretty clear why they don't feel like sex, and no one would take a rejection personally in that situation. Similarly if someone has another obligation or time commitment. If X in your hypothetical has some activity every Tuesday night, and that's why she's not available on Tuesdays, that's totally fine. Even someone being mad at me about an argument and not wanting to spend time with me is understandable, because there's a clear reason and it's something that we can address and work out.
The only really painful rejection would be something like this, if that's what you're suggesting: "I like you, and I know we agreed to spend this afternoon together, and I really want to spend time with you now and be close to you: I just don't feel like sex (and I'm not going to do it for you anyway because that would feel gross and disturbing)."
Now, you seem to think this is common for women. I've never dated someone where this happened, so I don't know, but it seems strange to me. Either the person just isn't attracted to me, or just has a low sex drive, or something is wrong. Obviously no one has to have sex with me every chance they get, but if someone doesn't want to when she has the opportunity then something is wrong. I want her to want to! I want relationships with girls who are really into me and want sex with me whenever possible! If someone has the opportunity and we're together, but for some reason she doesn't want sex and won't have sex, there's got to be some problem, some reason for that, that needs to be addressed and fixed.
I think in the situation where she just wasn't in the mood or had a low sex drive, I'd just write the person off as incompatible, regardless of whether other people I date could pick up the slack. I'd probably either interpret that as her not being interested in dating me at all, or else just bug her for sex to the point where it just pushed her away, ha! The whole thing would just seem too frustrating and painful, and dating someone like that would make scheduling sex difficult, and it just wouldn't work out.
More...
Going back to earlier in this discussion, when we were talking about sex and emotional connection: you're right that people could have a generally good relationship, but where sex drives don't line up some of the time -- and of course people have the right to make their own decisions and just decide not to please their partner sometimes -- but my point was that, well, this is going to lead to some emotional pain and disconnecting sometimes. I don't think it's reasonable to say "it shouldn't hurt, it has nothing to do with you." Maybe it shouldn't, but, for many (most?) people, it does. Even if logically it doesn't mean someone thinks less of their partner, it feels like a withdrawal, and it's often not an easy thing to deal with.
You keep saying "people don't exist to service their partners" and of course I agree. I don't think I said otherwise. What I do think is that people underestimate the importance of sexual incompatibility. I keep seeing people write in to Savage Love or post on internet forums talking about how great their relationship is, how much they love their partner, except for this little thing where they're rejected often and it really hurts them. And it's not just the rejection, it's the fact that the low-drive partner doesn't seem to care about the emotional violence they're causing or that the high-drive partner is unhappy with the situation. I just don't think people should settle for a relationship where they're not really fulfilled sexually. Agreed that we're not promised sexual fulfillment, just the right to try for it, but all I'm saying is that people should try for it more, and leave or fix relationships where it's not working.
I misunderstood your poly question before, so I hope this answer makes sense: As far as rejection goes (and this applies whether poly or not) I think a lot of it has to do with the reason for rejection. Someone not having sex with me is not always a painful rejection. An obvious example is if someone is nauseous or has the flu. Then it's pretty clear why they don't feel like sex, and no one would take a rejection personally in that situation. Similarly if someone has another obligation or time commitment. If X in your hypothetical has some activity every Tuesday night, and that's why she's not available on Tuesdays, that's totally fine. Even someone being mad at me about an argument and not wanting to spend time with me is understandable, because there's a clear reason and it's something that we can address and work out.
The only really painful rejection would be something like this, if that's what you're suggesting: "I like you, and I know we agreed to spend this afternoon together, and I really want to spend time with you now and be close to you: I just don't feel like sex (and I'm not going to do it for you anyway because that would feel gross and disturbing)."
Now, you seem to think this is common for women. I've never dated someone where this happened, so I don't know, but it seems strange to me. Either the person just isn't attracted to me, or just has a low sex drive, or something is wrong. Obviously no one has to have sex with me every chance they get, but if someone doesn't want to when she has the opportunity then something is wrong. I want her to want to! I want relationships with girls who are really into me and want sex with me whenever possible! If someone has the opportunity and we're together, but for some reason she doesn't want sex and won't have sex, there's got to be some problem, some reason for that, that needs to be addressed and fixed.
I think in the situation where she just wasn't in the mood or had a low sex drive, I'd just write the person off as incompatible, regardless of whether other people I date could pick up the slack. I'd probably either interpret that as her not being interested in dating me at all, or else just bug her for sex to the point where it just pushed her away, ha! The whole thing would just seem too frustrating and painful, and dating someone like that would make scheduling sex difficult, and it just wouldn't work out.
45
"What I do think is that people underestimate the importance of sexual incompatibility." We're on the same page here.
But in a fundamentally compatible situation, an occasional night of "I'm really not able to do it tonight" should not be taken as a rejection. I guess your sex drive is so high that you wouldn't stay with someone who said that even once a month. But maybe if she only said it once a year, you'd stay?
"Now, you seem to think this is common for women."
I was NOT positing that she wanted to spend time with you but not have sex. I was positing that she didn't want sex, because, right then, ick. There are often physical reasons, but I don't think women should have to point to headache, cramps, or flu as an excuse. Mentally not being able to face it is "allowed" just as much as physical reasons. You would of course be free to go do your own thing. In my hypothesis she's not asking to "be close to you" without sex. She's just not able to face sex right now, and you can make your decision about what to do with your time.
"and often you'll start to enjoy it once you get started."
I'm not an unmarried teenager, BlackRose. I'm 42 years old, and I've had two children. I know about scheduling sex, and how the mood can catch up to me if we go ahead and start anyway. But that doesn't work all the time and if I weren't in a D/s relationship, I would reserve the right to say no when I really wanted to say no.
"all I'm saying is that people should try for it more, and leave or fix relationships where it's not working.
Agreed. We're in strong agreement here.
But in a fundamentally compatible situation, an occasional night of "I'm really not able to do it tonight" should not be taken as a rejection. I guess your sex drive is so high that you wouldn't stay with someone who said that even once a month. But maybe if she only said it once a year, you'd stay?
"Now, you seem to think this is common for women."
I was NOT positing that she wanted to spend time with you but not have sex. I was positing that she didn't want sex, because, right then, ick. There are often physical reasons, but I don't think women should have to point to headache, cramps, or flu as an excuse. Mentally not being able to face it is "allowed" just as much as physical reasons. You would of course be free to go do your own thing. In my hypothesis she's not asking to "be close to you" without sex. She's just not able to face sex right now, and you can make your decision about what to do with your time.
"and often you'll start to enjoy it once you get started."
I'm not an unmarried teenager, BlackRose. I'm 42 years old, and I've had two children. I know about scheduling sex, and how the mood can catch up to me if we go ahead and start anyway. But that doesn't work all the time and if I weren't in a D/s relationship, I would reserve the right to say no when I really wanted to say no.
"all I'm saying is that people should try for it more, and leave or fix relationships where it's not working.
Agreed. We're in strong agreement here.
46
@45: I figured you'd agree with most of that. :)
You say an occasional rejection "should not be taken as a rejection." Again, maybe an ideal person would have no problems dealing with that, but in the real world, it's not easy to deal with. It hurts sometimes.
As to what I could deal with or would want: as I said, it really is about the reason as much as it is the frequency. You say women shouldn't have to point to a physical reason because mental reasons are "allowed" just as much. Of course anyone *can* turn down sex at any time, for any or so reason: it's a human right and people are allowed to do so. But that isn't in question: we all agree on that.
If we're talking about what I would want and what I can deal with, for me, physical reasons are easy to deal with. There's a big difference between "I really want sex with you but my body can't handle it right now," which is perfectly understandable, and "I can't face it mentally now" or "I just don't feel like it," which could be a problem for me.
I'm trying to think of reasons or situations where the latter would come up. If I'd accidentally triggered something painful in someone in a scene, and they needed space or privacy to process, that's understandable. If someone was really upset about something, or I'd offended her or had an unpleasant argument with her, again, the need for space is understandable. For me I think the biggest thing is getting an understandable explanation for WHY this isn't a good time for sex, and having someone be kind and considerate and polite and completely honest about how they explain. I think this is important in general in a relationship. Don't just reject or turn someone down: talk to them about what's going on in your head and what you need. If that happened once or twice a month and a girl handled it well, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I thought you were talking about some vague "not in the mood" rejection without some sort of honest reason or explanation, which I would find more emotionally difficult because that suggests that there's a deeper problem with the relationship or our compatibility, rather than some other issue that can be dealt with.
More...
You say an occasional rejection "should not be taken as a rejection." Again, maybe an ideal person would have no problems dealing with that, but in the real world, it's not easy to deal with. It hurts sometimes.
As to what I could deal with or would want: as I said, it really is about the reason as much as it is the frequency. You say women shouldn't have to point to a physical reason because mental reasons are "allowed" just as much. Of course anyone *can* turn down sex at any time, for any or so reason: it's a human right and people are allowed to do so. But that isn't in question: we all agree on that.
If we're talking about what I would want and what I can deal with, for me, physical reasons are easy to deal with. There's a big difference between "I really want sex with you but my body can't handle it right now," which is perfectly understandable, and "I can't face it mentally now" or "I just don't feel like it," which could be a problem for me.
I'm trying to think of reasons or situations where the latter would come up. If I'd accidentally triggered something painful in someone in a scene, and they needed space or privacy to process, that's understandable. If someone was really upset about something, or I'd offended her or had an unpleasant argument with her, again, the need for space is understandable. For me I think the biggest thing is getting an understandable explanation for WHY this isn't a good time for sex, and having someone be kind and considerate and polite and completely honest about how they explain. I think this is important in general in a relationship. Don't just reject or turn someone down: talk to them about what's going on in your head and what you need. If that happened once or twice a month and a girl handled it well, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I thought you were talking about some vague "not in the mood" rejection without some sort of honest reason or explanation, which I would find more emotionally difficult because that suggests that there's a deeper problem with the relationship or our compatibility, rather than some other issue that can be dealt with.
47
My "not in the mood" reasons would be more like bad day at the office, worried about my mom's health, or stayed up too late working on a big project. Not being mad at my partner.
(In my real life, what comes up most often -- maybe once a month -- is that I'm asleep when he wants sex. If he really wants it, I put out, but I don't enjoy it.)
(In my real life, what comes up most often -- maybe once a month -- is that I'm asleep when he wants sex. If he really wants it, I put out, but I don't enjoy it.)
48
@47: Yeah, those are the kind of vague emotional reasons I would be uncomfortable with: there's not much I can do about those things, they have nothing to do with me, and there's no physical reason. I wouldn't be happy with that, but at least she could make things a little better by explaining to me that she was worried about X, she's really sorry but she just can't do it now, reassuring me it's not about me, and promising me that she still really likes and wants me and will make it up to me the next day or something.
For me sex is a good way of dealing with stress and worry so it's harder for me to understand. I'd be like "you're stressed now, so you want to be even more stressed and start a fight and make the evening unpleasant? what?" But if it was rare and something she was honest and explained to me, I'd try to understand.
As much as I like sex with someone who's sleeping, and as much as I like waking someone for sex, I personally hate being woken up for anything short of the house being on fire, so I can totally understand that one.
For me sex is a good way of dealing with stress and worry so it's harder for me to understand. I'd be like "you're stressed now, so you want to be even more stressed and start a fight and make the evening unpleasant? what?" But if it was rare and something she was honest and explained to me, I'd try to understand.
As much as I like sex with someone who's sleeping, and as much as I like waking someone for sex, I personally hate being woken up for anything short of the house being on fire, so I can totally understand that one.
49
"they have nothing to do with me"
"she will make it up to me the next day"
Good thing we're not dating. I'm (hypothetically) worried about my mom; that makes me feel non-sexual. You tell me that sex is a good way of dealing with stress, FOR YOU, and therefore, when I don't use sex to deal with MY stress, I am damaging you in some way, and should "make it up to you." You want a fight? You just got one.
In my world, sure, we'd have sex the next day, because I love sex with my husband. But I wouldn't feel that I owed him one for denying him the night before when I was worried about my mom. Christ. All I can say is that you and I wouldn't be dating long, so we wouldn't have much chance to torture each other like this.
And it gets back to the importance of figuring this stuff out during the early dating phase, so that you end up with someone whose response to your stress doesn't make the stress worse.
"she will make it up to me the next day"
Good thing we're not dating. I'm (hypothetically) worried about my mom; that makes me feel non-sexual. You tell me that sex is a good way of dealing with stress, FOR YOU, and therefore, when I don't use sex to deal with MY stress, I am damaging you in some way, and should "make it up to you." You want a fight? You just got one.
In my world, sure, we'd have sex the next day, because I love sex with my husband. But I wouldn't feel that I owed him one for denying him the night before when I was worried about my mom. Christ. All I can say is that you and I wouldn't be dating long, so we wouldn't have much chance to torture each other like this.
And it gets back to the importance of figuring this stuff out during the early dating phase, so that you end up with someone whose response to your stress doesn't make the stress worse.
50
"I personally hate being woken up for anything short of the house being on fire, so I can totally understand that one."
How about if you try to empathize with people who have different reactions and emotions than you do? It's great that you understand not wanting to have sex when sleeping, but why is it so hard for you to imagine that other people have other things that are equally annoying to them, even if they're not equally annoying to you? Can't you hear what they are saying -- "I hate having sex when I'm stressed," and believe it, even if your own emotions are the opposite?
How about if you try to empathize with people who have different reactions and emotions than you do? It's great that you understand not wanting to have sex when sleeping, but why is it so hard for you to imagine that other people have other things that are equally annoying to them, even if they're not equally annoying to you? Can't you hear what they are saying -- "I hate having sex when I'm stressed," and believe it, even if your own emotions are the opposite?
51
@49, 50: Like I said, some things are harder for me to understand and empathize with than others. Not sure why you feel the need to be so harsh on me for having a different take on things: I'm happy with my relationships and sex life, you are too, and we don't have to see things the same way.
Don't people always feel they "owe the other person one" if they have to turn their partner down for something? Sex or otherwise? Why is that idea so surprising or upsetting to you?
Don't people always feel they "owe the other person one" if they have to turn their partner down for something? Sex or otherwise? Why is that idea so surprising or upsetting to you?
52
@51 I got harsh because sometimes I get a vibe from you that all women should act this way towards all men, rather than that you look for the subset of women who naturally are compatible with you.
Examples?
- "part of being in a relationship is pleasing your partner (particularly sexually but other ways as well) even when you're not in the mood"
- "I can't claim to speak for all men, but I think this is pretty common -- sex means that someone likes me and accepts me, thinks I'm a really awesome person. and finds me attractive. Rejection means the opposite."
If your ideas are just particular for you and your partners, then I have no problem with them. But if you want to instruct women in general that they owe sex to their partners even under conditions of stress, and that mostmen will feel rejected any time sex is not on the table except for reasons of illness, then, yes, I am going to object strenuously.
I don't think that has to be the normal expectation in a relationship. Yes, as Dan says, "oral comes standard now." But throat fucking doesn't come standard, though you and I both like it. And "sex every day or the man starts pouting and feeling rejected" -- that's not standard either. I support your own honest desire to have that in your life. I just also support women who don't want to provide that. People need to be honest and find partners who want close enough to the same thing.
Re "owing the other person" - no. Not in my world. When sex becomes transactional -- I have sex to get affection, or to remove my feeling of guilt, or to pay my husband back for working so hard to support the family -- then my own desire is erased from the picture and bad sex is right around the corner. If I want to show my appreciation for my husband's hard work, I keep the kids from waking him up, or I make him a Manhattan just the way he likes it. Or I chat with his crazy mom so he doesn't have to. But we want sex to be about mutual lust, not "you got yours now I get mine." You are of course free to operate differently in your relationships.
More...
Examples?
- "part of being in a relationship is pleasing your partner (particularly sexually but other ways as well) even when you're not in the mood"
- "I can't claim to speak for all men, but I think this is pretty common -- sex means that someone likes me and accepts me, thinks I'm a really awesome person. and finds me attractive. Rejection means the opposite."
If your ideas are just particular for you and your partners, then I have no problem with them. But if you want to instruct women in general that they owe sex to their partners even under conditions of stress, and that mostmen will feel rejected any time sex is not on the table except for reasons of illness, then, yes, I am going to object strenuously.
I don't think that has to be the normal expectation in a relationship. Yes, as Dan says, "oral comes standard now." But throat fucking doesn't come standard, though you and I both like it. And "sex every day or the man starts pouting and feeling rejected" -- that's not standard either. I support your own honest desire to have that in your life. I just also support women who don't want to provide that. People need to be honest and find partners who want close enough to the same thing.
Re "owing the other person" - no. Not in my world. When sex becomes transactional -- I have sex to get affection, or to remove my feeling of guilt, or to pay my husband back for working so hard to support the family -- then my own desire is erased from the picture and bad sex is right around the corner. If I want to show my appreciation for my husband's hard work, I keep the kids from waking him up, or I make him a Manhattan just the way he likes it. Or I chat with his crazy mom so he doesn't have to. But we want sex to be about mutual lust, not "you got yours now I get mine." You are of course free to operate differently in your relationships.
53
@52: I think people, in general, men and women, owe their partners sexual satisfaction, as well as kindness and respect and honesty. I definitely agree that people should find partners who want close to the same thing, because then providing sexual satisfaction is less of a chore and more fun.
I think most people, men as well as women, probably feel rejected when they're, well, rejected, as in turned down for sex. I think that's a pretty natural reaction that comes "standard" with dating a sexual being. I said "men" in the sentence you quoted because I was responding to your question specifically asking about guys (#22), though I should have been more clear that it applies to everyone. Being told no, you can't have what you want, by the very person who's supposed to love you and be there for you, is always going to hurt at least a little for almost anyone. Even if it's completely understandable and justified.
I don't think any of this has to do with sex or gender. Is this something you object strenuously to?
As far as "owing the other person one," I didn't mean exchanging sex for something non-sexual, I meant as a way of gently rejecting someone by saying you'd make it up to them later. As in "sorry, I know you'd really like X now. I can't because of Y, but I promise I will make it up to you later when I can." The same could be said about massages, for instance: if you really wanted a massage but your husband couldn't do it then for some reason, wouldn't it be nice for him to say "but I'll give you one later on when I can, because I know it doesn't feel good to get turned down and I want to make it up to you"?
I think most people, men as well as women, probably feel rejected when they're, well, rejected, as in turned down for sex. I think that's a pretty natural reaction that comes "standard" with dating a sexual being. I said "men" in the sentence you quoted because I was responding to your question specifically asking about guys (#22), though I should have been more clear that it applies to everyone. Being told no, you can't have what you want, by the very person who's supposed to love you and be there for you, is always going to hurt at least a little for almost anyone. Even if it's completely understandable and justified.
I don't think any of this has to do with sex or gender. Is this something you object strenuously to?
As far as "owing the other person one," I didn't mean exchanging sex for something non-sexual, I meant as a way of gently rejecting someone by saying you'd make it up to them later. As in "sorry, I know you'd really like X now. I can't because of Y, but I promise I will make it up to you later when I can." The same could be said about massages, for instance: if you really wanted a massage but your husband couldn't do it then for some reason, wouldn't it be nice for him to say "but I'll give you one later on when I can, because I know it doesn't feel good to get turned down and I want to make it up to you"?
54
If I substitute "conversation," maybe my side will become clearer to you...
If I want to talk, yes, I get frustrated if my husband can't talk right then. But if he can't talk because he's stressed and wants to jerk off and go to sleep, I may feel a teeny bit rejected, but mostly I feel sympathetic to his stress level. His stress is counted at least as important as my desire for conversation. Yes, it's better if he says "let's talk tomorrow," rather than just stomping off. Sure, politeness helps smooth things over.
But if he made it seem as if the reason we would talk tomorrow was as a kindness to me, and he could take it or leave it, then I wouldn't want to talk to him tomorrow, or any other time. We talk (and we have sex) because we both want it, when we both want it.
Massages are different. That's more clearly a favor, like making him a perfect Manhattan.
Do you think it's reasonable for your girlfriend to respond to your (occasional) disinterest in conversation by feeling personally rejected? (Again, obviously both partners should want conversation at roughly equal levels. We're talking about people who have that rough compatibility, but on one particular night, one partner isn't up for it.)
If I want to talk, yes, I get frustrated if my husband can't talk right then. But if he can't talk because he's stressed and wants to jerk off and go to sleep, I may feel a teeny bit rejected, but mostly I feel sympathetic to his stress level. His stress is counted at least as important as my desire for conversation. Yes, it's better if he says "let's talk tomorrow," rather than just stomping off. Sure, politeness helps smooth things over.
But if he made it seem as if the reason we would talk tomorrow was as a kindness to me, and he could take it or leave it, then I wouldn't want to talk to him tomorrow, or any other time. We talk (and we have sex) because we both want it, when we both want it.
Massages are different. That's more clearly a favor, like making him a perfect Manhattan.
Do you think it's reasonable for your girlfriend to respond to your (occasional) disinterest in conversation by feeling personally rejected? (Again, obviously both partners should want conversation at roughly equal levels. We're talking about people who have that rough compatibility, but on one particular night, one partner isn't up for it.)
55
"Do you think it's reasonable for your girlfriend to respond to your (occasional) disinterest in conversation by feeling personally rejected?"
That is, is it reasonable for her to feel that her conversation isn't up to your standards? That her topics are dull? That if only she had the right phrasing and was witty enough, you'd bounce back and enjoy the conversation?
In my view, it would be silly for her to think any of those things. Obviously, you love conversation with her, since you guys had a fantastic conversation five evenings this week.
The reason you don't want conversation this particular night has nothing to do with her. She shouldn't take it personally (as reflecting some inadequacy on her part) unless it becomes a regular problem.
That is, is it reasonable for her to feel that her conversation isn't up to your standards? That her topics are dull? That if only she had the right phrasing and was witty enough, you'd bounce back and enjoy the conversation?
In my view, it would be silly for her to think any of those things. Obviously, you love conversation with her, since you guys had a fantastic conversation five evenings this week.
The reason you don't want conversation this particular night has nothing to do with her. She shouldn't take it personally (as reflecting some inadequacy on her part) unless it becomes a regular problem.
56
@54, 55: Whether you or I think it's reasonable or silly for someone to feel personally rejected because their partner doesn't want to converse (or fuck) is not the point. People do often feel that way, about conversation just as much as about sex. That's a fact that we just have to deal with. I've certainly felt that way about conversation as well. When I talk to someone and they don't seem interested I definitely worry sometimes whether I'm too dull and not witty enough, even with people I talk to regularly. And even if it has nothing to do with how dull you are, or how attractive you act, it still doesn't feel good to be refused something you want.
In the abstract, I can recognize that it's probably good to not take things so personally. Realistically, I know that I often do take things personally anyway, and other people often do too, even if we shouldn't. Realistically, I know that even when we don't take something personally it still hurts to be refused.
For you, the emphasis seems to be on both you and your husband mutually wanting sex (or conversation), at roughly equal levels and times. For me, it's more about not being refused sex/massages/conversation without a good reason, and the mutuality and roughly equal levels aren't as important. I don't really understand why sex or conversation aren't acceptable as favors for you, but a massage or making a drink are.
I certainly don't think everyone is or should be like me. You strike me as remarkably accommodating and understanding, and you can probably tell that I'm not that way. I think you also underestimate how hard it is to deal with refusal or rejection for a lot of people, and how much it can hurt. I don't know if that's a dom/sub difference or a personality difference, or both.
I do think that people should be aware that refusing their partners something is generally going to hurt their partners and not be well received -- even if that's an irrational feeling! -- and people should try not to turn their partners down when possible. Monogamous relationships are a special case because turning a monogamous partner down means that not only can they not have sex with you, but they can't have sex at all!
More...
In the abstract, I can recognize that it's probably good to not take things so personally. Realistically, I know that I often do take things personally anyway, and other people often do too, even if we shouldn't. Realistically, I know that even when we don't take something personally it still hurts to be refused.
For you, the emphasis seems to be on both you and your husband mutually wanting sex (or conversation), at roughly equal levels and times. For me, it's more about not being refused sex/massages/conversation without a good reason, and the mutuality and roughly equal levels aren't as important. I don't really understand why sex or conversation aren't acceptable as favors for you, but a massage or making a drink are.
I certainly don't think everyone is or should be like me. You strike me as remarkably accommodating and understanding, and you can probably tell that I'm not that way. I think you also underestimate how hard it is to deal with refusal or rejection for a lot of people, and how much it can hurt. I don't know if that's a dom/sub difference or a personality difference, or both.
I do think that people should be aware that refusing their partners something is generally going to hurt their partners and not be well received -- even if that's an irrational feeling! -- and people should try not to turn their partners down when possible. Monogamous relationships are a special case because turning a monogamous partner down means that not only can they not have sex with you, but they can't have sex at all!
57
> I don't really understand why sex or conversation aren't acceptable as favors for you, but a massage or making a drink are. >
Because he wants to know that I lust for him when we have sex. And I want to know that he wants conversation, when we converse. I don't care if he actively wants to give me a massage, or is just doing it as a favor. And he doesn't care if I enjoy getting him a drink.
"they can't have sex at all!" To me, it's just not that obvious why it's so terrible to go without sex one evening. We're talking about a couple who are roughly compatible, so overall you're getting plenty of sex, just not this one night. Maybe masturbation isn't as fun for you as it is for us. Both me and my husband pick masturbation a couple of nights a month, even when we have a willing partner right there, ready and able to have sex.
People who are single go without sex (and conversation) most nights. People in a relationship with someone who is roughly compatible with them -- it just doesn't seem so cruel that an occasional night goes by without "intercourse, blow job, cunnilingus, or anal." Or conversation.
Because he wants to know that I lust for him when we have sex. And I want to know that he wants conversation, when we converse. I don't care if he actively wants to give me a massage, or is just doing it as a favor. And he doesn't care if I enjoy getting him a drink.
"they can't have sex at all!" To me, it's just not that obvious why it's so terrible to go without sex one evening. We're talking about a couple who are roughly compatible, so overall you're getting plenty of sex, just not this one night. Maybe masturbation isn't as fun for you as it is for us. Both me and my husband pick masturbation a couple of nights a month, even when we have a willing partner right there, ready and able to have sex.
People who are single go without sex (and conversation) most nights. People in a relationship with someone who is roughly compatible with them -- it just doesn't seem so cruel that an occasional night goes by without "intercourse, blow job, cunnilingus, or anal." Or conversation.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (57) RSS