My wife and I click on just about every level—parenting, money, religion, politics, etc.—except for sex. After our last child was born, my advances were increasingly rejected. In an attempt to avoid pressuring her, I stopped initiating. One week passed, nothing. A month passed, nothing. A YEAR passed, nothing. Depression and anger set in. But I was committed to being the “perfect husband,” so I did not pressure her, hoping her libido would return. It didn’t. After two years, I finally lost it and confronted her. I expected that an open dialogue would improve the situation, but a month passed and she never brought it back up.
I realize that I’m lucky to be happy and fulfilled in just about every area of my life, but I’ve become fidgety, short-tempered, and hypersensitive. I do not want to have an affair and I do not want a divorce. I love her and our children, but I’m at a loss as to what to do. Knowing there are women out there in the world who actually enjoy sex is devastating (it kills me to listen to you field a call from a sexually confident woman on your podcast). I am mourning the loss of intimacy and connection with another person.
Please Advise Troubled Husband
I’ll get to you in a minute, PATH, but first…
MTV, a cable television channel that has been broadcasting music videos in a continuous loop since the summer of 1981, has elected to speed the moral collapse of the United States by putting me on television. My upcoming sex-advice program is tentatively titled Savage U, and it represents MTV’s first foray into non-music-video programming. (My preferred title for the show—Dan Savage’s Alaska—was rejected by the program’s co–executive producer, Piper Palin.) This news has upset not only my son, who has been in the MTV stage of his development for roughly three years, but also Maggie Gallagher, the head of the National Organization for Marriage, who has been stuck in the raving-bigot stage of her development for nearly three decades.
“Renowned sex columnist Dan Savage, who is an openly gay man,” Gallagher wrote on her blog, “will be taking his popular sex and relationship advice column to MTV in a show appropriately called ‘Savage U’ where he intends to educate your college student about the importance of honesty over just about anything else, including fidelity.”
Gallagher, who once had a child out of wedlock, speaks for the fidelity-over-anything-else crowd (fidelity over honesty, reality, statistics, biology, ability, etc.). Now, some people are capable of abstaining before marriage and being faithful to one partner for life—some people, but not Maggie—but these people represent a tiny minority of sexually active adults. And while those who make this aberrant lifestyle choice should not be discriminated against, the rest of us—the majority of sexually active adults—should be free to engage in grown-up conversations about sex and desire and the more reality-friendly ways in which we define fidelity without being shouted down by the monogamously correct.
I’d like to address Gallagher’s two main objections to Savage U in some detail:
“Savage, for all his experience, does not know what women are like,” says Gallagher.
I may not know what women taste like—I’ve never gone down on one—but I do know what women are like. My mother was a woman, my sister is a woman, my favorite bartender is a woman, my first sex partners were women, and many of my friends, neighbors, and coworkers are women. And as someone who is attracted to men and is in a long-term relationship with a man, I know what straight women have to put up with.
Ironically, Gallagher is a practicing Catholic who cites her faith as a reason for her opposition to same-sex marriage. But not knowing what women taste like has never stopped the pope from offering his unsolicited advice to women—no birth control, no abortions, no oral, no anal, no handjobs—and it seems a little hypocritical of Gallagher to suggest that I’m not qualified to offer advice to women, since I don’t fuck ’em, without first telling that old fag in Rome to STFU already.
“The possibility of taming one’s sexual desire for the sake of another, or of a vow, is not in the Savage moral imagination,” says Gallagher. “Libido will have out, and honesty about that is the best policy.”
The possibility of taming one’s sexual desire for the sake of another most definitely exists within the Savage moral imagination. I frequently discuss the “price of admission,” that is, the personal sacrifices, large and small, that make long-term relationships possible. For some, the price of admission—what it costs to ride a particular ride—includes “taming one’s sexual desire for the sake of another.” If anal sex is something you enjoy, but you’re in love with someone who doesn’t do anal, going without anal is the price of admission. If you’re not into monogamy, but you’re in love with someone who insists on it, then monogamy is the price of admission.
Yes, libido will have out—but “libido will have out” doesn’t translate into “Dan ‘Doesn’t Fuck Women’ Savage says anything and everything goes.” Two people in a long-term, committed relationship should be open and honest with each other about their sexual interests, turn-ons, drives, etc., because, yes, libido will have out. Meaning sexual compatibility and sexual satisfaction have a huge impact on the health of our relationships and marriages, Maggie, particularly if your spouse is your sole source of sexual satisfaction and release. People who can be open and honest with their partners—whether the relationship is monogamous or not—are likelier to have their needs met and likelier to meet their partners’ needs. And when needs are met, people are less likely to cheat and more likely to stay married.
Openness and honesty don’t automatically translate into everyone gets everything everyone wants. Not all needs can be met. But sometimes just having the sacrifices we’ve made for the good of our marriages acknowledged—getting a receipt after paying the price of admission—is good enough. Getting some credit for going without anal, along with the green light to jerk off to anal porn now and then, can make going without anal easier. Indeed, it can make going without anal virtuous, something that speaks well of the going-without-anal partner’s character and priorities.
But there are times when monogamy—its pressures, its discontents, its unquestioned acceptance—can destroy an otherwise decent marriage.
Take PATH’s marriage. If his wife doesn’t come around—if her libido doesn’t kick back into gear after mental or medical intervention—this couple is surely headed for divorce. PATH is not only feeling depressed and resentful, he’s also contemplating an affair (even if he’s in the dismiss-that-idea stage). Sooner or later, he’s going to cheat or walk. But this marriage, a marriage that works on every other level (“parenting, money, religion, politics, etc.”), could be saved if Mr. and Mrs. PATH were encouraged to openly and honestly discuss their sexual needs and their sexual disconnect. If Mrs. PATH is done with sex—for now, perhaps forever—Mr. and Mrs. PATH should be encouraged to come to a reasonable, mutually agreeable accommodation, one that allows for Mr. PATH to get his needs met elsewhere if that’s what he needs to stay sane and stay married.
I’m not sure what to call someone who places a higher value on preserving monogamy within a particular marriage over preserving that marriage itself, Maggie, but I wouldn’t call that person a defender of marriage.
@300 shw3nn
One more thing:
“So, it is a fact that your wife keeps things from you and tries to ignore her own feelings for your sake.”
Actually her words in making that agreement were “I’m not ready to lose you yet.” She didn’t want to lose her marriage. It wasn’t that she wanted to spare my feelings. She agreed to something out of desperation to hold onto the person she loves, solely for herself, something she had no ability to follow through on. She saw that pretty quickly I’d say.
@309 vennominon
Greetings! Ah, the late Mrs. Brandon. Perhaps 21st century moviegoers can handle only so much deus ex machina (Harry Potter franchise notwithstanding). Have pity on us, Sir.
I could use a vigorous “fellow feeling” but, alas, you may have meant something else.
(let it not be said that I only hit on the ladies here)
Thank you, vennominon! I would very much like to be in charge of inventing new spellings, but alas, like my many other gifts, they are not in high demand by the general public… 🙂
One of my favourite cartoons ever was in the New Yorker back when I was in high school, I should have kept it, but I remember it to this day: A big, burly man with a three day beard sits in the witness stand, the prosecutor is asking him, “So, it is true that on the night in question, you were at home writing a biography of Jane Austen?”
EricaP, if only we could flit from town to town with be-ribboned sex baskets, passing out vibrators hither and yon, leaving smiling women in our wake…. 🙂
Oh jenesasquatch, here’s hoping you manage to round up a “fellow feeling” sooner rather than later…no idea how the planets will have to align to allow this, but stranger things have happened…. 😉
Excellent advice to PATH and Maggie Gallagher, Dan!
Damn!! Now I WISH I had a TV so I could watch your MTV broadcast!!
@312, I’m picturing you like Glinda, descending to earth in a bubble full of vibrators to hand out like lollipops to Munchkins…
Me, I feel more like the wicked witch, dispersing flying monkeys bearing vibrators to people who are like, ew, why would I want one of those, I’m so content with my sexless life… Did you see the awful column in the NYT style section today? “The Sex Drive, Idling in Neutral”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/fashio…
Mr. Savage:
1. Since you feel that monogamy is an “aberrant lifestyle”, please explain why it is that non-monogamous individuals are the ones who are most likely to end up divorced, dying or infected with an incurable STD, killed or injured in a lover’s spat, divorced, never-married, or with multiple illegitimate kids and child support orders.
2. Gallagher never said the spouses should not converse amongst themselves to strengthen their marriages and work things out. In fact, she encourages spouses to work through all marital problems. Your position is completely phony.
3. Free love, even among “consenting adults” is asking for it, if not the aberrant lifestyle. Studies consistently prove that jealousy — which is a normal and biologically-imprinted feeling, has social purpose. So does guilt, which is something folks should listen to before following the sexually-promiscuous lifestyles you often encourage your readers to pursue.
Instead of attacking Gallagher, you could have done your reader the anticipated favor of giving him good advice about getting into counseling and working through the problem with her.
Mr. Savage:
1. Since you feel that monogamy is an “aberrant lifestyle”, please explain why it is that non-monogamous individuals are the ones who are most likely to end up divorced, dying or infected with an incurable STD, killed or injured in a lover’s spat, divorced, never-married, or with multiple illegitimate kids and child support orders.
2. Gallagher never said the spouses should not converse amongst themselves to strengthen their marriages and work things out. In fact, she encourages spouses to work through all marital problems. Your position is completely phony.
3. Free love, even among “consenting adults” is asking for it, if not the aberrant lifestyle. Studies consistently prove that jealousy — which is a normal and biologically-imprinted feeling, has social purpose. So does guilt, which is something folks should listen to before following the sexually-promiscuous lifestyles you often encourage your readers to pursue.
Instead of attacking Gallagher, you could have done your reader the anticipated favor of giving him good advice about getting into counseling and working through the problem with her.
@311 – Actually I didn’t mind the film with Ms Winslet much; they didn’t stress the point either way and they got some good economical points with Mr Wise on horseback. I meant the Andrew Davies version from a couple of years back that Ms Linney introduced on Masterpiece. There were two grievous faults; one, that, even before Edward and Elinor are able to unite, Marianne tells Elinor that she truly, madly deeply loves Colonel Brandon and has consented to marry him. The other spoiled one of my favourite passages in the book, having Marianne ask if they haven’t all been happy at the cottage, though as poor as the gypsies, and Elinor replying that they’d have been happier had they had a little more money. In the book, Marianne, shocked when Elinor admits that wealth has much to do with happiness, claims that a mere competence surely must suffice. But Elinor correctly suspects that Marianne’s ideas are simply more noble; when all is revealed, Marianne’s “competence” is an income of eighteen hundred or two thousand a year, while one thousand is Elinor’s “wealth”.
As for fellow feeling, I based it on my situation being even less likely to lead to sexual satisfaction than yours. My romantic status is Retired, although Reserved might express it better (too bad, in a way; as I don’t send explicit emails or naughty pictures, there would be no danger of your son finding anything he ought not), just in case my last ever decides to return. I’m sure he won’t, and it is entirely right and proper for him that he doesn’t, but I know at heart that I am wholly his property. Painful as this is to write, were he but to beckon, I’d drop Stephane Lambiel for him, which is not something to contemplate lightly.
But I do have a good track record making matches. At any rate, my accomplishments there exceed those of Miss Woodhouse. Although I shall hope for you that your devotion to your wife is eventually returned in the form you desire, I shall put you on my mental Provisional list.
Ms Canuck – it also makes me think of Lady Edwina’s “fluxive precipitations” in Loitering With Intent. Sometimes in an ambitious mood I try to plot out the narrator’s first three novels Warrender Chase, All Souls’ Day and The English Rose, the last of which usually makes me think of Nessarose and wonder why we never get her point of view.
Erica @315 See, this is what we’re working with! If that attitude is prevalent (the NYT article), then it’s no wonder Dan gets 100 of these letters a week, it’s as though the woman who wrote that feels sex is something to outgrow, like a taste for cotton candy or Keds sneakers. If you haven’t already read this, here is an antidote, the article that earned Ayelet Waldman a thousand bad mommy points from the “good” mommies. Apparently, she went on the Oprah show after this, and there were women in the audience who said things like, “I watch TV while my husband has sex with me, and tell him to get it over with quickly.” Ugh.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/fashio…
And you can’t possibly know just how much I wanted to be Glinda when I was little… too funny!
vennominon, I saw your comment over on the pink nail polish thread…I agree, thanks for the reminder…I tend to forget that anonymous isn’t really, sigh.
vennominon, I’ve never read that, but will do so now, thank you! Now would probably not be a good time to mention that I was actually an English major, what with the flux thingy…and part of the reason I knew I would never pursue it as far as teaching was I always felt I would never, ever know as much as my professors did, I used to sit there stunned and amazed…and now I’m reading chick lit for every “real” book, hmmm. I love your example of “fluxive precipitations,” and I am also reminded of a course I took in stained glass making, where I learned to control the elusive “flux”….that’s my excuse, and I’m sticking with it!
@318 vennominon
Andrew Davies is a delight in so many ways although at times I have exclaimed at the television machine, “Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ! Is there no other screenwriter in the world?!”
I found the scene in the Masterpiece Classic version, which you rightly fault, in which Edward and Elinor converse briefly across an open room to be incredibly moving. Their passion is expressed so clearly despite their demeanor being so restrained by the society in which they live. Beautiful acting!
I hope your matchmaking has been a great success in comparison to that of the late Mrs. Knightly. I encourage you to try your skill on the man in the mirror. You have so much to offer. But advice is easy to dispense…
Be happy. Perhaps it is you who art the prince who someday will come.
Oh good we are discussing “Sense and Sensibilities”. I’m so glad I brought Miss Marianne up earlier. Lovely book.
Dear Mr. Ursher (@317),
Do get back to us when you have the read the entire body of work that Mr. Savage has created and not before. If after you have digested everything he has written and said, meditated upon it throughly, you still come to the conclusion that Mr. Savage is about the “free lifestyle” and promotion of divorce, then you should consider some remedial comprehension. And, do not forget that according to the US census, atheist and agnostics, make up approximately 3% of the US population. While those who claim to be affiliated with Christianity is approximately 90%. Perhaps figuring out why so many Christians are divorcing would be a better use of NOM’s time?
@322 – Excellent choice of a favourite scene, which to me made up for the necessity of miscasting Edward Ferrars. Modern audiences need a tolerable hero, although I do cherish the prediction of one G.B. Stern that, seven years after the end of S&S, dear, impulsive Mrs Dashwood, at the “decrepit” age of 47, marries again, and weds a man superiour in looks, charm and fortune to either of her sons-in-law. And at least a charming Edward Ferrars is still vastly more believable than casting a Fanny Price with abundant vitality.
Actually, I’m safer off the market. If you recall Edmund Bertram mistakenly thinking that, if Henry Crawford asks Fanny Price to love him, she won’t have the heart to refuse, that’s what I’m really like. I was never able to turn anyone away, no matter how wise I knew it would be to do so. I’ve had phenomenally good luck so far and the best hearts ever, but the red always succeeds the black eventually.
But many thanks for your kind wishes.
Holy crap- 300+ comments. Looks like something hit a chord. This thread would make somebody a nice little paper on gender relations.
First, I stand by my comment at #29. Indeed this is so much the norm it is simply expected and when mentioned dismissed as ‘trolling.’ Fact is, although there are many sad examples of women who are not getting sex from their husbands and we hear them all on this chat it is 10 or 20 to 1 (at least). That is it is 10 to 20 times more common for HUSBANDS to be the party not getting the sex they want and being effectively cut off by their WIFE.
So pardon my perspective which happens to favor the male. The other side is amply represented here and everywhere. We know all about the libido loss from babies and choreplay and privacy as the kids grow and all that. So many answers totally missed the point. It has been 2 years of finally giving up after constant rejections and HE is the problem? She is deliberately injuring her husband and it has almost nothing to do with fatigue.
Second, really, @34: Erica making an ad-hominem attack because she disagrees with something I said? I am wounded once again but unsurprised. Yes, I have a personal interest in letting the world know of the dangers of the trap that so many women lay for unsuspecting little spiders. So many women PRETEND to like the sex and maybe even do. But so many suddenly change their minds after the wedding and so many more change their mind after the kid is born. So many this cannot be a coincidence. Yes, I think in some cases it is willful and conscious as a way to punish and control. Are we denying that occurs and that it is very, very common? War is Peace? Freedom is slavery?
#48 I do appreciate the important insight. This has not been my general experience with women but with one particular woman who I have been with forever now. But you are certainly right in that my guess is that yes, all those other women before would have turned out the same way- because I chose them.
I think Erica objects to my hilarious comments like:
“When he comes home stinking of tramp juice at 4:00 a.m.”
On another thread I referred to women as a “spittoon” which is pretty damn funny I think. Yah, it’s funny BECAUSE it’s offensive, I know.
Anyway, it has all been a lot better since I duck taped that fleshlight to the labradoodle. She tried to lick my face at first but learned pretty quick…….
You are a mystery, Professor. I was so impressed with your story of the gay kid in your class who was so favourably influenced by the IGBP, and yet, hmm, while you make good points (yes, husbands who are sexually unsatisfied probably outnumber wives), some of the phrases you use make it pretty hard to take you seriously. They make you sound like a bitter man who hates women. If that’s not the case, I’d suggest you reconsider the meaning of “funny.”
Professor @325, apologies for hurting your feelings by asking (@34) if you were trolling or had a personal interest in the matter.
Your tone is one of trying to protect men from the wiles of women, but you don’t offer any suggestions except to avoid women. Since most men on here want sex with women, I don’t see how your advice helps them. How might one separate out the women who enjoy sex from those who fake it? Surely there are ways… I’ve never heard of any woman who squirted and didn’t like sex, so maybe you could tell men to only marry squirters.
Do you yourself want advice on how to improve your own sex life? Are you willing to open yourself up honestly on this board, as others have done?
@327, went back and reread @29, and you do offer advice: to go outside the marriage. I agree with you on that, although I think our approaches are different (mine assumes good will on the part of both spouses; your approach assumes that she is gleefully torturing you.)
Ms Canuck, LWI is much in my mind of late because I’ve been reading Dame Muriel’s autobiography and seeing how many details of her childhood she gave to Sandy, the girl who betrayed Miss Jean Brodie and became a nun.
As for your sons, at least they haven’t consulted any of Mr Savage’s colleagues about the situation. I shall resist the temptation to concoct a fake question out of it.
Ha, I see we are both early birds, or at least in a different time zone than Seattle, vennominon! I am actually planning on stopping by our beloved used book store in our little town and looking for that book before I head into the city today, so thank you for that recommendation.
My oldest, who no longer lives at home, has been known to phone me at odd hours after midnight from parties and then shove the phone into a friend’s hand, saying “Here, talk to my mom, you’ll see where I get it from!” Apparently, being a volunteer condom hander-outer has given me no small amount of “street cred” amongst the 22 year olds…(huzzah!)
And I made sure he has the Savage Love app on his phone, and will admit to living in fear of seeing a SL letter from him one of these days… 🙂
That’s sweet, Canuck. Our eldest made my head spin the other day, I over heard her telling a friend that it was unreasonable to expect her boyfriend to not be attracted to guys when she knew he was bisexual from the start. So, I cleared my throat and asked if she’d been reading “Uncle Dan’s” books, and she said “No” he said that I should wait till I was older to read him. She then went on to explain that she had asked herself “What would Mom say?” There’s evidence that even teens, pay attention when we think they are lost in their own worlds and stresses.
Those little moments of grace make all the diaper changes worth it, don’t they, Kim? And may I say that your children probably have the coolest Uncle ever, even if they do have to wait a little longer to ask “all” of the questions 🙂
That’s pretty great that your daughter uses that yardstick (“what would mom do?”) for figuring things out…makes you realize just how far an open mind (or a closed one, for that matter) affects how children view the world, and their place in it.
@332 kim in portland
Wow, it would be a dream come true if The Boy™ turns out that way. Job well done, Kim!
Bravo, Dan! You hit it out of the park (if you’ll pardon the sports analogy). You not only answered PATH’s question, but exposed Maggie “Do as I Say, Not as I Do” Gallagher’s hypocricy.
#47–I’m sorry you were offended by Dan’s negative comments about the Catholic Church. Of course the RCC does good things; but then again, so did the People’s Temple when they were in San Francisco. The good things an organization does do not erase the bad things. When an organization does bad things, they needs to be talked about openly so they can be corrected. Honest conversation is what’s needed, not declaring any organization–no matter how much good it otherwise does–to be “beyond reproach.” To paraphrase: “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to say nothing.”
Thanks, Canuck and jenesasquatch,
Our children have always had the habit of uncle-ing and aunt-ing people. Neither have had the priviledge of meeting Dan. He’s uncle-d because a few years back I won a 15 minute phone call with him in a charity auction for a battered women shelter. And he helped her understand how to put on a condom, we used my fist and a small squash. She was 13, and condoms were part of the sex education curriculum. Hence, the encouragement to read him when she was older. She did write him a thank you letter, though.
Our youngest, now 13 (and taller than me), is active along with his sister in their schools GSA. And, expects to get the same condom demonstration as his sister.
Everyday it is my honor to be their mother. Hopefully, we are starting them well.
And, as she is nearly 16 now, I told her it was okay to start reading. Advising that either “The Kid” or “The Commitment” may be an excellent place to start. As she and her pals are fans of IGBP on Facebook.
I’m off to my post op, and hoping I get the “green light”.
Sorry if there was any confusion.
Good luck, Kim!
Let us know how you are doing, Kim. You are in my thoughts.
Oh, I kind of assumed you meant adopted Uncle, but still, not many kids get a one to one phone chat, that’s pretty awesome. Good luck from me too!
Thank you. Not exactly good news, still no cancer is good, there is an excellent chance I’ll have to have another flippin’ surgery and still a big “red light”. I think I might be getting a tad wound up. Creativity is lovely, but sometimes…. And, there goes my reputation of being a sure thing. jk
xo
Oh, sorry Kim, I wish it had been all good news, but at least not the worst news…I could send you some of these flavoured condoms I am packaging up at this very moment…? Hugs 🙂
Ms Canuck – yes, not only in New England but an early riser, though at least I don’t sound like Brett Somers.
Ms Kim – So sorry about the likely additional surgery. And good on you about the Uncles and Aunts. Such an honourific really ought to be child-drive rather than imposed from above.
Kim, never feel that you owe anyone good news. News of *you* is cherished.
hope it comes to Canada sooooon! so in love with you Dan 🙂
@340 – your lustfulness is what makes you such a sweet sure thing, honey. Not what’s between your legs, nice as it is. Get better, get all better – we’re pulling for you!
vennominon, oh, I’m jealous now, I grew up in Cambridge, MA, and still miss it…especially Emack & Bolio’s negative chip ice cream.
Maybe PATH’s wife just isn’t that interested in sex any more–it happens with a lot of women after having kids. It’s biology. (Oh, but hooray for those sexually vital women.) I don’t think people realize men and women fuck for different reasons. Besides, kids are exhausting. And most men suck at sex anyway. So why bother? PATH’s reiteration of the ‘fact’ that his marriage is ‘otherwise perfect,’ among other things in his letter, suggests he is extremely repressed and passive-aggressive–maybe he’s really the one that’s uncomfortable with sex, and his wife is simply sick of babying HIS needs (you know, other priorities). Passive-aggressive and avoidance personalities attract each other like flies to manure.
Dan’s line of reasoning has a problem/omission: I’m curious, what, if anything, Dan thinks SHOULDN’T be leveraged as ‘price of admission,’ or ‘dealbreaker,’ in his brand of ethics.
Beautitfully written post, Dan. Especially when you tell the pope to shut the fuck up already.
@348 why would anything be off the table as a “dealbreaker” (except hurting third parties…)
People are who they are. Dan says: tell your prospective partner who you are and what you need, as honestly as you can. Keep ’em updated as that changes over time. Don’t let resentment build up; if the other person’s needs are not what you can handle, let them go. We don’t really belong to each other, no matter what our uber-romantic society says.
Also, men suck at sex because women suck at understanding their bodies. Not to over-generalize or anything.
Good morning, everyone!
see if you can sneak a netflix rider into the contract after syndication
I’ve just reread the original letter with my mind unclouded by Dan’s answer and the 350 previous comments. I noticed something for the first time: “My wife and I click on just about every level: parenting, religion, money, politics.” I see that this guy has made the classic rookie relationship mistake. When we’re young, we tend to think we’re looking for someone we have everything in common with so we’ll never argue or grow apart. As we get older (if we’re lucky or smart), we realize that it’s better to find someone we have good conflict resolution skills with, someone we can disagree with and argue with and talk to and work things out with, someone we have a strong enough commitment to that we stay with even when things get heated. I have to wonder; if these two found that they disagreed on some point of parenting or had different views on something political that came up, what then? They might find that their marriage is pretty awful, and it has nothing to do with sex. I wonder if that’s what marriage counselors are thinking when they steer the conversation away from sex. They might not be anti-sex; they might know that there’s a bigger issue.
@EricaP et al, Simply being honest about one’s poor behavior in no way excuses or absolves said behavior.
But that’s not the main point I wanted to make. My point is, people change. What I thought were ‘dealbreakers’ for me when I was 17 (hell–even 2 years ago) are, upon present reflection, quite absurd and silly. You talk about ‘prices of admission’ and ‘dealbreakers’ as if they were self-evident and incontrovertible things: ‘people are who they are.’ The problem with this kind of ethos is that while it acknowledges the importance of individual choice and responsibility (which is good), it fails to recognize that ‘individuals’ are actually quite shifty and malleable over time. Our desires and preferences, our ‘needs,’ can change, and quite often–without our even realizing it. There’s a problem with doling out advice as if in a vacuum to someone telling them simply to ‘be who they are,’ at the expense of–dare I say it–Morality (capital M), as well as contextual common sense. If I’m honest about my foot fetish as a ‘dealbreaker,’ does that mean it’s right for me to dump my wife and 3 small children and/or find some other woman who will indulge me my fantasies if my wife has a foot fungus phobia? Sure, I HAVE the right. But is it RIGHT? If I know my ‘otherwise great’ boyfriend has a drug addiction (price of admission – and arguably no ‘3rd parties’ being hurt), does that mean I should just ignore it or DTMF? Honesty, honesty to self, honesty to others, is fundamental, yes, but it’s certainly not everything, or the final word.
@353 You can rarely change other people to be the way you want them. You want a boyfriend without a drug addiction – better go find one, rather than hoping the one you have will change for you. Most guys keep their fetishes, more or less, through life. If you know it at 25, tell your partners then, and find someone who loves having her feet rubbed.
If you do find yourself changing at age 40… what is the ethical thing to do? You ask “is it right for me to dump my wife and 3 small children” – Well, first off, you can’t dump the 3 children. You made them, they’re in your life for good. You may not live with them full-time, but many men see their children more after a divorce than before.
As for dumping your wife: look, if you’re happily married, then great! But for people who are unhappy… I don’t see any moral reason for one person to live in pain while trying to hide that pain from their life partner. Talk to each other. Try to come to an accommodation that suits you both. What that looks like is your business. Like dameedna I think social convention shouldn’t determine your life. (Unless that’s what brings you happiness, I guess.)
I’m all for Dan sharing his sex-positive advice with a tv audience but I’m not sure that MTV is the forum for it.
Wow after reading all of those comments (which took quite a number of hours), I had to register just so I can comment but now my head is in a cloud from everything that was said and there are way too many things to comment on. Hmm..
I usually read the column and not the comments but I found that this time, the lw didn’t get much of a response to his question. Of course, as always, we lack enough details to come to a reasonable conclusion on what the real problem is.
Also, we all form our own opinions based on our position in our lives (and our own experiences) which are different from the person in question. I don’t know. I’m speaking as someone who has very little experience with relationships. I just “celebrated” (though it was more mourning than celebration) 3 years of marriage and I have a daughter who is two and a half. This marriage is my first real (monogamous) relationship. I don’t usually like mixing emotions with sex so I tended to stick with emotion-less sex and keep my feelings to myself. There was some talk of bipolar disorder which is something I also live with as well as anxiety disorder and a lot of basic mental mess. But anyway, I’m looking at this situation from the other side. I’m someone who is not sexually satisfied and my husband says I’m cold and untouchable. Before I got married (and had a child), I had a very high sex-drive and now it feels all but dead (I still masturbate but he doesn’t know and we don’t discuss it). I’ve brought up opening our marriage a few times because I think we both have needs that are not being satisfied but he says no way. Anyway, maybe the woman has other reasons why she’s not interested. Maybe she actually just isn’t interested in him. I’m sure this has already been covered. But it’s possible she does want sex but not from her husband. And there could me a million reasons why that is. I guess it’s kind of difficult to give a good answer without knowing both sides of the story.
i’ll probably comment again when my head isn’t in such a fog. I really enjoyed reading all of your comments and wanted to join in the discussion. Take care, everyone.
@356
I agree. waiting two years is fucked, stupid also. Especially if he actually just did something about it and either found out why his wife is holding out and/or find someone else who can satisfy him then he’d realize he wasted so much time doing nothing. There seems to be a missing piece to this puzzle because I can’t understand two years of inactivity. What could he possibly have to lose by doing (or saying) something. I’m probably a total hypocrite but I can’t justify staying in a marriage in which your needs are not being met (and making no attempts at mending the situation). Inaction usually leads to misery. At least, that is how I think and why I’m not someone to give advice to people (i’d give terrible advice). Hah. good luck to that guy. if he waited two years already, he probably has many more years of lonely, sex-free hell in his future.
@357/358 – welcome, mommyducky! I’m sorry this is a rough time for you. Not sure from your letter if you prefer to keep emotions & sex separate or if you’re ready to bring them together. But in any case, right now it sounds like you’re not happy with your husband.
Hope you saw from the long thread that lots of marriages have a rough patch during the years with a young child. For some, it does get better.
Congrats on the show deal, Dan <3 Don’t let them put a muzzle on you. :*
@357: Couples therapy.
Let’s see if I interpret your letter correctly: the implication of your husband telling you that you are “cold and untouchable” is that he would like more sex with you, but feels he is unwelcome. The implication of you offering to open up the relationship is that you would like more sex in general just fine…just not with him. Yeah, I bet that makes him feel real welcome. Also, the implication that you masturbate but he doesn’t know about it is that you have no interest in involving him in your sexuality. Again, unwelcome. No wonder he finds you “cold and untouchable.”
Sounds to me like he understands the situation perfectly. You, on the other hand, sound a little unclear on just how thoroughly you have rejected your husband.
If there are reasons you are unhappy with your husband, you haven’t articulated them. Indeed, you imply that this is just part of your emotional makeup. Keeping sex and emotion separate? Seriously? Why on earth did you get married? Emotionless sex arrangements are for one-night-stands and friends-with-benefits, not spouses. Sexless living arrangements are for roommates, not spouses.
Definitely, couples therapy for you two. Some intensive personal therapy for you by yourself also sounds like it would be a real good idea.
@362 avast2006
“Sounds to me like he understands the situation perfectly.”
As Dr. Schnarch would say, couples who aren’t talking may very well be communicating perfectly clearly.