If your partner doesn't like sex nearly as often as you do
> -- or if they like sex a lot more often than you do -- what
> can you do about it?
>
>
>
> And when pondering this question, would your first and only
> answer be, "Break up"?
>
> There's this thing that happens to me freakishly often. I
> write a piece inspired by a Dan Savage "Savage Love" sex
> advice column. I spend a little time surfing around, looking
> at other stuff he's been writing. And I find something that
> makes the top of my head come off in rage. Or at least, in
> profound irritation. I like the guy's thinking most of the
> time... but when he gets it wrong, he gets it really, really
> wrong.
>
> In this particular instance of wrongness, Savage was
> writing about a pattern he sees a lot in his letters: the
> problem of couples with mis-matched libidos. In many
> couples, one partner is more interested in sex than the
> other, and likes to have sex more often. A whole lot more
> often, in many cases. It's a very common problem in
> relationships, and sex educators/ couples' counselors/ sex
> advice columnists encounter it again and again and again.
> (And no -- it isn't always the man in opposite-sex couples
> who wants sex more. Very often, it's not.)
>
> Savage's advice? To all these people?
>
> Give up. It's never going to work. He's just not that into
> you. Or she. Save yourself a lot of misery in the years down
> the road... and just call it quits now.
>
> A piece of advice that left my jaw hanging open in shock.
>
> Really, Dan?
>
> That's your first and only answer?
>
> Really?
>
> I mean, just off the top of my head, I can think of half a
> dozen options that couples with mis-matched libidos might
> want to try. Without even thinking about it all that hard.
> Before we go advising couples around the world to call it
> quits, why don't we take a look at some of these options?
> (And if you can think of ones I don't mention here, btw,
> please speak up in the comments. This isn't meant to be an
> exhaustive list of ideas -- just a handful of the more
> obvious ones.)
>
> 1. Scheduling sex. I've written about this before. Many,
> many, many times, in fact. But I'm not sure I've ever
> written about it as a solution to this particular problem.
> So here goes: Scheduling sex isn't just a solution for tired
> or stressed or over-scheduled couples. It can also be a
> solution for couples with mis-matched libidos. Oftentimes,
> in mis-matched- libido couples, the partner who wants sex
> more frequently will feel rejected and unwanted: if you're
> the one who always makes the first move, and if you're
> getting shot down more often than not, it can be very
> demoralizing. And the partner who wants sex less frequently
> can often feel pressured and inadequate. (All of which can
> lead to some nasty vicious circles/ self-fulfilling
> prophecies: nothing kills a libido faster than feeling like
> sex is an obligation.) But if you schedule at least some of
> your sex life ahead of time, instead of relying on spur- of-
> the- moment impulses and advances, it can
> cut through a lot of these unfortunate dynamics. Sex
> becomes something you're planning together, something you're
> partnering in... rather than something one person is always
> asking for and the other is either accepting or shooting
> down. (It also makes some of the other solutions I'm
> proposing -- like compromising, and re-thinking the
> circumstances under which you have sex -- a whole lot more
> feasible.)
>
> 2. Re-defining sex. If one of you likes sex more often than
> the other, maybe you could re-define what you think of as
> "sex"... in a way that both of you would be happier with.
> What about mutual masturbation? Or one partner masturbating
> while the other one holds and caresses them? One partner
> masturbating while simply looking at the other partner:
> while they dance, or pose in erotic positions, or simply
> lounge and let themselves be admired? What about phone sex?
> Sharing fantasies? Reading each other dirty stories? What
> about using sex toys together, instead of having intercourse
> or other more direct flesh- on- flesh kinds of sex? In other
> words: There are lots of different ways to have sex that can
> make one partner feel, not only orgasmically satisfied, but
> romantically and erotically connected with their partner...
> but that aren't as sexually demanding for the partner who's
> not as libidinous. And incorporating these kinds of sex into
> a sex life can go a
> long way towards bridging the gap in a libidinously mixed
> relationship.
>
> 3. Re-thinking the circumstances in which you have sex. Are
> there times of the day, or days of the week, when the less-
> sexually- interested party is even less interested than
> usual? As a couple, do you tend to have sex at the end of
> the day, when the less- interested partner is tired or
> stressed? Do you tend to have sex after parties or other
> social events -- events that instill some of us, even the
> highly libidinous among us, with a profound need for a
> little alone time? (Introverts of the world, unite!) Do you
> tend to have sex after you've been drinking -- an activity
> that makes some people feel friskier, but makes other people
> just feel groggy and out of it? If so -- try mixing it up.
> Look at the times and the circumstances when you've been
> having sex... and then look at the times and the
> circumstances when you want to have sex, when you think
> about sex, when sex pops into your mind of its own accord.
> And then try to tailor your sex life around the
> times and situations when you're feeling frisky... instead
> of trying to shoehorn your frisky feelings into convenient
> times and situations for your sex life.
>
> 4. Compromising. If you like sex twice a week, and your
> partner likes twice a month... maybe you can compromise.
> Have sex every week so. It won't be perfect for either of
> you... but being involved with someone who's unhappy about
> sex is pretty darned far from perfect, too. Having sex
> somewhat less often than you'd really like -- or somewhat
> more often -- may not be what you'd pick if you could pick
> your perfect sex life. But presumably, if you love someone,
> you want them to be happy too, and you want them to have a
> sex life that's good for them. Almost as much as you want a
> sex life that's good for you. And even from a purely selfish
> perspective, being involved with a sad, disgruntled,
> sexually frustrated partner is ten pounds of suck in a five
> pound bag. So while a compromise, by definition, isn't going
> to be perfect, it may well be a whole better than a
> dissatisfying sex life. For both of you.
>
> 5. Trying an open relationship. I'm the first to
> acknowledge: This solution isn't for everybody. Not everyone
> is cut out for non-monogamy.
>
> But it's worth trying. Or at least considering. Lots of
> people do it very successfully. Including some people who
> were dubious when they started out. And for many couples in
> open relationships, the handling of mis-matched libidos is
> one of the biggest payoffs. One partner likes to boff more
> often than the other? They go boff someone else. An
> elegantly simple solution. (Sometimes messier in practice
> than in theory... but still.)
>
> You might be skeptical about whether an open relationship
> can work for you. Fair enough. But if your mis-matched
> libido problem is so disruptive that you're seriously
> considering breaking up over it, and if you really love each
> other and like each other and want to stay together and your
> mis-matched libidos are the only thing keeping you from
> that... why not at least give it a try? What's the worst
> that could happen? It might not work, and you might break
> up?
>
> 6. Couples' counseling. There are almost certainly couples
> for whom none of these solutions will work. Hell, forget
> about the "almost": there are definitely couples for whom
> none of these solutions will work. For some couples,
> mis-matched libidos are a symptom of a problem, not a cause.
> Mistrust, bad communication, low self-esteem, sexual guilt,
> unaddressed resentment or hostility, etc. etc. etc.: any or
> all of this can lead to sexual disconnection, or exacerbate
> a disconnection that's already happening. If that's true, a
> pragmatic attempt to fix the symptom isn't going to solve
> the problem. (Although it might provide some temporary
> relief, and might even alleviate some of the "vicious
> circle/ self-fulfilling prophecy" stuff that mis-matched
> libidos can generate.)
>
> But even if that's true, there are still options other than
> breaking up. Trying to actually handle those underlying
> problems is the obvious one. And couples' counseling is an
> obvious way to do that.
>
> And some couples, even if they don't have serious
> non-sexual problems at the foundation of their sexual ones,
> still might have natural libidos that are so mis-matched
> that a pragmatic solution isn't going to cut it. If one
> partner likes sex twice a day, and the other one likes it
> twice a year, it's unlikely that any amount of scheduling
> and re-defining and compromising about sex is going to help.
> These couples are going to have to make some hard choices
> about their relationship: how important sex is to them, and
> whether they'd be happier apart than together, and whether
> they'd be happier as friends than as spouses or lovers.
>
> But again, I don't see why breaking up should be the go-to
> solution. It should be an option on the table, of course --
> but depending on the relationship, it might not be the best
> option. And again, these couples might benefit from
> counseling... if only to help them figure out which option
> is best for them.
>
> I'm not saying break-ups are always bad. I don't think that
> at all. With one obvious exception, every serious, Capital R
> Relationship I've ever been in has ultimately benefited from
> breaking up, and I was a whole lot better off for it.
>
> And I do think the decision- making about this stuff is
> going to be different for different relationships. If you've
> got lots of other problems and you're bickering all the time
> and nothing much else is going well, bailing makes more
> sense than if you deeply love each other and like each other
> and get along really well apart from the sex problems. And
> the decision- making is going to be especially different for
> different times in a relationship. If you've been with
> someone for three months and are already running across
> mis-matching libidos, it might make sense to bail now,
> early, before you're seriously invested and breaking up is
> hard to do. If you've been with someone for three years, and
> you're invested and committed and your lives are deeply
> intertwined, you might be a lot more inclined to try to make
> the mis-matched libido thing work.
>
> So yes. Sometimes, Dan Savage's advice is right. Sometimes,
> if you like sex a lot more often than your partner does --
> or if they like sex a lot more often than you do -- breaking
> up is the best advice anyone could give.
>
> But always?
>
> In every situation?
>
> As the first, reflexive, default choice?
>
> Regardless of how long you've been together? Whether the
> sexual mis-matching is situational or consistent? Whether
> the sexual mis-matching is just about sex, or seems to be
> symptomatic of something else? How good the relationship is
> apart from the sex? How good the sex is when it does happen?
> All situations addressed in these letters, by the way: the
> letters are striking in their diversity, and the only thing
> they seem to have in common is this one problem of
> mis-matched libidos... and Savage's one- size- fits all
> answer.
>
> To which I can only inquire once again, with jaw still
> hanging open:
>
> Really?*
>
> Addendum: When this piece was originally published, some
> people thought I was being too harsh on Savage. As many
> commenters pointed out, the advice I'm giving here is advice
> he himself has given on many occasions. Which is a fair
> point. Which I acknowledge. Which, IMO, makes this
> particular piece of his all the more baffling.
>
>
>
>
>
>
all of his numbers continue to improve. He also said ...
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MisfitsCafe/message/168
The Most Astonishing Health Disaster of the Century !!!
==> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPI7zdGdqo4
MISFITSCAFE.COM | PO BOX 4286 | DELTONA FL 32725-0286
* To donate, use: http://misfitscafe.com/donate
Thank You & Looking Forward, StumpySteve MD
(\__/)
(='.'=) Dear Dorothy, Hate Oz. Took the shoes.
(")_(") Find your own way home!!! xoxo Toto
http://StumpySteve.com/forums (repaired)
*********************
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.