Assuming we are dealing with people of goodwill; the sexual impasse does, indeed, result from unmet emotional needs.
But there is another aspect of this that I believe is often operative.
By default, we believe that others are like us; and that OUR needs are the same as theirs. Thus, when we try to meet their needs, we tend to concentrate on those that match our own.
So good intentions can go awry.
Perhaps my own need for sex (which I classify as an emotional need since it isn't driven by reason) is quite different from that of an S.O.. I might *assume* that in meeting my need for sex I am simultaneously meeting an important need of hers; when, in fact, I am not.
Likewise, she might assume that by talking to me endlessly about the family soap opera; she is meeting one of my needs while meeting one of her own simultaneously.
We can end up, essentially, talking past each other because neither of us understands the relative importance of different needs.
I need alone time. Alone time for me is every bit as important as basic financial security is to her. I need sex. Lack of sex would be just as problematic for me as a total lack of non-sexual intimacy would be for her.
It can be difficult to step outside of one's box to comprehend different assignations of relative importance of emotional needs in a partner.
This can be especially problematic in dealing with men who, whether through nature, nurture or some combination, are inhibited from expressing anything that might be interpreted as weakness.
Thus, a man might not express to his SO just how important a sexual relationship is to him; and thus she might not grasp that to him, being with a wife who won't enthusiastically screw would be like her being with a man who utterly ignored her.
It is my belief that if men expressed the sheer importance of their sexual needs in terms to which S.O.s could readily relate; there would generally be fewer hobbyists.
But this DOES bring up the spectre of something else you mentioned, Webbie -- and it is important. To me, anyway, an S.O. who merely "allows" sex out of some sense of obligation is worse than no sex at all.
The key in many cases, as you have sagely noted above, is to break the impasse. One of the partners has to make sure the other's emotional needs are fully met first, and then seek to have his/her own needs met. (And communication of those needs is important.)
Personally, I believe, that men hold the keys here. They aren't helpless victims. They can do a lot of things that will help their wives be more inclined to desire sex.
And, again assuming people of goodwill who actually want a relationship to work, it can go a long way.
But here is where I start adding.
Sometimes, the fact that a woman has a man securely can turn her off. This was the case with my first wife, from whom I was able to secure sex only through a rather elaborate ruse that caused her to constantly question how securely she actually held me.
Likewise, a lot of research on sperm competition indicates that woman aren't naturally monogamous. Sometimes the only thing that will actually turn a woman on is a new partner.
Then, there are women with psychosexual issues grounded in trauma.
Also, there do, in fact, exist women who use sex as a weapon to attempt to control men. They make unreasonable or impossible demands and use their legal sexual monopoly to withhold something nearly as important to a man as air in order to get those demands met. I would not classify such women as having goodwill.
Finally, popular culture I think creates unrealistic expectations in both sexes. Men expect women to be hot, ready and waiting just like in porno flicks; and women expect men to be like the guys in movies. In the real world, both fall short of these expectations and dissatisfaction results.
I think you will find it interesting, if you research the origin of anti-prostitution laws in the U.S., to discover those laws were primarily championed by married women.
A legal monopoly on an absolutely fundamental need of men is a lot of power. Men have no such monopoly on anything nearly as important to women; IMO. Maybe, at one time they did; but they don't now. Legal prostitution effectively breaks that power.
Which is one reason why marriage rates are higher in Western countries without legalized prostitution than in otherwise culturally aligned countries where it is legal.
Another thing that cannot be ignored in this equation is the very unbalanced situation regarding divorce in this country.
In 90% of cases where custody is disputed, the woman wins. And whoever does not win custody, has HUGE and long-term financial obligations.
If we assume, I think quite reasonably, that there is no intrinsic difference in the moral worthiness of men and women; it is quite likely that the way the deck is stacked accounts for women filing twice as many divorces as men. The women see themselves as having less to lose.
The woman leaves, she gets the house, the kids, and a generous government-enforced stipend. The man leaves, and he is homeless, turned into a 1/7th dad; and pays sometimes more than half his take-home pay to his ex-wife.
So the differential in divorce filings is no surprise.
But here is where this relates to sex.
The moment my ex-wife had conceived a child; all sex stopped. And she told me outright that now that she had a kid, she didn't have to deal with me sexually as there was no way I would leave because if I did she'd screw me over hard.
Power differentials like that can encourage people to act in bad faith.
A similar scenario existed back before sexual harassment laws were passed. Power differentials allowed men to essentially lay women against their will; and the fact they could get away with it encouraged them to act in bad faith.
The power differential in divorce allows women to force men into chastity against their will.
For men who would suffer enormous financial harm or loss of access to children by giving their so-called wives what they deserve -- a speedy divorce -- the hobby offers an expedient, albeit highly imperfect, alternative.
Also, many wives make their husbands feel like shit for even bringing up the topic of sex. They make the men feel like they are doing their wives a favor by cheating.
Consider that a wife's unmet core emotional needs can often be met by people outside the marriage without moral sanction.
Whereas a man's unmet core emotional need for sex cannot be met outside the marriage without moral sanction.
A husband doesn't have a legal monopoly on providing his wife with money -- because she is entitled to work. He doesn't have a monopoly on intimate conversation; which she can have with a friend of either sex without sanction. Etc.
But a wife DOES have a legal monopoly on providing her husband with sex.
And it is because she has a legal monopoly and he CAN'T get it elsewhere without moral sanction that a wife's failure to fulfill that need willingly is a more serious issue than the man's failure to provide non-sexual intimacy or a willing ear.
-- Modified on 5/22/2010 9:09:39 PM
