All this article points to is that the pair bonding, which we call "marriage," is a social construction. We want to impose all kinds of expectations on marriage including long-term sex and passion. Equality, where it exists, is brilliant and the best thing ever to happen to pair-bonding. To equate sexual frequency as a value on the same level of importance as equality is fun for a sociologist, but silly in reality. Sex is weird and idiosyncratic. Individuals first have to figure out what their own sexuality means and then how to negotiate sex with another human. Then how to figure out marriage. Equality, however a couple wants to define it, is non-negotiable in my world. Sex, though, always negotiable. However - it took me a few relationships to figure that out. The non-equal relationships soon become non-sexual relationships as well, because the anger is so great. The more equal relationships -- not without their issues for sure -- continue. I'd love to hear from b_b on this -- but the article is not worth reading -- especially at 5000 words.
Well, as I am always amenable to your advice, I shall not read the article (OK I skimmed a bit, just to see what's what). As for what it's like to be married, I really can't speak intelligibly on that subject, as I've never had the experience. I have lived with two different girlfriends, and neither was really my ideal version of what an "equal" relationship should look like. The first, when I was fairly young, was a situation in which I was in college and she had a job that paid pretty well. Thus, I was definitely a financial drag, although I did try to help as much as possible (cooked a lot, redid the kitchen, built a deck, etc, all things that made at least made a contribution). The second only ended recently, and in that case, I was by far the supporter, supporting a girl who grew more depressed by the day, apparently didn't love me, and whom I continued to support for far too long out of some warped sense of morality that made me feel as though I had some responsibility to take care of her. The inequity in each relationship certainly affected all aspects of each relationship, sex included, although I still was physically attracted to both women even when I started hating them. Resentment, which always builds up on both ends of an unequal partnership, can't possibly NOT affect how each person feels about the other, and of course that's going to dampen your sexual relationship. I don't know how equality could possibly be worse than inequality. When both partners feel as full members of a two person club, then neither owes the other anything, and they can just enjoy themselves, and not just sexually, but in all things. I think the concept of equality is difficult to define and could be different for each couple. For example there's no reason a house wife should be considered unequal to her high earning husband simply because he makes the money that supports the family. So long as the couple defines their expectations for one another and each is living up to their end of the bargain (and happy doing so), then perhaps equality can be achieved. Why does equality have to mean that we each do half of everything? But anyway, even in a supposedly equal (as the author defines it on my cursory look at the article) relationship, this will always be true: Women, in my experience (and I'm no Casa Nova, but I've been with enough to at least know up from down), are attracted to one thing and one thing only: power. Power means different things to different women, but in the end, each (let's focus on straight here for the time, I have no idea what lesbians desire) wants a man to be a man. There's nothing wrong with that. I want a woman to be a woman, even though I believe in the inherent equality of all people as a core principle. With sex, logic need not apply. Doing the dishes is an important thing to do for both people if you want your partner to not resent you, but if you're a man who thinks that doing the dishes is ever going to turn your wife or girlfriend on, then you've got some serious soul searching to do. I think the problem is that men mostly look at sex as trasactional (why else do whores have such a great market?!), in the sense that "I did that 'for you', now you should do this 'for me.'" Obviously that is wrong. Desire, which is affected by the overall happiness or resentment one feels for one's partner, is a dimension that also exists outside of all those other things. It's carnal and instinctual, and each of us needs to feel desirable (and desire itself, which can be a great feeling or a terrible one, depending on one's prospects of getting laid). In the end, I think equality is way better, but it's not the end game vis-a-vis sex. Do the dishes, then hit the gym; there's time for both. If you have a relationship whose very nature is turning you into a pussy, then you need to reevaluate your priorities. Make your wife dinner, then do the dishes, but when it's all done, pick her up and carry her to bed without asking permission. Sex isn't supposed to be equal (*can't be*, really), no matter how equal the rest of your life is. Its physics dictates that a man be aggressive. There's no other way of doing it, so far as I've discovered. Maybe the important thing is realizing that equality is a product of a civil society, but that there's no civility in sex; it's all nature. The fallacy of this article is that it seems to imply that equality causes a poor sexual relationship (despite the obligatory disclaimer that correlation isn't causation, she's goes on to do just that), when there's no reason the two can't coexist. I want a wife who makes as much money as me, and who splits household chores with me, but I also want one who wants to wear a dress sometimes and wants to feel feminine. I fail to see why those can't be mutually exclusive.Equality, however a couple wants to define it, is non-negotiable in my world. Sex, though, always negotiable.
“I’m very attracted to you,” she said earnestly. “You know when I really crave you? It’s when you’re just back from the gym and you’re all sweaty and you take off your clothes to get in the shower and I see your muscles.”
I see it as a kind of role-playing game. OK, fine, if you want to play "man," I've been known to play "woman" (usually under duress). I mostly agree with you -- but generalities and language make the conversation difficult at a distance. I suspect that I know what you mean about power -- remember the TV show, Do You Want to Marry a Millionaire? from a few years ago. All the man had to do was to be a millionaire, and 100s of women would apply to marry him. People think that money is power and it is, but it's not power over stupidity and it's not power over addictions. I used to think that the "power" in a relationship went to the person who had less sexual desire, because he or she controlled the rules of engagement, while the person who was more sexually frustrated had less power. One last thing: don't equate wearing a dress with feeling feminine. It might be a good idea to ask a woman - what makes you feel feminine -- instead of telling her. What does feminine feel like? Would you like to feel feminine? I hate wearing a dress - but note: the spousal unit thinks he wants me to wear a dress. He often suggests that I wear a dress -- maybe for reasons that you say. When I actually wear a dress, he usually doesn't notice. Okay - open season on me.Why does equality have to mean that we each do half of everything?
Agreed - the key thing is that the relationship feel fair and, when it doesn't, the parties can discuss what doesn't feel fair. Deals do need to be renegotiated from time to time. Even mine.Women, in my experience . . . are attracted to one thing and one thing only: power. Power means different things to different women, but in the end, each (let's focus on straight here for the time, I have no idea what lesbians desire) wants a man to be a man. There's nothing wrong with that. I want a woman to be a woman, even though I believe in the inherent equality of all people as a core principle. With sex, logic need not apply.
I read minimum wage's post before it was deleted. I don't recall what he objected to so strongly. Maybe it was that paragraph. I don't know what to make of your comment about power. I am certainly "attracted" to "power," but not "a man to be a man" kind of power, although that can be kind of cute sometimes.Make your wife dinner, then do the dishes, but when it's all done, pick her up and carry her to bed without asking permission.
I think that must have been the line that got m_w so mad. That's technically rape - You are talking about understood permission communicated via the secret telepathy of couples.
Its physics dictates that a man be aggressive. There's no other way of doing it, so far as I've discovered.
There are other ways of doing it.
C'mon, lil. Obviously I'm talking about the unspoken communication that can only exist between two people who have been with each other for a long time, a subtle body language that doesn't require, and in fact is lessened by, speaking. Anyone with a modicum of emotional sensitivity knows to what I'm referring. I didn't think that needed clarification, but I appreciate it, nonetheless. Money is a proxy for power for some people, typically the unimaginative sort, but it comes in all flavors. Are you not attracted to your husband's intellectual power? Power is an attractive thing, but it need not be the Wall Street type, and for thinking people is preferably not the Wall Street type. I was using the dress line in a literal and a metaphorical sense. I do like a woman in a pretty dress sometimes, but also I mean that it's often attractive for a woman to be unapologetically womanly, dress wearing being a superficial and stereotypical example of such behavior. Of course there are plenty of other ways in which a woman can let her femininity show without wearing any particular garment. Certainly one can just lay there, but even that still has the act of penetration, which is itself a violent act, as anyone who has had the displeasure of taking a woman's virginity can attest to. By no means does being aggressive mean being insensitive. Quite the contrary. In my experience, to be aggressive in a way that is satisfying requires a much deeper sensitivity than passivity does, as one needs to be keenly aware of how one's partner is responding, while also maintaining an often high level of physicality. Anyway, I agree with you on most of your points, and I think maybe I was crass and unclear in my original statement. One last thing I would add: sex is gender roles by it's very nature (at least two person, heterosexual sex), as it's the thing that people do with the parts that make them the gender they are. I don't think there's anything inherently unequal about acknowledging that.That's technically rape - You are talking about understood permission communicated via the secret telepathy of couples.
...don't equate wearing a dress with feeling feminine...I hate wearing a dress - but note: the spousal unit thinks he wants me to wear a dress.
There are other ways of doing it.
I have no idea what that term means except for the half definition I see on Urban Dictionary at the top of a google search, but I have a pretty high level understanding of biology and evolution (as I'm a biologist professionally); I would hesitate to to describe myself as someone who misunderstands the biological nature of humans (as the UD definition says, but again, I've never heard the term). Relationships certainly involve both biological and sociological components, and separating the two is not entirely possible. But to deny that sex is inherently carnal is incorrect in every conceivable way. Anyway I don't entirely understand your comment, except that I get that it's derisive. If you care to expand, please do. Edit: The deleted term was "biotruth" for anyone else who wants to jump in and enlighten me.
I don't mind being disagreed with. Obviously, we all live our lives differently. I know based on other things you've written that you have a less traditional view of relationships that I do. What I wrote is my opinion, but I'm not against hearing others' opinions as well. I'm not offended; just curious.
On a side note, in your top post, You mean "intelligently," I think, not "intelligibly," as the latter means "able to be understood" or (less awkwardly phrased) "in an understandable manner." I found your post interesting and can't decide where I sit on the whole.I really can't speak intelligibly on that subject
Let me know if you find it. I want to learn more about b_b's ways.
I was gonna say... In addition insomniasexx I'm sure he'll tell you if you ask nicely :)
The article is perfectly apt if titled appropriately: "Does a gender-neutral marriage mean less sex?" Uhmmm, yes. Sex is all about gender roles and if the two people in a partnership blur those gender roles, sexual drive will be deadened. Tim "the Tool Man" Taylor could have told you that. Does it take 5,000 words to say it? No, no it doesn't.