Wow.
So I should now start telling my boyfriend (who has less drive than me) to "shut up and put out"? That's not healthy either. While it's true that sex is important in a relationship, and that there will be times a person will do it when they don't really want to for their partner because they LOVE their partner, it should never be out of simply duty and resignation. Yuck. And I certainly don't think sex should ever be compared to taking trash out in the rain! Methinks the author's sex-life is perhaps not as wonderful as she wants it to be, with comments like that...

Hm, that's weird...I always took out the garbage because it was just something that needed to get done, not because it puts big smiles on my roommates' faces. What IS it with the constant conflation of chores and sex?

Actually, although I don't like her language choices, what she's saying sounds a lot like what Dan Savage says about sex - partners have a responsibility to make certain accommodations to their partners needs and desires (although not against their own will) in a working relationship. His philosophy is that people have sexual needs (men AND women) and a relationship should be about making sure both parties needs are fulfilled.

I really think that's what she means - but boy, the "possession" language early on doesn't do her any favours.

Because nothing makes a woman want to have sex more often like forcing herself to do it when she doesn't want to.

Look at how again, the onus is on women to preserve the relationship, even at the expense of her own sexual happiness: why doesn't the headline say "many men are risking their relationships by pushing for sex when their partners don't want it"? If a couple is so mismatched...maybe that relationship shouldn't be preserved.

And...really...how good is the sex going to be for the man if the woman is just going through the motions and counting ceiling tiles until it's over? I'm disturbed to think that there are men out there who wouldn't have a problem with that--or even notice it.

"And...really...how good is the sex going to be for the man if the woman is just going through the motions and counting ceiling tiles until it's over? I'm disturbed to think that there are men out there who wouldn't have a problem with that--or even notice it."

I agree completely. Problems with sex in relationships often come more from lack of time/communication/intimacy in other forms. It most certainly shouldn't be blamed upon feminism or women being sex-haters.

Anyone who imagines sex and “taking out the rubbish� to be in any minute way similar to each other must have a really pathetic sex-life/relationship.

So the solution to keeping your sex life going is to pretend you're a mattress with a hole in it? Yeah, having a woman give up possession of her body to satisfy her husband's sexual needs...THAT won't hurt a relationship.

I used to be in a relationship like that. I actually used to turn my head and watch TV and just pretend that I wasn't connected with what he was doing to my body.

While I don't agree with the wording of the article, or the idea that women never want sex as much as men, I do agree with the poster above who mentioned Dan Savage - irrespective of gender, sex IS a major component in a relationship for most people. This is not to say you should just put out regardless of how much you want sex, but I think that it's perfectly healthy to make an effort to be a good sexual partner. My boyfriend has a higher sex drive than I do, but that doesn't mean that he should always be the one to initiate sex or that I shouldn't be willing to at least make out with him while he masturbates. Sexual compromise isn't that the person with the lower sex drive gets to determine the sexual nature of the whole relationship.

Oh, and iscah:

Noting that Dan Savage has the same philosophy isn't exactly a saving grace here. This is the same guy who talks about how much it sucks for guys when women are ruined by rape. (No kidding, he actually said that guys should think about how much they ruin it for other guys when they rape women--so the men are the unintentional victims. It was on one of his recent podcasts.)

/threadjack

Oh yeah. That sounds completely healthy to me. (/sarcasm)

My ex would have loved her...and used that argument against me constantly.

Also, Savage has little to no sympathy for anyone with a low sex drive--his solution is that if you have a low sex drive, you should put out anyway. That misses the whole issue of having a low sex drive, and does indeed turn having sex into a chore. I fail to see what the person with the lower sex drive gets out of that at all.

I'm curious; Does the advise go the other way? If the woman wants sex but the man isn't interested at the time, should he "shut up and put out"?

Mary - I don't agree with everything Savage says, (although with the horrendous quote you just gave, I would give him some irony rope to hang himself with - I have trouble believing that he really thinks that's the problem with rape, but I can imagine that he would be cynical enough to imagine that such logic might appeal to some fucked up men.) And I don't hold him up as the exemplar of all that is wisdom either - I'm just saying that when you couch it in more sensible terms, some of what's being suggested here - a certain compromise and spirit of giving to make both partners happy, NOT a complete surrender of personal autonomy for the use of another - isn't so crazy.

As several people have pointed out, the good elements of chivalry carry over into "respect" or "courtesy." The rest can be interred safely.

The problem is, iscah, that I've never seen Savage recommend that spirit of compromise or giving to the partner with the higher sex drive. I've never seen him say "Well, if she or he wants to read a book or go out to a punk show instead, try to sublimate your own desires." With him, it's always the reverse.

Yet again, anti-feminists show that they view sex as a chore, while we view it as a mutually pleasurable activity.

EG - I think that what the person with the low sex drive gets out of it, in Dan Savage's world view, is sexual monogamy. He claims that, if you are partnered with someone with a much higher sex drive, you can either be a good partner by providing some sort of sexual stimulus for them (oral sex counts) or by allowing them to meet their needs elsewhere. So yes, he does seem to have more sympathy for people with high sex drives in one way, and thinks that people with low sex drives should have sympathy for their partners with much higher ones, but he also believes that if you're dating somebody with a low sex drive, you should be happy with other forms of sexual gratification and not expect penetrative sex as much as you want it from your lower-sex-drive partner.

Also, "old fashioned" has negative connotations because so many people use it as a screen to hide behind when they are making racist/sexist/inflammatory comments. Hm...funny how that works.

The great thing about this article is the contradictions. First, the solution is to consider sex as a duty, and at the end, the disclaimer of 'and oh yeah, don't have any sex that makes you uncomfortable' is dropped. So, which is it? (I prefer the later.)

So it's just another version of "if you don't keep your man happy at home, he'll play around on you."

I think Savage is missing the point of having a lower sex drive--it means not wanting sex as much. Not just not wanting vaginal sex or anal sex--actually not wanting sex. Being expected to go down on someone when you really don't want to is not better than being expected to spread your legs when you really don't want to--in some ways, speaking from experience, it's worse, because you have take a far more active role in something you don't particularly want to be doing.

Why wouldn't you just...break up, and say well, this is very sad, there's nothing wrong with either of us, we're just not compatible in a way that we both think is essential to romantic happiness, what can you do, it's a cruel old world.

I don't know about everyone else, but my partner is horrified (as am I) if it seems like I am performing a sex act out of sense of duty. As someone said above, this shouldn't be equated with chores or something one person is "required" to do for the other.
I think the truth is that in many relationships people sometimes have sex when they don't really feel like it, but it's a totally willing act of love for your partner, rather than a job that has to be done. (To echo a poster above.)

And to gender this the way this sexpert has done is really stupid. I'm sure many anti-feminists identify with the idea of going-down on a female partner when they don't really want to (though some men love it; I'm just saying, I think many people do things they don't "love" to do in the bedroom out of a sense of love).

EG - obviously, that would be the ideal situation, but with the people in the article, there are reasons that they would rather stay together.
The issues of sex drive in the article, however, seem to be less a focus on actual sex drive than things that interfere with it. If one partner is feeling stressed out because of work or children or isn't feeling as much emotional intimacy, then of course they aren't going to want sex as much. Just one more story from Dan Savage before I give it up...
A woman wrote in regarding difficulties that she has been having with her husband before they went to marriage counseling - namely, that her sex drive was nil where it hadn't been at the beginning of the relationship. During counseling, the therapist discovered that the only time her husband touched her was when he wanted sex. As soon as he started being physically affectionate without expecting anything in return, her sex drive returned.
Breaking off a relationship because of sexual differences makes sense in the beginning of a relationshp, but when the issues start coming up after years of marriage, then other things need to be considered.

And women aren't risking their relationships by saying "yes" when what they want to say is "no"?

Are men really so sex-hungry and stupid that they don't want excited, happy, involved sex partners?

Dr. Spurr doesn't seem to be perscribing good sex advice for anyone.

Where are all the articles telling men to do X, Y & Z for women even if they don't feel like it?
Oh right, such behavior would make a man "pussy-whipped," and we can't have that.

i'm not buying the roof repair argument. yes, tending to house/yard work is a shared responsibility in a marriage, that benefits both parties, but no caring spouse in a healthy marriage would ask the other to do chores "on command".

Why wouldn't you just...break up, and say well, this is very sad, there's nothing wrong with either of us, we're just not compatible in a way that we both think is essential to romantic happiness, what can you do, it's a cruel old world.

I am a Dan Savage fan, though I don't agree with everything he says, so maybe I'm biased. I've also read enough of his stuff to know that he does advocate this, if someone writes in with the idea that they're considering a breakup. Usually, the letter is more along the lines of "we have a great relationship otherwise, here's our sex problem, I don't want to lose this person/this relationship no matter what" -- and so he tell them that if they want to continue the relationship, both of them are going to have to make sacrifices. And sometimes he will promote a breakup when the person doesn't voice it as an option, telling them that this probably isn't a relationship worth preserving. But usually, he gives them the advice specific to their situation -- and most people write in with questions about how to save their relationships.

And I definitely do think that sex is a compromise, just like anything else. Though I don't agree with this article AT ALL.

gah. what gets my goat here is that the consequences that these women face for not adhering to heteronormative marital behavior are acceptable. The lines: "You may find, as Emily did, that he will seek sexual satisfaction without you. I certainly don’t justify infidelity but I can often understand why it happens" is contradictory. If you can understand why it happens, then it's justified--she's basically saying that it's not okay to say that there are consequences, so she'll talk around them, but make no mistake, they're there. What I really see as the issue here is male entitlement, and Spur's tacit endorsement of that entitlement (sorry, ladies, but you'll have to fix this!). It just promotes the tired idea that men set the standards for female behavior, and if you don't live up to them, you can live with the consequences. What makes it all the more frustrating is that i'm not opposed, at all, to the idea of working to be a good sexual partner...as long as it goes both ways.

During counseling, the therapist discovered that the only time her husband touched her was when he wanted sex. As soon as he started being physically affectionate without expecting anything in return, her sex drive returned.

I have a feeling this is the reason for A LOT of women's low sex drives.

I agree that women have every right to decide whether or not to have sex, as do men. I also believe that consensual sex is an essential PART of a romantic relationship. Consistently refusing sex either means that the relationship is already in serious trouble or that it will be in serious trouble. Any person, of either sex, who consistently does not want to have sex with their mate should do some serious soul searching as to whether that mate is a good match. Men and women who have a sexless relationship will find sex outside the relationship.

Feminism gave women control of their sex lives, but has it gone too far?

Gone too far? Are you freaking kidding me?

And...really...how good is the sex going to be for the man if the woman is just going through the motions and counting ceiling tiles until it's over?

Yeah... I actually tried that once. He couldn't keep an erection, and when I asked him why he said: "It seems like you're just going through the motions, and it's hard for me to get into it when I can tell you're not." So that was the end of that experiment.

Here's something I found really interesting:

Issues about their finances spread bad feeling into all other areas of their life and, like a stone dropped in water, the ripples from their acrimonious “discussions� reached far and wide.

When Olivia found that the stress of their differences diminished her sex drive, she felt completely justified in suggesting separate bedrooms.

Why on earth is the solution in that situation for her to suck it up and keep having sex with him, instead of, you know, resolving their differences so that her sex drive comes back?

And I definitely do think that sex is a compromise, just like anything else.

How do you compromise on sex though? I'll go through the motions with you once a week but not twice? I'll go down on you even though I really have no desire to? I'll let you touch me while you masturbate even though I have absolutely no desire to be touched right now? None of those things sound like a recipe for a sexually healthy relationship to me.

I'm curious; Does the advise go the other way? If the woman wants sex but the man isn't interested at the time, should he "shut up and put out"?

No, no, because a man would never have a lower sex drive than his woman!

I do agree that a happy relationship is one in which both partners are reasonably sexually satisfied. The degree to which compromise is seen as acceptable depends on the quality of the relationship outside of the sexual sphere (e.g., a person will be more willing to not get 100% of what they want sexually 100% of the time if they are with someone they otherwise mesh with). If one person wants to have sex daily and their partner is happy with once a week or less, then neither person will be satisfied unless some serious discussion takes place. Maybe the less-driven person wouldn't mind giving his/her partner a few hand jobs if the more-driven person agrees to masturbate sometimes.

A relationship needs compromise, and I'm not insulted by the notion that that extends to the sexual aspect of the relationship. What makes me mad are the assumptions that: the woman will always be the less-driven partner; a man cannot be sexually satisfied except through on-demand intercourse; the less-driven partner should always acquiesce to the more-driven partner. Until we move beyond these discussions, any discussion of sexual compromise in a relationship will result only in "lie still and pretend you enjoy it" articles.

Ug. What lovely backwards thinking this sex expert attempts to sneak by with the use of the phrase "for both partners." My fiance and I both have times when we are not feeling up to sex. When he says, "no thank you," I'm very ok with it. Sex is never fun when the other person is not into it.

I'm just trying to think about this from a colder, more logical point of view.

And I think maybe the reason some writers have seemingly more sympathy for people with a high sex drive, is that most of these people are probably NOT regularly forcing their partners into unwanted sex.
So even though it sounds horrible to tell someone that they may want to consider doing something they don't want to for their partner, their partner is probably not getting what they want more often.

Lets imagine, for instance, that I would like to have sex once a day. I'm currently getting to have sex about once a week. Which means 6 days out of 7 my partner gets what he wants, and I don't get what I want. And 1 day a week the situation is reverse.

Granted, Not having sex when you want to may be less emotionally costly than having sex when you don't want to. (Everyone at some point has to forgo it for some reason, right?) So lets say it is five times harder for him to have sex with me when he doesn't want to, than it is for me to forgo it. That means that I am still, over time, paying the price of not having sex more often than he is paying the price of having sex.

That assumes however that he never wants sex, which is un true, when we do actually have sex, he WANTS to have sex with me, so he isn't really paying any price at all. I am the only person having to deal with inconvenience to make the other person in the relationship happy. He only has to do what I want when he feels like it. And the rest of the time I have to suffer.

Obviously, logic leaves something to be desired, but I do think that it is worth a couple's time to try to find ways for both individuals to be satisfied.

One of the best advice columns I read on this topic advised setting some time each week to make out. (Not have sex) Just a time to kiss romantically, set the mood, and see if that leads anywhere in terms of desire. I'll see if I can find the link, but I think it was constructive in that it encouraged finding ways for a low sex drive partner to want to have sex more often. (In lieu of just doing it to make them happy.) This way the couple can turn it into something that both parties want and that can't be a bad thing.

Laundry? Check!
Cook dinner? Check!
Clean shitty toilets? Check!
Take out stinky rubbish? Check!
Wash screaming baby and put to bed? Check!
Clean up general mess around house? Check!
Fuck hubby? Check!

Yay! I am a successful wife!
gag

Here is the thing. Any marriage is a compromise on all levels. And yes, you have to give and take and even sometimes do shit that you just don't want to do (like go to his crazy ass in-laws' every Christmas Eve) but sex? The compromise with sex is *not* about giving it up when you don't want to, you know...so teh menz won't leave. The compromise is about being mindful of each other and everything that entails. Then maybe we won't hate/resent each other at the end of the day.

If this constant mindfulness is not happening between both parties then simply being a receptacle for the man to screw at the end of the day is certainly going to make *me* a frigid bitch.

"How do you compromise on sex though? I'll go through the motions with you once a week but not twice? I'll go down on you even though I really have no desire to? I'll let you touch me while you masturbate even though I have absolutely no desire to be touched right now? None of those things sound like a recipe for a sexually healthy relationship to me."

First, I would say that doing something you're uncomfortable with is a recipe for unhealthy sexual relationship.

But I think making "sexual sacrifices" as they are called is an important part of a relationship. Wanting to take care of my partner's needs/desires even when I'm not in the mood (or trying to get in the mood) isn't a bad trait, as long both people are comfortable with that. I think it is a positive thing, in fact.

The problem with the article, in my opinion, is with the highly gendered nature of it, not with the suggestion that sexual sacrafices are a bad idea.

At the risk of being self-serving, here's my post (from a Christian feminist perspective): http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/11/05/not-tonight-dear-some-more-thoughts-on-sex-and-disparate-desire/

A second problem with the article, in my opinion, is that it doesn't address *why* women might be having lower sex drives than their partner.

Certainly one reason could be that women just have lower sex drives than men in general. But it's also likely that the sacrafices women are currently making (e.g., doing most of the housework + working + child care) drains alot of energy. One could imagine a parallel article targeted towards men about the sacrafices *they* should be making regarding housework, working, + childcare, and how that relates to the overall quality of their sex life.

[i]It just promotes the tired idea that men set the standards for female behavior, and if you don't live up to them, you can live with the consequences.[/i]

bingo.
i understand that sex is important to most people to some degree and that relationships can suffer when one person is sexually unsatisfied. however, why is the default the male sex-drive?

what if (and this is entirely a hypothetical), as the article seems to suggest, when women are busy with children and a career, sex gets pushed to the back burner, what if this IS the natural state? what if we took the view that a couple's sex life is "supposed" to change over time and part of that time may be not having much of it? but no, this means that a man whose sex drive hasn't diminished at all might be the one who needs to modify his behavior and learn to deal and we can't have that.

anyway, i think that as people have said here, usually when one party in a relationship stops wanting sex, there's a reason that is usually independent of the sex act itself and couples are better served by trying to figure out the underlying reasons they don't feel like having sex, rather than shutting up and putting out. this article may have been written with good intentions, but ultimately it kowtows to a sense of male privilege, and doesn't advise people to deal with the actual problems in front of them.

I'm bothered by her suggestion of seeing sex as a "duty" in the same light as taking the garbage out. Sex is not a duty, it's not something that is owed. I can't imagine anyone being happy with her idea of what a sex life with a monogamous partner should be. All (fucking disturbing) politics aside, this sounds like a really boring, unfulfilling sex life that she is advocating.

How do you compromise on sex though? I'll go through the motions with you once a week but not twice? I'll go down on you even though I really have no desire to? I'll let you touch me while you masturbate even though I have absolutely no desire to be touched right now? None of those things sound like a recipe for a sexually healthy relationship to me.

It means being open to the idea. There are times when you're like "I'm in a bad mood, don't fucking touch me." In those cases, yes, of course, you should say no and your partner should respect that. If, instead, you're just feeling "eh, not really in the mood . . ." when your partner is, and this happens on a regular basis, you have to be open to the idea of letting your partner turn you on. It can happen, and it does happen regularly.

Are we seriously going to sit here and say that we've never performed sexual acts for the purpose of getting our partner off and not for our own benefit? I certainly have, and there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you're not uncomfortable with what's happening. Sometimes giving oral sex turns you on -- sometimes, you do it because it turns your partner on and you like to make your partner happy. Sometimes you engage in a sexual game or kink that does it for your partner, but neither gets you off or turns you off. And as long as it's reciprocal, that's a good thing. There's a big bright line between "sexual autonomy" and "sexual selfishness," and it goes BOTH ways, from demanding sex from our partner to consistently refusing it.

And yes, I agree with everyone else that there are often reasons why sex stops that are emotional -- not feeling appreciated, not being satisfied in bed when sex does occur, etc., and that's a whole different scenario. There are also situations where one person simply has a higher sex drive than the other. And no, I don't think it's fair for only one person to sacrifice what he or she wants/needs.

Cara, what I'm saying is that I--and other women I've talked to--have performed sex acts when I didn't want to, when I felt uncomfortable about it, when I wasn't turned on, for the benefit of the person I was with, and it has fucked up my ideas and feelings about sex immensely. It's made it difficult for me to want sex. I really just don't believe that the major sexual dysfunction in contemporary heterosexual relationships can be summed up as "women aren't putting out enough when they don't want to."

Yeah, um, I pretty much lost all respect for Dan Savage after responses like these:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=81105

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=191503

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=98491

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=40108

Note: The references towards angry feminists, the accusation that an abuse survivor is lying and trying to present herself as a victim, the insistence that women should shut up and do our boyfriend's laundry, etc.

Yahuh sorry, I have to agree with the article. Sex kinda is a duty if you want to remain in a monogomous relationship. It doesn't mean being a fucking RealDoll and just laying there. It means sometimes you aren't in the mood, but you give it a try anyway. (And you know most of the time even if I don't want sex i end up enjoy it anyway). Say "YES" to sex (even if you don't always want it) doesn't make you a slut, or unfeminist.

It's been my experience that if you don't want sex from your partner for long periods of time, there is something larger going on in the relationship than low sex drive.

My favorite sex therapy book I recommend for patients: Sex Matters for Women, by Sallie Foley.

Sallie's take that is relevant to this line of discussion is that couples in long-term relationships fall out of the 'habit' of having sex. To use a bad analogy, sort of like exercising. Many people enjoy exercise, but they don't do it, because they've been out of the habit of making time for it.

That's a big difference between a couple not having sex because there are real issues of intimacy that need to be addressed. But plenty of couples simply don't have sex because they don't have sex, no real other reason. They're busy, they don't make time for it. It doesn't happen. If one partner feels more deprived than the other (male or female), then that's a recipe for a problem.

In these situations, the problem often isn't that people don't want to have sex; it's that they're ambivalent about it. In that case, it's not asking for a breach in autonomy by suggesting that an ambivalent partner give sex a chance.

If someone doesn't want to have sex, they shouldn't, under any circumstance.

You know, when male friends of mine complain that his wife never wants to have sex, my first response is, "oh, is the sex that bad? Perhaps you can pick up some tips on the internet."

Seriously, why are you complaining to me? How about if men stopped blaming their partners and start thinking about what HE can be doing better to make her interested, aside from rolling over and saying, "let's have sex" after she just cleaned up his dirty laundry.

Again, this nutcase does what most psychologists have done since before the Feminine Mystique, blame the woman and claim she has a dysfunction or social disease. Please. If I had a dime...

Clearly, the author has her own issues.

I really just don't believe that the major sexual dysfunction in contemporary heterosexual relationships can be summed up as "women aren't putting out enough when they don't want to."

. . . I don't think so either. Did I say that? I don't think I did. And I certainly didn't apply the standards only to women -- in fact, this comes from my experiences in relationships where I'm the one with the higher sex drive.

I also have yet to see another workable solution to the problem. Putting aside, as I have already, the situations where other problems are causing the sex issue, what do you suggest couples with different sex drives do to fix it? Because what I'm hearing is "break up" or "sorry, higher sex drive person, but you're going to have to learn to live without your needs being met." And that is not workable for me, at all.

And to repeat the point, I in no way agree with the article in this post. I just disagree with the idea that a person with a lower sex drive in a relationship should have all the control over the sex.

Cara, I guess I'm just uncomfortable with the use of the word "compromise". I agree that being willing to let your partner try to turn you on is a good thing. But there are times, at least once a week, when my partner wants sex and I am just plain not in the mood for anything sexual at all. Dan Savage would have it that I should compromise by at the least giving him a handjob or letting him touch me while he masturbates, no matter how distasteful that seems to me at that particular moment. And that if I don't, he's perfectly justified in seeking sex from other women. I'm not comfortable with that.

No, you didn't say it. But I do think that this article-writer--what's her name? Dr. Spurr is implying it with her rhetoric about how she sees the heart-breaking consequences of feminist conditioning that teaches women to have sex only when they want to.

I have no idea what couples in any number of unpleasant situations should do, at least in part because I'm not that interested in coupledom. But what I hear you and Savage saying is "Sorry, lower sex drive person, but you're going to have to suck it up and have sex when you don't want to, even if it's a lousy experience." And that is not workable for me, at all.

WTF?

This article, and ones like it, are just stupid ways for hacks to make money off the insecurities of others. Whose business is my relationship besides my partner and me? Nobody's, and certainly not pseudo-psycho-babble, anti-feminist quacks.

Have sex if you want to, and if you don't, then don't! How much more simple does it get? If someone tries to force you to have sex when you don't want to, either out of guilt or duty, then that's as much rape as if they forced you physically.

And, quacks like this aren't worth the ink their crap is written with.

But there are times, at least once a week, when my partner wants sex and I am just plain not in the mood for anything sexual at all. Dan Savage would have it that I should compromise by at the least giving him a handjob or letting him touch me while he masturbates, no matter how distasteful that seems to me at that particular moment. And that if I don't, he's perfectly justified in seeking sex from other women. I'm not comfortable with that.

Well, that's where we disagree, under_zenith. I don't disagree with your argument -- no, of course you should not have to respond positively every time your partner wants sex and you don't. Turning someone down is fine, until the person start doing it 6 times a week for no good reason.

Where we disagree is that I don't think that Dan Savage promotes what you're suggesting he does. I think that he agrees with what I'm saying -- if one partner wants to have sex 7 times a week and the other wants to have sex once, it's time to give that handjob or whatever a couple of times a week, the compromise being that he or she has to take care of themselves or just deal the rest of the time. I do disagree with Dan's views on infidelity, but the rest I find to be perfectly pragmatic, and I certainly don't find him to be promoting what you think that he's promoting.

cara, i get what you're saying, and i don't necessarily disagree that it's ok to sometimes have sex when you aren't super into it or because you want to get the other person off. but as someone else said below, often the person IS uncomfortable and no one should have perform any sex act when they feel uncomfortable about it, period.

i think that probably a lot of people do exactly what you suggest and if it's not bothersome to them, it's ok. the problem with this article is that it espouses the idea that you are supposed to feel like sex as often as your (presumably) male partner does, and that you should "shut up and put out"--i.e., having sex when you are decidedly uncomfortable and that is psychologically dangerous and unhelpful.

Turning someone down is fine, until the person start doing it 6 times a week for no good reason.

But what exactly is a good reason? And who gets to decide whether the reason is good or not?

but as someone else said below, often the person IS uncomfortable and no one should have perform any sex act when they feel uncomfortable about it, period.

I wholeheartedly agree. And I have to say that I'm extremely confused why anyone thinks that I'm advocating otherwise, as I have explicitly pointed out repeatedly that I'm not.

But what exactly is a good reason? And who gets to decide whether the reason is good or not?

I imagine that the good reasons would have to be worked out from couple to couple. Some of my personal good reasons would be "I don't want to be touched," "I'm very tired," "I'm angry with you right now," and "I'm sick." Bad reasons would be "it seems like too much work, and watching TV is much easier," "they'll get over it," and "my personal apathy towards sex is consistently more important than my partner's strong desire for it."

EG, you seem to be the kind of person that this advice would not work for. Which is fine. Don't take it. You know yourself best, and I wouldn't presume otherwise. But I honestly don't think that most people's feelings are so cut and dry. Apathy towards sex is a very big reason behind sexual problems, and apathy is very different from discomfort and desire to not be touched. Apathy, people can work on, and they should.

I've been on both sides of this argument. Neither is very fun.

Pulling into self-serve gets old after awhile. It's ridiculous to be able to tell just how horny you are by what body part you look at first of anyone coming your way. And yes, cheating starts to become something you think about--but reject because it's not right. If it gets to the point that you're cheating, leave.

I can tell you this, though, having someone nag, bitch, moan and complain is a huge turn-off. Even if I'm in the mood, the minute I hear that I can feel the mood just evaporate and I'll be damned if I'm going to lay there and think of England.

Here's a hint, though. With a little effort, it's not all that hard to get someone in the mood. That is not accomplished by whining about how you never get any or sitting in front of the TV pouting while your partner cooks dinner, cleans house, does dishes, laundry, bathes the kids, reads books, and tucks them in for the night.

Just sayin'.

if one partner wants to have sex 7 times a week and the other wants to have sex once, it's time to give that handjob or whatever a couple of times a week, the compromise being that he or she has to take care of themselves or just deal the rest of the time

I still disagree, though. Like riley said, if that works for some couples, that's all fine and good. But I resent being told that I'm not being a good partner if I'm not comfortable with it. (I can't tell whether that's what you're saying or not, but I do think it's what Dan Savage is saying). If I'm flat out not in the mood to touch or be touched sexually - which does happen much more often than my partner would find ideal - then I'm not comfortable with forcing myself to do it anyway, just for his pleasure. Why is a handjob given as a chore more satisfying than doing it yourself, anyway?

Basically, a lot of women are uninterested in sex because they aren't enjoying it for many many reasons - not least of which we work differently than men (emotionally, visually and physically: when you get down to the act itself). I've gotten so aggro from trying to get what I needed from various relationships (a guy that actually cares if I'm satisfied, really is it that damn hard?) that I have chosen the solo path. It's easier on the whole system. I just got tired of doing ALL the work in a relationship. It may be that my generation (the male portion - and the ones I came across obv - not all) just didn't compromise enough for me. And I felt like the only one making compromises. Now lots of women I know find enough value in a relationship that they will do all the work. I just don't happen to think that extra bit of financial stability is worth it - because I sure as hell wasn't getting anything else - and not for lack of trying!

Why is a handjob given as a chore more satisfying than doing it yourself, anyway?

I think that the difference is in how you view it. I don't want sexual pleasure from my partner because he sees it as a "chore" -- that's offensive. But I'm perfectly happy to take sexual pleasure from my partner when he's not in the mood if he's doing it (and acting like it) because he loves me and wants me to be satisfied and sees it as a caring and considerate thing to do. They're very different, and I would never advocate treating sex as a chore.

I smell a correlation here.

Men who don't mind it when their partners just lay there/act as masturbatory tools == Men who are really bad in bed and, consequently, their partners are never enthusiastic about sex with them.

I think one of Dan Savage's major points in general is that sexual compatibility is very important to your sexual relationship, and that the health of your sexual relationship is important for the rest of your relationship, or that your sexual relationship can suffer if other areas of your relationship are in trouble. So, if you are mad at Dan Savage for suggesting a conciliatory blow job, because your sexual relationship is fine without it, that's okay, your relationship doesn't need it. If, however, your partner is getting more and more frustrated sexually, because your sex drives are incompatible and you "don't want to be touched" 14 out of 15 days, at some point, if you want your sexual and normal relationship to continue working, then you will have to work out a compromise. Of course, this depends on whether the root of the problem is a general low sex drive or if the low sex drive results from other problematic areas in the relationship.

Cara: I definitely agree. There are plenty of times when I'm not especially in the mood, but I love my boyfriend and I do it out of love, and often put on enough of a show of enjoying it so that I get in the mood. :) However, there are also times when I could cut him with burning laser beam eyes if he tried to get me to have sex, but he loves me and doesn't push me to do things that make me uncomfortable/upset to satisfy his desires. Knowing how I feel at the times I definitely definitely don't want to have sex, I see why some of us are reacting to the "compromise" suggestion, but if your relationship is in trouble because you can't be touched 90% of the time your partner wants to have sex, something is wrong that needs to be addressed by compromise, or therapy, or who knows what.

Ugh this is awful. It just brings me back to the days before spousal rape existed.

I can't believe this quack is trying to blame feminism for the demise of relationships. Is it my imagination or did an article come out a few weeks ago saying that feminists had happy and more sexually fulfilling relationships?

It all depends on how much each individual values sex! Apparently, this author is operating under the assumption that sex is vital to a happy relationship.

I hate articles like this, because:

1) Men are assumed to have higher sex drives than women, which is, bah.

2)As many other people have said, if one wants more sex in one's relationship, one shouldn't blame their partner-- they should do things to get their partner in the mood. I mean, the partner should help out with that, maybe offer suggestions, but these articles assume that people become in the mood without any outside influence.

3)Lack of sex is never a reason to cheat on a partner. There is no reason to EVER cheat on a partner, except being selfish and hurtful.

On top of the idea that only women have lower sex drives in relationships is the factors they blame it on. The woman is so concerned about work and doing well in her career, that she doesn't want to have sex. Is a man ever going to be harangued for "focusing too much on his career" if he doesn't then have enough energy to please his partner. Women need to get back home, and in the bed?

what I have learned on this thread is that Cara and EG should definitely not date each other.

Can we please end this myth that women are the ones with low sex drives. Where are the articles about how women should deal with their male partners that don't want to have sex. That's what I dealt with for 14 months when my boyfriend wasn't interested because he was too busy and stressed out. At least thats what I thought. But 14 months later, when my pregnancy was over and I started having my period again, my boyfriend couldn't wait to start having sex as if he could smell I was ovulating. I'm not saying all sex problems have to do with biology, but lets face it, any women after having a child is going to have a hormonal and physical change that may make her not interested in sex, like the women in the one story whose husband cheated on her. Also, lets stop blaming women for men cheating. Even men who have sex with their wives three times a day will go out and cheat. Cheating is about alot more then sex. Actually sex is about alot more then sex, so why can't people stop suggesting stupid solutions and admit that it's not the only factor or even the most important one in a real life relationship.

sybann - Your reply hit home with me the most. I am currently in a relationship which is having some difficulties, but it's not really about the sex, per se, but how we go about it.

I would love to have a partner who actually puts forth an effort to "turn me on", but those times are few and far between. In fact, this actually happened a few weeks ago, where he was SO completely attentive, loving, almost even romantic, and said things that made me feel happy and special - and therefore VERY turned on. It was honestly the best sex we've had in years. But then, just yesterday (Sunday), he was singing a completely different song.

Weekends are our "sex time" - Saturday and Sunday mornings is when we get intimate. But after weeks and months of being the one who is attentive, playful, flirty and more or less "in control", always being the one to make the first move, I decided it sure would be nice to have HIM cater to MY needs, and flirt with me, be attentive to me, be playful and affectionate with me and turn me on. The morning ended with him standing over me scolding, yelling at and insulting me, and me sitting on the bed crying my eyes out wondering what the hell happened. And each and every single time I try to put him in the driver's seat, this is the result. For him, a simple statement of "Well, let's get to it then" is supposed to be enough to turn me on - but it has the opposite effect. I've even given him specific examples (gently, of course, and as "not nagging" as I can be) of what he can say or do to turn me on or put me in the mood at all, but he finds this insulting and will refuse to do so based solely on principle. He thinks that if I need to be put in the mood, then it's not worth the effort. Too much work. He says that if I want sex, and he's willing to give it me, then what's the problem? But when I'm in loving (not casual) relationship, I expect to "make love" most of the time, not fuck. And that's what it is to me when my partner isn't willing to put forth even the tiniest effort in the playful/affection/turn me on department.

All of this puts me in a very uncomfortable position. When I try to talk to him about it, he blames me for "nagging" or "expecting too much" or is just plain petulant and won't listen. And/Or he tells me that our sex life is unimportant to him, and that he could "take it or leave it" and that when I do see some action, it's mostly just a show for me; this is hurtful to me and is the exact opposite of all those wonderful things he was saying to me that night when we really connected. Years of this has left me utterly confused, depressed and exhausted. Half of me wants to go the easy route and just keep on doing things the way we have been and accept that I will never see any passion, enthusiasm or effort on my man's part to make *me* happy, and the other half wants to keep fighting for what I know is a normal, healthy sexual relationship.

But maybe I'm wrong. Am I asking too much for the man to be in charge once in a while? My husband thinks so.

Oh my gosh, I had no idea that my reply was so long - I'm really sorry everyone, I didn't mean to waste your time with such a big rant. :(

what I have learned on this thread is that Cara and EG should definitely not date each other.

Now there is some relationship advice that we can hopefully all agree on :)

I must have unusual circumstances. When I was having all kinds of hot sex with my partner, he was so *revved up* he was out having sex with co-workers and acquaintances, too. When I found out, I told him to keep getting his sexual kicks fulfilled with others, just leave me the hell out of it.

Two years later, we're still not having sex together. Only now, he sits home all the damn time and claims he's not interested in having sex with other people anymore and I can't get much quality vibrator time.

It's really annoying.

Other than the sex thing, we manage to have a very nice relationship. So, although anecdotal, since it pertains to my own life I will never believe the whole bit about straying if you don't put out.

"Also, lets stop blaming women for men cheating. Even men who have sex with their wives three times a day will go out and cheat. Cheating is about alot more then sex. Actually sex is about alot more then sex, so why can't people stop suggesting stupid solutions and admit that it's not the only factor or even the most important one in a real life relationship."

amen to that.

I absolutely agree with Cara. I also think it's detrimental to feminism to try and simplify this problem. Perhaps sometimes there is a correlation between bad sex and a low sex drive, or an asshole partner and a low sex drive, but saying that is the only scenario is untrue. I'm not a bad feminist because my sex drive is low. My partner isn't a bad feminist because he'd like me to have sex with him more often. He does a ton more housework than me. He is concerned about my happiness, and in fact, does feel insecure when he's the one initiating sex most of the time.

I feel as though one of the biggest problems with social movements is the problem of rhetoric. People are often so afraid of saying something that their political opposition might say, that they can't take an honest look at the subject matter. I'm not saying that the commenters on this subject are lying to themselves; not at all. But I do think that it's tempting, when dealing with delicate scenarios, to lump the subject matter in with more common social problems. It's hard to look at this issue objectively because we do live in a sexually oppressive, patriarchal society. It's hard to throw a dude a bone.

As annoyed as I am with being asked for sex at times, I'm not a victim. My partner isn't an asshole. We are people with different needs, and if we care about one another, we need to compromise.

Mz.Stilletto, I don't think you're asking too much AT ALL. You have told your husband that you need more than a few grunts to get you in the mood for sex. If he wants a healthy relationship with you (sexual and otherwise), you'd think he'd put in the effort to warm you up before getting down. I know what you mean about initiating all the time, though. Sometimes I feel that way. I know my b/f wants sex at least as much as I do, but I feel like I'm always the one to make the move.
As far as advice goes, I don't know what to tell you. Hopefully some others can weigh in.

what I have learned on this thread is that Cara and EG should definitely not date each other.

Heh. I think we should start keeping a log of "Important Lessons We Have Learned from Feministing."

Ugh. This reminds me so much of my ex. I was actually told at one time that it was selfish of me to want an orgasm. Seriously. He would also randomly bend me over a counter, hike up my skirt/nightgown/what have you and just do it. There were times he was attentive, but it used to be that I literally risked the fires of his eternal damnation (which, believe me, was substantial and bad enough to want to avoid at all cost) if I woke him up on a weekend morning without providing oral along with the coffee. I guess according to Dr. Spurr I was the ideal wife, but looking back on it, I see someone who was repeatedly victimized by an eternally adolescent bully.

Ailei, thank dog you got out of that situation.

Another thing that is rarely addressed in these kinds of articles is the real relationship between housework and sex. If one partner works far more than the other and feels like there is always something else that needs to be done then it will be difficult for that partner to relax enough to turn their minds to sex.

If a person wants to have a partner who is relaxed and enthusiastic about sex, that person could take more steps to be sure that their partner is not exhausted and disheartened by their workload.

In my case, I found that establishing an equitable partnership improved all aspects of both of our lives. Feminism works.

Ok, whatever happened to masturbation? Why can’t the partner with a higher sex drive get him/herself off?

Mz. Stilletto,

I think that is absolutely awful that he made you cry and that he has a take it or leave it attitude towards sex. You might want to think about couples counseling, and if he won't do that, you really want to think about moving on.

A good partner, male or female, will take pleasure in discovering what gets their partner off, and will enjoy being given information because it gives them the chance to explore their partner's sexuality in ways that had not yet occurred to them. I've learned by doing, asking, listening, and observing, what my bf likes, and part of the reason I've gotten so into it is because he is so focused on being attentive to me.

If it doesn't go both ways, and it makes you feel sad and depressed, a change needs to be made. From what you've said, it sounds like you have been bending over backwards to try and be tactful, so I don't think the problem is with you.

Like I said, if you think couples counseling is worth a shot, and he's up for it, I would try. If he isn't or you don't think it is worth it, don't feel bad about moving on. You deserve better.

-Izzy

I'm de-lurking for this one.

I have a medical condition, vulvar vestibulitis, that causes painful intercourse. This, of course, seriously ruined my sex drive and made me fearful of any sort of sexual intimacy whatsoever. My husband has been absolutely patient and understanding and we're both going to see a counselor to work through everything.

So I really do understand absolutely not wanting to have sex and having a very low sex drive. And my husband has a much higher sex drive.

We do compromise. We don't do anything that hurts, of course. But there are times when I won't necessarily be in the mood, but I'll give it the old college try. And if it works, great! If I don't get in to it, we give it a rest. And there are times when my husband just has to take care of himself.

But it doesn't make him a horrible person or a horrible husband to expect that his wife make a reasonable effort to sexually satisfy him (note: reasonable, no rape, nothing violating the law or any moral codes). This is how we define our relationship - a certain amount of sexual intimacy. If we'd entered the marriage with the expectancy of celibacy or being open with other problems, then of course that would be different.

And now I'm starting to ramble, but my point is that while that article is absurd, I think sexual compromise is possible and can be healthy and satisfying.