There is no panacea to this problem because it involves mutual collaboration between both members of the couple. The things that seem to work (couples therapy, self-help books) only actually work because they spark a conversation. Regardless, it always seems to involve rejecting some of those superficial notions I listed above and acknowledging that 90% of the stuff you learned or assumed about sex is wrong.
I think this is a very Americanized perspective, though, so I would be especially interested in hearing perspectives from other cultures.
If you aren't compatible sexually then you are not compatible.
I have been married twice. My first wife was practically my "soul mate", we had the same taste in everything. We were best buds, everything was perfect besides our sex life sucked. It always led to conflict and problems.
My wife now we have almost nothing in common when it comes to taste, art, music, hobbies, nothing. We have an amazing sex life though. I couldn't be happier.
That is not how it works in the movies. I am supposed to meet my first wife and live happily ever after. It is the difference between real life and fiction.
Agreed, but I think it's deeper: when I was in my 20's I didn't even know what sexual compatibility was. Given that, how could I even have made it a criteria for partner selection?
That assumes people figure out their sexuality. I've seen way too many people that didn't figure it out until their 50's. Like, "heterosexual until later in life" figure it out. And, there's an entire spectrum until that.
I suspect sexual compatibility lowers in importance as people age.
Certainly there are some old couples that stay together without good sex for different reasons, religios beliefs and such...
But if you are an intimate couple - that includes sex. If you are not having sex you are just roomates / friends - and there is nothing wrong with that.
I know a few different people in thier 70's right now having really great sex because they have found new partners, and because it's great they are having a lot of it.
So it could be less important if both people's only goals are stability or other goals - however we are seeing from reports in retirement communities and nursing homes that whether it is the loss of partner through death or divorce or just ageing single into a new community of options - that people are indeed searching for sexual compatibility as they age - often times with many more partners later in life than mid-life.
Saying that this matters less when that, or you'll loose interest in sex as you grow older simply won't fit for a lot of people. But for a lot maybe it will.
But since all of this is such a inherently personal thing, its opinion around the world will be as divided as our own butts.
I agree this is very Americanised, I can chime from two different perspectives and cultures: Brazil and Sweden.
Brazil is... Very Americanised, I believe that the same issues the USA has with sex are present in Brazil, it's expressed in some different ways but the underlying issues are more-or-less the same. Even though Brazil is seen through a very sexualised image from the outside, it's still a very conservative society where women are shamed for having sex.
Now for Sweden: I don't think anything you said really applies here, people are very open about sex, parents just consider it a natural thing and will allow their teenagers to have sex in their house, I heard stories from friends who had breakfast with the parents of a hook up after a night out, etc. There is very little taboo about sex here, even though not everyone is open to talk about it, the vast majority is completely fine with people having sex.
Which brings me to a point I don't really grasp how it happens, my sexual experiences here showed me that women suffer some similar issues as the women in Brazil: lots of them don't have good sex, not even with their partners, most of the times not due to a lack of communication but a lack of understanding from men. I've heard from girlfriends similar behaviour from men here as in Brazil, not the aggressive type but the lack of care about their needs, a lack of interest and curiosity in sex itself, to improve it, etc.
And then I don't know if this is something global and most men in the world are really that bad sex partners, it was really surprising to hear from Scandinavian women some of the same issues that girlfriends in Brazil went through. Not even counting the abuse, in Brazil it's much more extreme but I was surprised by how many of my girlfriends here had at least one instance of rape or sexual abuse, usually from partners.
This is one of the reasons why men are hesitant to talk about sex. It is easy to talk about it if you can say "No I didn't enjoy it and it isn't my fault." and less so if you have to introspect. Thoughts like, is my penis big enough? Am I not lasting long enough? Am I good-looking enough? and other thoughts come unbidden to the subconscious.
Because of our educational focus, we had a high number of new people come through, learn and mature, and then go off to do other things. So I'd like to think I learned something watching the common arcs.
In American culture, there are two big hangups about sex: (1) nobody is comfortable admitting ignorance & (2) the former leads to nobody being able to communicate about anything sexual.
Essentially every critical sexual conversation is some variant of this: "I'm not sure about X. How do you feel about X?" "I've never tried X. Do you want to try it?" "I'm nervous, but I do. How about if we Y'd and Z'd to start?" "I don't think I'd like Y. What if we Y_1'd and Z'd?" "I'm up for that!"
Notice the numerous admissions of ignorance. Because real conversations start in truth, without judgement. And it's worth it, because that's how you get to the fun times. Either in or out of a relationship.
(And ironically, you know who is typically comfortable admitting ignorance? Those with the most experience)
I genuinely believe most men _want_ to satisfy their partners securely, in the same way that many working mothers _want_ to cook wholesome, healthy meals from scratch for their children, but after yet another stressful day we just don't have focus and energy required to show the love in that way.
Same here, absolutely appalling. Whenever I speak about it with guy friends they don't quite believe me and try to rationalise it (which is a common response for me on many topics as well), often by arguing semantics of what is considered rape or abuse etc, or the integrity of the person in question.
I'm not sure what prompts this skepticism exactly. The friends I've discussed this with who are skeptical, tend to otherwise be quite understanding and well thinking individuals. It's a bit akin to my own first reactions to allegations of Chinese genocide against Uyghurs, the concentration camps, etc. That can't be... There's probably some nuance I'm missing. I was only convinced after reading more and being exposed to more information and evidence.
It's very hard to have these conversations with some guy friends as none of my female friends have wanted me to share any part of their experiences with anyone else. That makes it really tricky to convince anyone else of the veracity of their claims. If I could, I could say 'well it's actually my partner, who I fully trust, or my mother who is completely honest, or our mutual best friend for the past 15 years', people whom my friends also hold in high regard and believe at face value, like I believe them.
I don't want to dispute your anecdote but I feel I have a bit more hands-on experience with Brazilian society.
Don't compare Carnaval, a one-off whole-nation party week to how society really works on the day-to-day.
I originally thought they were mostly an old people thing, but I am hearing more stories about it from friends. And we are mid 20s.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201902...
As for the male side of things, I'm not sure if there is a environmental culprit like birth-control.
Edit: Also an unhappy relationship often can lead to poor sex, depression, and anxiety.
And countries without those things perhaps don't?
Which are the correlations that actually matter?
There’s nothing magic about soil. You need to give time for waves of immigrants to integrate, or it leads to backlash and horrible people like Trump getting elected.
No thanks. Feel free to go conduct extreme social experiments with your own life, not mine.
https://news.umich.edu/reduced-testosterone-tied-to-chemical...
That's not the only cause. Increased obesity levels also play a role. Probably other factors.
Edit: Getting downvotes from folks in denial. I’m not making this stuff up, college students rarely used to have ED, now porn-induced ED is quite common. Many such cases! [0]
Viewing Sexual Stimuli Associated with Greater Sexual Responsiveness, Not Erectile Dysfunction https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26185674
Is Pornography Use Associated with Sexual Difficulties and Dysfunctions among Younger Heterosexual Men https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25816904/
The argument at face value is a slippery slope, like "sugar triggers dopamine response in the brain in similar areas as cocaine, so any exposure to sugar eventually leads to someone consuming sugar at all times"
I think it's much more likely that people, in general, imprint sexual preferences around the time that they are becoming sexual in their teens, and that doesn't change much as they age.
Religion in the US tends to focus on "any exposure to porn makes you an addict," which is why I am assuming this is what you're trying to imply. If you want to play a semantics game "porn addiction is defined as" then I'd argue that the same people are -true- porn addicts at the same rate that people are -true- sugar addicts. So, not saying they don't exist, but are a significantly lower number of the population than US religions would have you believe.
In fact, I have experienced the opposite: I do not enjoy any kind of "ugly", much less "extreme" porn. It turns me off.
The simplest kind for me, missionary position, or a girl alone, and that's it.
Are you suggesting that the solution to dead bedrooms is increasing "drive to seduce" of the ones who complain?
I thought that many of them already have high drive that their partners don't reciprocate.
Even if it isn't fight-or-flight stress inducement, sheer business and exhaustion are also undeniably up.
All one has to do is look at the laundry list of economic differences (housing, health care, education, salary, etc) between the current generations and the boomers.
From my understanding, in Islam, sex is a normal, expected part of marriage. If one partner doesn't want to have sex, it doesn't give the other partner the right to demand it. Rather, if there is a lack of desire for sex, it is grounds for divorce.
As an entertaining example, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz's big data book Everybody Lies mentioned a study that asked people in the United States how frequently they had sex, and how frequently they practiced safe sex with a condom. If the resulting data was accurate and projected across the entire country, the United States consume 2.7 billion condoms a year... even though only 600 million condoms are sold in a year.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/06/our-searc...
When I first saw Maslow's hierarchy of needs sex appeared on it TWICE. Once on the bottom level as a basic physical need (to what extent varies of course) and again I think on the 3rd level or so as a form of intimacy.
Putting it on that pyramid has somehow fallen out of favor. One (fem) writer claimed it somehow justified rape. That's as absurd as saying the need for food justifies armed robbery. I suspect the real issue is that it offered an explanation (not a justification) that differs from the authors pre-conceived notions (men are evil blah blah). Anyway it seems to have become unpopular to claim it's a basic need.
People conflate "explaining" or "causing" with "justification". They also think that by eliminating words they will eliminate the actual problem...
Not saying it isn't an important psychological need, but it's not a literal "basic physical need". Words mean things.
It's in the same vein as non-intimate socialization (another aspect we can technically go years without, but has shown to have dire mental effects. Sometimes shockingly fast).
Also, there are asexual people. It seems strange to define something as a "basic" human need if many people can live a healthy life without it.
And yes, a certain level of socialization is definitely necessary to become a functional human.
https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/microsites/promoting-healthy-weight-i...).
There are many much more well studied people who have spent much longer debating this, so I'm not interested in debating this here. I just want to note that valid arguments exist, and that I feel you are still conflating "basic" with "psychological".
----
>Also, there are asexual people.
If you'd like another more controversial example: consider parental supervision. You can live a healthly life without ever leaving your parents' home nor ruleset. And in some other societies it is entirely expected to live in your parents' home even after marriage alongside one's parents (still following their personal values). However, some may argue that this hampers the psychological needs of autonomy and competence. That one will never have true control and choice and that you can never truly go out and challenge oneself while under a parent's wing.
Much like the basic "needs" of sex, this can be under contention and is ultimately up to society. A few anecdotes of those who made it or not doesn't rule it out as arguably being a psychological need not being met. Much like a few asexual people not necessarily ruling out sex as aruably being a psychological need at some leve.
I'm mostly responding to the original idea of "Putting it on that pyramid has somehow fallen out of favor". your initial response of "It's not a basic physical need. It's a psychological need. " made it sound like it didn't deserve to be on bottom part of the pyramid, or that you perhaps didn't know that those two categories are often the same part of the pyramid. So I responded in turn to inform.
Before considering lofty philosophical ideas like "Justification", it's useful to consider basic system dynamics:
"This paper provides an overview of the link between food insecurity and violent conflict, addressing both traditional and emerging threats to security and political stability."
https://www.wfp.org/publications/occasional-paper-24-food-in...
But... that was the whole topic. We're not talking about whether hunger causes violence, or whether sexual frustration causes rape. No doubt they do. The point was that labeling "food" as an essential need doesn't constitute an endorsement of food-related violence, and by analogy labeling sex as essential doesn't constitute an endorsement of rape.
Couldn't disagree more. Sexual attraction is not about 'understanding' how your partner feels. A man who is no longer attracted to his wife won't suddenly become attracted when he understands how she feels. Attraction is not a choice. It's not something you can talk yourself or someone else into.
Not quite what the parent was talking about. They were referring to truly understanding that some people need sex to be happy, as opposed to others who like or even dislike it.
But understanding what your partner wants (whichever of those three it is) is a required starting point for having a better sexual relationship. There's no amount of counseling that can bridge "Well, they should just feel exactly like I do about it."
You have a point. And the scary factor (at least, in my society) is that admitting this would be rife to criticism (be it insensitive and maybe misogynistic if a man, or shallow and a slut if a woman), because so much of our teachings say that we shouldn't judge others based on looks.
It's not exactly about looks in this situation, but it's a very similar situation. You may find that you need something else out of a relationship, but the not only lack of communication, but *active discouragement" to communicate such inconvenient truths probably causes much more tension than the short term tension of a breakup/divorce
(not to say breakups aren't painful in and of themselves, but it's the difference between keeping a thorn in, and removing it. The latter gives you a chance to heal).
This seems based in some fantasy land, though. I'd be absolutely stunned if you didn't have at least a few unattractive friends who do very well in dating/relationships/finding sex partners, because they are funny, or charismatic, etc (speaking about male friends here generally but this can apply to anyone).
If attraction was as you described, no one would be attracted to anyone outside of pro athletes and supermodels. Clearly, many normal, non-models are quite attracted to their non-model partners.
I sense a seduction community vibe in that quote.
The parent says the opposite: it's NOT a choice, you either feel it or not. So seduction techniques would not apply.
Attraction is not a choice was his mantra. I don’t know if he coined it but he sure made us understand the implications of it.
Since he said it so often, it follows then that when I see it verbatim, I might post something along the lines of sensing seduction community vibes.
And in my experience on the internet, we're still a very, very, very long way from creating a community that can civilly speak on the topic. Heck, maybe even IRL; cultures as a whole still can't even agree with what kinds of sexual content is legal to sell (not even age-gated, just outright denying a consenting adult the choice to buy professionally made content), so this may be a while. It may not even be resolved in my lifetime.
On a personal level, I'm fine with the myriads of porn I have stashed about my house. But I can't take cat girl out for a quick lunch and chat about the day. I miss friends.
No-one is entitled to sex. But individuals in a sexually-exclusive relationship are entitled [to leave and find more compatible partners].
Maybe that wasn’t the consensus view 50 years ago, but it is now.
https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/...
> Weston says her abuser used to withhold sexual contact during times when she asked to be intimate. He also used withholding affection as a punishment. “If I looked at him wrong, he refused to kiss me,” she says.
If you put it this way, nobody is entitled to food and shelter either. But we all need these things. Yes, some people can do away with sex, and if it's by their own choice, probably most of them do fine (many don't). But when it happens in marriage, then it's over, also legally - most jurisdictions recognize this.
Yup. Very (perhaps most) common, for instance, among Christians.
> The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation
we modified one but not the other. we reap what we sow.
The dead bedroom situations I've seen with my friends (M->F equally as well as F->M) are always the result of one party being incapable of understanding the other's desire for sex. This leads them when pressed to try approaches such as, substituting "being nicer" for sex, trying therapy to reduce their partner's sex drive, or just forgetting about the problem because they are unable to sympathize with it. Ideas such as initiating sex more often or opening up the relationship either don't occur to them, are vehemently opposed, or forgotten about.
No-one is entitled to sex. But individuals in a sexually-exclusive relationship are entitled to sympathy, action, and compromise from their partner to bridge severe differences in sexuality, just the same as any other sticking point in a relationship.