<-- Previous Day    |     Next Day -->

	Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Nicole Kidman.



(And lay off the botox, sweetheart. It's becoming....unbecoming.)

10:14:24 PM    comments [] trackback []
_________________________



From the last comment thread on the old blog, BJK writes:

1) Should these people be together in the first place? Weren't there signs/indications before they made a commitment that their sex drives/expectations in bed were not compatible?

2) If their relationship persists in being sexless, i.e., neither party "giving in" to the desires, feelings, needs of the other (or at least being able to negotiate a "meet-you-halfway" posture), isn't the prognosis dire, doomed, and, in effect, dead?

3) Freud once said that, "The only abnormal sex is not having sex." Isn't absense of sex a very clear indication that one or both of the "partners" are involved in a truly dysfunctional relationship (and should leave as soon as possible)?

4) No one gets "brownie points" for being a sexual martyr. It only contributes to feelings of bitterness and resentment, which infect other "healthy" aspects of their marriage.

With all of the other inherent, "usual" problems and pressures facing 2 people in a committed relationship, i.e., demands of work, finances, kids, in-laws, etc., isn't lack of sex (and the sense of intimacy/communication/caring that comes with that loving act) just the kiss of death? I mean, these people are walking around with toe tags, why can't they see that their relationship is beyond resuscitating, beyond a painless flat-line, life-support-system existence? It's dead. Leave the flowers, pay your respects, and get out. Now.

BJK • 4/28/04; 8:03:18 PM

I replied:

BJK, I don't have time to go into all the issues you raised, but I do have to answer one of the questions:

1) Should these people be together in the first place? Weren't there signs/indications before they made a commitment that their sex drives/expectations in bed were not compatible?

No, in fact there usually AREN'T any "warning signs" that a woman's interest in sex will wane after marriage. The way I see it, that means one of the following things:

1) the woman was genuinely interested in sex when the relationship began, and something in the RELATIONSHIP has caused that interest to fade

2) the woman was genuinely interested in sex when the relationship was new or when there was some kind of challenge or fascination in it -- the famous "emotional" component of female desire -- but she cannot get excited by a routine partner. (This is a phenomenon that is so common I believe it is the female equivalent to male wandering -- an evolutionary spur toward serial monogamy, nature's spur to either recombine genes with a new partner or "shut down" sexually to preserve childrearing focus and tribal cohesion)

3) the woman was not AS interested in sex as she seemed to be at the time, with the following possible correlates:

a) she had established a "pattern of pleasing" that she was afraid to break

b) she didn't want to acknowledge, even to herself, that her interest was not as great as it "should" be, because that would also be, as Sigmund (F.) Freud claimed, an acknowledgement that she was not NORMAL

4) the woman was in fact totally uninterested in sex but was an outstanding actress who deliberately pretended to be a sexual person for cold, manipulative and hateful reasons (this is by far the most common male theory, by the way -- it can be summed up thusly: Women -- and Most Especially MY Woman -- Are Just. Plain. Evil.)

Exhorting a woman toward a "spirit of compromise" is all well and good when we are talking about economic decisions or other areas of life that are amenable to reason, but that "sense of intimacy/ communication/ caring that comes with that loving act" cannot be summoned at will, forced or faked. Women who simply Do It out of a sense of duty/ responsibility will satisfy the moment, but martyrdom and pretense will eventually poison the whole business. Lemme tell you, my own days of gritting my teeth while having sex were part of what took me so long to achieve erotic recovery.

Many men say they don't really care if their wife is simply being dutiful, as long as they Get It. Wise men (like "Dickead" -- see sidebar stories) realize that what they really want is genuine desire, willingness and participation.

However, it is also true that if you're convinced it's over and there's nothing else you can do, you might as well call the florist. Some people do cling to neurotic relationships.

The important thing to understand about neurotic relationships is that -- in spite of the very real dissatisfactions -- they ARE fulfilling some kind of very deep or basic needs in the partners. If you break that underground Need Agreement (for example, "you be sick and I'll be the hero" or "you be cruel and I'll be the noble sufferer" or "I'll be dissatisfied and you'll feel guilty and try harder to please"), some other way of fulfilling those needs will have to be found. N.B. There are often multiple Need Agreements in any neurotic relationship.

Let's face it: you really have only three options when a marriage goes bad, to wit --

1) demand change from the other person*

2) change yourself

3) give up and get out.

Gee, it all seems so simple, dunnit?

* And -- as Tonto might have said when the Lone Ranger took off without him -- "Good luck with that, Kemosabe."

4:39:12 PM    comments [] trackback []
_________________________



<-- Previous Day    |    Next Day -->

This Page was last updated: 6/21/07; 3:45:44 PM
Copyright 2007 Julia Grey
Theme Design by Bryan Bell