This makes perfect sense to me. I'm 38 years old, been married 15 years. My sex drive is nothing like it used to be; I haven't really felt horny for at least five years. But I make sure I have sex with my husband at least once a week. And I almost never turn him down. Once, I even had sex with him with a bad cold, a half hour after taking Nyquil. I never felt "used", in fact 90% of the time I enjoy it a lot.

Posted by: Karen at January 1, 2009 9:12 AM

I agree that women should definitely put out - and the more you get it, the more you want it! But at the same time, a lot of men don't understand that women will almost never be as straight-up horny as they are. They take it as a personal insult if a woman isn't soaking chairs 24/7 at the thought of them, whereas if a woman is enthusiastic and initiates a good percentage of the time, a man should count his blessings. It's usually men who think porn stars are representative of a real woman's libido (hint: she is acting).

Posted by: C at January 1, 2009 10:19 AM

At first I was not sure you were bonafide in your article, but I have changed my mind.
However, where you say "They are afraid to tell their wives."
I disagree.
In my case, I simply refuse to tell her anything, even if she asks. She wanted me to be a mind reader. Well, guess what? It works both ways.
And the refusal of sex - makes me so mad I could just spit.

Posted by: Daniel at January 1, 2009 10:21 AM

I am always horny, and I'm 39. My husband loves it!!!
I notice I'm hornier now than I was in my 20's...not sure why, could be because he treats me great and I "reward" him with great sex and "BJ's" - most women I know say they do the BJ thing for a while in the beginning then it fizzles out...and the men hate that.
My hubby's lucky.... :)
I guess my advice to men who don't get laid often, treat your lady great, tell her she's gorgeous all the time, make her feel gorgeous and support her in her beliefs and you'll be well taken care of.

Peace.

Posted by: 1/2 Naked Patriot at January 1, 2009 10:29 AM

I simply refuse to tell her anything, even if she asks. She wanted me to be a mind reader. Well, guess what? It works both ways. And the refusal of sex - makes me so mad I could just spit.

Um, Daniel, why are you still together?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 10:35 AM

Putting out for your boyfriend is stupid and destructive. Our jails are full of young men whose mothers put out for their boyfriends.

Posted by: K T Cat at January 1, 2009 10:46 AM

This is the story of my life. I am a 35 year old man, married 12 yrs with a 5 year old daughter. My wife and I have had sex maybe (4) times in the last (3) years.

I am a corp VP, bring home six figures and give my wife what ever she wants. I also do most of the house work,(even though my wife stays home) on top of my (60) hour work week. My wife knows how her refusals make me feel. She does not even sleep in our bed anymore. She sleeps with our daughter, since sleeping in our daughter's bed allows my wife to "helicopter parent" even when she sleeps. Since my wife knows I will not leave my daughter, there is nothing I can do. She gave up on marriage counseling a year ago, and seems content with how unhappy I am. Lesson to all young men out there: they turn into their mothers.

Posted by: D at January 1, 2009 10:46 AM

This piece is right on. I don't have much libido but I love to make my hubby happy, because then he makes me happy. What is wrong with this? To me this is marriage: making each other happy (and better than either of you is alone). Women build up so much resentment due to little and big things, especially involving the whole man-woman miscommunication thing, that without a doubt for many women the power trip is about denying him pleasure. Gals, that will get you nowhere. It's very easy to "put out" even if you're not in the mood, to make him happy, which then (for those of us in a good relationship) guarantees he will make us happy.

I do find I have to go by his moods more than mine, since, let's face it, if the guy isn't horny nothing's going to happen unless he's happy to give you a treat. (Hey, this happens, believe me.) Plus, we are not youngsters, though plenty of young couples have libido issues as well.

The destruction that resentments, spoken and unspoken, do to a relationship or marriage really can be avoided if you work at it. But you have to work, and part of that is working to keep each other happy. That is what putting out when you may not be in the mood is all about.

Posted by: Peg C. at January 1, 2009 10:53 AM

I would love nothing more than to have the sex drive I did before my son was born in April. However due to complications during the birth, an iud not put in properly, and a few other conditions related to the pregnancy that I'm still dealing with, painful sex is the last thing on my mind. On top of it all, I'm the sole caregiver of our boy, the housecleaner, etc. Hubby knows what he needs to do to get more lovin' but he's not putting in the effort so why should I? For crying out loud, his idea of foreplay is brushing his teeth and grabbing his nuts. Some women don't like the whole caveman bit.

Posted by: Kendra at January 1, 2009 10:55 AM

As a side comment: Dennis Prager may or may not be right on this issue - like any other matter - but the last thing he can be called is irrational.

Posted by: SteveMG at January 1, 2009 11:03 AM

This is often a very delicate situation. In my experience, women of my generation (X) have a generally negative attitude towards sex. They're prone to seeing expressions of male sexuality as depraved and regard any suggestion of a wifely duty as tantamount to advocacy of rape. I think that they'd come of age during an especially hostile period of Feminism and that this has taken its toll on their sexuality.

Posted by: Jack at January 1, 2009 11:14 AM

As a side comment: Dennis Prager may or may not be right on this issue - like any other matter - but the last thing he can be called is irrational.

Agreed. The list starts with "bedbug crazy" and proceeds through "narcissisticly self-important" before it gets to "irrational."

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at January 1, 2009 11:18 AM

Everyone,

There are more than a few times when the HUSBAND does not want to have sex. And this is not just if the wife becomes ugly. This can happen even with a physically attractive wife, and even in the first year of marriage.

A woman who nags or puts down her husband can kill his sexual attraction for her very quickly, even if she is physically attractive to the outside world. It can happen, and does happen more often than people think.

The woman will be the initiator, and the MAN is the one who avoids having to have sex. Again, this can even happen a few months into marriage.

I agree that the sole purpose of marriage is for each party to make the other happy, without 'keeping score'.

Posted by: Toads at January 1, 2009 11:27 AM

I think that they'd come of age during an especially hostile period of Feminism and that this has taken its toll on their sexuality

Well, some of that relates to being nonthinking. I took women's studies at the University of Michigan, and it was the single most enlightening class I had in college, but not in the way the women's studies department had intended. In class, I heard all the stuff about how all men are rapists and oppressors of women, blah blah blah, and I thought about all the men I'd encountered up till the age of 18, and thought about my dad, and decided in short order that the wymyn were pushing a real load of it. I don't understand why so many other women believed it. My dad's not perfect, but he did his best to raise me to be a good person, paid for my college education, and told me I could do anything boys could do. If this is "oppression," more girls should be "oppressed."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 11:27 AM

Absolutely correct. There would be way fewer divorces if women would screw their husbands brains out once a week. Men are much happier, and more likely to stay home, when they get laid regularly without a lot of asking/begging, denying, whining, etc., which starts after a while to look like a game they can only lose.

Posted by: Donald at January 1, 2009 11:30 AM

There's a simpler expression of both Prager's point and Alkons. It has to do with the proper definition of "love." That term and the underlying concept is lost on today's culture.

• Contemporary Meaning -- pursuit of wants and desires
  
• More Complete Meaning -- acting with purpose and intent to do what is right and good for the other
  

The former is selfish; the latter is giving, which is the foundation of "love" in its proper sense.

Prager's example of a man choosing to not work is cumbersome. A better example would be a man who chooses, because of mood, not to provide what his wife wants and needs -- sincere signs of affection, devotion and fidelity. But a man who loves his wife will do that because he loves his wife; that is the expression of love. Similarly, a woman should understand the role of physical sex and see that as part of doing what is right and good for the husband.

Posted by: Arizona at January 1, 2009 11:31 AM

"Agreed. The list starts with "bedbug crazy" and proceeds through "narcissisticly self-important" before it gets to "irrational."

These are just manifestations of Amy Alkon's permanent negativity and dislike for other human beings.

In the election, she said that she hated both Obama and McCain, and thus was voting for Bob Barr, even though she also loathed Bob Barr.

This isn't a very healthy outlook on the world, particularly for such an intelligent woman.

Posted by: Toads at January 1, 2009 11:31 AM

After 17 years and three children my wife has "successfully" emasculated me to the point where when the moon is blue and she does want sex, I have trouble getting it up due to her expectation of me to take the rare opportunity to knock it out of the park. Now as the years press on, I can't help but feel that even if it is my fate to die alone like a dog, I'll be damned if it's going to be as I lay in front of my empty dish.

Posted by: jackson at January 1, 2009 11:33 AM

In the election, she said that she hated both Obama and McCain, and thus was voting for Bob Barr, even though she also loathed Bob Barr. This isn't a very healthy outlook on the world, particularly for such an intelligent woman.

The dime-store analysis of my psychology is always amusing.

The candidate I would've voted for in a hot second: Newt Gingrich. A guy I really like from what I've heard from him (at Reason magazine's 40th anniversary): Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. I'm not a joiner. I saw a lot wrong with both candidates in the last election, and being about 99.9 percent-plus sure that Obama would take California, I chose to vote according to my politics, which are libertarian. The fact that the libertarians ran a loser of a candidate, well, you can't have it all. Had Bob Barr had a snowball's chance in that made-up place called hell of winning, I would've voted for my next-door neighbor. Or, more likely, I would've written in Newt.

A question: How do you know that I have "permanent negativity and dislike for other human beings"? Have we talked extensively? Do you make it a habit of going around telling people what they think? Because it kind of brands you as an idiot and an asshole.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 11:40 AM

Men could do a whole hell of a lot to get the woman in the mood, instead of just expecting her to put out, turned on or not. I mean really, how many of these no-sexed husbands have given footrubs or backrubs, WITHOUT expecting a BJ in return, in the last year? Watched the kids while she went and got a massage? Did the damn dishes so she'd have a little energy left come bedtime? Why do men seem to expect women being in the mood to just come around like hailey's comet? It's not rocket science. If she's too tired, she's overworked and YOU need to help do something about that. If she's just not in the mood, maybe do something to change that?? Turn her on, what a radical concept!

I don't think a woman who's ignored till DH has a hard-on owes him anything. But then, I don't see why she's care about keeping him, either. I guess if she did care about keeping such a winner, she would put out no matter what.

Posted by: momof3 at January 1, 2009 11:50 AM

" This is the story of my life. I am a 35 year old man, married 12 yrs with a 5 year old daughter. My wife and I have had sex maybe (4) times in the last (3) years.

I am a corp VP, bring home six figures and give my wife what ever she wants. I also do most of the house work,(even though my wife stays home) on top of my (60) hour work week. My wife knows how her refusals make me feel. She does not even sleep in our bed anymore. She sleeps with our daughter, since sleeping in our daughter's bed allows my wife to "helicopter parent" even when she sleeps. Since my wife knows I will not leave my daughter, there is nothing I can do. She gave up on marriage counseling a year ago, and seems content with how unhappy I am. Lesson to all young men out there: they turn into their mothers"

Dude your being set up to get royally screwed in divorce court. Stop doing the housework, cancel her credit cards except one and drop the limit to the point you can pay it off in full. When she complains, tell her to get a job or keep up the house and everything else. Otherwise you will be paying alimony and child support while she is doing some other dude.

Posted by: cubanbob at January 1, 2009 11:51 AM

Amy,

I am merely going off of your own quotes. What is not in dispute is that you strongly disliked 3 different candidates, including the one you voted for. Go read the comments to that post - you will see that my opinion is not held by only me.

Wishing for a candidate who is not running is merely a weak copout.

Here, you quickly declare that Dennis Prager is 'narcissistically self-important' and 'irrational', which adds nothing to the article other than making you look negative.

'Have we talked extensively? '

We see that your articles have far more insults and put-downs of others than would be necessary to advance your greater point.

'Because it kind of brands you as an idiot and an asshole.'

Someone who is easily angered into profanity merely confirms my contention that they are anger-filled, and dislike far more people than they like.

Your articles and general points are good, and I read them often. But you just seem to have to put down someone before you can concede to support them/agree with them, whether Dennis Prager, Bob Barr, or a dozen others.

Posted by: Toads at January 1, 2009 11:57 AM

"Dude your being set up to get royally screwed in divorce court. "

I agree. Start taking protective measures now. Don't wait until she does it at your own convenience.

Sell your house and force your family to life in an apartment if you have to. Since you both pay everything and do all the housework, this is justified. That way, when divorce happens, your payments of alimony/child support will be lower.

Posted by: Toads at January 1, 2009 12:02 PM

Refusing sex sets up a vortex of diminishing returns for married women. A woman contiuously refuses to have sex, her husband will be forced to discover that "Hey, there's a lot of cool stuff out there in the world, and I'd just as soon be doing that than coming home to Mrs. Freeze."
WOMEN, you need to realize this:
You used SEX to GET us. You'd better use sex to KEEP us. We don't NEED you. We DESIRE you, and PUT UP with you so we can have sex. Like it or not. It doensn't really matter how you feel about it. The man you leave us for only wants you for your body too.

Posted by: Ttravis at January 1, 2009 12:08 PM

I don't need backrubs and my hubby does a huge share of the housework. All I ask is we have some meaningful conversation and a bit of mental/emotional closeness prior to a date. I've expressed this and he is happy to give it to me, but before that he had no idea what I needed. Women don't have to be given roses, diamonds, etc. We want our man to show love and appreciation without having to nag for it. If and when they understand this, things fall into place in a good relationship. When this is made clear and one's needs are still denied, the relationship needs emergency care or is already dead/dying.

And yes, feminism is to blame for modern women's attitudes toward sex. A couple of generations of being expected to put out on the 1st or 2nd date rather than to choose when and to whom to give oneself (and the divorce of sex from emotion) has really ruined many women. The gender roles are all screwed up - but this is something Dr. Helen covers frequently and is a whole separate and huge topic on its own. Suffice to say every one of her columns on this subject elicits comments from a torrent of men angry and dissatisfied with women (and vice versa). I feel more sympathy toward the men by far. Women have pretty much everything they think they want and are miserable - because what they've gotten is not what they wanted or needed. Which leads me to one more conclusion: IN GENERAL, women do not want or need sex. But our men do, and we would be very wise and happy to give them what they want to make them happy.

Posted by: Peg C. at January 1, 2009 12:12 PM

Dennis Prager is "irrational"? Huh? Do you even know what the word means?

I'm not a big Dennis Prager fan, and I disagree with him on many fronts. But the guy is hyper-logical and precise. It's the complete opposite of "irrationality."

As I headed down here to write this comment, I noticed that others have already pointed this out. Believe me: There's a valid reason people are contesting that description.

So, any other judgments or conclusions in your posts that I shouldn't trust?

Posted by: Thomas T at January 1, 2009 12:15 PM

Hey, Amy, it looks like you won't be outa bizness for while yet. Gee, I hope you guys that don't or won't talk can work something out. I'm not going to presume to tell you what to do if I don't know you well, and I can say with confidence that people I know well won't do what's right when they're locked up in some emotional fantasy.

I have a buddy who went totally gutless when his wife stepped out on him and their kids for the boss's son - thus ruining two good jobs. This moron, whom I've known for 40+ years, just stayed home for three weeks and cried and whined like a baby for her to come back. It's disgusting. Now, she knows he has no spine and she can do whoever and whatever she wants.

-----

"It's usually men who think porn stars are representative of a real woman's libido (hint: she is acting)."
Some, for good or bad, are actually that way. I know someone who was... addictive, even.

For a look at what retired pro Asia Carrera does nowadays, you could look here; the woman doesn't know how not to tell on herself. Yes, the first level is SFW, although it's not safe for your eyes, being green on black. Note the fitness photos, "before" and "after", and you'll see how far you can go and get back in shape...

Posted by: Radwaste at January 1, 2009 12:18 PM

""Dude your being set up to get royally screwed in divorce court. "

Also, start putting as much money as possible in a 529 plan for your child. That way, your wife cannot get that money, it goes to your child's college education (and cannot be used before college, by which time your kid is an adult).

Also, start documenting how you are a good father. In this era of compact DigiCams, that is easy. Tape instances when you take her to the zoo, buy her gifts, go to her PTA meetings, etc. All this is valuable. If it is true that you do the housework AND pay everything, you might get to keep custody of her (which would also save you child support in addition to forging a closer bond with your daughter).

It will also help in ensure your kid realizes which parent was the better parent, when your kid becomes an adult.

If you get divorced, GET A PRE-NUP NEXT TIME.

Posted by: Toads at January 1, 2009 12:20 PM

D: You are not alone. Talk to a lawyer-- really.

I've been living through 10 years of emasculation and ego erosion from a wife who is happy to refer to all the guys she screwed before, but can't be bothered to touch me. And I do all the housework, get the kids up, feed and bathe them, put them to bed, tell her she's beautiful all the time, and am perceived by her family and friends as the ideal husband. (I'm Ivy League, leader in my field, make the same kind of money you do, good at dinner parties, etc.)

I finally pushed back, and it's been a revelation. Even HER friends and family have asked "what took you so long?" If you stay on this path, the constant stress and self-doubt will damage your career, your ability to be a good Dad, and your health. Go out and get the meanest divorce lawyer in town, decide what you really want (for me, it's my kids), and let him or her turn up the heat.

You are married to a narcissist. It's not your fault. SHE. WILL. NOT. CHANGE. And you're worth more than that. Maybe after the years of neglect, you don't feel like you deserve to be happy. But you do. You probably have been enabling her (I know I did in my case.) OK, so you helped her destroy your sense of self. Just stop helping her.

Ask "Am I crazy, or is she crazy?" Ask "Do I REALLY believe she will change?" Ask "Is this what my family and friends want for me?"

If you're lazy about this, you'll fall back to the old, comfortable ways. And if you do that, you are not helping your kids. Your kids need a father who's emotionally present more than a father who's down the hall. Whatever her other merits, this woman is BAD for you, and that is bad for your children.

Break the cycle-- you're the only one who will. She has had the option to be a good person, and she has failed.

Hire the best lawyer you can, get the most custody you can, and start thinking about a healthy stepmother for the kids. (She doesn't sound like an entirely healthy mother, either.) You know what being passive has gotten you so far.

At the very least get a good therapist. You've probably got some depression going on (I know I did.).

I know EXACTLY what you're going through. And it can get A LOT better. You will get your mojo back, but you have to stand up for yourself without shame. If not for you, at least do it for your kids.

Happy to email privately if you like. Be strong. This gets MUCH better.

Posted by: Another Corporate VP at January 1, 2009 12:24 PM

[W]ould it kill you to throw [me] a quickie?

This is a very timely column, since I recently asked my wife this very question. I don't think I ever felt afraid or ashamed to have this conversation, but it took me awhile before I felt it could be a conversation rather than a fight.

I love my wife for many reasons but her libido, at least since her first pregnancy 14 years ago, is not one of them. In addition to whatever changes her pregnancy may have caused, she often feels tired, stressed, fat or otherwise not in the idyllic state of mind she associates with sex. My wife is an extremely intelligent woman but she was astonished to hear how much damage she was causing by insisting on perfect conditions for having sex.

I think Prager is mostly right about the stages of male unrest being hurt, sad, angry and quiet, although I'm not sure I ever felt sad. There is, however, an additional and final stage: gone. As I explained to my wife, unless she expects me simply to squelch my needs, she is asking me either to satisfy them clandestinely or leave. The choice, I made it clear, was hers.

To her credit, she thought it over and now understands that her perspective was dangerously myopic. She never again will be the woman she was when we were dating and would leave a trail of clothes from the door to the couch, but she is doing her best to make sex a positive element of our relationship. She's even been known to throw me a quickie.

Posted by: ronbo at January 1, 2009 12:28 PM

> Dennis Prager may or may not be
> right on this issue - like any
> other matter - but the last
> thing he can be called is
> irrational.

Dood, anyone, everyone is at risk for irrationality. Hero worship is for young children... If you're old enough to have room in your heart for humility on your own behalf, you should make similar space for the flaws in people you admire. You'll need it.

I admire Prager in many respects and have quoted him here many times. But this guy is a flawed human being. His arrogance is breathtaking, a one-in-a-million phenomenon. Like Andrew Sullivan, his skills as rhetor vastly exceed his gifts as a thinker, and he can't tell the difference. He's merely a a resource, like any other person who says interesting things... He's not an authority.

As regards this specific issue, I think Amy's right to quote him, and it's great that Amy understands that there's a fundamental difference between men and women that needs better exploration in popular thought.

But given the intensely personal nature of these these topics, Prager's private example deserves consideration: He married, had kids, divorced, remarried, adopted a kid, then divorced again. As has been noted earlier, this puts him in close alignment with Tom Cruise as an exemplar of marital romance well-handled.

Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 1, 2009 12:29 PM

It's attitudes like Ttravis's, I think, that have turned off my generation (X) to sex.

Women don't treat sex casually; we do look at it as an extension of love, of commitment, of a relationship. However, after a decade of serial sexual relationships and one night stands (aka, the dating world), women begin to think that the only thing that men care about getting from women is sex. Period. No other relationship. Ttravis just illustrated that point; no man, in his view, cares about a woman for any reason other than sex. So, why should a woman give a guy sex because he wants it if he's not giving her a relationship that she wants? If enough women my age believe that enough men believe like Ttravis, that's going to take all of the joy out of sex and zap any willingness to do their wifely duty.

This is a destructive mindset; I'm not defending it. And undoubtedly there are millions of people out there who don't share it, but it is still pervasive and is shaping the culture.

For example, for religious reasons, I don't believe in sex before marriage. (As in, I won't do it.) There are dozens of guys on threads like these (not this one, in fairness) who come out criticizing women with little experience as unmarriageable, frigid, or a waste of time. That they won't buy that cow without sampling some milk first. Well, what woman really wants to be a cow? Shouldn't there be something more? A man's worth is not tied up in his job or money; a woman's shouldn't be based solely on her sexual performance or experience. When a relationship comes down to whether or not a guy gets a BJ on a regular basis or whether a woman puts out X times a week, it really drives home the point that men don't care about women at all. It treats us like hookers.

That said, married women should totally be putting out more because it is a way of showing their husband they love them.

Just understand, Ttravis, why perhaps women lose interest in banging you. It's because you obviously don't value them.

Posted by: Ella at January 1, 2009 12:31 PM

I've quoted him far too often....

Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 1, 2009 12:32 PM

Word of warning toad and others. A woman that can keep you hanging around for that many years while doing what she wants has probably got the exit plan covered.

Concealing assets will get you in a word of trouble, as well. You married her, it's gonna cost you to undo that mistake. Suck it up and move on.

Posted by: momof3 at January 1, 2009 12:36 PM

I just want to know that she loves me and feels affection for me. When she commonly reject the whole me and fails to show any other emotional, intellectual or spiritual intimacy it become real difficult to maintain positive feelings about our union.

We have sex a couple of times a week, but never at my suggestion, always as an avoidance of despondance in a husband. Too often it makes me feel guilty as she is largely a "non-participant."

I cannot understand how someone so intelligent cannot see how a relationship can be built better. Here I refer to never wanting to discuss relationship building. I have tried to teach my children to never let their spouse wonder if they loved them, whatever it takes. I have had to work on my boys harder than my daughter in that regard.

Just do not let that wonderful spouse wonder if you feel affection and love.

Posted by: Have to be anon at January 1, 2009 12:45 PM

Never mind whether Prager is or is not irrational.

Would it have been just too much to simply agree with him on this issue, without the snarky putdown?

I guess so.

Posted by: mariner at January 1, 2009 12:55 PM

There is nothing that turns me on more or faster than my husband's desire for me. The smallest expression of his naked need is all I need to get going, even if I have a cold, even if I'm tired or stressed... and even if I don't feel up to intercourse. Honestly, how many brief minutes of my day does a blowjob take, and it rewards me a hundredfold in his continued happiness! The point is, I love him, and sexual intimacy is the greatest, most direct way of showing my love that we humans have. DAMN RIGHT I'm going to do my wifely duty, and FREAKIN' LOVE IT!!! :D

Great, now I'm all horny... ;D

Posted by: Melissa G at January 1, 2009 12:55 PM

Question for D and Corporate VP :

Surely, you must have known the woman for some time before marriage. So why did she change into such a bad person after marriage?

One of you said that 'people don't change', but this is somehow a big change from what she was early in the marriage, and before marriage. Or else you would not have married her.

Why did your wives become this way? How does a man avoid this, post-marriage?

Posted by: Tom at January 1, 2009 12:56 PM

This isn't news. St Paul pointed this out 2000 years ago:

"The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs. The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife. Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

1st Corinthians 7:3-5 (NLT)

Posted by: DC at January 1, 2009 12:57 PM

I am moved to remark that it is far more accurate to say that the willingness of a woman to give her body to her significant other is but *one*, albeit rather important (understatement alarm sounds), sign to men of this subtle emotion we call "love". Certainly, the willingness to cook for both or a family is another sign (as it is for either, yes, yes, I know), as is the habit of looking out for her man generally.

I realise this is undoubtedly what was *meant*, but was oddly disturbed that it wasn't said explicitly. Men aren't just sex-crazed rutting animals, at least not most of them. A comment (or two) before this one seems to show why it should have been said. Perhaps I missed that part with careless reading of the two-part essay by Dennis Prager.

Posted by: Crafty Hunter at January 1, 2009 12:57 PM

Actions speak louder than words.

Another rephrasing of Amy's statement might be:

Not having sex says pretty clearly "I'm just not that into you."

Posted by: Dishman at January 1, 2009 1:31 PM

"Dood, anyone, everyone is at risk for irrationality. Hero worship is for young children... If you're old enough to have room in your heart for humility on your own behalf, you should make similar space for the flaws in people you admire. You'll need it."

See, THERE'S an irrational response: It's logically unrelated to the argument it is presuming to rebut, it employs fallacies such as the ad hominem, and it substitutes an emotional response for reason.

THAT'S irrational rhetoric. And it's not the sort Prager trades in. He simply is not "often" "irrational," as the original post claims. He may be a gazillion other really lame, terrible things. But that's not one of them.

Look, "irrational" isn't just some all-purpose insult with some generic definition. It has a very specific meaning, particularly when applied to the world of rhetoric, which includes radio punditry.

Posted by: Thomas T at January 1, 2009 1:37 PM

After a series of sexual relationships that all end "when the spark is gone," the last guy in line (i.e., the husband) is really going to take it in the shorts sex-wise, because all of the guys that came in front stripped sex of being an expression of love and made it just an expression of physical appetite. And women aren't hungry at the same rate as men. Thank you, sexual revolution! Agatha Christie, of all people, wrote in a couple of her mysteries that she (well, Miss Marple) was disappointed in the commonality of premarital sex; it seemed like sex was hostile or a drudgery because it was so common, whereas in her day, it was called a sin, but at least it was also called fun.

Women need to appreciate that men view sex as an expression of love and approval, and it is unloving to deprive men of sex or make them beg for it. Men need to understand that demands for sex give the impression that you don't care about the *person* at all, only your own satisfaction, particularly when you're not married or committed to a woman or when the relationship isn't given the same weight as sex.

Posted by: Ella at January 1, 2009 1:47 PM

This "permanent negativity and dislike for other human beings" obviously doesn't apply to Amy's dad, or to other men she met before the age of 18. But it does seem to apply to a lot of career politicians. I'd sum that up as common sense.

On the issue at hand, I think Dennis Prager and Amy Alkon are right, because while adults who cut their partners off without sex deserve the wrecked relationships they get, children, who pay the most important costs in divorces and other breakups, don't have it coming.

Of course if you're childless and planning on remaining so, I warmly advocate cutting off your partner as soon and often as you like. The sooner you partner faces the full truth about what your future together would be like and either knuckles under forever or decides it's not too late to have a real go at life the better.

Posted by: David Blue at January 1, 2009 1:47 PM

I would put it quite bluntly: you can put out, or you can be put out.

When a woman withholds sex as a power game, there's nothing to salvage. It's better for all concerned if the relationship is ended.

Posted by: Some Guy at January 1, 2009 1:53 PM

jackson,

After 17 years and three children my wife has "successfully" emasculated me to the point where when the moon is blue and she does want sex, I have trouble getting it up due to her expectation of me to take the rare opportunity to knock it out of the park.

Wow, that sounds an awful lot like me. There is one difference: The moon is never blue for her. No sex at all in many years. In some ways, that's a blessing, as it avoids the embarrassment you hint at.

Not having sex leaves me feeling resentful, no question about it. But I also miss being hugged, being kissed, and having my hand held. I don't get the sense she thinks much of me.

Oh, I know: If I'm that whipped, why should she think that highly of me? Well, how about because I stick around because I want the kids to be raised by both their parents?

For me, there are no solutions; only tradeoffs.

Posted by: sofasleeper at January 1, 2009 1:54 PM

You're the blowhard, Amy, you fuckin' retard.

Posted by: David at January 1, 2009 1:55 PM

Melissa G,

Do you have a sister?

Posted by: Some Guy at January 1, 2009 1:55 PM

To D at 10:46am:

Read cubanBob's response at 11:51am. Then read it again.

I was you. Had it made -- good job, great kids -- except for my wife, who didn't want anything to do with me. Treated me like a housemate, or servant, rather than a husband.

I put up with that. More, I did all the things you're doing, to try to change her mind. (It doesn't work.)

Wife knew that I thought that anything, even suicide, was preferable to divorce with kids involved. (I don't claim this as a universal truth, but it's true for me.) So she treated me like crap, knowing she could get away with it.

Once the youngest kid was in school (no longer a full-time burden for her) she blindsided me with divorce.

I was extremely lucky. My job was flexible and understanding enough to give me the time I needed to deal with all the crap. The court decided that my highly-educated wife had no excuse for not working and therefore deserved no alimony. And I won 50% custody of my kids due to pre-existing traditions in local law. And even with all that luck, my standard of living has fallen drastically. (We still have food, clothing, and shelter, but I now dread the thought of major car repairs, and I can't imagine how I'll pay for the kids' braces, let alone college.)

Prepare yourself now. When (not if) your wife files for divorce, you'll need the equivalent of a couple month's paid vacation to deal with all the legal crap. If you can't take that much time off from work (at the judge's convenience, not yours), you'll lose your job. If you live in a state that's unfriendly to dads, you'll lose your kids. (Maybe you can move before she files for divorce.) In any case, you will likely lose half or more of everything you've worked for.

Talk to a lawyer. Now. I know you don't want a divorce. That doesn't matter. She will, and when she does, she'll get one. You can't stop it. What you can do is prepare for it.

I am not a lawyer, and I won't give you legal advice. But if I had known what I know now a year or two before divorce hit me -- if I had had some time to plan, and execute plans, while I was still comparatively rich -- my kids and I would be in much better shape right now.

Talk to a lawyer, now. You owe it to your kids.

Posted by: Sam at January 1, 2009 2:19 PM

Someone said:

"Men could do a whole hell of a lot to get the woman in the mood, instead of just expecting her to put out, turned on or not. I mean really, how many of these no-sexed husbands have given footrubs or backrubs, WITHOUT expecting a BJ in return, in the last year? ... Did the damn dishes so she'd have a little energy left come bedtime? ... If she's too tired, she's overworked and YOU need to help do something about that. If she's just not in the mood, maybe do something to change that?? Turn her on, what a radical concept!

Um, wow. Hey, guys, how many of you get backrubs and the like before you screw your wife? Or mow the lawn? Or do anything that (apparently) is a chore?

Me, I would hope my wife wants to have sex with me enough that she would say, "Hey, let's hurry up and get our groove on, leave the dishes in the sink for some other time!"

But then, the problem here is women don't really want to have sex with their husbands, so all sorts of terrible, terrible reasons (back of hand across forehead, sad sigh, swoon) are created so she cannot. Naturally, all of the reasons are *your* fault, men.

I call bullshit on this game. Women's bodies. Women's sex drives. Gals, take ownership of your choices. If you don't want to screw your husband because of dirty dishes, just admit you don't really want to screw your husband and quit blaming him or the damn dishes or your husband.

Posted by: Spartee at January 1, 2009 2:24 PM

Followup to D:

Some more good advice came in while I was writing my bit. "Another Corp VP" is right on. I hope you're still around to read his take. Others as well.

To Tom at 12:56pm:

Can't speak for the others, but my ex has a family history of pregnancy-linked mental illness. Of course, I didn't find THAT out until after our first child was born.

Posted by: Sam at January 1, 2009 2:29 PM

Men,

Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup.

It will save you from everything except child support, in most cases.

If you are afraid to ask, is that the type of relationship you want to get into? If she refuses, is that the type of relationship you want to get into?

Posted by: Toads at January 1, 2009 2:30 PM

Sam,

Why did your standard of living fall so mcuh if you did not have to pay her alimony, AND you get to keep 50% custody of the kids?

I would think that you still have your full income, AND are only paying 50% of the kid's expenses, given that your wife also supposedly got a job.

So why did your standard of living fall? Did it just fall immediately after the divorce, or is that the case even years later?

Posted by: Tom at January 1, 2009 2:34 PM

It seems as though a few people are castigating our hostess for saying the following:

Agreed. The list starts with "bedbug crazy" and proceeds through "narcissisticly self-important" before it gets to "irrational."

But if you'll look again, that was written by Charlie (Colorado) at 11:18 a.m., not Amy. Just seemed like someone needed to clear that up.

Posted by: Kev at January 1, 2009 2:36 PM

Do you have a sister?>>>

You read my mind.

Posted by: sean at January 1, 2009 2:44 PM

It seems as though a few people are castigating our hostess for saying the following: Agreed. The list starts with "bedbug crazy" and proceeds through "narcissisticly self-important" before it gets to "irrational." But if you'll look again, that was written by Charlie (Colorado) at 11:18 a.m., not Amy. Just seemed like someone needed to clear that up.

Thanks so much, Kev. Appreciate that! Off working on my book, so I'm not monitoring comments as much as I'd like to.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 2:46 PM

It's a two way street, like anything else. Things have changed a lot over the last few months, but momma and I both had a tendency to happily sex the other when they were in the mood. Honestly, it was far more often me who was uninterested, than her. I would have been content to have the sex once or twice a week, she's more interested in sexing almost daily.

She understood that when I had a hella hard, physical day at work, the last thing I was going to want was to have the sex. She accepted that unless she really felt the need for a hard fuck, it wasn't the best time. But beyond that, there were plenty of occasions when I just wasn't all that interested. I had other things I would honestly rather be doing. But I never said no to her and on the rare occasions I initiated the sex, she never said no to me.

There is simply no excuse for not occasionally indulging our partners, just because we don't feel like it.

Posted by: DuWayne at January 1, 2009 2:51 PM

Tom:

Because I had to buy the house away from her. More precisely, I had to pay her for half the increase in equity since we bought it (community property). A paper gain that I had to pay for with real money. And since I wound up having to do this at just about the tippy-tip-top peak of the recent bubble, that just about doubled the mortgage. Theoretically it was a good investment, and I'd get the money back when I sold the house -- but now the bubble has burst.

Yeah, I probably should have just sold the house. But it was the only house the kids had known, in the neighborhood with all their friends, and they were having nightmares in my ex's apartment ...

Posted by: Sam at January 1, 2009 2:52 PM

You're the blowhard, Amy, you fuckin' retard.

Stay classy, David!

I call Prager a blowhard from personal experience being on TV with him. He's a loud, rude, irrational guy who uses his booming voice to talk over anyone he disagrees with. Reminds me of another loud, rude, irrational I've been on TV with, Frank Pastorre. It's one thing to disagree with me (or anybody). These two are bullies who won't let the other side be heard.

As for your comment that I'm a "fuckin' retard," kindly support your argument with examples of my retardation. Or are you just a wounded Prager fanboy?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 2:52 PM

I spent most of my 30s regretting not having yet gotten married, still flitting around in romances, dating, the whole thing.

Now at 39, the more I encounter feedback like the posts above, the happier I am to be where I am: single, with a good job, and no wife anywhere in sight.

I love women, and I don't mean that in some cheesy way. I prefer women's company, I like talking with women, I have far more female friends than male. But in the realm of relationships, our culture has turned women into monsters. They've got EVERYTHING now: the respect, satisfaction and worth that come from high education and professional work -- previously the domain of men -- on top of the sexual power they've always had. They get the best of both worlds, because despite now being the on-paper equivalent of men, they still get to be catered to, acquiesced to, lofted onto pedestals, etc., the way women always have been.

In other words, we've created a bunch of freeloaders: women who get the benefits of being treated like men while still getting the benefits of being treated like women. They're freeloading off the lingering inertia of the 99.9% of human history in which the two genders had distinct societal roles and there was thus a legitimate REASON that women were catered to, lofted onto pedastals, etc.

Females have always been less interested in sex then men. That's biological. But until the last century, a woman didn't get to scale down her marriage's sex life at night AND head out the next morning to go reap the fruits of professional work and a salary.

Why did anybody think this whole thing was going to work? Why did we overthrow millennia worth of human history just to heed feminist ideas, as if the relative blink of the 20th century had lessons for us that the previous thousands of years did not?

Absolutely nuts.

Posted by: Thomas T at January 1, 2009 3:02 PM

Som,

OK, so it was more about unfortunate market timing rather than the law screwing you. Had you sold, OR had the market not tanked, you would not be financially hit much..

Actually, you should have let her keep the house, and force her to pay you after it tanked. Then, the situation would be reversed.

Another thing people should do is not buy a house until the kids are at least in the 1st grade. That way, you get past the 'scribble on the walls' stage, and also have fewer years of child-support/house risk if you get divorced, as there are fewer years left until the kids grow up and leave.

Rent a 3br condo or townhouse until the average age of your kids is at least 6.

Posted by: Tom at January 1, 2009 3:06 PM

Tom:

Oh, and even though I have 50% custody, I'm still paying 70% of the kids' expenses, due to the vagaries of local law and the ratio of my income to their mother's income. That's a small hit, though, compared to the mortgage.

And I'm not looking for sympathy. As I said, I've been very lucky, especially given how clueless I was going in. There are plenty of folks out there who have fared less well. I know some men who've had really appalling experiences.

I was just trying to give "D" a heads-up that I wish someone had given me.

Posted by: Sam at January 1, 2009 3:10 PM

>>>It seems as though a few people are
>>>castigating our hostess for saying the
>>>following:

>>>Agreed. The list starts with "bedbug
>>>crazy" and proceeds through
>>>"narcissisticly self-important" before
>>>it gets to "irrational."

>>>But if you'll look again, that was
>>>written by Charlie (Colorado) at 11:18
>>>a.m., not Amy. Just seemed like someone
>>>needed to clear that up.

As far as I can tell, there's just one person castigating our hostess for that statement. Any other similar castigation is taking place because of her post's opening sentence.

The sentiment of which she is still expressing, I see, without even acknowledging any of its emphatic rebuttals.

Posted by: Thomas T at January 1, 2009 3:10 PM

This is "original OS" stuff (survival of the species).---

Program still running.

Posted by: Don M at January 1, 2009 3:20 PM

Any other similar castigation is taking place because of her post's opening sentence. The sentiment of which she is still expressing, I see, without even acknowledging any of its emphatic rebuttals.

I find discussing Dennis Prager any further uninteresting.

I do think that, if you love somebody, you do what you can to make them happy. Rosemary Basson's work is wise on how female and male sexual desire cycles differ. I've written about this in one of my previous "Advice Goddess" columns about how waiting around for a woman to feel desire is exactly wrong:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2006/09/groping-for-mor-1.html

In a series of studies published in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, sexual medicine specialist Rosemary Basson noted data showing that a third of women lack sexual interest. A third? Hmmm…could the problem be not in women, but in the expectation that desire in women works exactly like desire in men? Well, that’s what Basson found. When a relationship is new, or when women are away from their partner for days or weeks, they’re more likely to have “conscious sexual hunger,” just like men. But, once women are in long-term relationships, they tend not to have the same “spontaneous sexual neediness” men do, but they can be sexually arousable, or “triggerable.” In other words, there’s a good chance the problem isn’t with your girlfriend’s desire for sex, but in how you’re both waiting around for it like it’s a crosstown bus.

A better approach is what marriage therapist Michele Weiner Davis calls “The Nike Solution” (i.e., “just do it”) in her smart but depressingly titled book, The Sex-Starved Marriage. Jumping off from Basson’s work, Weiner Davis explains that women may not feel desire initially, but if they just start fooling around, they’re likely to get there.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 3:22 PM

"but if they just start fooling around, they’re likely to get there. "

So true. That is why a lot of younger hotties end up with 'jerks', to the frustration of 'nice guys'. It is because the jerk had the courage to make a move, and persist even after her initial protests, while the 'nice guy' waits too long to make a move, or thinks the signals are not strong enough.

So the 'jerk' vs. 'nice guy' contrast is really a 'proactive. confident' vs. 'passive, unconfident, afraid of rejection' contrast.

Posted by: Toads at January 1, 2009 3:40 PM

You know, Amy ... I've been meaning to tell you this for quite some time.

I love you.

Posted by: justsayin at January 1, 2009 3:43 PM

Wow...you guys who have been so badly treated by your (ex) and wives. I am so sorry for you. :( There is no excuse for treating any man like a servant or roommate.

I love my hubby and would do nearly anything for him - I'd be thrilled if he were more interested in having sex. *sigh*

Posted by: sad anon at January 1, 2009 3:44 PM

Tom: Thanks for the kind words. And to answer your question, "What changed?", I wish I had a simple answer.

In my case, it was a bit tepid from the start, which she blamed on childhood abuse. She also promised to get into therapy for it. Like any right-thinking person blinded by love, I thought: "OK, but she'll work on it for me." She didn't.

But that's not even the crux of the issue. We can name the issue "Sex," but what it really is wifely contempt. As in absence of support, hostility to your family and friends, belittling your work (despite your success), et al. After she's been cold to you for a while, like a problem-solving male, you redouble your efforts-- maybe if I work harder, compliment her more, let her pick the movie, then she'll love me. And she was still beautiful and I still loved her, so why not.

But you can't love what you despise. The harder I worked for her love, the more pathetic I seemed to her. PLUS, she probably felt guilty because I actually WAS the one doing all the work.

A lot of it comes down to character. Neither of us had really been tested before we were married. And she abandons everything-- grad school, Job 1, Job 2-- so I don't see why she would behave any differently with me. In retrospect, I should have known, but we live life in real time. Was I complicit? Yes. Could she have worked harder? Hell yes. I can't change her, but I can stop helping her tear me down. And it's lonely, but I've been lonely in the marriage for years, so I know I can handle it.

So I'm solving the problem now-- and I hope D and sofasleeper do the same. Again, you do your kids no favors by becoming a shell of who you can be. They need a strong you, not one plagued by self-doubt. Living away from your kids seems excruciating, which is why I got the meanest lawyer in the state, but the path you're on leads to emotional death followed by early physical death. And that leaves the kids with her as the sole parental influence in their lives.

For people who aren't married yet, I would say that character is the most important thing to screen a mate for. For people like D and sofasleeper, you HAVE to save yourself. You owe it to your kids.

Could I have foreseen the problem? (Which again is not sex, but the refusal to work hard and honor her husband.) Probably. Anything I can do about it? Not really. Just be the best Dad I can, and maybe find a good woman who will honor me. Because I'm worth honoring.

Posted by: Another Corporate VP at January 1, 2009 4:21 PM

Hey Sam,

Hang in there.

I was married for 12 years to a charismatic and intelligent but messed up guy (drug use etc.) Several years ago I finally got to the point where I was strong & mature enough to take control of my life & leave him.

Now I'm dating a man whose story sounds a lot like yours -- and I pinch myself every day at how lucky I am to have found him. He's the most thoughtful, funny, sweet guy. And I'd do ANYTHING for him. I so admire his strength, his integrity & his steadiness, and I am so blessed that I've been given an opportunity to appreciate him -- and show it.

You deserve a woman who sees you that way -- who will size up what you've done with your life and recognize what a joy it will be to love you. She's out there -- just give yourself some time, find some interests to pursue as you find time that will get you out of the house, and you'll run into her someday.

We're not all pea brains, we're not all users. And some of us, having come up through some tough times ourselves, will be more appreciative to find a guy like you than you can imagine.

Posted by: name withheld at January 1, 2009 4:35 PM

Another Corporate VP:

I'm still working through some of this stuff myself, and your comments are very helpful. Thanks.

Posted by: Sam at January 1, 2009 4:47 PM

My husband only wants me to give it up when he wants it. He is not affectionate towards me unless it is going to lead up to sex. He never compliments me and I am above average in the attractive department. I work 40 hours a week and take care of the kids more then he can just because of his demanding work schedule as well. I am usually tired and my libedo is low. He seems to think that I need to give it up more but I have lost my desire simply because I need emotional stimulation which is what makes me horny, I like to be touched throughout the day not just before getting it on. As I write this I am happy to say it is a new year and just the awareness my husband is stirring up is making me hornier. Just remember it takes 2 to tango give more to your wife on an emotional level and she will put out all the more often because she needs to feel needed and not just before sex.

Posted by: PMJ at January 1, 2009 5:32 PM

All of you guys deserve women who respect you! A real woman has self confidence and is not afraid to be herself with you. No games! I hope that you all find someone who treats you well.

Posted by: sad anon at January 1, 2009 5:37 PM

My husband and I will be celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary in June. We have always had a good sex life and I've seldom turned down my husband. That is not to say that I walk around in a state of perpetual heat - much of the time, I wasn't initially in the mood when my husband "made a pass" at me, but in a few minutes, he could put me in the mood ;-) I'm a nice Catholic girl who still gets a kick out of being seduced and he figured that out early on and took advantage of it :-)
I think Peg C hits the nail on the head. The two of you should want to make each other happy. Sex makes him happy, but it also makes me happy, even when I don't experience fireworks, because I'm glad he's happy. And I find it reassuring that even in my 50's, with boobs that aren't so perky anymore and strech marks from 3 pregnancies, my husband still wants me. And he is balding and doesn't have the perfect Marine bod he did 25 years ago - and I wouldn't trade him for all the buff himbos in the world.
I was not a virgin when I married, but my sex life had been pretty limited and maybe that is the reason I never got bored with sex after marriage. It always retained a naughty thrill for me, precisely because it wasn't the sort of thing I would do with just anybody. The hooking-up done by today's college kids sounds terribly depressing and just not very erotic to me. If sex is no big deal to you when you're 15 or 16, is it any wonder that a time comes when it really becomes no big deal - something you can do without? That's one of my main objections to casual sex at an early age (my own religious beliefs notwithstanding).
My own advice? To women - don't let yourself go, but don't get overly hung-up on the fact that you don't have the same figure you did when you were 22. I think men will accept that if they know that you love them and want to be with them. It's funny, isn't it? We're bombarded with sexual content constantly, talk about sex much more than our parents ever did, spend fortunes on boob jobs and Botox and hair plugs - and yet so many people seem to be having miserable sex lives. To men: remember that women don't have your sex drive and want love and tenderness more than intercourse. This was difficult, initially, for my husband to get - I had to tell him (men aren't mindreaders). That doesn't mean diamond tennis bracelets and roses - try a little cuddling and kissing. (A friend recently told me after 4 glasses of wine that she hasn't been properly kissed - French kissed - by her husband in 20 years, because he doesn't like kissing. Yet he expects BJs. So it goes both ways.)

Posted by: Di at January 1, 2009 5:38 PM

Some sad stories repeated here, voices not often heard. Some of the problem is men are not what we have historically been, and women sense this. Hard for me to understand, I'm a fisherman and live off the land, much more of a traditional life, and the women around here often have to share in the labor and the joy of living. The more radically we insulate ourselves from the real world (suburbs, then living in an apartment, then on the 29th floor) the harder 'just living' seems. When men get expensive haircuts and women don't want to get their hands dirty providing for the family, we lose respect for each other. My love hates cleaning fish, but when it's busy she chips in . I do my share around the house, try to pull my share when I'm ashore. We respect each other and it isn't perfect, but we wouldn't change it for a thing. Reminds me of the old farmer couples I knew growing up. When life is artificial and centers around ease of living and entertainment of the self, it seems alot harder to put the work into a realtionship and investing in someone else. Guess I'm just lucky.

Posted by: Chris at January 1, 2009 6:10 PM

women may not feel desire initially, but if they just start fooling around, they’re likely to get there.

Speaking from terra firma on the far shore of menopause, I've found this to be true. Sometimes you just get rolling with a little faith that the engine will jump start.

I wonder if part of the problem is that many people have come to expect so much from each sexual experience. We think it has to be mind-bending every time, and that can feel overwhelming. I think it's healthier to approach sex as a form of play. Also not every race has to be a marathon...sometimes a sprint is just what the doctor ordered. ;-)

Posted by: deja pseu at January 1, 2009 6:13 PM

If sex is no big deal to you when you're 15 or 16, is it any wonder that a time comes when it really becomes no big deal - something you can do without?

I think that you're on to something w/ that observation. A lot of women I've known who'd been promiscuous when they were younger seem to resent sex once they get older. I don't know why this is, but it suggests that the insouciance they'd professed as young women wasn't entirely sincere. Otherwise why would they regard the experience negatively as a result?

Posted by: Marko at January 1, 2009 6:22 PM

I don't agree with the assertion (often made) that women "biologically" are just not as interested in sex as men. If anything, women are MORE interested in sex than men. If you want to throw scientific terms like "biological" into the discussion, I think you have to look at the whole picture. Whe humans were still mainly hunters and gatherers, every woman had sex, and had children. BUT, not every man got to have sex. Only the "alpha male" had that perk. That's the way it was(biologically) meant to be. Then populations grew, clans and tribes(where everyone pitched in to help raise children, because they were all at least distantly related) gave way to nations, where a woman couldn't get the help necessary to both birth and then feed/raise a child made it imperative to "assign"(through a new societal invention called marriage) a woman to a man(whether or not he was an alpha male) so thar HE could be out in the field while she raised/fed the kid(s). If anything, women still want the alpha-male(the "jerk" or the "bad boy" so often referred to) because "bilogically" THAT's who's she supposed to mate with. If you don't think women wat sex as much as men do, look at women's magazines, sex is all they talk about. A woman's orgasm is infinitely more intense than a man's is. Sex is more common early in a relationship because women can fool themselves(for a while) that they're WITH an alpha. Soon enough, they realize the guy they've married isn't, and they lose interest in HIM, not in sex.
B.T.W. I've been married nearly 20 years, the sex is great(the only stumbling block is opportunity, with so many kids still at home) and my wife is, if anything, more beautiful now than she was in college when we met. I'm one of the lucky ones, to be sure. But I know enough of the unlucky ones to have come to the conclusion that "bilogically" not every male horse gets to be the stallion that gets the mare. And That's just biology. I think marriage is a great institution, but while it helps raise children, it DOESN'T make a woman desire the man she married. She'll always want an alpha.

Posted by: Travis at January 1, 2009 6:48 PM

If sex is no big deal to you when you're 15 or 16, is it any wonder that a time comes when it really becomes no big deal - something you can do without?

I'm not sure who through this out there, but I do find that it fits me. I was really very big on the casual sex for many years, from about fourteen on. Going into my late twenties my desire for Teh Sex went down considerably. At thirty two I find that I can really take it or leave it.

Honestly though, I am tending to look at it as a good thing really. I am heading headlong towards becoming a full time single dad and will not be parading women through the lives of my children. Given that my kids will be with me most of the time I'm not in class or working, dating isn't really going to be an option. My folks will occasionally take the boys for a night or two, not exactly a recipe for fomenting romance.

But I'm finding that I'm ok with that. Not having this driving desire for the sex is extremely helpful. At the same time, I really don't feel like I'm missing something. I've been there and done that - a whole lot with a whole lot of women.

Nowadays I'm pretty much entirely focused on my kids and really need to be. The infant is well pleased with most anything, but even he's having trouble with the changes in momma. The oldest is having a much tougher time. He's finally realizing that momma is getting worse, isn't likely to get better and understanding that she probably isn't ever going to be who she was.

I've got way too much to deal with to worry about Teh Sex.

Posted by: DuWayne at January 1, 2009 6:53 PM

Yes, leave the dishes (for example). Let them rot and have sex. Fine, in a whirlwind relationship. For the long haul, no. They do have to get done. You going to hop out of the sack after and do them? Or is she going to wake up to all that mess in the am? Or be up till midnight after the sex, doing them? Marriage is practicalities, because life is. Things have to get done. Yard mowing, dishes, laundry, snotty kid noses wiped (boy, is THAT a turn-on for us women!)

My point hat most men who don't get enough sex need to look at what they can to get her mind in that sex sphere is still valid.

Posted by: momof3 at January 1, 2009 7:20 PM

> It has a very specific meaning,
> particularly when applied to
> the world of rhetoric, which
> includes radio punditry.

Someone insulted your radio friend, and your feelings have been hurt!

We all feel bad about that, and for all I know, I've been a bigger fan of him than you have. But taking such enthusiastic offense on his behalf doesn't betoken a sensible respect as much as idolatry. Alkon's got the right technique here: Admire the good moments, but don't fall into hero-worship.

He's not worth it... But by all means, Thomas, do what you need to do. Have you met Mr. Ford?

Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 1, 2009 8:12 PM

Wait; why is your point supposed to be considered valid when it's still being trumped, superseded, overruled, and so on by Amy and Dennis's point. Namely, that in the first place, it's irresponsible of women to pretend that their minds and hearts and bodies need to manipulated into "the mood" by someone else before they should make love with their husbands/SOs.

Why should your mere presumed privilege of being gotten into "the mood" before engaging in intimacy take precedence over your own actual real-world responsibility to help get yourself there yourself? Why aren't you getting yourself into "the mood" on your own?

Posted by: Acksiom at January 1, 2009 9:27 PM

Women do not need romance....they need seduction and men who know how to seduce don't need to ask, cajole or beg their wives for sex. Most men just don't want to make the effort, or they don't know how to seduce their wives.

Posted by: belle at January 1, 2009 10:04 PM

No, belle; it's men whose partners choose to behave like responsible adults who don't need to ask, cajole, or beg them for sex.

That's because the common masculine standard of frequent, self-starting sexuality is by far the more normal, healthy, adult, responsible one.

Those who want sex often in a committed relationship without having to be manipulated into that mindset by someone else are being responsible, because sex, particularly as an expression of desirability, is one of the best ways to keep a paired relationship healthy.

So why should men be expected to also shoulder women's responsibility to want sex with their partners in a relationship, as you appear to expect of them?

Why, exactly, should men have to do your work for you?

Posted by: Acksiom at January 1, 2009 10:35 PM

One more thought for our new friend Thomas T:

> But the guy is hyper-logical and
> precise. It's the complete opposite
> of "irrationality."

Prager believes in a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being who takes a personal interest in our lives, but permits suffering.

Is that the stuff of "hyper-logic", or just typical human neediness?

Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 1, 2009 10:39 PM

"Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup."

Also, don't forget the POST-nup. Prospective divorce terms can be negotiated at any time during the marriage. I personally believe that most red flags are apparant before marriage. But for those of you who are really blindsided by a spouse's contempt, you are not helpless.

Posted by: snakeman99 at January 2, 2009 1:12 AM

> I personally believe that most
> red flags are apparant before
> marriage.

Agreed. I wish more people were eager to get the counsel of friends about choosing mates, and that people grew up to think that giving good advice about marriage partners was an important part of friendship.

A bunch of commenters today have been sharing bitterness about wives or husbands who won't give comfort, and it's tempting to ask them, after all that sorrow, do you really want to fuck them anyway?

I think people in such marriages with kids too should absolutely do their best to pull things together and raise the kids.

But for the rest, this article came to mind: "The marriage or the couple is an abstraction: it is the individuals who matter."

Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 2, 2009 3:10 AM

Why should your mere presumed privilege of being gotten into "the mood" before engaging in intimacy take precedence over your own actual real-world responsibility to help get yourself there yourself? Why aren't you getting yourself into "the mood" on your own?

What exactly do you mean by that? You think women are responsible for making themselves aroused because it's "manipulative" to expect the man to do it? That sounds pretty selfish to me.

If wives should not resent their husbands for wanting sex more frequently, husbands should not resent wives who need to be "warmed up" before engaging in the act, unless "warming up" means expensive presents and dinner at a chichi restaurant. For me, warming up means a little kissing and cuddling and - well, that little thing called "foreplay." It is as unreasonable to expect women to do without it as it is to expect men to be happy in a sexless marriage.

Reading the comments, and thinking about other comments I've heard from people, I'm struck by how many people seem to view the whole thing as some sort of power play. If he gets his way, I lose, and vice versa. The radical feminists of my youth thought that having sex with a man when you didn't really feel like it was like being raped. Some men apparently think it's manipulation to expect them to put you in the mood. Sheesh, how about doing something because it pleases your mate and therefore should please you? It seems to me that starting out with the mindset that any compromise, or taking your spouses preferences into account, is letting yourself be used and suckered and manipulated. If you start out thinking that way, you're better off staying single and getting a cat.

Posted by: Di at January 2, 2009 4:44 AM

Prager believes in a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being who takes a personal interest in our lives, but permits suffering.

Is that the stuff of "hyper-logic", or just typical human neediness?

I am not a religious person, and have plenty of my own doubts about the supernatural being you've described.

But I'm also aware that the process for arriving at faith can be scrupulously rational (cf., Augustine, Aquinas, et al.). The word "theology" has a "-logy" at the end for a reason, after all.

Again, I have no particular affection for Prager. But I do care about rationality, so I like seeing the concept properly identified and appreciated.

Posted by: Thomas T at January 2, 2009 4:55 AM

If wives should not resent their husbands for wanting sex more frequently, husbands should not resent wives who need to be "warmed up" before engaging in the act

Bingo. It's about accepting and respecting each other's differences, and making loving accommodation.

Posted by: deja pseu at January 2, 2009 6:47 AM

> Again, I have no particular
> affection for Prager

And yet it was on his behalf that your ire was raised.

> But I do care about rationality

More than it cares about you... Absent hero-worship, there's no need to be so twitchy on behalf of language. It'll defend itself. People on this blog in particular are often far too precious about their belief in the scientific method and "rationality", as if certain that ego, prejudice and fear were not factors in their lives.

Posted by: Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 2, 2009 6:50 AM

But I'm also aware that the process for arriving at faith can be scrupulously rational

Let's be honest: belief, sans evidence, that there's a big man in the sky who cares about your life is as rational as believing there's a big purple grapefruit up there waiting to give you the winning lottery ticket.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 2, 2009 6:58 AM

If wives should not resent their husbands for wanting sex more frequently, husbands should not resent wives who need to be "warmed up" before engaging in the act,

From the perspective of somebody who hears people's marital and sexual problems by the dozen every day, I'll tell you that many women shut down ANY kissing or attempt to get cuddly because they know it will lead to sex.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 2, 2009 7:00 AM

If you aren't going to have sex with your wife then what is the point of being married? Guys can get companionship and love from their dogs or from other guys. Sex is what makes the man/woman relationship special and different from those other types of relationships.

How many relationships would last if one partner insisted that they be the only one to prepare a meal for the other and then failed to do so on a regular basis? Would you really be surprised if you caught your partner at a restaurant or eating at a friend's house under those conditions? Well you shouldn't be. It isn't rational.

Variety is also important. If you only get one type of meal, let's say hash browns, and that is all you are allowed to have then eventually you will have to balance your diet out elsewhere.

The other thing that tears guys up is when a woman looks upon sex as something that has to be endured. If your partner is unenthusiastic then it takes most of the fun out of it. It doesn't have to be fireworks but it doesn't have to be a chore either.

Lastly, as unrealistic as women think pornography is the female version of pornography, soap operas or romance novels, are just as bad. No one acts like that in real life. Emotional exhibitionism is as foreign to most men as sexual exhibitionism is to most women... but we do our best without feeling "used." Any straight man who has ever attended an opera or a Broadway play can tell you all about true love and the sacrifices that have to be made.

Posted by: Howard Stern at January 2, 2009 7:03 AM

Another Corporate VP:

Thank you for the offer. I guess I stay because I am deathly afraid of what will happen to my daughter if we divorce. Would I probably get custody, yes. Is it 100%, no. I am not willing to take the chance. I am sure my wife would do all she can to turn my daughter against me, and I think it is best for her to have me around as much as I can, no matter how crappy my marriage is.

Pathetically, I am also concerned about what would happen to my wife on her own. She cannot manage anything, and I fear that her life would spiral out of control. I did take a vow to protect her, which I am doing now.

Tom:
My advice to you is look and see what the #1 female influence is like (99% of the time her mom). Your future wife will be like her. For me, it took a child to make this happen. Before the child came along, I could not have had a better wife.

Thank you to all for the comments. It is comforting to see I am not alone.

Posted by: D at January 2, 2009 7:05 AM

What exactly do you mean by that? You think women are responsible for making themselves aroused because it's "manipulative" to expect the man to do it?

No; I think women in normal, healthy paired relationships are responsible for making themselves aroused because it's their own adult responsibility to do so.

I think it's immaturely irresponsible to expect the man to do it.

If that doesn't clarify my meaning, let's try coming at it from another angle: what exactly do you think women's responsibilities for making their men aroused are?

That sounds pretty selfish to me.

Well, yes; expecting men to be responsible for both arousing themselves and arousing their partners as well is pretty selfish.

If wives should not resent their husbands for wanting sex more frequently, husbands should not resent wives who need to be "warmed up" before engaging in the act, unless "warming up" means expensive presents and dinner at a chichi restaurant.

Except, of course, for how it's about adult responsibility within a relationship, not resentment.

Again, why should men be expected to also shoulder women's responsibility to want sex with their partners in a relationship, as you appear to expect of them?

Why, exactly, should men have to do your work for you?

For me, warming up means a little kissing and cuddling and - well, that little thing called "foreplay.".

And if you're not willing to have sex with your husband when you're not in the mood, and you're also refusing to take normal, healthy adult responsibility for getting yourself into the mood, making him do your work for you instead, then aren't you engaging in exactly the kind of behavior that Amy and Dennis are trying to warn people against?

It is as unreasonable to expect women to do