The end of the affair
6:54 p.m.
In my life, I have discovered that there are some things whose importance outweigh other things. For example, self-preservation undoubtedly tops the list. That would include having enough to eat, shelter from the elements, and some kind of occupation to keep from going crazy, even if that is simply the pursuit of the first two. It’s a pretty bleak kind of existence, which would account for why human beings like to hang out together. We enjoy social interaction, the sense of belonging, the warm glow we get from being surrounded by like-minded thinkers, whether it be a stadium full of fans cheering for the same team or an audience listening to an address by an academically-renowned intellectual. People come in all shapes, sizes and IQ’s. We generally find our own level after a while and know with whom we are comfortable.
I am not comfortable with people who think that the pursuit of sex lists up there with the top three. I know, again from my own experience, what it is like to have more partners (both long-term and one-night) than I can count on my fingers and toes. I also know that nothing compares to sex in a relationship where both participants are truly committed to each other, where the sex act itself would be incomplete without the love and friendship and sense of sharing that comes from a long association. When you are in a union like that, then orgasms are really not what it’s all about. They’re an added perk, a bonus, a unifying factor even, but can probably be replaced by a quiet game of Scrabble or gin rummy, hugs, kisses, and hand holding. It’s not about putting your penis in a warm vagina (which interestingly enough is the Latin word for sword sheath; so what does that say about the penis itself?), to use just one example, it’s more about the relationship between the owners of said body parts.
I went back to Greg’s page and was appalled by one comment in particular that was left there by one of his readers:
Whoah... What's up with the guy that didn't get any for 2 years from his significant other. He should have moved on. That's NUTS.
Posted 10/25/2006 at 11:59 AM by factor_fiction
Is sex the only reason why a man (or woman) stays in a relationship? When a couple have been together for eight years, in this case, and have two children and are committed to each other legally and materially as well as emotionally, when the reasons relating to the lack of sexual interest on the part of the wife are directly connected to having had sex with this particular man in the first place, should a guy just walk out because he is no longer “getting it” at home? Is anyone truly that shallow?
I do not deny that the sex drive is hardwired into our makeups. Without it, we would not have been a very successful species. On the other hand, we also seem to have an amazing capacity for tenderness, commitment, loyalty and love, other undeniable characteristics of the human genome. We are not lions who must ensure the continuation of their DNA to the point of killing nursing cubs so that their mothers will become sexually receptive again. At least, I hope we’re not. Humans have evolved (hopefully) past the point where we are held ransom by our instincts. When it comes to sharing food, most adults will do with less to ensure that their children have more. They will shiver rather than see those same children inadequately dressed. There are things that we will do for love which may be the complete antithesis of what we truly desire for ourselves. Not having sex outside of a committed relationship may very well be one of those things. It certainly can’t be any harder than quitting smoking.
That is what I posted today over at the other place. I got a number of comments (a whole lot of them, actually) but I felt like reproducing here only two, both from women, both totally contradictory:
If a person walks away from a sexless marriage, I cannot fault them as being shallow. When we enter into a marriage, the understanding is that it will include sex. If one person decides it is no longer going to be part of the union, they are not holding up their end of the bargain. Sex is a need like hunger or thirst, but one we will not die from lack of. A man has a load of fluids he has to dump periodically or it causes pain. Either he does it assisted or he does it alone.So, anyone who desires sex and does not get it has two options: to cheat or to leave. If someone walks away from a sexless marriage, I think they are doing the honorable thing, as cheating would be ethically the worst of the two.
I have a friend who hasn't had sex with his wife in several years. He is angry about it and is an affair waiting to happen. Certainly there are other aspects of marriage that makes it a worthwhile thing to hold onto. However, those wonderful things will always be shadowed with the anger of being denied a basic human need.
Posted 10/26/2006 at 1:27 PM by polymergoddess
I totally agree with you, and I, too, was appalled by the comment Greg's reader left. I don't think it's necessarily a given that a marriage includes sex. It completely depends on the two people involved. I know of several situations in which sex has taken a back seat waaaaaay in the back of the bus and both spouses are perfectly happy with it. Scrabble and snuggling continues apace, so it isn't as though the marriage is falling apart. The real issue is whether the couple mutually agrees to jettison sex permanently or temporarily, for whatever reason.
Your post makes me think about Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the pyramid used to depict it. The base of the pyramid lists the basic survival needs: Food, water, shelter. Maslow apparently included sexual activity here along with bodily comfort and exercise, although it could be argued that those things are not absolutely necessary for survival. But then at the third level of the pyramid, in the love & belonging category, is sexual intimacy. This strikes me as closer to the kind of sex that's part of a marriage, the kind that you describe. So, then, are there two kinds of sex? Is Maslow's hierarchy even valid?
Posted 10/26/2006 at 2:51 PM by Corbow
<~~~ * ~~~>
