This relationship-related item, about a story from the Today Show's website, made me cringe:
In short, a married man asked Dr. Gail Saltz, a Today show contributor, about his wife suggesting that he seek sex outside their marriage instead of marriage counseling, like he said he offered. According to the husband, his wife said, "To save time and to save our marriage, I give you permission to get your sex with other women...All I ask is that you be safe at all times, don't knock anyone up and don't bring it into our home at all."Aisledash blogger Heather Hawkins reacted:
To me, it's just a lazy solution for a much bigger problem, and I completely agree with Dr. Saltz's assessment:In the original item, Dr. Saltz described the wife's proposal as "retro and problematic":"It sounds as though your wife has largely opted out of this relationship. She apparently is neither interested in romance and passion with you, nor in trying to figure out where it went and how to get it back. Yet she doesn't want to lose the life or partnership you have together...Someone who truly wants a marriage to work does not grant his or her spouse permission to seek sex elsewhere."
It's unfortunate, but I've known many women and men who've lost the passion in their marriages and decide that this is a viable option rather than trying to find a better solution. And, if a relationship, especially one that has lasted many years, is in fact doomed to end, it can be even more difficult to accept what some consider failure. But isn't failure when you don't even try?
There was a time, decades ago, when some women chose to look the other way and let someone else “take care of” their man’s sexual needs because they preferred not to. This is no longer that time.The reason I cringed when I read this was that, a little less than ten years ago, I - almost - could have been that guy's wife.
If there's any truth in the cliché that the things couples conflict over most often are sex and money...well, First Husband and I rarely had issues about money. We weren't exactly in the same ballpark as far as our physical needs and wants, though. I felt pressured and fearful, he felt denied and rejected, and although he would say that this was his only complaint, and "on balance, it was good," he said that a lot, so maybe it wasn't so good on balance after all. As for me, I didn't feel free to complain much about anything, at least not openly. However, I can't imagine I could ever have directly opted out in the way this guy's wife has. And ultimately, in our case, permission didn't matter - he went elsewhere anyway. We separated, reunited, and got counseling (which I should note sometimes is most helpful in identifying what you can't reconcile, like it or not; it's not a guaranteed fix), but the foundation was too damaged to repair - because in our case, and probably in this couple's as well, it's really about other things besides sex.
The part I relate to more, though, is wanting to hold on to the life and the day-to-day partnership - to keep the marriage in structure, if not in content, if that makes sense - even in the face of this non-functioning element, a Major Issue if ever there was one. I was willing to do that, for awhile, and even argued in favor of it. In hindsight, I'm lucky that he disagreed. We were living in a very painful situation; divorce eventually abated that particular pain. The failure of a 17-year marriage was a different variety of pain, one that was healed by time, distance, and new love.
However, the fact that I seriously considered, and even wanted, the "retro and problematic" situation of hanging onto that particular life is what prompts me to say sometimes that "no one really knows what goes on in a relationship except the people in it - and sometimes they're not sure either." People make bargains with each other in relationships all the time - sometimes openly, sometimes not. Sometimes it's a very functional process of negotiation and compromise, focused on the health of the relationship. Sometimes it's something entirely different. Sometimes there are things they agree to disagree about, or to disregard. And sometimes honest communication is scary, or just too bloody difficult.
I learned a lot from the decline and fall of my first marriage, and much of it concerns things that I won't do, or don't want to have happen, in my second one. There are some bargains I wouldn't be willing to make this time - but there's a lot more faith that I won't be in a position where I'd have to consider them, either. As for the Today Show couple, no one but them really knows what's going on in their relationship, but it sounds like they're going to be making some unpleasant bargains - or ending negotiations entirely - before too long.
As a somewhat more upbeat follow-up, Heather posted this item a couple of days later, also via Dr. Saltz and Today. If you don't want to head down the road the couple discussed above seems to be on, here are a few simple suggestions for marriage maintenance (comments added):
- Be flexible, or pick someone similar to you. Naturally, the compromising gap is always going to be smaller if you and your partner have similar morals, goals, values, and ways of thinking in general. Unless a couple is extremely flexible in compromising, having commonality will help your relationship stay strong.
- Give 80 percent. If you're giving 100 percent, that leaves nothing for yourself – a big mistake. However, giving love breeds love, and your partner should receive the majority of your passion. (Also, I'd add that there are two people in the relationship, so all the giving shouldn't be on one side; ideally, your partner wants to give 80% too.)
- Love on balance. This means it's OK if you don't love everything about your partner (and realistically, all the time, you probably won't. Just remember that works both ways too!)
- Treasure your "life history." No one else in your life can fully understand that history but your partner, so treasure that intimacy.

8 comments via Blogger:
I can relate to this on so many levels too. From the eyes I have now in my new life, it is hard to imagine that I was there and considered what I had a workable relationship. But we did, for a long, long time.
Pam - I know just what you mean.
I have to say here, Me too.
Many "shocking" compromises seem like a good idea at the time. When the alternative seems so unthinkable, so undoable, so painful, we will settle for all sorts of what-should-be unbearable stuff.
Working Girl - Exactly.
I feel like I'm shortchanging my responses to comments on this post, but I guess I've said my piece already. I'm glad that y'all know what I'm talking about, but sorry that you've been there too.
I'll start with saying that my sex life with my husband is fine, thanks, and we're both happy with it.
However, I don't feel nearly the criticism that Dr. S does toward's the woman's suggestion.
Sex is not the be-all and end-all of a relationship. There are couples who decide to live celibate, together; there are people with minimal sex drive; there are asexual people.
If two people love and respect each other, if they are good partners on every level except this, why couldn't this be a reasonable solution?
Because the husband in this case wanted it to work with his wife, I do think she could have tried counselling (with a sex therapist, though, not a marriage counsellor). If her lack of libido is the issue, sometimes hormone therapy can work. There are things that could - and, I think, should - be attempted.
However, they are not uniformly successful. So what happens if this couple who love and respect and want to stay together will just never be in synch sexually?
Is the woman destined to "put out" forever? Sooner or later she's going to resent her husband's unrelenting need, legitimate as it is, and what wasn't a relationship-breaking issue will become one.
Interestingly, I just finished a book called "I'd Rather Have Chocolate". Now, I think the author of this book has SERIOUS problems and is in need of long-term therapy about her attitude to sex. However, there is one chapter in there which flips the paradigm on its head in a provocative way.
In the chapter, a panel of men is on Oprah, discussing how their excessive sex drives came close to ruining their marriages, but how, after therapy, they learned to be satisfied with less, they are so much happier. Freed! from their previously insatiable urges, they feel so much more in control of their bodies and their psyches, so much more true men.
The question is: why is the lesser drive seen as the problem in need of a solution?
Anyway. If, after therapy and attempts, the woman's libido still lags tremendously behind her man's, and if, in every other respect it is a good marriage ...
why not let him meet those needs elsewhere?
MaryP - As you so often do, you present an intriguing perspective.
In reference to this question: "Why is the lesser drive seen as the problem in need of a solution?," I can tell you that as far as my ex-husband was concerned, that was the case, and it might have been less stressful had it been approached from both sides.
I think you have a valid point about sex not being the be-all and end-all, but unless BOTH people in the relationship feel that way about it, it can complicate how the whole thing works - and I suspect that's where it becomes a problem in and of itself.
As for letting a partner meet his (or her?) "needs" elsewhere when everything else about the relationship is good, it's risky. Even if both people THINK that things are working, there can be emotions stirred up that change perspective (found that one out the hard way...).
But again, nobody really know what's going on except for the people in the relationship.
BTW, I've read a bit about that book, and I got some of the same impressions - a bit extreme, is it?
What she does in the book is outline her attempts to "fix" her low libido, by systematically trying out all sorts of different approaches.
In each case, however, one gets the impression that she is trying it out only to prove why it can't work for her. The one method ("sensate focus") that seemed to make a positive difference she discarded because 'if it doesn't fix it ALL the way, why bother?'
But where I truly parted company with her was when she quoted a fellow who said that if we could manage to look at the act of sex objectively, it's really rather a ridiculous pastime.
Now, I have no problem with that idea. If you'd never seen it before and had no idea what it was, it probably would look pretty odd!
But she concludes from that perspective that women who lack the driving force of lust to motivate them to pursue sex and blind them to its absurdity, must therefore find it (I don't have the book here, so this isnt' a quote) embarrassing, demeaning, and repulsive.
Beg pardon? "Absurd" is not "repulsive".
And their "solution" to her low libido put so many checks and balances, so many clauses and subclauses and restrictions on his behaviour that I can't imagine him staying in the marriage, or at least, staying faithful, long-term. Not if he had anything like a normal sex drive. At no point was he ever in control of the sex act. It always had to be hers.
Frankly, whether she admits to it or not, I'm left with the strong impression she's a victim of childhood sexual abuse, so strong is her revulsion toward sex and fear of giving any control at all to her partner.
So, interesting, yes. Thought-provoking, yes. But balanced, rational, and mentally healthy? No.
- MaryP
MaryP - Thanks for the book review :-). This definitely sounds like a case where, as you mentioned in your earlier comment. the lesser drive was seen as the problem, but I don't get the impression that she really wanted to solve it - at least not in any way that was healthy for her marriage.
I'm thankful my issues have never been quite THAT big.
Post a Comment