- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
The National Sex Survey was full of information about rates of sexual problems. Waite and Gallagher do not have much to say on that topic. Here's some of what they skipped over. With regard to some of the problems men might have, such as an inability to maintain an erection, climaxing too early, or experiencing pain during sex, currently married men have nothing over men who have always been single. When the two groups differ on those measures, it is the married men who are more likely to be having difficulties. Men who have always been single also report fewer sexual problems than divorced men. Among the women, the group most likely to be problem-free is not the currently married women. Read More
Rings very, very true. Cohabitation is the where the heat is.
So, me = married middle aged white guy. Trying to be mindful of decorum, what Dr. DePaulo says is absolutely true in my experience. I only wish there were more fine-grained geographical and demographic categories available. What I'd expect to see is this:
1) Highest frequency of sexual activity: cohabiting couples.
2) Highest hotness factor: defined couples who live in separate places. Not being together every day is definitely a plus for all parties.
I miss those days of being in category 2. Ah well.
definitely a good point
definitely a good point logic001, and I can't see how it could possibly not be true. Seeing someone ALL the time is definitely a turn off. It's one of the reasons I'd be weary of moving in or marrying someone. If I'm really into someone, I don't want to cheapen that or start taking it for granted.
Emperor has no clothes
I admire Dr. DePaulo's courage to speak out against the endless brainwashing campaign by the "Marriage is Good" pushers of morality.
While my own research to date has been more focused on the legal liabilities of marriage ( http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com ) specifically for higher earners, the lifestyle/happiness observations that Dr. DePaulo makes are just as important.
I think that both
I think that both cohabitating and married people do not want to admit it their sex lives are lacking. A lacking sex life in a relationship is considered a failure, people are not going to admit that in a survey, especially if you want to support the case for marriage. I've studied environmental economics, and one are of heavy study in that field is that people often have a motive when answering surveys. If you ask someone how much they would be willing to pay to save a natural resource, if they are environmentalists, they might give you an answer that's much higher than they could even afford. Even if they're not particularly concerned with the environment, they might not want to look bad, and they'll give you an answer higher than they would actually pay if you put real money on the line. If there's this much bias in natural resource contingent valuation surveys, imagine how much bias is involved in asking people to "value" their marriages.
Also, if married people are having all this great sex, why do they always have to "try" to have to babies? That's all you ever hear them say: "we're trying to get pregnant." If you're having regular sex anyway, you wouldn't have to make a concerted effort to schedule it for the right times, and if it were so good, you wouldn't make it sound like such a hassle.
There's an African proverb, goes something like this:
If a man puts a bean in a jar every time he lays down with his wife in their first year, and then starts a second jar for counting, the second jar will never catch up to the number of beans he put in the first one.
I'll raise my hand as a married guy, and channel other married guys I've talked to, and say: YEP, true that.
So yes, I do suspect that married people are putting on a brave front when self reporting this sort of thing.
There is alas something about constant exposure to a romantic partner that makes it all...not romantic anymore. I reckon it's just a feature of the human mind, like smell. The first time one walks into a bakery with bread almost done, the smell is just irresistible. Stay long enough, and your sensory signals adapt to where one doesn't notice anymore. The same thing with people. Like a bakery, or music, or anything else, a romantic/sexual partner is best when he/she is not part of your typical day. A *little* bit of hunger is a good thing.
I read something once that
I read something once that suggested that biologically, once you have a child with someone, they become like family and then you are no longer really sexually attracted to them, that humans are not really meant to have more than one child with the same partner. It's something about the female bonds with the child and leaves the male out and then there's also this idea that we're supposed to be diversifying the gene pool, not creating multiple children with DNA from the same two people. Makes sense to me.
It does all seem rather contradictory to me, the way we handle marriage. People refer to their husbands and wives as "family." "Family" does not have any sexual connotations, in fact it seems a lot like the opposite. People even share last names when they get married, as if they related by blood. All the other aspects of marriage- the managing of the household and finances- all things devoid of any sexuality. It is very strange to me how marriage is on one hand totally based on sexuality, and on the other, completely devoid of it. Personally I couldn't think of anything less sexy than being called a "wife."
Marriage seems like a "DaVinci code" conspiracy sometimes
Good points there. It's rather uncanny that this "defend at all costs" institution of marriage is optimized for spawning children and then shutting off sexual interest, and keeping women in their place, and keeping men too busy and anxious about risk and responsibilities to do anything unconventional. Know your place there young lad -- don't want to lose your job and not feed your family now, do you?
And so the married men hurry along to their little tasks, pursued by a little cloud of worries and expectations, and the need to work harder each year, to be a little more selfish each year. Hey, it's a dog eat dog world, they tell each other...what's a guy gonna do?
I suspect in the rear view mirror of history we'll see that marriage was handy in Bronze Age patriarchies as a way to deal with female daughters when far flung villages were the norm. Then it morphed and proved a useful way to control citizenry and grow crops of obedient subjects for the Roman Empire (Emperor Augustus was pretty frank about this, from what I read once). Now it's getting obsolete fast.
So true about the "wife" moniker. It's not for nothing that we sometimes speak of a "frumpy house frau" as the antithesis of male desire.
How often do single people
How often do single people really have sex? I'm a single woman and I have it about once a year because I don't want to get emotionally attached (and I always do.) Also, I don't want to get "pumped and dumped" (a.k.a. played.) I know many women who are similar. At least married people / people in relationships are getting *some* sex in a (usually) safe environment. I get so sexually frustrated even though I relieve myself every day. I envy them.
I agree with you that sex is
I agree with you that sex is an issue when you're single. Even if you get some safety can be a problem when you're not in a "relationship." Every few months I usually find someone to "date" including sex and then just try to be as safe as possible. It depends how often I meet someone. This is one reason that lately I've been wishing I could meet someone that I could have a "relationship" with, so I don't have to worry about certain issues surrounding sex, but I don't see that happening anytime soon so I'll just have to stick with the not-so-regular sex and the safety precautions!
I had no problem with casual
I had no problem with casual sex until I met a total psycho that put me off sex outside relationships. You never can tell, so now I'm down to once a year when I get really, really, really desperate! I think he was taking his anger out on his ex-wife (who I didn't know about until afterwards.) He was such a convincing "nice guy" but...not nice. At all. I'm just not willing to take that risk again. I'd love to find a relationship but it's not as easy as it seems!
Human property
After the age of 40 the minute a woman has sex with a man he thinks he owns her. He can call anytime, stop by her house any time (and refuse to leave) and tell everyone that she is his girlfriend when most definitely she is not. After 40, a woman has to deal with a man's increasing girth and the accompanying decreasing erection, and the problems that go with both. Then there is the added issues of men who say that want an interesting exciting sex life but what that really means is regular sex in the missionary position with almost no foreplay, then to roll over and fall asleep. I like sex as well as the next person but I like my life better without it, less hassle.
Single people not living
Single people not living together do have very hot sex. Exactly the type they want at the frequency they want.
As far as the safety of multiple sex partners: it's not. But one-night stands happen, and you do what you can. Some people go in for that, some don't.
Again, I think it's more the stigma that surrounds our sexual choices than our actual needs and desires that shape our actions sometimes, sad as it seems.
Post new comment