To think it's crazy that we hang our stability on sexual attraction?

[NoisyDenimShaker]

This post is about being married (or as good as married).

As I've aged, and seen entire lives blown up over sex, it's occurred to me how completely crazy it is that we organise our entire lives around something as fleeting, whimiscal, and delicate as sexual attraction.

Our life's finances, our children's sense of home and stability, our mental health, our very home, which should be our sanctuary, is all ultimately hung on sexual attraction.

It's. Crazy.

And I don't have a better idea. That doesn't mean our species' way isn't INSANE.

I know people might say, well it begins with sexual attraction but it develops into something more, a shared history, being family, being best friends, deep love. I agree wholeheartedly with that, and it's my answer, too. I'm someone who was made for commitment, and I get more bonded and interested in my partner as time goes on. I'm not someone who gets bored with commitment.

However, after many years together, my husband did not feel the same. The lure of the big wide world beckoned, other women seemed more attractive, and off he went. And he used to be so in love with me. The same thing happened to a good friend of mine. Her husband adored her, until he decided more sex was more important and went off seeking it.

And we've all seen the threads on here about runaway husbands.

YOU might be comfortable with longterm married/committed love, but we really don't have much control over the possibility of a restless or unfaithful partner. And so our entire lives can get blown up, easily, over sex.

The truth is that all our security and stability is hung on sexual attraction, and I think it's utterly insane.

I have no answer, but it does occur to me that the aristo way of doing things - marrying for business reasons - might be more sensible than our way, which is to organise things around often-fickle hearts.

I'm getting divorced after a very long separation and I'm determined that my home and security will never depend on a partner's sexual attraction to me again, so I guess I'm heading for a LAT relationship if I find someone I really like. (Living Apart Together.)

I really miss not having a life partner, but on the other hand, I'm glad that the stability and security of my home isn't built on the bedrock of marriage, which is - according to a divorce lawyer who wrote a book entitled IF YOU'RE IN MY OFFICE IT'S ALREADY TOO LATE (or something) - well, according to him, marriage is all about sex. I had thought sex was a part of it, but he reckons marriage is all about sex.

Well, I don't want my security and stability to be tied to sexual attraction. It's too fleeting.

Sorry for the essay. What are your thoughts?

Well, exactly. It was a shock to me to find out, as the years unfurled, just how much marriage is based on bloody sex, sex, sex. I had thought love was based on so much more, but for many people, it's ultimately conditional upon sex. I think it's sad.

It's interesting that you characterise the sexual desire you have for your mate as a happy bonus. It might be that way for him too, which means you're truly compatible, but most men see the sex part as crucial, not a side thing like a happy bonus. And that importance that so many place on sex is where society runs into so much trouble.

It's simple biology though isn't it? Men aren't designed to be monogamous and the sooner women realise that the happier our lives are. Marriage is a social construct that doesn't fit at all with our biological urges.

Thanks for this thoughtful reply. I totally agree about sexual disinterest being a symptom, but for men, it often seems that they're led by sex. But really that paragraph agrees with my point - that sexual attraction can and does go away (for whatever reason) and then we're in trouble. HATE that our lives are based on this, hate it.

It truly makes me wonder if the solution is discreet but open relationships. Think how many homes would remain intact, how many couples could enjoy their lives together without the pressure of having to be the fount of all things sex to one person in addition to being a parent, a wage-earner, a best friend, etc. How much happier the higher-drive spouse would be if they could get a discreet seeing-to and not lose their homes and spouses and kids and finances for it.

Don't get me wrong; I'm a romantic who believes in enduring committed love. But for far, far too many people, this model doesn't work. We can see it in the family break-up all around us.

@NoisyDenimShaker
Well it was mostly tongue in cheek. But yes, the sec is secondary to both of us. Important, and a very key and enjoyable part of our connection, but nonetheless secondary to the much more important emotional connection that we have formed over the years.

There have times when sex has had to take a backseat - post partum, post surgery (for me), partner working away temporarily, being examples that spring to mind. At those times I've asked him if he misses it? Does it bother him? His answer has always been, "yes of course but sex isn't everything - I love you and I want you to be 100% well before we're intimate again so you can enjoy it too". And when working away, things like "of course, but I know it's only temporary and I'm coming home to you, and that we have an amazing sex life when I'm home", etc. What this communicates to me is that my DH values his emotional connection and intimacy with me above a sexual one, as I do with him. He's either a really good liar who's been sleeping with other women during those brief spells of little sex, or he's telling the truth because he genuinely does value me above and beyond the sexual side of things. I choose to believe the latter.

So yes, I flippantly used the phrase "a happy bonus" that I'm still very much sexually attracted to him, 9 years and a child later. But ultimately, if that part has dwindled, or if any of the emotional connection had dwindled, I'd be unhappy and probably wanting to end it with him. It's not really an either/or for me, both connections are crucial to our relationship. I don't think either of us would be happy with sexual or emotional distance - they'd make us equally unhappy I imagine.

I'm not sure if that makes much sense or is relevant to the point, I'm waffling. But it's the best I can explain.

It sounds like you have a great spouse who knows that sex isn't everything and who - quite rightly in my view - prioritises love and connection and shared history etc. over bits of flesh rubbing together for a few minutes.

I wish we all had such spouses.

Your language is very telling OP. I'm assuming you're not interested in sex at all if you describe it as

bits of flesh rubbing together for a few minutes.

For many people, sex is an expression of how they feel about their loved one and very enjoyable. I'm guessing your relationship was celibate.

I wouldn't stay in a celibate relationship, I enjoy physical intimacy with a partner. I certainly wouldn't stay with someone who saw it as 'bits of flesh rubbing together for a few minutes'.

However I don't expect you to see my point of view, those who don't like sex can never understand those who do.

It doesn't stop you from having a relationship. There are definitely men for whom sex is not important and have very low libidos.

Quite wrong; I have a very high sex drive. My point is that it's crazy to throw away decades of a shared life for a pleasure that is fleeting.

To be fair, the OP used that expression when describing the type of sex that people throw away marriages for. Usually when men cheat like this it isn't on account of some big expression of the joy and love they feel for their affair partner.

Twice divorced here due to men turning out to be twatbags. I now have an ultra cynical worldview.

Most other people I see around me, in all honesty, are dealing with twatbags that they either should divorce but can't afford to, or should divorce but prefer the "security" of a relationship with a twatbag over being alone. I can count on the fingers of one hand men I know that are decent, honest, not cheaters and pull their weight at home. And these are all men that are outwardly "nice".

Living singly in 2024 is EXPENSIVE, and it's usually women on lower incomes/going part time/needing to fit work around childcare so they stay with the knobs. The world is set up for couples, and I'm so over it.

It is best to be as financially independent as you can in this world.

Exactly. Thank you.

Disagree with this, far more complicated than that.

This sounds like you're suggesting marrying someone for shared values but allowing them to have sex elsewhere without it threatening the stability of the relationship

I guess the point of marriage is to protect the lower earning partner in the event of a split. In that sense it works well. If you stay together forever marriage makes no difference. It comes into its own when the man fucks off with a younger woman leaving his wife to deal with the kids. At least she can get half his assets to help her rather than the situation and unmarried woman might find herself in.

I think there's more to sexual attraction than just liking the look of someone's appearance and wanting sex with them. Wanting a physical relationship with someone is usually a result of a whole lot of factors that represent what we want in a life partner. So a lot of women wouldn't be sexually attracted to a man who wasn't nice/funny/kind or who didn't seem healthy/fit/strong/intelligent or whatever things they thought would bring them happiness and a good life. If we reflect on what we find sexually attractive beyond appearance, and what are deal breakers regardless of his looks, then we often find our attraction is giving us the key to what (we believe) we need for a good life.

I think when a man leaves, it is more than just sex. Otherwise he would probably just go with a prostitute where there is no emotional connection. Anyway, take a look at this graph:

People have always been the same animals, but religion was ingrained into our society and kept people's desires in check. I thought most people had stopped believing in God years ago, but I read an article the other day about a study which concluded that Britain has only recently entered its first 'atheist' age, with more atheists than believers. This comes with a breakdown of societal values. "God is dead... anything is permitted..." and all that.

And maybe women's rights have something to do with it. Or are linked... Or birth control.

Sex is also more readily available these days, due to the above plus things like Tinder.

Drinking culture might also be a factor.

Sorry, my mind has been wandering. What was the question again?

Didimum made two different points. Which one are you referring to?

Was there meant to be a graph? I'm interested to see it if so.

I think your partner didn't value the things that you valued in the relationship. That is what it comes down to. I don't think most sane people would throw away a great relationship that included sex, for sex with someone else. Generally an affair is a sign of unhappiness for one reason or another. I'm middle aged now and seem to be surrounded by men having mid life crises and having affairs. These mens wives aren't doing anything wrong but the men aren't happy - stressed by long hours at work, realising they aren't going to meet career goals, young kids at home, a wife who's a bit boring as she's exhausted and they have no time alone together, the men are just wanting something more from life than the mundane existence they find themselves in. I think women are much more likely to put others before themselves and soldier on rather than behave in a way that risks destroying the family unit.

Yes. Hang on...

You don't have to get married.

I never have. I was able to get through life fine by myself.

My Dad told me long ago that the most important decision I'd ever make was who would be the father of my children.

I was outraged at the sexism of it at the time, but it's true, even for financially independent women.

I agree with this advice. But we can never truly know how another person may behave in future even though we may be able to make educated guesses based on what we know of them.

Did he not say that you could also choose to stay single, and not have any children, if you want.

Tried to insert a picture...