Day at home

[jay]

Strep hasn't knocked me down -- no fever or other symptoms -- but I felt not-right this morning, enough that I stayed home from work to try to pre-empt the bug. A telecon including hopeforyou (who was also offsite at her place) went well. Later, bad news about the air traffic project I presented in DC last week... the local NASA management group that has been putting together a new program for FY05, and using us as its poster-child for marketing purposes, is now going to reduce our part of the budget to ten percent of the total while warping our purpose into being basically just computing infrastructure support for things in which they're more interested.

Otherwise, I fixed a door closer and a balky lock, rested, and took Kevin to the park and tried to throw toy boomerangs with him. We were laughable. That's perfectly OK. ;-)

This evening, I talked with patgreene, including a lively discussion regarding whether women actually ever wanted sex for its own sake, or just went along with it in order to gain things that they valued more (like cuddling, or attention, or building emotional ties). There was no verdict... maybe more in a future post.

Comments

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

discussion regarding whether women actually ever wanted sex for its own sake, or just went along with it in order to gain things that they valued more

Embrace the power of 'and' Brian. I often "go along with it" (though for us, it's more of a conscious choice and gift--speaking Akien's love language, which is touch). But there ARE times when I just want sex for sex (though Akien undoubtedly feels that's not often enough!).

Sorry to hear about the research politics. :^P

And it also sounds like it's a good thing we skipped lunch, if you came down with anything that might be "proto-strep." Well, here's best wishes for a speedy "recovery" (or near-miss--whichever!).

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Thanks, and I agree (much as I hate missing the opportunity, which may be rare this month) that skipping Monday lunch was a good idea. I wouldn't want to expose anyone... and you have enough household issues right now! Sigh...

How does Akien know when you want sex for its own sake? Or does he assume that you're still "going along" even when you're actually turned-on?

I always thank my own partners afterwards, because I figure that they've sacrificed or been inconvenienced on my behalf -- given me a gift.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

It is often difficult for him to tell. In fact, one of the things we are working on at the moment is trying to shift this very dynamic. How I put it last week is that he usually assumes I don't want him. And that for the optimal functioning of this aspect of our relationship, it would work better if he would assume that I want him. This is a hard shift, because we have years of "evidence" to support the first position.

While I think it's great to thank one's partner, I would caution you against assuming that they've "sacrificed or been inconvenienced." Being in a state of gratitude is great, especially when the feeling is mutual. But the way you've described it, it could easily end up with a skewed power dynamic--you perceive your partner as having all the power (they get to choose whether or not to make the 'sacrifice'), and in fact are to some degree *forcing* the responsibility on them. By placing yourself in the "lower" position, if you will, you force them into the "higher" one. Is this at all clear? It seems a bit muddy even to me. Anyhow, it's my opinion that sex works best when it's a sharing of equals, a mutual exploration. Which doesn't mean that you can't mutually agree that one person will give a gift to the other. You just can't assume that the other person's reason for having sex is purely altruistic, or that they might not have chosen it on their own, anyway.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

we have years of "evidence" to support the first position
Eerie... this sounds like akienm and I have very similar outlooks in that area. Almost verbatim, except I apply it to all SOs, not just my long-term live-in partner. How does that negatively impact that aspect of your relationship? If he assumes that you aren't interested, then he has to work harder to entice you or turn you on... not a bad deal from your side, I'd think.

your partner as having all the power
Social conditioning, perhaps, but I thought that women did have all of the power in that area... in this culture, at least, they're the most at risk and thence the gate-keepers (so to speak ;). I've never had a same-sex relationship, so I don't know how those dynamics would work.

Still, I'm grateful when my partners choose to indulge me :-).

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

years of evidence
For Akien, this pattern exists ONLY with me, not with any of his other SOs. That's why it's so anomalous. Yet another reason to thank poly, because we might not have known that something different was available. But I know, for instance, that Gary's assumption is that I want him, and to some degree that makes it so (along with other details, like it being an LDR, which ALWAYS keeps things hopping!). Things used to be that way with Akien, but there were certain things that happened in our early relationship that put some breaks in the way we relate sexually, and it's been hard to overcome them. That, along with the fact that it is true that on a day-to-day basis, his sex drive is much higher than mine. Given the right impetus, mine can "spike" higher temporarily, but it doesn't last, and when that's done, I'm done for a week or more. So our patterns of interacting are not terribly compatible, and it takes some effort and adjustment to have us both be happy in this realm.


If he assumes that you aren't interested, then he has to work harder to entice you or turn you on... not a bad deal from your side, I'd think.

Nice thought, but it doesn't usually work that way. He hates "always" being in the role of the pursuer. And I can feel "put upon." It's very hard for us to get me enough "space" to organically feel like pursing him, which is something he (and I think everyone to some degree) likes.

I'll have to answer the other part later--Akien woke up and wants a snuggle before work.

(mmmmm, snuggles!)

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Ah. That's different, then. That pattern exists for me with everyone... including my LDRs. I have no reason to believe that they want me, per se, at any given time (and past evidence). Even right-off-the-plane. If I want to play, I feel that I need to court and convince them, and maybe offer some favor or nice activity in exchange.

true that on a day-to-day basis, his sex drive is much higher than mine

Until this discussion, I'd thought that that was a given, for essentially all women :-). Does it lead to out-of-sync feelings between the two of you? Or an impetus for Akien to look to other partners?

And I can feel "put upon."

That's something that I'm sensitive to, and worry about frequently in my own relationships.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

You do know that there are low-libido men...?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

It doesn't surprise me (population symmetry, health problems, etc.) but it isn't something that I've heard other men admit, privately or in social settings. And with men, as well as women, there's presumably some variability according to mood, stress and whole-body factors... the same guy might not care about sex for a given fortnight, then the next month be taking care of himself twice a day... that variability I've seen in others, and experienced myself.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

I know some genuinely nearly-ascetic men. Sometimes women seem to hear more about this sort of thing than men do.

Power

[gramina.livejournal.com]

Social conditioning, perhaps, but I thought that women did have all of the power in that area...

IMOandX, women are at least as likely as men to complain of partners whose interest in sex is less than theirs. Some of this may be age-based; women tend to become more sexual as we age, at least into the thirties or forties, while most men peak in their teens (though I suspect that's not universal). If you're partnered with someone about your own age, your interest levels are likely to be going in opposite directions.

OTOH, I think women's sexuality is more often whole-body-based, and if I'm tired, frustrated, annoyed, stressed, etc., that's going to affect my interest levels. That seems to be a problem for some guys, too, but not for others.

I think that "power" (the unspoken kind, not consensual power exchange) in a sexual situation is linked to the question of who wants sexual interaction the least. Since it's important to respect someone's "no," the person who says "no" first will leave the other person feeling less powerful, since they can't ethically force the "yes" that they want.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

women are at least as likely as men to complain of partners whose interest in sex is less than theirs

Okay... hmm. I haven't heard of this, but maybe it's a complaint that women share with each other ;-).

is linked to the question of who wants sexual interaction the least

Which, given that women usually want it less/less often, effectively gives them the power in this area...??

[geekchick]

given that women usually want it less/less often

On what are you basing that generalization?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Hmm... social stereotypes, I guess, combined with personal experience and observations. Neither is unimpeachable, granted. But as a social default assumption, it does tend to place women as gatekeepers, deciding if/when any sexual activity will take place.

[geekchick]

social stereotypes, I guess, combined with personal experience and observations

It is as much a stereotype as the idea that men are tomcats who just want to get laid as often as possible, with probably about as much of a grain of truth in it. As with so many other things, that statement about levels of desire is true in lots of cases and not true in lots of others, and it can even change over time for individuals. TMI: (boy, I wish the cut tag would work in comments) When I was not having the health issues I am now, I'd say that my levels of desire were consistently higher than any of my partners and I would often, when between relationships, go out looking just to hook up for an evening. (This is not an invitation to reopen the standard "number of past partners" argument again.) I suppose that in your obsessive data-collection framework this just means I cancel myself out. =)

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

probably about as much of a grain of truth in it

True, but those are the underlying assumptions which govern male-female dynamics in this culture... men are expected to initiate or pursue, women are expected to deflect or filter. This doesn't just reflect relative libido, I think, but other factors... many women abstain during their periods (which reduces their "uptime" relative to males) and women are at higher risk (STDs, pregnancy, bruises) in any penetrative sexual activity (unless she's wearing a strap-on with someone else ;). So I think that even if libido was the same, the greater relative risks would still cast women in control of the process, in the general role of gatekeepers.

my levels of desire were consistently higher than any of my partners

Hmm. Hard to imagine, but I didn't know you back then.

go out looking just to hook up for an evening
You've mentioned your wild, wayward past before (smile) so there's no sense in reopening that discussion. Not that I can imagine doing likewise myself, but that's just your history, part of the "package deal", so to speak. I'm slightly squirmy at the thought, probably like your reaction towards "grateful" on my side.

this just means I cancel myself out

Regarding women-in-general yes, but not in my *personal* experience files (since I never saw you in your previous mode, and am unlikely to in the future).