The Meaning of Marriage

Posted by:  Wendy Shalit
Conversation with:   Dan Savage

First of all, I love the irony Dan points out: that he, supposedly "the sex-obsessed sex-advice columnist" should come out in defense of sexless marriages--whereas I think a sexless marriage usually indicates a much bigger problem.  On the other hand, this is only an irony if you buy into the pro-sex vs. anti-sex dichotomy--which I personally don't.  In my experience, very few people are actually "anti-sex" or "sex-negative" as Dan puts it; rather, this debate is about the meaning we ascribe to sexuality.  Does sexuality bring people closer and enable the ultimate in mutual giving?  Or is it more like sneezing? 

People disagree about the meaning of sex and so naturally, emotions run high.  This may explain why Dan falsely attributes to me a belief in "all the many hoops a married person should be asked to jump through before he's even allowed to contemplate an affair."  Also he claims that I treat "the spouse that wants to have sex... as the 'problem spouse.'" In fact I did not suggest anything of the kind.   What I did suggest was that both members of the couple sounded like they needed help.  If I singled anyone out, it was the wife, wondering if there were medical issues involved in her low sex drive: "Has his wife had her TSH (thyroid levels) checked?....  It sounds like he is closing off in response to her closing off..."

In marriage, giving is not just about clearing the dishes.  If you are totally unaware of or unresponsive to your spouses' needs--whether physical or otherwise--that's a big problem.  It's a lack of consideration.  Just because I don't think a man should cheat doesn't mean that I'm treating him as a "problem."  Actually, I'm trying to avoid creating more problems. 

In such a case as Dan presents, where a husband's needs are totally ignored, it seems to me that there are deeper issues that need to be addressed first.   This marriage as Dan presents it suffers from major communication problems, and the spouses have lost the ability to be vulnerable to one another.  That cuts to the core of the marriage itself.  Their sexual disconnect is just the tip of the iceberg, if I may be permitted to mix my metaphors. 

Dan asks me, "At what point is a husband or wife allowed to stop banging his or her head against the wall and seek intimacy elsewhere?"  I'm actually not much of a fan of head-banging to begin with, but if you're asking when it's time to give up on a marriage, I just don't see this as my role.  To tell a stranger when to stay in a marriage, or to give them "permission" to cheat on their spouse? Chemistry's moniker of "expert" notwithstanding, I'm certainly not expert enough to be able to divine from such little information what is really going on with such a couple.  I would have to talk to both the husband and the wife, in much greater detail, before even coming remotely close to understanding their situation.

But Dan feels that  "sometimes people have to cheat—for their own sanity and, ironically, to preserve their marriages."  Is this based on what people tell themselves, or is this based on a study?   If there is such a study I would be very interested to review it, since for years I've been reading about how "affairs can help a marriage"  in the women's magazines. And I've yet to see a single study substantiating this claim.  Helen Gurley Brown, for one, made a career out of telling young women to "keep married men as pets," but needless to say, the wife and children of aforementioned "pets" tend not to find it as thrilling.

If people want to have sexless marriages, I personally think this challenges what marriage should be about, but I'm not going to criticize.  I suppose that what people don't do within the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business.  But the moment you say that one spouse is angling to cheat, then we're objectively talking about a marriage with a problem.

What is this debate really about?  Some of us see divorce as preferable to cheating, while others see cheating as preferable to divorce. The difference really turns on how we define marriage. I think that when you get married, you are essentially making a declaration of devotion to another person, and asking  that society recognize your devotion. So if someone tells me that he doesn't want to be burdened by being devoted--and working through the challenges that come with this--and still for whatever reason he doesn't want to divorce, then I would ask him, why? 

What is gained by remaining married while you're cheating and lying?  If marriage does not mean devotion, then what does it mean?   

Comments

[Greg]

I think Dan's point though, is that marriage is MORE than just a declaration of devotion. It's a legal contract combining resources, shared responsibilities for children, and setting up inheritance. It's not easy to just shatter all that for ANY reason, including loss of nookie from your partner. Perhaps it is the best thing to do morally, but for some people, taking that moral high ground by divorcing to get sex elsewhere would absolutely devastate them and/or their family.

[Peter]

I agree, Wendy, that you have been the more honest in addressing the core issue in this debate.

Dan avoids confronting the problem by allowing the man to simply give up on the issue and going elsewhere. You, on the other hand, have gone so far as to suggest joint ownership of the problem BUT you fall short of actually challenging the lady to do something about it.

Is everyone here afraid to suggest that a woman should make a selfless effort to fulfill her husband's needs?

I haven't detected any reluctance in any writer to suggest a man should make personal sacrifices and effort to fulfill whatever needs his wife may have.

You did suggest the man could try being more romantic, sensitive etc. You went so far as to suggest the couple should seek counselling or even that the lady could get her hormone levels checked. What you, or anyone else, are yet to suggest is that the lady should make a personal effort to fulfill her husband's needs.

Is there a rule written somewhere that women are not allowed to be challenged in this way?

http://cumgranosalis70.blogspot.com/

[Angie]

Didn't Wendy already answer this when she said, "In marriage, giving is not just about clearing the dishes. If you are totally unaware of or unresponsive to your spouses' needs--whether physical or otherwise--that's a big problem. It's a lack of consideration."

My personal two cents is that I think Wendy is right to ask questions of the couple and speak generally and not tell them what to do because hello? We are all just strangers to these people.

Peter I want to access your site but my computer won't let me, is it set to private?

[supertia]

Regarding the first paragraph of this post: The irony is that usually Dan advocates more situations where it's alright to have sex: it's alright to have sex with casual aquaintances, it's alright to have sex with people other than your spouse if you are married, etc. (as long as everyone has all their cards on the table). And you advocate more rules taking sex off the table: you should only have sex within a committed relationship, it's never alright to cheat, etc.

So the irony is that in this case, while Dan usually favours situations that end up with people having more sex (at least immediately) and you usually favour situations that end up with people having less sex (again, at least immediately), he is fine with a situation where two people are having NO sex and you think this situation is problematic.

What about this situation: two best friends have young children, both really care about eachother, get along really well, enjoy spending time with eachother and with their family, and can see themselves growing old together and enjoying retirement and grandchildren. But for whatever reason have lost their sex-drives. They have tried everything they can think of. They're both fine with the situation as they have both just lost interest and prefer to enjoy the other fine things life has to offer. Should they (a) spend more time and money searching for a "cure" that they may never find, (b) divorce, upset their children, finances, and pretty much their whole lives, or (c) accept their situation for what it is. You would call this situation a "sham" of a marriage. I would call it "practical" and "loving" (two people, even two opposite-gendered people, can love eachother without wanting to have sex with eachother).

Regarding the "to cheat or not to cheat" dilemma: I'll take the scenario I just described, but alter it so that one spouse was completely happy and sexless (No-Sex-Spouse) and the other unhappy and sexless (Yes-Sex-Spouse). In this case, both people have communicated and know where they stand. No-Sex-Spouse feels bad and ashamed to not be into sex, but is just completely uninterested. S/he wants to satisfy Yes-Sex-Spouse, but Yes-Sex-Spouse is understandably not very satisfied having sex with someone who s/he knows is just not into it. If they can both agree, why is it so bad to save both of their time and money, not to mention the grief it would cause their kids, and allow Yes-Sex-Spouse to discreetly take a lover?

Next situation: No-Sex-Spouse is happy, but only so long as they're both celibate - Yes-Sex-Spouse's feelings be damned! Yes-Sex-Spouse is understandably upset by No-Sex-Spouse's inconsideration, but is able to get over it, as Yes-Sex-Spouse knows that No-Sex-Spouse has been conditioned over the years to view all cheating as all bad all the time. They have spent lots of time and money on counselling, medication, and "quality time together". Nothing works. What should they do? I think No-Sex-Spouse should weigh the pros and cons of having an affair (including the cons of getting caught), and try to make the best decision possible. If by divorcing the children are very likely to suffer emotionally and finances will definitely be screwed up, and if Yes-Sex-Spouse can be discreet and make the chances of getting caught low, and if in this case the chances of the kids and finances suffering and of both spouses being happy are high, then Yes-Sex-Spouse should go ahead and have that affair.

[Aaron Cope]

wow, kudos to Supertia, well written. All these posts are very well written. I guess wendy's title was completely right after all, it really does depend on the definition of marriage. Maybe not quite the way she intended though.

I live in the midwest, and alot of us especially the less financially fortunate, view marriages as way more then a nest for love and children making. It's a survival strategy for both men and women. There are a surprising number of men who look at marriage as 'garrunteed recreation' and a large number of women who look at men as 'childbearing enablers and providers'. Each has a surplus of something, and they view the union as a positive trade relationship. But most of all, its cheaper to support two people and their children in one house, with combined resources.

The problem comes in when one doesnt fulfill their part of the 'bargain'. In this case, its the 'wife' who no longer wants to 'garuntee recreation'. The inverse of this is the much maligned deadbeat dad, who doesn't fulfill his obligation. Both are marriage destroyers.

Society simply doesnt want to address Peter's last paragraph because we just finished moving out of the bad old days of legal marital rape. Women maintain, rightly so, that sex is theirs to dispense only as they see fit, however society (and alot of men) are still catching up to that. Recently i think, alot of women are running into the problem that they are no longer putting anything on the table. They see marriage now as something rightly due to them, with no plausible commitment other then that they love their partner. [Most]Men see marriage as a vast web of commitments, from supporting a new spouse, to the future kids she may someday provide. He see's the homeloan (a commitment) the cars and their respective loans, and endless other drains on his energy and time. So while there is no way to swing the pendulum back, it's perhaps time that women take a good hard look at what men feel when they withhold the nookie, so to speak.

I can personally attest to the isolation I felt when she just wasn't interested. And I also remember feeling rather betrayed. I had done everything i was supposed to, fulfilled my end of the contract. I worked full time, plus overtime to make ends meet. I paid for the house, feathered the nest, did the handiwork and was faithful. And i was left alone, sexually speaking, for months at a time.

Sorry the comment is rather rambling, but I think what im trying to say is: Shouldn't the man get some sort of recompense other then the financial doom of divorce if she decides she doesn't want to be sexually married anymore? (as opposed to being financially or socially married)

Meh, I'm not very good at making my point via text. Sorry.

[Jackie]

So, Aaron, I guess it goes back to Wendy's point that it all depends how people define marriage.
I certainly hope that my husband did not marry me 13 years ago to have "guaranteed sex" but rather because he loved me and wanted to spend the rest of his life with me.
I think in a lot of cases, married people grow apart from each other. People change overtime, their needs and desires shift. You need to work really hard at your marriage to make it work. But instead, some people go the easy way and cheat. Others may decide to get out of the marriage before dating again. I don't believe in people staying in a marriage purely for making their life easier (financially or because of children), unless both are happy with the arrangement. But I have the feeling that in that case, there is probably resentment from one of the two.
I don't believe such an arrangement would benefit the children either. I think kids are very perceptive and will eventually take note of their parents' unhappiness. But maybe it's just me. I grew up with my parents constantly fighting and arguing. There were countless times when I awoke in the middle of the night because my parents were screaming at each other. They were miserable but they stayed together, saying it was for the good of the children. I swore to myself very early in life that I would never do that.
As for sex, I think if one is really unhappy and has tried to work it out but failed, then there is no point in staying together. And it goes both ways: if a man is unhappy with a sexless marriage and every effort to remedy the situation has failed, then he should end the marriage. The same way a woman is entitled to not have sex if she does not want to. And I don't believe it is the role of the man only, to pay the bills and the mortgage. Isn't it a shared responsibility nowadays?

[Elizabeth]

I am engaged and living with a man whose wife withheld sex and he divorced her and left her for another woman many years ago. His children saw him as a womaniser and a father who drank too much. The drinking problem couldnt have been good for the family but it was I feel caused by his frustration. I dont think he would have looked elsewhere if he was satisfied at home. He was happy with his new partner for 12 years until she ended the relationship and he carried the torch for her for many years.

His first wife didn't want to marry him again but has turned their grown up children against the father now he has found happiness after several years of celabacy telling them she will not see them if they see him. In the beginning we had problems as he was torn between his love for his grown up children and grandchildren and his life with me.

There is a now different man - a happy content man, who has the occasional drink but not to excess, who comes home with a smile on his face. Hopefully as time goes by his family will realise he has a right to happiness and he has more than enough love for all.

Elizabeth

[zozo]

I am married to a man whom I earn more than him, we had sex before we got married and he would constantly come stay with me at my place since he was sharing,he never bought groceries and was always at my place, I fell in love with this guiys and when we got engaged ,but overlooked his weaknesses ..fighting and high temper which now when we are married it happens often.

We usually doesn't have sex as often as I would want too, cos we are either fighting or he is in his "silent mopd" for the whole week, which result in me closing up...by the time he want us to be active sexualy I am not in the moiod since we stayed so long..at some stage he could get erect and saying its because we fight often ,...but after getting back on track we fight again and no sex still...when I complain he tells me its my right to go out and exercise my sexual desires...we were talking of having children but nothing is happen due to this problem..I even suspect that he might be having an affairs cos at times when he comes home from work late he would fight with me on unnecessary issue..ny biggest question is that why is he staying, five times had he said he wants out only during fights when I agree he would come an apologise ..sometimes i would show him a different angle of things....Wendy is right...cheating is not a solution, my husband just don't want to find himself solving issues ..but in the process deny me closes up and it hurts.

[casualencounters.com/blog/]

I suppose it could mean "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

[Dope]

Marriage has come under a lot of fire, but I think it's hugely important.