In the previous posts I’ve talked at length about the powerful and somewhat pervasive role the male sex drive plays in the lives of many men. In the most recent posts I’ve pointed out how a couples commitment to giving and receiving pleasure can successfully bridge differences in sexual desire and appetites.
Yet, what happens when a partner won’t commit to pleasure or into attempting to match their partners sexual appetite and instead just demands their mate to curtail their sex drive? What happens when a person demands monogamy while refusing to meet their mates sexual appetite?
The question I have is how fair is it to demand sexual fidelity when one is not committed to meeting the sexual desires and needs of their mate? Does it bode well to expect a person to repress or deny their sexual urges? Is it healthy? Is the person who will not attempt to meet their spouse half-way showing the same commitment to the relationship as they are demanding their spouse to be by being faithful and monogamous?
Fortunately for me I never had to answer these questions as we successfully bridged the sexual appetite gap by being committed to giving each other pleasure. Yet, I’m not sure I would have been able to get through my hormonally driven 20′s and 30′s in a healthy manner if I would have been demanded to cut my frequency of sexual encounters in half.
I know it would have been difficult and somewhat harmful to my sense of contentment and happiness. I know I would have felt less loved, and appreciated. I know I would have felt less connected and intimate with her. If I stayed righteous I would have been angry with her, but more often I would have felt that there was something wrong with me and begin to resent both my sex drive and myself.
My feeling of disconnectedness and being misunderstood would make me very vulnerable to straying and finding solace in the arms of someone who did not make me feel bad for wanting to touch, hold and make love to them. I would have been thrown back to my adolescence and felt rejected every time I desired my wife and she did not desire me. Each time I would have been drawn to her and wanted to devour her with desire would have been emotionally painful and accumulatively alienating.
Many recent gender studies indicate that female infants are far more interpersonally oriented than male infants. At a very early age female infants spend a great deal of their time looking at faces and listening to conversation. Male infants on the other hand tend to be more interested in objects. This gender tendency often results in female toddlers and tots developing strong language skills and seeking conversation. The focus of young females is often on forming best friends and their ability to make and maintain friendships is paramount to their positive feelings of themselves.
Male toddlers and tots are more object oriented. Their relationships are often less verbal and more geared towards activities. While the typical female child is talking and engaging in highly sophisticated social interactions the typical male child is usually indulging in highly physical activities that are more action oriented with less verbal demands. As always it is important to note that no one is saying that every female infant is verbal/relationship oriented, and every male infant is physical/activity oriented, but the tendencies are rather predominant. There are tomboys as well as verbally/relationship oriented male children, yet the majority of cases support the gender tendencies.
While the male sex drive is often a major component directing men into an increased desire for relationships, the female desire for verbal interchange and emphasis on relationships is ever present. I point this out to make an observation.
In our society a man is expected to stay monogamous no matter how interested or open to sex his wife may be. Yet, how successful is it when a woman is demanded to curtail her desire for verbal friendships to show fidelity. What happens when a society or partner views social interactions without the spouse present as a form of infidelity? What happens when an insecure and jealous spouse views all forms of individualized socializing as being unfaithful or a sign of not being committed to the relationship?
In many societies woman aren’t only expected to avoid forming friendships with males when they are married but are expected to avoid public interactions with other females without their husband present. My father was a very traditional Italian man who “forbade” my mother from socializing without his presence. Did she honor this?
While she never openly rebelled against this expectation, she had many friends she would see without my father present. Likewise, I’ve read a few books written by Arabian women who state that they are forbidden by their patriarchal societies from socializing with female or male friends without their spouse being present. Not one of the woman I’ve read has honored their husbands or societies wishes in this manner.
I would think that the biological imperative and hormonally driven sex drive of men is at least as strong as most womans desire and need for verbal interchange. If a man does not meet his wife’s needs for verbal discussion and disclosure most wives feel little if any guilt about being unfaithful in this manner. In fact most would not deny they were being unfaithful and bluntly state that the expectation is sick and cruel.
I’m not going to disagree with this but it does seem a little odd that the desire for verbal interchange is viewed as something that cannot be curtailed and denied while the biological imperative is.
I know most people are appalled by the fact that I’m comparing the male sex drive with the desire for social interaction. I’m sure that many would state that talking to others is not being unfaithful and anyone who thought so was just a controlling, jealous person with unrealistic expectations. Yes, and I would agree with that. Yet, the fact remains that we have no trouble in demanding the restricting and curtailing one of the strongest drives in nature in one gender while thinking it is unreasonable to restrict a likewise strong proclivity in the other gender.
I do think this is worthy of thought. I’ll write more on this soon.
Jim Guido