13 ms·

I feel a common issue with such "dead bedroom" discussions is the seeming lack of capacity of some parties (including some prominent toplevel comments here) to

I feel a common issue with such "dead bedroom" discussions is the seeming lack of capacity of some parties (including some prominent toplevel comments here) to understand how deep a need for sex many people have. To think sex can be replaced with "strong friendships" is laughable to anyone who actually feels a strong desire for sex. The dead bedroom situations I've seen with my friends (M->F equally as well as F->M) are always the result of one party being incapable of understanding the other's desire for sex. This leads them when pressed to try approaches such as, substituting "being nicer" for sex, trying therapy to reduce their partner's sex drive, or just forgetting about the problem because they are unable to sympathize with it. Ideas such as initiating sex more often or opening up the relationship either don't occur to them, are vehemently opposed, or forgotten about. No-one is entitled to sex. But individuals in a sexually-exclusive relationship are entitled to sympathy, action, and compromise from their partner to bridge severe differences in sexuality, just the same as any other sticking point in a relationship.

throwaway8581 5y ago
Agreed. This is also ancient wisdom. The major religions all maintain that spouses have a duty to sexually please each other.
- colanderman 5y ago
  Unfortunately major religions seem to approach this subject with a cudgel. I think a more charitable reading of their approach is often recognizing that sexual incompatibility is just cause for (otherwise taboo) divorce.
- throwaway98797 5y ago
  if one is monogamous then there is obligation or so the bible says. we modified one but not the other. we reap what we sow.
- oblio 5y ago
  Not really. In many of them it's just about having kids.
  - throwaway8581 5y ago
    At least all the Abrahamic religions, which I'm most familiar with, emphasize the good of sexual pleasure between spouses. That sex is only for procreation and not pleasure is a common misconception of the Christian view.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > That sex is only for procreation and not pleasure is a common misconception of the Christian view. Yup. Very (perhaps most) common, for instance, among Christians.
      - 5cents 5y ago
        To cite the Catechism > The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation
schnevets 5y ago
I am frequently surprised by the number of "dead bedrooms" I know about among friends, and I sincerely believe the problem is the western world's secretly coy perception of sex. There is a superficial surface level that is extremely wrong (for example, Successful people have sex, the most successful people have the hottest sex with the hottest partners; Sex isn't about planning it's about letting the desire overcome you; Doing this thing will make you more desirable to your partner... unless you suck; All people are secretly kinky and the happiest people figured out what makes them tick), and then there is a deeper level of taboo that discourages any honest communication about sex. There is no panacea to this problem because it involves mutual collaboration between both members of the couple. The things that seem to work (couples therapy, self-help books) only actually work because they spark a conversation. Regardless, it always seems to involve rejecting some of those superficial notions I listed above and acknowledging that 90% of the stuff you learned or assumed about sex is wrong. I think this is a very Americanized perspective, though, so I would be especially interested in hearing perspectives from other cultures.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  > I am frequently surprised by the number of "dead bedrooms" I know about among friends I originally thought they were mostly an old people thing, but I am hearing more stories about it from friends. And we are mid 20s.
  - colanderman 5y ago
    Yep same here (mid 20s-30s). I guess it shouldn't really be too surprising; young people often don't know what they really need and/or are capable of providing before diving headlong into an exclusive relationship.
  - schnevets 5y ago
    It was a trend that began in my mid 20s as well. I have also noticed women are more inclined to voice frustrations than my male friends. I guess I became more approachable after proposing to my now-wife (and the things I hear are G-rated compared to the things I hear secondhand from my wife)
insickness 5y ago
> dead bedroom situations are always the result of one party being incapable of understanding the other's desire for sex. Couldn't disagree more. Sexual attraction is not about 'understanding' how your partner feels. A man who is no longer attracted to his wife won't suddenly become attracted when he understands how she feels. Attraction is not a choice. It's not something you can talk yourself or someone else into.
- colanderman 5y ago
  I don't think I implied that it was. But someone in an exclusive relationship who no longer is willing to fulfill one of their partner's basic needs, has an obligation to work with their partner to find a way to fulfill that need. Otherwise you are just denying them something they are incapable of not needing.
  - brailsafe 5y ago
    Maybe, but you'd need to be able to identify first that you were filling a need and that you're no longer. To have a conversation about that, the person in question needs to know that their partner is filling their need rather than some degree of it being optional.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > Sexual attraction is not about 'understanding' how your partner feels Not quite what the parent was talking about. They were referring to truly understanding that some people need sex to be happy, as opposed to others who like or even dislike it. But understanding what your partner wants (whichever of those three it is) is a required starting point for having a better sexual relationship. There's no amount of counseling that can bridge "Well, they should just feel exactly like I do about it."
- johnnyanmac 5y ago
  >A man who is no longer attracted to his wife won't suddenly become attracted when he understands how she feels. Attraction is not a choice. It's not something you can talk yourself or someone else into. You have a point. And the scary factor (at least, in my society) is that admitting this would be rife to criticism (be it insensitive and maybe misogynistic if a man, or shallow and a slut if a woman), because so much of our teachings say that we shouldn't judge others based on looks. It's not exactly about looks in this situation, but it's a very similar situation. You may find that you need something else out of a relationship, but the not only lack of communication, but *active discouragement" to communicate such inconvenient truths probably causes much more tension than the short term tension of a breakup/divorce (not to say breakups aren't painful in and of themselves, but it's the difference between keeping a thorn in, and removing it. The latter gives you a chance to heal).
Kye 5y ago
Strong friendships can involve lots of sex, but it seems like people outside queer communities have a harder time with that.
- colanderman 5y ago
  Not if you're in a sexually exclusive relationship.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Sexual exclusive relationships are a subset of healthy relationships.
    - Fargren 5y ago
      That would imply all sexual exclusive relationships are healthy, which is very much not the case. Sexual exclusivity and relationship health are orthogonal.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        I think you're taking the set theory a bit too far...
        Fargren 5y ago
        This might just be different customs of language usage. But to me, if you say "This is a subset of That", you are saying "every case of This is also a case of That". I suppose you are using it to mean "That does not imply This", and honestly I don't think seen it used that way elsewhere.
        ducharmdev 5y ago
        I mean, that is the immediate conclusion one can draw from what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying all sexually exclusive relationships are within the group of healthy relationships, which is different than saying only some of them are within that group.
phkahler 5y ago
>> I feel a common issue with such "dead bedroom" discussions is the seeming lack of capacity of some parties (including some prominent toplevel comments here) to understand how deep a need for sex many people have. When I first saw Maslow's hierarchy of needs sex appeared on it TWICE. Once on the bottom level as a basic physical need (to what extent varies of course) and again I think on the 3rd level or so as a form of intimacy. Putting it on that pyramid has somehow fallen out of favor. One (fem) writer claimed it somehow justified rape. That's as absurd as saying the need for food justifies armed robbery. I suspect the real issue is that it offered an explanation (not a justification) that differs from the authors pre-conceived notions (men are evil blah blah). Anyway it seems to have become unpopular to claim it's a basic need.
- bonoboTP 5y ago
  It's not a basic physical need. It's a psychological need. We know, because many people can go years or decades without sex. That's fundamentally different from food, air, water and shelter from the elements. Not saying it isn't an important psychological need, but it's not a literal "basic physical need". Words mean things.
  - jlokier 5y ago
    The context is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is not only about physical needs. Physical is just the basics, at the bottom.
    - bonoboTP 5y ago
      I reacted to this: "... sex appeared on it TWICE. Once on the bottom level as a basic physical need ..."
      - TheCapeGreek 5y ago
        There is a physical aspect however - libidos don't exist purely in your head. Hormones have effects.
      - 5y ago
birdyrooster 5y ago
Quick edit: No-one is entitled to sex. But individuals in a sexually-exclusive relationship are entitled [to leave and find more compatible partners].
- planck01 5y ago
  That's not always an (easy) option. Especially if kids are involved.
johnnyanmac 5y ago
Everyone will be different, and unfortunately sex is an extremely sensitive topic that is rife to end up in either flame wars or a bunch of jokes, despite it being a serious, personal, nuanced topic. In my culture personally (American), it also seems to be one constantly suppressed from conversation outside of maybe medical talks. And in my experience on the internet, we're still a very, very, very long way from creating a community that can civilly speak on the topic. Heck, maybe even IRL; cultures as a whole still can't even agree with what kinds of sexual content is legal to sell (not even age-gated, just outright denying a consenting adult the choice to buy professionally made content), so this may be a while. It may not even be resolved in my lifetime. On a personal level, I'm fine with the myriads of porn I have stashed about my house. But I can't take cat girl out for a quick lunch and chat about the day. I miss friends.
alfiedotwtf 5y ago
There’s a strong willingness to openly talk about mental health in society these days, yet I mostly see zero talk that sexual desire (whether super strong or nonexistent) is most likely due to hormonal circumstances than emotional connections etc. it’s sad to see articles about “cooking for each other”, “talk about X”, yet no articles on “get your blood checked” (in particular, extreme sides of serotonin levels)
dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
> No-one is entitled to sex. If you put it this way, nobody is entitled to food and shelter either. But we all need these things. Yes, some people can do away with sex, and if it's by their own choice, probably most of them do fine (many don't). But when it happens in marriage, then it's over, also legally - most jurisdictions recognize this.
closeparen 5y ago
We bridge those other differences by sucking it up and doing things that aren’t our favorites. Someone who has sex she doesn’t want in order to keep the peace in a relationship has been violated and victimized, in a way that someone who does more household chores than he would prefer to or refrains from buying her favorite clothes on the joint credit card, hasn’t. Sex is unique this way. Maybe that wasn’t the consensus view 50 years ago, but it is now.
- Viliam1234 5y ago
  There seems to be a different norm when genders are reversed, though. https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/withholding-intimacy-can-be-abusive-too https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/... > Weston says her abuser used to withhold sexual contact during times when she asked to be intimate. He also used withholding affection as a punishment. “If I looked at him wrong, he refused to kiss me,” she says.

throwaway8581 5y ago

Agreed. This is also ancient wisdom. The major religions all maintain that spouses have a duty to sexually please each other.

colanderman 5y ago
Unfortunately major religions seem to approach this subject with a cudgel. I think a more charitable reading of their approach is often recognizing that sexual incompatibility is just cause for (otherwise taboo) divorce.
throwaway98797 5y ago
if one is monogamous then there is obligation or so the bible says. we modified one but not the other. we reap what we sow.
oblio 5y ago
Not really. In many of them it's just about having kids.
- throwaway8581 5y ago
  At least all the Abrahamic religions, which I'm most familiar with, emphasize the good of sexual pleasure between spouses. That sex is only for procreation and not pleasure is a common misconception of the Christian view.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > That sex is only for procreation and not pleasure is a common misconception of the Christian view. Yup. Very (perhaps most) common, for instance, among Christians.
    - 5cents 5y ago
      To cite the Catechism > The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation

schnevets 5y ago

I am frequently surprised by the number of "dead bedrooms" I know about among friends, and I sincerely believe the problem is the western world's secretly coy perception of sex. There is a superficial surface level that is extremely wrong (for example, Successful people have sex, the most successful people have the hottest sex with the hottest partners; Sex isn't about planning it's about letting the desire overcome you; Doing this thing will make you more desirable to your partner... unless you suck; All people are secretly kinky and the happiest people figured out what makes them tick), and then there is a deeper level of taboo that discourages any honest communication about sex. There is no panacea to this problem because it involves mutual collaboration between both members of the couple. The things that seem to work (couples therapy, self-help books) only actually work because they spark a conversation. Regardless, it always seems to involve rejecting some of those superficial notions I listed above and acknowledging that 90% of the stuff you learned or assumed about sex is wrong. I think this is a very Americanized perspective, though, so I would be especially interested in hearing perspectives from other cultures.

MattGaiser 5y ago
> I am frequently surprised by the number of "dead bedrooms" I know about among friends I originally thought they were mostly an old people thing, but I am hearing more stories about it from friends. And we are mid 20s.
- colanderman 5y ago
  Yep same here (mid 20s-30s). I guess it shouldn't really be too surprising; young people often don't know what they really need and/or are capable of providing before diving headlong into an exclusive relationship.
- schnevets 5y ago
  It was a trend that began in my mid 20s as well. I have also noticed women are more inclined to voice frustrations than my male friends. I guess I became more approachable after proposing to my now-wife (and the things I hear are G-rated compared to the things I hear secondhand from my wife)

insickness 5y ago

> dead bedroom situations are always the result of one party being incapable of understanding the other's desire for sex. Couldn't disagree more. Sexual attraction is not about 'understanding' how your partner feels. A man who is no longer attracted to his wife won't suddenly become attracted when he understands how she feels. Attraction is not a choice. It's not something you can talk yourself or someone else into.

colanderman 5y ago
I don't think I implied that it was. But someone in an exclusive relationship who no longer is willing to fulfill one of their partner's basic needs, has an obligation to work with their partner to find a way to fulfill that need. Otherwise you are just denying them something they are incapable of not needing.
- brailsafe 5y ago
  Maybe, but you'd need to be able to identify first that you were filling a need and that you're no longer. To have a conversation about that, the person in question needs to know that their partner is filling their need rather than some degree of it being optional.
ethbr0 5y ago
> Sexual attraction is not about 'understanding' how your partner feels Not quite what the parent was talking about. They were referring to truly understanding that some people need sex to be happy, as opposed to others who like or even dislike it. But understanding what your partner wants (whichever of those three it is) is a required starting point for having a better sexual relationship. There's no amount of counseling that can bridge "Well, they should just feel exactly like I do about it."
johnnyanmac 5y ago
>A man who is no longer attracted to his wife won't suddenly become attracted when he understands how she feels. Attraction is not a choice. It's not something you can talk yourself or someone else into. You have a point. And the scary factor (at least, in my society) is that admitting this would be rife to criticism (be it insensitive and maybe misogynistic if a man, or shallow and a slut if a woman), because so much of our teachings say that we shouldn't judge others based on looks. It's not exactly about looks in this situation, but it's a very similar situation. You may find that you need something else out of a relationship, but the not only lack of communication, but *active discouragement" to communicate such inconvenient truths probably causes much more tension than the short term tension of a breakup/divorce (not to say breakups aren't painful in and of themselves, but it's the difference between keeping a thorn in, and removing it. The latter gives you a chance to heal).

Kye 5y ago

Strong friendships can involve lots of sex, but it seems like people outside queer communities have a harder time with that.

colanderman 5y ago
Not if you're in a sexually exclusive relationship.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Sexual exclusive relationships are a subset of healthy relationships.
  - Fargren 5y ago
    That would imply all sexual exclusive relationships are healthy, which is very much not the case. Sexual exclusivity and relationship health are orthogonal.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      I think you're taking the set theory a bit too far...
      - Fargren 5y ago
        This might just be different customs of language usage. But to me, if you say "This is a subset of That", you are saying "every case of This is also a case of That". I suppose you are using it to mean "That does not imply This", and honestly I don't think seen it used that way elsewhere.
      - ducharmdev 5y ago
        I mean, that is the immediate conclusion one can draw from what you're saying. It sounds like you're saying all sexually exclusive relationships are within the group of healthy relationships, which is different than saying only some of them are within that group.

phkahler 5y ago

>> I feel a common issue with such "dead bedroom" discussions is the seeming lack of capacity of some parties (including some prominent toplevel comments here) to understand how deep a need for sex many people have. When I first saw Maslow's hierarchy of needs sex appeared on it TWICE. Once on the bottom level as a basic physical need (to what extent varies of course) and again I think on the 3rd level or so as a form of intimacy. Putting it on that pyramid has somehow fallen out of favor. One (fem) writer claimed it somehow justified rape. That's as absurd as saying the need for food justifies armed robbery. I suspect the real issue is that it offered an explanation (not a justification) that differs from the authors pre-conceived notions (men are evil blah blah). Anyway it seems to have become unpopular to claim it's a basic need.

bonoboTP 5y ago
It's not a basic physical need. It's a psychological need. We know, because many people can go years or decades without sex. That's fundamentally different from food, air, water and shelter from the elements. Not saying it isn't an important psychological need, but it's not a literal "basic physical need". Words mean things.
- jlokier 5y ago
  The context is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is not only about physical needs. Physical is just the basics, at the bottom.
  - bonoboTP 5y ago
    I reacted to this: "... sex appeared on it TWICE. Once on the bottom level as a basic physical need ..."
    - TheCapeGreek 5y ago
      There is a physical aspect however - libidos don't exist purely in your head. Hormones have effects.
    - 5y ago

birdyrooster 5y ago

Quick edit: No-one is entitled to sex. But individuals in a sexually-exclusive relationship are entitled [to leave and find more compatible partners].

planck01 5y ago
That's not always an (easy) option. Especially if kids are involved.

johnnyanmac 5y ago

Everyone will be different, and unfortunately sex is an extremely sensitive topic that is rife to end up in either flame wars or a bunch of jokes, despite it being a serious, personal, nuanced topic. In my culture personally (American), it also seems to be one constantly suppressed from conversation outside of maybe medical talks. And in my experience on the internet, we're still a very, very, very long way from creating a community that can civilly speak on the topic. Heck, maybe even IRL; cultures as a whole still can't even agree with what kinds of sexual content is legal to sell (not even age-gated, just outright denying a consenting adult the choice to buy professionally made content), so this may be a while. It may not even be resolved in my lifetime. On a personal level, I'm fine with the myriads of porn I have stashed about my house. But I can't take cat girl out for a quick lunch and chat about the day. I miss friends.

alfiedotwtf 5y ago

There’s a strong willingness to openly talk about mental health in society these days, yet I mostly see zero talk that sexual desire (whether super strong or nonexistent) is most likely due to hormonal circumstances than emotional connections etc. it’s sad to see articles about “cooking for each other”, “talk about X”, yet no articles on “get your blood checked” (in particular, extreme sides of serotonin levels)

dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago

> No-one is entitled to sex. If you put it this way, nobody is entitled to food and shelter either. But we all need these things. Yes, some people can do away with sex, and if it's by their own choice, probably most of them do fine (many don't). But when it happens in marriage, then it's over, also legally - most jurisdictions recognize this.

closeparen 5y ago

We bridge those other differences by sucking it up and doing things that aren’t our favorites. Someone who has sex she doesn’t want in order to keep the peace in a relationship has been violated and victimized, in a way that someone who does more household chores than he would prefer to or refrains from buying her favorite clothes on the joint credit card, hasn’t. Sex is unique this way. Maybe that wasn’t the consensus view 50 years ago, but it is now.

Viliam1234 5y ago
There seems to be a different norm when genders are reversed, though. https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/withholding-intimacy-can-be-abusive-too https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/... > Weston says her abuser used to withhold sexual contact during times when she asked to be intimate. He also used withholding affection as a punishment. “If I looked at him wrong, he refused to kiss me,” she says.