# Comparing sex to other needs



## capncrunch (Aug 18, 2014)

When trying to convince LD spouses of their sexual needs, the HD half generally turns to metaphors, which quickly fall apart. A popular one seems to be food. "Imagine going a month without eating!" but that falls apart pretty easily, because most people would die without eating for a month, but going without sex for a month would be frustrating but not life-threatening.

But if we equate sex to the Physical Love Language, we may be able to compare it to another, such as Time.

LD spouses, imagine if your SO only spent time with you once a month, or once a week, or wherever your sexual frequency happens to lie. Imagine yourself deeply in love with this person (hopefully this is not difficult!) where you want nothing more in the whole world than to spend time with them every single day. You research solutions, novel activities to do together, but nothing piques their interest. Or maybe they give in and begrudgingly decide to spend time with you by watching a romantic movie together, but they just sit there, cross-armed with a stern look on their face the whole time. Not exactly what you were hoping for.

Let's see if common excuses equate:

"But I'm tired! I just want to go to sleep."
Yeah, that excuse still holds.

"You just want to use my body for your pleasure, this has nothing to do with our marriage."
"You just want to use me to meet your social needs, this has nothing to do with our marriage."

"If you just need an orgasm, go give yourself one."
"If you just need to watch this movie, go watch it alone."

How long could you stay in a relationship with someone who behaved this way?


----------



## calamityjim (Jul 18, 2014)

No matter how hard we try, there is no perfect metaphor. We could possibly try giving them the same canned responses though, like your examples.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

capncrunch said:


> When trying to convince LD spouses of their sexual needs, the HD half generally turns to metaphors, which quickly fall apart. A popular one seems to be food. "Imagine going a month without eating!" but that falls apart pretty easily, because most people would die without eating for a month, but going without sex for a month would be frustrating but not life-threatening.
> 
> But if we equate sex to the Physical Love Language, we may be able to compare it to another, such as Time.
> 
> ...


It's OK to have different friends with different categories.

This person no longer fills the position of "lover", and needs to be adjusted and moved to a proper role.


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

capncrunch said:


> "Imagine going a month without eating!" *but that falls apart pretty easily,*.....


I could not disagree more. 

Channeling through a narrow definition is a sophomoric logical fallacy and dishonest debating tactic. In this case the word that has been redefined more narrowly than what dictionaries will support is, "Need."

Needs are distinguished from wants not by the death of the organism, but by a negative outcome. Therefore human needs are not just objective and material because humans are complex creatures with an elaborate set of social needs too.

That infants consistently do better physically when they experience human touch and affection has been documented over and over. 

Alexander Dolgun and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn both recorded an interrogation technique used under Stalin. The person would be put into a small, dimly lit grey cell with no windows and a solid door. Food would be slipped under a slot in the door. There would be absolutely no human contact whatsoever for many months.

Then, one day the person would be moved to a new cell. It would be a larger, brightly lit cell with a window, bars instead of a solid door, and most importantly, a cell mate. The need to communicate with another human being would have built up to such an extent at this point that the person would tell the cell mate anything. The Russian term roughly translates to, "Verbal diarrhea." The cell mate, of course would be an informer who promptly relayed the information. This technique worked even on strong people, because conversation is an important human need.

Maslow's hierarchy of human needs reflects this:









As you can see, sex appears not just once, but twice on this pyramid. So I would say, Do not cave in to the inherent dishonesty of denial.


----------



## Accipiter777 (Jul 22, 2011)

To the OP... this is the classic thought pattern of "I dont need it.. therefore, you dont"


----------



## capncrunch (Aug 18, 2014)

Holy crap at ocotillo's response! 

(Didn't want to waste space quoting the whole thing)


----------



## Rowan (Apr 3, 2012)

Accipiter777 said:


> To the OP... this is the classic thought pattern of "I dont need it.. therefore, you dont"


I ran into this same thought pattern from my now-ex-husband. He didn't need conversation, non-sexual affection, emotional support, or quality time with me. So, therefore, I shouldn't need those things either. He couldn't really wrap his head around the concept that his needs were the only ones being met in our marriage. Nor did he seem to comprehend that my enthusiasm for meeting his needs dwindled after many years of receiving virtually no reciprocation. Or, despite both me and our MC telling him so clearly many times, that such might really be the cause of our diminishing sexual frequency. He seemed baffled that more vehement insistence that I was just being silly/crazy/difficult when I explained what I needed from him, didn't result in my sudden enlightenment and a rush to rip his clothes off. 



capncrunch said:


> LD spouses, imagine if your SO only spent time with you once a month, or once a week, or wherever your sexual frequency happens to lie. Imagine yourself deeply in love with this person (hopefully this is not difficult!) where you want nothing more in the whole world than to spend time with them every single day. You research solutions, novel activities to do together, but nothing piques their interest. Or maybe they give in and begrudgingly decide to spend time with you by watching a romantic movie together, but they just sit there, cross-armed with a stern look on their face the whole time. Not exactly what you were hoping for.


Yep, that about sums up what interacting with my ex-husband was like during our marriage. 



capncrunch said:


> How long could you stay in a relationship with someone who behaved this way?


About 16 years. Because I'm both incredibly persistent and have a rather vast ability to retain hope. Or, because, you know, I'm just not very smart.


----------



## TruthHunter (Jul 15, 2014)

treyvion said:


> It's OK to have different friends with different categories.
> 
> This person no longer fills the position of "lover", and needs to be adjusted and moved to a proper role.


Yes, the role of an emotionally selfish roommate.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Needs assumes subconscious level mental processes to achieve goals, especially the physiological parts. Since there's plenty of examples of asexual (temp or permanent) people out there and many non partner ways to address any needs for sex at the physiological level, I'll pass on the physiological part.

The pyramid also assumes a fixed set of priorities. Again, I would not be so quick as to agree fully. For many people esteem is the highest, by virtue of having no real self actualization to speak of.

Also LD by definition assumes that sex does occur so.... Even twice a year the box gets checked and the "need" is fulfilled. Or dead fish sex also checks the box. Maslow does not include any consideration for the emotional connection that is helped by sex. and so on. It's a theory that like most everything else in psychology is up for grabs


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

Intimacy in relationship is as important as food/water for human body.

It's probably the most part of the relationship IMO.

Without it, well, compare it to human body as it starts to dehydrate/organs shut downs etc as it craves for energy.

Same for relationship without intimacy, it just sucks the life out of it and it becomes stale/dead.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

It just struck me while reading this that just last night I told my LD wife that I was being pretty regular at cooking meals once or twice a week and she really shouldn't expect more than that. The conversation had nothing to do with sex. Holy Crap I'm withholding her need to the same level she is withholding mine, subconsciously. I'm not denying her food, just nice home cooked meals. I mean there are frozen meals and leftovers available, just not the kind of meal she prefers. I think I'm living the perfect metaphor. 

I should probably reevaluate my stand on cooking.
MN


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

committed4ever said:


> What about the millions of people who are not in a relationship?


That's what vibrators and right hand is for.

Without a relationship it doesn't matter. Don't take what I said too literally, it's just a example I came up with on the whim.


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

Wanting to be intimate, close, inside, bonded, with your significant other that you love...okay. You are not the problem, although guilt trips have made you feel like you are.

Wanting to skip intimacy, call it duty sex, feel your body is "used" while intimate, reject your spouse, and do everything but spend time with your significant other that you say you love, not okay. They are the problem.

It doesn't matter what the metaphor. You have a need and it isn't being met because your partner is selfish (unless sick or terminal).

Why do I feel so strongly about this? Ocotillo's reply with Maslow's hierarchy of human needs is why. It's neglect, abuse, and selfish to ignore your spouse's need that is on the same spectrum as breathing, sleep, food, and water. Not to mention, intimacy is also on the hierarchy. That's why I feel so strongly. Don't beta yourself into believing you are bad for your needs, or you are wrong for wanting to be with your spouse sexually / intimacy. You are not wrong, you'll never be wrong, and every made up word like "duty sex" is nothing but deflection and guilt terms created to make you seem like a bad person for your needs.

And anyone that wants to fight reality or argue your needs are wrong, that person deserves to be alone. They can take care of the person they care about the most and have no issues, by themselves.


----------



## Coldie (Jan 2, 2014)

john117 said:


> Needs assumes subconscious level mental processes to achieve goals, especially the physiological parts. Since there's plenty of examples of asexual (temp or permanent) people out there and many non partner ways to address any needs for sex at the physiological level, I'll pass on the physiological part.
> 
> The pyramid also assumes a fixed set of priorities. Again, I would not be so quick as to agree fully. For many people esteem is the highest, by virtue of having no real self actualization to speak of.
> 
> Also LD by definition assumes that sex does occur so.... Even twice a year the box gets checked and the "need" is fulfilled. Or dead fish sex also checks the box. Maslow does not include any consideration for the emotional connection that is helped by sex. and so on. It's a theory that like most everything else in psychology is up for grabs


I agree, it's safe to assume the low intimacy (LI) spouse gets that box checked twice a year and their need is fulfilled. It's not a checklist though, it's a need. The spouse that has this need for intimacy isn't satisfied and it's abusive and neglect to pretend their need isn't important. "Hey, I have mine checked, you just have to suffer." If you don't need to breath as much, eat as much, or sleep as much, that doesn't mean you expect the people you love to suffer if their needs are not met. You do not leave your spouse oxygen deprived because you aren't. Ignoring those needs can lead to death. The same can be said for the relationship. Ignoring your spouses needs, sex, and intimacy, regardless of two times a year being a check on the box, the relationship will die. And the only reason it isn't, the other spouse makes excuses for being abused and neglected and sticks around for the suffer part. Without intimacy that relationship is dead.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

That's why I have used the term SLA. Or Service Level Agreement... It's an IT term meaning a defined level of service.


----------



## bubba29 (Feb 29, 2012)

capncrunch said:


> When trying to convince LD spouses of their sexual needs, the HD half generally turns to metaphors, which quickly fall apart. A popular one seems to be food. "Imagine going a month without eating!" but that falls apart pretty easily, because most people would die without eating for a month, but going without sex for a month would be frustrating but not life-threatening.
> 
> But if we equate sex to the Physical Love Language, we may be able to compare it to another, such as Time.
> 
> ...


I just read the Five Love Languages. It has shed a whole new light on relationships. I like your analogies.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The strategy above often fails because the HD or Normal D spouse will not stoop down to the LD spouse's level.

Do it long enough and you have a cease fire, not a marriage.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

It doesn't matter how you explain it, which metaphors you use, or whether Moses comes down from Sinai with stone tablets. A self-centered, neglectful spouse is exactly that and those of us married to them should have paid closer attention before saying, "I do". 
If you have to explain to an adult human being that intimacy and sex are necessary and expected parts of a healthy marriage, you are talking to the wrong human being. Either you are important to your spouse or you are not. If you are important to them, your needs are important. Your well-being is important to them. If they are content to see you miserable for months or years on end, they either despise you or they are emotionally and/or mentally disabled. If they want to relieve your pain but just physically can't, that's a different issue. If they can but just won't, they aren't your spouse. They are a fraud who has trapped you with a legal piece of paper.


----------



## Faeleaf (Jul 22, 2014)

Fortunately, I've experienced sexual frustration. So I've never needed a metaphor to understand sexual frustration!

Then again, the bigger problem is one partner needing to argue incessantly in order to try to convince his/her lover that, _"I'm experiencing this very real thing that is outside your experience. Please listen to me and believe what I tell you about it, instead of discounting it because it's foreign to you." _

Both the LD and the HD partner might be guilty of this one.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

My wife asks for things from me all the time. I provide as best I can. I don't need to understand why she wants them and she doesn't need to explain and we don't need to have some pow wow about what is or isn't outside my "experience". She's my wife. If I care about her, I take care of her. Even if I didn't care about her, I'd take care of her because that's what the hell I promised to do. I have never been a dog. I don't get why my dog likes to chase sticks. I don't have to get it. I don't "get" Barbies and dress-up, but my daughters enjoyed that stuff, so I played Barbies with them and I let them do strange things to my hair. This really isn't complicated. If someone you love wants or needs something reasonable and you can provide it, you make the effort. If you don't, you really kind of suck as a human being. This would be especially true when it comes to sex, something they can't get anywhere else without violating their vows. No husband or wife has the right to turn their spouse into a celibate half-human against their will. We even permit convicted felons the occasional conjugal visit.


----------

