Birth Control & Libido

[Elliot]

That is not what I'm talking about at all.

[naners]

I've looked into IUDs, but my understanding is that they make troublesome cycles (heavy, painful, angry, unpredictable, etc.) even more troublesome, with the additional joy of breakthrough bleeding. Mine were most troublesome, and I've gotten so much relief from the pill--I don't want to imagine them being even worse than they already were.

I can only speak from my own experience: I had easy periods before, after they were heavier/longer but nothing too bad, no breakthrough bleeding or anything like that. If you have angry periods to start with maybe talk to a doctor about it. I had a great experience at Planned Parenthood where they have a lot of experience with IUDs. You could also consider the hormonal IUD: it's not quite as efficient cost-wise but I think it's the lowest dose of hormones out there and can be good for angry periods. A friend has one for exactly that reason and has liked it.

[Elliot]

Cost wise the difference is minimal. Thanks, ACA!

[Bakari]

Since then I've had several partners (inluding my fiancee) who used the copper IUD, none of whom had any of the side-effects that are sometimes reported.
I'm always surprised that it isn't much more popular here (I've heard its much more common in Europe)

I have been corrected: she did have heavier periods and cramps at first (but no bleeding in between) but they diminished over time and went away completely after a couple years

[big_owl]

In light of this discussion, I think until I reach about 45 (so seven years), we will do annual checks. It's worth the minimal cost! Although he has found it awfully strange bringing a sample of his sperm into the office every time. Since the sample is in the tell-tale brown paper bag, the secretaries at the urologist always know what it is :).

There are also home kits you can do to check vasectomy effectiveness.  I've seen them at rite-aid and on amazon, of course.  They're pretty effective.

[justajane]

In light of this discussion, I think until I reach about 45 (so seven years), we will do annual checks. It's worth the minimal cost! Although he has found it awfully strange bringing a sample of his sperm into the office every time. Since the sample is in the tell-tale brown paper bag, the secretaries at the urologist always know what it is :).

There are also home kits you can do to check vasectomy effectiveness.  I've seen them at rite-aid and on amazon, of course.  They're pretty effective.

I didn't know that. Thanks!

[golden1]

Sex is for enthusiastic participants only, and to have less than enthusiastic response from either party means that there is insufficient consent.

Just an FYI, there is such a thing as responsive desire.  I am often not in the mood, but if I start doing stuff, I get in the mood fairly quickly. 

[Elliot]

Which again is not the same thing.

[Lis]

Yeah, there's a difference between "I'm not interested in sex, period" and "I'm not interested in sex right now, try again later." A guilty pleasure of mine is reading Ask Abby/Prudence/the rest of the them and there are millions of letter writers discussing a mismatch in sex drive with their partner and the problems it causes.

It's fine to have a high sex drive. It's fine to have a low sex drive. You probably just want to find someone who matches you.

[boy_bye]

When I was on hormonal birth control, it suppressed my sex drive a bit, but the worst part was how it made me crazy/angry/needy/a huge ball of laughs for the week each month when I went off it.

I told my gynie this, and she was like, "Is it the birth control making you crazy, or your boyfriend?" Good point, doctor!

But I didn't like how I felt on it. Sometimes I would get dizzy, and the placebo week was really bad emotionally. So I went off it and never looked back. I'm still crazy for a few days each month, but it's more slightly-worse-road-rage and less OFF-WITH-THEIR-HEADS.

[Lis]

I told my gynie this

I read this as genie and was so confused. Oh my god, clearly I need another cup of coffee.

[Inaya]

It's fine to have a high sex drive. It's fine to have a low sex drive. You probably just want to find someone who matches you.

Which is all well and good, but what happens if you start out your lives together matched, then many years down the road are no longer matched, quite dramatically? This is what some people on the hormonal birth control are having to face (including myself).

[Elliot]

Fwiw, I'm the high drive partner and although it can be a frustrating dynamic, it isn't insurmountable. I prefer something like twice a day, my partner can get by with once a week. What we keep in mind is that part of being GGG is doing our best to meet the other partner's needs. We typically end up around 4 times a week, which we can both live with.

[Sailor Sam]

having sex without both parties experiencing sexual desire is problematic long term. I don't want to have sex with a partner whose heart isn't in it, even if their back is. Sex is for enthusiastic participants only, and to have less than enthusiastic response from either party means that there is insufficient consent.

Eh, your line is too hard for me. There's lots of activities I need to be encouraged to start. But once I'm in the middle of things, I'm an enthusiastic participant. Sex, the gym, cleaning the bathroom. I don't think starting with a little bit of wheedling is lack of consent. Continuing to push when there's been a firm 'no', that's problematic.

[Elliot]

Again, not what I said.

[Cookie78]

Again, not what I said.

Three times now. Care to explain what you said further?

[Elliot]

I'm not sure how it isn't clear. Lis seemed to understand.

[Sailor Sam]

People find understanding in different ways, and there are clearly people struggling to meet you. How about restating?

[Elliot]

My original statement is exactly as I intended. You seem to be conflating the inability to experience sexual desire and have lessened sexual interest.

[Sailor Sam]

I'm not asking you to change the intention of your statement, I'm asking you to explain in new words, so I can understand and we can have real conversation.

[Elliot]

I'm sorry that you feel frustrated.

[Sailor Sam]

Actually, I suspect you're delighted. Done now.

[Flyingkea]

I tried the pill and it had a pretty dramatic effect on my moods - really bad mood swings, so I stopped it within a month. Not of its libido effect as I wasn't sexually active.
Then, after I had a kid, I had the mirena put in. I don't know wether that caused a reduction in sex drive, or if the effects of breastfeeding, not having a good nights sleep for ~18 months, and being all touched out by a clingy kid, but we certtainly don't have sex as often as we used to.


I think Elliot is trying to say that mismatched libidos is problematic in the long term - one party gets tired of being the one initiating sex, while the other gets tired of being asked for sex.

[AllieVaulter]

Been taking combination pill for almost 10 years. Sex drive is nearly nothing now, but it took a while to get that way. I don't mind, but I do feel awful for my husband. I've considered switching, but I like being totally in control of it, and it's had some very good side effects that I'd be sad to lose. Plan to have a chat about options when my prescription expires next month.

I had a Nuva Ring for 4 or 5 years and I think this is what happened to me.  I didn't realize my desire had decreased.  But I ended up having plenty of other issues with the hormones.  The big one - I got morning sickness every freaking month.  It only lasted one night and I found ways to mitigate it, but I got pretty sick of puking at 4am once a month or so.  The last straw was extended morning sickness.  I felt awful for 2 or 3 days, nauseous, lethargic, super sensitive to smells, moody (though this could be from the stress of thinking I was pregnant) etc.  I thought I actually was pregnant so I took the ring out.  And a day or so later I was back to normal.  After that I said F-this, we're doing condoms. 

And BAM!  The change in my desire was very noticeable.  Mental desire and physical responses.  I really liked knowing exactly when my periods would come and knowing we wouldn't get pregnant, which is why I held out for so long.  And I'm so sorry I did.  It was not worth it all. 

[Bakari]

...  I didn't realize my desire had decreased.  ...
And BAM!  The change in my desire was very noticeable.  Mental desire and physical responses. ...

I notice that in the poll above, people who are using it currently tend to say it has little or no effect, and those who did in the past and stopped say it had a more significant effect.   Which would tend to support that maybe the experince Allie and my ex and some other's here had may be the norm - the effect comes on gradually enough that its hard to notice, but it really is there.




Elliot, I think a large part of the communication problem is that you seem to assume that everyone who comments on low sex drive is talking specifically to you, when in fact I'm not sure that any of us were.  My comments were in response to Cathy's question of is there any reason to care if a person has zero sex drive.
More over, your original argument was countering a position that no one here has made to begin with, and so no one sees any reason to make an argument against it.
I mean, your own description of your relationship (which is pretty close to the norm, FWIW) seems very much to conflict with how you worded your original statement.  "Would prefer once a week but is willing to compromise at 4 times per week" is not really the definition of "enthusiastic" is it?  I don't mean that as an attack (I have been in that relationship, I think most people have), I'm just pointing out that it sounds like your position is more extreme than it (obviously) really is - and no one is attempting to argue with you anyway.




This whole topic (and especially the side track of "who cares if you have low libido, just don't bother to have sex") reminds me of the whole search for the (badly misnamed) "female viagra"
No one seems to notice that that isn't the goal at all.
Viagra is a drug that makes it physically possible for a man to have sex.  It has no effect what-so-ever on libido, either way.
The female equivalent to viagra has existed a lot longer than viagra has - its called "lube".
What they are really looking for is a female aphrodisiac - something that will stimulate desire.  Which is a lot harder to do in pill form (without nasty side effects), hence there not being one (for men or women) even though humans have put more effort into that search than just about any pharmaceutical ever.

[MsPeacock]

Testosterone is quite effective at increasing sexual desire (aphrodisiac) in women. The problem is that a whole other set of issues arise if you are a woman taking testosterone.

Tubal ligation - best thing ever. No hormones, highly effective.  I never did well w/ hormonal bc for a variety of reasons, and so glad to be done with them. Now I am old enough to enjoy (not) the rollercoaster of menopause.

[Jakejake]

There's lots of activities I need to be encouraged to start. But once I'm in the middle of things, I'm an enthusiastic participant. Sex, the gym, cleaning the bathroom. I don't think starting with a little bit of wheedling is lack of consent.

This is just an FYI in case my husband dies and one of you all ends up being married to me. If you are nagging me to clean the bathroom and I'm clearly not in the mood, please just stop. The death stare combined with nonmovement toward the bathroom and rolling of my eyes should be interpreted as nonconsent.

[Cressida]

I took an SSRI once that pretty much killed orgasms for that me. All that delicious build up, then....nothing. I got rid of the pills. I'd chuck any pill that lessened my libido, or interfered with happy endings.

Since you're the one who sent me to this thread (not on purpose or anything), I will go ahead and agree enthusiastically with your experience. Mine is exactly the same. So fantastically frustrating.

HOWEVER, I do find that going off the SSRI for 2-3 days, then doing the sex thing, then resuming the pills, works pretty well for me, as long as it's only once every 2-3 weeks so that I don't lose the benefit of the antidepressant. That solution would not work for someone who preferred more frequent orgasms, a position I do understand.

And of course, none of the foregoing is about hormonal birth control, which I suppose is the topic of the thread. The Pill made me depressed, but the Mirena is awesome in every way (except placement and removal; that part is torturous). Neither seemed to affect my sex drive, although that could be because the effect of the SSRI trumped it.

[Sibley]

Here's a plug for the copper IUD. Good for 10 years, no hormones, no condoms, 100% effective. I loved mine and only had it taken out when trying to concieve. Was uncomfortable on the way in and out but nothing I couldn't handle. Modern view is that they are at least as safe as hormonal methods - we tend to forget that those have a slight risk of stroke, heart attack etc.

I've looked into IUDs, but my understanding is that they make troublesome cycles (heavy, painful, angry, unpredictable, etc.) even more troublesome, with the additional joy of breakthrough bleeding. Mine were most troublesome, and I've gotten so much relief from the pill--I don't want to imagine them being even worse than they already were.

I have a copper IUD, and my cycles got heavier. For me it's not a problem. However, the ones that use a small amount of hormones can do the opposite. Mirena (sp?) is the one I know of. I didn't do well with the pill so wanted to avoid hormones entirely.

[MayDay]

For those asking about IUD's, I am on my 2nd Mirena and can confirm its awesomeness.  Skyla is another hormonal one that is new on the market, a bit smaller, and intended to be good for those who don't have a big ol' saggy uterus thanks to kids. 

Obviously if your body does not tolerate hormones well, you wouldn't want one. 

Reasons why it is awesome:
1.  5 years, no messing with anything.
2.  I believe they are now free under the ACA, but mine was ~700$ which isn't bad at all for 5 years of BC
3.  Insertion/removal are like a painful vaginal exam, but nothing HORRIBLE.  And your doc will probably give you something to take ahead of time if you ask.
4. Lighter or no periods (I have none at all, this is amazing).
5. Fewer hormones, so you get some of the benefits (like my acne clearing up, and the lighter/no periods) without higher levels or the on/off of BCP's. 

All in all, I plan to keep getting them until menopause.

[okits]

I'm in the "I don't know" boat.  I was on the pill prior to being sexually active, until my 30s.  Sure, things changed, but from beginning to end I more than doubled my age, and I had other health issues, so how to ascribe cause?  I may vote N/A so I can see the poll results.

[okits]

It's fine to have a high sex drive. It's fine to have a low sex drive. You probably just want to find someone who matches you.

Which is all well and good, but what happens if you start out your lives together matched, then many years down the road are no longer matched, quite dramatically? This is what some people on the hormonal birth control are having to face (including myself).

Decide if it's enough of a mismatch to try fixing.

List all the things you could try (from easiest to most difficult/invasive).

Work your way down the list until you have closed the gap enough or you've exceeded your desire to fix the mismatch or your commitment to the relationship (e.g. you may not be in a serious relationship or the remaining things to try are more than one or both of you can accept doing.)

Being mismatched is not an easy place to be, but I'd like to think commitment to the relationship and some willingness to bridge the gap could help things substantially (things missing from a past, failed relationship, so I don't know from experience.)

[FrugalHawk]

It's fine to have a high sex drive. It's fine to have a low sex drive. You probably just want to find someone who matches you.

Which is all well and good, but what happens if you start out your lives together matched, then many years down the road are no longer matched, quite dramatically? This is what some people on the hormonal birth control are having to face (including myself).

Here are my 2 cents. I have been on hormonal birth control for 14 years. There are plenty of times when I don't "feel" like having sex. I have sex anyway. I make it a priority to have sex at least 5 times per week. Yes, I literally keep track and if we are mid-week and not doing it I will make it a priority. When I don't "feel" like it, I do it anyway, for him. Yes, I literally fake enthusiasm to begin with, and you know what happens? I end up liking it and enjoying myself. He is my husband, making him happy makes me happy. If he wants it more than that and if he doesn't initiate, he can watch porn and masturbate. If he does initiate, I never say no (unless I am extremely sick). It is not a sacrifice, to know that my husband still loves me and desires me after all this time.

So my advice, as the lower libido person, is fake it 'til you make it.

Now if he wants sex 3+ times per day every single day that's a bigger problem but the solution is the same, it's to communicate and both people makes choices that benefit the couple (typically the lower libido person sucks it up and the high libido person masturbates more).

[Inaya]

Here are my 2 cents. I have been on hormonal birth control for 14 years. There are plenty of times when I don't "feel" like having sex. I have sex anyway. I make it a priority to have sex at least 5 times per week. Yes, I literally keep track and if we are mid-week and not doing it I will make it a priority. When I don't "feel" like it, I do it anyway, for him. Yes, I literally fake enthusiasm to begin with, and you know what happens? I end up liking it and enjoying myself. He is my husband, making him happy makes me happy. If he wants it more than that and if he doesn't initiate, he can watch porn and masturbate. If he does initiate, I never say no (unless I am extremely sick). It is not a sacrifice, to know that my husband still loves me and desires me after all this time.

So my advice, as the lower libido person, is fake it 'til you make it.

Now if he wants sex 3+ times per day every single day that's a bigger problem but the solution is the same, it's to communicate and both people makes choices that benefit the couple (typically the lower libido person sucks it up and the high libido person masturbates more).

I do try, because I do want to make him happy. But most of the time it ends up being pretty painful, and occasionally bloody--which makes it a bit traumatic. Lubrication helps, but the problem is mainly that if I'm not into it, he doesn't fit. Which can be painful for him too.  On a weekend with no plans, I make a point of finding some "adult bedtime stories" and that helps--but it takes considerable time. So I do make the effort, because I do care about his needs, but ugh my body fights me every step of the way. Definitely going to look into new methods.

[Cwadda]

Ok, maybe this is slightly off topic. But since it seems like the majority of replies on here are from women, I'd really appreciate your advice.

I've (21m) been seeing my current S/O (21f) for a little over 3 months. Amazing woman. The most emotionally fulfilling relationship I've ever had. But I have one problem, and that's that I'm not convinced she's attracted to me. She has never kissed ME, and we've had a total of one sexual encounter ever. The only time she says I'm handsome, etc. is sometimes when I tell her she is first. She has never unprovokenly told me I'm attractive in any way or kissed me. I tell her how attractive she is on a regular basis. And I actually DO think she is! I'm very sexually attracted to her too. But every time I initiate her response is always she is tired. So I stopped initiating and asked if she was uncomfortable with anything sexual-related. She assured me nothing was wrong.

Honestly I'm extremely frustrated when other women say I'm attractive but the person I'm closest with and could talk about anything with will not. Does this mean we should stick to being friends? How do I even go about talking to her about this?

Also want to mention that she's on oral birth control and she's been on it a while, from before we met I think. I don't know which kind of brand.

Again, sorry this is off-topic but I'd really like some outsider's perspectives. Didn't want to make a whole thread about it. I've been talking to my friends a bit about it, and will be talking about it more very soon.

[pbkmaine]

Why don't you ask her?

[justajane]

That's really hard, Cwadda. I really feel for you. Do you think the straightforward approach would work with her? i.e. "Physical contact is really important to me. It's a major way I express love and affection. I need this in a long term relationship."

By sexual encounter, I assume you mean intercourse? Have you had steamy make-out sessions or touching sessions? Has she ever had an orgasm with you? Has she had a serious sexual relationship before this? Is it possible she's never experienced sexual passion?

I think this information would be important for you to know. In other words, it might not be that she isn't attracted to you but rather that she hasn't unlocked that side of herself. 21 would be somewhat late for this to happen, but sometimes it takes a while. Is she religious? Could there be other mitigating factors? A history of abuse? I'm just spitballing here.

If this is the most emotionally fulfilling relationship you've ever had, I think it's worthwhile to at least try to see if it could work. But long term, I don't think it's tenable to be with someone who is always too tired, especially this early in the relationship.

[Zaga]

I was a crazy lady on birth control, crying at the least little thing several times a week.  I couldn't even stand myself.

Now I have terrible menstrual pain, like vomiting and diarrhea terrible.  And the birth control did take that away, but the other side effects just weren't worth the pain reduction.

Not sure about libido to be honest.  I don't think it was changed much, but I can't be sure.  I've been off of hormonal BC since 2004, and other than major period pain I'm happy with this.  DH got a vasectomy not long after we got married, that's been our BC up til now. 

Next month I'm having the source of my pain removed, and I couldn't be more relieved.  That organ has caused me nothing but pain.  I cry when I think my period is about to start, no one should have to live like that, in fear of pain.  Keeping my ovaries though, as I do like my natural hormones!  I'm much more emotionally stable when they are allowed to work naturally.

[Bakari]

That's really hard, Cwadda. I really feel for you. Do you think the straightforward approach would work with her? i.e. "Physical contact is really important to me. It's a major way I express love and affection. I need this in a long term relationship."

By sexual encounter, I assume you mean intercourse? Have you had steamy make-out sessions or touching sessions? Has she ever had an orgasm with you? Has she had a serious sexual relationship before this? Is it possible she's never experienced sexual passion?

I think this information would be important for you to know. In other words, it might not be that she isn't attracted to you but rather that she hasn't unlocked that side of herself. 21 would be somewhat late for this to happen, but sometimes it takes a while. Is she religious? Could there be other mitigating factors? A history of abuse? I'm just spitballing here.

If this is the most emotionally fulfilling relationship you've ever had, I think it's worthwhile to at least try to see if it could work. But long term, I don't think it's tenable to be with someone who is always too tired, especially this early in the relationship.

+1 (mostly)


Does she say its the most emotionally fulfilling relationship she has even been in?
For that matter, has she been in any serious relationship before?
Or in any sexual relationship (including non-serious)? Has she had an orgasm with anyone (including by herself)?


Some people are just not expressive.
Some people are uncomfortable with sexuality (even people who state verbally that they aren't).
And some people aren't interested in sex if they aren't completely committed emotionally.


21 is pretty young.


You need to talk to her, but simply asking straight forward the questions you ultimately want to know about probably won't work.  Chances are she sees the way she is as normal, just like you think your expectations as normal. So you'd just be talking past each other. Instead of focusing on what her reactions mean to or about you, you probably should start with the focus on what sexuality in general means to her (completely independent of your relationship). What/when/how did she learn about sex as a child?  Has she ever felt strongly attracted to anyone? Has she ever been vocal about those feelings with anyone (either the target of them, or girlfriends)? What does she feel is the relationship between physical and emotional intimacy?
You might want to learn more about where she is coming from before you tell her about your needs and preferences (least she feel obligated to conform more to what you have said).


I've been in relationship where it was as you described and the reason was the other person really wasn't 100% into the relationship, and in others where the other person was just too shy and timid and new to sexuality to be expressive about it.  One of those can be fixed, the other can't, but it wasn't immediately obvious which was which at the time

[Kris]

Ok, maybe this is slightly off topic. But since it seems like the majority of replies on here are from women, I'd really appreciate your advice.

I've (21m) been seeing my current S/O (21f) for a little over 3 months. Amazing woman. The most emotionally fulfilling relationship I've ever had. But I have one problem, and that's that I'm not convinced she's attracted to me. She has never kissed ME, and we've had a total of one sexual encounter ever. The only time she says I'm handsome, etc. is sometimes when I tell her she is first. She has never unprovokenly told me I'm attractive in any way or kissed me. I tell her how attractive she is on a regular basis. And I actually DO think she is! I'm very sexually attracted to her too. But every time I initiate her response is always she is tired. So I stopped initiating and asked if she was uncomfortable with anything sexual-related. She assured me nothing was wrong.

Honestly I'm extremely frustrated when other women say I'm attractive but the person I'm closest with and could talk about anything with will not. Does this mean we should stick to being friends? How do I even go about talking to her about this?

Also want to mention that she's on oral birth control and she's been on it a while, from before we met I think. I don't know which kind of brand.

Again, sorry this is off-topic but I'd really like some outsider's perspectives. Didn't want to make a whole thread about it. I've been talking to my friends a bit about it, and will be talking about it more very soon.

A couple of things:

First, you have to talk to her. You have to tell her pretty much exactly what you wrote above.  How? Find a way. Maybe have a beer first to loosen yourself up, but do it. Why? Because this will eventually break you up if you don't. And at least if you talk to her, you can see whether she will work on it. Whether she likes you enough to put in the effort.  And if not, that gives you your answer, either way.

Second, if this is the most emotionally fulfilling relationship you have ever had, but you also have a huge part of the relationship that is not emotionally fulfilling... then (if your conversation with her doesn't change anything) my guess is your past relationships have not been very good and you are too young to know to expect more from them.  If I could go back in time and talk to my younger self, I would say that I spent far too much time waiting for boyfriends to turn into the people I wanted them to be, rather than recognizing that I should be letting go of relationships that weren't what I needed so we could both move on to find what we did need.  If your girlfriend is not receptive and does not begin to give you more of what you need, then I would give the same advice to you.

[Cathy]

Cwadda has elicited some pretty extreme replies here, especially (but not only) from justajane.

Let's just take a step back for a minute and imagine a parallel situation. Suppose a new member "Johnny Consumer" signed up for this forum and started a thread in the "Ask a Mustachian" subforum with the following hypothetical fact pattern:

I have always loved buying $100,000 cars. They make me feel strong and manly. I buy at least one per year, trading in the previous one with the dealer for a credit equal to a fraction of its value. But there's a problem. My girlfriend never tells me how much she loves my cars. In fact, if I didn't know better, I would think she disapproved of how I spend my money. She talks a lot about saving for retirement, and she never goes out to eat. She wants to go on walks with me rather than drive in my $100,000 cars. Recently I got into a big fight with her because I had to take out a payday loan to afford my car payments. I love her very much, but money is driving us apart. Aside from her refusal to praise my cars, it is the most emotionally fulfilling relationship that I have ever had. Knowledgeable forum members, what should I do?

Although I called these facts "hypothetical", we actually get similar threads on a regular basis, and MMM himself has addressed this topic in several blog posts. As a community, our general approach is to suggest that the spendypants partner reconsider his preferences and extricate himself from consumer suckerism. We're all aware of the very strong societal narrative that says that people should spend all their money, but we've critically analysed that narrative and found that it doesn't need to be a part of our lives. And we often help impart that knowledge onto other people.

But if justajane were replying to our hypothetical thread-starter above, her reply would be along the lines of the following:

That's really hard, Johnny. I really feel for you. Do you think the straightforward approach would work with her? i.e. "Expensive cars are really important to me. Sharing them is a major way I express love and affection. I need this in a long term relationship." ... I think some background information would be important for you to know. In other words, it might not be that she is frugal but rather that she hasn't unlocked that consumer side of herself yet. 21 would be somewhat late for this to happen, but sometimes it takes a while. Is she religious? Could there be other mitigating factors? A history of abuse? I'm just spitballing here.

Somehow, when the topic is sex rather than money, all of the critical thinking skills go out the window and posters here recommend an ultimatum of "Fuck me or else".

Instead of uncritically accepting societal narratives, how about deconstructing them? More importantly, where is the sensitivity and compassion? Instead of an ultimatum to comply with society's norms, how about exploring other options?

[Kris]

Cwadda has elicited some pretty extreme replies here, especially (but not only) from justajane.

Let's just take a step back for a minute and imagine a parallel situation. Suppose a new member "Johnny Consumer" signed up for this forum and started a thread in the "Ask a Mustachian" subforum with the following hypothetical fact pattern:

I have always loved buying $100,000 cars. They make me feel strong and manly. I buy at least one per year, trading in the previous one with the dealer for a credit equal to a fraction of its value. But there's a problem. My girlfriend never tells me how much she loves my cars. In fact, if I didn't know better, I would think she disapproved of how I spend my money. She talks a lot about saving for retirement, and she never goes out to eat. She wants to go on walks with me rather than drive in my $100,000 cars. Recently I got into a big fight with her because I had to take out a payday loan to afford my car payments. I love her very much, but money is driving us apart. Aside from her refusal to praise my cars, it is the most emotionally fulfilling relationship that I have ever had. Knowledgeable forum members, what should I do?

Although I called these facts "hypothetical", we actually get similar threads on a regular basis, and MMM himself has addressed this topic in several blog posts. As a community, our general approach is to suggest that the spendypants partner reconsider his preferences and extricate himself from consumer suckerism. We're all aware of the very strong societal narrative that says that people should spend all their money, but we've critically analysed that narrative and found that it doesn't need to be a part of our lives. And we often help impart that knowledge onto other people.

But if justajane were replying to our hypothetical thread-starter above, her reply would be along the lines of the following:

That's really hard, Johnny. I really feel for you. Do you think the straightforward approach would work with her? i.e. "Expensive cars are really important to me. Sharing them is major way I express love and affection. I need this in a long term relationship." ... I think some bakground information would be important for you to know. In other words, it might not be that she is frugal but rather that she hasn't unlocked that consumer side of herself yet. 21 would be somewhat late for this to happen, but sometimes it takes a while. Is she religious? Could there be other mitigating factors? A history of abuse? I'm just spitballing here.

Somehow, when the topic is sex rather than money, all of the critical thinking skills go out the window and posters here recommend an ultimatum of "Fuck me or else".

Instead of uncritically accepting societal narratives, how about deconstructing them? More importantly, where is the sensitivity and compassion? Instead of an ultimatum to comply with society norms, how about exploring other options?

Surely you are not equating having out of control spending habits with having a sex drive and wanting to feel attractive to your partner?

I would argue, frankly, that you seem to be selectively reading these comments based on your own personal drives, or lack thereof. I see no lack of compassion in the replies. On the other hand, I certainly see a lack of compassion for Cwadda's emotional and sexual needs in your rather absurd equation of them to a cartoonishly shallow need for expensive sports cars.

[Cathy]

I see no lack of compassion in the replies. ...

Kris, justajane literally suggested the delivery of an ultimatum as the first step in exploring a solution to the problem. She then went on to speculate that the only, or main, reasons somebody would struggle with such an ultimatum are religion or a history of abuse. I'm sorry, but that is not compassion, in any sense of the word. Her post was viscerally upsetting to me, and I felt a need to reply, against my better judgment.

I'm happy for you that you like sex. That doesn't mean that critical analysis has no place in this discussion.

[Kris]

I see no lack of compassion in the replies. ...

Kris, justajane literally suggested the delivery of an ultimatum as the first step in exploring a solution to the problem. She then went on to speculate that the only reasons somebody would struggle with such an ultimatum are religion or a history of abuse. I'm sorry, but that is not compassion, in any sense of the word. Her post was viscerally upsetting to me, and I felt a need to reply, against my better judgment.

I'm happy for you that you like sex. That doesn't mean that critical analysis has no place in this discussion.

1. She never once suggested an ultimatum. She asked whether he thought a straightforward approach, where he explained physical contact was important to him in a relationship, might work.

2.  She did not at all say that the only reasons people would "struggle with such an ultimatum" (again, you are putting words in her mouth) were religion or sexual abuse.  Go back and read her post. She gave other possibilities as well. She also said she was just spitballing. The fact that she did not mention the possibility that Cwadda's girlfriend might be asexual seems to have infuriated you, but she never implied that she was giving an exhaustive list. 

3.  You said that Cwadda's post elicited many extreme responses, implying that most or all of them were.  And now, you cite only justajane's, and with a willful misreading, at that.

4. You state the need for critical analysis, and yet you completely ignore my critical analysis of your rather absurd analogy.

5. My personal desire, or lack thereof, for sex has no bearing on my ability to imagine that others might desire sex.  Nor does it have any bearing on my ability to imagine that some people do not desire sex in the least.  Your suggestion to the contrary is disingenuous and patronizing.

If you have to selectively misrepresent what people are saying, it suggests that your argument is not very strong. Maybe you could take a step back, recognize that you might be overreacting a little, and be honest with yourself about whether your posts here have been a little ill-advised.

[Cathy]

willful misreading

selectively misrepresent

be honest with yourself about whether your posts here have been a little ill-advised

Oh, lay off Kris. Your complaints with my post are hypertechnical (and wrong in some cases, where you have ironically misrepresented my posts yourself) and, more importantly, you simply do not even engage my main point, preferring instead to dismiss it out of hand. The only actual mistake you identified was my use of the word "only", but I fixed that prior to your reply, which strongly suggests it was not a "willful misreading", but rather a trivial and innocuous error which was fixed in a matter of minutes.

You are right that my posts were "ill-advised" but not for the reasons you think. It would be as if I had weakly suggested frugality on a forum well-known for endorsing spendthrift behaviour. The posters here have a particular disposition toward this topic and you are right that it is not worth challenging.

[Kris]

willful misreading

selectively misrepresent

be honest with yourself about whether your posts here have been a little ill-advised

Oh, lay off Kris. Your complaints with my post are hypertechnical (and wrong in some cases, where you have ironically misrepresented my posts yourself) and, more importantly, you simply do not even engage my main point, preferring instead to dismiss it out of hand. The only actual mistake you identified was my use of the word "only", but I fixed that prior to your reply, which strongly suggests it was not a "willful misreading", but rather a trivial and innocuous error which was fixed in a matter of minutes.

You are right that my posts were "ill-advised" but not for the reasons you think. It would be as if I had weakly suggested frugality on a forum well-known for endorsing spendthrift behaviour. The posters here have a particular disposition toward this topic and you are right that it is not worth challenging.

I am guessing others will have the same reading of your post as I did. Will they be wrong, as well?

And what was the main point that I did not engage with?

[Cathy]

[...]Oh, lay off Kris. Your complaints with my post are hypertechnical (and wrong in some cases, where you have ironically misrepresented my posts yourself) and, more importantly, you simply do not even engage my main point, preferring instead to dismiss it out of hand. [...]

I am guessing others will have the same reading of your post as I did. Will they be wrong, as well?

And what was the main point that I did not engage with?

I always think it is a bit lame when people announce that they are withdrawing from a discussion that they injected themselves into, so I won't do that. At the same time, I do not think it is worth engaging in a close reading of each of the posts of this thread -- it's too much work, and I don't think it will convince anybody of anything. Instead, I'll just use an illustrative approach by showing that one of the specific "misrepresentations" you accused me of making was not a misrepresentation.

I see no lack of compassion in the replies. ...

Kris, justajane literally suggested the delivery of an ultimatum [...]

1. She never once suggested an ultimatum.  ...

If you have to selectively misrepresent what people are saying, it suggests that your argument is not very strong. Maybe you could take a step back, recognize that you might be overreacting a little, and be honest with yourself about whether your posts here have been a little ill-advised.

justajane clearly and obviously did, in fact, suggest an ultimatum. This is not a misrepresentation. Let's begin by looking at what the words "suggest" and "ultimatum" mean.

According to an online dictionary, the verb "to suggest" means "to mention or introduce (an idea, proposition, plan, etc.) for consideration or possible action" (emphasis mine). To "suggest" something does not mean to say it is the only or the best option. It only means to bring it forward for consideration or discussion.

According to the same dictionary, the word "ultimatum" means (in the sense I meant) "a final proposal or statement of conditions" or "a final, uncompromising demand or set of terms issued by a party to a dispute, the rejection of which may lead to a severance of relations ..." (emphasis mine). Now, it is true that the word "ultimatum" sometimes implies that rejection will lead to force, but from the context of my post, it's clear that my meaning was the one I have bolded.

Now, let's turn to justajane's post and see whether she in fact "suggested" an "ultimatum":

That's really hard, Cwadda. I really feel for you. Do you think the straightforward approach would work with her? i.e. "Physical contact is really important to me. It's a major way I express love and affection. I need this in a long term relationship." ...

Did justajane put an idea forward for consideration? Yes, she did. Hence, there was a suggestion. And what was that suggestion? It was to explicitly state that the speaker "needs [sex] in a long term relationship". If somebody says that they "need sex", a clear implication is that if they never get sex, the relationship will eventually end, because the need for sex is non-negotiable. Hence, this is an ultimatum: "I expect sex or this relationship will end". In conclusion, justajane did suggest an ultimatum.

This what I mean by "hypertechnical". Rather than focus on substance, you take issue with my use of words -- and you are mostly not even correct in your complaints.

[Kris]

[...]Oh, lay off Kris. Your complaints with my post are hypertechnical (and wrong in some cases, where you have ironically misrepresented my posts yourself) and, more importantly, you simply do not even engage my main point, preferring instead to dismiss it out of hand. [...]

I am guessing others will have the same reading of your post as I did. Will they be wrong, as well?

And what was the main point that I did not engage with?

I always think it is a bit lame when people announce that they are withdrawing from a discussion that they injected themselves into, so I won't do that. At the same time, I do not think it is worth engaging in a close reading of each of the posts of this thread -- it's too much work, and I don't think it will convince anybody of anything. Instead, I'll just use an illustrative approach by showing that one of the specific "misrepresentations" you accused me was not a misrepresentation.

I see no lack of compassion in the replies. ...

Kris, justajane literally suggested the delivery of an ultimatum [...]

1. She never once suggested an ultimatum.  ...

If you have to selectively misrepresent what people are saying, it suggests that your argument is not very strong. Maybe you could take a step back, recognize that you might be overreacting a little, and be honest with yourself about whether your posts here have been a little ill-advised.

justajane clearly and obviously did, in fact, suggest an ultimatum. This is not a misrepresentation. Let's begin by looking at what the words "suggest" and "ultimatum" mean.

According to an online dictionary, the verb "to suggest" means "to mention or introduce (an idea, proposition, plan, etc.) for consideration or possible action" (emphasis mine). To "suggest" something does not mean to say it is the only or the best option. It only means to bring it forward for consideration or discussion.

According to the same dictionary, the word "ultimatum" means (in the sense I meant) "a final proposal or statement of conditions" or "a final, uncompromising demand or set of terms issued by a party to a dispute, the rejection of which may lead to a severance of relations ..." (emphasis mine). Now, it is true that the word "ultimatum" sometimes implies that rejection will lead to force, but from the context of my post, it's clear that my meaning was the one I have bolded.

Now, let's turn to justajane's post and see whether she in fact "suggested" an "ultimatum":

That's really hard, Cwadda. I really feel for you. Do you think the straightforward approach would work with her? i.e. "Physical contact is really important to me. It's a major way I express love and affection. I need this in a long term relationship." ...

Did justajane put an idea forward for consideration? Yes, she did. Hence, there was a suggestion. And what was that suggestion? It was to explicitly state that the speaker "needs [sex] in a long term relationship". If somebody says that they "need sex", a clear implication is that if they never get sex, the relationship will eventually end, because the need for sex is non-negotiable. Hence, this is an ultimatum: "I expect sex or this relationship will end". In conclusion, justajane did suggest an ultimatum.

This what I mean by "hypertechnical". Rather than focus on substance, you take issue with my use of words -- and you are mostly not even correct in your complaints.

One thing I find troubling here is that you so clearly are misrepresenting what not only Justajane says, but also what Cwadda said. According to your definition of ultimatum, and your reading of it: "I expect sex or this relationship will end." This is a direct quote from you.  You think this is what Justajane is stating, so exactly that you put it in quotes.   So, first, does that mean that every time a person in a relationship states that something is important to them in a long-term relationship, it's an ultimatum? Or is it just when it is sex?

Second, go back and read both Cwadda's post and justajane's response. I am on my ipad and my MIL is using the only computer in the house, so I'm sorry I don't want to go through the acrobatics to quote both here. The bulk of Cwadda's post is about emotional affection, including wanting to hear he is attractive to her. Only once does he mention actual sex. Yet you immediately reduce it to being exclusively about sex, and mock his feelings by comparing them to needing to buy $100,000 cars every year to feel manly. Likewise, justajane's response talks also about his need for emotional connection through physical, non-sexual touch. 

I do not think this is particularly compassionate of you, not to mention that you are misrepresenting the substance of what both Cwadda said and what justajane suggested. I don't think this observation is "hypertechnical."

Also, I'm just speculating here, but I would imagine that it might be easier for someone who has a sex drive to imagine what it would be like not to have one, than for someone who doesn't have a sex drive to imaginr what it would be like to have one. Because, for example, there are times when I do not have the slightest urge to have sex, and in fact the idea is unpleasant.  It is not difficult to me to imagine just extending that feeling out forever to get a picture of what it would feel like to be asexual.  But if you have no libido, I think it would be hard to imagine what that feels like, and in that case, much of what goes on with having a libido must seem odd.   Hence, perhaps, a tendency to perceive and even portray that need as clownish and even ridiculous. But sex is, for better or worse, a way for those with a libido to feel connected with an intimate partner. As is non-sexual touch and complimentary language. So, whether or not you feel that desire, others do. And ultimately, it is an important topic for these two people to talk about. Because ultimately, if they are seriously mismatched and can't do much to resolve that, it will probably end their relationship sooner or later. Is that an ultimatum, or just reality? I would argue that the people who have replied to Cwadda are arguing the latter. I certainly was.

[justajane]

I'm really confused by your reaction to my post, Cathy. By straightforward, I meant honest. And no, being honest about what you want is not an ultimatum. It is not coercion. But honesty could (although not definitely) lead to the end of the relationship, but that would be due to a lack of compatibility and not due to a "take-it-or-leave-it" mentality on the part of the person being honest. If something is extremely important to one half of the couple, and the other half does not need or value that aspect, the long term viability of the relationship is probably at risk.

And I was not asking the guy to interrogate his girlfriend about her past. Or that abuse would be the only reason a person wouldn't want to be intimate. I was merely trying to point out that there could be mitigating factors. I was asking him if he knew of any because that would influence my advice on how he should approach this issue.

And it is an issue. Why? Because it matters to him.

I'm still just flummoxed by how my words were taken by you, Cathy. My intentions towards the commenter were kindly meant. I hope that at least came through to him, even if it inadvertently wounded another reader.

[Cathy]

I'm still just flummoxed by how my words were taken by you, Cathy. My intentions towards the commenter were kindly meant. I hope that at least came through to him, even if it inadvertently wounded another reader.

The lack of compassion that I referred to was in relation to the girlfriend in the fact pattern, not the author of the post. The undercurrent in all of the replies was that the girlfriend would need to change or "explore" if she wanted to keep this relationship. There was no discussion of alternative outcomes. For example, maybe the author of the post could satisfy certain of his "needs" with another person, while maintaining what he describes as an emotionally fulfilling relationship with the girlfriend.

More fundamentally, my objection was this: When it comes to a person's stated preferences about spending money, we don't take them at face value on this forum. Instead, we analyse them and we think about whether those preferences will really make the person happy, or whether instead they are just the result of societal indoctrination. Similarly, when it comes to relationships -- sexual, romantic, or otherwise -- there are a lot of societal narratives about how things should work and about what is important and about what people "need". A person's stated beliefs about what they need in a relationship are entitled to respect but they are not beyond inquiry. Similar to stated preferences about spending, we can analyse those beliefs and think about whether they really are necessary to make a person happy, or whether the person is just reifying narratives. Maybe if the author of the post above critically thought about his "needs", he might realise they are more limited than he originally thought, and therefore, he might be able to stay with the girlfriend with only some minor changes.

So yes, I advocate open communication. But my point is that that communication can survey a wide range of topics -- including deconstructing a person's stated "needs", and exploring less conventional forms of relationships (possibly including more than two people). Communication is not just limited to asking one partner to change. That's what I thought was "extreme". Kris summed this up well in one of her posts when she said "If your girlfriend is not receptive and does not begin to give you more of what you need, then I would [suggest you break up with her]". Why is the only option on the table that the girlfriend needs to change?

Perhaps I'm just naïve, but in my formulation of love, you don't break up with somebody just because they aren't able to change themselves to be exactly how you want. Instead, if you actually love somebody, you think of all the ways to resolve the situation, inducing adopting less conventional approaches if necessary.