Paul’s Perambulations

December 2, 2009

The impossible search for “normal” in sexuality.

Filed under: Love — admin @ 12:17 am

I contributed the following posts to the discussion that followed Women Who Want to Want – by Daniel Bergner (November 24, 2009). A mediocre article generated some interesting comments. I feel sorry for some very unhappy, frustrated and confused people out there. Societal pressure is no help and often can make things worse.My first post:
I am not impressed with the article, which is basically a rehash of the impressions of one clinician in the area who gives no hard data. I am a long-time reader of the NYTimes and am disappointed with the superficiality of its current “science” reporting. The range of human sexuality is enormous and natural. Partners need experience to recognize compatibility and incompatibility (not wishful thinking). Be it necessary as breathing, a finer sense like an exquisite wine, or “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” (some feminists of the ‘60’s) – it’s fine if your partner is on the same page. Surprising number of wives complain their husbands have no sexual desire or understanding, particularly after a few years of marriage. Getting out of shape is often a factor.

My second post:
The breath and range of sexuality is enormous and yet “natural.” As I mentioned in a previous post, it is important that partners are matched in their degree of interest/disinterest and how they go about it. I met the love of my life about a decade ago. It all goes together for us — social activities, intellectual pursuits, intimacies, sex, loving care and concern, family. We work to make it happen, but it doesn’t feel like work. We are prepared to adjust to change, and part of my Quaker vow was to help my wife live her life fully and authentically, where ever it might lead her. We know we are together because we want to be. We’re just back from a post-Thanksgiving camping/hiking trip in the woods, and we had a great time in and out of the tent, with near freezing temperatures and heavy winds. We consider ourselves so fortunate.

My third post:
What’s this about having to “work to stay desirable”? To me, “desirable” means respecting yourself enough to keep your body healthy and fit. In the bedroom, who cares about the latest fashion in clothes? I’m the one who posted #188. We’re not kids. Staying desirable is no work, it’s fun!

1 Comment »

  1. The following is my post on a friend’s blog in response to his comments about some unfortunate changes in the NYTimes recently.

    I am a long time reader of the NYTimes and agree with what you are saying about the newspaper. The paper is in a financial bind, and as a result they are trying to appeal to a wider range of readers and at the same time the quality has deteriorated. But it is still the best thing we’ve got as a national newspaper in this country. I am now totally paperless and read the “paper” online. It’s better for the pocketbook and the environment. After a bit of adjustment, I find this to be very satisfactory (better than I had expected). The good news is that the online comments and blogs are an incredible addition to the traditional newspaper. I often find these resources to be better than the original article. I contribute my own posts and thereby can participate in the on-going dialogue. This helps compensate somewhat for the fact that, frankly, essentially no one reads our blogs.

    Comment by admin — December 3, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress