The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

[JamesR]

It's probably a combination of quantity & emotionally fulfilling. It definitely varies with people, but I would say that it seems harder than it should be for people to get their needs met. It's a hard problem, dating sites may be improving things somewhat, but they also make it harder in some senses - i.e. less mixed-attractiveness couples due to that.

I doubt that tech like VR + genital operating gear will really make much difference in the emotional side of things, lack of direct touch of another human, pheromones, whatever.. Unless that's all faked I suppose.

[jennypenny]

If people are generally less active now, it stands to reason that they are also having less frequent sex. There are also certain lifestyle diseases that can make sex for difficult, especially for men. I also admit I know several women my age (50s) who've given up on sex, and themselves, and new experiences. If they are assuming that their partners have also given up, then they are foolish or willfully deluding themselves.

That said, it seems to me that sex is one of those things like money where what constitutes "enough" isn't the same for everyone, and the default assumption is always that more must be better. DH and I were like rabbits at the beginning of our relationship like most couples, but I can't say our sex lives were any better then. There's no question that the quality of the sex is better now and we're much better at expressing exactly what we want/need. We also made an effort to make sure the expected lull when our kids were little didn't become a habit.

I guess it's also like alcohol. I can't drink nearly as much as I could when I was younger, but the quality of the alcohol is much higher and I enjoy and appreciate the drink much more as well. I'm not saying that people should learn to accept feeling frustrated. I'm only suggesting that we shouldn't assume more is better and maybe pursue quality* as well as quantity.

*By "quality" I don't mean every encounter need be porn-worthy, only satisfying in the way a stoic would define it.


edit: I didn't see the last couple of posts, so I'm mostly repeating what they said.

[GandK]

I'm not convinced that people, overall, are not having enough sex, either. The overpopulation thread would suggest otherwise. And I think most people with partners want better sex, not necessarily more sex. Unfulfilled emotional/intimacy needs? Yes, probably. Sex is a means to an end. It is not the only means.

What I meant is that it takes a lot more effort or luck for a women to stay attractive when aging. Or maybe by effort, I mean self respect.

This is just... grrr.

Look, I can't speak for every woman, but my priorities have changed as I've aged. Especially regarding my looks. Yes, I care less about whether people find me "attractive" now that I'm in my 40s. But not because I do not respect myself. I respect myself more now. And this has resulted in a great deal more happiness for me, if not for the men in my sphere who apparently always want to have sex (?).

At the risk of inviting a level of commentary that will get more personal than is productive for this topic, I think I can illustrate this best with photos:
...

At about 37, after the birth of my youngest, I noticed that men had stopped looking at me a second time when I passed them on the street. I assumed that was because of the weight I'd gained during pregnancy, because since puberty I'd always been looked at, to the point that it made me uncomfortable. Extreme introversion and above-average prettiness don't mix. For decades I'd done things like wear baggy clothes and glasses/sunglasses in crowds to hide my figure and face. And all of a sudden, that wasn't necessary anymore.

Gradually, I lost the baby weight. But still men didn't look twice. Right about the time I turned 40, it sank in that my weight gain had not been the reason for my newfound invisibility, or not all of it. I was getting old, and the average guy on the street would not call me above-average anymore. Time had its way with me and I hadn't noticed. I was middle-aged. <dun dun DUN!>

My first response was panic. I would never have called myself vain, and neither would anyone else... like most people who get more attention than they would choose, I habitually avoided attracting more. But when the portion of my looks that screamed "fertility" had faded, as you see above, I realized how much of my identity as a woman was attached to them, and how much I'd been using them to my advantage, if only passively. If "pretty" was part of who I was, and it was gone, then who was I now?

I felt very depressed for about a year. If there was a phase of my life where I lost my self-respect, this was it. Everyone knows they're going to get old, but it's always something that happens "someday," not "now." Then, I gradually noticed that the social effect of being a middle-aged woman was... not bad. Yes, I attracted much less attention, but the portion that was gone was the unwanted portion. The shallow, catcalling, interested-in-sex-but-not-really-in-you attention. I didn't have to hide from strange men's gazes to be comfortable in public anymore. And that was fun! It was what I'd always wanted. I could walk around in public without feeling like I was on display. I could speak to Joe Random without worrying that he'd take it as an invitation. I was no longer a sex object. I was a human.

So today I am less pretty, but more happy, free and engaged. And I love it. I wouldn't go back if you paid me. When people speak to me now, it's because they're interested in me, not because they have an itch to scratch. And no part of my self-worth is based on how many random strangers' heads I turn. I work out for my health, not my looks. If it helps my curves, that's a bonus. I wear makeup only when it would please my husband, not to attract those who would only want me if I wore it. I did those things once without even realizing it, just because society (you? and others) think that's what women "should" do. But I will never do those things again, Jean. I respect myself too much now to engage in the sort of attention-seeking that does nothing but pander to the sick and the shallow. Because that's all that is. And if I do it, I become one of them.

[jennypenny]

I'm not convinced that people, overall, are not having enough sex, either. The overpopulation thread would suggest otherwise. And I think most people with partners want better sex, not necessarily more sex. Unfulfilled emotional/intimacy needs? Yes, probably. Sex is a means to an end. It is not the only means.

The more I reread the thread, the more 'consumer-ish' the attitude towards sex sounds. As a group, we brag about being able to live on very little everything (at least near the minimum-level requirement for everything). We find ways to get exactly what we need without overindulging while expending the minimum amount of resources possible. Basic needs like food, sleep, and exercise are always included in that. When it comes to sex however, the typical stoic/ERE approach gets abandoned for a more consumption-based approach. Curious.

@GandK--I understand what you're saying. I've seen a lot of women struggle when they get close to that infamous "last day" that everyone talks about. I'm glad you're taking a healthy approach to it. I can't say I ever thought about it. There are definitely some benefits to being unattractive LOL. No one ever gave me a second look, so I never had to worry about when that kind of behavior might end. When I was struggling with some issues as a teen, someone told me that someday I'd be grateful that I wasn't pretty. At the time, I thought it was just the ramblings of a drunk. Now I get it. I struggled with feeling good about myself when my weight went up, and feel much better about myself now that it's (almost) back where it should be, but I never viewed it in terms of attractiveness or wondered what other people thought. It really is freeing.

[jacob]

The more I reread the thread, the more 'consumer-ish' the attitude towards sex sounds.

Could be that it's just the language we have available to discuss or ... maybe there's something to it. I'm currently witnessing the after-shock of a breakup on facebook. One term that keeps coming up is "how much the person had invested in the relationship", "how to cut losses", and "sunk costs".

Cost-acquisition considerations, perhaps?

BTW Everone these making "economic" comments are female (N<5 though). Maybe discount-rates in the "NPV calculation" differ between genders? In any case, the terminology is certainly useful. Marriage = buy & hold; dating = trading commissions; polyamorism = diversification; fuck buddy = call option, ...

[jennypenny]

LOL

There might be a difference in language because of gender. I can see women viewing it as a cost consideration because there are still echoes of the old rule that women should have fewer partners than men. Add in limited reproductive years, and I do think sex is a finite resource for women in a way that it isn't for men.

Still, the discussions about sex on the forum remind me of the discussions about travel. It's rare anyone questions the desire for longer, more frequent, or more exotic travel here. Both seem to be an acceptable consumer outlet for an otherwise stoic crowd.

[JamesR]

Here's a different way to think of this "deficit" perhaps.

I remember reading somewhere that the top 10-20% attractive/social men get significantly more sex/have more relationships than the remainder. So they're also having multiple partners or cheating or just many serial relationships.

In effect, the average woman end up having more relationships with guys, than the average guy has with women. I guess if you want to bring in the language of alpha/beta/etc, then alpha males take a much bigger slice of the pie and beta males end up pretty pissed off

The respective distribution curves for "Ease of getting lucky" for men and women are different and hence the deficit/mismatch happens.

Is a solution to this legalized prostitution? Probably not, I've been reading that countries with legalized prostitution end up having more human trafficking & exploitation/abuse, etc.

[RealPerson]

LOL
Still, the discussions about sex on the forum remind me of the discussions about travel. It's rare anyone questions the desire for longer, more frequent, or more exotic travel here. Both seem to be an acceptable consumer outlet for an otherwise stoic crowd.

I prefer to call my travel bug "geographic arbitrage". Enduring strange cultures, food and jet lag for a lower COL. Pure torture to save money. The more exotic the higher the savings.

[Dragline]

I'm curious. What's the standard for "enough sex" if any?

You'll know when you've had enough when it becomes less of a priority.

That's mostly in jest, but partially true.

Then it becomes more of question of quality, not quantity.

[Dragline]

At the risk of inviting a level of commentary that will get more personal than is productive for this topic, I think I can illustrate this best with photos:

I'll be right over . . .

Strangely, I've had the opposite experience, as apparently my looks have improved with age.

So long as I have a dog or a baby with me, that is.

[Dragline]

The more I reread the thread, the more 'consumer-ish' the attitude towards sex sounds.

Could be that it's just the language we have available to discuss or ... maybe there's something to it. I'm currently witnessing the after-shock of a breakup on facebook. One term that keeps coming up is "how much the person had invested in the relationship", "how to cut losses", and "sunk costs".

Cost-acquisition considerations, perhaps?

I think its the same "illusion of scarcity" that drives the consumer/celebrity culture. Sex is not actually scarce, just like autos, food, coffee or most other things in our society. We live in an era of abundance. But "idealized" sex, autos, food and coffee as cleverly marketed are scarce commodities.

A culture rooted in consumerism and economic theory such as ours worships "scarcity" as the highest value. That's why people want to be famous even though many famous people are quite miserable. And why they hoard things they don't need or really even want -- they think that "somebody else" would value them as scarce items.

And also why healthy old people (but not the infirm) are venerated -- they are scarce and we want to become them: http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... of-old-men

[Dragline]

Here's a different way to think of this "deficit" perhaps.

I remember reading somewhere that the top 10-20% attractive/social men get significantly more sex/have more relationships than the remainder. So they're also having multiple partners or cheating or just many serial relationships.

Yes, like most other aspects of life that are significant, its a power-law distribution. But this also creates the scarcity illusion -- that people who are having the most sex must be "better off" because they are relatively rare.

[7Wannabe5]

@GandK: You are still an extremely lovely woman. You just are obviously and purposefully donning a bit of a burka of healthy/natural affluent wife/mom in the last shot. For contrast on the aging female topic, I have uploaded a terrible picture of only ever moderately attractive me at age 23, obviously exhausted and post-partum bloated (center) and two recent, age 47 and 50, pictures I had on my dating profile. The pictures at the top are me at age 1 with my recently divorced from second husband 47 year old Polish-heritage grandmother and engaging in some hilariously telling or predicative behavior given that I literally had two men offer to help me haul water and dig in my garden today. My grandmother appears to be smaller than me in this photo, but I fit in one of her bathing suits I remember her wearing in her mid-50s. She was once described in my hearing by one of her exes as being "a hot little number." My dinner date last night informed me that I was a good catch because I am smart and "still smoking for somebody our age." and then he apologized for being back-handed in compliment.-lol.

Anyways, back to the original topic, IMO quantity vs. quality is a false dichotomy. There is no reason in the world why you can't have both beyond a lack of desire to throw energy/resources/attention into the realm of sexuality. It's like saying "If I have to cook dinner every night then it's going to have to be mac and cheese." Having sex every day, on average, only takes about the same time and attention as preparing a meal to eat together. Also, it's a fairly well scientifically documented fact that some people simply have higher sex drives than others, and people are always going to tend towards justifying their way of being as best or at least normal. I would note that having a sex drive or exhibiting sexual behavior equivalent to 7x/week is far less off the hump of normal than living on $8000/yr. and, more importantly, it's not like being a consumer because sex is good for you : ) , much more like exercising in nature or dancing than slogging through the mall with a credit card.

My continuing field research gathering anecdotal evidence on the cause of the deficit is now pointing to the obesity epidemic as a factor. Apparently, that was the reason for my dinner date initiating divorce. I believe that he may be an INTJ. You guys are pretty ruthless in that regard. He also didn't disagree when I said I could stand to lose some weight after he told me I was "still smokin'" , but I tend to default to "more cake good" when I receive that sort of mixed message. (sigh)

[BRUTE]

IMO quantity vs. quality is a false dichotomy. There is no reason in the world why you can't have both beyond a lack of desire to throw energy/resources/attention into the realm of sexuality. It's like saying "If I have to cook dinner every night then it's going to have to be mac and cheese."

there isn't necessarily a dichotomy. even though brute likes to prepare delicious dinner every day, that doesn't mean there aren't two dimensions in play. for example brute pretty much adheres to the warrior diet pattern of eating only 1 meal a day (sometimes supplemented with a 2nd, smaller meal or snack). so even though brute was making nice breakfasts and lunches most days, he still chose to only cook and eat dinner when given the option.

so it might still be interesting to find out, for an individual human, what the optimal or necessary quantity or quality are, and what quality even means in sex. for the record, brute is firmly on the quality side - bad sex with female humans is worse than useless to him, it's a waste of time and effort and makes him feel bad, like watching a bad movie and not leaving. brute has aborted sexual relations in the middle of the act because he caught himself wishing he'd stayed home and done something more interesting instead.

[7Wannabe5]

@BRUTE: I don't disagree that quality is more important than quantity, if one has to choose. First you need a reasonably healthy and attractive partner. I can't have sex with a man I don't find physically attractive. Twice in my life I have attempted to make out with a man I did not find physically attractive and felt strongly compelled, like you, to abort activity in a rather rude and awkward manner. Therefore, I will never attempt this again. I mean, I don't need 1986 Jimmy Smits, but some threshold must be surpassed. The next important factor would be heat/chemistry/wiring. One important gender difference is that men often have the experience of sex being bad because their partner is unresponsive. If a male partner is unresponsive (as opposed to temporarily incapable) sex typically does not occur. Some people who are otherwise healthy and attractive simply are not wired or loaded very tight or hot sexually. Other times, as was the case with my ex, they may suffer from physiological depression or severe eczema or other health issues that lower sexual responsiveness or drive. So, given physical attractiveness and arousability, the next links in the chain might be something like level of intellectual and/or intuitive communication and emotional connection. IOW, heart and brain. Truth be told, if push comes to shove, I think brains are more important than heart when it comes to quality of sex, but this is a false dichotomy, so no need to choose. Next up, I guess, would be skill and creativity. Then, maybe, matters pertaining to physiological functioning and performance beyond arousability, such as difficulties with achieving or maintaining erection, lubrication or orgasm. What did I forget? Context,attitude and social conditioning would also be important.

Also, there is such a thing as good bad sex. The first encounter I had after my divorce was with a man who was also having his first encounter after a divorce. We both gained benefit from having quite literally pathetic sex with each other. -lol.

[BRUTE]

@BRUTE: I don't disagree that quality is more important than quantity, if one has to choose

brute's very verbose point was supposed to be: even if quality is there, higher quantity is not always better. thus the warrior diet example. even though there was already a certain quality in every meal, brute still reduced the quantity of meals from previous average. the same could be true for sexual encounters. maybe more is not always better, even if quality is already high. this is certainly the way brute feels about it, insofar as it's possible for brute to be capable of having feelings.

[7Wannabe5]

@BRUTE: Gotcha. It really is the case that it is almost impossible to list all the variables in human sexuality. One reference I read said that you might as well just consider each individual to be completely unique. That said, I think (may be wrong) it is possible that what you are expressing is a difference in temperament or preference having to do with control vs. spontaneity. I am an easy-going, impulsive P submissive, but I have dated quite a few male J dominants, and they always have these more or less rigid routines, rules, schedules or flow-charts that also apply in the realm of sex. That's why they want to date somebody like me, but they don't know that they want to date somebody like me until they do. I just relax in my feminine and remain curious about whether the rule is there will be no sex until the 3rd date or the 5th, or whether it will happen after the lawn is mowed and the door is locked, or will I have to wait until after the spreadsheet is complete and the clock is wound too? Kind of like this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5diMImYIIA

[BRUTE]

brute has always liked The Dark Side of the Moon.

[enigmaT120]

"...there is no dark side of the moon...."

[George the original one]

I just relax in my feminine and remain curious about whether the rule is there will be no sex until the 3rd date or the 5th, or whether it will happen after the lawn is mowed and the door is locked, or will I have to wait until after the spreadsheet is complete and the clock is wound too?

LOL, I'm glad I had no rules about that... it was usually first date or second date or never. Doesn't matter much to me about where, though I nearly drew the line about a roll in the hay in the barn when the gal had hayfever... we were interrupted anyways before clothes came off.