Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Doing a little bit of blog-gazing during breakfast today and I highlighed a link titled 'Interesting Topic'. I saw Flanagan in the link text. At first I thought that it was about Bob Flanagan, Super Masochist, which is indeed an interesting topic but not for the faint of heart.
It's been a long time since I've had that thought but Davie Boy is in town, and well, it's a long and complicated story about why there is a train of thought that leads from Davie Boy to Bob Flanagan but it has something to do with an alternative bookstore/body piercing/tattoo shop in the South Side of Pittsburgh. If you haven't heard of Bob Flanagan, he's the guy getting nails hammered into him in the Happiness in Slavery video.
Although I digress, a man who made a life of pain is oddly a propos to what was on the other side of that link. I have to admit it, at first I felt some palpitation, then my breathing became more labored and I was wondering if I was having an allergic reaction to my oatmeal. But that was not it, it was more a reaction to the article depicting an apocolyptic picture of marriage today, reporting on a rash of books and studies pointing to the sexlessness of the modern marriage. I might add that the author is Caitlin Flanagan, a woman.
I can imagine how life gets to the point where the gravy train only comes by once a year, and we all know some poor unfortunate soul who lives that way. I promised myself years ago that I would never knowlingly get myself in a situation where the fire of passion gets doused as schedules get busier and families grow. But it takes work on both peoples' part to keep the flame alive.
There are obviously a lot of factors. One is that households have two breadwinners and they often "too exhausted and resentful to have sex" by the end of the day. But I think it's less about being tired and more about habit. Once the canoe's in the water, both people will start paddling. What it really takes is both people making it a priority to make a real effort.
There are probably also some "women's liberation" issues as well - sex is no longer a responsibility. Women have won more freedom in how they experss their sexuality. That's a good thing. They don't have to feel bad about saying 'no' when they're not in the mood. That's a good thing. It's funny, though, that the movement took the freedom but didn't take the concomitant responsibility with it - the responsibility for maintaining a sex life and for keeping it interesting since it's no longer a monarchy. She writes:
To many contemporary women, however, the notion that sex might have any function other than personal fulfillment (and the occasional bit of carefully scheduled baby making) is a violation of the very tenets of the sexual revolution that so deeply shaped their attitudes on such matters. Under these conditions, pity the poor married man hoping to get a bit of comfort from the wife at day's end. He must somehow seduce a woman who is economically independent of him, bone tired, philosophically disinclined to have sex unless she is jolly well in the mood, numbingly familiar with his every sexual maneuver, and still doing a slow burn over his failure to wipe down the countertops and fold the dish towel after cooking the kids' dinner. He can hardly be blamed for opting instead to check his e-mail, catch a few minutes of SportsCenter, and call it a night.
I don't think it takes too much imagination to think of someone in this situation, or to see how easy it would be to start heading down that road. I'd write more, but it's too late to carry out a rant and I wouldn't do the article justice. Here's the link, read it!
12:14:54 AM
Last Update: 2/2/2003; 8:47:03 PM
