I don’t ask my dad group what their sex lives are like any more than I want them asking about mine. But many assume that I get more play as an intentional single guy then they do. So indirectly they tell me about their sex lives by telling me the absence of such a thing. This is not a unique situation and through hearing many subjective narratives, I see a pattern that I am not unfamiliar: sex is used as barter. Without any facts, I am certain I can conclude that almost all couples use sex as a transaction where one person (usually the person who holds perceived power) gives it as a reward in exchange for the receiver (usually the person just looking for sex) for doing something (which doesn’t have to be of any material value) in return. Here are the problems when sex is treated as a deal.
You’ve both prostituted yourselves and the concept of romance is dead. The difference between paying for sex and having it rewarded through redemptive appeasement is a very fine line: you both have turned it into a transaction. The commodity of sex and its exchange value will inflate over time and there will be a point where no deed or action will be enough. I have long expressed that relationship is not a place to get something, much less sex. There are far easier ways to get it without the encumbrances. Sex is the physicalization of expressing mutual closeness and shared pleasures. In effect, it is the consequence of romance, not vice versa.
Want more sex? Stop working for it and never treat it as an end goal; it is not something to get nor is it something to achieve. It is an expression of self-image and is both priceless and valueless.
It’s a sign of selfishness and powerlessness. Intimacy is sharing of emotions which is then expressed physically. It is given. To withhold it, or worst, extracted through coercion, is a sign that the individual feels their needs exist above the partner’s. It forecloses discussion and surrenders the exploration of consensus. When sex is used this way, it creates the situation of powerlessness which is often wrestled back when conditions are fulfilled.
Fundamental inequality. As ironic as it sounds, make-up sex is always rewarding; reward sex could be a sign the couple is breaking apart. The former is a rekindling of closeness after a fracture and it is often more intense. The latter speaks of a concealed agenda with conditionality that seeks a resentful rebalancing. There could be an inequality of chores, responsibilities, freedom and wealth that speaks of a much deeper cause not voiced or ineffectively resolved. But to withhold sex (seen as the ultimate expression of intimacy) is akin to holding ransom in a relationship. It is extremely (maybe even impossible) to deescalate from there without significant collateral damage.
Having a child will not solve marital problems any more than sex is the answer to relationship problems. And withholding it makes it even worse. What’s critical to understand here is that when sex is commoditized, it highlights the triviality of the dispute, forecloses real resolution and cheapens the whole experience. It forestalls the growth of the individuals and binds the actors to escalating interactions of valueless exchanges. Want more sex? Stop working for it and never treat it as an end goal; it is not something to get nor is it something to achieve. It is an expression of self-image and is both priceless and valueless.
