Houellebecq

"I think it's pretty self-centred to think that your needs must be met FIRST, before you think of your partner."

I agree. Did it ever occur to you though that often the women who've lost interest in sex have been putting out for years to satisfy their partner's sexual appetites, satisfying their own a lot of the time too it must be said, but all the while having their own deeper needs remain largely unmet?

Just as you describe, they've created for their men "a relationship where they can be physically intimate with their partners, where they can feel loved and desired and can share the joy of sex and closeness with their partner, and feel they are welcome caressing the woman they adore, rather than feel like an intruder begging for dirty favours". Many of these women have done all that for years.

"For most men in a happy sensual and sexual relationship, communication isn't a problem."

This is not necessarily the case. Many men appear to have a good sex life with a partner who is faithful to them and always there for them, and yet they still never become communicators. The communication just doesn't stretch beyond the sexual encounter. They are either not capable or interested in relating to their partners in a deeper and more permanent way. They might treat their partner well. In fact most of these men are barely aware that their partner is crying out for much more than sex and a roof over her head.

"I see the physical and the verbal expression of love feeding off each other."

I agree, but unfortunately the 'verbal expression' for many men begins and ends with the sexual side of the relationship. For the rest of the time, they retreat into their world of sport, work, TV, their mates or whatever and are often totally unaware that their female partners want intimacy and closeness both in and outside the bedroom.

Men like examinator and CJ understand this perfectly.

Bronwyn, surely if a woman is doing her best to give her man the relationship he wants, and isn't satisfied with her own side of it, then it's up to her to communicate that fact? Withdrawing sex is hardly an intelligent response, it exacerbates the problems, spreading the pain, not a winning strategy. You generalise about men, repeating the hoary old stereotypes, yet ignore the fact that most young men these days are working their butts off to be sensitive. The sensitivity and communication that is expected of them is a female characteristic, it doesn't come naturally to males, yet they have learnt it to varying degrees. Why should the learning be one-sided? You talk about mutual effort, yet seem to be saying it should be a mutual effort to please the woman, not the pair. Bettina Arndt has made the effort, quite successfully, but because she doesn't now toe the femnist line, her words are rejected, PC lives yet.
IMO, until we stop thinking about it in PC terms, we cannot progress, we need to work out a way that encompasses the gender differences, that supports the idea of "equal but different" within relationships.

Bronwyn,

I understand and agree with most of what you say, but the whole point is that there ARE two sides to this, which I have never denied (Did you notice I said 'Equally, '). The female side of things you put accross, while valid, has been poured over and analyised relentlessly for the last 50 years, usually with the man to blame for everything. The current generation of men have constantly heard how much more attentive they should be to their wifes emotional needs and desired level of verbal communication in the relationship.

The male side of things has been totally neglected to the point where a man wanting a healthy sex life is given all these pre-requesites that must be satisfied (on his part only) to achieve this, in an environment where any woman willingly engaging in any sexual encounter primarily to please her partner is trained to think of it as rape.

I don't remember women being given any pre-requisites to be satisfied when all this brow beating of those non-communicative neanderthal men was handed out. There has been no search for a middle ground, all I've seen is 'verbal communication is king, ' rammed down your average old fashioned 'actions speak louder than words' male's throat.

It's all very one sided, and just look at the uproar from the women here at hearing another side to the argument.

'"Wives who feel loved as opposed to used are more likely to have a healthy libido". '
The term 'used' here really offends me. Anyone who feels 'used' for sex either doesn't like sex, sees sex as something they give in return for something else, isn't communicating their needs to their partner, or their partner is ignoring their needs. I note that all the woman here have concentrated solely on that last possibility. Says a lot to me.

If the old saying that women give sex in return for love and men give love in return for sex has any truth, it's never going to work if only one party is doing the giving regardless of the gender.

Dear Houellebecq,

Did you and some of the other male posters
on this thread not understand the meaning of
these words in my post
where I quite clearly stated - that
Robert had nailed it his statement
that BOTH partners, "need to be
pro-active and willing to learn..."
in a relationship. That it takes
two to tango. That BOTH have to be
involved. That there's got to be give
and take in any relationship. That if all
you do is take - you're going to end up
frustrated and alone. Pro-active is the
key word here.

How is that being one-sided?

To have a one-sided relation ask your girlfriend to do a mobius strip.

Foxy, I admire and laud your attempts to be even-handed, in my opinion you're on the right track, yet you occasionally still fall into the trap(as I see it) of the femnist ideology.
I have a question for you; Why do you decry a male's attitude to sex as a "want", yet a woman's is a "need"? surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander? I have gone back and read your posts again before asking, and that has lead me to another question.
You don't like Btn' Arndt generalising, quoting exceptions such as yourself. BA seems to me to be quite clear that she's discussing overall trends, common situations, and of course there will always be exceptions, that doesn't detract from the points she raises, or her conclusions drawn, does it?