The meaning of sex for men

disposable_pants · 2016-07-12T23:03:15+00:00

The biological part:

an itch he just needs to scratch with any nubile body

Should be fairly easy to understand. Testosterone makes you want to have sex, and men produce tons of testosterone. By itself, sex is just a strong desire.

Sex only takes on greater importance for men in the context of relationships. A man is giving his partner what she most wants out of a relationship -- commitment. This comes in the form of time, attention, resources, sexual exclusivity, etc. He's committing to stick around when the going gets tough and (in the context of serious relationships) help her raise her children. The man is giving up an awful lot in this situation; most notably the opportunity for sex (what he most wants out of a relationship) with any other woman in the world. And he's only willing to give that up because in his mind she adores him, appreciates the sacrifices he's making for her, and will be at least reasonably available to help out with the aforementioned testosterone-fueled desire for sex.

When a woman withholds sex from a man she's in a relationship with, all of that is thrown out the window. If she really adored him, wouldn't she want to have sex with him? If she really appreciated the sacrifices he made to satisfy her desire for commitment, wouldn't she recognize the one simple thing he wants (sex) and respond to that? If she's not willing to have sex with him, why did he forego all other opportunities for sex in favor of her? It feels like a betrayal of the whole arrangement and makes all the loving words she's said to him sound hollow.

ppdthrowawai · 2016-07-12T23:47:58+00:00

I would say that sex makes me objectively happier in the same way that getting at least 8 hours of sleep makes you objectively happier. For the sake of the example, excuse the fact that you will literally die without enough sleep. When I get no sleep, I'm more irritable, less focused, and less productive. Now, being unattached, a bed is a bed. Any sleep, while not better than my comfy bed at home, is better than no sleep.

In the case of marriage, lets say I've signed a contract that says I'm only allowed to sleep in my own bed. I'm going to love and appreciate my own bed a whole lot more. It's also MY bed. It's comfortable and familiar, I've grown quite attached to it. When you're married, you are signing a contract that says you will only fuck one person for the rest of your life. That contract pretty much says they are responsible for that aspect of your happiness and wellbeing. In a dead bedroom scenario, its like your bed being walled off and having to sleep on the floor of your bedroom every night for the rest of your life. You'll live, but the quality isn't as good and you'll begin to resent that nice comfy bed that is just out of your reach.

drok007 · 2016-07-12T22:30:17+00:00

I feel like you just stated it, I don't see why it's a contradiction. It's necessary but not exhaustive.

As an analogy:

Feeding a dog is an important part of the dogs bond to you and respecting you, but it's not the only thing the dog needs. A dog will also take food from almost anyone, especially when it's hungry.

impossibleworlds · 2016-07-12T22:41:11+00:00

As I understand it, it's only meaningful conditionally - when it's with a woman he has promoted to long-term girlfriend/wife status. The relationship determines the level of meaning, not the act itself.

lady_baker · 2016-07-12T23:31:50+00:00

They might be similar acts physically but they aren't the same thing mentally. Have lunch with a friend, that's fun. Now, think about having lunch with a friend who has two weeks to live. It's much different because you are clinging to the relationship in that case. I think thoughtful people who have sex with someone they care about are trying to enhance the relationship. Casual sex is more like a vice. Meeting a friend as an excuse to get chocolate cake.

FairlyNaive · 2016-07-12T22:30:48+00:00

the exact same acts

Well they are not the same to begin with. Closest comparison I can think of is the special meaning people attribute to very mundane things during rituals, like having a moment of silence because of tragedy has way more emotional impact then just shutting up. Or heaving the feast on wedding/funeral/other important occasion is not the same as your everage dinner.

Also being told that you are fat undesirable neckbearb has different affect from stranger on the internet and you SO.

ilbcaicnl · 2016-07-12T23:54:02+00:00

There are some good descriptions in this thread so I won't delve into a distinct answer, but I would just like to drop in to note the fact that being able to get sex is becoming increasingly meaningful for men.

Throughout history, manhood was defined in various ways which were oppositional to women, citing things like chivalry, honour, the ability to bring home the bacon, protecting the weak, etc. Being able to get sex from women was not something that was prized, mainly due to the fact that marriage was the expected outlet for that. Over the centuries, these definitions of manhood have been dwindling, partially due to women gaining more rights and autonomy and therefore not needing the chivalry, financial subsidy, other functions of men being replaced by the government. Reading about masculinity throughout history you will see the same thing over and over, something which men predominantly did becomes less of a 'man' thing for various reasons, and quickly men put more effort into other ventures instead. For each step women take towards these things which men normally did, men lose the ability to define themselves by those actions. This has a very significant social effect because even though the capacity to achieve manhood has been significantly reduced (by virtue of lack of necessity), the onus to achieve it has not diminished. Men still crave being able to affirm their manhood, and with less and less avenues all of the effort is poured over into the few small things that still do give them that affirmation. That is why sex is such a huge motivator. In the past half century and especially in the last decade, being able to attract women has become one of the greatest methods of 'claiming' manhood. Men's physical sex drive hasn't really increased (on the contrary, average testosterone levels have been in decline for decades) but the need to achieve something in order to be able to call yourself a man is as present as ever. Not just getting a girl and having satisfying sex with her, but specifically being able to attract many girls, and using that as a way to show the world that you are in fact, a man.

gasparddelanuit · 2016-07-13T02:14:04+00:00

It is both. Sex is versatile and has multiple functions that are beneficial in a variety of settings. Sexual release is a very cathartic and pleasurable experience, which enables a man to satisfy his sex drive. An unfed sexual appetite creates discomfort and is distracting to the point that it can interfere with a man’s ability to concentrate on other matters. Sex is the most effective way of dealing with this, but masturbation also works. So this function of sex is to scratch an itch.

In the context of a serious romantic relationship, your confusion on this matter is perhaps best rectified by the idea of something being necessary, but not sufficient. For example, a power source is necessary to make a car, but it is not sufficient. A car also needs wheels, for instance. One can similarly say that sex is necessary for a man to bond with a woman and experience emotional intimacy, but it is not sufficient without other factors, such as liking her or having some shared values, for instance.

Sexual satisfaction is important to a man’s homeostasis, sense of well-being and happiness, regardless of his relationship status. Given this, it stands to reason that it would be a necessary component, for a man to feel a heightened degree of appreciation, affection and intimacy with a woman, above what he would experience were he not sexually intimate with her, all other things being equal. There are also a lot of evolutionary induced hormonal things going on that no doubt enhance the bonding experience.

Moreover, just the act of being naked and exchanging fluids with another human being is so intimate, it escapes pretence. Nothing needs to be said to appreciate the truthfulness, simplicity, intimacy and reality of the situation. Words on the other hand are limiting and are often dishonest. Perhaps most importantly, words are not tangible or, as some like to say, words are cheap. Someone saying “thank you” or “I love you”, to express appreciation, is less rewarding and profound than them showing their appreciation by giving you something you and they know that you want and need, in this case great sex. Not to do so raises questions in a man’s mind about how much he is loved and limits his desire or capacity to bond.

So, the sexual act helps a man scratch his itch, but also lets him know that the woman doing the scratching appreciates his existence enough to help him fulfil that task. If the woman in question has other non-sexual qualities he finds laudable, all the better, but the sex part is essential to sustain his deepest affections, though not sufficient.

By the way, men are not necessarily thinking all of this out in this level of detail, but this is what is happening.

[deleted] · 2016-07-12T23:26:46+00:00

Well let's say you really like jewellery and you collect it. You have a lot of jewellery and you enjoy wearing it.

But you also have one particular piece which was given to you by someone you love. Even though it may be objectively very similar or even the same as the other stuff you already have, you will treasure it more for its sentimental value.

If you have an emotional connection to someone, everything you do with them becomes more special whether it's sex or literally just watching a movie. Even really insignificant shit will form associations - for example if you smelt a perfume your ex-girlfriend used to wear, you'd most certainly be reminded of her and feel something in that moment.

lady_baker · 2016-07-12T22:34:53+00:00

Because men are wired like that. Is it so hard to believe?

Men are different than you. We don't think the same as women. Understand this. Don't be solipsistic. Don't think about this in terms of "how would I feel". You're going to get it wrong every time.

It's not necessarily the sex, it's the surrendering of her sexuality to one man and one man alone that a man covets from a woman.

Like I said in another thread, if a woman could fuck her side dick, and still respect her man, it would be different.. but since for women, the two are intertwined (and the prospect of paternity fraud looms), men have come to demand monogamy from their mates.

But yeah men could fuck a side piece and have it be nothing.. then fuck the SO and have it mean something (in no small part because it means something to her).

Apexk9 · 2016-07-12T22:27:42+00:00

Nah its time.

A dude can duck 100 women and get no feels but have him spend a straight week with a girl and he'll catch the feels.

coratoad · 2016-07-12T22:31:41+00:00

Maybe it's like this....Almost all approval is good, but approval from certain people matters more than others. All intimacy is good, but intimacy with certain people is more important than others.

For instance, one of my friends might tell me that they are proud of me. This is nice but it wouldn't mean the same as if my dad told me he was proud of me. Even though it is the exact same act from my perspective, the context makes a difference. Same with sex I think.

lbspredh · 2016-07-13T06:37:33+00:00

Why can't it be both? we are biologically compelled to stick dick in vag and make babies, any babies we can, but we also have some compulsion towards medium term pair bonding. Doesn't mean we instantly pair bond with everyone we stick it in though

bones_and_love · 2016-07-13T08:23:31+00:00

In another active thread here, there is a subconversation about how sex is supposed to be both a necessary and meaningful part of a man's affection and bonding, AND an itch he just needs to scratch with any nubile body.

As a man, I can tell you that I bond with women I frequently sleep with and that after 2 days, I'm the horniest person who wants to get at it even if it's with someone I haven't bonded with. I think that should be enough, but from what you're saying, it sounds like you need an analogy.

If you're struggling to understand, remember that sex is a social action similar to talking except that it uses a lot of touch instead of a lot of sound. That makes it pretty easy to bridge the gap by thinking about chit chatting.

People are social animals that can easily grow bored and just feel like talking. At that point, they might start talking to a stranger out of no where -- nothing serious, just an impulse caused by no talking in a while or maybe a particular thing they want to share. At the same time, your best friends are in part the result of many, many chit chats, and to be really fulfilled, you probably need to have some good friends like those in your life. So there you have it, you've got the same social behavior working at two completely different levels -- one that's more short term and another that's more long term -- and both need to be satisfied to be happy. If you had a great bunch of best friends but never talked to them or anyone else, you'd go mad. If you talked to all sorts of new strangers all the time, you'd have no good friends and feel your relationships are mostly superficial and then go mad. Keep in mind, you can get both from the same person if you chit chat all the time with your good friends.

Not much of a difference here. You've got a short-term need to have sex with plain old anyone (can be someone familiar if that's what you want and can have) and a long-term need to do it with someone familiar -- the familiarity makes it much more enjoyable in terms of feeling fulfilled and happy. But just like the chitchatting example, even if you have that familiar person in your life and she's the best thing ever, if you two rarely do it, you'll feel awful. And even if you fuck everything that moves, you'll feel unsatisfied with the meaninglessness of it all.

There'll be some tough guys coming in to say they don't agree with that second part, but it's just true. No need to argue something we've all experienced and that we all know. After all, even the most sexually active rock stars, actors, and singers tend to get tied up in a long term gig -- there's gotta be something to that familiarity.

betterdeadthanbeta · 2016-07-13T13:46:26+00:00

Replace 'sex' with talking/conversation/emotional sharing/going out on the town and 'man' with 'woman' and it should help you to understand.

How is conversation supposed to both a necessary and meaningful part of a woman's affection and bonding, AND an itch she needs to scratch with any willing participant?

How is going out to nice places necessary to a woman being happy in a relationship, yet she still gets the itch to go out with her friends and gal pals?

Silly 'paradox' if you ask me. The only reason it's striking when applied to men is because men aren't allowed to want sex for some bizarre reason. How DARE men want sex in an LTR? Even though it's like, our one requirement... compared to the 10 pages long list of must-haves for women seeking a partner.

[deleted] · 2016-07-13T13:58:27+00:00

I've only ever had sex within the confines of a relationship by choice, but I can still speak to this I think.

Most of the time while I'm in a relationship, sex is a combination activity. For me it releases tension and that sense of being horny, and it ALSO creates a very strong connection between myself and my SO, at least in my mind.

There are times when I'm simply horny and want sex, and on occasion those session get hot and heavy. Some ass smacking, shit talking, rough housing kinda stuff usually comes from those, and in those sessions I am NOT thinking about how much I love my wife. I'm thinking about how hot her ass is, and how good she feels. Etc.

Other times I find myself craving the closeness of sex with her. NOT because I'm horny, but because I love her and want to share that WITH her. In a way, I truly see the act of sex as an expression of my love and affection, and during those sessions there is little to no rough housing, and lots of cuddles, stroking, and intimacy in general.

If I were the type of person that could easily separate sex from love, I could see how I could want to romp with one women, but "make love" to another, and not have an issue keeping them apart. My personal make up doesn't seem to allow that, and I don't have a problem with it so don't see the need to "fix" it. But for many men, "sex" is just sex, and making love is something else entirely. For me, I require both from the same woman, so sometimes we are lovey dovey, and sometimes we break the bed frame.

To be frank, in some ways I think it would be far easier to maintain a primary relationship for many men if sex could be found elsewhere without negative repercussions. I have male friends that despite a strong love for their SO's, still struggle with remaining faithful. I feel for them, but only in theory as I don't have that struggle at all. As long as my sexual needs (both for "love" and "sex") are met, I have very little desire to seek anything elsewhere. Of course, my needs amount to around 4-5 romps a week, so it isn't a cakewalk for my wife. :P

czerdec · 2016-07-13T16:39:53+00:00

People want sugared food and they also want to be slim. Contradictory desire is part of being human.

SirNemesis · 2016-07-12T22:09:50+00:00

Eating is just a physical need. It's really nice when your wife satisfies that need by making food for you.

FairlyNaive · 2016-07-12T22:32:02+00:00

Sex is erotic. There is a kink element, a power exchange, and other various fetishes that can and sometimes need to be satisfied.

Sex is intimate. You are vulnerable to another person, and that vulnerability and acceptance of your true, completely exposed self by your partner (especially a partner you love romantically) is incredibly important to the health of a long term relationship.

These two sides to the same coin can and do exist independently of one another and often times take multiple partners to satisfy completely, if that is even possible.

Make sense?

AutoModerator · 2016-07-12T22:06:54+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

stats135 · 2016-07-12T23:05:19+00:00

Living creates have two main goals, survival and reproduction. Life and survival is a complete necessity and at the same time the most meaningful thing. Sex and reproduction follows the same pattern.

[deleted] · 2016-07-13T05:51:55+00:00

[permanently deleted]

[deleted] · 2016-07-13T05:00:13+00:00

Having sex is how men bond.

Ok, not exactly, but I know sex helps a lot of people to bond. It can be both because it's two different things. There is sex for pleasure, sex for bonding and sex for both.

RareBlur · 2016-07-13T05:29:29+00:00

There's a simple answer where no contradiction exists...

Men have a need to give affection and to bond, they do that through sexual acts.

Even if no bond actually forms, the act of sex can ease the need to show affection and bonding but risks leaving the man empty because there is no reciprocated affection that comes from a bond.

If a man has affection and a bond with his wife then he's unlikely to cheat, but if the bond is not there with the wife or she's not reciprocating any affection it's not surprising that he might try to find another partner or at least feel a little reciprocated affection from someone else.

I don't know if that's true or not, people can decide for themselves but it does answer the paradox.

[deleted] · 2016-07-13T06:50:42+00:00

It's pretty much the same for men and women. I think it's easy to understand men if you understand women. As a woman, you're more likely to understand them.

Women want and need sex to be special with someone they love - it's another type of communication within a romantic relationship.

But most women could easily love and respect their husband, but have sex on the side. They don't, because they'd lose their husband and marriage and also because it's not an acceptable thing to do.

And so women read books in which they have sex with a ton of strange men. Romance books are full of sex. The woman safely gets her sex with other men. The sex in so many books wouldn't have such a high heat level if that wasn't what the readers wanted. But they do want it and they do want to imagine sex with other men.

Women also masturbate, which means they don't need any feels in order to orgasm. Which also means they can have sex with men (whether one night stand or FWB) without it being more than just all about the physical.

ThirdEyeSqueegeed · 2016-07-13T09:04:39+00:00

I don't think it's ever meaningless and completely throwaway. I'm pretty sure sex with the side piece still has some meaning even if it's just stroking the ego. Maybe they just don't have as much meaning as sex with the wife - assuming he loves his wife, and not the side piece.

The best analogy I can give is to think about men's relationship with their favourite sports team. Just imagine their favourite team is their wife. Think about how men will keep on supporting a sports team (wife) even when they never win (don't provide sex). Obviously they could go and watch their secondary sport (side chick), and get a good buzz from seeing their team win (getting sex) but it wouldn't have the same meaning as seeing their primary team win (sex with the wife).

I know it's completely irrational, but there it is. To a lot of men, watching sports and having sex are like religious experiences.

darksoldierk · 2016-07-14T00:48:46+00:00

I don't understand why you are having issues understanding this concept.

Sex is sex. Like you said, it's an itch that needs to be scratched. Using any body for sex is like a woman using a dildo for sex. Does fucking a dildo fill a woman's need to be loved and cared for? to be desired? yes, that's right, men will never admit it, but men who are looking for one night stands basically see those women as dildo's. A masturbation tool.

So here is how I can best explain it, a man wants his wife to want him. He wants her to love him. He wants her to care about him. He wants her to want him as much as he wants her. For men, Sex, often times, is physical proof that she does want him. A man doesn't give a shit if a side piece wants him or loves him, he doesn't care about her, he is just using her. He'll dump her the second he finds someone better.

Now, those same men, mind you, don't believe that their willingness to have sex with the woman is proof that they want her. Why? Because for women, sex is easy to get. Most men will sleep with any woman who is willing to sleep with them, however, most women will not sleep with most men who will sleep with them. Men have to prove that they want their women through other methods, commitment being the top of the list.

[deleted] · 2016-07-15T08:33:58+00:00

We're socially and culturally expected to be nonchalant when it comes to sex. We're also expected to show no signs of emotional vulnerability but remain stoic in everything we do. Fact is sex is one of the biggest and only means men have for showing and receiving affection and being vulnerable. We cant say anything that might allude to that emotional vulnerability so we talk about it in an empty and dismissive way. the sad irony is we cant even be vulnerable in sex as women typically desire a man to take control during sex. Ask any prostitute what the majority of men want when they pay for their services: its intimacy; the desire to connect.

...and dont argue "why dont men just be open with their emotions" because you cant name one sexy hollywood man who is straight and known for being openly emotionally expressive. Fact is we all talk about equality but have double standards when it comes to what we expect of men. Furthermore pay close attention to those men who always seem to be depressed in your news feed and really ask yourself have you ever genuinely wanted to help them or have you simply unfollowed them?

SpaceWhiskey · 2016-07-12T22:14:56+00:00

Everyone's different. And lots of people think their way of thinking is so logical it must be the universal constant, so you've got some guys swearing up and down that sex is super important and necessary for bonding and should only be between two people who love each other and other guys swearing it's not, a hole's a hole. Then you have the guys who say both in the same breath because they think just by being men everything that comes out of their mouth is gold/logical/true for everyone. For example guys who want to sleep around on their partner but would flip shit if she did the same. Those are the guys I tend to ignore.

lady_baker · 2016-07-12T22:29:25+00:00

A whole bundle of hormones shoots inside your head when you have sex with someone, it nurtures affection and promotes bonding. The men who say sex is just an itch they need to scratch likely do so because such a concept seems fashionable or masculine to them.

Some people also distance themselves from the emotional aspect of sex because of emotional trauma. It's very easy to get hurt when sex is involved.

ozymandias271 · 2016-07-12T22:50:41+00:00

Think about having a conversation with somebody. You probably talk to a lot of people who aren't your partner-- you make small talk with the Uber driver, you chat with a new acquaintance about your puppies, you remind a coworker that they need to finish their project by Monday so you can do your bit.

But you also talk to your spouse! And it is a necessary and meaningful part of your affection and bonding with them-- or if it isn't (I understand that not everyone's love language is Quality Time), you can imagine how it would be for someone else. Even though the conversation with the Uber driver doesn't really mean anything, that doesn't stop a conversation with your spouse-- even one that covers similar territory!-- from meaning a lot and being very important to your relationship.

(The advanced part is that sometimes casual sex is a meaningful way of expressing affection and bonding, but that's unlikely to come up with TRPers, as TRPers appear to be very bad at enjoying casual sex.)

Title	The meaning of sex for men
Author	lady_baker
Upvotes	24
Comments	192
Date	July 12, 2016 10:06 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4sjo36/the_meaning_of_sex_for_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/the-meaning-of-sex-for-men.274060 https://theredarchive.com/post/274060

Comments