>A central condition for experiencing emotional intimacy is receiving emotional support. Emotional support involves caring for another person’s wellbeing by understanding and appreciating them.
This often bugs me in these sort of articles. Here, they do a good job of defining emotional support as involving BOTH understanding and appreciation.
But then, when they start discussing that support in practice between men and women, the author focuses almost entirely on the "understanding" aspect.
There is an extreme focus on vulnerability and venting in these discussions, and I think that is because that is what seems to work with many women. But that is not the only form of emotional support, and personally, I think it's less important for many men than the other half: appreciation.
Appreciation comes from shared purpose, common ground, entertaining conversation, acts of service, etc---things that men and male friend groups are often much more comfortable with due to social norms. With the rise of economic, online, and social stressors impacting many men's self image, I think the demand for this appreciative "support" is rising at the same time as men's ability to receive appreciation has been corroded through everything moving online, anger in media (making common ground harder), dog-eat-dog economic viewpoints, and a diaspora of communities pulling us further from our loved ones.
This is a major reason why, imho, men are often hit harder by breakups. One can quickly vent and be vulnerabile to someone else, but appreciation is built over time through shared experience. When a relationship ends and the person you have built up an "appreciation bank" with leaves, you are suddenly faced with a major deficit of emotional support that cannot be immediately replaced as easily as a venting partner may.
Not to be crass, but I bet most single women who decide they want to get laid tonight can do that while most single men cannot. That is by no means the only factor involved but I don't think it should be ignored either.
This has nothing to do with sex, they're making an argument about the lack of socially acceptable opportunities for emotional intimacy for men. The romantic relationship is less load-bearing for women because they typically have multiple emotionally intimate relationships to meet their emotional needs. Note I said emotionally intimate, not sexually intimate. Women's greater "access" to sex as we might call it doesn't factor in.
Sex is often a major component of romantic relationships and can often fascilitate emotional intimacy. Can you support omitting it from consideration? The economics of scarcity does not seem like something we can just set aside.
Yes; for one thing, if sexual intimacy had the same protective effect as emotional intimacy you'd expect to see sexual relationships granting the same protective effect as non-sexual but emotionally intimate relationships (and probably much higher rates of female promiscuity.) We don't because they're not interchangeable.
What you're saying sort of illustrates the problem the author is getting at: men are taught the only socially acceptable emotionally intimate relationship is a romantic/sexual one. Unsurprisingly, then, many men conflate the two.
As I understand it, thesis you put forth is that women's greater access to sex is a protective factor because sexual intimacy is a form of emotional intimacy, one that is both special enough for it to matter that woman have greater access and simultaneously mundane enough that is interchangeable with non-sexual emotional intimacy.
If the former—it's special enough for access to matter—why aren't women more promiscuous? Sex is an abundant and easily accessed source; why aren't women making use of it?
If the latter—it's mundane enough to be interchangeable with nonsexual emotional intimacy—then access to sex doesn't matter, because other forms of emotional intimacy can substitute.
Heterosexual men and heterosexual women are equally promiscuous. For every man having sex with a woman, there is a woman having sex with a man.
What I am saying is this. Say you have two men, one who has a different partner every day of the week and one who hasn't had a sexual partner in five years. Which of the two do you think would be quicker to join a committed relationship if offered? Scarcity matters.
>Heterosexual men and heterosexual women are equally promiscuous. For every man having sex with a woman, there is a woman having sex with a man.
Not quite: for one, if men and women were equally promiscuous than it would be impossible for men to have less access. For there to be asymmetric access, then, it can't be a 1:1, people must have multiple partners.
>What I am saying is this. Say you have two men, one who has a different partner every day of the week and one who hasn't had a sexual partner in five years. Which of the two do you think would be quicker to join a committed relationship if offered? Scarcity matters
So are you arguing men value sex more than women, then? That's the only way I can see this argument working. Because if men and women value sex equally but women have more access, you would expect the average woman to have a higher number of sexual partners than the average man because she would be having casual sex in periods between relationships that men wouldn't. To the contrary, women consistently average fewer lifetime sexual partners than men.
Also, your example above doesn't quite work because there are multiple variables: 1. frequency of sex and 2. variety of partners. You would need to either compare an ongoing sexual but not emotionally intimate relationship (e.g. 'situationship,' friends with benefits, fuck buddy) to an ongoing sexually and emotionally intimate relationship (boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife)
OR
compare a persons in a singular, ongoing, sexually and emotionally intimate relationship (monogamy) to persons in multiple ongoing sexually and emotionally intimate relationships (poly.)
Men are more likely to exagerate high when reporting on their number of sexual partners and women are more likely to understate theirs. Mathematically we know the average has to be the same.
At this point I feel like even getting people to acknowledge that sex has any role at all in romantic partners to be a big win. It appears Foodforthought is for children and G rated commentary as I'm being massively downvoted simply for acknowledging that sex is a thing.
It's not because you're saying it has a role, it's because you're equating it.
Of course sex matters in romantic relationships, but the kind of emotionally intimate sex you get in romantic relationships isn't something you get from sex outside of romantic relationships. Women have more access to casual sex, not emotionally intimate sex.
I would basically be taking on an insane amount of risk for an encounter where I had almost zero chance of orgasm. It's like signing up for a most likely shitty experience and would not adjust the needle on feeling emotionally connected or less lonely.
The issue wasn't raised because it's not relevant. That's why the other person responded to you the way they did, and the way that you're hyper-focused on sex is just weird.
Yes, and then I commented on a glaring hole in rheir article.
Why did you tell me it wasn't the only factor when i just said that?
instead of baseless insults next time just admit you didn't read carefully and got the wrong impression. Be a bigger person instead of a bully. No one like bullies.
This is why we can't have healthy discussions. Any man who brings up sex is a perv and must be shamed.
edit: the person I replied to immediately blocked me, so I am unable to reply to anyone or participate in this discussion any further. I bring up how we are being stifled from healthy discussions and I immediately get stifled for doing so. Irony.
There needs to be a way to bring up the fact that that is part of the problem without people feeling like it's shaming men.
There genuinely is an epidemic of men who only feel comfortable receiving intimacy in a sexual way, and it's the only thing they'll consider valid or meaningful, overriding any other type of intimacy.
CaptainAsshat | 4 hours ago
>A central condition for experiencing emotional intimacy is receiving emotional support. Emotional support involves caring for another person’s wellbeing by understanding and appreciating them.
This often bugs me in these sort of articles. Here, they do a good job of defining emotional support as involving BOTH understanding and appreciation.
But then, when they start discussing that support in practice between men and women, the author focuses almost entirely on the "understanding" aspect.
There is an extreme focus on vulnerability and venting in these discussions, and I think that is because that is what seems to work with many women. But that is not the only form of emotional support, and personally, I think it's less important for many men than the other half: appreciation.
Appreciation comes from shared purpose, common ground, entertaining conversation, acts of service, etc---things that men and male friend groups are often much more comfortable with due to social norms. With the rise of economic, online, and social stressors impacting many men's self image, I think the demand for this appreciative "support" is rising at the same time as men's ability to receive appreciation has been corroded through everything moving online, anger in media (making common ground harder), dog-eat-dog economic viewpoints, and a diaspora of communities pulling us further from our loved ones.
This is a major reason why, imho, men are often hit harder by breakups. One can quickly vent and be vulnerabile to someone else, but appreciation is built over time through shared experience. When a relationship ends and the person you have built up an "appreciation bank" with leaves, you are suddenly faced with a major deficit of emotional support that cannot be immediately replaced as easily as a venting partner may.
kafka_lite | 6 hours ago
Not to be crass, but I bet most single women who decide they want to get laid tonight can do that while most single men cannot. That is by no means the only factor involved but I don't think it should be ignored either.
edit: I don't understand the mass hate.
belledamesans-merci | 4 hours ago
This has nothing to do with sex, they're making an argument about the lack of socially acceptable opportunities for emotional intimacy for men. The romantic relationship is less load-bearing for women because they typically have multiple emotionally intimate relationships to meet their emotional needs. Note I said emotionally intimate, not sexually intimate. Women's greater "access" to sex as we might call it doesn't factor in.
kafka_lite | 4 hours ago
Sex is often a major component of romantic relationships and can often fascilitate emotional intimacy. Can you support omitting it from consideration? The economics of scarcity does not seem like something we can just set aside.
belledamesans-merci | 4 hours ago
Yes; for one thing, if sexual intimacy had the same protective effect as emotional intimacy you'd expect to see sexual relationships granting the same protective effect as non-sexual but emotionally intimate relationships (and probably much higher rates of female promiscuity.) We don't because they're not interchangeable.
What you're saying sort of illustrates the problem the author is getting at: men are taught the only socially acceptable emotionally intimate relationship is a romantic/sexual one. Unsurprisingly, then, many men conflate the two.
kafka_lite | 4 hours ago
This is a really weird gender stereotype. Plenty of women understand sex as a part of romance also.
belledamesans-merci | 4 hours ago
That's not what I'm saying.
As I understand it, thesis you put forth is that women's greater access to sex is a protective factor because sexual intimacy is a form of emotional intimacy, one that is both special enough for it to matter that woman have greater access and simultaneously mundane enough that is interchangeable with non-sexual emotional intimacy.
If the former—it's special enough for access to matter—why aren't women more promiscuous? Sex is an abundant and easily accessed source; why aren't women making use of it?
If the latter—it's mundane enough to be interchangeable with nonsexual emotional intimacy—then access to sex doesn't matter, because other forms of emotional intimacy can substitute.
kafka_lite | 4 hours ago
Heterosexual men and heterosexual women are equally promiscuous. For every man having sex with a woman, there is a woman having sex with a man.
What I am saying is this. Say you have two men, one who has a different partner every day of the week and one who hasn't had a sexual partner in five years. Which of the two do you think would be quicker to join a committed relationship if offered? Scarcity matters.
belledamesans-merci | 3 hours ago
>Heterosexual men and heterosexual women are equally promiscuous. For every man having sex with a woman, there is a woman having sex with a man.
Not quite: for one, if men and women were equally promiscuous than it would be impossible for men to have less access. For there to be asymmetric access, then, it can't be a 1:1, people must have multiple partners.
>What I am saying is this. Say you have two men, one who has a different partner every day of the week and one who hasn't had a sexual partner in five years. Which of the two do you think would be quicker to join a committed relationship if offered? Scarcity matters
So are you arguing men value sex more than women, then? That's the only way I can see this argument working. Because if men and women value sex equally but women have more access, you would expect the average woman to have a higher number of sexual partners than the average man because she would be having casual sex in periods between relationships that men wouldn't. To the contrary, women consistently average fewer lifetime sexual partners than men.
Also, your example above doesn't quite work because there are multiple variables: 1. frequency of sex and 2. variety of partners. You would need to either compare an ongoing sexual but not emotionally intimate relationship (e.g. 'situationship,' friends with benefits, fuck buddy) to an ongoing sexually and emotionally intimate relationship (boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife)
OR
compare a persons in a singular, ongoing, sexually and emotionally intimate relationship (monogamy) to persons in multiple ongoing sexually and emotionally intimate relationships (poly.)
kafka_lite | 2 hours ago
Men are more likely to exagerate high when reporting on their number of sexual partners and women are more likely to understate theirs. Mathematically we know the average has to be the same.
At this point I feel like even getting people to acknowledge that sex has any role at all in romantic partners to be a big win. It appears Foodforthought is for children and G rated commentary as I'm being massively downvoted simply for acknowledging that sex is a thing.
belledamesans-merci | 2 hours ago
It's not because you're saying it has a role, it's because you're equating it.
Of course sex matters in romantic relationships, but the kind of emotionally intimate sex you get in romantic relationships isn't something you get from sex outside of romantic relationships. Women have more access to casual sex, not emotionally intimate sex.
deskbeetle | an hour ago
When I was single, this was not a plus.
I would basically be taking on an insane amount of risk for an encounter where I had almost zero chance of orgasm. It's like signing up for a most likely shitty experience and would not adjust the needle on feeling emotionally connected or less lonely.
thejaysta4 | an hour ago
Spot on!
kafka_lite | an hour ago
I appreciate hearing your perspective. Thanks for being one of the few respectful people here.
MagicWishMonkey | 5 hours ago
You should read the article, sex has very little to do with it.
https://psyche.co/ideas/why-romantic-relationships-matter-more-to-men-than-to-women
Obviously sex is an important part of a relationship, but it's only one aspect.
kafka_lite | 5 hours ago
I read the whole article and the issue I raised wasn't mentioned. That is why I raised it. I thought that was clear.
Edit: Why did you find the need to repeat when I said it wasn't the only issue as if you were telling me something?
MagicWishMonkey | 5 hours ago
The issue wasn't raised because it's not relevant. That's why the other person responded to you the way they did, and the way that you're hyper-focused on sex is just weird.
kafka_lite | 5 hours ago
You will have to support the claim it isn't important and you have zero basis for your personal attack.
MagicWishMonkey | 5 hours ago
Whoever wrote the article didn't think it was important enough to add.
kafka_lite | 5 hours ago
Yes, and then I commented on a glaring hole in rheir article.
Why did you tell me it wasn't the only factor when i just said that?
instead of baseless insults next time just admit you didn't read carefully and got the wrong impression. Be a bigger person instead of a bully. No one like bullies.
HumanBarbarian | 6 hours ago
Yes, always the most important thing for you, isn't it? You don't want a relationship, you want a sex doll.
Tired8281 | 5 hours ago
This is why we can't have healthy discussions. Any man who brings up sex is a perv and must be shamed.
edit: the person I replied to immediately blocked me, so I am unable to reply to anyone or participate in this discussion any further. I bring up how we are being stifled from healthy discussions and I immediately get stifled for doing so. Irony.
SeasonPositive6771 | 4 hours ago
There needs to be a way to bring up the fact that that is part of the problem without people feeling like it's shaming men.
There genuinely is an epidemic of men who only feel comfortable receiving intimacy in a sexual way, and it's the only thing they'll consider valid or meaningful, overriding any other type of intimacy.