If at that supreme hour, the wedded pair, dazzled with voluptuousness and believing themselves alone, were to listen, they would hear in their chamber a confused rustling of wings. Perfect happiness implies a mutual understanding with the angels. That dark little chamber has all heaven for its ceiling. When two mouths, rendered sacred by love, approach to create, it is impossible that there should not be, above that ineffable kiss, a quivering throughout the immense mystery of stars.
Sex is getting cheaper. The pill de-babied and the sexual revolution de-institutionalized and a-moralized sex; it is now much less constrained than ever before by marriage, mores, or maternity. Accordingly, it has settled in our society’s wild realm of personal choice and preference. Whether this has been a good or bad change is arguable, but it seems everyone could agree that we’d expect to see more sex as a result of the falling price. Slash prices and consumption increases. Remove the fence and the amusement park is overrun.
But that hasn’t happened. Surprisingly, just the opposite has occurred: Americans are having less sex. A CNN article reported on a study published in March in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, which found that on average American adults currently have sex about nine fewer times per year than we did in the late 1990s. The article (not the study) advances several theories that may help explain why:
- Distraction by technology: cell phones and Netflix and the affiliated technologies clamor for attention, promising instant gratification with minimal effort. Attention devoted to these sources is attention not spent on a relationship. A psychotherapist is quoted in the CNN article as saying, “Many couples find themselves in bed looking at their devices, freely admitting that they’re doing nothing all that compelling[.]”
- Cybersex and other cheap sex alternatives: the internet, Tinder, and a host of other technologies make it unnecessary to bother with a real relationship. If the meaning of sex is simply individual expression and/or fulfilment of desire, then this can often be achieved without having to bother with accommodating the inconvenient desires and needs of another person–with porn and/or sex toys, for example. The article noted that the survey failed to define “sex,” so the numbers may be skewed downward if survey takers did not count various sexual behaviors apart from coitus.
- The parenting effect: parents may be more tired than they used to be. People are having children later in life, and they are more actively involved in more of their children’s activities. At the end of the day, they may simply have less energy, resulting in less sex.
- Medical reasons: Americans are taking more medications than ever, more have diabetes than ever, and there are more cancer survivors than ever. These things affect sexuality.
- Increased ability of women to say no.
The article never claimed to be scientific. It cited a study for the fact that Americans are having less sex, and the rest was largely speculation. That’s why it was not surprising when the article took an ideological turn at the end. Being CNN, it was also not surprising that the ideology was of a piece with the modern amoral view of sexuality. Here are the concluding two paragraphs.
Compared with earlier generations, women might be viewing sex as less of a duty to their husbands and more of a personal choice. “It makes sense that women in relationships might be losing their sex drive and saying ‘no’ more, as opposed to my mother’s generation that just spread their legs and composed a shopping list in their heads during sex,” she said. “If that’s true, then the decline in frequency is a good thing.”
On that note, remember, a healthy sex life is whatever works for you and your partner. It can’t be measured by a statistic.
Well, CNN, I happen to think that the shift from “duty” to “personal choice” is dangerous, in sex as in most other things–at least where there exists a legitimate duty. And in marital relations, there is a legitimate duty to each other–what Paul calls “due benevolence” in 1 Corinthians 7:3. Now, I of course think it important that women (and men) be allowed to decline having sex, including with their spouses. But husbands and wives should nonetheless consider it a duty to do their best, within certain bounds, to ensure that their partners are sexually fulfilled. Sometimes that may mean saying “yes” when sex would not be at the very top of one’s list. It probably also means trying to resist distraction–not composing a shopping list, for example–in order to be fully present and to better offer oneself and one’s love to one’s partner.
This duty transcends gender–it is simply a principle of a successful marriage. It would apply equally in the context of a gay couple’s marriage. Thus, there is nothing sexist or remotely problematic about this principle in theory. In practice, of course, it gets complicated and messy. But it is balanced not by “personal choice” so much as by other needs and other duties, like being on time to work the next day, ensuring that the sex life of the marriage remains mutually fulfilling and wholesome, and selecting a partner compatible with one’s other duties.
In a healthy relationship, I would assume that husbands would not exact sex as if it were a tax on the marriage rather than a mutual privilege. They would not even chose to request sex if they knew their partner was so far from being in the mood that they would be composing a shopping list during sex.
And as to CNN’s closing assertion, I think it is demonstrably false that “a healthy sex life is whatever works for you and your partner.”
But my main point is not to criticize the article. What I mainly want to say is that I find it significant that the rise of the amoral view has correlated with the “decline in sexual frequency,” and I have a theory about why.
My prior post, “Meaning versus Desire: A Theory and Critique of Contemporary Sexuality,” proposed that there are two related but distinguishable economies of sexuality: the economy of meaning and the economy of desire. The amoral view and the attenuation of sex from its reproductive meanings have enabled the economy of desire to thrive at the expense of the economy of meaning. Sex means less today, because it is cheap and easy and so often removed from the marital and reproductive contexts that previously imposed a high price and enabled its highest meanings. I argued that what was needed was not the further freeing of sexuality for the purpose of self expression, but a re-tethering of sex to its highest meanings.
One possibility the CNN article failed to recognize is that the amoral view and the cheapening of sex may be one of the causes of the decline in sexual frequency. It is unsurprising that CNN failed to recognize this possibility, because CNN tends to be “progressive” in a sense that makes it guilty of chronological snobbery, and it would be loathe to admit the possibility that things have actually gotten worse in important ways (other than the climate) over the last sixty years. But it may well be that the availability of casual sex has not resulted in more sex because people desire meaningfulness much more deeply than they desire orgasm.
It may be, in other words, that the lowering of the price and the removal of the fences has not resulted in more visitors to the amusement park precisely because it is not an amusement park that people really wanted all along. Perhaps they wanted something more serious and important–something joyful and fun, but with angels rather than clowns (little cherubs of future children, perhaps), and symphonies rather than carnival jingles–something less like an amusement park and more like a temple.