Non-sexual touch? Ew!

The subject has been at the forefront this Thanksgiving week. The churchian side predictably reloads after unloading again on men and porn. The secular side defends porn. The middle is not really the middle because that suggests some degree of acceptance of porn. The middle is calling for comprehensive sexual reform in marriage, not just buttressing the border against illegal migration to porn land, but also making the land in which men choose to dwell be the go to place for sexual release as opposed to sterile two dimensional images or moving pictures.

Dennis and Barbara Rainy describe the need for setting aside a date night each week. The things they write seem a bit silly, but to each their own. Something about this whole melange struck me.

One of the comments after Matt Walsh’s post, in an exchange with me under a comment I had made, fits with what the Rainy’s are saying.

Baller72 wrote:

Believe it or not but men do need to be held, hugged, kissed and touched non sexually. They work hard to help provide and when they come home all they want is someone to come to the door and give them a hug and kiss and say “how was your day” and sometimes a “thank you for doing what you do for us” would be nice. And then when the times are right you make time for romance and yes, sex. Society has made man out to be only interested in the “sex” part of the marriage

He makes a good point. It fits with my claim that sex should be a coequal part of marriage. Physical contact, be it affection, pre-sexual affection, or a mysterious mix of the two, is very important to men. It is very gratifying and pleasant for a man to have some physical touch with his wife at various points within a day. Usually, if the woman is rejecting a man’s sexual advances, she also wants to keep him from touching her in any way but the most platonic pecks on the cheek. She breaks the hugs, she turns the cheek, etc.

The Rainy’s mention, in one of their emails, “the kiss that launched a thousand kisses”. How cool would that be? How many men would enjoy having that? How do wives react to such things?

If she is rejecting sex, she is rejecting affection. These go hand in hand. The idea that “he only touches me when he wants sex” is a handy narrative developed for shutting the whole thing down.

On Rainys date night, where they decorated the bedroom like a French restaurant, this once weekly alone time cannot be expected to end in sex, you know, because that would be “EW”


One thought on “Non-sexual touch? Ew!

  1. The idea of “non-sexual touching” between intimate partners is absurd.

    I would view with extreme prejudice a man giving someone bare-skin backrubs, shoulder rubs, hands run through hair, footrubs, etc. to a child, someonenot his wife or girlfriend, or another man, in the manner in which I do it with a girlfriend.

    Ultimately, women are repulsed by men who need sex and won’t ever turn it down; it’s simply the feminine nature. Those who practice game have overcome this by maintaining multiple sexual relationships at once.

    Simply put, women only want to have sex with a man who doesn’t want to have it with her very badly. I choose to not to want it very badly and to stop putting it on a pedestal.

    I’ve got no idea what to say to men who choose monogamy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s