esp. this thought:
Marital romance has dried up. Real intimacy has gone the way of bottle-feeding and playpens. In fact, the whole ideal of marriage as a union of soul mates, friends and lovers that's as essential to a happy family life as, say, unconditional love for the children, has taken a direct hit. And in its place has come the reality of a utilitarian relationship dedicated to staying afloat financially and child-rearing of a sort we tend to associate with frontier marriages, arranged marriages, marriages of convenience - marriages far removed, in time and place, from our lives, our parents' lives and even our grandparents' lives.

hmmm....

so I googled "sexless marriage"", and holy Batman, it is a hot topic:
http://tinyurl.com/5ct78

including this insight:

http://tinyurl.com/3zn98
The personalities of some of some young people these days seem as freakish to me as the bodies of weightlifters and silicone babes do -- overdeveloped where pumpy media delights and career dynamism are concerned, yet completely atrophied in the inner-oomph (ie., spiritual, erotic, artistic, just-living, "character") department. What’s going to become of these kids when the pizzaz of youth passes and it comes time to start drawing on deeper resources? Reviewing in The Atlantic some new books about sex and marriage (especially the new two-career marriages), Caitlin Flanagan seems struck by the same question.

When I was a teenager, in the 1970s, I was always quite happy to accept a baby-sitting job, because I knew that once I got the kids to sleep, I could read The Joy of Sex for an hour or two; I don't think I baby-sat for a single family that didn't have a copy. There was a sense that young parents of that generation-granted, I grew up in Berkeley, which may have skewed the sample considerably-were still getting it on. Similarly, the characters one encounters in Cheever and Updike, with their cocktails and cigarettes and affairs, seem at once infinitely more dissolute and more adult than most of the young parents I know. Nowadays, American parents of a certain social class seem squeaky clean, high-achieving, flush with cash, relatively exhausted, obsessed with their children, and somehow -- how to pinpoint this? -- undersexed.

..........
Whaddya think?? Ring any bells ?

[ 16 February 2005: Message edited by: Geneva ]

re romance:
correct, but I think the Times writer limited her time frame to the last 3 or so generations, ie compared to our parents and grandparents, ie the 20th century;

and romance has been , uh , linked with modern marriage:
think of the quip by (lifelong bachelor) Shaw that marriage was popular because it combined the ""maximum of temptation with the maximum of opportunity" (ha)

within just postwar context, has marriage become more strictly functional, "utilitarian", as she says?

she cites the 1970s as her counterpoint: WAS there an expectation/illusion that freer choice of partner meant continued individuality and romance?

[ 16 February 2005: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

When I was a teenager, in the 1970s, I was always quite happy to accept a baby-sitting job, because I knew that once I got the kids to sleep, I could read The Joy of Sex for an hour or two; I don't think I baby-sat for a single family that didn't have a copy.

---

That was my common experience babysitting in the 70s, and I sure as heck didn't grow up in Berkeley CA. That was simply a sign of the times, when after decades of sexually repressed mores, it became acceptible, even fashionable, to be sexually active, experiementing, and openly proclaiming such both inside and outside traditional marriage.

quote:

---

There was a sense that young parents of that generation-granted, I grew up in Berkeley, which may have skewed the sample considerably-were still getting it on.

---

quote:

---

Similarly, the characters one encounters in Cheever and Updike, with their cocktails and cigarettes and affairs, seem at once infinitely more dissolute and more adult than most of the young parents I know. Nowadays, American parents of a certain social class seem squeaky clean, high-achieving, flush with cash, relatively exhausted, obsessed with their children, and somehow -- how to pinpoint this? -- undersexed.

---

Also, we should consider the logistics of the middle to upper middle class American family. For the most part we have two working parents. Much of the time that was once devoted to hands-on parenting is spent working. And of course Mom may work full-time now, but she's still responsible for most of the cooking and maintenance of the household. She'd love to get laid 5 times a week, but she's just too fucking tired.

Anyway, so busy well-intentioned parents know that they need to keep their kids involved in activities while they're off at work paying off the mortgage, SUV and minivan, otherwise the temptations that lurk out their in our no-longer-innocent society will grasp at their little kiddies souls and drag them down into a drug-crazed, video-game obsessed Columnbine High School Confidential. Well, that's what Faux News and CNN say, so good, frightened parents spend what little spare time they have running their kids back and forth between soccer, little league, ballet lessons, music lessons, scouts, etc., without actually interacting with their kids, or each other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:
I suspect that Americans aren't so much undersexed as they are - superficially at least - sexually conservative. AIDS/HIV contributed to that considerably, as did the rise of the influence of the Christian Right in US politics. Oh, they're still "doing it", but they've reverted to some late 50s Leave It To Beaver fantasy where no one has sex, goes to the bathroom or says anything too progressive in a public place.

---

I see the opposite. Fundamentalists I know who waited for marriage to have sex seem to have really erotic, spicy sex lives their first couple of years of marriage. Those who've been living together and sleeping together before marriage don't. But that's just based on my limited circle of friends.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeftRight:
The question itself is far removed from nature. I don't believe sexual pleasure is the greatest drive in sexuality. Eroticism and marriage ('marriage as erotic') is a furthering of the objectification or capitalization on sexuality.

---

Meaning the word 'erotic' is an uneccessary liturgical item that is, therebecause, strange and spuring doubt of its use. Used in conjunction with the word 'marriage', one wonders which has become redundant, sexuality or marriage? rather than the two having a natural basis together apriori. This destructive force behind the market use of the word has ancient historical roots....

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm

"The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination.

It is in this sense that [in a 1524 pamphlet] Thomas Münzer declares it intolerable

“that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free.”

Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion, is the real, conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The species-relation itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of trade! The woman is bought and sold.