Is sexual excitement not proof that one needs sex?

I don’t think that I’m going to say much news here except for the comparison I’ll make between sex and eating, which might be helpful.

Just imagine someone claims: If one feels sexual, one should have sex. The feeling isn’t there for nothing. What would you answer?

I would start by putting in a caveat: Let’s speak about men only. Most of what I want to say about sex is probably true for women too, but since there has been much denial of women’s right to sex and its value, let’s for simplicity’s sake sidestep that for now.

OK.

Feeling hungry doesn’t mean that you must eat.

How so?

It could be a day of fasting you want to honor. You could be enticed by something you do not want to eat. You might want to save your appetite for a meal that’s coming up. Animals can’t do that. They’re hungry, they’ll eat. But people can say no or not yet, and for good reasons.

Sure. But food is there for taking care of your needs for nutrition and energy, and can be pleasant on the side, but sex can be just for the fun of it. Then foregoing it is needless restraint.

Sometimes you may feel hungry because you’re nervous (while other people the other ways around can’t eat when they’re anxious), bored or lonely. These are false reasons to eat (snack) and eating just for pleasure (or for avoiding feeling bad) doesn’t satisfy. It rather addicts you. Instead, you may need a hug or a listening ear.

OK.

Same thing with sex. You may feel sexually aroused while you need something else. To go sexual is then not only not satisfying (for longer than a second after you stopped) but also rather addictive.

But after sex for not feeling loneliness you can still feel relieved.

That is true because there is yet another need there. Our bodies and minds need touch and emotional and physical closeness. Sex with a stranger might still give you those. But the sexual part may make you addicted and extra lonely. And, because you may have focused on just feeling good, instead of making each other feel good, you may get bored by sex and might need all the time newer things that will excite you anew. There is a way to understand proper sex via a food analogy.

Sex is like eating dessert. Eating dessert you can do all day but it will never satisfy you. But after a great meal, dessert can be the highlight. Same with sex. Sex instead of emotional and physical closeness leaves you feeling hung-over. And doing it on your own, it can make you more lonely than ever. And also might make you used to having pseudo-sex, sex in isolation (even when later, you’re with someone else). Till you quit solo-sexing, your ability to have a relational sexual connection will suffer. But when you’re physically and emotionally close to a loved one, sex can cement the relationship in a very deep way. Or one could explain this through a parallel with chewing gum.

Inappropriate sex can also be like chewing gum. The chewing gives a false signal to the body that food is coming. You can add sugary drinks (Cola) or other non-foods but this will never gratify. Only the real deal can leave you satisfied. Sex can crown a good relationship, making it better, deeper. Sex on your own falsely signals the body: connect. But then it connects you to a void, making you more lonely, and addicted to boot. And this we can see in the prime advice for sex addicts.

What is the first thing that sex addicts should do to stop their addiction? Making friends, breaking the isolation. That unplugs the “sex drive.” Just like the first way to stop a snacking addiction is to have good meals.

But if you say it like that it sounds like sex is bad except as the crown on a steady good relationship. That sounds petty normative and hedonistic.

I think that the truth is always worth admitting. Saying that disconnected sex is not helpful is the same as saying that coffee or alcohol do not help anybody. You can dislike the message but it’s still true that you could find better more helpful ways to deal with feeling tired or distressed. That’s not anti-hedonistic; that’s being rational. And one can be very happy just being rational. Ask anyone who stopped a major addiction.

So, no more sex until in a steady great relationship, when the time is ripe?

That’s right. Don’t overlook that possibility.

But isn’t it just natural to be sexual?

Just like eating. But as humans, different from animals, we get to choose when that is appropriate. And sometimes it is not. It doesn’t fit our morality, it hampers our long-term goals, or it is not what we really need now/first.

And what to do with sexual feelings meanwhile?

Erections come, erections go. No one has ever been hurt by not giving in to sex. But emotional and physical unity cannot be skipped. No one can live well in total isolation. Get your closeness. Later you may add sex in a special case to even “become one flesh.”

So, you’re saying that we could live well without sex?

No, I’m saying that sex is needed but only in its proper place.

So, people who don’t see it like that should feel bad about not having sex the way you recommend?

No, because feeling bad generally strengthens addictions. Feel how good it is whatever you do. But know that there is long-term pleasure that is much deeper that short-term “fun” and that that is pushed aside by the latter. We each have a free choice. As with any free will work, it will ask from us to make an effort – but it will be worth it.

And how do you know this?

Lots of therapy, man. Lots of therapy.

Still, this very much sounds like the ideas of Judaism about sex expressed in secular terms.

Just the fact that the rabbis knew this before the therapists does not make it sacred knowledge. In any case, Moses never took out a copyright on his stuff.

But most therapist do not say what they say.

I go by therapists for whom their own therapy was not a formality and really worked out their own stuff.

Much food for thought.

Good luck.