Picture this: A couple has been married more or less happily for several years when the woman begins to notice that her husband is becoming more emotionally detached. At some point she confronts him, gently and honestly, to ask if there is anything up. He responds that his interest in emotional intimacy has declined in general, it’s not just her. He goes on to say that he is happy to have discussions about how much money is in the savings account, where they should go for their next vacation, or even purely intellectual topics, but he is not interested in discussing her hopes, dreams, fears, or concerns at a personal level. He then states that he doesn't consider this to be a threat to their marriage and that he expects her to understand that he's not interested in engaging emotionally except in rare circumstances.

Any reasonable person would ask if there is really any point to being married in such a situation. But wait, it gets worse. He ends by telling her that if she seeks emotional intimacy outside of their marriage that he will consider it to be an unforgivable betrayal. That includes friends of the same or opposite sex.

His wife is crushed and speechless. She asks him to seek marital counseling together with her. He, being truly interested in preserving the marriage, agrees. The meetings with the counselor get right to the heart of her grievance: his choice to avoid emotional intimacy. Here's what the counselor asks:

1. How long has he wanted to avoid emotional intimacy? 2. Did an event occur as a precursor to his change in attitude? 3. Are you readily available as a sexual partner to him so that he feels encouraged to engage you emotionally?

If this sounds crazy it is because it never happens. Men's (real and appropriate) needs for physical intimacy in marriage are universally treated as subordinate to women's (real and appropriate) needs for emotional intimacy. The critical step in any marriage advice book that concerns men's unmet sexual needs is to satisfy the woman's emotional needs.

Even more laughable is the notion that a woman seeking emotional intimacy outside of marriage is tantamount to betrayal. While emotional and physical intimacy can never be reciprocal "services" in a marriage, the fact remains that when men are told by their wives that sex is over, they have no moral alternative. Women are not bound to the same restriction for emotional needs.

Of the reasons why couples marry, sex is one of the most fundamental. Marriage provides a moral basis for people to have sex with the public's knowledge. By tradition and criminal code we also are restricted to marrying only one person at a time, so marriage also means that we are having sex with just one person. Take the sex away and marriage changes into a publicly-pronounced commitment to each other. Take the emotional intimacy away and the commitment part is hollow as well. Despite their equal importance, the response to a marriage missing each of these components is vastly different. Writers and counselors do not give enough weight to this basic asymmetry.

Sadly, I believe it is true that men's sexual needs are subordinate to women's emotional needs (generally speaking.)

However, I think it's a lot easier to have emotional intimacy than physical intimacy. After all, you don't usually start a conversation with the express purpose of emotional intimacy. It happens naturally, thanks to years of communication.

Sex, on the other hand, must be initiated, by at least one of the parties. And it's a common problem that some men will not ask for what they need, sexually. A woman can be good, giving, and game, but she can't be a mind reader. If a man doesn't ask... how can she satisfy?

I say this only because I've run into it in real life. A gal pal is more than willing to help out her boyfriend in other ways if she is not up for sex, but either the boyfriend 1) won't take a constalation prize, no matter how cheerfully given or 2) won't ask period (out of embarrassment or resentment, it's hard to say.)