Thursday, May 29, 2014

"Men Don't Marry for Sex" (Robert Hustrulid); do most women want to be "protected"?


Author: Robert Hustrulid, M.D.

Title: “Men Don’t Marry for Sex: Overturning Assumptions on Why Men and Women Get Married

Publication: Self-published, 2014, ISBN 978-1-4675-9951-1, 76 pages, paper.
  
Amazon link.   Appears to be paper only; I don’t see a Kindle item.

I received this book as a review sample, after an email query.  The author is a physician, practicing internal medicine (I think in Florida, if I remember right),  which means he can certain address the physiology of sexual satisfaction in marriage – and the question of how to maintain it for decades of monogamy.  Pastors always refer to the “Song of Solomon” in the Old Testament on that question.  He says he was married with kids and then divorced, and has learned something by living alone.

The basic premise is that men marry for “love”, and that women marry to feel secure – that is, to have a man, with a psychic investment in the lineage of his own genes, to protect her and her children.  He emphasizes a point that women want to be reminded of their husband’s love repeatedly.  Men and women also process grief differently, and it’s probably best when the men pass away first.  That may all sound sexist, and there’s no real point in getting into all the catcalls one is going to hear from the Left on this matter.  I suspect that editors of The Washington Times would like this little primer.


I don’t have the temperament to “protect” women or others, or to sustain intimacy the way he describes.  He doesn’t address gay men and women (or even write as if he knows about them), and he doesn’t consider the idea that enormous personality variations naturally occur among heterosexual men and women.   (These variations include the “polarities” and cognitive axes of Paul Rosenfels’s theories (April 12, 2006 on this blog).  And in individual cases men and women can seem cognitively to process things the same way.  I’ve always thought that Mark Zuckerberg and Michelle Rhee process their respective worlds identically.  Does cognitive similarity make for a good marriage, or get in the way of it?  I think it’s probably essential. 

Actually, the booklet did give me reason to ponder the days of my own heterosexual dating (mostly in 1971).  I think that the young women in my situation did pretty much comport with what this author says.  Both would have wanted me to be comfortable with being the sole breadwinner for a while, and remain engaged.  Both would have wanted attention that I don’t give people. I'm not wired to be personally attentive to "dependents" in a way that is presented as necessary.  In the gay world (and in gay marriage), even given the polarity theory, the idea of protection and indulgence doesn’t play out the same way. 

I couldn’t find a YouTube video for the author, but here’s a video “Why Men Don’t Want to Have Kids”, by Stefan Molynuex (from Europe, maybe Switzerland), who talks about the low birth rates and “demographic winter” in Europe.



I wonder how Hustrulid would react to this.  The economic question is important.  But there’s more.  I don’t find what this commentator says happening that much in my own interactions.  

No comments: