No Sex and the City

A little while ago I went to a dinner where I was one of three single people in a group of 20. Everyone else at the table was in a committed relationship. Mostly couples. One - a threesome.

The longest relationship - 23 years. The shortest - nine. Most legally married. The trio - together 15 years; so, as good as. It was a fun evening - lots of laughter and flirting. No hissing, no arguing, no separating the husband from the single girls.

What did these relationships have in common?

They were all between men.

Which got me thinking - when was the last time I sat down with that many straight people and saw such generally harmonious relationships? I couldn't remember. So what's the differential? I set about quizzing my companions. And the general consensus was ... Sex.

Sex doesn't play the same emotional role with gay men that it does with straight folks. Sex is part of a relationship - but it is not used as an emotional currency. It is not glue or a binding agent. Having sex with someone outside of your relationship is understood to be about physicality - not about love. And rules are laid out (pardon the pun) ahead of the game and adhered to. If the sex becomes love - one of the liasons ends. Love and companionship make up relationship cement - not sexual fealty.

Could straight women learn something from this?

I have plenty of friends who don't have sex with their husbands anymore. Or do it grudgingly every fifth Friday to keep the peace. Sometimes the situation comes about after the kids are born - and they both just start out being tired and fractured and never stop. Sometimes the woman just loses interest. Sometimes she uses sex to get the man - only to pull on big grey granny-panties once the honeymoon is over.

What then is the man to do? If he honours his vows - no nookie for him for the rest of his life or hers. If he doesn't and gets caught - divorce and (often) the end of a family. These are huge stakes.

So what are the alternatives?

Not many women I know would turn the other cheek. A French friend does. She thinks sex is much ado about nothing - she has her kids, her home, her lifestyle. So, she has instituted an extra-marital sex policy. For him. With the 'no love affair' clause. He is a responsible player, sticking to team rules. But there is no reciprocity in this policy. He will not accept her having sex with anyone else. She's happy to accept this. She says it works perfectly for them both.

I was reminded of all this today when a friend called wanting her sex life back. It's not that her husband is such an unspeakable ass that she simply can't bring herself to have sex with him. Nor is he cheating on her. He's decent, kind, generous and still in shape. He has simply lost interest in sex. With her, or anyone else.

She says she still loves him, and her kids. And she's tried all the sex column suggestions: lingerie, threesome, odd locations, porn, counselling, anti-depressants and cling film. All to no avail. He just isn't bothered. She asked me: if she wanted to stay in the marriage - what are her options? Are they limited to playing solo or playing away?

We hashed out all the possibilities and permutations. Whichever way you looked at the sum: it added up to three. And, as a character in Gossip Girl put it: "inside every threesome is a twosome and a onesome". Somebody loses. I can vouch for the truth of that, personally. And I had seen a subtle division in my trio of dinner companions that night. One man's eyes were a little more wary, a little less secure. His body language a little less confident.

Ultimately, my friend will have to make her own bed. But her predicament got me wondering if we need to clearly define marriage performance contracts from the jump off. Most businesses subject their senior staff to yearly 360º performance evaluations these days. Should a marriage partners be required to undergo the same scrutiny? And then, again like a employment agreement, should a marriage contract be renewed every three years or so - to check that both sides are bringing their part? With severance terms being clearly defined at the outset?

Or does it simply come down to us revisiting our puritan ideas of what constitutes "being true unto the other"?