Also in the relationship arena, the feminist blogosphere has been going ape about this post about "false advertising" in LTRs. Most of the reaction stems from the post's focus on weight, one of the third rails of blog discourse, but there's something to the concept, more generally. What changes in a partner would be dealbreakers for you: Religious conversions? Full-body tattooing? Hair loss? Hair gain (werewolf and non-werewolf associated)? Etc.
UPDATE: in the comments, dgm gets to the heart of the matter:
I don't think the question is whether he (or men) "should" lose their desire, but whether they actually do and how much a spouse cares about the other one's reasons for a lack of sexual intimacy (and it goes equally for women, btw.) can the marriage be saved? not so long as one person is indifferent to and morally outraged by the other's reasons for lack of intimacy.Compromising to accommodate the preferences of your partner is not necessarily some evil manifestation of control or the triumph of the patriarchy. Sometimes it's just common sense. Altering your appearance in a manner that you know will have a serious adverse effect on your partner's sexual desire and telling the other person to "get over it, because I'm just being myself, man, and if you can't handle that then you don't really love ME" is adolescent. Part of being in a relationship is considering how your decisions affect the other person. Whether that person deserves your consideration (i.e. is not a clueless jerk) is a separate issue.
UPDATE II: L, the wife of the guy I flippantly described as a clueless jerk, says we were too hard on her hubby. She knows him better than I do, so I stand corrected, although the general point holds.
