Male desire/ sexual rights

I don’t know much about this particular case, but it is an interesting discussion with many good points. As a point of interest, I believe lots of women go off sex altogether during/after menopause. I am hoping that having regular sex throughout menopause will counteract this (as sex is incredibly important in our relationship), but some of my friends have described extreme pain causing them not to be able to have sex any more. Wondering if that is the case here, with the poor woman being in agony, and also whether there are effective remedies (oestrogen cream/HRT?) or is she simply sick of her husband and his ‘entitled’ or selfish attitude, perhaps?
More generally, everything in relationships is is about effective communication, isn’t it? So if after 40 years you’re still not communicating openly and honestly, that would be tragic.

Going back to the OP, and this:
Is the Guardian weeding out anyone who says that sex isn't a human right or is this an indication that the majority of people accept the fundamental right of men to have sex somehow, some way, with anyone they can?

I've been thinking and I think it's inherently selfish to think one is entitled to sex.
But like many other selfish choices we rationalise it in men and make excuses about why it is necessary, or normal, or unselfish.
We tend to do this about sex, but also food (men must be given more and better food), clothing (men and boys wear brand names, women and girls wear Primark), leisure time (long-winded or expensive hobbies for men, little leisure time for women and/or the women's hobby is ridiculed), etc etc.

I'm sure there are millions of examples. But this bloke is selfish, and we all fall over ourselves to see the reasonable in it because we are encouraged to see men's selfishness as reasonable.

Personally I was more annoyed by his sense of passive entitlement and his hypocrisy (three supposed affairs) but that's wrapped up in his selfishness as well. And predictably, a number of the responses in the Guardian confirmed his belief that he was being entirely reasonable and that having discreet affairs (whilst somehow his wife knows but doesn't mention and is somehow not hurt or upset) was the right thing to do.

Incidentally, is that a male fantasy, the notion of "arrangements" that the wife knows about but that is never discussed? Sounds like a lot of resentment and tension in real life, and I've never knowingly seen it happen. Is it like the mythical Frenchman and his mistress? Or is it just a fantasy that a man can have a woman on the side without any difficult conversations at any point?

I don't agree that if you've put up with unsatisfactory sex for thirty years that your partner then gas to stay with you out of some kind of show of gratitude. If you put up with it for thirty years then that's your responsibility, unless there was abuse or you were in danger by leaving.
This is a good point. I guess I've assumed the man's wife was put-upon. That she "let him" for the sake of the marriage etc.

But she's made a decision in doing that, and presumably the rest of the relationship with him must have been satisfactory because if he was that awful to be with, divorce was available in the early 80s when they would have first been married.

OTOH, he didn't put up with thirty years of bad sex because he admits he enjoyed it more than she did. She put up with (bad?) sex for the sake of the marriage, but he is unable to put up with no sex for the same reason.

It's a mismatch, which is an awful thing, and the reason why this letter seems so weird is that one side of the relationship has put up with the mismatch and the other is now unable or unwilling to.

I imagine many men would be devastated to learn she had been "phoning it in" for years, whereas this bloke is just peeved she won't continue doing it. That's why he comes across as entitled.

Well, I am somewhat limited in my agreement about so much sex in marriages centering on men, I think it's more complicated than that.

But I do think the idea that sex is natural, sex is a right, all healthy adults should be able to expect to be able to have a healthy sex life - also plays into current attitudes around porn and various sorts of sex work. And a lot of people believe this you see it any time there is a question about this topic in all kinds of forums. Even many serious feminists believe this. It seems to come out of that sort of 70's attempt to see sex from a very naturalistic perspective.
People who believe that seem to think that those who disagree must have a low sex drive or that it's not as important to them, they don't care about it as much.

And also replying because I think linking ( as I believe the OP does in the opening post) married sex and prostitution and trafficking, just doesn't help us understand the differences.

Why do you dispute what you think people mean instead of what they said. I am completely mystified by this behavior pattern.

I agree with poster who said we are all looking at this through our own lens.

I'll be honest about my lens and it may mean people discount my views, which is fine.

I'm middle aged, married to a man for almost 20 years. Over the years my interest in sex has waxed and waned. Probably for good reasons.

But I don't want to lose my interest in sex so I am reading to understand how it happens.

And also replying because I think linking ( as I believe the OP does in the opening post) married sex and prostitution and trafficking, just doesn't help us understand the differences.

MoleSmokes

The Op said earlier she was having problems with her computer so that's probably the reason for the NC.

There have been a couple of threads on aibu about porn, husband watching porn and masturbating in the bathroom while the kids are running around outside, and a lot of the replies are "porn, it's natural women do it too."
On another thread, a woman is concerned about her 13 yr old son watching porn,a lot of replies saying, "it's natural, he's just curious" etc.
So I understand why the Op posted the thread here and why she wanted to talk to feminists about it.
Wish i had more to add, I've been reading this thread with interest.

onlydigestivesinthetin" - "I suspect I'm touching something that's very difficult to talk about for many women but it exposes a reliance of men to enable us to feel desirable and desired. We look still for male affirmation. When you get older like me then that matters less and less and is a liberation – and perhaps that has some effect on some women's desire too."

MimiLaRue and VoiceofReason - I agree with your replies.

LindaSmithFanClub - "Where have I claimed to speak for every woman? I have said in practically every post that I acknowledge lots of women will have a different take and that I'm posting here on FWR specifically in the hope of some feminist insight and reflection.

I thank those few feminists who've responded with thought. You have made me want to go away and read and think further."

Not trying to "out" you LindaSmithFanClub but you are replying as if you are the OP. If you are the OP with a Name Change then this comment is incredibly dismissive of most of the people who have contributed to this discussion; "most" being the opposite of "a few".

I was thinking about this discussion while I was off-line, when the most recent post was by the OP at 14:57 ending, "But I posted on this board because i was looking for feminist reflection, not the standard AIBU / Guardian response."

I had (and have) have no idea what "the standard AIBU / Guardian response" looks like (when I look at this Guardian article I cannot see any responses for some reason) and I wondered what was meant by "feminist reflection".

When I look back at the OP I see that there is a big clue that I missed!

"I know this is just feminism 101 – that we live in a society based around testosterone, where the male sexual urge is regarded as sacrosanct and women are still expected to service their male partners' sexual needs. And yes, I fully expect a few women to respond this that they love sex and are always ready for it, any time, any where. But what about the millions of us who can't say that?"

Belatedly, I would have to say that, personally, I do not feel or believe that I "live in a society based around testosterone, where the male sexual urge is regarded as sacrosanct and women are still expected to service their male partners' sexual needs."

That must be one hell-hole in which Guardian Readers reside.

"I fully expect a few women to respond this that they love sex and are always ready for it, any time, any where. But what about the millions of us who can't say that?"

There are so many problems with this statement, as others have already pointed out. If sex for heterosexual women was only to, "service their male partners' sexual needs" what a desolate prospect that conjures up, for both men and women.

My reflection is that the "Feminism 101" that you describe applies to some societies but that otherwise it is more like "Bad Sex 101" or "Relationship Woes 101". This seems to be borne out by the fact that you feel that most of the replies are disappointingly more typical of AIBU / Relationships than "Feminist".

FlyingOink I must say you could be totally right. I don-t want to argue.

FlyingOink this feels like a test! Not sure I can help with this riddle but this is my take on it..

"Do men, in their 50s, who have been married since their early twenties, generally create such lust in women that it is likely that:
1: three women in a decade have agreed to have an affair with this man."

That's wholly dependant on the man. Middle aged men seem to be in a category that has a lot if potential suiters! They can sometimes appeal to younger women, their own age group and older women.

Some times married men appeal to womem.

So I don't find it unusual he can find three women willing to sleep with him.

"three women in a decade have agreed to have this man as their boyfriend without realising he is married" that's always a possibility. The women may not have known he was married at first but certainly did by the end. Knowing a man is married or attached doesn't always stop people from pursing them. And vice versa.

"this man who has lived with the same woman for (by this point) thirty years is able to conduct multiple affairs without her knowing?" I think quite a lot of people conduct affairs. There's no suggestion he had the affairs simultaneously, so all he has to do is conduct an affair with one woman. Not that hard.

If my dh decided to leave me in my 60s because I no longer wanted to have sex, I would question the extent of his love and respect for me in the first place.
Would it be any different if the change of heart had happened in your 20s or 30s?

People vary in how important sex is to them. That will change over a person's life. Couples have to work on finding a balance that suits them both. When there isn't a balance, that can make relationships very difficult.
Sex lives are about sexual satisfaction and intimacy. Some people need one or the other or both. Sexual satisfaction can be found through masturbation but intimacy requires another person.

I don't think people should accept bad sex though. But I also don't think it's your partner's responsibility to "give" you good sex. In my view, each partner is responsible for their own and their partners enjoyment and each should be responsible for communicating with their partner.

If it isn't working, for me, that's symptomatic of wider problems.

I don't agree that if you've put up with unsatisfactory sex for thirty years that your partner then gas to stay with you out of some kind of show of gratitude. If you put up with it for thirty years then that's your responsibility, unless there was abuse or you were in danger by leaving.

Maybe wider discussions are needed about different attitudes towards sex and what is important to each person.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras
I think I was pretty harsh in my last post, but honestly, suggesting that people who enjoy sex are only focussed on orgasms and people who don't enjoy sex are having some kind of emotional epiphany seems a bit unlikely.
There's no moral high ground to having bad sex because the alternative is your partner sulking.
Those of us who enjoy sex don't park our hearts at the door and fuck anything that moves, either.
There's something quite draining about enduring unsatisfying sex when you know it can be so much better, and frankly I'd be resentful that my partner wasn't interested in my pleasure.
I'm sure there's some kind of altruism in providing pleasure for ones partner unreciprocated. It's nice, now and again.
But I wouldn't do it for thirty years, no matter how amazing the relationship was on paper. I'd hate them after thirty months, I think.

FlyingOink

My point of thinking about lesbian couples was because you seem to be saying that all anyone gets out of sex is an orgasm and that you can masturbate for that, so any woman who has sex is only doing it for male affirmation. That must then mean that lesbian partners aren't having sex at all, because there's no additional pleasure or benefit from having sex with another person, according to you. That's obviously rubbish.

People get more than just an orgasm from sex with a partner. Maybe you don't but not everyone is the same. I think it's like people who eat for fuel Vs people who enjoy food and the pleasure it gives. To them, food and eating is more than just fuel, there's an emotional component too.

Where have I claimed to speak for every woman? I have said in practically every post that I acknowledge lots of women will have a different take and that I'm posting here on FWR specifically in the hope of some feminist insight and reflection.

I thank those few feminists who've responded with thought. You have made me want to go away and read and think further.

We look still for male affirmation. When you get older like me then that matters less and less and is a liberation – and perhaps that has some effect on some women's desire too

If it doesnt matter to you then great! But you dont speak for every woman and feeling desirable (doesnt have to be from men but since I am heterosexual- it is men) is sexy to me. I like it. I am not going to feel shamed for that or that I'm somehow "letting the side down" for feminism. I like feeling desired. It makes me feel powerful. Living without male affirmation is liberating for you, but sex is liberating for ME! Not everyone is the same and I'm getting a bit fed up with the generalisations on here - if you have a low sex drive or no libido then of course its easy to say "its just sex- its not important!" but not all of us are like that. I have a high sex drive. I cant help that- and I'm not going to apologise for it. I like feeling sexy and I like feeling desired. Its not about pleasing men, its about pleasing myself.

Please dont assume you speak for all women because you dont.

So are you saying that lesbian women in relationships don't have sex together, but just masturbate? Because you seem to be saying that women don't enjoy a physical relationship and only do it for male attention. Therefore it would follow that women in a lesbian relationship don't have sex with each other
Lesbian bed death notwithstanding, if women only have sex when they want to, and it ends up being both less frequent and with a higher percentage of orgasms, what does that say about a proportion of sex had with men?
I guess some if it might be to feel desired, some to please the male partner, and some under sufferance. "Oh go on then, be quick".

I suspect I'm touching something that's very difficult to talk about for many women but it exposes a reliance of men to enable us to feel desirable and desired. We look still for male affirmation.

So are you saying that lesbian women in relationships don't have sex together, but just masturbate? Because you seem to be saying that women don't enjoy a physical relationship and only do it for male attention. Therefore it would follow that women in a lesbian relationship don't have sex with each other

If my dh decided to leave me in my 60s because I no longer wanted to have sex, I would question the extent of his love and respect for me in the first place

That works both ways. I would question my H's love and respect for me if he made a singular decision about our sex life that affected me too and didnt discuss it with me first. If he just said, thats it, no more sex for the rest of our lives I've gone off it, then I would question the extent of HIS love and respect for me.

As for the idea that "you can just masturbate" - sorry thats ridiculous. Sex isnt just sex to me- its intimacy, its closeness, its feeling desirable and attractive, its everything that enhances a relationship. I wouldnt say to a woman that craved a child and wanted to be a mother but couldn't have one, "well just get a dog!- its pretty much the same thing" because its not.
Masturbating isnt the same thing at all. I dont believe sex is a "right", but people DO have the "right" to end a relationship for whatever reason they choose and they do have the "right" to say, "hey, I'm not happy with this, what can we compromise on to fix this so its ok for both of us".
You also have the right to judge them for it if you so wish, but noone can really speak for anyone else in a relationship or tell them how they ought to feel or how they "should" live without sex for the rest of their lives out of "respect" for their partner.

I think we tend to put a rather poor spin on duty, TBH. We give it some rather low level recognition in terms of things like duty to care for your kids, or eldercare, but we seem to have lost the sense of duty as being a necessary expression of love, or even as a privilege. And with a marriage it's a dirty word.

there are material realities connected with things like procreation or setting up a household together, and that these don't stop just because individuals don't feel fully fulfilled in some way
There are, but while divorce is an option people don't have to make sacrifices for the sake of the family any more.
In some ways this means a more self centred focus, and in many more ways this means a lasting marriage is based on ongoing commitment.
It's a bit like the sex he wants to have, I wouldn't want it if it wasn't entered into enthusiastically, whereas he sees it as duty.
I wouldn't want someone to stay married to me out of a sense of duty either.

he sounds like a prick, and a prick who has a very high opinion of his own sex appeal
Much more succinctly put than I could manage.
I could feel sorry for people in a similar situation but I don't feel sorry for him. He's not a sympathetic character.
And you're right, he does perceive it as his right, and wants some credit for having put up with her refusing, as if that makes him some kind of martyr.

I guess I'm one of those glib posters, I want to say to him "shit or get off the pot". He should have the courage to leave instead of skulking and sulking and becoming (more of) a pest.

Notice he doesn't mention anything positive about her at all. Doesn't sound very loving to me, sounds grumpy.

My wife and I married when we were in our early 20s. We enjoyed our sex life, though I never felt she enjoyed it as much as I did.

He never felt, did he ever ask? Presumably if he’d asked then he would have known.

She decided not to take HRT, mainly because she was anxious about the increased risk of breast cancer. I suspect she was also quite happy to let nature take its course and enjoy a desire-free old age.

Suspect is an interesting choice of language here.One would tend to suspect, be suspicious of, something bad, or something underhand, an ulterior motive. It is not even necessarily true that women lose desire after menopause, what he is basically saying is ‘I think she’s using the opportunity of becoming a shriveled up sexless old hag as an excuse not to have sex with me,’ although if she’s never liked it as much as he did but he’s never bothered to ask, even though he felt that was the case, then who could blame her for not wanting the increased risk of breast cancer in exchange for crap sex she doesn’t enjoy? Basically he thinks she’s being selfish.

She has always been a feminist, and I have always supported her views concerning equality of education, opportunities, work and pay for men and women. However, she is also my sexual partner, and therefore the woman I desire, not a sex object.

This is an odd statement as the caveat appears to be supporting what he has already said. The caveat is the my sexual partner bit. He supports his wife’s feminism but he still sees her as being his. Also she is not having sex with him, that is his gripe, so she is not his sexual partner, he just thinks she should be because she’s his wife. clearly he does view her as a sexual object. The fact that he has to virtue signal that he supports his wife’s feminism is both a justification as to why he should have sex and an admission that his support for feminism doesn’t stretch beyond the bedroom door where he clearly believes he is entitled to his wife’s sexual services.

he sounds like a prick, and a prick who has a very high opinion of his own sex appeal.

onlydigestivesinthetin

Something I think is worth considering is how the concept of marriage has changed. I'm not sure that feminist analysis of that change is always entirely fair or enlightening. That's not to say that it is entirely wrong, but it's very reflecive rather than considering the institution on its own terms.

It's somewhat unique in the west the extent to which marriage has come to be about personal fulfilment and happiness. It's a change that has gone on for some time, maybe with its roots in romanticism, and it's inherently individualistic. But it was prevented from becoming dominant by the practical realities of marriage - the requirements of childbirth and rearing, the necessity for the wife/mother to have financial support in many cases, even the effects of disease. Marriage as a social institution wasn't directed only, or perhaps even mainly, to individualistic ideas of happiness. It was directed to social stability. While many people failed to live up to the ideals around marriage and to a greater or lesser degree this was expected or tolerated, it was still understood to be a social and moral good for individuals to do so, and the self-restraint required was considered a good and admirable quality to be cultivated.

If we really see romantic sexual relationships as a private and individualistic thing, there really is zero need for an institutional aspect. And arguably with things like fairly reliable birth control, social security, modern medicine, there is less need for the institutional purpose of marriage, no need for self-restraint.

And yet we still find that many people seem to have a strong desire for a stable romantic relationship that isn't based on the vagaries of sexual appetite or even romanticism. That is, love seems to be about something more than just our own personal fulfilment. And there still seem to be concrete downsides in terms of the material and economic elements - a theoretical individualism can't change the act that there are material realities connected with things like procreation or setting up a household together, and that these don't stop just because individuals don't feel fully fulfilled in some way.