Male desire/ sexual rights

Comparing a husband and wife of 40 years to men rating women in a brothel is rather nasty I think onlydigestivesinthetin.

You said earlier on about the trafficking of women and prostitution and this is a massive issue, I agree. but the details of a couples sex life if not the same as random men abusing women.

These kinds of letters are always pretty limited given that you only have one side of the story, you can't ask questions, and they also often edit the letters.

I think he sounds like a complete dick really. If he was wiling to have affairs before I'm not sure why he'd hesitate now. But it might well be that his wife has always had a lower sex drive and it lessened after menopause. The irritation about touch he describes sounds exactly like my experience at times when my hormones are making my libido low - it's almost comparable to restless leg syndrome.

It is weird that he doesn't want to masturbate unless he can use her as a masturbatory tool. He clearly knows he has been masturbating for 40 years.

I agree Goosefoot.

I am finally getting around to reading the Guardian article linked by the OP, rather than commenting on "issues in general".

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/apr/18/my-life-in-sex-my-wife-wants-a-desire-free-old-age-but-i-still-see-her-as-my-sexual-partner

There are some things in it that I find rather questionable!

"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."

Note:
husband seems to regard sex as something that they do separately-together, if you get my drift, ie. that it does not seem to have occurred to him that the nature of his involvement might have some bearing on the fact that he "never felt she enjoyed it as much as I did". Never?? They have been married 40+ years - I think he knows!

"Her menopause began when she was 50. Hot flushes were the main symptoms, accompanied by restless nights, irritability and a declining interest in sex. 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."

Where does he get the idea that taking HRT after menopause re-awakens or jump-starts an enthusiasm for sex and that not taking HRT results in "a desire-free old age"?

"By the time we were 60, her interest in sex had declined to almost nothing. What I found difficult was her response to my continued enthusiasm. She quite liked a friendly cuddle, but any tendency for my touch to become a caress, or my hands to approach her erogenous zones, would be met with irritation and an abrupt dismissal. She referred to my touch as “tickling”, or worse, as “groping” or “mauling”. If she caught me looking at her when she was dressing or undressing, she would become angry and accuse me of looking at her as a “sex object”.

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."

Given his earlier statement about feeling his wife has never enjoyed sex (ie. with him!) as much as he has enjoyed sex with her in 40+ years of marriage, I struggle with this: " . . . she is also my sexual partner, and therefore the woman I desire, not a sex object"

It really does not sound like there has been a "sexual partnership" and much more that he "desired" her as a "sex object".

This seems more like a transaction than a partnership: support for feminist views in exchange for unenthusiastic and possibly unwilling sex.

I would love to hear her side of the story!

"I have had three short-lived affairs during the last 10 years, which all ended because the women involved refused to “share” me. But how can I possibly abandon my best friend, the mother of my children, co-owner of our family home, sharer of mutual friends? I still love her. I just want a reasonable sex life. Is that an impossible daydream?"

Right now I am hoping that her side of the story features a "fancy man", a lesbian lover and secret stash of fancy vibrators that whizz merrily when he is out of the house

I wonder what her "impossible daydream" is?

It might be that she knows about his affairs and hopes he will have another one and leave her alone because she regards him as her "best friend, the (father) of my children, co-owner of our family home, sharer of mutual friends"?

At no point does it seem to occur to him that she is not necessarily hoping for a "desire-free old age" and that her rejection of his sexual advances is something that he ought at least to consider might be "personal".

I feel very unsympathetic to his plight from the way he has described things but it is impossible to understand what is going on in that relationship without knowing her side of the story.

Yeah, the idea that people who love their spouse will necessarily be interested in sex is just not true. There are people who just don't have a high libido who get married because they want kids, they love the person, but they do it knowing the sexual element is not evenly felt.

There was a time when magazines like Cosmo spent a lot of time reassuring people that you could go on having sex until you were old, while you were pregnant, as sson as you like after the baby is born. These days it seems like many people need to be informed that many people lose interest in sex at various times, without not caring about their spouse.

@Goosefoot

Really good point.

What if the wife is financially dependent on him, doesn't have her own pensions or income. What if she has no other friends or family. His choice to leave because she won't put out is suddenly putting her under immense pressure to have sex she doesn't want.

I guess I was looking at the relationship from the point of view that if she doesn't want sex, she's probably not that invested in the relationship and would be equally happy on her own. Which was a really wrong assumption to make. Also reinforced the fact that I have been conditioned to think that a wife that loves her husband wants to have sex with him.

What I would say to the older man in the Guardian upset about his wife wanting to make the marriage a sexless one is to accept it or divorce. It’s not that he has any right to sex, but that when he agreed to marry her it was with the understanding that sex would be part of the marriage. Now she’s wants to change the marriage and not have sex any more, which is ok too but she can’t force him to agree. So he has the choice to agree or end the marriage.

I think this is just true as far as it goes, if he's unwilling to accept the situation, he has essentially two options.

However, I think it's worthwhile to turn this around, because it impacts on this business of no one feeling pressured (and I am not sure everyone understands that word to mean the same thing) to have sex.

From the wife's POV, clearly she can refuse sex, and tell him why she feels that way and so on. But it's also his right to not accept that and leave. But, what if she really wants the marriage to carry on, and doesn't want to divorce? Surely that is a reasonable and valid thing for her to consider?

If she does want that, it seems that her only real option is to consider some sort of compromise about their sex life as a couple. So how can she square that with the proposed principle that there should be no pressure in that area? The very fact that she can decide one thing, and her husband is free not to agree, and yet she may still value the marriage, means that there will be pressure. This could equally be true in the other direction, with the husband feeling pressure to acquiesce to something that he didn't initially agree to or want.

To me this says that the idea that there should be no pressure is really just inadequate to the reality of relationships.

Forgot to say, I'm a woman, but I dont see why men would feel any differently to what I have expressed above and I dont think that makes them wrong.

I think a partner of either sex is perfectly entitled to decide they don't want to stay in a sexless relationship, and leave that relationship

This. I do NOT agree with forcing, coercing, threatening, or using prostitutes.

However, sex i important to me and I could not stay in a sexless marriage. I would do everything I could to fix the issue first and be supportive of my partner. However, if my partner just refused to get help and simply said - thats it, no more sex, I would probably end the relationship.

Sex isnt just the physical to me- its everything, its intimacy, closeness, feeling someone is attracted to me etc.
I need that and I am not going to apologise for that.

What I would say to the older man in the Guardian upset about his wife wanting to make the marriage a sexless one is to accept it or divorce. It’s not that he has any right to sex, but that when he agreed to marry her it was with the understanding that sex would be part of the marriage. Now she’s wants to change the marriage and not have sex any more, which is ok too but she can’t force him to agree. So he has the choice to agree or end the marriage.

I agree with Goosefoot that the judge statement and case are not really relevant to this because the man and his wife BOTH wanted to have sex and were consenting, but the wife’s caregivers had determined her to be incapable of consent by dubious means. This meant that if they did have sex, the husband would be charged with statutory rape. The judge was starting from a position that it is assumed that man and wife have a fundamental right to have sex with each other if/when they want to and that the caregivers had the burden to prove that the wife was truly incapable of consent. He was saying who has to prove what to win the case.

I don’t really agree with your description of society in regards to testosterone and so on. Feminism 101 tends to invoke a lot of mythos about the bad old days when the reality was and is much more nuanced and complex.

There’s no such thing as a right to sex.

"But I think in this hypothetical scenario we are talking about people who would be happy to remain in the relationship if sex was being provided (in some cases even if its not enthusiastically consented too)"

That was my take on it too.

Sex is for reproduction in the first instance. If we reduce the age of the woman in the hypothetical relationship (only because the examples given are all about older women who are less likely to be fertile) . . . if she aims to get pregnant, whether or not both parties agree to this, then this sounds very similar to the idea of being, "happy to remain in the relationship if sex was being provided (in some cases even if its not enthusiastically consented too)".

"Our attitude as a society towards sex needs to change. Too often we are taught its the be all and end all; and that usually ultimately ties into acceptance that man's obsession with sex is healthy and normal, and should be indulged at all times, even if it involves degrading and violent acts."

Setting aside the "degrading and violent acts", this is an idea that seems to come up a lot on FWR, along with the idea and that it is "bad" (immoral?), unhealthy and unnatural, ie. "man's obsession with sex" . . .

IF all men are obsessed with sex, then would that not suggest that it is in fact "healthy and normal" for men to be obsessed by sex? Certainly "normal" because by definition it would be "normal".

"Most" would be closer to the truth because sure as hell not all of them are "obsessed with sex". That still makes it "normal".

Also, is it sensible to base ideas about what is "healthy" on relationships that are troubled and strained?

Some PP in this thread seem to regard sex as a "bolt on" aspect of a relationship while others regard sex as an intrinsic aspect of a relationship. Both views are "right" because what works in one relationship will not work in another and individuals can desire and function differently in different relationships at different times in their lives.

"Neither a wife nor a husband should ever feel pressured into sex they do not want."

I agree that that is the ideal.

However, the reality is different and far more varied than the suggestion of coerced or forced sex. It includes wives, husbands (and partners in other relationships) pressuring themselves into consenting unenthusiastically to sex, whether out of love and respect for their partners, to keep the relationship from collapsing, to try to create or restore an intimate bond, etc. etc.

BTW I am not "picking on" your comments Naturalbornkiller for any other reason than you have expressed your thoughts so clearly and succinctly - and I agree with most of what you have said.

onlydigestivesinthetin OP, I do not see that these situations and how men and women are responding to them are anything to do with the current "sex and porn trade".

They are both as old as time.

Nobody is entitled to expect or demand sex from their partner or spouse. Anyone whose partner has gone off the physical side of love needs to instigate some real communication about feelings on both sides. I for one couldn't continue to feel desire for someone who was, say, spiteful or lazy or disrespectful to me, or who stopped cleaning their teeth or washing their bits before bed. If you want to be wanted in bed, first be a full partner all over the rest of the house.

Not for nothing do they call housework the thinking man's foreplay!

I don't know - should anyone have to stay in a relationship that they are unhappy in?

The taking of a vow. The desire to be a good person. The promise of future happiness. Or plain old love, maybe.

My friend stayed with her husband through a long terminal illness, and there wasn't much happiness (let alone sex) in the last stretch. But I don't think she regrets staying with him until the end.

This gets into questions of what a marriage is. For many people, it's meant to be a permanent arrangement, not just something you do so long as it suits you. Entered into from that perspective there are almost certainly going to be compromises the couple will make about sex at certain times in the course of the marriage. And there will be times when they are not happy.

I don't particularly agree this always has to be in the direction of not having sex if one person doesn't really want to. It's not really very easy to set out a principle, but generally I think for a marriage to work, both people have to be looking out for the well-being and happiness of the other and have to come to many decisions mutually. That being said, the idea that it is desirable and normal fr people to keep of the same amount of sexual activity after a baby, or as they age, is damaging. A surprising number of couples with a new baby have the idea that changes in libido are a myth, for example, and it sets them up for trouble.

People can leave relationships for any reason, but that doesn't say anything about whether they should.

I don't know - should anyone have to stay in a relationship that they are unhappy in? If you're planning on leaving a marriage only because your sex life has taken a temporary dip, it doesn't say much for the quality of that relationship does it? Is it not better for all concerned if that relationship ends?

People can leave relationships for any reason though can't they? If they aren't happy, for whatever reason, should they have to stay?

Of course anyone can leave a relationship at anytime.
But I think in this hyperthecial scenario we are talking about people who would be happy to remain in the relationship if sex was being provided (in some cases even if its not enthusiastically consented too)

People can leave relationships for any reason though can't they? If they aren't happy, for whatever reason, should they have to stay?

People can leave relationships for any reason, but that doesn't say anything about whether they should.

If I've just had a baby, or injury or depression or whatever, and don't want to have sex for a period of time, it would be completly unreasonal for my dh to leave or have an affair and it would affirm that he does not love me or respect me.

People can leave relationships for any reason though can't they? If they aren't happy, for whatever reason, should they have to stay?

I think in the context of a relationship, whether one party should end the relationship based on their sexual needs being met completly depends on circumstances.

If I said I don't ever want to have sex again, I don't want to try counselling or working to get the spark back, you'll just have to lump it. I don't think it would be unreasonable for my dh to leave. If I've just had a baby, or injury or depression or whatever, and don't want to have sex for a period of time, it would be completly unreasonal for my dh to leave or have an affair and it would affirm that he does not love me or respect me. I would say the same if the scenario was either way round. Neither a wife nor a husband should ever feel pressured into sex they do not want.

It makes me feel really sad when I see new mums on here asking when they should restart their sex life after having a baby. The only answer to that should be, when you're ready. I think many of us feel pressure to keep the sexual element of relationships going all the time, even if there is no direct pressure from a partner. Our attitude as a society towards sex needs to change. Too often we are taught its the be all and end all; and that usually ultimately ties into acceptance that man's obsession with sex is healthy and normal, and should be indulged at all times, even if it involves degrading and violent acts.

I don't think you can throw away the judge's statement about a man's fundamental right to have sex with his wife, Goosefoot. I think that although it was written in a judgment about a complex case about ability to consent, the fact that he didn't realise the import of that phrase as he wrote it was shocking. I know that judge is normally one of the good guys: there were plenty of people who had a head-in-hands moment when they read what he'd written.

We will probably just have to disagree about this, but there was a good thread about it at the time. He was writing about that particular case, to other people who understood the legal questions and meaning - and it would have been the same had the positions of the couple been reversed. The fact that people who it wasn't written for jumped to conclusions isn't a failure on his part - a really significant part of it was a failure on the part of journalists who jumped on it as click-bait instead of doing their jobs and explaining for the public what is was about. No different than bad science writing.

I don't think that it's really the case any more that we treat men and women vastly differently on this issue I think that people are about equally ready to tell a woman in an unsatisfying sexual relationship, or with a differently matched libido than her husband, that she should move on.

Where I do think there is a difference is people are more likely to think some sort of change in behaviour within the marriage could improve a woman's sex life, mainly reflecting that sexual satisfaction is typically more straightforward for men and it often takes time for women to figure out what works for them.

Such a good point @Melroses I never thought of that

So are you saying then op, that if one partner doesn't want to have sex for any reason, that the other partner should just a copy that sex is a nice bonus feature and stay in the marriage even if that makes them unhappy?

On MN if a man posts that he is unhappy because his female partner doesn't want to have sex anymore the replies overwhelmingly are that it's likely his fault, he should sort himself out, he has no right to expect sex.

If the sexes are reversed, the female who wants to have sex is told that the man is selfish, she absolutely should expect him to go to the drs ( because clearly not wanting to have sex is an illness!) and that even if he doesn't want sex he should make sure that her needs are met.

Obviously, that's just the attitudes on MN, so make of that what you will. There is definitely a very clear difference between what MN posters expect of men and women in this scenario.

Personally, I don't think anyone should have to stay in a marriage where they are unhappy, so, if that unhappiness is caused by an unfulfilling sex life, or an absent sex life, it's as good a reason as any to leave.