“Sex weaponisation”

[bigfacthunter]

Each time I’ve read the phrase “weaponise sex” it’s been when a man has treated a woman at the very least sup optimally and when commenters suggest not shagging him until he apologies/atones/acknowledges/whatever is needed to resolve what he’s done they’re accused of telling people to weaponise sex which is apparently the worst worst thing a woman can possibly do.

AIBU in thinking that this is a completed demented concept and that the alternative, ie shagging someone while holding onto upset, anger or resentment towards them, is much much worse?

No one regardless of gender should be having sex if they don't want to but using sex as a weapon is a little different. It means you're using sex as a "reward/punishment" to manipulate or control a behaviour which is clearly wrong.

I don’t agree with “weaponising sex” but so many women continue having sex with their partner even when there is some huge unresolved issue in their relationship, simply because they think it’s expected of them and they don’t know how to say no. If my husband is pissing me off the LAST thing I want to do is have sex with him.

Exactly. I also hate the thought of someone having sex with me while angry or upset with me

It's perfectly natural not to want to have sex with someone who is treating you badly.

It's not the not wanting to have sex, it's the using sex as motivation to get what you want whether what you want is roght or not.

So the woman on the other thread was upset by the comment her DH made, and wanted an apology and for him to understand that his thoughtless words hurt her and shouldn't have been spoken aloud. This one instance of thoughtlessness occurred inside of a long and happy marriage.

It sounds like she was able to communicate her feelings clearly and her DH listened and took it on board and everything was resolved to her satisfaction.

There was no need to withhold sex to punish or manipulate him, because she was able to clearly talk to him and he was able to listen and hear her.

Also, just on the concept of a woman withholding sex - how does that work if the woman enjoys sex and wants to have it before it's convenient to resolve whatever disagreement fully? Wouldn't she be cutting her nose off to spite her face? If she wants to punish him, what's the benefit in also punishing herself?

I think there's a big difference between saying no to sex when you're angry and upset and weaponising sex.

For me weaponising sex would be deliberately withholding it or using it to manipulate someone or to cause them harm etc. The term probably gets thrown around too casually here but there's definitely nothing wrong with saying no to sex when you're upset.

You know that your description of sex weaponisation isn’t what people refer to on the other threads.

Replace withholding sex to withholding money and then you’ll see how it is abusive. Don’t have sex with someone if you don’t want, but don’t use sex as a method to control a man until he sits, begs, rolls over on command.

Exactly this....saves me typing.

This is my big issue, I know exactly what it’s supposed to mean but I think people use it really incorrectly on here in a way that is probably quite dangerous for vulnerable people. I think there are very very few situations in which “weaponisation of sex” is actually a thing.

Agree with you OP.

To those who've said something along these lines, I don't think you can so easily distinguish between 'not wanting to have sex with a man who's a prick/behaving like a prick' and 'withholding/'giving' sex to manipulate'.

Many men who treat women badly/exploit them view the women they're in a relationship as sex- and domestic service providers. That's the core problem - and therefore it's the man who has established the transactional sex-as-currency dynamic. The woman usually has far less power (of all kinds) and, if she hasn't already run a mile, has necessarily already internalised, through society or upbringing or the relationship itself, a deeply misogynist view of what men and women are to one another. It's no wonder that they use the only lever they may have to exert agency.

Even those women who are upfront about using sex as currency and think they're playing men at their own game/being a girl boss/taking control are only doing so because they've been fucked by the patriarchy, basically.

And even if you look away from this truth - what's generally the problem that we most see on here and across society as a whole: women who use sex as a lever, or men who exploit and abuse women and effectively tell them that sex is their only lever?

And when I say exploit - I think the power dynamic of women as carers/service providers is so entrenched that we barely see it, because it's just the air that we breathe and things have to be pretty bad before it even registers.

In my middle class area/friendship group, I can count on the fingers of one hand the men who truly split the actual load and therefore see the women they are with as fully human, as they are, with a right to the same internal life, leisure time, and sense of being domestically cared for as them. These are all liberal nice guys who would absolutely say that they were feminist allies.

Oh I totally agree with you here OP and it happens with a lot of things on here some examples being the word "fascist" being rolled out for anything slightly right leaning etc.

I would disagree with you that it's rare though as it's likely used more often than we think but like all types of coercive and controlling behaviour it's very subtle and not easy to spot and those on the recieving end regardless of gender rarely speak up.

Umm no they don’t correlate at all.

Withholding money would presumably be in a situation where the withholdee depends on the withholder for money and not having it would make it very difficult for this person to navigate daily life. There’s no “having a wank instead” version for cash.

And asking your partner to apologise for the way in which they’ve hurt you = controlling a man to sit down, beg and roll over 😂😂😂😂

It’s not about not having sex - that’s perfectly rational if someone has treated you badly. It’s more the attitude that I hate, the attitude of “sex is something women either give or remove to men based on their behaviour”.

So because it's not a required resource your argument here would suggest it would be ok for a man to control what woman wears and where she can go as no one needs to wear specific clothing or go to specific places.

Asking someone to apologise isn't the same either that's completely fine.

Yes it is definitely you who misunderstood.

the woman whose thread has triggered yours was told to withhold sex because her husband said something that upset her. The comment was not meant to upset and was a little insensitive, but people wanted her to use her body to demand an apology and some even berated her for having sec with him.

it was a single comment that she felt hurt by but didn’t make him a bad person or make her love him less. She just wanted to speak with people about it because it had bothered her.

The whole thread ended up being a mess because of people saying that she should withhold sex when all she wanted was to talk about the issue. It was bizarre.

This…this is what OP doesn’t get.

have sex or don’t, but don’t make that decision like you’re trying to train a dog with rewards/treats for good behaviour.

Exactly. And I think the numbers of men who do or would pay for sex (can't remember the data but it's shockingly high) proves my point above - a huge proportion of men see sex not as a mutual experience but an activity in which the woman is nothing more than an upgrade to their own hand.

I didn’t actually read all her follow up posts on that thread so that’s great they were able to talk about it and move forward. But the sex weaponisation comments came in before any of those updates which is what inspired me to jump ship and start a new thread rather than detail hers!

i mean cutting off your nose to spite your face doesn’t really come into this for me. If you want to have sex with someone you’re annoyed with go for it. But feeling like you’re an abuser for not wanting to shag someone while you’re mad or upset with them is truly awful and I would argue bandying this term around carries a greater potential harm to women than it does to men.

People will often shout racist' when comments are factual and not racist at all, so others may incorrectly use the phrase 'weaponisation of sex' in entitely the wrong context.
I honestly think most people do understand the correct usage.

I don't think you get it OP sorry.

No one is suggesting you are obligated to have sex when you're upset or angry or that not doing so is weaponising sex.

I also think that it's part of a wider weaponisation or co-option of the language of equality/empowerment/mental health advocacy by the layer of society that those things were intended to call out.

Cf: the men we hear about on here who check out of family responsibilities for their mental health, the men who try to worm their way back into their abusive relationship by claiming a breakdown.

And on a wider social level, 'be kind', 'kink-shaming' etc.

You aren’t an abuser for not wanting to shag someone you are mad with.

but someone suggesting not to have sex with a man because you aren’t pleased with his behaviour/attitude/comment, is suggesting using sex as a means of behaviour modification, and that is weaponising sex and can be abusive.

Yes I think there is probably a very complicated grey area between both situations and that commenters on Mumsnet can’t possibly know what the dynamic is between a poster and their partner. But I think people should really err on the side of caution when using it because it’s really got such potential for harm.

I think the issue is, and yes this is a huge generalisation, is that men will generally never turn sex down, even if they’re pissed off with the woman or she’s done something he’s annoyed with. It’s like sex is something separate to them in terms of being connected with their annoyance. Women are not the same. If we’re annoyed then sex is often the first thing to go.