“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?

I…get it.

But I think it’s used incorrectly on here in a way that has potential for harm.

You could say that about a lot of things OP and I agree with you but you're banging your head against the digital brick wall if you're hoping that will change.

You don’t, and I’m not the only one saying it.

And writing a response using the same style as the poster in a mocking sense doesn’t make your point better, it makes you look childish.

Disagree. The more people who see an alternative analysis, the quick change comes.

This has always been the case, and it's even more true in the digital age.

Again totally different situation. If a woman is not being allowed to wear specific clothes it’s because she is afraid of her partners reaction to them, whether that’s violence or aggression or whatever. Different scenario entirely. Not all abusive behaviours can be lined up and compared directly.

Ahhh,
Your OP was perhaps not very clearly argued. Yes I agree completely with you on the basis of this

I don't know about the thread talked about /\ or where 'weaponiastion of sex' was used, but simply put, I would say if a female feels like she doesn't want sex with her partner for any reason whatsoever, she doesn't have to have it.
That's not using withdrawal of sex as a punishment or a bribe; it's simply her not wanting it.

Im not doing any more bashing, im done for now. But fingers crossed at the very least someone who has been bullied by their partner into shagging them after they’ve treated them badly will realise that it’s ok to not shag them if they don’t want to!

Ok OP I take on board your point. Would you mind clarifying if you think that the withholding of sex as a punishment, to control, or to cause distress for the perpetrators enjoyment is not a form of abuse?

I'm not attacking you btw I think some of your points are very valid I just want to clarify this before going further.

This!

But what was happening on the other thread was people were telling the OP to refuse sex because she didn’t like his comment, rather than just talking to him and telling him.

The OP on the other thread had actually had sex with her DH the next day because she wanted to, and people criticised her for this. She had to actually tell them that the here wasn’t a problem with her and her DH, she was just a little upset by his comment that had not been made with intent to harm.

People wanted the OP to weaponise sex, and when she had sex with her husband they acted as if this was some kind of crime. Her husband was a good guy who accidentally offended her. The commenters thought she should be using her body to reward or punish him

But we all agree on that. Don’t have sex if you don’t want to.

But your thread started on a totally different vein

I think, referencing the comment made on the other thread, I wouldn't so much be witholding sex as my vagina would have sealed itself up, taken itself to a convent and taken holy orders.

Disagree
No women wants to have sex with a nan whos an arsehole or treats her badly
Its a consequence

I also dislike the idea that men are owed sex

I think you should probably read my post again as that's not what I said.

I have seen similar threads where women have sneered at other women for actually staying with a man who has done or said something the offended posters find totally unforgivable.
LTB must be the three most overused capital letters on Mumsnet.

All too often women post their most strident viewpoints as the only opinions that matter...and they are so often wrong.

No I read it fine
Lack of sex is only weaponused from the male view that its a right
Its not a right and lack of sex is a consequence

I had it done to me by my male partner, you won't believe me but that doesn't really matter.

I agree with OP. If a male partner has hurt his female partner, cant acknowledge the hurt he has caused or refuses to even simply apologise, it really doesn’t make us feel like having sex with them(unfortunately speaking from experience here). I don’t think that is ‘weaponising sex’, it’s simply not wanting sex with someone who has upset you, and forcing yourself to do this when you really don’t want to would be damaging.

The term ‘weaponising sex’ to me is a power play’ move where someone withholds sex from their partner for their own amusement and to manipulate the partner. It’s not the same as a betrayed/hurt woman not feeling like having sex with someone who hurt her, and it is damaging to women to suggest it is.

I do think this is abusive when it’s happening!

Oh god yes, immediate LTB! 😂🙈

I saw that thread. I do not “withhold sex to train a man like a dog”. I will not however have sex with a man who has hurt me or I don’t feel 100% comfortable with. That isn’t “weaponising sex”. I literally couldn’t make myself do it.

Thanks for responding OP. We probably are at cross purposes and differ in opinions in places. I just didn't want to you to feel I was attacking your standpoint out of a sense of superiority.

It’s such a bizarre way of describing a woman who understandably doesn’t feel like being intimate with a person who has treated them unkindly.

Mumsnet has some funny ideas about relationships. I suppose some of them make sense in genuinely dysfunctional relationships, but in otherwise happy and productive marriages that just have the usual minor annoyances that come with living with someone, I think they can be a bit counterproductive.

Personally I often find sex/touch/comfort helpful to bond non-verbally even when I'm mad at my husband, it helps me calm down and be in a better frame of mind to find a solution later. Equally I don't think it's "sex weaponisation" to not want to do that. It just seems like on MN if you mention ever sleeping with your husband everyone chimes in with a chorus of how you're a slave to the patriarchy blah blah blah.

I think my problem with it is that it implies that women don’t really like sex for its own sake, and that it’s just some kind of gift we bestow on men as a reward.

I find that whole concept fundamentally harmful and a bit misogynistic. I think the notion that sex is something women can happily go without, and which is a sort of little chore they only do as an expression of love/thanks/obligation, is a really bleak, patriarchal way of categorising female sexuality.

Obviously if someone doesn’t want to have sex, they shouldn’t have it. That’s not up for debate. If a woman doesn’t feel any sexual attraction to her partner because he’s unpleasant to her, then absolutely she shouldn’t feel she has to have sex with him.

But when it’s presented as a bargaining chip, something only to be offered as a treat for good behaviour and which only the man actually wants and the owls ‘gives’, that implies that women are not / shouldn’t be truly sexual beings, and assumes that going without a shag for months is something they will automatically find to be a positive experience. It doesn’t even consider the fact that women might actually want sex for its own sake, and that withholding sex might actually be just as (or more) frustrating and unpleasant for them as it is for their partner.