What kind of sex is this?

[writergirl]

My DP and I have been together nearly 10 years.

In the beginning we had a lot of raunchy sex, which was fine. Over time, I feel I need more intimacy, and 'middle of the night' sex, which doesn't involve me dressing up and wearing heels. I don't mind that, but don't feel like doing it all the time!

The other day, we had sex - his kind - without even kissing - this kind of 'intercourse' doesn't really do it for me.

I keep bringing it up, as we have a good communicative relationship, and I also keep sliding over to him in the middle of the night to initiate some more romantic style lovin', but he really is not up for my kind of sex. Doesn't fancy it, or happens to be too tired...

I personally think he has intimacy issues, although I can't get to the bottom of them, or work out why that would be.

I have a niggling feeling he can't handle a 'real woman' - without all the trimmings, but I don't know if I'm over analysing this.

Any thoughts, anyone?

Should I keep analysing?

This isn't what I was looking for but relevant to OP's situation:

“A quickie is a form of intimacy. It is giving intense, sudden sexual access without asking for motivation or justification,” says Schwartz. And at the same time, “romance and tenderness are not essential requirements for sexual play,” says Dr Marlene Wasserman, aka Dr Eve. “A quickie may be the only contact two busy people are having and it’s better than nothing at all.”

womenshealthsa.co.za/sex-love/15-minute-quickie-tips/joy-quickie/

It is bad sex. That is what it is.

HTH.

A quickie can be very intimate and involve kissing. It doesn't involve special dressing up!

The problem is simply that they don't like the same kind of sex. She is prepared to have the kind of sex that he likes, he is not prepared to do the same for her.

He's a crap lover and no amount of shite 50s advice from 'sex therapists' is going to change that.

Does anyone really need 'quickie' defined? Is it not self-explanatory?

Does anyone really need 'quickie' defined? Is it not self-explanatory?

YES! because somebody claimed the sex she was having was quickie sex. Clearly not, you don't pop your heels and lingerie on for a quickie!

Sorry OP, I can't find what I was looking for. I'm pretty sure it was Tracey Cox's advice. It was in this kind of vein:

www.traceycox.com/blog/2012/02/29/tracey-cox-argues-the-case-for-duty-shags/

www.traceycox.com/blog/2009/10/23/ask-tracey-cox-23-october/

"Six months is a long time without sex without a good reason not to do it. Your husband has a right to expect regular sex and ‘duty shags’, I’m afraid, are all part of the ‘working at the relationship’ that experts rattle on about. Another good reason to just do it: the less sex you have the less sex you want."

(there's similar stuff on her blog in the advice parts)

Here's an interesting response to her:

toomuchtosayformyself.com/2009/10/30/your-husband-has-a-right-to-expect-regular-sex/

So what you're saying is that he expects you to spend the rest of your life (not sure how old you are, but let's assume that this will be decades) only ever having sex that doesn't really do it for you -- never ever again in your life having sex that you find fulfilling?

And as you have such a "good communicative relationship" he must know that that's what he's asking.

And he doesn't see a problem with that.

I'm not sure you need a whole boatload of analysis applied to this situation, TBH.

Isn't Tracey Cox that idiot from the daily mail?

Yes TheHermitCrab.

Read the response link I posted. Says it all really.

Wow. Tracey Cox's 'advice' is seriously fucked up.

'Duty sex'?

WTF??

This is the end of that response post:

“If your husband is hassling you for sex when you’ve made it quite clear that you don’t want it, he obviously has no respect whatsoever for your feelings. He does not have a right to expect sex from you, and no right to demand it of you against your own wishes and desires. And if he’s unable to wait until you’re ready for it, or to respect your rights as an individual to have sex on your own terms, then I’d question his suitability to be your life partner. Seriously, you deserve better than this”

That is appalling advice from Tracey Cox! I had no idea she was peddling shit like that. Shame on her.

In her defense. I suppose the "duty shag" thing works if you are in a great relationship (and she does highlight she doesn't mean let your partner go at you while you're looking at your watch) Probably a poor name for it really. Sometimes I know my partner wants something, he'll touch me or grab my bum or whatever, I'm doing a bloody crossword, not in the mood, noooo i can't even think about going upstairs, or moving, But sometimes I "give in" and think ooooh go on then, not in the mood but only because I'm a lazy cow. Then I enjoy it, and we cuddle and have nice intimate moments after, where as saying no would have probably left us both a bit fed up. But that's more laziness, if he'd have asked me to go for a walk the reaction would be the same! lol

I think in OP case it's not relevant, he knows she doesn't want sex that way, he ignores her, carries on regardless, and never gives back. :/

I don't agree with the "duty shag" approach or Cox's advice generally.

The reason I mentioned this half remembered advice was because at the core of it was a negotiation and a trade between the partners. ie. one wanted one thing and the other wanted something else. They compromised.

This kind of compromise/negotiation may not work for everyone but it's a thought. Depends whether what is described as "a duty shag" is something you don't mind (and I agree with TheHermitCrab that this is an unfortunate name for this) or something that is in fact dangerously approaching non-consensual sex.

But either way, good communication is at the heart of a great relationship - so discussing it, even attitudes to Tracy Cox's approach, is no bad thing I'd suggest.

I'd define it as 'incompatible' sex. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs, when two people have very different sexual needs it's never going to end well. What's baffling is why you've taken 10 years to realise.

No, there is no defence for a 'duty shag' post 1950. Tracey Cox is an imbecile.

Twinklestein

That's your opinion. Not a fact. I think she's given it a stupid name, and it isn't what it first seems to suggest it is.

I don't even like Tracey but when I read what she wrote it made sense in my head, but was put across in a bad way, with a shit name. I don't think she's condoning that anyone should have sex if they are not happy to, but i related it more to my situation of I "just can't be arsed" sometimes, but then end up getting just as much out of it.

'Giving in' to having sex is always a bad idea, imho. Because it blurs the boundaries. Sure, you might get a kiss and a cuddle, but that's just you being trained to say yes to sex next time, isn't it?

HermitCrab, next time your OH 'grabs your bum' when you're doing the crossword, you might like to think about what he wants (to ejaculate inside you) and what he has to do to get you to agree to it (cuddles).

Of course it's my opinion!

HermanSkank

HermitCrab, next time your OH 'grabs your bum' when you're doing the crossword, you might like to think about what he wants (to ejaculate inside you) and what he has to do to get you to agree to it (cuddles).

Haha I actually laughed out loud then :). And another part of me was angry that you would make such a nasty assumption about someones partner. Not a nice thing to say at all.

we're completely open in our relationship, especially sex, he doesn't see me that way and always gives me what I want, sometimes he's in a cheeky mood (i.e the grab of the bum) other times it's more romantic. I'm the same with him, will grab his bum or whatnot.

My partner never thinks of me as that kind of thing, he'd be absolutely sickened if he was seen that way. We treat eachother both equally :)

Like I said, I never don't enjoy the sex, like I said. Just a lazy cow. lol

Like someone mentioned, it's about being sexually compatible. And I am with my OH. All good fun.

Anyway, now I'm done with defending my partner when I shouldn't need to. Back to the OP's post!

OP - what is his response when you say you don't like that kind of sex, or mention his lack or romance/passion?

HermitCrab, next time your OH 'grabs your bum' when you're doing the crossword, you might like to think about what he wants (to ejaculate inside you) and what he has to do to get you to agree to it (cuddles).

Am I the only one that thinks this is a pretty appalling thing to say to someone about their OH?

"Ejaculate inside you"?!? FFS. Some women actually enjoy sex! That is a 1950s attitude. Sex is something men do to us poor little women.

It's kind of like going to the gym or going for a run. You can slob around on the sofa and really not feel like it. But if your DH or your mate or whoever persuades you, once you get going it's great, you feel better for it and you are glad you went. Sex can actually be just the same. The fact that your husband tries to persuade you doesn't mean he's a rapist.

We aren't talking about a virtual stranger pestering someone for sex. We are talking about two people in a committed (hopefully loving) relationship.