Sexual compatibility.... Is assisted/oral considered Sex?

[TheOneDaysRoad]

I'm really seeking some advise here.

Me and DH are on different wave lengths when it comes to our sex life. He has a high libido and mine is way lower, always has been. I'm good with sex once a week. (Mind you he's an amazing giver constantly wants to please me, I don't think there's been a time when I haven't gotten off) Although he's okay with once a week he also expects the assisted masturbation (i.e. Having to fork my assets out for him to look at while he finishes) are sex related to me but whenever I simply say no I don't want to he phrases it as well you don't have to do anything were not having sex.

So I'm confused if I just suck it up those times when we're not having sex but I have to lend my body for his viewing pleasure? I do want to please him and see him satisfied and about half of the time say yes to these advances.

But I can't see it healthy when all the time I have to be thinking when's the last time he got off because if I helped him today then tomorrow I will get a break. But if I haven't seen him for a few days (work related) and see him, I feel compelled to do SOMETHING. I know he's a man and has wants so I'm completely lost.

I don't think I've specified what you've said, but I have outlined what seems to me some risks in men 'providing a male perspective' on Mumsnet, and a concerning pattern in the way male contributions on threads about sexual problems tend to run. I'm here to learn.

Oh AnotherEmma sorry not to bow to the majority view. Is that the done thing? I thought it was about helping other Mumsnetters. We can have a debate; that's about being persuaded by evidence and argument. Not just because more people say X rather than Y.

Would not be fair to say in regard to OP that when she says 'No' then thats the end of it. She shouldn't be cooerced, she shouldn't be emotionally blackmailed by grumpiness, she shouldn't experience any negative response to a simple, "Not tonight love"?

On the other hand, if she says " Yes" and chooses to engage freely and happily then basically her and her hubby can do what ever the two choose to do?

Isn that the obvious solution? No coercing, no compromising, no BS, nice and simple.
No=no
Yes=yes

Or am i over simplifying?

Smillas I didn't mean him wanking on his own. What I said on a previous post:
'Consent is the issue here, surely. And you need to consent even to just being looked at while your OH wanks. Otherwise he's trampling on your dignity. But if/when you're OK with it, I think it's a much nicer way of managing an imbalance of sex drives than banishing him to the bathroom with porn. I love it when my DW agrees to 'just watch'. It's a nice moment, not as great as full sex but it's kept the spark alive through years of tiredness & kids.'
Sorry, but I stand by that. I'm suggesting a sexual compromise that worked for me in similar circumstances. The OP, remember, said she said yes to half these advances. If the OP decides that she wants no part in that sort of thing any more because his lack of respect has pissed her off, that's her right. No must mean no, whether it's 'No, not ever' or 'No, not now.'

Seeyou absolutely agree

Seeyou
"Or am i over simplifying?"
I think it a normal, healthy relationship, it can and should be that simple. But in this relationship, it's not that simple, because the partner isn't taking no for an answer. He coercing the OP into sexual interactions that she doesn't want by pressuring and guilting her into agreeing. To the extent that she feels upset and confused.

Emma
I wonder how many guys have "won around" a woman in abusive manner over the years? IMO, a woman giving her consent doesn't necessarily mean she has done happily and freely. It may have followed years of emotional abuse and she's merely agreeing after being 'worn down' that's not consent still in my eyes, other men may think a yes is a yes however he got it. Smh I despair.

See you
I completely agree.

This has nothing to do with compromise.

If my DH isn't in the mood I won't guilt trip him into anything as he knows I'm in the mood and it's up to him to communicate if he is, and to what extent.

If he doesn't suggest he wants a quicky, it'd be morally reprehensible and coercive of me to guilt him into a compromise. How the hell could I get my jollies knowing he didn't really want it?

Funilly enough, he's of the same opinion where I'm concerned and although he would be disappointed he would not consider that disappointment to be grounds to coerce me to do anything I didn't offer either.

I hate it when the word abusive gets trotted out. Especially when the problem is actually complete total and utter incompatibility.

If two people completely disagree on what is needed/wanted/necessary, you try to seek a compromise.

Problem is you can't seek a compromise when it comes to sex. If he seeks any kind of satisfaction that she is uncomfortable with that is ignoring and overruling her emotional wellbeing. Clearly not acceptable. But arguably if she just ignores his need for sex actually she is just overruling his feelings. That actually isn't leaving him in a comfortable position either and the "dh/dp doesn't want sex" shows.

You can't be together and satisfy both of you if one person wants sex and the other doesn't. You cant be respectful to each others feelings because you both want to do something that will cause unhappiness to the otherm. Your desires are mutually incompatible.

It seems admirable that you have both worked so hard at a compromise. But fact is you are deeply unhappy with the compromise. I cannot see a compromise that you would feel comfortable with, I suspect he actually feels the same.

Ultimately how much is this relationship worth?

At some point you have to say the cost of compromise is too high and walk away.

I'm suggesting a sexual compromise that worked for me in similar circumstances.

It sounds like it was your DW doing all the compromising. As you would apparently have the OP do for her DH.

The OP, remember, said she said yes to half these advances.

Well yes, let's throw the concept of coercion right out of the window. Why not. If she said yes, after all...

If the OP decides that she wants no part in that sort of thing any more because his lack of respect has pissed her off, that's her right. No must mean no, whether it's 'No, not ever' or 'No, not now.'

See, you're claiming to be saying this, but then you read the OP and see her saying she's uncomfortable about these things she's already doing, and then saying 'remember, she said yes' and suggesting compromise on her part is good for the relationship. Either 'no means no' and she shouldn't do anything she's not enthusiastic about, or no doesn't really mean no, and every 'yes' means yes regardless of how it was procured, and everything is fine and dandy as long as that word is uttered.

To be honest, the more you write, the more that is how I'm reading your insistence on 'of course, of course, of course, NO means NO'. You seem to literally mean that if she says the word no, that's it, and if she says the word yes, that is also it. And that her feelings are somewhat less important than the word that comes out of her mouth to either condone or refuse a given sexual activity at a given time. You're coming off as quite oblivious, actually.

I'm suggesting, putting in my opinion on a sexual issue I've had some experience of

But you haven't mentioned any of your experiences of being expected to get your boobs out for a man to wank to, or to watch a man wanking for his pleasure, so I'm not sure where this experience is.

I mean, you didn't even believe that anyone has ever felt coerced in to sexual activity to avoid being called a prude.

OK Smillas I think I'm done with you. I've said what I mean several times but you decide that what I say isn't what I REALLY mean. I can't debate with that, can I? I say white, you say I said black. End of reasonable discussion.

RedMaple, similar. Sorry I'm not a woman.

Anyone want to try to help the OP, or just shoot some more at the bloke?

You're dismissed little ladies.

RedMaple you simply put the words you want to hear in other people's mouths. Nothing clever or helpful about doing that.

AnotherEmma look at my power and privilege working.

Where is the compromise in agreeing to stand/sit benignly while my partner wanks to ejaculation whilst feasting on my breasts? When he knows last night was enough? This may seem a daft question but what the fuck am I getting out of it?

Are you looking Emma? Are you learning from him and his male perspective? Are you hanging on to every word? Are you seeing how clever and helpful he is? Are you? Are you? Are you?

Oh quit the goading, RedMaple. If anyone is silencing others around here it is you.

I haven't asked one person to stop posting.

OK Smillas I think I'm done with you.

Well that's me told.

I've said what I mean several times but you decide that what I say isn't what I REALLY mean. I can't debate with that, can I? I say white, you say I said black.

My point was that you say you're claiming to be saying 'white', while at the same time it would appear you're actually trying to communicate 'black'. And you think 'black' is 'white', which is why you're arguing with other people saying 'white' and disagreeing with you, and claiming you're saying 'white'. Following?

'No means no' appears to mean something entirely different to you than it does to most others here. And the point seems to be going right over your head, repeatedly. And I mean repeatedly.

End of reasonable discussion.

Behold, The Man has spoken.

And somehow Oneeyedbloke has successfully steered the thread onto his 'perspective', his sexual habits (boak), his point, his intentions to help the OP in contrast to everyone else's intentions, his persecution at the hands of all the silly women incapable of 'reasonable discussion'. Bet QuiteIrregular is as stunned at this development as I am.

Smilla

Stop bumping the thread then. It had dropped and not been bumped for over an hour.

Well, actually you have, when you think about it.