Husband watches Fb reels with half naked women

[Bubusssss88]

Hi everyone. I just really needed someone else’s opinion on something that I feel sad/ embarrassed to talk about with family, friends 🥺

So my hubby is looking at fb reels randomly and shall I say underdressed women as they pop up.. he isn’t specifically searching for them
(I accidentally saw him from the back as I came back from upstairs) but will linger around when one of these half dressed girls pops up and look at them. What would you say, do, in a situation like this? I’m 3 months pregnant so I might be overreacting but I just feel awfully hurt by this .

feel dumb even asking strangers in the internet but right now I just needed someone to talk to . Xxx

You have low standards then. We need to expect more from men than this shit.

And it is not her insecurity talking here. 🤦‍♀️

a) it's no different and b) THEY ARE NOT NEARLY NAKED!! ( assuming we are still talking about FB reels )

And sexual thrills?? @baileys6904 said, and rightly so, that she might find a man gorgeous, but how does that even remotely correlate to a sexual thrill?

He really isn't doing anything wrong, it IS her insecurity talking, and its women on here like you who are giving her the false belief that what he is doing is wrong and only worsening her insecurities.

Why do YOU think men look at pictures of sexually provocative women? Do you think it's for their personality?

Personally I don't think it's " Projecting" to assume men looking at sexually provocative pictures of women are fdoing it for sexual gratification. Otherwise an awful lot of Only Fans models/ instagram models etc might as well put their clothes on and take up knitting.

Those are your standards in your relationship. Mine clearly differ. Doesn’t make me wrong.

I would rather be with someone who doesn’t think spending their time watching barely dressed women online is ok. It is entirely about respect, not insecurity.

Who said looking at dvaid Beckham was anything to do with sexual thrills???? I don't want to have sex with him, did you not read that part? Same as, I can look at cake without the slightest urge to eat it. I repeat, I have no interest in having intimacy with anyone other than my partner. Doesn't mean I cant look T a man and think, wow, they're good looking, fair play.

If youre attracted to every single male you see, and that's why you can't look at a figure of the opposite gender, that's more on you, not me

Who mentioned sexually provocative? The op didn't. She said, barely dressed, there's a big difference.

Bloody hell it isn't low standards to not give a shit about your DH glancing at other women. I actually find it really quite controlling to attempt to dictate who your partner can look at lustfully 😂 and bloody naive too.

I am confident and happy with myself. My DH makes me feel attractive every single day. Our marriage is solid and happy. We have a great sex life. There's not an ounce of me that gives a shit if he looks at other women online or - clutches pearls - watches pornography.

This incident has made OP feel unhappy and she's absolutely entitled to ask him to be more careful about how he uses social media around her, but she cannot dictate that he must not find another woman attractive, or that he cannot look at other women. I think the problem is how OP feels about herself, and as a couple they should be working to rectify that.

Feel sorry for your husband/partner!

But as I've just proved a few posts above, the women are not Barely dressed, they are dressed no differently to any women in a gym. We are not talking about porn here, we are talking about very tame material on social media that is suitable for nearly all ages.

No man will get sexual gratification, or sexual thrills from watching these reels, and as I've already pointed out, for the most part, the reels are connected with a genre that you have previously shown interest in, in my case above, fitness and clothes.

It’s hardly going to make any woman feel good catching their partner stopping to enjoy to view like that. Obviously that will make FB throw more of it his way.

Love how these posts attract the attention of the hidden men on MN and gaslighters. Women don’t have to accept anything or bend their boundaries to suit men anymore.

You appear to me to be a bit unwell!
🤒

It's the algorithm which the users have very little control over.
Of course, the op can LTB and become a single parent.
The only 100% guaranteed way to avoid this is NOT to use social media.
Also not to leave the house because even being near other women is cheating.

@jinglemybells85 There are some FB reels with barely-covering-anything-at-all lingerie and sexualised poses. You're welcome to PM me if you really want examples! I won't post them on this thread because I might get banned.

Would you accept that it's OK for the OP's feelings about these things to be different from your feelings? Nobody is trying to take away your right to look at anything, but the OP came here because she felt upset by what she saw, and I don't think it's productive for people here to say "you're wrong, this stuff is fine, anyone who objects is wrong".

I'm a fitness freak who buys a lot of active wear and also incidentally happens to be bisexual. You'd better believe there is a lot of muscle in tight clothing on my IG. The horrors. Indeed, practically every day I watch a whole forty minutes of a very, very fit woman working out usually in a sports bra and short-shorts. (Caroline G, I adore you.) My eyes are so incredibly cheaty.

Snowflake by name snowflake by nature clearly.

If said women feel insecure about their partner watching a reel, usually about a genre that they have interest in, that happens to have an attractive but fully clothed woman in, then that's on them, and they need to address their insecurities and not dictate what their partner can and can't watch.

FB and creators are not stupid, they are fully aware that if a 30 year old heterosexual male has an interest in lets say fitness, they are much more likely to engage and watch a reel with an attractive woman in it over one that has a hunky topless male. This does not mean they are lusting or leering, and it doesn't mean they are getting any kind of sexual gratification from it. The person watching has very little influence over this, yes they can skip reels, but why should they if it concentrates on a subject that he is interested in just because there is an attractive woman in it?

If i watch a reel with a muscular man doing a gym workout topless, does that mean i am lusting over him and I want to rip his clothes off and fuck him senseless? Absolutely not.

Sexualised poses, to some extent yes, but its rare to see 'barely anything on' - and even then everything is still covered up and its not really any different to going to the beach and seeing woman in bikinis and topless men?

My argument isn't really about what's right and what's wrong, I've already said that every couple is entitled to their own boundaries.

I guess my point is, and always has been, that these FB reels are not with nearly naked woman, the woman is almost a by-product of the reel itself and have been purposely been portrayed as a 'sex symbol ' within a usually mundane advert such as a treadmill, or a nutrition drink, which otherwise wouldn't get the same engagement.

It is also really important to remember that its Facebook and Metas algorithm and not the users search that have the overriding effect on what's shown so to imply that the OP's DH is actively searching for these types of videos is just wrong.
Look at the pics i posted in an earlier post, they were for an exercise mirror, a big hoodie, some sports trousers and a yoga mat i think. I have seen these because they are things that interest me and not things I have specifically searches for on FB reels.

@Bubusssss88 i'm sorry if i or others have somewhat de-railed your thread, it wasn't intentional. May i ask what sort of reels your DH was watching? it would be good to understand if they had any correlation to any of his hobbies or interests.

There is far more than just gym bunnies on there. Google it. Plenty of people have seen much more provocative things than you suggest. But that doesn’t fit your narrative. The minimum age for X is 13, and you get full on nudity on there too.

You seem to be going around quite cross and insulting anyone who disagrees with you on this. I wonder why? Are you a man? Why do you desperately want everyone to agree with you here?

Really?
Well context is everything isn't it?
I'm willing to accept that someone who posts holiday photos of themselves in swim wear/ minimal clothing might be doing so as a normal thing. If not in specific circumstances why would any one be posting pictures of themselves with minimal clothing if not for approval of a sexual nature?

She didn’t say they were fully clothed as you say above. She said undressed and half dressed. Big difference there, don’t you think?

Jinglebells is a MAN, hence the creepy navigation to sex orientated posts on Mumsnet defending men.

I'm sorry but I really don't understand why you are looking at pictures of David Beckham actually - an obnoxious human being whom you don't want to have sex with? Why bring him into the conversation in the first place?

I'm old fashioned.
I think living some one and being in a relationship with them means you focus on them. You don't look at pictures of other people unless there is some specific reason: they are friends , relatives, neighbours, part of your local community work or friendship groups, people in the news . You don't look at random women/ men who are in revealing or no clothing for no specific purpose.
Your faux naivety is extremely irritating: as I'm.sure it's meant to be.
What a shame for OP when she is distressed by her DH's behaviour to have her thread totally disregarded by male apologists.

If you're on Insta, bring up gainlinesfitness and scroll through ostentatiously while lounging next to him in bed or on the sofa.

Oh fuck me.... Are we seriously doing the whole 'women dress for men, not themselves' bull?

Surely to god we lost that attitude years ago. Are we now also saying that women are 'asking for it' if they wear short skirts because they put on their outfit based on attracting males?

I think living some one and being in a relationship with them means you focus on them. You don't look at pictures of other people unless there is some specific reason: they are friends , relatives, neighbours, part of your local community work or friendship groups, people in the news . You don't look at random women/ men who are in revealing or no clothing for no specific purpose

You are at liberty to maintain whatever boundaries you like in your own relationship. But the vast majority of people are going to regard this as wildly unrealistic and ridiculously puritan.

The content on Facebook is, by and large, tame. And the OP's DH didn't deliberately search it. Nor did he know he was being watched. If he had been loudly comparing OP to the women in the videos, sure, there would be a problem. But good luck getting men who are attracted to women to stop looking at and enjoying pictures of attractive women in their own time and thinking all kinds of thoughts about attractive women in the privacy of their own minds.

I like looking at the infamous CapAss gif. I liked it when Hugh Jackman's shirt got magically ripped off in Deadpool and Wolverine. I like reading fanfic in which fictional characters played by attractive male actors get it on with other fictional characters played by attractive male actors. Sometimes I like reading fanfic in which characters played by attractive female actors get it on with other fictional characters played by attractive female actors. None of this constitutes cheating, or says anything whatsoever about my respect for DH. It just means I'm not blind. It just makes me a person with an imagination and a sex drive who is entitled to privacy in my own mind and devices.

If you insist on a male partner not ever looking at pictures of women unless he has a reason to, you are going to get men who are either gay, have very low sex drives, or, more likely, lie their heads off on this particular issue.