Lie back and think of England

[dignified]

I read this today on a thread where a woman was being sulked at by her husband about sex, along with the usual responses of poor him hes frustrated ect.

I honestly despair.

Yes, I find this attitude that men are owed/entitled to sex simply by virtue of their existence completely infuriating.

My XP when we were together would badger me constantly for sex. If I refused he would sulk and be unpleasant until I gave in to keep the peace.

If actually asserted that I didn't want sex and stuck to that I would be punished in other ways - eg he would make sure I 'accidentally' found him wanking to porn - which he knew I didn't like.

He was always grabbing at me as well.

It was awful - I really felt like my body was not my own.

Wow, that turned into a mini rant!

Where do you think the problem stems from? I agree it's sad when you see other women colluding, as you describe above dignified.

Janos, i had the same , its horrible. I knew it wasnt right and would object loudly.I confided in other women and met the attitude that men need sex and that it wasnt really a big deal. I think it comes from mens entitlement and worse other women okaying it.

How i wish id had mumsnet.

Sorry to hear to you had the same experience dignified.

I think for me one of the worst aspects is the collusion of other (not all) women, an attitude of well, what do you expect?

I've been raised with expectation that women are supportive of each other, 'on side' if you like - whereas the reality is quite different.

Also, I remember that he was pestering me 2 weeks after DS was born. I distinctly remember feeling 'well I may as well 'cos he's just going to keep on at me til I do'.

Sorry - not meaning to turn this into a thread about me .

I am interested in why this is regarded as ok (it isn't imo), and why people think a woman should submit to a man if they want sex and she doesn't.

Theres some disturbing opinions on that thread , i feel like screaming to be honest. Worse is the op intends to show it to her dh, most of the posters are in support of him.

I am deeply disturbed by any man who wants sex with an unwilling partner.

I don't think most of the posters are supporting the husband, dignified, just a few vocal ones.

But it is certainly airing some disturbing attitudes. In fact, it is a bit reminiscent of the rape thread last week; apparently a married woman loses the right to say no...

She still has the right to say no - but not to have that no respected. And her poor husband if she does say no, scant wonder he was confused.

I think that those of us who have equal (and satisfying) sexual relationships with our husbands and have never been pressurised for sex by them can have a hard time understanding the kind of unpleasantness surrounding the "power struggle" that can arise when sex is a problem.
The OP of the thread mentioned has given scant information about her sex life, other than to say that he sulks and pesters her to "give it up" - without specifics, i.e how often they do have sex, of course he is out of order with his sulking strategy, but we really don't know the whole story.

The people saying "just do it" are trying to help, but that advice only works when a poster actually wants to improve her libido in a good relationship, not a bullying one.

Wanting someone to want you (without reciprocation) must be soul destroying on a long term basis, I do have a bit of sympathy for her husband but he's not doing himself any favours with his behaviour.

I saw (and posted on) that thread too. I couldn't believe the attitude that she should just have sex with him and that he had the right to sulk which seemed to be coming from some posters, very disturbing.

I believe a healthy sex life is important in a marriage and if there is a problem it needs sorting but through talking, or possibly counselling. Certainly not through blackmail such as sulking which, for me at least, would be an even bigger turn off and would make me less likely to want to have sex.

'Yes, I find this attitude that men are owed/entitled to sex simply by virtue of their existence completely infuriating.'

I guess thats one way of condensing the sulk thread Janos :)

Sorry to hear about your old ex. And you too Dignified. You sound well rid of them.

Excellent post Malificence.

I think Malificence has a point in that most people would not be happy to be in a relationship where sex was never willingly on offer. While sulking is not to be condoned, if people were judged solely on their ability to handle a difficult, emotional situation well, many of us would be found wanting.

However ? and it's a big however ? personal experience (my own and many other women I've spoken to, including several friends of both sexes) suggests that men who resort to sulking, coercion and groping are typical abusers, even if a physical punch has never actually been thrown. Decent men, however steeped in the norms of cultural patriarchy, do not behave like this. I know this because I know several men who would never dream of behaving to their partners like this, however frustrated, though that's not to say that they wouldn't/haven't eventually seek/sought to split if the problem hasn't been solved. In a solid relationship founded on mutual respect, mismatched libido is not that common a problem. When couples split a difference in sex-drive may be cited as a problem but the underlying reasons are usually far more complicated, and libido (or lack of) tends to be more of a symptom than a cause. How many times have we read on here that one of the main reasons a woman goes off sex is because she is treated like an unpaid skivvy and groped at every opportunity?

Just so readers of this thread know.

It was ccpccp who said "So I'm afraid you just need to lie back and think of England till your libido returns."

I think she/he said it purely to provoke a reaction.

After reading the additions to that thread, I take it back about having a bit of sympathy for the OP's husband - he now sounds like an abusive, bullying bastard.

That's the problem when information is drip-fed throughout a thread. If she'd have come out with the pertinent information at the very start, she wouldn't have got the "just shag him" responses she did.

Malifience - sometimes OPs go through a transformative process over the course of threads that is why I like to take the "I believe you approach" and then gently ask for more information.

In many cases the OP has to join the dots together and they are reflecting on things whilst they post so it's not possible for them to post the pertinent information at the start.

I find this thing so difficult. I often don't want sex but I find if I make myself go there, I tend to want it more and more. So it's very easy to lose sex in a relationship just by it being habit not to do it IYSWIM. I'm not explaining myself very well!

Passive aggressive behaviour on the part of the partner who wants sex more, though, is inexcusable, but there are two different issues.

The OP, who may find she can get to enjoy sex more if she did it more, and the partner, who is behaving like a spoiled brat, sulking when he doesn't get what he wants, which is a behavioural thing, not a sex thing. You could have the same discussion about him being pissed off that his wife only makes her favourite pudding and never his and his sulking would still be unacceptable, pathetic, controlling behaviour.

Oh come on Tab, if she'd had said at the start that he had bullied her into a threesome shortly after giving birth and that he sulked for sex when she was ill, she would have definitely got different responses.

No decent man would behave like this and I imagine 100% of the (genuine, not shit stirring) posters would have pointed it out in no uncertain terms.

That's why I'm always a bit wary of that type of thread, it's easy to get sucked in and then the story changes - I know occasionally they are genuine, but by no means always.

It's easy to say give all the pertinent information in the op but sometimes I've posted on a thread then realised I've missed something out that I wanted to say. I can imagine that if I posted a thread I would put in everything I could remember but when another poster asks a question/makes a point I'll think 'Oh, I didn't put that in."

"they wade in with 'ways to improve your libido' without stopping and thinking what kind of sexual partner is a man who happily has sex with a woman who doesn't want it likely to be? are we thinking he's likely to be a good lover? my money is on: no!"

But, although the poster in this case had a sulking partner happy to have sex with his unwilling wife, that's not always the case. Improving your libido is nice for the woman too, not just the man.

And there is a difference between being sulky and being unhappy. A partner who wants more sex than he or she is getting, is likely to sometimes feel fairly unhappy about it - and the sex may well be about wanting more intimacy with the person they love, rather than just needing a shag IYSWIM.

I totally disagree with the 'lie back and think of England' advice, which is basically saying 'just do it even if you hate it' and advice that says 'see if you can make yourself enjoy it once a week and you may find yourself wanting it more' IYSWIM.