The Contented Mother's Guide.

[GeekCool]

Uhm having read the description of this and seen the quotes etc, I feel this thread should be in here. Telling women to 'grin and bear' having sex in the few weeks after giving birth is absoluletly outrageous! It's insulting to women and men.
To women it says - forget the fact you've birthed a baby, have trauma as a result (bruising etc), your man's needs are more important than you or your baby.

To men it says - you are incapable of putting anyone else before your own needs. You are incapable of accepting you are needed/wanted without being shown through sex.

Argh! It makes me so angry!

Strawberry I'm really sorry you had that experience.

I haven't read The Contented Mother's Guide (nor do I have any intention of doing so ) so I can't really comment on it directly, but I just don't get the premise. It's all about keeping the romantic relationship between the two parents alive yes? Ok, so far so good. We all know that having a baby places a strain on even the best relationship and that it's a good idea to try to find ways to reduce that strain. But why does it have to be the woman making the effort?

It's the woman whose body and emotions have been through 9 months of change, followed by an extremely demanding physical process that can often end up being traumatic, which then doesn't necessarily cease because she could be BFing or (more than likely) she will be the one getting most disturbed sleep because she'll be the one doing the majority of the work caring for the baby. THe man hasn't had any of these demands placed on his body. And while he may have to 'cope' with the change to his wife/GF and their relationship, and worries about whether or not he will be a good father, that's nothing in comparison - especially as women too have the worries about whether or not they will make a good mum and whether the relationship will change PLUS they have the added worry of whether or not their working lives will ever balance with having a baby.

So why should it be the woman making this effort? Why can't the man make the effort of not placing any pressure on the mother of his child until she makes it clear she's ready? Why can't he pamper her and woo her to keep the romance alive? Why does romance have to equate sex? Aren't their other ways of establishing and keeping intimacy alive? And what about fairness? Why does it always have to be women who get the unfair deal in order to keep a man happy and not feeling neglected.

I left my partner when my DTs were four months old. What really surprised me was how much easier my life was doing it on my own. Even taking the abusive side of him out of the argument and looking at the elements that seem to be common in a lot of non-abusive relationships, it would still have been easier. There was no pressure for sex. No one promised to do this that and the other and then failed to do it meaning I had to do it even though I had already planned to sit down and rest at that point knowing that someone else had promised to take care of it. There wasn't another adult creating extra work around the house. There wasn't any other demands on my attention. Despite having twins, life as a single mother was much easier. Obviously if I'd had a decent man, who didn't pressure for sex and did his fair share, it could have been easier again, but I'm seriously starting to doubt whether that's the reality for most women.

Who would even want to be in a relationship with a man who would have sex with a woman knowing she was only doing it because she felt she had to just grin and bare it?

I am raging angry at this stupid stupid woman.

Is this book what passes for baby and child rearing advice nowadays?

I saw Holly on This morning saying she couldn't believe that someone who was treated as an all knowing "guru" on motherhood was giving such ridiculous advice, all the people there agreed with her too (quite rightly) .

How do these idiots think that men who work away cope with long periods with no partnered sex?
Any man who pressures a woman for sex/thinks that his sexual needs come first , especially when she has recently given birth, is not a man worth having.

I wonder how many "experts" tell men who have been recently circumcised to just grin and bear it if their wound site is sore? I think I can guess.

Strawberry, I was also told by my mother than I'd risk losing my dh if I didn't give him sex. I was too astonished to respond at the time, and also feeling so ashamed that I couldn't be a nurturing, caring mother by day and a lust-filled lover by night. What a complete failure I felt

I really don't understand how someone who has never gone though the experience of childbirth can offer out advice like this, and be taken seriously. Childbirth is, at the very least, a physical act that the body needs time to recover from (hence the 6 week guideline issued by the medical world). But beyond that there are so many psychological issues going on.

This article has made me feel so very angry. I still have issues with sex, which I know aren't normal, and I'm trying to work on them and thankfully I have a lovely understanding dh (see, Mum, he didn't run off ). I hate that there's so much emphasis on sexual intercourse. And why the hell does it matter to anybody else when people start having sex again after a baby? Just let us enjoy our babies and get back into sex in our own time!

It's doing me good to see the anger on here - over in feminism - compared to the other thread on this topic which was a bit too reasonable for my liking !

How can you be reasonable in the face of such unreasonable "advice"

The thing is, you can only have this idea of "giving men sex", if you think that that's what sex is - something women don't do for themselves, because they like it, but something they do for men, to keep them pleasant and get them to put the shelves up and empty the bins occasionally.

It really is as if the sexual revolution never happened for women. It happened for men all right - they can now have a fuck apparently whenever they want, with whomsoever they want; but for women, the sexual revolution appears to mean having gone from denying men sex if they weren't married to them, to having sex with any man who wants it, whenever they want it, irrespective of how crap it might feel to you.

We really do need a new sexual revolution. One that promotes women's enjoyment of sex and autonomy over their body. And one that makes it crystal clear to men, that they don't have the automatic right to have sex no matter how long it's been since they've had a fuck and no matter how many times they may have had sex with this particular woman previously.

Gina Ford probably won't be in on that particular revolution though. If she thinks that letting your husband rape you is a recipe for contentment, then I genuinely, truly feel sorry for her, I'm not being sarcastic.

Amen, Basil, Amen.

Sex isn't something I do 'for' my partner, it's something I do with him, for me us!

Ditto, if my partner thought sex was something he was doing to me, or I was bestowing upon him as some kind of bribe to keep him around, I imagine he'd feel revolted and revolting. I mean - (not to be whattaboutthamenz) how awful must it be for a man who really believes that they are completely undesirable and women only let them 'do sex to' them for other reasons?

I know I like feeling desireable and desired now and then. Why wouldn't a man want to believe that women genuinely desire them? Why wouldn't the sexual revolution you promote be good for all straight relationships?

I can't think of a single reason.

Well said, both. Totally agree.

Agree with all of this, except that I'm not sure you can "let your husband rape you"(because that implies that you have given consent and not withdrawn the consent at any point) - but I'm sure it would be possible to have a really horrible experience that could be close to a rape experience if you had an unpleasant enough partner.

It is insulting to both men and women.

She really is dreadful

"She isn't a mother. You can interview all the mothers you like, but until you have a baby you just don't know the physical havoc it can wreak - including the horrors of the first post baby shag."

MizK I'm not a mother, and I take issue with this statement. SWMNBN does not advocate grin and bear it because she's a non-mother, it's because she lacks empathy and/or imagination. The two things are not the same.

While I don't have experience of pregnancy I'm pretty sure a shag would be very low on my list following childbirth.

I should mention that I don't think any woman should feel she has to 'grin and bear it' for their partner, particularly after childbirth.

Yes I agree with Onesunnymorning.

It's perfectly possible to not be a mother and still have empathy and respect for what mothers say to you.

LOL at the anxiety not to tar rapey men with the "rapist" brush. Mustn't call a spade a spade at all.

I don't really think it's a LOL topic, Basil.

(If you're referring to my post)

I disagree.

Feminists are always being accused of being humourless. And sometimes, if you don't laugh, you'll cry.

Fair enough Basil - humour can be a tricky thing and I've often used the same phrase myself ( If you don't laugh, you'll cry )

But I was just wanting to look at the issues around "letting" your partner have sex with you when you didn't want sex to happen. Thinking however bad the sex might be in some of those situations and relationships at least from a legal POV, but also from an emotional POV, it would be different to sex where you had at any point said "No" to it - at which point the experience would be rape.

I'd be interested to see others views around this issue.,

Thinking it could be OK to "bear it" (some time after childbirth) if you are going to be able to genuinely "grin" about it

If not, you should say NO !

• If it's not going to be fun in anyway then why would you ?

(Have to say the expression still makes me shudder though)

Incidentally I've just seen the excellent MN campaign "We believe you" in discussions of the day, and thought I'd give it a mention here though I can't do links (easy enough to find though )

My problem with that Juggling, is that it puts the onus on women not to be raped, by saying no, than on a man to ensure he doesn't rape, by hearing yes.

You don't have to say no, to be raped. A normal decent man, knows that sex is a two -way street - it's not something you do to a woman, it's something 2 people actively participate in together (unless they've agreed otherwise quite specifically). Your average man, when faced with an unenthusiastic, unresponsive woman, doesn't need to be told no - he knows she's not up for it, he knows he should give up and mostly, he does. Rapey men don't, and they get to not be called rapists even though they are doing exactly what rapists do - forcing themselves inside the body of another human being, who doesn't want them there and has made it clear that she doesn't want them there by not making it clear to him that she does. We can argue about the legalities and semantics, but in my book a man who does that, is a rapist, whether the law considers him one or not and I personally wouldn't want him in my bed.

I feel sorry for any woman who thinks that that's a normal standard of behaviour among men. Althoug rapiness is not as uncommon as people would like to belive, it really isn't bog standard either. Even men I've considered real wankers in the past, don't generally go in for that. They've got boundaries. It's sad and perturbing that Gina Ford doesn't realise that and is urging women to have such appalling low expectations of men.

Thanks for your thoughtful response Basil - I find I do completely agree with you.

Just felt it was a worthwhile discussion to have - as you say "we could argue about the legalities and semantics" but "I personally wouldn't want him in my bed"

Just aware I suppose that it would be worse if you couldn't make him stop. Doesn't bear thinking about. My absolute sympathy to any woman reading who has experienced any such thing.

Oh yes it's always worth having the discussion. It's taken me ages to get my thoughts worked out on this and it's thanks to this board and the discussions on it, that I have.

Viz the how awful if he didn't stop thing - I think there's something in there about the "no".

I suspect that one of the reasons women don't say no, even when they don't want sex, is because deep down, they are terribly afraid that the man they're with won't respect that no.

If they haven't said no, they can kid themselves that he's just a bit of an inconsiderate buffoon who isn't the most sensitive, but hey, anyone can make a mistake and he's great in other ways, good with the kids, etc.

But if you say no and he keeps on going, you are left with the fact that your partner or husband, who claims to love you and whom you love, raped you. There's no hiding from it is there.

So if you don't say that no, you don't need to face that. Hell, who would want to face it? Much better to stay quiet and endure it and then kid yourself that the old man's not that bad.

Fortunately for me my partner, though he can be an arse at times, does have a good basic respect in the bedroom. I couldn't stay with him or any man if they didn't have that. I've also been fortunate that all my previous boyfriends had a very respectful attitude too (apart from a couple of minor encounters with tossers in my teens)

I think you're right basil that someone would have to be a serious wanker to
display the sort of grey area behaviour we've been discussing. I do agree that some women probably say "yes" for fear their "no" will not be respected. Because, as you say, how much more terrifying would that be.