Opinions on sex - bear with me

[Thurlow]

A couple of threads on MN over the past few weeks have got me thinking seriously about some (or maybe just some MNs) opinions relating to sex. This isn't meant to be a TAAT or an attack on their opinions. But something about some of the opinions aired, or perhaps more of a general belief, has got me quite confused.

One was the airing, by several posters/people, of the opinion that any woman who says she enjoys partaking in a particular sex act is merely a "cool girl". In essence, they can't actually really enjoy it - they only think they do because porn and/or men have convinced them that they do. It struck me as... some women believing that other women cannot, in some way, be trusted to explore their own sexuality. This is hardly a completely weird sex act we're talking about. But there seem to be women who believe any woman who enjoys certain sexual acts - anal, facials etc - cannot possibly be doing it because they genuinely enjoy it, for whatever reason (physical, emotional i.e. submission etc).

Another was a very heated debate - that I was tempted to post this on, but thought a new thread on this board might be better - as regards situations where women don't feel like having sex with their partner. Now I'm not in any way advocating that anyone should ever have to engage in any form of sexual activity if they don't want to. No way. No one ever should.

But what struck me was that for almost all people in relationships, sex is one of the main things that differentiates your romantic relationship from a very close platonic relationship. For most people in a monogamous relationship, sex is the one thing you do only with your partner - whereas many people may also be as emotionally close to a friend or family member. Sex is also seen by many people as the real Big One when it comes to infidelity. Your partner having sex with someone else is generally unforgivable. It's one of the worst things anyone can do to anyone else. Equally, everyone hopes that their partner finds them attractive and wishes to have sex with them. Someone being told that they are no longer attractive to their partner is an equally terrible thing within a relationship.

Yet on this thread about not having sex when you feel like, there was a very strong feeling from many posters that a husband (in this scenario) who asks his wife for sex, who attempts to initiate sex, is being unreasonably demanding. Completely unreasonably demanding. A sex pest, to some posters. That it is so out of order for a husband to fancy the idea of having sex with his wife. There was discussion of "pawing" in relation to a man making moves on a woman. (I will stress I completely agree with the general sentiment that if you're knackered after being with kids all day, you should completely be able to say "nope, too tired", and also that any respectful partner will just accept that). He would be totally out of order for making any kind of move towards physical intimacy. Hugging, touching, attempting to kiss, things that are surely what most people do to show affection and perhaps start to initiate sex, were just "pawing" and were demanding.

I know I'm waffling but I'm also trying to work out for myself what many of these opinions made me feel.

So - if we hope the person that we have chosen to build our life together with finds us sexually attractive, and wants to be intimate with us in a physical way, because physical and sexual intimacy is one of the main things that differentiates a partnership from a friendship... Why do many women see it as wrong that a man might hope to have sex with his wife? (Leaving aside for a brief moment men who don't take no for an answer). Why is it so wrong that a man might touch a woman, hug or kiss in an attempt to see whether their partner might like to have sex?

And why do some women seem to believe (again, just judging by comments) that any man who would like to have sex is, essentially a sex pest? As if women don't feel like that too? Which tied in, in my mind, with that whole "cool girl" concept in relation to women liking anal sex, for example.

I'm not sure I've explained this properly but I've come away from MN over the past few weeks feeling that a lot of women don't seem to agree with the simple idea that both men and women have libidos and sexual tastes: men just want to "have sex", rather than be intimate with their partner; and women just put up with it when they feel they ought too, and should have a liking for anything other than "making love".

Does that make sense to anyone? Has anyone else felt like this?

almond perhaps you and I have a different definition or idea of "romantic"....

I wasn't referring to that thread, I don't really do threads about threads.

I also find the "what should I do in my own relationship" questions rather baffling, I'm not sure anyone really listens anyway.

Although in RL when a friend confided that her new (less than six months) BF would rather cuddle, and they were both in their late twenties, I did suggest it could be the beginning of the end. That at that stage people can't usually keep their hands off each other, and that perhaps the past experiences he'd had with men was more significant than she realised.

She's now having his baby, still hardly having sex.... I think the baby is a good way for him not to admit he's gay.

She's had loads of casual asexual relationships, sex is very important to her.

I've no idea what she's doing.

There's no way, even if it meant the end, that if I was compelled to have sex with DH for any other reason than I wanted to that I would stay married. NO WAY>

Romantic means conducive to or characterised by the expression of love.

Again, not confusing.

Actually it's highly confusing almond we conflate several concepts and types of "love" with just the one word for it. Where context is supposed to provide clarity.

Eros in Greek being erotic love, but not merely lust in and of itself is being confused with Philia, Storge etc.

You're not wrong but we're all coming at this with divergent concepts of what love even means and thus at cross purposes.

I'm not talking about a whole load of complex philosophical concepts of love from classical philosophy.

I am talking about the everyday (and dictionary) definition between sexual and romantic relationships.

Some people are in relationships that are both sexual and romantic.
Some people are in relationships that are sexual but not romantic.
Some people are in relationships that are romantic but not sexual.

The Oxford English Dictionary also defines romantic as sexual as (one) of its meanings. I would also venture that to most people the "everyday" meaning of a romantic long term relationship will include sex.

Oh come of it almond. You seriously believe that no one would be confused to discover that romantic activity has nothing to do with sexual attraction and is in no way to be considered an expression of sexual desire ?

Parallel universe stuff indeed. What would you assume were the intentions of a man who kept buying you gifts and asking to spend time with you ?

Also - is not the assumption of sexual desire towards them by men, part of what causes various posters on this forum, abject panic ? Is that also viewed as a problem wrt. "compulsory sexuality" ?

But they're aware that it doesn't have to include sex.

Because we already have a phrase to refer to relationships that by definition include sex.

That would be a sexual relationship.

And if your issue here is one of you really, really needing the phrase romantic relationship to mean 'one in which the people are definitely going to or have, or have had sex at some point, because people can't handle the concept of romance not involving sex in some relationships' let's taboo the word romantic for the sake of this conversation.

So in loving relationships with our partners, some people have sex and some people don't. From the inception of the relationship, different couples have different attitudes to sex and whether they want it, how often, what kind, whether they are okay or not okay with their partner having sex with others and so on.

And whatever decisions people come to about sex, that is absolutely fine, as long as it is consensual and discussed s part of the relationship.

arghh - come off it of course.

My mother is newly single after a forty year marriage, many many people on dating sites are looking for companions, there's no presumption of sexual desire or ability. These are conversations people have to have to draw boundaries.

Whenever I buy flowers for my DW almost everyone assumes it is beacause I am a) in the dog house b) hoping to get lucky.

In fact 99% of the time it is just a small way to show her I love her.

Not sure if that has anything to do with the thread which I enjoyed reading but 90% of which has gone over my head as usual.

HC... with that post I find you aptly named.

'Parallel universe stuff indeed. What would you assume were the intentions of a man who kept buying you gifts and asking to spend time with you ?'

Why would I need to make assumptions? I'd ask him or work it out from context!

Thank you.

There's no assumption of sexual desire on dating sites ?

Not on all, no.

I also appear to have a different definition of "dating" then, not having a good day :)

I too would like to nail down the precise difference between a close friendship or even familial relationship and a sexless loving relationship?

it'll

I'm not sure whether you're joking. I'm sure you're not really saying that your definition of something is the only plausible definition. But I can't really interpret it any other way.

My idea of dating is a pre cursor to sex, at some point, but I accept it isn't everybody's.

Of course some couples are happy to have a sexless relationship, but they don't end up posting on MN complaining about the lack of sex or the type of sex they are having with their partner, so it's pretty irrelevant to this entire discussion.
The thread is about the different attitudes to men and women when posting about sexual problems in their relationship.

HelpfulChap, my DH has always bought be flowers at random times for no reason other than to tell me he loves me. I have always appreciated it and it's helped to maintain the closeness in our relationship.

Dervel, the easiest way to do that would be to go to a website on asexual awareness and read up on the differences they experience.

Unless you are actually yourself dating an asexual person, or are asexual, are there any practical reasons why you need to know the difference?

I think there are perhaps four positions on this general issue, which blur into each other...

Position A. I want to keep on calling women sluts or frigid. I think these are useful words for women who deviate from the norm and I don't think normal men have long term relationships with sluts or frigid women.

Position B. I don't want to call sluts and frigid women those names to their face, but I still think they are really weird, and assume that normal women don't behave like that in or out of relationships. I think we should still marginalise sluts or frigid women, or whatever PC people now want me to call them.

Position C. I accept that behaviour judged as sluttish or frigid exists, and some of it I don't approve of and I want to critique why women do it by looking at 'society.'

Position D. I don't mind what kind of sex people are or are not having, or how often, as long as they're able to communicate and show kindness to the people in their lives.

This is a predominantly female forum, you cannot expect a completely genderless response to any problem from everyone. There will be many posters who would answer the same regardless of gender, some who won't. I don't think you can then accuse MN as a homogenous group to be celebrated or criticised.