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?

Sorry to kill the thread with that little outburst, it's fine really and I don't want to go on about me me me me me

I do however think that the idea that the majority of marriages are between mutually respecting supportive couples is a bit optimistic, I don't think marriage as an institution originated in that basis and I don't think (judging by statistics on housework for instance) individual men and women have found a way to transcend its origins. And, in my opinion, that is what I think is at the basis of the shared assumption among some women, voiced on here, that sex is a chore and that men who want that AS WELL AS EVERYTHING ELSE can be agreed to be pests

If your life is different, then great, but the above is reality, statistically

Personally I don't think having a partner of either sex who gives you sex because you want it means the person getting what they want is similar to a rapist at all. Plenty of husbands and wives do things every day yes including sex to keep the other person happy - the man might not be that keen on oral sex or have a lower sex drive than his wife or not be bothered about diong it in a particular way but does so because that is what love and giving is about and vice versa. I don't think we should baulk from saying in most marriages with small children in many cases one or other is not that up for sex but they give it. I don't think sex is that big a deal that that is a problem at all whatever your gender. Look at sex drive - sometimes you want it every day. sometimes less often and in all relationships almost every day of the year you are compromising over who wants it and how and when and how long it will last. it's fine.

Obviously there may come a time when someone never wants it at all but is giving it regularly and that's because he or she is subject to coercive and possibly illegal control and separately if it's forced it's always illegal but the idea that every day mumsnetters only have sex because they both have found the perfectly conditions and level of desire to have sex is cloud cuckoo land - the reality is one of you is up for it and the other just about in the mood and you get on with it before the baby starts crying and chances are you'll be interrupted in the middle or one of you might fall asleep.

(It was Palmer above who mentioned rape apologism which is why I mentioned it.)

There is a distinct difference between going ahead and having sex you're sort of in the mood for and having sex purely because you feel your partner will leave if you don't.

HowBadisthisPlease ?

Pretty bad I'd say. It sounds like you "use" not having sex as a weapon to punish him for a lot of wider resentment you hold (about work, about cooking, his mother, his laziness, his inability to clean the bathroom etc. etc.)

So while you live together, it sounds like the arrangement is far worse than if you simply had a platonic housemate or lodger. Or even just decided to go it alone.

Why are you still in the relationship? Would you even consider it to be a "relationship" ?

I wondered how long it would take for some nutter to come on here to claim that unless we're ripping our husbands clothes off prior to having sex we're being raped...

In simple terms so that you can understand it.

You do not have to have sex you do not want.

If you never want to have sex with your partner then wtf are you doing with them ?

If you never want to have sex with anyone then this will have an impact on which people will choose to have a relationship with you.

If you find yourself in a relationship with someone you love who generally wants to have sex a bit more often that you do, you can either try and reach a compromise by agreeing to have sex more often, or you can control the dynamic of the relationship by refusing it every time they ask. This (as MN is full of) breeds resentment and causes all sorts of issues. Is it not the case in most relationships that one person will ask the other if they fancy a bit ? Apparently on planet sparrowhawk, the correct response would be "if i were in the mood I would have asked you."

Sex with someone you love is generally pleasurable, it's totally unreasonable to paint this act as submitting to be raped for the sake of keeping the evil man happy. What a load of bullshit.

I don't really want to talk about me on this thread but actually he doesn't seem to want sex either. He never makes a move anyway. I don't want to punish him, I just want to sleep in peace.

We are still together because he won't leave. He thinks I should leave but I won't. Eventually I will force him to leave by whatever legal means there are (?) and buy him out of the house. This will be when the dcs are a bit older and more self sufficient.

I'm going to find a way to get as much money as I can over the next 7 or 8 years and boost my earning power as much as I can. My aim is to be able to get him out and be at home 3 or 4 after school times out of 5 by the time both are in secondary school.

If he wants to have a relationship with me instead I would be open to that but he doesn't.

I don't know if you're actually reading my posts it'll. Where did I say a man can't initiate sex, or that the woman has to ripping her partner's clothes off? If you scroll up you will see that I said there's a distinct difference between having sex you're sort of in the mood for (which everyone does from time to time) and having sex because you believe your partner will leave if you don't.

I'm not reading your posts !? Where the f* did I suggest that a woman should let her self be raped to keep her husband ??

Sex you actually want is pleasurable. Sex you have because you think your partner will leave is a chore.

And yes, any person who has sex with someone when they know that person doesn't really want it is the lowest of the low

Define "really want" then - is that the same as "sort of" ??

I was repeating what I said it'll. I never said anything about your posts.

If you're right next to someone, kissing them, touching them, chatting to them it is blatantly obvious to any normal living human being whether that person is responding and interested or not. This notion that a person can't tell whether their partner really wants sex or not is ludicrous. And if a partner isn't sure, what's to stop them from asking? There's no definition of 'really' wanting sex, it just happens in the moment and it is not hard to tell if someone is actually enjoying jt or if they're just giving in.

The fact is, there are plenty of men out there willing to have sex with a partner who clearly is just going along with it. Heck, it used to be a sketch in Harry Enfield - the husband pumping away while the wife reads a book or chats on the phone. It's an accepted underlying assumption I society - that men will look for sex and women will give it to them, not necessarily because they want sex themselves.

It'llallbefine

I am 100% with you.

The relationship sites are full of complaints (?) about men failing to commit (settle down to monogamy and marriage etc). Those that then do commit are then told (here) that initiating sex is acting like a pest and then it could lead to being accused of coercion and even rape.

There is a thing called sex drive. Life on Earth wouldn't exist if this was not so. It would be wonderful wouldn't it if the sex drives of two people in a marriage / relationship were exactly aligned ar all times.

So what should a person do if that drive is not wanted / appreciated by the partner they have "committed" to? Just accept it?

The term "Wanker" is widely used on MN s a term of insult specifically against men. I'd be more worried if anyone (between say puberty and extreme old age or ill health) were not a wanker.

On this same site we then have a tirade of "anti-porn" anger and rage against affairs and adultery.

Those like HowBadisthisPlease , what is your realistic prognosis for your marriage? Were you honest with your husband / partner before you got married/ entered into the relationship and had a child abou your view "this is the ONE thing I can do to put my foot down" . Do you think he would have entered into the relationship if you had been honest with him before the commitment and children.

Is it your opinion Slow, that regardless of changing sex drives, tiredness, illness, etc, the person who wants more sex in a relationship should get it?

"
The relationship sites are full of complaints (?) about men failing to commit (settle down to monogamy and marriage etc). Those that then do commit are then told (here) that initiating sex is acting like a pest and then it could lead to being accused of coercion and even rape."

Could you point me to where anyone has said anything of the sort please?

Sorry HowBadisthisPlease crossed posts. I am a slow typer. You say you don't want to make this thread about you. But you have shared a lot of details already. I see that you have now realised that your own marriage is over.

I think we should be careful of excusing shitty behaviours because of different sex drives. In an ideal world couples would both want sex at the same time but that doesn't happen often. If someone is unhappy with their sex life they should leave if it's that important to them. Well after talking to their partner.

I also think the way your wording the threat sparrow is off. I'm sure their are people who say "if we don't have sex then I'm leaving you" but if your not happy with the amount of sex in a relationship and it's making you unhappy why would you stay?

"Pretty bad I'd say. It sounds like you "use" not having sex as a weapon to punish him for a lot of wider resentment you hold (about work, about cooking, his mother, his laziness, his inability to clean the bathroom etc. etc.)"

So the idea here is that when a woman feels deflated or used she should still want to share intimacy? Really? Because there's nothing that is a greater turn off than being treated like shit. "Using sex as a weapon" would be something like wanting a fuck, making him want one too and then withholding to be unkind and manipulative..... not being too pissed off to have sex because your partner has annoyed you.

To be honest I always, wrongly, have an elevated view of self identifying feminist as seeing men as equal and not sex driven penises that have needs that must be filled over anything else.

These opinions are so bizarre I can't even be arsed to reply.

Women talk more, women talk about their relationships more, you will find mostly women on MN and therefore relationship issues from a woman's perspective.

Sparrow
No one should have sex if they don't want to. I am asking you a question..What should the other partner do?

I'll answer.

The other partner should either see if they can put up with it, see if it's a symptom of a deeper issue and try and resolve it or leave.

Posie
No one should have sex if they don't want to.

HowBadisthisPlease said " this is the ONE thing I can do to put my foot down" . To me, this comes across as the withdrawal of sexual intimacy being used as punishment.

That sounds like she has zero power.... what's the alternative, that she has sex?

Posie
Would you be OK if "putting up with it" might then include other channels to get that drive met. Wanking?

Posie
That's exactly my point. The withdrawal of sex is clearly NOT the ONE thing she can do to put her foot down.