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?

Good question sparrowhawk.

Why are you ignoring the 85000-90000 rapes and focusing on one acquittal?

Also, given the thousands of rapes and the tiny number of prosecutions, the fact that one of those prosecutions didn't result in a conviction shows that actually you don't have to worry too much, surely? In the UK you can rape and get away with it pretty easily. The chances of being falsely accused and the case actually going to court are absolutely tiny. However, if you're a woman, the chances of being raped are pretty huge.

Which makes me wonder why you look at the situation we have - thousands of women raped, a tiny number of convictions and worry about the men rather than the women?

Is it that tiny tiny chance your sons have of being falsely accused and charged of rape seems more important to you than the comparatively massive chance your son's female friends have of being raped?

Not at all surprised that Slow is trying to derail this thread so we can have an MRA styled false accusation of rape debate.

I suspect it's more likely that your son will be a terrorist than being falsely accused of rape. I'd be more fearful of that.

I seem to remember reading that men are statistically more likely to be raped than be falsely accused of rape.

It is very unlikely that Louis Richardson was falsely accused. That's not what an acquittal means. What it means is that there was enough evidence to charge him and bring him to court (and the amount of evidence needed for that to happen is high) but not enough to convince the jury.

I didn't think we were talking about rape. The issue was do we ever in relationships do something for a partner we might not be very keen on. I call it love and others seems to think it can be abusive or can lead to abuse. I certainly agree you have to be careful - if you are the silly muggins doing all the domestic stuff or repeatedly having to don the special sheep mask or whatever turns him or her on and you're not happy then could be an issue but if there is give on both sides then that's good.

The conversation moved on somewhat Deo. It's worth remembering that sex isn't the same physically or emotionally for men and women.

The thread seems to have moved on somewhat, I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion about a specific case.

I am not sure how well this will come over....I've commented on various threads about prostitution in the past that equate prostitution with rape, on the basis, as stated here, that consent is not consent unless they "really want it".

Women unfortunately have sex for myriad reasons, note the phenomenon of trophy wives or "sugar daddies". There was a sickening article on the BBC site the other day about a "sugar daddy" dating site, where a young women was all too keen to sing the praises of wealthy older men getting with students, even going so far to describe it as a "scene". These girls from what I can tell are not desperate in the traditional sense, they simply like the ugg boots and trips to NY that an older, wealthy man can provide them.

The point is this, many women obviously choose a partner due to a desire for a particular life style. They use sex as a way to achieve this lifestyle, to me this fact seems so obvious as to hardly require stating. They are not having sex because they are sexually attracted to the man in question, the men know this which is just as bad. There is a lot to this, but IMO this is what leads to the outright misogyny we see, men think that women use sex to get what they want, if you are not a wealthy or outwardly successful man, the amount of women who will show interest in a relationship with you is lower than if you were. Woman can be persuaded to have sex, by money, promises of material things that women are seen to want etc etc. It is a socially corrosive narrative and the blame for it does not lie only with men.

I have many more thoughts on this dynamic and sexual politics but this post is already too long.

Yes, I have been battling that since the 1970s but even today we find men often marry women for looks not earning power and women often marry men for earning power not looks. Not me ( I earned 10x my children's father) but plenty of other women. Hopefully that is gradually changing as we get more equality.

Hakim wrote about the "sex deficit" - that all over the planet men seem to want more sex than they can get and have to pay for it and women can usually get it free whenever they want it and probably want less than is on offer from their man. Her other point was that women can sell two things and men just one - women tend to have both their job capital - their ability to earn plus their sexual capital. Although to be fair my ex husband is a millionaire because he used his sexual capital to marry and then divorce me so it is not always a one way gender street. Women though on the whole have two ways to make money - their job/career and secondly through a man. If you are poor without many qualifications the marrying the footballer route is more likely than the career route sadly.

Let us hope we can change all this as I certainly don't support how it is.

It's worth remembering that sex isn't the same physically or emotionally for men and women.
Isn't it?
There's a physical difference between a man and a woman but how is sex not the same for both of them?

Risks are different in a pure biological sense, both share std risks. Only women can become pregnant.

Everything else is down to the individual, yet each individual may be affected by cultural gender norms this obsfucating the issue.

The question is why would anyone want have sex with their partner that the partner wouldn't come away from with a spring in their step and a song in their heart?

If sex is not a duty/chore, but rather a constant mutual series of seductions, and reaffirmation of commitment and affection it's rather easier to keep the romance alive in a marriage/relationship.

For women, the risks around sex are far greater, not least because sex is used by men as a form of violence against women. Even without that, the fact that women can get pregnant is a major difference.

I hate it when idiots conflate sex and rape.

Rape is not sex. It is a violent crime, even if there is no bruising or knife involved.

Sex is a mutually satisfying act between two people who fully and enthusiastically consent without coercion.

The actions that are engaged in during mutual, loving sex are also used by men as a violent act against women (rape). They are not the same thing but they are linked, which complicates sex emotionally for women.

Besides which, women tend to be more vulnerable during sex.

Palmer - i'm confused. Are you saying that someone who consents for the lifestyle that consent to sex offers them, is being raped ? They probably don't enthusiastically consent to the sex part, but are willing to have sex, are you saying that they are being willingly raped ?

And for the removal of doubt, who on the thread is being an idiot if anyone ?

Agreed Sparrow, but we seem to constantly come back on threads like this to a basic conflation of sex that is mutually consensual and enthusiastically enjoyed and a crime.

It's a socialised thing, it's the way rapists defend their crimes and, until we stop, as a society conflating the two, that trope will continue.

The idea that sex must be enthusiastically consensual, without coercion, I think has to become the norm. How we get there in our porn soaked and rape cultured society, I have no clue.

It's sad that it isn't the norm, and that arguing that it should be seems so contraversial.

I don't think it is controversial [sic], I'm wondering why you seem to be laying the blame squarely at mens feet when there are women who are willing to use the fact that men want more sex than they do, to sell sex to get what they want. Is that mens fault too ?

If a man was willing to sell me sex, I may not be responsible for his 'choice' but I wouldn't be forced to buy it.

I have certainly never been too happy with the legions of women who marry fat ugly men because they want a meal ticket and are too lazy to work and they abound on this planet and plenty of husbands and wives think that's a perfectly good deal - she puts out, stays thin and looks good and in return he keeps her.

I think it was SomeDyke that raised the issue of rape.

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