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?

If you're ever wondering where I am between 10:15 and 10:25 on those days- well now you know.

The bottom line is that no one has to put up with anything in a relationship - lack of sex, pestering for sex, lack of childcare, whatever. The solution is always to talk and if that doesn't work, to end the relationship. Badgering and pestering isn't a solution.

Surely a person can't help it if they simply don't want sex?
I think there are things that couples can do. I think it often requires effort to keep your sex life alive over a long term relationship, especially if you have kids. I think couples should put effort in (unless they have agreed to no sex).

The original blog that inspired the thread that the OP was talking about, was almost gleefully talking about how she didn't want sex and was talking for all women! It was so dismissive of a man's desire to have sex, like he should be able to switch his sex drive off and she doesn't care if he doesn't understand - that's tough shit.

I think that is incredibly disrespectful and unhelpful in a long term relationship. Both people should be putting effort into supporting the other partner and working towards a balance that works for both people. If that can't happen, then they need to be honest about that so they can decide if the relationship has a future.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that badgering or pestering are helpful. I also don't think that refusal is helpful.
I do agree that honest conversations are vital.

I agree Logical, a,couple needs to talk and try to work it out. If they can't then they have to reconsider the future of the relationship.

The point is, anyone has the right to refuse to do anything in a relationship, but it does not necessarily make it reasonable to do so.

Exactly.

Coming back to the idea that sex is one of the main things that differentiates a romantic partnerships from a platonic one, then surely it is going to be an issue when one partner starts to not want sex, and - most importantly - does not talk about why and keep the lines of communication open?

Like that blog. I wasn't in anyway implying that a woman should have to have sex when she doesn't want to. But the impression I was left with from that blog was that the woman expected the man to just know the reasons why she didn't want sex, rather than discussing it, and perhaps looking at way that she could feel better?

Physical intimacy doesn't have the mean sex. There are many ways of remaining physically intimate without having to have sex all the time. Of course most relationships go through ups and downs: the key is talking about it.

I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, of course not, but it is very interesting to read that other posters, Logical very much so, have had very similar thoughts as I've had.

It concerns me that fantasies are often considered to be gendered especially on feminism threads. Can men an women only have fantasies that are appropriate to their gender?

This is definitely an impression I've been left with sometimes. Women shouldn't get off on being "used", for example. But why not? If its consensual submission, what's wrong with being used? I'm not going to sit here and say that porn and its influence on society isn't an enormous problem, but a lot of what goes on in porn is just reflecting what humans have been doing sexually for a very long time.

"The 'gatekeeper' idea implies that people have a right to sex and the person who says no is unreasonably blocking their way." Agreed. Its not a coincidence that women are placed in the position of gatekeepers of sex.

As someone said up thread, if we were living in an equal society then then this would a non issue as women would be respected by men, pressurising for sex would rarely occur and would be considered absolutely not on. However we don't live in an equal society and our opinions, likes, dislikes and even sexuality are formed in that unequal society. So how how the media portrays sex, our laws, porn and because men are the oppressive class and therefore get heard far more, their views and attitudes, all shape our sexuality.

We don't know what women's sexuality would look like in an equal society but I'm suspecting that the predominance of 'submissive' sex for women and sexual acts predominantly for men's pleasure wouldn't have the same place they do now.

And I also strongly agree with the poster that said that subconsciously people do think 'poor men' when they aren't getting sex when they want. MN is a lovely counter action to that.

But these suggestions are common sense, any issue in a relationship needs talking through.

I don't think many threads leave out such obvious advice.

Generally you find that by the time a poster has posted something on MN they've tried the talking option and got nowhere.

Badgering and pestering aren't just 'not helpful' they are offensive and disrespectful. Please don't equate that with someone saying no to sex because they don't want it, Logical.

We don't know what women's sexuality would look like in an equal society but I'm suspecting that the predominance of 'submissive' sex for women and sexual acts predominantly for men's pleasure wouldn't have the same place they do now.

Because powerful men don't have any desire for dominatrixes at all... ahhh.... wait a moment

Again the assumption that "no woman could possibly like" and that certain sex acts are solely for a man's pleasure. Once again sex and sexual appetite are being gendered. There is no understanding that these can be mutually pleasurable shared fantasies

The blogger wrote that her DP's touch made her skin crawl. If one person feels that way then all touch is considered pestering and all spoken requests as badgering. There was no mention of a discussion, compromise or what could be done to make it better.

If my DP felt that way about me and I
was being constantly rejected, I would find it offensive and disrespectful. I would definitely think "poor me".

"Badgering and pestering aren't just 'not helpful' they are offensive and disrespectful. Please don't equate that with someone saying no to sex because they don't want it, Logical."

I don't want to be arsed putting my socks in a drawer. I am just as happy with them on the floor but apparently not doing so shows lack of love and respect for my wife, so I waste time putting them away together with numerous other household things that I don't see any point in and which I feel are a waste of time.

If I don't, she badgers, pesters and nags me to do them and tells me how disrespectful I am to her feelings.

Really? You are comparing being a lazy shit with saying no to sex? Being a lazy shit is disrespectful to the people you live with as is pestering them for sex. Asking you to pull your weight with household chores and saying no to pestering for sex is asking for respect. HTH.

I never said men didn't like being dominated. Read my post again Toffee.

There's a little bizarre polarising going on.

There's a likely possibility that in an equal society sexual appetites may well play out differently. That's not saying anything about engendered appetites.

If my husbands touch made my skin crawl I think I'd consider divorce.

Goodness Moob. Sex and socks. All the comparators.

Unless of course you care to come back and explain how your wife nagging you for being a disrespectful manbaby is in any way similar to a man pestering and nagging a woman into sex.

Let me clue you in here. Your wife nagging you because you're being puerile about your socks until you give in and pick them up is not a crime.

English law virtually allows divorce on demand after a year of marriage as just about any couple can draft an unreasonable behaviour petition and that could be about socks left dropped all over the house, bad hygiene, failure to give six, bad sex or anything.

In most places where mothers with small children post you will always find a good few women not wanting sex and their husbands wanting more which in part reflects that life stage - if you're breastfeeding all night and still have stitches from your episiotomy you tend not to be up for sex much but even for those without children the world over there is a slight sex deficit which is why in most cultures men tend to have to pay one way or another and women could just about have sex every night from some man or other for no charge if they wanted it.

The interesting issue is if we ever achieve a non sexist society where men and women earn the same and have equal responsibilities at home if that deficit would go and women would be up for it as much as men on average (I am not saying in all couples the deficit is that way round but it tends to be).

"Let me clue you in here. Your wife nagging you because you're being puerile about your socks until you give in and pick them up is not a crime."

No it isn't, and she doesn't have to because I do it, deposits finding it pointless and annoying, because she sees it as a way of me showing I care.

In terms of the actual act of putting socks away (which is only one of many examples) vs having sex there is clearly a big difference.

In terms of things where you may feel you have to persuade someone to do something within a relationship to make you feel loved wanted and respected I would argue that a partner who doesn't willingly want to engage in and explore a sexual relationship is causing much more hurt to the other person than someone who doesn't want to partake in what they may perfectly legitimately deem to be pointless tasks that they are nagged into.

A wife complaint her husband won't do his share of housework for the good of their marriage or a husband complaint his wife won't make an effort in bed (which lets face it should be a pleasurable part of a lovin relationship for both) would be treated to very different responses on here but are the effects on the partner who feels hard done to and uncared for actually much different?

Picking up someone's socks who is too lazy is not the same as having sex under duress or a sense of duty.

Goodness Moob. Your opinions are scary.

Scallops my post about badgering and pestering being unhelpful was in response to a PP saying it shouldn't be seen as a solution to a sexless relationship.

Some people are lazy shits in various ways in their relationship. They leave tasks to the other person, they put no effort into doing anything for the other person. Some put absolutely no effort into their physical relationship because it's not something they are that fussed about. None of those behaviours are reasonable and all are likely to cause problems in the relationship if left not discussed.

I'm not sure why anyone is suggesting that sex is the same as cleaning.

An absence of sex may well cause issues and the demise of a relationship but they cannot be cured with one partner persuading the other to do it regardless how they feel.

Sex and cleaning are different issues but effort to the relationship is common to both. Relationships run into problems where there is an imbalance of effort. Where one person can't be bothered or doesn't see why they do something because it's not important to them, then the relationship is going to run into problems.

Badgering and pestering aren't a solution to any problems in a relationship because they indicate there's a lack of respect and poor communication.

why would someone who doesn't like having sex be in a relationship in the first place ?