Male desire/ sexual rights

[onlydigestivesinthetin]

I stumbled across this piece in the Guardian over the weekend: older man bemoaning the fact that his wife no longer wants sex with him, with the implication that this either 'forces' him to have affairs or he will have to leave her in order to have what he sees as his right to a sex life.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/apr/18/my-life-in-sex-my-wife-wants-a-desire-free-old-age-but-i-still-see-her-as-my-sexual-partner

The article and most of the responses reminded me of the judge who declared that it was a husband's fundamental right to have sex with his wife:

www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right

And then of various articles about men rating brothels and the women they abuse in them:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/disturbing-sex-work-website-men-20574557

And it made me think of all the autogynophiles abandoning their wives and children to pursue their sexual kink who may, oddly enough, never have sex with anyone else again in their pursuit to make themselves into the object of their desire.

I know this is just feminism 101 – that we live in a society based around testosterone, where the male sexual urge is regarded as sacrosanct and women are still expected to service their male partners' sexual needs. And yes, I fully expect a few women to respond this that they love sex and are always ready for it, any time, any where. But what about the millions of us who can't say that?

I've looked through the Guardian seeking a response that doesn't basically affirm a man's right to have sex and can see very few. There are a couple of clearly feminist responses early on, but after that everyone politely acknowledges that a man has his urges and he needs to express them with another human being. Is the Guardian weeding out anyone who says that sex isn't a human right or is this an indication that the majority of people accept the fundamental right of men to have sex somehow, some way, with anyone they can?

What would you, women of Mumsnet feminism chat, say to the man in the Guardian?

The writer's framing is indicative of the mindset that he's entitled to sex. Saying that his wife "wants" a desire free old age - it sounds more like a desire free old age is in fact what she has, which he's choosing to see as a choice she's made, as if she could magic up a libido that may not exist and would do so if she cared about him.

There are a lot of things that underlie couples working through these things that complicate them I think. On the face of it, she's not that interested in sex, and he is, but it may also be that they value it differently apart from that. Lots of people who lose their libido are unhappy about it. Sex is also associated with affection, being attractive. And he may feel like his wife is just unconcerned about his sex drive.

I think in terms of culture, the husband here is more the cultural norm, we tend to say that sex is something that is important through your whole life, it's much more unusual to hear people talking about sex as something that people might think about giving up as they get older. That's not always been true, but a lot of people think that is because people used to be prudes.

But a problem in negotiating these things in a marriage is that if the couple just feels differently, there isn't really a winner on the face of it. Someone will end up compromising. In a lot of cases both may.

I don't think you can throw away the judge's statement about a man's fundamental right to have sex with his wife, Goosefoot. I think that although it was written in a judgment about a complex case about ability to consent, the fact that he didn't realise the import of that phrase as he wrote it was shocking. I know that judge is normally one of the good guys: there were plenty of people who had a head-in-hands moment when they read what he'd written.

I don't know that I can sum up what I want to discuss. I just keep coming across things – pop-up brothels during lockdown, millions of women trafficked for the sex trade and then that Guardian article – that keep throwing me back into reflecting on why and how women can hope for equality when the world is dominated by testosterone and our culture supports that.

Men are more likely to enjoy sex without emotional attachment, more turned on by visual cues, more likely to have fetishes.

This isn't evidence of an innate difference between male and female sexual desire; but it it is evidence of the effects of socialisation.
Men are encouraged to think in terms of a hierarchy and place themselves at an emotional distance. They are encouraged to use porn, to 'other' women, and to dominate us.

If this was about the need for sexual release then masturbation wouldn't be seen as unmanly.

I think the natarive that men must have their sexual needs met, conditions men to be more selfish and demanding with their sexual needs.

Women have sexual desire too, but we've never been told we need to have it forefilled. Quite the opposite.

Men are demanding because they are told they have a right to be. They are just as capable of women of ignoring their sexual urges or meeting their own needs. Plenty of decent men do just that.

We need to push the narrative the sex is a nice bonus to life or relationships, for both females and males. Its not a right and its not needed. It's because men are told its their right they become aggressive when told they can't have it. Look at incels.

Deydo, I'm sure there are. I was thinking about this issue specifically from a feminist perspective which is why I posted here.

The same applies. Nobody has the right to somebody else's body and nobody has to live in a sexless marriage.
In Britain today, we can separate and divorce.
Women in other eras and locations weren't so lucky.

This isn't evidence of an innate difference between male and female sexual desire; but it it is evidence of the effects of socialisation.

It's not either/or. Nature and nurture interact in complex ways, so you could have a natural tendency that is either increased or decreased by socialisation.

Plus, a heterosexual man getting turned on by boobs-n-butt isn't a sign of socialised dominance, any more than a straight women getting turned on by nice muscles or a deep voice is a sign that she's succumbed to patriarchal submission. Sometimes a boner is just a boner.

The problem is when that boner is matched with entitlement and selfishness, and used as an excuse for appalling behaviour. It's not the desire that's wrong, but the behaviour.

Or, pretty much what Naturalbornkiller said.

Some really good points being made here.

Identity politics strongly pushes the boundary on what is appropriate for one person to demand as entitlement from another: conforming to validation of a personal construction rather than their own perceived reality, the presence of their body despite their own discomfort, the loss of privacy and dignity to benefit another's desires. It separates society into the givers and the takers, it's a philosophy that cannot work for everyone equally as for anyone to have such 'rights' there must be compulsion for others compelled to provide them, whether or not they consent.

It's not an accident that issues of consent, age of consent, acceptance of any and all sexual behaviours, porn, incels and queer culture is all tied up with it, it's all around the same essential idea. There are those with entitlements, and there are those without entitlements who need to get on with providing. No different to the good old fashioned view of wifely duty to put aside personal feelings and provide sex as a duty out of respect for the male birthright.

Put down in those stark terms, it's ugly stuff.

And the behaviour stems in part from the widespread societal belief that for men sex is a need in the same way food and water are needs and thus something they're entitled to. Women are not socialized to believe that we're entitled to sex in the same way.

We need to push the narrative the sex is a nice bonus to life or relationships, for both females and males. Its not a right and its not needed

Yes to this. I think there's a minuscule chance that over the course of a long relationship two people, one of them probably giving birth with all the hormonal and physical changes that brings, and facing all the challenges of physical and mental health as they age, will always want the same kind of sex at the same time. The idea that mutually consenting, actively desired sex is a lovely bonus in a loving relationship seems to me much healthier than this language of needs and rights (even if those rights are in peoples' heads and not enshrined in law). I agree that there are plenty of people who appreciate this but it's the public orthodoxy – that sex is the be-all and end-all, that a normal loving relationship will always include regular sex – that both concerns me and props up the sex and porn trade.

So are you saying then op, that if one partner doesn't want to have sex for any reason, that the other partner should just a copy that sex is a nice bonus feature and stay in the marriage even if that makes them unhappy?

On MN if a man posts that he is unhappy because his female partner doesn't want to have sex anymore the replies overwhelmingly are that it's likely his fault, he should sort himself out, he has no right to expect sex.

If the sexes are reversed, the female who wants to have sex is told that the man is selfish, she absolutely should expect him to go to the drs ( because clearly not wanting to have sex is an illness!) and that even if he doesn't want sex he should make sure that her needs are met.

Obviously, that's just the attitudes on MN, so make of that what you will. There is definitely a very clear difference between what MN posters expect of men and women in this scenario.

Personally, I don't think anyone should have to stay in a marriage where they are unhappy, so, if that unhappiness is caused by an unfulfilling sex life, or an absent sex life, it's as good a reason as any to leave.

Such a good point @Melroses I never thought of that

I don't think that it's really the case any more that we treat men and women vastly differently on this issue I think that people are about equally ready to tell a woman in an unsatisfying sexual relationship, or with a differently matched libido than her husband, that she should move on.

Where I do think there is a difference is people are more likely to think some sort of change in behaviour within the marriage could improve a woman's sex life, mainly reflecting that sexual satisfaction is typically more straightforward for men and it often takes time for women to figure out what works for them.

I don't think you can throw away the judge's statement about a man's fundamental right to have sex with his wife, Goosefoot. I think that although it was written in a judgment about a complex case about ability to consent, the fact that he didn't realise the import of that phrase as he wrote it was shocking. I know that judge is normally one of the good guys: there were plenty of people who had a head-in-hands moment when they read what he'd written.

We will probably just have to disagree about this, but there was a good thread about it at the time. He was writing about that particular case, to other people who understood the legal questions and meaning - and it would have been the same had the positions of the couple been reversed. The fact that people who it wasn't written for jumped to conclusions isn't a failure on his part - a really significant part of it was a failure on the part of journalists who jumped on it as click-bait instead of doing their jobs and explaining for the public what is was about. No different than bad science writing.

I think in the context of a relationship, whether one party should end the relationship based on their sexual needs being met completly depends on circumstances.

If I said I don't ever want to have sex again, I don't want to try counselling or working to get the spark back, you'll just have to lump it. I don't think it would be unreasonable for my dh to leave. If I've just had a baby, or injury or depression or whatever, and don't want to have sex for a period of time, it would be completly unreasonal for my dh to leave or have an affair and it would affirm that he does not love me or respect me. I would say the same if the scenario was either way round. Neither a wife nor a husband should ever feel pressured into sex they do not want.

It makes me feel really sad when I see new mums on here asking when they should restart their sex life after having a baby. The only answer to that should be, when you're ready. I think many of us feel pressure to keep the sexual element of relationships going all the time, even if there is no direct pressure from a partner. Our attitude as a society towards sex needs to change. Too often we are taught its the be all and end all; and that usually ultimately ties into acceptance that man's obsession with sex is healthy and normal, and should be indulged at all times, even if it involves degrading and violent acts.

If I've just had a baby, or injury or depression or whatever, and don't want to have sex for a period of time, it would be completly unreasonal for my dh to leave or have an affair and it would affirm that he does not love me or respect me.

People can leave relationships for any reason though can't they? If they aren't happy, for whatever reason, should they have to stay?

People can leave relationships for any reason though can't they? If they aren't happy, for whatever reason, should they have to stay?

People can leave relationships for any reason, but that doesn't say anything about whether they should.

People can leave relationships for any reason though can't they? If they aren't happy, for whatever reason, should they have to stay?

Of course anyone can leave a relationship at anytime.
But I think in this hyperthecial scenario we are talking about people who would be happy to remain in the relationship if sex was being provided (in some cases even if its not enthusiastically consented too)

People can leave relationships for any reason, but that doesn't say anything about whether they should.

I don't know - should anyone have to stay in a relationship that they are unhappy in? If you're planning on leaving a marriage only because your sex life has taken a temporary dip, it doesn't say much for the quality of that relationship does it? Is it not better for all concerned if that relationship ends?

This gets into questions of what a marriage is. For many people, it's meant to be a permanent arrangement, not just something you do so long as it suits you. Entered into from that perspective there are almost certainly going to be compromises the couple will make about sex at certain times in the course of the marriage. And there will be times when they are not happy.

I don't particularly agree this always has to be in the direction of not having sex if one person doesn't really want to. It's not really very easy to set out a principle, but generally I think for a marriage to work, both people have to be looking out for the well-being and happiness of the other and have to come to many decisions mutually. That being said, the idea that it is desirable and normal fr people to keep of the same amount of sexual activity after a baby, or as they age, is damaging. A surprising number of couples with a new baby have the idea that changes in libido are a myth, for example, and it sets them up for trouble.

I don't know - should anyone have to stay in a relationship that they are unhappy in?

The taking of a vow. The desire to be a good person. The promise of future happiness. Or plain old love, maybe.

My friend stayed with her husband through a long terminal illness, and there wasn't much happiness (let alone sex) in the last stretch. But I don't think she regrets staying with him until the end.

Nobody is entitled to expect or demand sex from their partner or spouse. Anyone whose partner has gone off the physical side of love needs to instigate some real communication about feelings on both sides. I for one couldn't continue to feel desire for someone who was, say, spiteful or lazy or disrespectful to me, or who stopped cleaning their teeth or washing their bits before bed. If you want to be wanted in bed, first be a full partner all over the rest of the house.

Not for nothing do they call housework the thinking man's foreplay!

"But I think in this hypothetical scenario we are talking about people who would be happy to remain in the relationship if sex was being provided (in some cases even if its not enthusiastically consented too)"

That was my take on it too.

Sex is for reproduction in the first instance. If we reduce the age of the woman in the hypothetical relationship (only because the examples given are all about older women who are less likely to be fertile) . . . if she aims to get pregnant, whether or not both parties agree to this, then this sounds very similar to the idea of being, "happy to remain in the relationship if sex was being provided (in some cases even if its not enthusiastically consented too)".

"Our attitude as a society towards sex needs to change. Too often we are taught its the be all and end all; and that usually ultimately ties into acceptance that man's obsession with sex is healthy and normal, and should be indulged at all times, even if it involves degrading and violent acts."

Setting aside the "degrading and violent acts", this is an idea that seems to come up a lot on FWR, along with the idea and that it is "bad" (immoral?), unhealthy and unnatural, ie. "man's obsession with sex" . . .

IF all men are obsessed with sex, then would that not suggest that it is in fact "healthy and normal" for men to be obsessed by sex? Certainly "normal" because by definition it would be "normal".

"Most" would be closer to the truth because sure as hell not all of them are "obsessed with sex". That still makes it "normal".

Also, is it sensible to base ideas about what is "healthy" on relationships that are troubled and strained?

Some PP in this thread seem to regard sex as a "bolt on" aspect of a relationship while others regard sex as an intrinsic aspect of a relationship. Both views are "right" because what works in one relationship will not work in another and individuals can desire and function differently in different relationships at different times in their lives.

"Neither a wife nor a husband should ever feel pressured into sex they do not want."

I agree that that is the ideal.

However, the reality is different and far more varied than the suggestion of coerced or forced sex. It includes wives, husbands (and partners in other relationships) pressuring themselves into consenting unenthusiastically to sex, whether out of love and respect for their partners, to keep the relationship from collapsing, to try to create or restore an intimate bond, etc. etc.

BTW I am not "picking on" your comments Naturalbornkiller for any other reason than you have expressed your thoughts so clearly and succinctly - and I agree with most of what you have said.

onlydigestivesinthetin OP, I do not see that these situations and how men and women are responding to them are anything to do with the current "sex and porn trade".

They are both as old as time.

There’s no such thing as a right to sex.