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?

I think when FWR posters express their point of view here, it's not particularly relevant to hold up what other posters generally say on other parts on Mumsnet, to somehow prove them wrong.

Tinsel, you know I say this with love - don't feed the ducks, it just encourages them.

Naturalbornkiller "If my dh decided to leave me in my 60s because I no longer wanted to have sex, I would question the extent of his love and respect for me in the first place."

That is, of course your right in your relationship (to question love).

But, even as someone who is not a massive fan of sex, I personally, feel the situation, of a once sexual relationship becoming devoid of sex, really does change that relationship.

One could also question whether someone really loved their partner if, after 40 years of love and shared child rearing, they were willing to fundamentally change the nature if that relationship.

It this change is for to a medical condition/health/disability/mental illness or some additional awful circumstance then it is, of course understandable.

But if one party just goes off sex and expects the other to accept that for the rest of their lives together then I would very much question their love of their partner.

< puts bread away and toddles off >

Yeah, the you what @TheProdigalKittensReturn why dont you just tell us what to think and we'll all think that. No thought crimes on this board.

If my dh decided to leave me in my 60s because I no longer wanted to have sex, I would question the extent of his love and respect for me in the first place.

I realise this is going to seem incredibly goady and it's absolutely not meant that way but would you consent to him having sex with someone else with your knowledge? If not, why not? I don't mean this as any criticism of you or your beliefs, it's just based on the reasoning that, if your relationship is so much more than sex (an idea I'm not disputing), does that extend to exclusivity or is him not having intimate contact more important?

Anyone else who feels the same way, I'd love to hear your insight too.

Perhaps I should say if they were poorer or he was richer. I'm paraphrasing. Not putt ing words in anyone's mouth. And I am shocked!*
You say that you're not a massive fan of sex, but as a straight woman you might be better placed to answer this, then.
Do men, in their 50s, who have been married since their early twenties, generally create such lust in women that it is likely that:
1: three women in a decade have agreed to have an affair with this man
Or
2: three women in a decade have agreed to have this man as their boyfriend without realising he is married
Or
3: this man who has lived with the same woman for (by this point) thirty years is able to conduct multiple affairs without her knowing?

I believe it is highly unlikely. A man who has been with his wife since his early twenties is likely to have met her at uni or at a first job. She might pick his clothes, she might buy them for him, and having grown together for thirty years it is not unreasonable to believe he might be quite domesticated. He has grown into manhood with her by his side, he wasn't George Clooney when he met her, he was in his early twenties, in what would be the late 70s, early 80s. Think how much the stereotypically attractive man has changed since then. Has he adopted skincare, advanced barbering, and witty banter? Do you think he's a fashion victim, a gym goer, a suave and debonair lady-killer (who pesters his wife and suspects she never enjoyed sex much?) Doesn't seem likely to me. He's an entitled married man who has had sex on tap for thirty of his forty married years, and aged sixty something he is writing to the Guardian, seemingly before having discussed it with her, so he can presumably get moral support from other men who think him cheating on his wife multiple times is somehow fair.
As a middle aged married man, if he starts paying more attention to grooming and clothes and suddenly has a new hobby or friend or work project that causes him to work late she's going to know that he's playing away. It's not like you can spend thirty or forty years married and not pick up on little cues.
So yes, I think it is unlikely that he has had three affairs, starting in his fifties, and that all three were so enthralled by him they wanted him full time.
Which is why I suggested that if those affairs were real, it's possible women were attracted by his status or wealth. If we are talking women the same age as him, perhaps divorcees, why would they want some else's husband to look after? Are you convinced by his assertion that he is attractive and that he is a feminist? Do you think it's likely he is such a catch that this has happened three times? He's had to dump women who wanted him full time, three times?

Frankly I think he's either had affairs all through the marriage or that he hasn't suddenly started having affairs in his fifties. Or perhaps that he's got regular prostitutes that he sees! Who knows -all I can say is that his letter does not seem very truthful.

Maybe I'm wrong and he's a gorgeous hunk of manliness and women can't keep their hands off him. Perhaps he is a skilful lover and women everywhere have been done a disservice by him having married young.

It seems that in a letter limited in length and possibly edited further, he still felt the need to explain he was considered attractive, when in fact his behaviour is what his wife finds unattractive.

There. Is that clear now?

But, even as someone who is not a massive fan of sex, I personally, feel the situation, of a once sexual relationship becoming devoid of sex, really does change that relationship.

One could also question whether someone really loved their partner if, after 40 years of love and shared child rearing, they were willing to fundamentally change the nature if that relationship.

I think the point really is that both these things are true. Which is why there isn't a particularly simple formula for who should do what or give way or compromise.

I haven't been able to reply because I've had something weird going on with my computer. After typing a few lines in the Mumsnet text box things have frozen and my keyboard has been all over the place. I seem to have sorted it by disabling AdBlocker, but let's see.

Bento, thank you – yes, you have summed up the kind of fundamental feminist issue of physical sex between the sexes that I was feeling my way towards. I'm approaching 60 and learned my feminism in the 70s and 80s from women who'd experienced the sexual revolution of the late 50s and 60s. Contraception, abortion, the end of the stranglehold of the church... They were really clear that although sexual liberation had been sold as equally liberating for men and women, it seemed mainly to have liberated men to feel entitled to expect sex from any woman once the danger of pregnancy or the requirement to marry was lifted.

No one explodes or suffers if they don't get to have sex with another human being. Perhaps the fact that I discovered the wonder of masturbation long before I did my O-levels has affected my attitude but really, there is no need for anyone, male or female, to feel sexually frustrated. I'm trying to negotiate my way mindfully through my declining libido and changing body, so this is a personal issue for me too. I'm lucky that my partner doesn't have an particularly strong sex drive and seems to feel that there are other elements of our relationship that matter more. Even so, we sometimes struggle over the issue.

I'm amazed by those who think that a contract entered into when you're young and randy and in love and under the influence of oxytoxin should stand, unchanged, for the next 30 or 40 years or the whole edifice fails. You have no idea, when you're younger, how radically different your body may feel and how your attitudes may change with experience. Particularly for women, with their roller-coaster hormonal patterns. I'm not advocating that people stay together forever whatever comes up – of course not.

I don't have any joined-up thinking about this. Does it go back into evolution, where men went out and impregnated as many women as they could and women were basically there to propagate the species and then die when they were no longer fertile? I see a society that's built still around the public orthodoxy that a man needs to have his sexual needs fulfilled or he'll go to the dark side – whether that's infidelity or using prostitutes or sexual crime or violence. A bit like these incel shooters, where people say if only he'd had a girlfriend... I know that one of the best things that can happen to a young male offender is a girlfriend who'll calm him down and have a child with him. But what about the young woman, eh? Is that her role in life? To have sex and babies and stop him reoffending?

I'm stunned at the glibness of the he should leave/ she should leave responses. There is so much more to a long relationship than sex. And it's possible that many ordinary women in their sixties would be left hard-up and facing their last decades in much-reduced circumstances. Not all women of that age (well of any age, let's be honest) will have had a decent career and a work-related pension and savings. Not all men have, either. The pressure on a woman to get on and have sex she doesn't want with her husband or face a future in which she may be left struggling to heat her home, let alone have a holiday, is immense. Two can live so much cheaper than one.

Lots of really interesting thoughts and responses here. They aren't necessarily making it easier for me to work out what I'm trying to get to, unfortunately. But I posted on this board because i was looking for feminist reflection, not the standard AIBU / Guardian response.

Maybe we all view this through our own lens? For you op, sex isn't important and you aren't missing it.

For me, sex is important and no it's not just about doing it yourself. It's the closeness and intimacy of being with my husband that is part and parcel of the experience. I would miss this side of our relationship if it went away. Would I leave? No, not just because of that but if there were other issues to then this might well be the deciding factor. I've read lots of threads on here from other women who feel the same do it's not a unique feeling.

I suppose if sex isn't important to you then you wouldn't understand how other people feel. I don't think there's anything wrong with people wanting a physical side to their relationship. What is wrong is how they go about it. Life is too short to stay in an unhappy relationship so I do believe that anyone should be free to leave if they are unhappy.

onlydigestivesinthetin

Something I think is worth considering is how the concept of marriage has changed. I'm not sure that feminist analysis of that change is always entirely fair or enlightening. That's not to say that it is entirely wrong, but it's very reflecive rather than considering the institution on its own terms.

It's somewhat unique in the west the extent to which marriage has come to be about personal fulfilment and happiness. It's a change that has gone on for some time, maybe with its roots in romanticism, and it's inherently individualistic. But it was prevented from becoming dominant by the practical realities of marriage - the requirements of childbirth and rearing, the necessity for the wife/mother to have financial support in many cases, even the effects of disease. Marriage as a social institution wasn't directed only, or perhaps even mainly, to individualistic ideas of happiness. It was directed to social stability. While many people failed to live up to the ideals around marriage and to a greater or lesser degree this was expected or tolerated, it was still understood to be a social and moral good for individuals to do so, and the self-restraint required was considered a good and admirable quality to be cultivated.

If we really see romantic sexual relationships as a private and individualistic thing, there really is zero need for an institutional aspect. And arguably with things like fairly reliable birth control, social security, modern medicine, there is less need for the institutional purpose of marriage, no need for self-restraint.

And yet we still find that many people seem to have a strong desire for a stable romantic relationship that isn't based on the vagaries of sexual appetite or even romanticism. That is, love seems to be about something more than just our own personal fulfilment. And there still seem to be concrete downsides in terms of the material and economic elements - a theoretical individualism can't change the act that there are material realities connected with things like procreation or setting up a household together, and that these don't stop just because individuals don't feel fully fulfilled in some way.

My wife and I married when we were in our early 20s. We enjoyed our sex life, though I never felt she enjoyed it as much as I did.

He never felt, did he ever ask? Presumably if he’d asked then he would have known.

She decided not to take HRT, mainly because she was anxious about the increased risk of breast cancer. I suspect she was also quite happy to let nature take its course and enjoy a desire-free old age.

Suspect is an interesting choice of language here.One would tend to suspect, be suspicious of, something bad, or something underhand, an ulterior motive. It is not even necessarily true that women lose desire after menopause, what he is basically saying is ‘I think she’s using the opportunity of becoming a shriveled up sexless old hag as an excuse not to have sex with me,’ although if she’s never liked it as much as he did but he’s never bothered to ask, even though he felt that was the case, then who could blame her for not wanting the increased risk of breast cancer in exchange for crap sex she doesn’t enjoy? Basically he thinks she’s being selfish.

She has always been a feminist, and I have always supported her views concerning equality of education, opportunities, work and pay for men and women. However, she is also my sexual partner, and therefore the woman I desire, not a sex object.

This is an odd statement as the caveat appears to be supporting what he has already said. The caveat is the my sexual partner bit. He supports his wife’s feminism but he still sees her as being his. Also she is not having sex with him, that is his gripe, so she is not his sexual partner, he just thinks she should be because she’s his wife. clearly he does view her as a sexual object. The fact that he has to virtue signal that he supports his wife’s feminism is both a justification as to why he should have sex and an admission that his support for feminism doesn’t stretch beyond the bedroom door where he clearly believes he is entitled to his wife’s sexual services.

he sounds like a prick, and a prick who has a very high opinion of his own sex appeal.

he sounds like a prick, and a prick who has a very high opinion of his own sex appeal
Much more succinctly put than I could manage.
I could feel sorry for people in a similar situation but I don't feel sorry for him. He's not a sympathetic character.
And you're right, he does perceive it as his right, and wants some credit for having put up with her refusing, as if that makes him some kind of martyr.

I guess I'm one of those glib posters, I want to say to him "shit or get off the pot". He should have the courage to leave instead of skulking and sulking and becoming (more of) a pest.

Notice he doesn't mention anything positive about her at all. Doesn't sound very loving to me, sounds grumpy.

there are material realities connected with things like procreation or setting up a household together, and that these don't stop just because individuals don't feel fully fulfilled in some way
There are, but while divorce is an option people don't have to make sacrifices for the sake of the family any more.
In some ways this means a more self centred focus, and in many more ways this means a lasting marriage is based on ongoing commitment.
It's a bit like the sex he wants to have, I wouldn't want it if it wasn't entered into enthusiastically, whereas he sees it as duty.
I wouldn't want someone to stay married to me out of a sense of duty either.

I think we tend to put a rather poor spin on duty, TBH. We give it some rather low level recognition in terms of things like duty to care for your kids, or eldercare, but we seem to have lost the sense of duty as being a necessary expression of love, or even as a privilege. And with a marriage it's a dirty word.

If my dh decided to leave me in my 60s because I no longer wanted to have sex, I would question the extent of his love and respect for me in the first place

That works both ways. I would question my H's love and respect for me if he made a singular decision about our sex life that affected me too and didnt discuss it with me first. If he just said, thats it, no more sex for the rest of our lives I've gone off it, then I would question the extent of HIS love and respect for me.

As for the idea that "you can just masturbate" - sorry thats ridiculous. Sex isnt just sex to me- its intimacy, its closeness, its feeling desirable and attractive, its everything that enhances a relationship. I wouldnt say to a woman that craved a child and wanted to be a mother but couldn't have one, "well just get a dog!- its pretty much the same thing" because its not.
Masturbating isnt the same thing at all. I dont believe sex is a "right", but people DO have the "right" to end a relationship for whatever reason they choose and they do have the "right" to say, "hey, I'm not happy with this, what can we compromise on to fix this so its ok for both of us".
You also have the right to judge them for it if you so wish, but noone can really speak for anyone else in a relationship or tell them how they ought to feel or how they "should" live without sex for the rest of their lives out of "respect" for their partner.

I'm not questioning any of that. I'm not surprised that my mention of masturbation and my changing libido has generated a defensive 'well sex may not matter to you but it matters to me' response.
I suspect I'm touching something that's very difficult to talk about for many women but it exposes a reliance of men to enable us to feel desirable and desired. We look still for male affirmation. When you get older like me then that matters less and less and is a liberation – and perhaps that has some effect on some women's desire too.

Going off to do some reading. Computer still playing up so this may be my final contribution.

I suspect I'm touching something that's very difficult to talk about for many women but it exposes a reliance of men to enable us to feel desirable and desired. We look still for male affirmation.

So are you saying that lesbian women in relationships don't have sex together, but just masturbate? Because you seem to be saying that women don't enjoy a physical relationship and only do it for male attention. Therefore it would follow that women in a lesbian relationship don't have sex with each other

So are you saying that lesbian women in relationships don't have sex together, but just masturbate? Because you seem to be saying that women don't enjoy a physical relationship and only do it for male attention. Therefore it would follow that women in a lesbian relationship don't have sex with each other
Lesbian bed death notwithstanding, if women only have sex when they want to, and it ends up being both less frequent and with a higher percentage of orgasms, what does that say about a proportion of sex had with men?
I guess some if it might be to feel desired, some to please the male partner, and some under sufferance. "Oh go on then, be quick".

We look still for male affirmation. When you get older like me then that matters less and less and is a liberation – and perhaps that has some effect on some women's desire too

If it doesnt matter to you then great! But you dont speak for every woman and feeling desirable (doesnt have to be from men but since I am heterosexual- it is men) is sexy to me. I like it. I am not going to feel shamed for that or that I'm somehow "letting the side down" for feminism. I like feeling desired. It makes me feel powerful. Living without male affirmation is liberating for you, but sex is liberating for ME! Not everyone is the same and I'm getting a bit fed up with the generalisations on here - if you have a low sex drive or no libido then of course its easy to say "its just sex- its not important!" but not all of us are like that. I have a high sex drive. I cant help that- and I'm not going to apologise for it. I like feeling sexy and I like feeling desired. Its not about pleasing men, its about pleasing myself.

Please dont assume you speak for all women because you dont.

Where have I claimed to speak for every woman? I have said in practically every post that I acknowledge lots of women will have a different take and that I'm posting here on FWR specifically in the hope of some feminist insight and reflection.

I thank those few feminists who've responded with thought. You have made me want to go away and read and think further.

FlyingOink

My point of thinking about lesbian couples was because you seem to be saying that all anyone gets out of sex is an orgasm and that you can masturbate for that, so any woman who has sex is only doing it for male affirmation. That must then mean that lesbian partners aren't having sex at all, because there's no additional pleasure or benefit from having sex with another person, according to you. That's obviously rubbish.

People get more than just an orgasm from sex with a partner. Maybe you don't but not everyone is the same. I think it's like people who eat for fuel Vs people who enjoy food and the pleasure it gives. To them, food and eating is more than just fuel, there's an emotional component too.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras
I think I was pretty harsh in my last post, but honestly, suggesting that people who enjoy sex are only focussed on orgasms and people who don't enjoy sex are having some kind of emotional epiphany seems a bit unlikely.
There's no moral high ground to having bad sex because the alternative is your partner sulking.
Those of us who enjoy sex don't park our hearts at the door and fuck anything that moves, either.
There's something quite draining about enduring unsatisfying sex when you know it can be so much better, and frankly I'd be resentful that my partner wasn't interested in my pleasure.
I'm sure there's some kind of altruism in providing pleasure for ones partner unreciprocated. It's nice, now and again.
But I wouldn't do it for thirty years, no matter how amazing the relationship was on paper. I'd hate them after thirty months, I think.

I don't think people should accept bad sex though. But I also don't think it's your partner's responsibility to "give" you good sex. In my view, each partner is responsible for their own and their partners enjoyment and each should be responsible for communicating with their partner.

If it isn't working, for me, that's symptomatic of wider problems.

I don't agree that if you've put up with unsatisfactory sex for thirty years that your partner then gas to stay with you out of some kind of show of gratitude. If you put up with it for thirty years then that's your responsibility, unless there was abuse or you were in danger by leaving.

Maybe wider discussions are needed about different attitudes towards sex and what is important to each person.

If my dh decided to leave me in my 60s because I no longer wanted to have sex, I would question the extent of his love and respect for me in the first place.
Would it be any different if the change of heart had happened in your 20s or 30s?

People vary in how important sex is to them. That will change over a person's life. Couples have to work on finding a balance that suits them both. When there isn't a balance, that can make relationships very difficult.
Sex lives are about sexual satisfaction and intimacy. Some people need one or the other or both. Sexual satisfaction can be found through masturbation but intimacy requires another person.