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?

FlyingOink this feels like a test! Not sure I can help with this riddle but this is my take on it..

"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."

That's wholly dependant on the man. Middle aged men seem to be in a category that has a lot if potential suiters! They can sometimes appeal to younger women, their own age group and older women.

Some times married men appeal to womem.

So I don't find it unusual he can find three women willing to sleep with him.

"three women in a decade have agreed to have this man as their boyfriend without realising he is married" that's always a possibility. The women may not have known he was married at first but certainly did by the end. Knowing a man is married or attached doesn't always stop people from pursing them. And vice versa.

"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 think quite a lot of people conduct affairs. There's no suggestion he had the affairs simultaneously, so all he has to do is conduct an affair with one woman. Not that hard.

FlyingOink I must say you could be totally right. I don-t want to argue.

onlydigestivesinthetin" - "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."

MimiLaRue and VoiceofReason - I agree with your replies.

LindaSmithFanClub - "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."

Not trying to "out" you LindaSmithFanClub but you are replying as if you are the OP. If you are the OP with a Name Change then this comment is incredibly dismissive of most of the people who have contributed to this discussion; "most" being the opposite of "a few".

I was thinking about this discussion while I was off-line, when the most recent post was by the OP at 14:57 ending, "But I posted on this board because i was looking for feminist reflection, not the standard AIBU / Guardian response."

I had (and have) have no idea what "the standard AIBU / Guardian response" looks like (when I look at this Guardian article I cannot see any responses for some reason) and I wondered what was meant by "feminist reflection".

When I look back at the OP I see that there is a big clue that I missed!

"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?"

Belatedly, I would have to say that, personally, I do not feel or believe that I "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."

That must be one hell-hole in which Guardian Readers reside.

"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?"

There are so many problems with this statement, as others have already pointed out. If sex for heterosexual women was only to, "service their male partners' sexual needs" what a desolate prospect that conjures up, for both men and women.

My reflection is that the "Feminism 101" that you describe applies to some societies but that otherwise it is more like "Bad Sex 101" or "Relationship Woes 101". This seems to be borne out by the fact that you feel that most of the replies are disappointingly more typical of AIBU / Relationships than "Feminist".

MoleSmokes

The Op said earlier she was having problems with her computer so that's probably the reason for the NC.

There have been a couple of threads on aibu about porn, husband watching porn and masturbating in the bathroom while the kids are running around outside, and a lot of the replies are "porn, it's natural women do it too."
On another thread, a woman is concerned about her 13 yr old son watching porn,a lot of replies saying, "it's natural, he's just curious" etc.
So I understand why the Op posted the thread here and why she wanted to talk to feminists about it.
Wish i had more to add, I've been reading this thread with interest.

I agree with poster who said we are all looking at this through our own lens.

I'll be honest about my lens and it may mean people discount my views, which is fine.

I'm middle aged, married to a man for almost 20 years. Over the years my interest in sex has waxed and waned. Probably for good reasons.

But I don't want to lose my interest in sex so I am reading to understand how it happens.

And also replying because I think linking ( as I believe the OP does in the opening post) married sex and prostitution and trafficking, just doesn't help us understand the differences.

And also replying because I think linking ( as I believe the OP does in the opening post) married sex and prostitution and trafficking, just doesn't help us understand the differences.

Why do you dispute what you think people mean instead of what they said. I am completely mystified by this behavior pattern.

Well, I am somewhat limited in my agreement about so much sex in marriages centering on men, I think it's more complicated than that.

But I do think the idea that sex is natural, sex is a right, all healthy adults should be able to expect to be able to have a healthy sex life - also plays into current attitudes around porn and various sorts of sex work. And a lot of people believe this you see it any time there is a question about this topic in all kinds of forums. Even many serious feminists believe this. It seems to come out of that sort of 70's attempt to see sex from a very naturalistic perspective.
People who believe that seem to think that those who disagree must have a low sex drive or that it's not as important to them, they don't care about it as much.

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.
This is a good point. I guess I've assumed the man's wife was put-upon. That she "let him" for the sake of the marriage etc.

But she's made a decision in doing that, and presumably the rest of the relationship with him must have been satisfactory because if he was that awful to be with, divorce was available in the early 80s when they would have first been married.

OTOH, he didn't put up with thirty years of bad sex because he admits he enjoyed it more than she did. She put up with (bad?) sex for the sake of the marriage, but he is unable to put up with no sex for the same reason.

It's a mismatch, which is an awful thing, and the reason why this letter seems so weird is that one side of the relationship has put up with the mismatch and the other is now unable or unwilling to.

I imagine many men would be devastated to learn she had been "phoning it in" for years, whereas this bloke is just peeved she won't continue doing it. That's why he comes across as entitled.

Going back to the OP, and this:
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?

I've been thinking and I think it's inherently selfish to think one is entitled to sex.
But like many other selfish choices we rationalise it in men and make excuses about why it is necessary, or normal, or unselfish.
We tend to do this about sex, but also food (men must be given more and better food), clothing (men and boys wear brand names, women and girls wear Primark), leisure time (long-winded or expensive hobbies for men, little leisure time for women and/or the women's hobby is ridiculed), etc etc.

I'm sure there are millions of examples. But this bloke is selfish, and we all fall over ourselves to see the reasonable in it because we are encouraged to see men's selfishness as reasonable.

Personally I was more annoyed by his sense of passive entitlement and his hypocrisy (three supposed affairs) but that's wrapped up in his selfishness as well. And predictably, a number of the responses in the Guardian confirmed his belief that he was being entirely reasonable and that having discreet affairs (whilst somehow his wife knows but doesn't mention and is somehow not hurt or upset) was the right thing to do.

Incidentally, is that a male fantasy, the notion of "arrangements" that the wife knows about but that is never discussed? Sounds like a lot of resentment and tension in real life, and I've never knowingly seen it happen. Is it like the mythical Frenchman and his mistress? Or is it just a fantasy that a man can have a woman on the side without any difficult conversations at any point?

I don’t know much about this particular case, but it is an interesting discussion with many good points. As a point of interest, I believe lots of women go off sex altogether during/after menopause. I am hoping that having regular sex throughout menopause will counteract this (as sex is incredibly important in our relationship), but some of my friends have described extreme pain causing them not to be able to have sex any more. Wondering if that is the case here, with the poor woman being in agony, and also whether there are effective remedies (oestrogen cream/HRT?) or is she simply sick of her husband and his ‘entitled’ or selfish attitude, perhaps?
More generally, everything in relationships is is about effective communication, isn’t it? So if after 40 years you’re still not communicating openly and honestly, that would be tragic.

@LindaSmithfanclub

Are you the OP, posting under two different names?

"Why do you dispute what you think people mean instead of what they said. I am completely mystified by this behavior pattern." I am mystified by your comment. I'm Happy to engage but I don't k is what you mean and since I made this comment on this thread I'm not sure it's a pattern of behaviour.

FlyingOink it's interesting you assume this sex is bad and not just that sex, for some, is boring.

I think the reality for some is not that sex is just quite boring. It doesn't necessarily mean it's somehow done wrongly. It's just not worth the effort. You can have an orgasm and still think It's not worth the effort.

Also we don't know it was always perceived as of no interest to her.

"It's a mismatch, which is an awful thing, and the reason why this letter seems so weird is that one side of the relationship has put up with the mismatch and the other is now unable or unwilling to."

I do think that is easy to understand.

Personally.

You can put up maybe eith something you don't much like making the odd appearance in a situation but you can't live forever without something you really like. For example someone trying to lose weight can struggle through a weekly exercise class despit not liking it but can't forever lay off sugar.

At least that has been my experience of life!

Just for the record I don't think anyone is ever entitled to sex.

I did wonder if this letter was a collage of letters, not a real person. The bit I most take issue with I the letter is the comments about HRT. I think they are very cruel and that would be a real issue for me.

I don’t know if it’s just about sex is it? I haven’t rtft yet but I feel like this (men’s ‘right’ to sex) is a manifestation of the expectation that women should always subsume their own needs and wants to other people - their partner, their children, their parents, their partner’s parents...

You can have an orgasm and still think It's not worth the effort.

I think if we're talking about a general indifference resulting in that person being less likely to instigate, even though they might enjoy it, then I understand.

If you mean someone can have satisfying sex and then think it wasn't worth the effort afterwards then I have to admit that's a new one for me.

I think in this case we can make a pretty solid assumption that the sex wasn’t great for her. Judging by the amount of women who fake it and the amount of blokes who are convinced of their own sexual prowess because they can’t be arsed to see past their own gratification, we could reasonably arrive at one of two possibilities.

1, that she wasn’t all that enthusiastic about the sex, which is what lead him to the unexplored, (by his own admission) belief that she didn’t enjoy it as much as he did.

2, she gave the impression of enjoying it but he intuited that she wasn’t as into it as him.

Given the tone and focus of the letter, which is basically one long moan that she wouldn’t take HRT, which in his opinion would have made her more willing to satisfy his sexual needs, and his need to justify himself for having affairs by saying he supported her feminism, we can probably rule out option 2, as that would have required him to stop thinking about himself and think about her feelings. If you read between the lines it’s all rather obvious.

I've been thinking and I think it's inherently selfish to think one is entitled to sex.

Could you please clarify whether you mean it's selfish to feel entitled to have a partner for sex or to feel entitled to have sex with a partner? I realise this sounds a bit cryptic so the former would be like feeling you deserve to be given a glass of gin, the latter is feeling you deserve to be able to drink the glass of gin someone just offered to you.

I can't speak for the other poster, Gronky, but I think that's an interesting analogy.

I'd add to it that physical and emotional intimacy with another human being, whether you are married to them or not, isn't an object that's handed to you for your consumption.

It's something that that human has free choice about every single time, and my particular lens on this is that getting that intimacy isn't something you are entitled to because you want it, because you are offering it to them, or because you feel you need it. It's something that, in a healthy relationship, you both cultivate the love and trust and communication necessary to encourage it to happen. You tend the garden in the hopes the plants will flourish, but a garden is a complex system in which many surprising things can go wrong....or maybe that's just my incompetent gardening!

I've been thinking and I think it's inherently selfish to think one is entitled to sex

This is an interesting point. I would 100% agree that noone is automatically entitled to sex. I'm thinking of those awful school shootings in the US which are often perpetrated by some vile, arrogant teenager full of rage that none of the girls in his class will sleep with him etc So no, noone is "entitled to sex".

That said, if you enter into a mutually respectful relationship which is consensual and you both agree that sex is part of a loving relationship then I dont think its unreasonable to be upset if your partner suddenly declares one day that they've completely gone off it and are never having it ever again. Now, I highly doubt anyone decent would suddenly leave that relationship without discussing this with their partner and finding out why and seeing if they can support them in whatever struggles they might be having in regard to sex.

Going off sex just after childbirth for example, is completely understandable and in any relationship there will be times of less sex and times of more sex and thats completely to be expected. However, there is a huge difference between your partner going off sex for a while and your partner telling you, thats it- i am not ever having sex ever again.
They have the right to make that decision of course but it does then mean that the other partner has to deal with never having sex ever again. That will inevitably cause issues if thats not what the partner wants.

I love my H but if he told me he was never having sex ever again I would be devastated. Even if I tried to deal with that and stay with him, I cannot guarantee that I wouldnt start to be attracted to men outside of the marriage. Which puts me in a dilemma. If I tell my partner I dont want to live the rest of my life without sex then I am apparently wrong (or pressurising them according to some in this thread) yet if I have an affair thats wrong too. So, what should happen in scenarios like this? the partner who still wants sex should just shut up and deal with it?- is that fair either? It doesnt sound very fair to me.

BTW I havent read the full article quoted above- that man could be a complete arsehole for all I know, I'm merely referring to the general topic of- are people entitled to sex etc

FlyingOink "I think if we're talking about a general indifference resulting in that person being less likely to instigate, even though they might enjoy it, then I understand." Yes I kind of am. That it's for some not worth instigating. But the letter implies something more.

"If you mean someone can have satisfying sex and then think it wasn't worth the effort afterwards then I have to admit that's a new one for me."

I guess I am saying that knowing what will happen ( an orgasm) one might still feel they cannot be bothered, yes.

"... a garden is a complex system in which many surprising things can go wrong....or maybe that's just my incompetent gardening! "

CousinKrispy that's a brilliant analogy.

I think if we're talking about a general indifference resulting in that person being less likely to instigate, even though they might enjoy it, then I understand.

If you mean someone can have satisfying sex and then think it wasn't worth the effort afterwards then I have to admit that's a new one for me.

I've met people who liked sex well enough, but were happy when their libido lessened somewhat or the were at a stage where they felt they could leave sex behind. The idea being generally that they felt it was kind of a distraction, they wanted to spend more time thinking about and doing other things, and exploring a kind of intimacy that was not so physiologically determined. And sometimes they feel like their is a kind of clarity that comes with being less tied to whatever their physical sensations happen to be.