Why do so many men feel entitled to sex within a marriage?

[Anonymous]

+1

It's really disgusting to use the word rape flippantly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I divorced a heating husband who was getting plenty of sex at home and I cannot for the life of me get my bead around my not wanting to have sex again ever (again this is about desire no medical issue involved) and expecting my partner to just accept that despite their libido not being in decline. It seems selfish and cruel. This is how you treat someone you love and want to be with until you die?

It's more about 1 partner wanting 3 times a week and the other wanting 3 times a month, not totally no sex never.

Your H probably chested because it was not often enough, passionate enough, felt like duty sex... Or some equally lame excuse, even though he was getting it at home.

He cheated because he was a selfish asshole. But I am talking about the no sex ever people not the he/she wants it 3 times a week and I want it 3 times a month people.

But most partners complain about frequency and duty sex.... Not never getting it, those post too, but not most. It's the duty sex that is rapey, hey sorry your vagina is dry but can you blow me, or those that can't wait 6 weeks post parfumerie, or the dudes that say they can't concentrate at work if they go 3 weeks.

Maybe we should get congress to pass a bill that men dont work after the baby is born because they can't concentrate until their wife screws them.

I have to say that the bolded phrase resonated with me. I never turned my DH down for sex, which we had frequently and which I always thought was mutually pleasurable. Then I found out that DH had cheated on me. DH "confessed" and begged me to stay together. During the period of reconciliation, we continued to have sex, but I have to admit, it felt "rapey". Yes, I consented, but that consent was under heavy pressure from DH and the counselors.

Much of our "counseling" revolved around why I wouldn't have sex with DH anymore and how he could get back to having sex. (Because you cheated on me and you haven't gotten STD tested yet even though I asked you months ago. DUH. And, you've done nothing to build confidence that you won't do cheat again. DUH) Frankly, I was shocked how the entire counseling process revolved around whether or not we had sex, and not why DH cheated and lied to me so extensively for so long. At home, DH was constantly trying to initiate sex, sometimes pawing me in the middle of the night when I was asleep and waking me. It was clear I was expected to "get over it" and go back to having sex with DH because sex is expected in a marriage, and my needs for safety and honesty were immaterial.

Our notions of rape our changing. It used to be that "rape" only occurred between non-marital partners and only as a result of force; anything else was automatically considered sex with "consent" even though that consent may have been deduced from the fact that the victim wore short shorts or had dated the perpetrator. Now the definition of rape is evolving to take into account true consent, i.e. sober, informed, explicit verbal consent between any sexual partners married or not. Personally, I agree with that evolution.

I honestly view what happened to me as rape by fraud. DH got my consent to sex by fraud -- lying to me often over the course of years because he knew that I had said no to sex outside of monogamy. The sexual consent I gave was gained only by his manipulation and lies, and he knew that.

It's good to remember that the definition of rape has evolved from "sex by force from a stranger" to "sex without consent" only because real women stood up every day over many years and objected to the narrow definition of rape as it was then in the law.

[Anonymous]

Probably we should judge a rape by its impact on the victim. (Morally anyway -- legally you get into questions about burdens of proof and the relationship of the State to its citizens).

"Duty" sex that's truly voluntary may not be the best thing but it's not necessarily all that bad. A woman with reactive desire may not be in the mood but love her husband, be perfectly willing to have sex with him, and be hopeful that she will get into the mood once the sexy times happen. If that's the case, then the "duty" sex is properly seen as a reasonable compromise between loving spouses.

"Duty" sex that's entered into grudgingly is a different ballgame. Women who have sex under duress can experience many of the same emotional, mental, and sometimes physical problems experienced by women who are raped in a more traditional sense. The basic underlying fact is that she feels a loss of control over her body and when, where, and with whom she has sex. The specifics of that loss of control don't necessarily change the trauma she experiences.

If there is uncertainty, men should not be afraid to ask if the consent is given freely and should avoid being pissy when consent is not forthcoming. Women should be very clear when consent is given and should not acquiesce to sex they don't want to have. (These things are actually not gender specific, but the dynamic tends to be man pursuing sex/woman responding to the pursuit.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Our notions of rape our changing. It used to be that "rape" only occurred between non-marital partners and only as a result of force; anything else was automatically considered sex with "consent" even though that consent may have been deduced from the fact that the victim wore short shorts or had dated the perpetrator. Now the definition of rape is evolving to take into account true consent, i.e. sober, informed, explicit verbal consent between any sexual partners married or not. Personally, I agree with that evolution.

I honestly view what happened to me as rape by fraud. DH got my consent to sex by fraud -- lying to me often over the course of years because he knew that I had said no to sex outside of monogamy. The sexual consent I gave was gained only by his manipulation and lies, and he knew that.

It's good to remember that the definition of rape has evolved from "sex by force from a stranger" to "sex without consent" only because real women stood up every day over many years and objected to the narrow definition of rape as it was then in the law.

What a load of bullshit. Sex that you consented to but regret later for whatever reason =/= rape.

I can see where this is going. Every woman who ever gets divorced is going to insist that her husband be convicted of rape because he defrauded her in some way.

[Anonymous]

ZachF wrote:Nice man bashing thread. Like women don't want sex too? No wives in here are feeling deprived of sex, or haven't you read much? It's just these brutish men who feel all "entitled," forcing themselves on their poor suffering wives who have to endure the horrible act, or deny him?

How about instead of asking, Why do so many men feel entitled to sex within a marriage? You ask this:
Why do so many people feel entitled to sex within a marriage? Make it gender neutral.

Or to turn it around on you if you really feel it's predominately a man on woman issue:

Why do so many women feel entitled withdraw sex once married, and expect their husbands to suddenly go without sex for the rest of their lives (or until divorced which is much more likely)?

Why would either spouse be "entitled" to make a unilateral decision like that for the both of them?

Try the thread about wives who don't have regular sex with their spouse thread. There are women who find themselves in the same situation.

Also, your delivery is rough and your avatar isn't doing you any favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Our notions of rape our changing. It used to be that "rape" only occurred between non-marital partners and only as a result of force; anything else was automatically considered sex with "consent" even though that consent may have been deduced from the fact that the victim wore short shorts or had dated the perpetrator. Now the definition of rape is evolving to take into account true consent, i.e. sober, informed, explicit verbal consent between any sexual partners married or not. Personally, I agree with that evolution.

I honestly view what happened to me as rape by fraud. DH got my consent to sex by fraud -- lying to me often over the course of years because he knew that I had said no to sex outside of monogamy. The sexual consent I gave was gained only by his manipulation and lies, and he knew that.

It's good to remember that the definition of rape has evolved from "sex by force from a stranger" to "sex without consent" only because real women stood up every day over many years and objected to the narrow definition of rape as it was then in the law.

What a load of bullshit. Sex that you consented to but regret later for whatever reason =/= rape.

I can see where this is going. Every woman who ever gets divorced is going to insist that her husband be convicted of rape because he defrauded her in some way.

It's actually called sexual coercion. Men are in a position of power and can hold money and stability against women.

Here is a description... http://www.thehotline.org/2014/04/pressure-and-persuasion-a-closer-look-at-sexual-coercion/

[Anonymous]

If your husband is badgering you for sex, and you don't really feel like, but you agree, that's consent. That's 100% not rape. Stop using rape to describe not rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your husband is badgering you for sex, and you don't really feel like, but you agree, that's consent. That's 100% not rape. Stop using rape to describe not rape.

Your right. But if you read the link you will find it could be sexual coercion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your husband is badgering you for sex, and you don't really feel like, but you agree, that's consent. That's 100% not rape. Stop using rape to describe not rape.

You seem pretty invested in labeling it "not rape." So, fine, if a man is coercing, badgering, and Not Raping (tm) his wife in a way that causes her to "consent" (wink, wink) and inflicts sexual trauma, are we cool with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's actually called sexual coercion. Men are in a position of power and can hold money and stability against women.

Here is a description... http://www.thehotline.org/2014/04/pressure-and-persuasion-a-closer-look-at-sexual-coercion/

Women have been coercing money out of men via their sexuality since the dawn of time. Where's your outrage over that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's actually called sexual coercion. Men are in a position of power and can hold money and stability against women.

Here is a description... http://www.thehotline.org/2014/04/pressure-and-persuasion-a-closer-look-at-sexual-coercion/

It may be neither here nor there, but with respect to the influence of stability (or lack thereof) on the sexual dynamic, I read something interesting recently. It talked about attachment styles and how, for some people, fear of abandonment could provoke an intense desire to have sex with the object of that attachment. But, the wrinkle was that, even though the desire was intense, the desire was not necessarily enjoyable. I don't know how that fits into the discussion -- except to say that, if a partner is intentionally destabilizing the relationship to cause the other partner enough emotional turmoil to provoke sex, the destabilizing partner is an asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your husband is badgering you for sex, and you don't really feel like, but you agree, that's consent. That's 100% not rape. Stop using rape to describe not rape.

Your right. But if you read the link you will find it could be sexual coercion.

I agree that's possible, but it wasn't PP's example. She said it was sex by fraud because if she'd known he was the type of person who cheats, she would not have slept with him. That's different than coercion. It retroactively converts even freely-given consent to rape any time someone comes to realize their relationship partner is a loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I divorced a heating husband who was getting plenty of sex at home and I cannot for the life of me get my bead around my not wanting to have sex again ever (again this is about desire no medical issue involved) and expecting my partner to just accept that despite their libido not being in decline. It seems selfish and cruel. This is how you treat someone you love and want to be with until you die?

It's more about 1 partner wanting 3 times a week and the other wanting 3 times a month, not totally no sex never.

Your H probably chested because it was not often enough, passionate enough, felt like duty sex... Or some equally lame excuse, even though he was getting it at home.

He cheated because he was a selfish asshole. But I am talking about the no sex ever people not the he/she wants it 3 times a week and I want it 3 times a month people.

But most partners complain about frequency and duty sex.... Not never getting it, those post too, but not most. It's the duty sex that is rapey, hey sorry your vagina is dry but can you blow me, or those that can't wait 6 weeks post parfumerie, or the dudes that say they can't concentrate at work if they go 3 weeks.

Maybe we should get congress to pass a bill that men dont work after the baby is born because they can't concentrate until their wife screws them.

Why is this "rapey?" If someone doesn't want intercourse, for whatever reason, what prevents her from occasionally helping out her partner? (I'm a woman btw.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I divorced a heating husband who was getting plenty of sex at home and I cannot for the life of me get my bead around my not wanting to have sex again ever (again this is about desire no medical issue involved) and expecting my partner to just accept that despite their libido not being in decline. It seems selfish and cruel. This is how you treat someone you love and want to be with until you die?

It's more about 1 partner wanting 3 times a week and the other wanting 3 times a month, not totally no sex never.

Your H probably chested because it was not often enough, passionate enough, felt like duty sex... Or some equally lame excuse, even though he was getting it at home.

He cheated because he was a selfish asshole. But I am talking about the no sex ever people not the he/she wants it 3 times a week and I want it 3 times a month people.

But most partners complain about frequency and duty sex.... Not never getting it, those post too, but not most. It's the duty sex that is rapey, hey sorry your vagina is dry but can you blow me, or those that can't wait 6 weeks post parfumerie, or the dudes that say they can't concentrate at work if they go 3 weeks.

Maybe we should get congress to pass a bill that men dont work after the baby is born because they can't concentrate until their wife screws them.

Stop using "rape" to describe things that are not even remotely rape. All you are doing is watering down the word and turning it into a joke.

Thank you. A woman in a generally respectful and mutually satisfying relationship who decides, of her own free will, to have sex with her husband to make him happy is not being raped. Not even close. And not only does calling it rape weaken the meaning of the word, it is also incredibly condescending and paternalistic to infer that she can't make that choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your husband is badgering you for sex, and you don't really feel like, but you agree, that's consent. That's 100% not rape. Stop using rape to describe not rape.

You seem pretty invested in labeling it "not rape." So, fine, if a man is coercing, badgering, and Not Raping (tm) his wife in a way that causes her to "consent" (wink, wink) and inflicts sexual trauma, are we cool with that?

PP. here.

It is disappointing how feminists speak of empowerment, and equality, even as they readily abdicate their own agency in making decisions to men.

Not being content with misappropriating the word "rape," you've now moved to second best with "coercing." I guess this is when he says that you hurt his feelings because you won't sleep with him? Is it "rapey" when he gives you the silent treatment? Are you not in control of your own body? You so badly want men to be responsible for what is ultimately your decision that you will use any inflammatory and loaded language as a weapon to so long as it suits your agenda.