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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.)

Regarding defining rape morally as its effect on the victim-- I tend to agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, this feminist agrees with you. But I was born in the 60s, so perhaps a different kind of feminist than the PP above.

[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.

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.

I find your description of what happened between you and your DH after you found out about his cheating to be disturbing, and I don't blame you for feeling coerced and emotionally badgered. I still don't think it's rape, because you consented. But I understand why it felt and feels awful to you.

But I completely object to the retroactive application of the word "rape" to your previous relationship with your DH, your "sex by fraud." Just because you later regret having sex with someone doesn't make it rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I find your description of what happened between you and your DH after you found out about his cheating to be disturbing, and I don't blame you for feeling coerced and emotionally badgered. I still don't think it's rape, because you consented. But I understand why it felt and feels awful to you.

But I completely object to the retroactive application of the word "rape" to your previous relationship with your DH, your "sex by fraud." Just because you later regret having sex with someone doesn't make it rape.

It's interesting how people have interpreted my words -- retroactive application and regret after the fact. The simple truth is that when I was consenting to sex with my husband prior to his cheating, I explicitly consented to sex only in the context of monogamy. He knew and agreed to that. When I found out about the cheating, I again explicitly said, "I do not want to reconcile with you and I do not want to sleep with you while you are sleeping with other women." He said he had stopped, but he was actively lying and hiding ongoing relationships. There was no "retroactive application" there was no "regret after the fact"; the fraud was ongoing in real time. I explicitly told him the terms on which I would sleep with him, and he actively manipulated and hid the true facts of our sexual relationship to get me to agree. That is fraud. He accomplished something thru lies and deceit that he wouldn't have otherwise been able to accomplish.

The links provided on sexual coercion describe exactly how I felt and feel about what happened to me. How many times was I supposed to say "no"? I said, "no, I do not want to have sex with you outside the context of monogamy." "No, I do not want to have sex with you until you get tested for STDs and show me the results." "No, I do not want to have sex with you unless you go to therapy and figure out why you did this." "No, I do not want you to try to have sex with me while I'm sleeping." I said to the therapist, "I don't feel safe having sex with this person who did these things to me and endangered me in this way." And, still the whole time the expectation was that I should have sex, and something was wrong with me or "our relationship" because I didn't want to, and my DH was justified in continuing to touch me and try to get me to have sex. Why is one "no" not enough? Why, when I saw I don't want to have non-monogamous sex, why isn't the obligation on my sexual partner to respect that?

I think it demeans the concept of consent to say that some kinds of coercion to consent are OK (emotional, economic or deliberate deception), while other kinds are not (consent via incapcitation due to drugs or threat of force instead of actual force). I think it demeans the concept of rape to say that some kinds of rape (rape by force or stranger rape) are worse than others (date rape or rape by drug use). To me, rape is lack of informed, explicit, non-coercive consent. Period. Society may not yet prosecute it that way, but a hundred years ago society did not prosecute marital rape either because it wasn't viewed as rape.

[Anonymous]

I am a feminist, and I just can't understand how lying to someone makes it coercive. People lie to get laid. They lie to get jobs too. Hell, people lie to find a spouse. We can't whitewash the world to make it a perfect place of 100% informed consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, this feminist agrees with you. But I was born in the 60s, so perhaps a different kind of feminist than the PP above.

The crux of this is when the request for sex is "badgering." If it's "badgering," then it's coercive. If you ask for sex once or state your desire to have sex once, that's not coercive. It's an expression of desire. If the other person shares the desire, great! If the person doesn't share the desire, no big deal. Ask a second time, a little later, you're still in pretty much the same territory. Do it enough times that it constitutes badgering, and you are no longer attempting to communicate your desire or ask for information about the other person's desire. Your repeated requests are an attempt to pressure the person into having sex even though you know that the person has no desire to do so. You are now a shitty person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, this feminist agrees with you. But I was born in the 60s, so perhaps a different kind of feminist than the PP above.

The crux of this is when the request for sex is "badgering." If it's "badgering," then it's coercive. If you ask for sex once or state your desire to have sex once, that's not coercive. It's an expression of desire. If the other person shares the desire, great! If the person doesn't share the desire, no big deal. Ask a second time, a little later, you're still in pretty much the same territory. Do it enough times that it constitutes badgering, and you are no longer attempting to communicate your desire or ask for information about the other person's desire. Your repeated requests are an attempt to pressure the person into having sex even though you know that the person has no desire to do so. You are now a shitty person.

If you want to call someone "shitty," fine. But loaded terms like "rape" and "rapey" should not be used so recklessly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you want to call someone "shitty," fine. But loaded terms like "rape" and "rapey" should not be used so recklessly.

It may be inappropriate, but I wouldn't call it "reckless." The coercion necessary to turn a demand for sex into rape is not a bright line but is a spectrum. Put a knife to her throat = rape. Threaten to cut someone else's throat = rape. Threaten to throw her out in the street with no clothes or money = probably rape. Threaten to fire her = closer to the line but still damaging and coercive. Threatening to keep requesting sex until she gives in is probably on the non-rape side of the line, but it's still coercive and damaging. And you can see that rape line from there. So, I don't think using a term like "rapey" is reckless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, this feminist agrees with you. But I was born in the 60s, so perhaps a different kind of feminist than the PP above.

The crux of this is when the request for sex is "badgering." If it's "badgering," then it's coercive. If you ask for sex once or state your desire to have sex once, that's not coercive. It's an expression of desire. If the other person shares the desire, great! If the person doesn't share the desire, no big deal. Ask a second time, a little later, you're still in pretty much the same territory. Do it enough times that it constitutes badgering, and you are no longer attempting to communicate your desire or ask for information about the other person's desire. Your repeated requests are an attempt to pressure the person into having sex even though you know that the person has no desire to do so. You are now a shitty person.

Oh for Christ's sake. My kids badger me sometimes, too. If I (a) continue to put up with it and/or (b) give in to it, that's on me, not them.

Is someone who continues to badger you for sex a shitty person? Sure, alright, let's say he is. Is it a crime to be a shitty person? No, it's not.

I think there is a big difference between "pressure" and "coercion." (Though I do know it is difficult to draw a bright line here.) "Pressure" might be your garden variety date badgering you for sex, pleading, whining, begging, on and on. There is no attempt to keep you there against your will. He has no hold on you. He is not your boss, he is not your only means of support, he has not taken you someplace where you have no idea where you are or how to get home, you are not fearful that he will hurt you. But for whatever reason, you give in. Sorry, nothing is going to convince me that that is rape. And frankly, it frightens me that people think women shouldn't be expected to stand up and say, "Enough!" and walk out in this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, this feminist agrees with you. But I was born in the 60s, so perhaps a different kind of feminist than the PP above.

The crux of this is when the request for sex is "badgering." If it's "badgering," then it's coercive. If you ask for sex once or state your desire to have sex once, that's not coercive. It's an expression of desire. If the other person shares the desire, great! If the person doesn't share the desire, no big deal. Ask a second time, a little later, you're still in pretty much the same territory. Do it enough times that it constitutes badgering, and you are no longer attempting to communicate your desire or ask for information about the other person's desire. Your repeated requests are an attempt to pressure the person into having sex even though you know that the person has no desire to do so. You are now a shitty person.

Oh for Christ's sake. My kids badger me sometimes, too. If I (a) continue to put up with it and/or (b) give in to it, that's on me, not them.

Is someone who continues to badger you for sex a shitty person? Sure, alright, let's say he is. Is it a crime to be a shitty person? No, it's not.

I think there is a big difference between "pressure" and "coercion." (Though I do know it is difficult to draw a bright line here.) "Pressure" might be your garden variety date badgering you for sex, pleading, whining, begging, on and on. There is no attempt to keep you there against your will. He has no hold on you. He is not your boss, he is not your only means of support, he has not taken you someplace where you have no idea where you are or how to get home, you are not fearful that he will hurt you. But for whatever reason, you give in. Sorry, nothing is going to convince me that that is rape. And frankly, it frightens me that people think women shouldn't be expected to stand up and say, "Enough!" and walk out in this situation.

Meant to add, nothing is going to convince me that this is coercive, either.

[Anonymous]

Thank the Lord I have a sex crazed wife. Bless the rest of y'alls hearts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you want to call someone "shitty," fine. But loaded terms like "rape" and "rapey" should not be used so recklessly.

It may be inappropriate, but I wouldn't call it "reckless." The coercion necessary to turn a demand for sex into rape is not a bright line but is a spectrum. Put a knife to her throat = rape. Threaten to cut someone else's throat = rape. Threaten to throw her out in the street with no clothes or money = probably rape. Threaten to fire her = closer to the line but still damaging and coercive. Threatening to keep requesting sex until she gives in is probably on the non-rape side of the line, but it's still coercive and damaging. And you can see that rape line from there. So, I don't think using a term like "rapey" is reckless.

No. If she doesn't want to have sex, nothing is preventing her from not having it. So don't.

Again, this narrative paints the woman as a delicate thing who can't be expected to stand up for herself in the face of unending "requests." You don't want to listen to the requests anymore? Stand up on your own two feet and walk out the door.

[Anonymous]

What a bizarre topic. People now go into marriage with the expectation that sex is something that may or may not he part of the relationship?

They should ask any old divorce lawyer how that story ends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you want to call someone "shitty," fine. But loaded terms like "rape" and "rapey" should not be used so recklessly.

It may be inappropriate, but I wouldn't call it "reckless." The coercion necessary to turn a demand for sex into rape is not a bright line but is a spectrum. Put a knife to her throat = rape. Threaten to cut someone else's throat = rape. Threaten to throw her out in the street with no clothes or money = probably rape. Threaten to fire her = closer to the line but still damaging and coercive. Threatening to keep requesting sex until she gives in is probably on the non-rape side of the line, but it's still coercive and damaging. And you can see that rape line from there. So, I don't think using a term like "rapey" is reckless.

No. If she doesn't want to have sex, nothing is preventing her from not having it. So don't.

Again, this narrative paints the woman as a delicate thing who can't be expected to stand up for herself in the face of unending "requests." You don't want to listen to the requests anymore? Stand up on your own two feet and walk out the door.

I am not a delicate thing. I fended off repeated unwanted advances. I refused to put my head in the sand and actively monitored my DH to uncover his lies. I did this despite the severe negative career and financial impact. And why the hell should *I* walk out? I didn't do anything wrong. When I had adequate, indisputable evidence, I told my husband the relationship was over and that *he* would have to leave. Then I had to fend off his repeated advances over the next two years of co-parenting.

My question is, what kind of culture normalizes this -- that it's OK for a guy to lie to get sex and it's OK for a guy to repeatedly harass a woman for sex despite repeatedly being told no. IMO, it's rape culture. No one would ever tolerate this behavior from a stranger at a frat party, why should I tolerate it from someone who was my husband? Why do you think it's OK for a guy to repeatedly behave like this and put the responsibility on me to say no a hundred times a hundred different ways? No means no. I should only have to say it once.

[Anonymous]

So there are magic words now? "Enough" should work where a simple "no" did not? She's obligated to flee the situation?

The dude has an obligation to fucking stop when she says "no." I don't get why that's so tough to understand. And if he persists, maybe he hasn't committed a crime, but I'm not going to shed a tear for him if she sticks the wrong label (rape, coercion, pressure) on his actions.