Convincing women that they need to have sex with their husbands

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. However, we'd say the same to a man denying his wife, right? One of the reasons people get married is regular sex. If either party boycotts, it's unfair. Doesn't the Torah require men to fulfill their wives this way? It's not JUST patriarchy.

NP I wouldn't use the Torah to get my point across . Just saying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, when my husband starts respecting me and not act like a control-freak so much.

Why don't you divorce ? If a man is supposedly disrespecting and you're still in a relationship with him , what does that say about you ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm one of the women you're probably talking about. If a wife doesn't want to have sex with her husband for an extended period, that is her right, and I support it.

I support his right to divorce her for not having sex with him for an extended period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. However, we'd say the same to a man denying his wife, right? One of the reasons people get married is regular sex. If either party boycotts, it's unfair. Doesn't the Torah require men to fulfill their wives this way? It's not JUST patriarchy.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if you are married, and you want to stay married, don't you need to do this? Whether it's moral or not, patriarchy or not, if you don't put out for your DH he won't be around for long. Will he?

He should. It's funny how men will go for long periods of time. It getting laid but when they are married they feel they are owed it constantly or hey are being denied something

They are being denied something. Sex is part of the marital contract. If it is denied to him, the contract is broken and he is free to get it elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

When you get married, you make a commitment to one another. Part of that commitment is to try to make it work. Unilateral decisions about physical contact are harmful to your marriage, and causes a feeling of rejection.

If they're not trying to fix the situation, they're actively harming their own marriage. That is not something to be proud of, whether it s a man or a woman. It's just plain wrong to agree to fidelity, then one party decides on celibacy for everyone.

People need human touch. Deciding that someone else can't have sex with you, or anyone else borders on abusive. Sex is a basic need, just like connection and love.

I'm female, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if you are married, and you want to stay married, don't you need to do this? Whether it's moral or not, patriarchy or not, if you don't put out for your DH he won't be around for long. Will he?

He should. It's funny how men will go for long periods of time. It getting laid but when they are married they feel they are owed it constantly or hey are being denied something

They are being denied something. Sex is part of the marital contract. If it is denied to him, the contract is broken and he is free to get it elsewhere.

How long before the contract is considered "broken"? Three days? A week? A month? A year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if you are married, and you want to stay married, don't you need to do this? Whether it's moral or not, patriarchy or not, if you don't put out for your DH he won't be around for long. Will he?

He should. It's funny how men will go for long periods of time. It getting laid but when they are married they feel they are owed it constantly or hey are being denied something

They are being denied something. Sex is part of the marital contract. If it is denied to him, the contract is broken and he is free to get it elsewhere.

How long before the contract is considered "broken"? Three days? A week? A month? A year?

You need to work that out for yourself. If you never talk about it, then it isn't fair to consider the contract broken. Three days seems excessively short. But if you can expect to have a reasonable conversation three days after not having had sex and say, but I need it baby! and your partner is unwilling to give it to you at that point, by all means, tell him/her the contract is broken. But I think you need to have the conversation. I'd be willing to say 6 to 12 months is reasonable. But, again, you can't do it unilaterally.

[Anonymous]

It is also normal for the libido to decline as one ages. All the commercials for drugs to bring it back make it sound like it is abnormal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if you are married, and you want to stay married, don't you need to do this? Whether it's moral or not, patriarchy or not, if you don't put out for your DH he won't be around for long. Will he?

He should. It's funny how men will go for long periods of time. It getting laid but when they are married they feel they are owed it constantly or hey are being denied something

They are being denied something. Sex is part of the marital contract. If it is denied to him, the contract is broken and he is free to get it elsewhere.

I don't recall that being said in my marriage vows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think encouraging women to use sex as some sort of carrot is just as sexist and misogynist as telling women to put up and shut up.

My view is this: Sex is a part of marriage. If you are upset with your spouse and don't want to have sex, then you need to figure out how to resolve that. If it can't be resolved and if you don't foresee ever wanting to have sex with your spouse, then you should divorce or agree to an open marriage. This goes for men and women.

It's manipulative to use sex as some sort of punishment or reward.

No, no one should feel forced to have sex. But if you don't want to have sex with your spouse, you shouldn't be married to him/her. If you are staying married for the kids or for some economic reason, then you should at the least allow for an open marriage.

No one is saying anyone should use sex as a carrot. What they are saying is that women should be able to listen to THEIR OWN SEXUAL DESIRES including the desire not to have sex. That that urge is totally valid, and totally important. Particularly in situations where someone has hurt the woman- of course she's not going to want to sleep with them.

God. Just once I would love that when people talk about sex it was not centered around the male perspective

Yes but neither party should be selfish. It's selfish to insist on sex when a partner doesn't want it. It's also selfish to consistently refuse to give this love, affection, pleasure and release to your spouse.

Both parties need to try, and to compromise.

[Anonymous]

You're overthinking this. No one tells women to just "lie there and take it." What they do tell them is: if you want to stay in your marriage, lie there and take it. That is a key difference. It puts the woman in a position of some control. She can decide if she values her marriage or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes but neither party should be selfish. It's selfish to insist on sex when a partner doesn't want it. It's also selfish to consistently refuse to give this love, affection, pleasure and release to your spouse.

Both parties need to try, and to compromise.

Yes. This. Voice of Reason, thank you. You have to be willing to give to your partner. Be accepting of his/her needs as well as true to your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, I think encouraging women to use sex as some sort of carrot is just as sexist and misogynist as telling women to put up and shut up.

My view is this: Sex is a part of marriage. If you are upset with your spouse and don't want to have sex, then you need to figure out how to resolve that. If it can't be resolved and if you don't foresee ever wanting to have sex with your spouse, then you should divorce or agree to an open marriage. This goes for men and women.

It's manipulative to use sex as some sort of punishment or reward.

No, no one should feel forced to have sex. But if you don't want to have sex with your spouse, you shouldn't be married to him/her. If you are staying married for the kids or for some economic reason, then you should at the least allow for an open marriage.

No one is saying anyone should use sex as a carrot. What they are saying is that women should be able to listen to THEIR OWN SEXUAL DESIRES including the desire not to have sex. That that urge is totally valid, and totally important. Particularly in situations where someone has hurt the woman- of course she's not going to want to sleep with them.

God. Just once I would love that when people talk about sex it was not centered around the male perspective

It's actually sexist for you to assume that believing sex is an important part of marriage is the "male perspective." If my husband stopped having sex with me and expressed to me that he has no desire to have sex with me, that would be a problem. If he was unwilling to try to resolve that problem, I'd want a divorce.

There is nothing "male-centric" about the position that a sexless marriage is a problem, especially if one spouse still has desire and the other does not. Something has to give. I would never advise a woman to have sex if she doesn't want to. I would never advise a man to have sex if he doesn't want to. But if you don't see a resolution, then you should split or reach some sort of an agreement about an open marriage. No spouse should force another spouse to live indefinitely without sex. That's just as controlling and manipulative as telling a spouse you're not going to have sex with him/her, but she/he is not allowed to pursue their sexual desire outside of the marriage.

I saw the thread about the woman forcing herself to have sex with her husband, and it was horrible. At that point, get a divorce or give your spouse permission to have an affair.

If someone has hurt the woman so badly that she doesn't want to sleep with them, then they really shouldn't stay together.

No, it's sexist if you to subsume that the traditionally male libido (I.e. Wanting sex frequently and often) is healthier or more valid than the average female libido (which drastically tends to be less often). It's also sexist of you to assume when I tell a woman to respect her feelings towards sex and her own natural drive, that you assume I am advocating "punishing men". Check yourself and your perspective. Seriously.

+1

Why is the default continuous sex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is also normal for the libido to decline as one ages. All the commercials for drugs to bring it back make it sound like it is abnormal.

+1