Convincing women that they need to have sex with their husbands

[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?

And is the contract "evergreen"? Does the contract have to be honored into decade five, decade six, if libido is completely gone?

[Anonymous]

People tell women to have sex with their husbands because that's how most men destress and feel close to their wives.

People tell men to do a ton of little things for their wives (too many to mention!) that have nothing to do with sex, because for women the sex is offered only after we feel the closeness.

It's kind of unfortunate that we have totally different needs, but nobody's asking the wife to have sex with a serial killer. The assumption is that the woman married the man because she loves and respects him--and enjoys having sex with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because of the expectation of monogamy. It is unreasonable, IMO, for one spouse who has lost interest in sex to continue to insist on monogamy. The other spouse did not promise celibacy, nor is it reasonable to interpret a promise of monogamy made when a relationship was sexual to transform into a promise of celibacy when the marriage becomes non-sexual.

[Anonymous]

NP here
As someone who's wife will "lay back and think of England" because she had low libido before taking meds and now it's just not there at all. it's worse than no sex at all, I get nothing out of it other than a release I can just as easily get from my hand plus all the guilt of having her do something she doesn't want to do.

I just wish she understood that saying sorry and I know it's a problem and I'm working on it again and again is just lemon juice on a paper cut.... I believed it the first time I heard it and the second maybe the third but by the 10th time It's just words she says to make herself feel better and nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.


NP-I would say that the contract is broken when it is raised as an issue and not acted upon. IE when one partner says "sex is important to me" and the other says "cool" its not to me so there. It isn't about the amount of time, its about on partner sharing something that hurts and the other not working on ways to remove the hurt. That is when the contract is broken in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here
As someone who's wife will "lay back and think of England" because she had low libido before taking meds and now it's just not there at all. it's worse than no sex at all, I get nothing out of it other than a release I can just as easily get from my hand plus all the guilt of having her do something she doesn't want to do.

I just wish she understood that saying sorry and I know it's a problem and I'm working on it again and again is just lemon juice on a paper cut.... I believed it the first time I heard it and the second maybe the third but by the 10th time It's just words she says to make herself feel better and nothing more.

Sounds like torture

[Anonymous]

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.

What is the benefit of an open marriage vs just divorcing? I guess I don't see why anyone would agree to have an open marriage. What other aspects of the marriage are they so tied to that they would want their partner to be constantly out on the prowl?

[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.

What is the benefit of an open marriage vs just divorcing? I guess I don't see why anyone would agree to have an open marriage. What other aspects of the marriage are they so tied to that they would want their partner to be constantly out on the prowl?

Kids, companionship, finances. Out on the prowl sounds awful. Discreet affair or occasional ONS sounds more reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I agree with this and it's one of the main reasons I let my husband go, so he could find the partner he dreamed of. That said, I also knew that his next girlfriend will also tire of him and he'll get frustrated all over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because you are in a marital relationship. I have many close male friends, some of whom I had sex with before I met my husband. If he unilaterally decides that we will no longer have "continuous sex," there is not much difference between our "marriage" and my friendships with my former lovers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here
As someone who's wife will "lay back and think of England" because she had low libido before taking meds and now it's just not there at all. it's worse than no sex at all, I get nothing out of it other than a release I can just as easily get from my hand plus all the guilt of having her do something she doesn't want to do.

I just wish she understood that saying sorry and I know it's a problem and I'm working on it again and again is just lemon juice on a paper cut.... I believed it the first time I heard it and the second maybe the third but by the 10th time It's just words she says to make herself feel better and nothing more.

I'm a coward. I agree that duty sex is worse than no sex, and rather than embarrass my husband and myself, I took a lover. Now I let my husband initiate, I almost always agree, he gets to be in control and I know he'll be into it because he initiated. He never thinks to ask me why I don't ever initiate, and how I can be happy with sex once or twice a month when I'm not happy with once or twice a week. Maybe he'd just rather not know the answer.

[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.

What is the benefit of an open marriage vs just divorcing? I guess I don't see why anyone would agree to have an open marriage. What other aspects of the marriage are they so tied to that they would want their partner to be constantly out on the prowl?

As someone in an open marriage, I will try to explain. I have more than 20 years of history with my husband, raised/raising children with him. We have mutual friends, we love each other's families. I am happy to grow old with him. He and I were slightly sexually incompatible before marriage, and that gulf widened over the years. He simply isn't comfortable giving me what I crave sexually, and neither of us want the marriage to end. I have sex with one other person; I'm not "constantly out on the prowl."

[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.

What is the benefit of an open marriage vs just divorcing? I guess I don't see why anyone would agree to have an open marriage. What other aspects of the marriage are they so tied to that they would want their partner to be constantly out on the prowl?

I have children I love and want to raise as a family. My wife lost interest in sex and gave me a Hall Pass. I know this makes me sound like an ass, but it is very easy for me to find ONS partners when I travel for work (20 weeks a year). It is not ideal, but it works.

[Anonymous]

They need to give blowjobs, men love blowjobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As someone in an open marriage, I will try to explain. I have more than 20 years of history with my husband, raised/raising children with him. We have mutual friends, we love each other's families. I am happy to grow old with him. He and I were slightly sexually incompatible before marriage, and that gulf widened over the years. He simply isn't comfortable giving me what I crave sexually, and neither of us want the marriage to end. I have sex with one other person; I'm not "constantly out on the prowl."

If my husband agreed to this, I would lose all respect for him, and that would make divorce inevitable.