Convincing women that they need to have sex with their husbands

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]

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 we live in a patriarchy. "Male" is the default, "normal" mode. This, men are not "unemotional", it's women who are "overly emotional". Men are not considers to be mutes when they complain about their wives chatting to them (because GASP! What kind of crazy person wants the chat all the time!!!) women are considered annoying overtalkers. Men are not considered burdened with an overactive (and it seems, given the world we live in today- fairly evolutionarily useless) libido, women are considered "low drive".

Men shape the dialogue and get to say what is "normal", which, conveniently, matches up with male expectations and the statistiically male way of doing things.

If women want true power, we need to stop trying to convince ourselves that we are "just as good as men" or the same as them- and work to reshape the conversation so that the statistically female perspective is considered JUST as valid (and, tbh- the default setting )

I'm a woman and I find this offensive- the notion that men are automatically high drive and women are automatically low drive. It implies that low drive men and high drive women are abnormal. It also implies that if women want/enjoy sex- they are "imitating" men. Honestly, there is nothing more rooted in patriarchy than the notion that women having a sex drive is unnatural or shameful. "A woman who has a lot of partners is a slut but a man who does the same thing is a player. "

All individuals, regardless of gender, have varying sex drives. There is no universal normal for men or women-only what is normal for the individual. In an ideal world, we take sexual compatibility as seriously as finances, religion, kids/no-kids, etc. People with differing sex drives should consider seriously how that affects their relationship before committing to each other.

+1 I agree with this. And I don't understand women who are pushing for that notion (that the default for most women is low or no libido). I think that some of the more adamant PPs saying that are resentful because they want that to be the accepted norm, because they want it to be okay that they aren't interest in sex, but they also don't want their husbands to pursue it elsewhere (nor do they want to actually divorce).

I think it's fine if a woman has a low or no libido. But I do think it's a problem in a monogamous marriage if one partner is not interested and the other is. I agree with the poster who says marriage vows are not celibacy vows. I don't think that it means someone should have sex if they don't want to. But I do think that if one person realizes that the never want to be intimate with their partner, that they really shouldn't expect their partner to be celibate.

I don't think anyone is trying to convince women that they should have sex with their husbands if they don't want to. A lot of PPs are saying that you just shouldn't expect your spouse to lead a life of celibacy. There's something unfair about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree with that. I think it's pretty well known that frequency decreases after marriage.

I agree that it's pretty well known that sex drive (for both men and women) potentially decreases as they age and that passion can decrease after getting married.

I think that the problem is we're talking about different things. There's a difference between a decrease in sex versus a sexless marriage. I don't think anyone would agree to monogamy and marriage if they knew ahead of time that sex would stop altogether.

I should clarify: I mean that sex would stop altogether while they are still in their prime. I'm not talking about 90-year-old couples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]

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 we live in a patriarchy. "Male" is the default, "normal" mode. This, men are not "unemotional", it's women who are "overly emotional". Men are not considers to be mutes when they complain about their wives chatting to them (because GASP! What kind of crazy person wants the chat all the time!!!) women are considered annoying overtalkers. Men are not considered burdened with an overactive (and it seems, given the world we live in today- fairly evolutionarily useless) libido, women are considered "low drive".

Men shape the dialogue and get to say what is "normal", which, conveniently, matches up with male expectations and the statistiically male way of doing things.

If women want true power, we need to stop trying to convince ourselves that we are "just as good as men" or the same as them- and work to reshape the conversation so that the statistically female perspective is considered JUST as valid (and, tbh- the default setting )

I'm a woman and I find this offensive- the notion that men are automatically high drive and women are automatically low drive. It implies that low drive men and high drive women are abnormal. It also implies that if women want/enjoy sex- they are "imitating" men. Honestly, there is nothing more rooted in patriarchy than the notion that women having a sex drive is unnatural or shameful. "A woman who has a lot of partners is a slut but a man who does the same thing is a player. "

All individuals, regardless of gender, have varying sex drives. There is no universal normal for men or women-only what is normal for the individual. In an ideal world, we take sexual compatibility as seriously as finances, religion, kids/no-kids, etc. People with differing sex drives should consider seriously how that affects their relationship before committing to each other.

+1 I agree with this. And I don't understand women who are pushing for that notion (that the default for most women is low or no libido). I think that some of the more adamant PPs saying that are resentful because they want that to be the accepted norm, because they want it to be okay that they aren't interest in sex, but they also don't want their husbands to pursue it elsewhere (nor do they want to actually divorce).

I think it's fine if a woman has a low or no libido. But I do think it's a problem in a monogamous marriage if one partner is not interested and the other is. I agree with the poster who says marriage vows are not celibacy vows. I don't think that it means someone should have sex if they don't want to. But I do think that if one person realizes that the never want to be intimate with their partner, that they really shouldn't expect their partner to be celibate.

I don't think anyone is trying to convince women that they should have sex with their husbands if they don't want to. A lot of PPs are saying that you just shouldn't expect your spouse to lead a life of celibacy. There's something unfair about that.

Bahaha now if you say women shouldn't be obligated to have sex when they don't want to or point out that, when left to their own devices, women tend to have sex less often (though the second is more satisfying when it does happen) you are "shaming" women? So being honest about female sexuality is somehow wrong?

and we wonder how patriarchy is able to stay in power. This, my friends. Right here.

[Anonymous]

^second =sex

Autocorrect...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree with that. I think it's pretty well known that frequency decreases after marriage.

I agree that it's pretty well known that sex drive (for both men and women) potentially decreases as they age and that passion can decrease after getting married.

I think that the problem is we're talking about different things. There's a difference between a decrease in sex versus a sexless marriage. I don't think anyone would agree to monogamy and marriage if they knew ahead of time that sex would stop altogether.

I should clarify: I mean that sex would stop altogether while they are still in their prime. I'm not talking about 90-year-old couples.

Cue the unhappy woman who likes to point out that if there is any sex at all in the marriage -- even if it's once or twice a year -- the marriage isn't "sexless."