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

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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? [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

But most partners complain about frequency and duty sex.... Not never getting it, those post too, but not most. [b]It's the duty sex that is rapey[/b], 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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics