I'm a woman OP and a pretty feminist one at that but I think this issue is more nuanced than you're letting on.

Should a woman ever have sex when she feels emotionally or physically threatened or coerced against her will in any way? No.

Should a woman married to a man who hears 'love' from his wife via sexual activity occasionally attempt to get herself in the mod when she may not be to meet her partners' needs? And do so in a non martyr-y way? I think yes.

Coercion and a requirement to fostering a healthy relationship you are choosing to continue are not the same thing. Equivocating them is really dismissive of how men experience relationships and what marriage means.

I think a lot of the guys on here who complain are in broken marriages and sure a woman shouldn't feel like she hasaid to sleep with someone she hates. But the 'take one for the team' concept comes in before the hate and its a protective shield against am eroding marriage. Deny that at your own risk.

I've been on both sides of the issue- I was in a sexless relationship due to his lack of desire, and went through a period in my marriage where I had low desire. Here's my take:

Being with someone who has zero sexual interest in you, doesn't care at all about your sexual needs, and does nothing to try to meet your needs after pleading, crying, and expressing how important it is to you is awful. Awful. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. It's not just the lack of sex, it's that someone who supposedly loves you can't put forth any effort to meet your needs. That is a total mindfuck and destroys your self esteem. I see refusing to try to meet a partner's physical needs as no different than refusing to meet their emotional needs.

With my DH, my drive tanked because he was being pretty shitty to me and he stopped doing the things that attracted me to him in the first place. I worked with him to get us back to a place where I was interested in sex, because that's what I had wished my ex had done for me. It was never me having sex even if I didn't want to, it was working with him to bring back my attraction to him.

I think most husbands would prefer working with their wife to bring back her sex drive and have a fulfilling sex life, than have a wife who needs to be convinced to just lie back and think of England.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another point I'd like to throw into the ring is the fact that some women marry men they are never truly attracted to because they panic about the clock running out. In those situations the husband might do all the right things and be a great partner but still end up in a sexless marriage. I'm a woman FWIW but can we at least agree that this very common situation is not fair to the husband?

Agreed, also it's just sad. I know 3 women who have married men they have ZERO physical attraction too, because they panicked that "time was running out."

I know an example of this. It was pretty clear she was marrying for stability (good provider). She goes on and on about how she just naturally has a low libido. It's pretty clear she's not attracted to her husband, but she won't even admit that to herself. So he jumps through a million hoops to try to help her libido.

I don't think there's anything wrong with marrying someone you like more as a friend than as a romantic partner, but you should be honest with the person you are marrying. If the other person does see you as a romantic partner, but you don't share that attraction, it's just selfish for you to decide for that other person that a sexless or low sex marriage is worth the stability.

In the example I know, my prediction is she ends up having an affair. She'll be content to have the affair and keep her marriage going (because he is a very good provider). She'll tell herself that he'll never find out. But when he inevitably does, she'll give some BS line to her husband about how she needed that to jump start her libido. The question is whether the husband will believe it or if he will finally get a clue.

I get that there are some abusive husbands out there. My advice to women is to leave them. I think that's usually the advice given. I don't know where OP is getting people telling women to have sex with abusive husbands. I think she's conflating two issues.

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.

I am a woman with a higher sex drive than my husband. The genders of the spouses are irrelevant. Each partner has to own their level of desire, and let the chips fall where they may.

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

you are frigid. Seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Making women feel like it is somehow THEIR problem when they react in an emotionally healthy way to a husband who has hurt them (I.e. By losing respect/desire for them) is a key part of patriarchy. The advice from men (and sadly, women too) is far too often to "lie back and take it"- or that there is something wrong with her if she is not sleeping with her husband on a regular basis. Our culture likes to pathologize female lack of desire for awful men and act like the women are "frigid" for not wanting to have sex with someone who has degraded them and treating them badly. By shaming women who won't have sex with husbands who treat them badly, and acting like the lack of sexual participation on her part is the reason why she is being treated badly, they are able to intimidate women into giving sexual access to men when they don't want to, and when the men themselves have acted in horrible ways to the women involved.

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. What that wife needs to understand from a natural consequences standpoint is that her husband is likely going to have sex anyway. My husband is good with tepid sex once or twice a month. I've told him that's not good and not frequent enough, we saw two different counselors, we've spent time and money going out and going away for the weekend. That's his natural setpoint. He didn't want a divorce, so the natural consequences are that I go outside the marriage.

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

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused as to which scenario we're talking about - an emotional response to poor treatment or a naturally low libido.

The first post talks about a woman's emotionally healthy response to poor treatment by her husband. Then at 13:33, the conversation shifts to a presumption that women often just naturally have a lower libido.

It seems to me that the obligations of one spouse to another are different in those scenarios. If a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband because he's treating her poorly, I don't think she has an obligation to seek to bridge the libido gap or compromise unless or until he treats her properly.

If a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband even though he's a good partner who treats her well, that's a situation where she should be looking for ways to be part of a compromise. She shouldn't have sex with him if she doesn't want to; but she should be open to making efforts to feel desire more frequently (e.g. take long baths, read erotica, counseling whatever) or opening up the marriage so he can have sex with others.

Well I guess the op has sex when she is being treated poorly. It breaks all the cultural sterotypes. Let's faces it, the joke is when a couple fights it is the man who sleeps on the couch- i.e. The couple is not having sex.
As for 13:33...she or he is really messed up. I think there are some deep seated issues and I hope she/he is not marriage. Things are just not that black and white. If either person in a marriage cares so little about the other(or hates the other), why are you continuing in a relationship?
Some of these problems are cultural and not it the way you think. As a guy, I have turned down women who wanted to have sex(I am picky). It can get pretty ugly. At least a guy is culturally and socially excepted to be rejected. This is not true for women.

Anonymous wrote:Another point I'd like to throw into the ring is the fact that some women marry men they are never truly attracted to because they panic about the clock running out. In those situations the husband might do all the right things and be a great partner but still end up in a sexless marriage. I'm a woman FWIW but can we at least agree that this very common situation is not fair to the husband?

Agreed, also it's just sad. I know 3 women who have married men they have ZERO physical attraction too, because they panicked that "time was running out."

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes no sense.

You don't have to have sex with your spouse, I suppose. Nor do you have to speak to them. Or be kind. Or go on dates. It's a free country, neglect your spouse, you reap what you sow.

I agree. Sex is a part of marriage, from both perspectives.

This is obviously a troll thread. Let's not feed the trolls.

I'm confused as to which scenario we're talking about - an emotional response to poor treatment or a naturally low libido.

The first post talks about a woman's emotionally healthy response to poor treatment by her husband. Then at 13:33, the conversation shifts to a presumption that women often just naturally have a lower libido.

It seems to me that the obligations of one spouse to another are different in those scenarios. If a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband because he's treating her poorly, I don't think she has an obligation to seek to bridge the libido gap or compromise unless or until he treats her properly.

If a woman doesn't want to have sex with her husband even though he's a good partner who treats her well, that's a situation where she should be looking for ways to be part of a compromise. She shouldn't have sex with him if she doesn't want to; but she should be open to making efforts to feel desire more frequently (e.g. take long baths, read erotica, counseling whatever) or opening up the marriage so he can have sex with others.

Anonymous wrote:This thread makes no sense.

You don't have to have sex with your spouse, I suppose. Nor do you have to speak to them. Or be kind. Or go on dates. It's a free country, neglect your spouse, you reap what you sow.

x2,000,000

What these SJWs fail to see is that by forcing their perspective on everyone, they are doing exactly what they rail against.

No person, male or female, should have to do anything they don't want to do. That said, if I marry you with an expectation of some on the regular and you decide after the fact that's not part of the deal, don't be surprised when I take a walk. And that's regardless of gender ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You SJW are scary.

Fixed that for you ...

omg you can say that again! And not in an innocuous way either.

Anonymous wrote:You SJW are scary.

Fixed that for you ...