Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I'm a woman and I feel entitled to a certain level of sex and physical affection within my marriage. On demand, whether he is in the mood or not? No, but I would be pretty hurt if he withheld sexual and other physical affection.

I guess that makes me a monster, too.

If your H has cancer and is fighting for his life and puking in a bucket and can't get enough energy to care for his children and all you want is for him to put out a couple times a week... I guess you are.

Perhaps you can point out for me where in my post I said that I expect sex a couple of times per week under all circumstances, even when he is going through a possibly terminal health issue.

Projecting much?

Bolded it for you.

You bolded a statement, but not one that said I would expect it if my husband was dying. You are projecting beyond belief. Anyone with even a shred of common sense knows that there are many exceptions.

and anybody with a shred of common sense knows that many people have issues... exhaustion, a baby was just born, anxiety, depression, disabilities, etc. There are many issues that get in the way of sex. Cancer is one.

You did not say, I expect sex... except when you have a good reason to not have sex. that is a normal marriage. It's the entitled spouses that are the issue. That is what this thread is about. Why do people feel entitled to sex when their spouses have good reason why they don't want to or can't have sex as much as the spouse wants, why do they feel entitled to sex as often as they want and the other spouse can't be entitled to have sex as little as they want.

The issue becomes clouded over what " a good reason" is. Validly, a good reason is actually that one person just doesn't want to. But where does that leave the other spouse?

The kicker to me is that people who are actually experiencing hurdles to physical intimacy are the ones working the hardest to maintain it. I used to work in sexual health, and had many clients with chronic illeness and disabilities that made sex (specifically intercourse) difficult if not impossible. Many of these folks and couples found other ways to keep their relationships physically quite tittilating. The difference is in a lot of these "normal" marriages, the intimacy just stops, along with most physical contact AT ALL, Only for the actual reason that one partner does not want sex.

I think many people are experiencing "hurdles to physical intimacy" in "normal" marriages and they don't realize it.

A poster last week said "I don't like to be touched".... which of course leads to less sex, then a poster said, "were you abused" and the answer was yes, so this person has not equated childhood sexual abuse to lack of intimacy and sex.

Most men that were abused don't get treatment and believe they "have it under control"... many women also.

Don't you think that many people in "normal" marriages have not figured out why they want less sex?

Also, "a good reason" might be "I don't want to" because they had sex this week and that is enough for that person. But the husband often cries foul because they had sex twice a week when dating and it becomes a bean counting exercise, which builds resentment, which kills intimacy.

Emotional issues lead to less sex not just physical ones like cancer, but the spouse is like... okay, go fix that and are not working with their spouse to "figure it out". So they get on SSRI's which .... make climaxing hard, which leads to less sex.

Also many men have the erroneous assertion that sex is the way they build intimacy... not being a good kind loving partner, just sex plain and simple. They have no clue how to build intimacy and then wonder why they don't get any sex.

Their entitlement builds resentment, kills intimacy, which leads to less sex.

Men feel entitled to sex, they don't care what is standing in the way (cancer/depression/childhood abuse/raped in college/anxiety/overwhelmed with kids), they want sex, exactly the same and as often as when they were dating... no excuses... they accuse their mate of the bait and switch. It's entitlement.

Anonymous wrote:This thread really misses the mark. It talks of spouses wanting to have sex all the time, no matter what the circumstances, and feeling that they are entitled to it. In those situations I agree that is not cool to feel that you are owed that whenever you want.

That said, in marriages I feel that is a very small minority of the cases. The majority of situations are marriages where sex has slowed to a trickle or died off completely. As a husband who has had sex three times in the past two years, am I unreasonable to feel rejected, hurt and generally disappointed with my wife for this? I married my wife because I loved her, found her to be beautiful inside and out and never wanted to look at another woman again. I also expected that she would value me, respect me and take into consideration my feelings, including me desire for her and desire to have sex with her. What spouses not having sex feel is not blue balls, or "why is she not putting out as much as I want her to"; but rather "she just doesn't care enough about me to do something with me that she knows is important to me".

Let's say a woman had a really hard day, comes home to her husband for support and he says "I had a great day today, I'm sorry you did not but I don't really want to ruin my day by listening to what happened to you, maybe go call a friend for support." Now play that scenario over the course of weeks, months and or years. I would love to hear a woman on here say that she would be ok with that situation and that the wife should not feel "entitled" to that support from her husband. Counter how that is different than sex in the context of a long term committed relationship? It's not that men (or women in some cases) are super horny people that only care about their sexual satisfaction, but rather hurt, rejected and generally deflated by their spouse not wanting to participate in the one thing that only that spouse can provide. If you feel that is an ok way to go through a relationship with someone for the rest of your life that is fine, but I don't think that most people do.

The choice faced by spouses not having sex is to either give up on sex completely and live an unfulfilled life, break their marriage vows by cheating or blow up their lives and their children's lives completely by getting a divorce. The person denying sex is making the selfish choice to say "I understand you are not satisfied with how things are, but what I want is just more important and if you want to be in a sexual relationship you can alter your entire life to get it or just suck it up and deal." I don't think that expecting sex with your spouse is being entitled. It is expecting that they will care for you, value you and take your needs and desires into consideration. By not having sex the spouse is essentially saying "I care more about me than you, deal with it or leave". I have chosen to deal with it becuase I don't want my children to go through a divorce and multiple families, but I am unhappy and unfulfilled in my life. Yes I have the power to alter it by leaving, but there are other lives at stake and I will not hurt them for my own personal happiness. That is what spouses face, not feeling that they are "entitled" to sex because we are married.

You seem to be equating asking for emotional support after a hard day at work with asking for sex. Your analogy implies that men are expected to provide emotional support, so why shouldn't women be expected to provide sex.

First, I disagree with your premise that men are expected to provide emotional support against their will.

But, even accepting that they are, do you really think being asked to provide emotional support when one isn't in the mood and being asked to provide sex when one isn't in the mood are the same thing?

Sex is a very intimate act. The emotional aside, you are sticking your body parts inside of me. You are touching me in traditionally private areas. You are, likely, seeing me naked. You are potentially exposing me to some pretty serious consequences -- getting pregnant or getting an STD -- although you may think those two unlikely in particular circumstances.

Can you really not see a difference between responding to "I had a shitty day, can you listen to me" and "have sex with me"?

Anonymous wrote:Well, I'm a woman and I feel entitled to a certain level of sex and physical affection within my marriage. On demand, whether he is in the mood or not? No, but I would be pretty hurt if he withheld sexual and other physical affection.

I guess that makes me a monster, too.

If he's a reasonably normal man you should be able to get him in the mood just by cuddling with him.

It is far more than lack of sex. It is lack of closeness and intimacy too. I can't count the number of times I have been too tired to have sex with my wife, but then we just cuddle for a while, and all of a sudden I get fired up. So for those marriages where sex is infrequent, you have to realize any kind of physical closeness also is rare, because it naturally leads to things getting sexual. If someone is only have sex three times a year, it basically means they are not touching each other short of sex either. And that can only be because one or the other or both is a total head case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I'm a woman and I feel entitled to a certain level of sex and physical affection within my marriage. On demand, whether he is in the mood or not? No, but I would be pretty hurt if he withheld sexual and other physical affection.

I guess that makes me a monster, too.

If your H has cancer and is fighting for his life and puking in a bucket and can't get enough energy to care for his children and all you want is for him to put out a couple times a week... I guess you are.

Perhaps you can point out for me where in my post I said that I expect sex a couple of times per week under all circumstances, even when he is going through a possibly terminal health issue.

Projecting much?

Bolded it for you.

You bolded a statement, but not one that said I would expect it if my husband was dying. You are projecting beyond belief. Anyone with even a shred of common sense knows that there are many exceptions.

and anybody with a shred of common sense knows that many people have issues... exhaustion, a baby was just born, anxiety, depression, disabilities, etc. There are many issues that get in the way of sex. Cancer is one.

You did not say, I expect sex... except when you have a good reason to not have sex. that is a normal marriage. It's the entitled spouses that are the issue. That is what this thread is about. Why do people feel entitled to sex when their spouses have good reason why they don't want to or can't have sex as much as the spouse wants, why do they feel entitled to sex as often as they want and the other spouse can't be entitled to have sex as little as they want.

The issue becomes clouded over what " a good reason" is. Validly, a good reason is actually that one person just doesn't want to. But where does that leave the other spouse?

The kicker to me is that people who are actually experiencing hurdles to physical intimacy are the ones working the hardest to maintain it. I used to work in sexual health, and had many clients with chronic illeness and disabilities that made sex (specifically intercourse) difficult if not impossible. Many of these folks and couples found other ways to keep their relationships physically quite tittilating. The difference is in a lot of these "normal" marriages, the intimacy just stops, along with most physical contact AT ALL, Only for the actual reason that one partner does not want sex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I'm a woman and I feel entitled to a certain level of sex and physical affection within my marriage. On demand, whether he is in the mood or not? No, but I would be pretty hurt if he withheld sexual and other physical affection.

I guess that makes me a monster, too.

If your H has cancer and is fighting for his life and puking in a bucket and can't get enough energy to care for his children and all you want is for him to put out a couple times a week... I guess you are.

Perhaps you can point out for me where in my post I said that I expect sex a couple of times per week under all circumstances, even when he is going through a possibly terminal health issue.

Projecting much?

Bolded it for you.

You bolded a statement, but not one that said I would expect it if my husband was dying. You are projecting beyond belief. Anyone with even a shred of common sense knows that there are many exceptions.

and anybody with a shred of common sense knows that many people have issues... exhaustion, a baby was just born, anxiety, depression, disabilities, etc. There are many issues that get in the way of sex. Cancer is one.

You did not say, I expect sex... except when you have a good reason to not have sex. that is a normal marriage. It's the entitled spouses that are the issue. That is what this thread is about. Why do people feel entitled to sex when their spouses have good reason why they don't want to or can't have sex as much as the spouse wants, why do they feel entitled to sex as often as they want and the other spouse can't be entitled to have sex as little as they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I'm a woman and I feel entitled to a certain level of sex and physical affection within my marriage. On demand, whether he is in the mood or not? No, but I would be pretty hurt if he withheld sexual and other physical affection.

I guess that makes me a monster, too.

If your H has cancer and is fighting for his life and puking in a bucket and can't get enough energy to care for his children and all you want is for him to put out a couple times a week... I guess you are.

Perhaps you can point out for me where in my post I said that I expect sex a couple of times per week under all circumstances, even when he is going through a possibly terminal health issue.

Projecting much?

Bolded it for you.

You bolded a statement, but not one that said I would expect it if my husband was dying. You are projecting beyond belief. Anyone with even a shred of common sense knows that there are many exceptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When my wife deemed it time to have kids, I felt pressured and used. All three times.

This should all be decided in advance of the marriage.

+1. Takes two to tango.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread really misses the mark. It talks of spouses wanting to have sex all the time, no matter what the circumstances, and feeling that they are entitled to it. In those situations I agree that is not cool to feel that you are owed that whenever you want.

That said, in marriages I feel that is a very small minority of the cases. The majority of situations are marriages where sex has slowed to a trickle or died off completely. As a husband who has had sex three times in the past two years, am I unreasonable to feel rejected, hurt and generally disappointed with my wife for this? I married my wife because I loved her, found her to be beautiful inside and out and never wanted to look at another woman again. I also expected that she would value me, respect me and take into consideration my feelings, including me desire for her and desire to have sex with her. What spouses not having sex feel is not blue balls, or "why is she not putting out as much as I want her to"; but rather "she just doesn't care enough about me to do something with me that she knows is important to me".

Let's say a woman had a really hard day, comes home to her husband for support and he says "I had a great day today, I'm sorry you did not but I don't really want to ruin my day by listening to what happened to you, maybe go call a friend for support." Now play that scenario over the course of weeks, months and or years. I would love to hear a woman on here say that she would be ok with that situation and that the wife should not feel "entitled" to that support from her husband. Counter how that is different than sex in the context of a long term committed relationship? It's not that men (or women in some cases) are super horny people that only care about their sexual satisfaction, but rather hurt, rejected and generally deflated by their spouse not wanting to participate in the one thing that only that spouse can provide. If you feel that is an ok way to go through a relationship with someone for the rest of your life that is fine, but I don't think that most people do.

The choice faced by spouses not having sex is to either give up on sex completely and live an unfulfilled life, break their marriage vows by cheating or blow up their lives and their children's lives completely by getting a divorce. The person denying sex is making the selfish choice to say "I understand you are not satisfied with how things are, but what I want is just more important and if you want to be in a sexual relationship you can alter your entire life to get it or just suck it up and deal." I don't think that expecting sex with your spouse is being entitled. It is expecting that they will care for you, value you and take your needs and desires into consideration. By not having sex the spouse is essentially saying "I care more about me than you, deal with it or leave". I have chosen to deal with it becuase I don't want my children to go through a divorce and multiple families, but I am unhappy and unfulfilled in my life. Yes I have the power to alter it by leaving, but there are other lives at stake and I will not hurt them for my own personal happiness. That is what spouses face, not feeling that they are "entitled" to sex because we are married.

eloquent and very well stated. very sorry for your situation PP.

+10000

- a dw and one who frequently calls the men complaining about sex here ridiculous and whiny. sex is a part of marriage unless something physically incapacitates you (and in that situation I would give my dh a hall pass frankly, although I don't think he'd take it). Physical intimacy is important, there's no way around it.

Anonymous wrote:If marriage doesn't entitle a man to sex, remind me why any man would agree to it?

If I gotta work for it anyway, might as well sleep around and avoid any chance of getting screwed in a divorce.

Absolutely right! Unless there is something else you are getting out of it, such as, you want children with a woman you are married to, you want a second income, you want a SAHM to take care of your kids, whatever your goals are, you should indeed NOT get married unless there is something in it for you that makes it worthwhile for you.
Before you get married you should talk about all of this including your expectations for sexual frequency and times when it will be lessened (breastfeeding, illness, post partum, menstruation (if that's important to either of you) etc.)

Anonymous wrote:When my wife deemed it time to have kids, I felt pressured and used. All three times.

This should all be decided in advance of the marriage.

Anonymous wrote:This thread really misses the mark. It talks of spouses wanting to have sex all the time, no matter what the circumstances, and feeling that they are entitled to it. In those situations I agree that is not cool to feel that you are owed that whenever you want.

That said, in marriages I feel that is a very small minority of the cases. The majority of situations are marriages where sex has slowed to a trickle or died off completely. As a husband who has had sex three times in the past two years, am I unreasonable to feel rejected, hurt and generally disappointed with my wife for this? I married my wife because I loved her, found her to be beautiful inside and out and never wanted to look at another woman again. I also expected that she would value me, respect me and take into consideration my feelings, including me desire for her and desire to have sex with her. What spouses not having sex feel is not blue balls, or "why is she not putting out as much as I want her to"; but rather "she just doesn't care enough about me to do something with me that she knows is important to me".

Let's say a woman had a really hard day, comes home to her husband for support and he says "I had a great day today, I'm sorry you did not but I don't really want to ruin my day by listening to what happened to you, maybe go call a friend for support." Now play that scenario over the course of weeks, months and or years. I would love to hear a woman on here say that she would be ok with that situation and that the wife should not feel "entitled" to that support from her husband. Counter how that is different than sex in the context of a long term committed relationship? It's not that men (or women in some cases) are super horny people that only care about their sexual satisfaction, but rather hurt, rejected and generally deflated by their spouse not wanting to participate in the one thing that only that spouse can provide. If you feel that is an ok way to go through a relationship with someone for the rest of your life that is fine, but I don't think that most people do.

The choice faced by spouses not having sex is to either give up on sex completely and live an unfulfilled life, break their marriage vows by cheating or blow up their lives and their children's lives completely by getting a divorce. The person denying sex is making the selfish choice to say "I understand you are not satisfied with how things are, but what I want is just more important and if you want to be in a sexual relationship you can alter your entire life to get it or just suck it up and deal." I don't think that expecting sex with your spouse is being entitled. It is expecting that they will care for you, value you and take your needs and desires into consideration. By not having sex the spouse is essentially saying "I care more about me than you, deal with it or leave". I have chosen to deal with it becuase I don't want my children to go through a divorce and multiple families, but I am unhappy and unfulfilled in my life. Yes I have the power to alter it by leaving, but there are other lives at stake and I will not hurt them for my own personal happiness. That is what spouses face, not feeling that they are "entitled" to sex because we are married.

eloquent and very well stated. very sorry for your situation PP.

This thread really misses the mark. It talks of spouses wanting to have sex all the time, no matter what the circumstances, and feeling that they are entitled to it. In those situations I agree that is not cool to feel that you are owed that whenever you want.

That said, in marriages I feel that is a very small minority of the cases. The majority of situations are marriages where sex has slowed to a trickle or died off completely. As a husband who has had sex three times in the past two years, am I unreasonable to feel rejected, hurt and generally disappointed with my wife for this? I married my wife because I loved her, found her to be beautiful inside and out and never wanted to look at another woman again. I also expected that she would value me, respect me and take into consideration my feelings, including me desire for her and desire to have sex with her. What spouses not having sex feel is not blue balls, or "why is she not putting out as much as I want her to"; but rather "she just doesn't care enough about me to do something with me that she knows is important to me".

Let's say a woman had a really hard day, comes home to her husband for support and he says "I had a great day today, I'm sorry you did not but I don't really want to ruin my day by listening to what happened to you, maybe go call a friend for support." Now play that scenario over the course of weeks, months and or years. I would love to hear a woman on here say that she would be ok with that situation and that the wife should not feel "entitled" to that support from her husband. Counter how that is different than sex in the context of a long term committed relationship? It's not that men (or women in some cases) are super horny people that only care about their sexual satisfaction, but rather hurt, rejected and generally deflated by their spouse not wanting to participate in the one thing that only that spouse can provide. If you feel that is an ok way to go through a relationship with someone for the rest of your life that is fine, but I don't think that most people do.

The choice faced by spouses not having sex is to either give up on sex completely and live an unfulfilled life, break their marriage vows by cheating or blow up their lives and their children's lives completely by getting a divorce. The person denying sex is making the selfish choice to say "I understand you are not satisfied with how things are, but what I want is just more important and if you want to be in a sexual relationship you can alter your entire life to get it or just suck it up and deal." I don't think that expecting sex with your spouse is being entitled. It is expecting that they will care for you, value you and take your needs and desires into consideration. By not having sex the spouse is essentially saying "I care more about me than you, deal with it or leave". I have chosen to deal with it becuase I don't want my children to go through a divorce and multiple families, but I am unhappy and unfulfilled in my life. Yes I have the power to alter it by leaving, but there are other lives at stake and I will not hurt them for my own personal happiness. That is what spouses face, not feeling that they are "entitled" to sex because we are married.

I like to roll my DW over in the morning and just bone away. She likes it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a young woman, I don't get it. Like did you get married solely thinking you would get laid regularly? Cause that just seems so... dumb. Messed up. Awful.

Then they put pressure on their wives, who dont feel like having sex, and try to coerce or pressure them into it. Why? Because the dude wants to have sex.

I see so much outrage about Brock Turner and no one seems to be talking about this different aspect of rape culture which is that husbands are entitled to their wives bodies? When they want it?

And it's so bizarre to me. Like.... how is this a thing? In today's modern world?

Women are still expected to lie back and think of England? For reals?

It's a result of a thousand years of patriarchy. Men until VERY recently have been conditioned to think that - and just think - many states don't consider rape with the context of marriage, rape - so if that's the culture you are living in, then that's how it's "a thing" - don't buy into it, make sure you date and perhaps marry a man who consistently gets consent and is concerned about YOUR feelings, orgasm, etc. and you likely will not be in the same position. Date a guy who expects you to give him a BJ so he doesn't get blue balls, pressures you for "one more kiss" or one more step forward on the bases, or otherwise denies your feelings, then you might end up in that kind of marriage.

+1 to the PP and OP. I find it very interesting how the comments on this thread reflect an ignorance of our history of sexual expectations in marriage and rape prosecution (or, non-prosecution, which may be more accurate).

From the early 1700s, English common law explicitly held that a husband could not be guilty of rape because in marriage a wife "hath given herself up to her husband, which she cannot retract." (from History of the Please of the Crown, 1736). For centuries afterward, English common law (and American) basically held that the wife had a duty to provide sex in the marriage and the husband could not be convicted of rape. Many of the PPs seem to be arguing something similar to this -- marriage is a contract that includes sex, although PPs vary as to how available the wife must be.

Not until the feminist movement's influence did states start criminalizing marital rape in the mid-1970s. North Carolina and Oklahoma were the last states to criminalize rape, and neither did so until 1993. Think about that. As little as 25 years ago, in some states a husband could not be prosecuted for having sex with his wife against her consent.

Even today there are a handful of states that prosecute marital rape but do so in a way that is quite different from non-marital rape. For example, in Ohio, as late as 2014 (and still today, I think), Ohio rape statutes are divided in such a way that one part applies to non-marital partners and the other to marital partners. This separation means that force or threat of force are required to prove marital rape, whereas force or threat of force is not required for non-marital rape. Also, if a spouse has sex with a marital partner who lacks the capacity to consent to sex because of diminished capacity thru illness or diminished mental capacity or thru the fact of being drugged or drunk, that spouse cannot be prosecuted for rape. In the same situation, but between two unmarried partners, a rape prosecution could occur. So, the Brock Turner example is very apt. If Brock Turner did what he did in Ohio to his wife, instead of a stranger, the state would not be able to prosecute him for rape, even if his wife did not consent to sex.

Also, in the states in which marital rape prosecutions require threat or use of force, an entire range of coercive acts leaves unpunished what would normally be considered rape if between two strangers.

IMO, the entire history of non-prosecution of rape occurred in a cultural milieu in which women were expected to have sex with their partners whenever the partner wants. That cultural milieu still exists today. That's why we call it "rape culture".

What OP is contemplating is exactly this lacunae in the law and our culture -- that it is still OK to expect a married person to have to have sex with his/her spouse even when they don't want to-- which stands in stark contrast, especially to those under 30, to the newly evolving norm of getting explicit sexual consent (the "yes" movement) prior to sex.

For more info, consider reading....

http://psychcentral.com/lib/marital-rape/ -- which says in part, "Being married doesn’t make any of the above [coercive] situations okay. Wives do not belong to their husbands. Sex is not a “right” that goes with marriage. It is not a wife’s duty. A woman does not give up her right to say yes or no the day she gets married. Sex should be based on respect, equality, consent, caring, and clear communication."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/09/marital-rape-is-semi-legal-in-8-states.html -- for more info about differential marital rape prosecutions.