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.

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?

I don't have a single friend that did this. This is rare and another way people are proving OPs point; another way to say it must be all the wife's fault.

What is *far* more common is that you are attracted when you get married and then things change...it could be kids, it could be mid-life crises, changes in people's bodies, whatever.

But the OP is really talking about marriages where the husband is a dick to the wife. In theory, she should just get out, but sometimes with kids it's not that easy.

I know several women who did this. It's not always because the panic over the clock running out. I know women who married men they were lukewarm about physically because the men had good earning potential.

I also know men who married women they barely knew because they were pretty. That didn't work out so well for them either.

I think there are plenty of cases of people (both men and women) marrying for reasons other than genuine love.

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.

Agreed. The whole, "whaaaaaa?! I've never heard that sex decreases after sex- how could I expect this?!" farce is so obviously false given the pop culture we live in...

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.

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.

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?

I don't have a single friend that did this. This is rare and another way people are proving OPs point; another way to say it must be all the wife's fault.

What is *far* more common is that you are attracted when you get married and then things change...it could be kids, it could be mid-life crises, changes in people's bodies, whatever.

But the OP is really talking about marriages where the husband is a dick to the wife. In theory, she should just get out, but sometimes with kids it's not that easy.

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

+1K

My wife constantly feels that I owe her to hear about her day. If I were to tell her I no longer wanted to hear about her day, this would make her very unhappy that I would now, after many years together, decide to stop meeting one of her important relationship needs. I should not be surprised if she withdraws, spends her time with other people, ignores MY relationship needs. This might ultimately lead to her choosing to end the marriage, so she can seek a new partner who wants to hear about her day.

Is that what you mean by men feeling they are owed some important need?

+1.

OMG STOP.

Men have needs. Women have needs. My needs are not your needs are not his needs or her needs.

A partnership, a marriage, is there to help you BOTH meet your needs. And if you don't help your spouse meet his/her needs you are doing a bad job at being a spouse! Whether that be sex, snuggling, childcare, or conversation. You work WITH your partner to meet his or her needs!

]

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 like the outsourcing thing. I'm tired of feeling guilty about something I'm not getting and waiting to get it. I'm going to start outsourcing it. Life is too short to be miserable.

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

+1K

My wife constantly feels that I owe her to hear about her day. If I were to tell her I no longer wanted to hear about her day, this would make her very unhappy that I would now, after many years together, decide to stop meeting one of her important relationship needs. I should not be surprised if she withdraws, spends her time with other people, ignores MY relationship needs. This might ultimately lead to her choosing to end the marriage, so she can seek a new partner who wants to hear about her day.

Is that what you mean by men feeling they are owed some important need?

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

+1K

Anonymous wrote:

Like another poster said: there is a LOT more to marriage than just sex. If your partner can't stand seeing musicals, or going fishing, you wouldn't have the slightest problem letting them find a friend to go to the theater or fishing with, would you? You can simply outsource that part of your marriage. If you aren't interested in sex, then outsource that too. Sex is different because people who have sex often catch feelings - more often anyway than with fishing or musical theater - but in truth: if you do too little of anything together, you risk growing apart and getting attached to the people you DO do things with.

I like that idea; you are outsourcing that part of your marriage. Those pesky feelings do get in the way, though, don't they?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

This is the heart of it. Indeed, unless you were asexual before the marriage, and were pretty explicit and open that that is how you are, then you created an expectation that the marriage contract, which included monogamy, also included sex. If you change that - your libido dries up and you just don't want sex anymore, then you've broken the contract. Did your marriage vows include celibacy? Nope. If people are going to be all legalistic and score keeping about it, the person who unilaterally withdraws from sex is the person who broke the contract, and once it's broken the other person is freed from the monogamy requirement. However, that's the kind of reasoning immature children use. Reasonable adults talk and arrive at compromises.

Anonymous wrote: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?

Like another poster said: there is a LOT more to marriage than just sex. If your partner can't stand seeing musicals, or going fishing, you wouldn't have the slightest problem letting them find a friend to go to the theater or fishing with, would you? You can simply outsource that part of your marriage. If you aren't interested in sex, then outsource that too. Sex is different because people who have sex often catch feelings - more often anyway than with fishing or musical theater - but in truth: if you do too little of anything together, you risk growing apart and getting attached to the people you DO do things with.

Anonymous wrote:It is also normal for the libido to decline as one ages. All the commercials for drugs to bring it back make it sound like it is abnormal.

A lot of shitty things "normally" happen as you age. That doesn't mean you have to accept them. We do a lot of things today that improve quality of life for people as they get older. Improving libido is just another one.