Men, women and sex

[MediumTex]

I also think that in some situations when a man may not be especially attractive to his wife because he is distracted, stressed out or discouraged, those can be the times when sex may actually be most important to the man because having sex helps to relax him, focus his mind, reduce his stress level, and get an intense form of validation that it may feel like the rest of the world is no longer giving him.  For a man in that situation, sex can also help to re-establish emotional connections that may have suffered because his stress level has caused him to become emotionally closed off to the people he actually cares about the most (see last paragraph below for more on this topic).

I believe that women experience depression in situations where men frequently experience anger.  A depressed person is normally seen as someone who needs love and care from others, but it's often less obvious that a person who is angry sometimes needs exactly the same things.

It's understandable that a woman might say: "I'm not going to have sex with him if he's not being nice to me", but she might be completely missing the idea that her husband isn't being nice to anybody because he is feeling overwhelmed by stress and possibly self-doubt as well.  When it comes to the latter in particular, getting the message from your partner that she has no desire for physical intimacy often only makes the self-doubt (and emotional distance) worse.

I think that what often happens is that men only become truly emotionally distant from their wives as a form of self-defense in an effort to protect their own sense of self-worth.  They do this because they know that they must maintain a baseline of self-confidence and self-esteem to perform at their job at a level necessary to support their families, and it would be impossible to protect their self-confidence if it was continually exposed to a romantic partner who seemed not care at all about the effects of rejecting him until his personality improves.

What this all points to, of course, is the idea that women should perhaps be willing to have sex with their husbands even when they may not feel that conditions are perfect.  From the man's perspective, he likely thinks that he does a lot of things that he may not always be in the mood to do, but he does them anyway because he doesn't want to let the people down who depend on him.

I don't think it's any accident that suicide rates are FAR higher for men than they are for women.  I think that men are expected to endure psychological stress without complaint that women are rarely expected to endure on their own.  Where a woman will frequently have many outlets for emotional support, only one of whom is her husband, for a man his wife is often his only true confidant, and when she is the one who is responsible for the psychological pain and isolation he is feeling, it can be very hard to open up to her about it completely.

I think that a blind spot in feminist thought is its lack of comprehension of the male psyche.  It's understandable that there would be a lack of curiosity or appreciation for how men see things if the conventional wisdom within your movement is that men are simple-minded creatures without the elaborate inner mental landscapes that women have, but I think that this tendency to overlook the idea that men have needs that only women can satisfy can do a lot of damage in a relationship.  Ironically, in their quest for respect and validation, women sometimes do the exact things that make men not respect them--i.e., not taking their relationship commitments seriously and not understanding that men have needs that are no less important than women's needs.

[jafs]

Men think about sex all the time, and women don't seem to do that.
Men have a reasonably strong desire for sex with a lot of different people, and women don't seem to have that as much.
Men have sexual desires that aren't linked closely with emotional connections, and women seem to have those much more linked.
Men often only have a physically intimate connection with women during sex, while women have other physically intimate connections.
Men think of sex as being about pleasure mostly, while for women it's connected with having/raising children.

I find your dog analogies somewhat demeaning and seriously flawed.

Also, much of your commenting about men and how they operate suggests to me that they could/should find better ways to do that.  For example, they should be in touch with a wider range of their emotions than anger, better at communicating, able to have physically and emotionally nurturing connections that aren't sexual, not tie their self-esteem to sex so strongly that it's threatened if their wife isn't in the mood, etc.

The idea that women should "give" sex to men has always seemed off to me - sex is a shared experience that should be entered into if/when both people are interested in it.  I suspect that framework ties back into times when women were financially dependent on men, and is basically a form of prostitution in which the man supports the women financially and in return the women has sex with him.  It's not a model I'm interested in at all.  And it's really odd to me to suggest that a woman should have sex with a man who's angry and being obnoxious - I wouldn't want to have sex with a woman who's being like that, would you?

[Gabe]

As a generalization, I imagine it's largely true. But I started to disregard most generalizations about women from my manosphere-reading days because I realized that I'm more interested in the exceptions than the herd, and spending too much time classifying/analyzing the herd makes it too difficult to avoid projecting those expectations onto the women that truly are different.

In my case, my girlfriend for sure has a higher sex drive than I do (and I'm no slouch) and it's such a core part of her personality that even later in life, I doubt it will change that much. She's fiercely independent and adventurous, and on that front might easily be confused for a feminist. But she's also very nurturing/affectionate and maintains some very traditional, anti-feminist attitudes (e.g. that a woman owes it to her man to stay fit or that a woman should have sex with her man even when she doesn't feel like it sometimes). She even surprised me with a ridiculously hot 19 year old for Valentine's Day .

[MediumTex]

Men think about sex all the time, and women don't seem to do that.
Men have a reasonably strong desire for sex with a lot of different people, and women don't seem to have that as much.
Men have sexual desires that aren't linked closely with emotional connections, and women seem to have those much more linked.
Men often only have a physically intimate connection with women during sex, while women have other physically intimate connections.
Men think of sex as being about pleasure mostly, while for women it's connected with having/raising children.

I agree with all of that.

I find your dog analogies somewhat demeaning and seriously flawed.

Can you elaborate?

Also, much of your commenting about men and how they operate suggests to me that they could/should find better ways to do that.  For example, they should be in touch with a wider range of their emotions than anger, better at communicating, able to have physically and emotionally nurturing connections that aren't sexual, not tie their self-esteem to sex so strongly that it's threatened if their wife isn't in the mood, etc.

Self-esteem is kind of like eating.  As long as you have a source of nourishment, it's no problem.  When the source of nourishment dries up, it can begin to undermine the whole organism.

It's not that sex is tied to self-esteem so much as the validation and approval that it represents in a relationship is always tied to self-esteem.

The idea that women should "give" sex to men has always seemed off to me - sex is a shared experience that should be entered into if/when both people are interested in it.

I totally agree.  What I was describing was the type of situation where it is being used by one party against the other in an unhealthy way. 

You can say something should be shared all you want, but if one party stops sharing as a calculated strategy, then it becomes a matter of trying to figure out when the sharing will resume.

And it's really odd to me to suggest that a woman should have sex with a man who's angry and being obnoxious - I wouldn't want to have sex with a woman who's being like that, would you?

I guess it would depend.  If I loved her and I was in a relationship with her, I thought it would help her feel better, and she said she wanted to, why wouldn't I?

[MediumTex]

She even surprised me with a ridiculously hot 19 year old for Valentine's Day .

Wow.  As I was reading your post, I wasn't expecting that.

I'll bet you weren't either.

[Cortopassi]

I don't even know what that means.  Doesn't sound like conservative values...   Did I accidentally end up on some porn forum?

[MediumTex]

I don't even know what that means.  Doesn't sound like conservative values...   Did I accidentally end up on some porn forum?

I don't either, but it sounds like she's a keeper.

[jafs]

As much as people may say "men are dogs", they're not.  And, the relationship between human beings is substantially different from the relationship between human beings and pets.  It's considered good to "train" a pet by many people, but the idea of "training" a spouse is off-putting and demeaning.

My sense of self-esteem, validation, approval, and nourishment isn't tied to sex in that way.  I have a lot of other sources of those, and that helps if a woman isn't in the mood for sex.  That's why I suggest men should find other ways to feel connected, nourished and supported in a relationship, and not put all their eggs in one basket.

Whether or not sex is being "withheld" as a strategy or something else is happening is often a matter of perspective - I can easily imagine a man feeling that it's being withheld as punishment, and being petulant about that, when that's not what's happening at all from a woman's perspective.  I've never felt that a woman is withholding sex from me to punish me, and generally have found women to be interested in having sex with me.

For me, it's a real turn-off.  And I don't many men who find PMS a turn-on 

[Libertarian666]

Does anyone want to take a shot at answering the question: "What are the differences in needs between men and women when it comes to sex?"

My answer would be that in the context of a long term relationship, a man's stress level and self-esteem are wired pretty tightly into sex as a physical outlet and as a method of re-establishing or strengthening emotional connections.  My belief is that men need it more than women in general, even though they may both need it and both enjoy it.

Yes, men need sex more than women do. This is the main cause for the disparity in power between men and women in relationships, especially in youth, as that is the time when the male sex drive is the most overpowering and female attractiveness is most powerful.

I think that men who don't get that form of validation and affection from their wives eventually find that it begins to undermine their self-confidence in other areas of life.  I think that's one of the things that makes it so dangerous when a woman either decides to use sex as a lever and a tool to get other things she wants, or simply stops showing any interest because she happens to not find her partner attractive at a given point in time.

Men must be very careful not to let their self-confidence be diminished by this, no matter how difficult that may be. If they do lose self-confidence, then the situation can spin out of control very rapidly due to the positive feedback loop of "man loses confidence, woman becomes less attracted as a result, lather, rinse, repeat".

As a useful metaphor, I always imagine a dog disappointing its owner and the owner withholding food as punishment.  At first, the dog is simply confused because he isn't making the connection between his misbehaviors and his sudden lack of nourishment, but more importantly over time the dog begins to get weak and desperate from hunger, at which point he becomes utterly un-trainable in any way because hunger begins to overwhelm his ability to think clearly about anything except food.

If the owner filled up the dog's bowl and showed it to him and then poured it back into the bag on a regular basis, I suspect that would only make things worse for the dog.  In any case, the owner would never get what he wanted from the dog because the punishment the dog was receiving would never get the dog closer to changing his behavior when it came to whatever it was that he was doing wrong in the first place.

Our social norms tell men that no matter how hungry they become when it comes to sex with their wife, they are supposed to endure and not complain.  Seeking sex outside the relationship is seen as a character flaw by society and as a betrayal by the woman, and begging for it within the relationship is often viewed by the woman as weakness, which turns her off more than ever.  For a man in those situations, it's the worst kind of double bind--whatever he does feels like failure, even though all he is trying to do is get one of his most basic needs met. 

Yep. That's why a man must not beg for sex.

Since the sexual needs of many women are less urgent than the needs of their husbands, sex can become the perfect siege weapon because it allows a woman to easily outlast her husband in her quest to get whatever it is that she is trying to get from him.  If she assumes that he is psychologically stronger than her, she might not even feel guilty about using sex as an emotional weapon.  I think that a lot of women would be shocked to know of the scale of mental havoc that can occur inside a man when he is physically rejected by the only person he actually loves and is attracted to.

Yes, I've heard some stories where a woman suddenly develops a very high sex drive near menopause, and she can't believe how much distress the slightest bit of rejection from her husbands causes her. If only women could experience this earlier in life, perhaps we would see less of this behavior in society.

I've always thought that the closest analog to a man being asked to live with a woman to whom he was attracted, but knowing that sex was being withheld as a form of punishment or simply as a form of neglect, would be if a man started giving his wife the silent treatment at the same time he stopped paying the bills when she was relying on him for financial support.  I think that the emotional and psychological damage would be similar in both cases.

Yes, but of course the law would be on her side in that case, as it is not on his side in the other case.

To return to the dog metaphor, I think that even if it worked, starving him to create the desired changes in his personality would be a questionable approach to training him, but if it didn't even work as a way of modifying behavior it would be hard to view it as anything other than cruelty.  If the person withholding the food said: "Well, I didn't know it was cruelty, the dog never told me that, and I don't understand dogs that well", something tells me that wouldn't hold much water for most people.  I think that most people would say that when you made the decision to get a dog you assumed the responsibility not to treat him that way even if he did disappoint you.

You might be amazed how little some people care about the analogous behavior, e.g., "All men are beasts, so if women make them suffer, what's the problem?"

If the dog finally decided to run away and his owner reacted by showing him a picture of the dog's puppies and told him that if he ran away the puppies would be starved just like him, would that make things better for the dog?  Would that help the dog to behave better?

No, but maybe throwing the dog into the pound for running away would help? :-(

The very best I think you could ever expect from starving a dog to make him act right would be to create an animal that had trouble trusting anyone, that became very aggressive when it came to food of any kind, and that no longer had many of the traits that might have made him a good pet to start with.

It's ironic that when you think of abuse in relationships, you often visualize a man abusing a woman.  The truth may be more along the lines of men are better at administering physical abuse that leaves marks because men tend to be abusive in the context of anger and rage when they aren't considering the consequences of their actions, but women may be better than men (or at least as good) at administering psychological and emotional abuse that leaves no physical marks, and which is administered in a more calculated and sophisticated way.

Absolutely.

To take a stab at the question of how a woman's need for sex in a relationship differs from a man's, I think it is similar, except women often don't experience the need for sex in as physical a way as men do (I'm just speculating there, of course).  Also, since men are less inclined than women to be stingy with sex, many women are probably never faced with the experience of having it withheld from them as a behavior modification tool.  I'm sure that when a woman finds herself in a marriage with a closeted homosexual man, she probably gets a taste of what it might be like for a man to be married to a woman who doesn't seem interested in an enjoyable sexual relationship with him.  For both sexes, I think that it chips away at self-esteem and undermines all forms of intimacy.

But that may not be right.  It's obviously a man's perspective.  Anyone want to suggest a different answer?

Sounds pretty accurate from this man's perspective.

[MediumTex]

As much as people may say "men are dogs", they're not.  And, the relationship between human beings is substantially different from the relationship between human beings and pets.

My sense of self-esteem, validation, approval, and nourishment isn't tied to sex in that way.  I have a lot of other sources of those, and that helps if a woman isn't in the mood for sex.  That's why I suggest men should find other ways to feel connected, nourished and supported in a relationship, and not put all their eggs in one basket.

I hope it didn't seem like I was suggesting that sex is the one basket in a relationship.  It's not, but it's something that should not be neglected on an ongoing basis by either partner.

Whether or not sex is being "withheld" as a strategy or something else is happening is often a matter of perspective - I can easily imagine a man feeling that it's being withheld as punishment, and being petulant about that, when that's not what's happening at all from a woman's perspective.

Please understand that I am talking about situations where that IS what is happening.  If it isn't clear that that is the case, then it's another situation and another discussion.

I've never felt that a woman is withholding sex from me to punish me, and generally have found women to be interested in having sex with me.

Well, that's good, but that would be like if we were having a conversation about falling off of buildings and you said you had never fallen off a building and weren't concerned about it happening to you, that really wouldn't move the falling off of buildings conversation forward very much. 

I am only bringing this topic up because our new member Michelle specifically referred to a situation where her husband was acting grouchy and rather than withholding sex she offered it generously (even though she might not have been in the mood due to his behavior) and found that this seemed to help restore him to the man she liked him to be.  I think that there is a lot of wisdom in that, not as a means of enabling bad behavior, but rather as a means of restoring a connection that seems to have been lost.

If you spent any time at all as a fly on the wall in a marriage counselor's office, you would hear story after story that roughly tracks what I am describing.  Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether a person believes they are using sex as a tool to get what they want from their partner, if that's the way it works in practice, then that's what's going on in the relationship.  I'm just saying that I don't think either partner in a relationship should do that.  I don't think it helps strengthen the relationship.

It's not just women.  I cringed every time Al Bundy held out on Peg.  I thought he was hurting himself at least as much as he was hurting her.

[MediumTex]

Men must be very careful not to let their self-confidence be diminished by this, no matter how difficult that may be. If they do lose self-confidence, then the situation can spin out of control very rapidly due to the positive feedback loop of "man loses confidence, woman becomes less attracted as a result, lather, rinse, repeat".

Yes, but I think that in many cases a man simply loves his wife too much to insulate himself emotionally in that way.  If you arrange your personality in a way that you make sure you never expose enough of yourself to someone for them to get a clean shot at your self-confidence, it's hard to fully open up to them, and opening up as fully as possible seems to be something that women really want from men.

I agree with you that protecting self-confidence is important for both parties in a relationship.  I'm just not sure exactly how you balance that with the need and desire for emotional intimacy.

If you are with someone who is mature enough not to hurt you even when they are upset or unhappy and they see a clean shot, that's good.  Unfortunately, lots of people are not that mature.

[jafs]

As much as people may say "men are dogs", they're not.  And, the relationship between human beings is substantially different from the relationship between human beings and pets.

My sense of self-esteem, validation, approval, and nourishment isn't tied to sex in that way.  I have a lot of other sources of those, and that helps if a woman isn't in the mood for sex.  That's why I suggest men should find other ways to feel connected, nourished and supported in a relationship, and not put all their eggs in one basket.

I hope it didn't seem like I was suggesting that sex is the one basket in a relationship.  It's not, but it's something that should not be neglected on an ongoing basis by either partner.

Whether or not sex is being "withheld" as a strategy or something else is happening is often a matter of perspective - I can easily imagine a man feeling that it's being withheld as punishment, and being petulant about that, when that's not what's happening at all from a woman's perspective.

Please understand that I am talking about situations where that IS what is happening.  If it isn't clear that that is the case, then it's another situation and another discussion.

I've never felt that a woman is withholding sex from me to punish me, and generally have found women to be interested in having sex with me.

Well, that's good, but that would be like if we were having a conversation about falling off of buildings and you said you had never fallen off a building and weren't concerned about it happening to you, that really wouldn't move the falling off of buildings conversation forward very much. 

I am only bringing this topic up because our new member Michelle specifically referred to a situation where her husband was acting grouchy and rather than withholding sex she offered it generously (even though she might not have been in the mood due to his behavior) and found that this seemed to help restore him to the man she liked him to be.  I think that there is a lot of wisdom in that, not as a means of enabling bad behavior, but rather as a means of restoring a connection that seems to have been lost.

If you spent any time at all as a fly on the wall in a marriage counselor's office, you would hear story after story that roughly tracks what I am describing.  Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether a person believes they are using sex as a tool to get what they want from their partner, if that's the way it works in practice, then that's what's going on in the relationship.  I'm just saying that I don't think either partner in a relationship should do that.  I don't think it helps strengthen the relationship.

It's not just women.  I cringed every time Al Bundy held out on Peg.  I thought he was hurting himself at least as much as he was hurting her.

Whether or not it's "happening" in reality isn't necessarily a simple thing to determine - that's what I'm saying.  People perceive and interpret things, they don't just see them clearly and realistically.

I don't think it's healthy for anybody to have sex if they don't want it - if a guy wants sex and a woman has sex with him, will it please him?  Almost certainly, but that's not a good enough reason for me if the woman doesn't want it as well.  I wouldn't ever want a woman to have sex with me if she didn't want it, just to please me or pacify me.  For one thing, if she's not enjoying it, I wouldn't enjoy it much either.

Maybe that's why I've never had any trouble finding women who wanted to have sex with me - if it's ok with a man for a woman to say no, it frees her up to also say yes, and then you can have great mutual sex.  I've been with a couple of women whose previous partners had found them uninterested sexually, but they seemed very interested with me.

I agree that we'd probably see a lot of this conversation in therapy sessions, and that sex is one of the important ways people connect in relationships.

But getting annoyed and acting as though you're entitled to sex regardless of how your partner feels seems rather childish to me.

[Pointedstick]

I feel much the same way about this:

I wouldn't ever want a woman to have sex with me if she didn't want it, just to please me or pacify me.  For one thing, if she's not enjoying it, I wouldn't enjoy it much either.

But what you say here isn't quite right:

I don't think it's healthy for anybody to have sex if they don't want it - if a guy wants sex and a woman has sex with him, will it please him?  Almost certainly, but that's not a good enough reason for me if the woman doesn't want it as well.

You're thinking of sexual desire in a very male-centric way: want vs not want. In my experience, female sexual desire is a bit different. It's not as simple as "I want sex" vs "I don't want sex." Those exist, but there's a huge middle consisting of "I wouldn't mind sex, and if it was already happening, I would enjoy it, but it wouldn't occur to me to initiate it." I've heard this described as "responsive desire": it only has the possibility to transform into "I want sex now" when there's a sexual input from a man. It seems that in some women, this is confusing, because it doesn't fit so neatly into the binary want vs not want, heavily choice-based moral system we live in, and if the man doesn't make that first move, the women may not recognize that if he did, they would both would enjoy it, so she doesn't.

[Libertarian666]

Men must be very careful not to let their self-confidence be diminished by this, no matter how difficult that may be. If they do lose self-confidence, then the situation can spin out of control very rapidly due to the positive feedback loop of "man loses confidence, woman becomes less attracted as a result, lather, rinse, repeat".

Yes, but I think that in many cases a man simply loves his wife too much to insulate himself emotionally in that way.  If you arrange your personality in a way that you make sure you never expose enough of yourself to someone for them to get a clean shot at your self-confidence, it's hard to fully open up to them, and opening up as fully as possible seems to be something that women really want from men.

I agree with you that protecting self-confidence is important for both parties in a relationship.  I'm just not sure exactly how you balance that with the need and desire for emotional intimacy.

If you are with someone who is mature enough not to hurt you even when they are upset or unhappy and they see a clean shot, that's good.  Unfortunately, lots of people are not that mature.

This is probably the bitterest part of the "red pill": that exactly when a man needs the most support from his wife, he is putting his marriage in danger by seeking it.

And in fact most women actually don't want their men to show vulnerability other than in a very superficial way. Oh, they may say they do, and if the man is a supreme alpha who almost never shows vulnerability, doing so on occasion may actually improve the relationship.

But most men, especially married men, aren't nearly that alpha, so showing vulnerability is very hazardous.

I wish this weren't true, but there's no gainsaying thousands of years of evolution that have selected for women who were turned on by might rather than rationality.

[jafs]

PS.

Well, there may be some grey areas, but I'd be very careful about those.  That's where women can easily wind up feeling coerced/manipulated into having sex they don't really want, and that's a bad thing in relationships.

Also, though it's a cultural norm for men to initiate sex, women can and should also feel free to do that, in my view.  They shouldn't always be in the position of either saying yes or no to men's initiation of sex.

[MediumTex]

Getting annoyed and acting as though you're entitled to sex regardless of how your partner feels seems rather childish to me.

I think that's a dangerous way to frame the issue.

I'm talking about situations where the expectation of exclusivity is being abused by one party to a relationship.

Do you think it would fly if a husband told his wife who was financially dependent on him that she was being childish because she got annoyed when he decided he wasn't in the mood to pay the bills anymore?

Using words like "childish", "entitled", and "annoyed" suggests a person has unrealistic expectations.  What I'm talking about are realistic expectations within the context of an exclusive relationship.

How would you react if your wife announced that she intended to gain 100 pounds just to see what it would be like?  Would that strike you as in any way inconsiderate of you and your expectations?  What if it was really what she "felt" like doing?  Would that make you feel better about her plans?

[jafs]

I think it's often the reality of the situation, and certainly happens at least as often as women withholding sex as punishment.

Equating paying the bills with having sex is a very bad analogy to me, and a man isn't dependent on a woman to satisfy his sexual desires in that way - he can always take care of those himself if she's not in the mood.  Sex in a committed relationship isn't a simple need satisfaction thing - it's more of a mutual joining.

Who decides what's "realistic"?

I've known men who actually said "If you love me, you'll have sex with me even if you don't want to" - isn't that the definition of rape?

[Libertarian666]

I think it's often the reality of the situation, and certainly happens at least as often as women withholding sex as punishment.

Equating paying the bills with having sex is a very bad analogy to me, and a man isn't dependent on a woman to satisfy his sexual desires in that way - he can always take care of those himself if she's not in the mood.  Sex in a committed relationship isn't a simple need satisfaction thing - it's more of a mutual joining.

Who decides what's "realistic"?

I've known men who actually said "If you love me, you'll have sex with me even if you don't want to" - isn't that the definition of rape?

No, that is not rape. Rape goes like this:

Man: We will have sex now (think Arnold Schwartzenegger voice, although of course I'm not saying he is a rapist)
Woman: No.
Man: (Holds her down and forces penetration.)

What you are talking about goes like this:

Man: We will have sex now.
Woman: I don't really want to, but ok.
Man: Mmmmm...

Is the difference clear enough?

[Cortopassi]

"I wouldn't mind sex, and if it was already happening, I would enjoy it, but it wouldn't occur to me to initiate it."

+1000

[MediumTex]

I feel much the same way about this:

I wouldn't ever want a woman to have sex with me if she didn't want it, just to please me or pacify me.  For one thing, if she's not enjoying it, I wouldn't enjoy it much either.

But what you say here isn't quite right:

I don't think it's healthy for anybody to have sex if they don't want it - if a guy wants sex and a woman has sex with him, will it please him?  Almost certainly, but that's not a good enough reason for me if the woman doesn't want it as well.

You're thinking of sexual desire in a very male-centric way: want vs not want. In my experience, female sexual desire is a bit different. It's not as simple as "I want sex" vs "I don't want sex." Those exist, but there's a huge middle consisting of "I wouldn't mind sex, and if it was already happening, I would enjoy it, but it wouldn't occur to me to initiate it." I've heard this described as "responsive desire": it only has the possibility to transform into "I want sex now" when there's a sexual input from a man. It seems that in some women, this is confusing, because it doesn't fit so neatly into the binary want vs not want, heavily choice-based moral system we live in, and if the man doesn't make that first move, the women may not recognize that if he did, they would both would enjoy it, so she doesn't.

Yes!

And what I am suggesting is that a woman should be careful not to create an environment where her husband decides it's no longer worth asking because everything else in the relationship isn't perfect at the time.

When a woman creates that kind of dynamic in her marriage, I believe it hurts both parties, not just the man.

That's the only point I am making.  I'm not arguing that a woman should ever have sex if she has absolutely no desire to do so.

[Libertarian666]

"I wouldn't mind sex, and if it was already happening, I would enjoy it, but it wouldn't occur to me to initiate it."

+1000

Yes, I see that PS has already explained that is called "responsive desire", which is very common in women.

That's why men who complain about their wives never initiating sex are being unreasonable, in my opinion.

[MediumTex]

Equating paying the bills with having sex is a very bad analogy to me, and a man isn't dependent on a woman to satisfy his sexual desires in that way - he can always take care of those himself if she's not in the mood.  Sex in a committed relationship isn't a simple need satisfaction thing - it's more of a mutual joining.

"I don't know why he wants to watch the 60 inch plasma television with me.  After all, we have that old 12 inch black and white in the basement."

I've known men who actually said "If you love me, you'll have sex with me even if you don't want to" - isn't that the definition of rape?

Would it be robbery for a woman to say: "If you love me, you will buy me the things I want, even if you don't want to"?

[Cortopassi]

"I wouldn't mind sex, and if it was already happening, I would enjoy it, but it wouldn't occur to me to initiate it."

+1000

Yes, I see that PS has already explained that is called "responsive desire", which is very common in women.

That's why men who complain about their wives never initiating sex are being unreasonable, in my opinion.

Looking up and reading about this responsive desire, which I have never heard of, wow, all I'll say is that reading through and sticking with this thread was well worth it!

[Gabe]

She even surprised me with a ridiculously hot 19 year old for Valentine's Day .

Wow.  As I was reading your post, I wasn't expecting that.

I'll bet you weren't either.

Nope. I came home to a note on the door "If you could have two of anything in the world, what would they be? [...]" I followed the trail of rose petals to her and this girl in matching lingerie making out on the bed. They both giggled and she said "Gabe, meet Hannah, your Valentine's Day gift." Pretty sure I was the luckiest guy in a tri-state radius on Sunday night.

Clearly she's marriage material .

[jafs]

Equating paying the bills with having sex is a very bad analogy to me, and a man isn't dependent on a woman to satisfy his sexual desires in that way - he can always take care of those himself if she's not in the mood.  Sex in a committed relationship isn't a simple need satisfaction thing - it's more of a mutual joining.

"I don't know why he wants to watch the 60 inch plasma television with me.  After all, we have that old 12 inch black and white in the basement."

I've known men who actually said "If you love me, you'll have sex with me even if you don't want to" - isn't that the definition of rape?

Would it be robbery for a woman to say: "If you love me, you will buy me the things I want, even if you don't want to"?

It can only be a mutual experience if both people are into it.

That wouldn't fit the definition of robbery, but it would certainly be somewhat analogous to me.  It's coercive and demonstrates no respect for the other person, and that you see them as simply a means to get your own needs met.

It would be a destructive element in a relationship.

But, it's also worth noting that having sex against your will is somehow different and probably worse than buying somebody a gift that way - it's a much more personal violation.