Hmm, the thing about animals though is that plenty of them never have sex? Or have it once in a lifetime? Or once a year? Nor is it, historically and cross culturally particularly unusual for significant groups of men to have little or no sex or not sex for decades etc. I would quibble with needs and wants but obviously I see that you’re using it as “needs to be happy” versus actual physical need.
The part that took me totally out of the essay in instant feminist rage was “help her with the kids” why in the world are the kids not 50% your responsibility after you come home from work?! I overall found it odd that no where here was actual workload mentioned - when I feel like whenever I’ve heard women discussing sex or relationships it super prominent. Sure, a lot of women want better or more emotional support from their men but an overwhelming majority want more childcare work and household work and feel like the resentment of this lack is killing their sex drive. The statistics say that married women are less happy than single women and vice versa for men. Finally, one of the reasons people don’t feel comfortable saying women need to give men sex is that giving sex they don’t want to give is a truly horrible experience for many women. Like an intensely traumatic one. Others just may not be able to do it. Having sex is not like doing the dishes, it’s intensely intimate personal and vulnerable. And “having” sex you don’t want is just not that distant from rape, which is no minor thing to endure. Having said all that I basically agree with you.
That was a confusing comment. At first I thought you hated me and what I wrote. It sounds like that's not the case which is pretty cool.
I tried to add some of this nuance to the piece - particularly about women not having to engage in any relationship at all with men who aren't good to them. I have seen far too many women in my life be abused my awful men and it boils my blood.
Also just for the record I do think men and women should be equal partners as parents. I guess I didn't explicitly say that.
I can see why that would be. I enjoy debate and argument but if there isn’t something interesting or true in the original post it’s not worth engaging with. I’m just a very critical person :).
I would say this is a critical point for heterosexual women and one of the main reasons they may be uninterested in sex in a monogamous relationship. If you have to look after a man like he is a baby along with the *actual* children and all the cooking and housework, all the time, while probably holding down a paid job, then I dunno about everyone else but at some point I’d be totally over that guy and definitely not interested in having sex with him. He’d actually give me major ick if he couldn’t pull his weight domestically.
I think just sheer, unadulterated exhaustion is killing most sex drives. The first year is a blur of sleep deprivation then it’s endless emotional availability while 70% of moms also work outside the home, managing the emotional demands of a workplace, before going home to manage the emotional demands of a home. Most wives /mothers need a year of unrestricted sleep and recuperation physically before anything else.
A husband who makes a half-hearted, performative swipe at her daily workload before flopping on the bed to add another 20 minutes to it is going to be seen as a burden *because that is what he is*….
Being anticipated happily by an exhausted, overworked human is an unrealistic expectation.
I typed a reply, but lost it to a misclick. :( Short version: if I didn't desire sex with men, I'd never have gone through the trouble of trying to find a decent partner.
And, if men really need sex with a happy, loving woman, we have to ask: why don't they do what they do with every other need they have, that is, find out how to satisfy the need and then work towards it? If a man needs this, maybe he could be an adult, not a big child that needs help(direction) with chores, at home?
Because our real purpose for being in his life is to flesh out a mini-hierarchy where he’s always on top of the “ladder.” And being on top of a hierarchy gives him entitlements to the lives and bodies of his “lesser” people. One of those entitlements is sexual access (but not sexual fidelity - one does not require restrictions on the behavior of one’s superiors).
A lot of men have hierarchical paradigms of life. A lot of women have very territorial paradigms. We can see what matters when we see what each sex is generally willing to unalive people over. Status loss is a big trigger for men (and marriages /access to female bodies and labor are status signals).
This implies that men’s lust doesn’t wither if they see their partner as a child, doesn’t it? Otherwise, you would said something like ’seeing your partner as a child kills the desire’, right?
More seriously, it’s difficult to want someone new who can’t tie his own shoestrings. New, because if you’ve loved someone a long time and they start getting a bit long in the tooth, they may well still stir the flames.
Just watch a romantic play or film! There’s not just a manual, there’s an entire library! It’s not that complicated really. Everyone wants to have good time, companionship and sex.
It sounds like you're really frustrated with how some men handle relationships. What do you think men could do differently to show they're responsible?
I don't know how to respond without sounding at least a little sexist.
How do we motivate someone to dedicate attention to other people's feelings such that they actually spend enough time to notice and consider them, if they aren't inclined that way normally?
Assuming the most frustrating men are the ones who are attentionally blind to women's emotions much of the time, it's a difficult task. If they ask to be taught like a child, it's a turn-off. If they stay oblivious, it's aggravating.
And why do I start at paying attention to emotions? Because that's the reason for caring about dirty socks on the floor, as well as what happens as a response to noticing sloppily done house work.
For such men, I'd say them going to their parents and ask for instruction on how to be a good, attentive, partner, would be a good start. Maybe even a Canadian psychologist, who knows! :D
Either way: yes, it's work to pay attention to stuff you don't intrinsically care about on your free time, but if you don't want to put in that work, try to find a partner who's okay with that. Nothing comes without a price, though... Being an inattentive partner means you'll be wanted for your dick (and thus replaceable, dick isn't a scarce resource) or something else quite potentially instrumental.
I'm assuming here that, once aware of the woman's feelings, he will expend some effort to meet her needs.
Maybe if his access to sex from her wasn't half hearted and performative he might want to do more chores.......see that works both ways. BTW you missed the whole point of the article and went straight to the 'poor women' bit, it's getting old and it's not working. It sounds like what these women need is a housekeeper or a maid not a husband.
It doesn't matter. Get a housekeeper and you still wind up having arguments about how clean the place is or isn't because I still somehow am not doing my share or because since we have a housekeeper now it means she no longer has any obligation to try to keep the place tidy.
From experience.
They want to be able to direct people more powerful than them. They enjoy that. A monster I control. That's how they get high. That intoxicates.
The "chores" are just one way they exercise their kink.
Chad, that sounds like a tough dynamic to navigate.
I find that it’s interesting how chores or household management can become about more than just the task—it’s often tied to deeper power dynamics or unmet needs.
Do you think this is more about control or frustration with perceived fairness in the relationship?
I think that's why they fetishize billionaires, royalty, vampires, and werewolves. Have you ever taken a look at Amazon data? Amazon can segment the data down to sex/gender and women have very interesting voluntary reading habits.
I think it's why they rescue pitbulls, and work so hard to have successful sons.
A monster I control.
Have you ever read anything about Olympias? Alexander the Great's mother?
That certainly has a ring of truth to it. The Amazon data is pretty irrefutable in that regard.
OTOH, is that really all that unique to women? Men love monsters also. That's a reasonable interpretation of men's love for big guns and powerful vehicles too, plus the numerous power trip wish fulfillment books we tend to enjoy. Our literary and film tastes likewise are full of men who are controlled monsters or otherwise have a monstrous aspect to them. Just look at the comic book movies: Batman, Hulk, Venom, Morbius...
Heck, I read a lot of LitRPGs with literally monstrous protagonists and one of my favorite songs actually happens to be "Monster" (by Skillet).
Doesn't pretty much everyone want the scariest person in the room to be, if not themselves, at least on their side?
It's like JBP's analysis of "The meek shall inherit the Earth". Meek meaning roughly "those who bear swords but keep them sheathed". A harmless man cannot defend against danger. A man without control is himself a danger. Only a man who is capable of both harm AND control can be a protector for others, thus a suitable father. I don't think it's so much a kink as an intuitively reasonable prerequisite for husband eligibility. Women SHOULD look for controlled monsters and men SHOULD seek to be one. In a sense, vice versa also applies: female aggression tends to be expressed somewhat differently, often more reputational, but a woman who won't defend her man's reputation or actively tears him down herself are just as disqualified from being sought as wife eligible. It's sexy AF when your wife stands up for what a great man she's got and rips into anyone unfairly insulting him. I think most men would happily walk across fire and broken glass to be with a woman who does that for him.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you, you just sparked some further thoughts.
This is so true. I basically agree with everything the article said, but the truth is, sometimes I haven't gotten a break all day, people need things at work, and then at home, and by the time the kids are in bed, it can feel like one more thing to take care of. Sometimes, there just aren't enough hours in the day, and you have to pick who's needs to meet at the end of the day. That said, I recognize the basic point of the article is solid, and also that sometimes you need to sacrifice your own needs to meet those of a partner.
This is the kind of comment I'm always hoping for. Fine-tuning, adding nuance, maybe even disagreeing, but grasping the overall point of what I was saying.
And for what it's worth, an exhausted mother doesn't owe anyone anything. Cheers to you for continuing to look out for everyone else's needs. That's fucking magical. That's what makes a home magical. Same goes for tireless fathers, even though that's less magical.
Your post illustrates how central the woman is to the home. Everything requires her participation, work and emotional acknowledgement. The exhaustion is real.
Well said Jennifer-Exhaustion really does seem to be the silent killer of intimacy.
When someone is running on fumes, the idea of adding more emotional or physical labor—no matter how well-intentioned—feels impossible. I think it’s not about rejecting the person, but survival.
Do you think most people underestimate how much mental load and sleep deprivation impact relationships?
You are right about the animals, but don't forget that most animals have a clear estrus, at which time all the males go crazy fighting each other over access, and they just completely ignore the females at all other times, at best, or bully and harrass them at worst, and also contribute zero to raising the young. Humans have concealed ovulation which is essentially a trick to make men ALWAYS interested bc they don't know when a woman is in estrus, so they pay attention to and want to be around women all the time, both to keep other men away and bc they have no idea exactly when the time is right.
I realize that's a very dark view, and sad that they had to basically be tricked in this manner to get them to not be as big of jerks as the males of most species, but it's true. Concealed ovulation is what allows women to captivate men consistently enough to keep them always working to keep their mate, rather than a one time wham bam thank you ma'am and I'll see you next year. 😊 If they didn't constantly want sex, it's not like they'd just be peaceably letting women be and not harassing them for sex, while still contributing and being motivated to stick around and help women. Instead you would just literally never see them except once a year and the rest of the time they'd be off doing whatever they do. Again, it's dark, but so is women evolving concealed ovulation to trick them in a manner that allows us to extract attention, labor, and resources from them. It is what it is.
I fully agree with you that if you pay attention to what women are constantly talking about with each other about what THEY want, help with childcare/around the house is far and away the biggest thing. In fact when I first read Justin's original draft I believe I commented to him that their main things were 1. Help around the house, 2. Being pleasant and not grumpy, and 3. Making an effort in bed. I think Justin's point is that men DO need to do their part to meet women's needs but that women often dismiss mens' main need as if it's tertiary or not as important to them. These things can easily turn into mutual-resentment doom loops with each party unwilling to give unless the other starts first. Better to try to keep things in a mutually reinforcing positive cycle in the first place, rather than getting stuck in a resentment spiral that can be feel impossible to extract oneself from.
Can confirm, your input clarified my view on what women's strongest needs are.
Which is why these conversations are so important in the first place - men and women aren't trying hard enough to understand each other. We're just sitting around hand-waving each other's needs as "insane." It's not helpful.
Humans but esp men are just not naturally monogamous. if it were up to them, yeah, they would fuck women and be free. but society needed to be tamed so they had to tame the men and women. anyways i have soooo much more to add but I’ll write about it later, this was great tho!!! seriously brilliant! the book Sex AT DAWN also speaks on this sexual evolution. Gorillas arent monogamous, they practice polygamy so theres one male and several females and he gets access to all of them, and there are no other males around. Then the bonobo monkeys who we’re also really close to are polyamorous but more so freaks and they all live together and fuck each other (lots of gay activity) and raise their babies together. i believe humans started off like this too.
I think it makes society profoundly more stable and also allows a lot of investment in children, both of which have allowed us to advance as far as we have. I don't think we would have anything close to the level of advanced civilization that we have if everyone was just constantly out looking for new mates to have sex with all the time their whole life, and putting low investment into their children. It's just a lot of energy and distraction. Monogamy in a certain sense frees up a lot of time that would otherwise be spent fighting and chasing after mates or mate guarding, which has allowed us to achieve incredible things in arts and sciences and peace. Not that that's the only factor, but it's a big one I think. That doesn't make it easy though, and people struggle with monogamy and long term commitment, and many fail to live up to their ideals or social expectations.
Nature gives us examples for almost every type of sexual relationship. In each case, only the best males get to mate and have their children survive. Do humans (men and women) have to accept that not everyone will get to mate?
This is such a fascinating take on human evolution and relationships—confronting but thought-provoking. Now concealed ovulation as a biological strategy definitely highlights the complexity of male-female dynamics across time. And you're right: without mutual effort, resentment spirals can form quickly...
Seahorses are used as an example exactly because they're an outlier species among millions. Anyway, I'm talking about mammals, which is what we are. Males contribute nothing whatsoever to raising young in 95% of mammals species. We are one of the 5%. Almost all monogamously mating for life species are birds.
I had previously read that chimpanzee fathers selectively play with their own offspring, but in trying to find that article again, I also found a bunch of articles saying that they don't do that, so I'm not sure.
But wolves mate for life, or close to it, and the males help raise the young. And nobody would claim that wolves (or dogs) have hidden estrus.
Yes, wolves, meerkats, some baboons and humans. There are a few species that live in families. It's just not the norm. Be glad that we are one of them! Things don't seem very nice for most of the rest. Moms do everything themselves, and the the males just wander around alone most of the time, occasionally getting into violent confrontations. It doesn't seem very enjoyable for either.
I appreciate your reality based perspective. Additional close comparisons to our primate cousins shows humans to generally be less than ideal but better than most; minimal infanticide, mixed monogamy, help rearing young, etc…
The vast majority of animal species have some sort of social structure. Just like in human societies there is a clear, bright line, connection between paternal certainty and male investment in offspring.
It's always interesting when people betray their biases. This argues as if most mammal species have patriarchal organization. Which is not true.
Not every mammal species links procreation with sex. Some species are sexual for recreation. Dolphins, some whales, and quite a number of primate species come to mind.
Also quite a bit of the bullying comes from the lead mare who pushes out adolescent males.
Quite a number of species (elephants, horses, whales) have matriarchs or operate as de facto matriarchies.
Just like males historically have been assumed to be poor caregivers because apparently women are "better" at that role.
Most of these assumptions are no better than wishful thinking in service of an ideology and find neither objective nor real-world support and collapse when exposed to scrutiny.
If having sex with her husband is “intensely traumatic” for women then that should be giving reason to reevaluate that relationship. Because otherwise it just sounds like an excuse, as in it wasn’t traumatic when they first met and started having sex, how could it be once they’re married (and presumably much more connected to each other)?! To say nothing of one night stands…
Yeah that’s not how women work at all. A woman can be super interested in having sex with a man on day X and not at all interested on day Y and interested somewhat on day Z, all the same man. I assumed that’s how humans work to be honest but whatever at the least I can speak about women. Now a majority of men can have sex they don’t really want to and be totally fine and a minority of women can do the same. Why she doesn’t want to have sex really doesn’t matter, depression, anger, just low arousal, not feeling sexual. For some women it would be painful but for most women it’s very emotionally unpleasant and in fact can poison future sex with that person - you’re learning to associate them touching you with negative emotion. Opposite of the goal.
This. Women have a month-long cycle, give or take, with peaks and valleys around desire. Men have a 24-hour cycle, give or take, with peaks and valleys around desire. Forcing either one to do something they don’t want to do is probably going to damage the relationship. Just wait for the next into-it phase to roll around.
Ok then, if often you find yourself not interested in sex with a given person or you now associate them touching you with negative emotion (per your example), that relationship may have run its course. Since I had to make it so precise.
If there’s little or no intimacy then, you’re roommates? I guess you can split the rent still.
Sure it might have. But if a woman doesn’t force herself to have sex when she doesn’t want to - even though it makes the man sad when she feels like no sex for a while - he can decide for himself if the relationship is worth staying in or not. He can always leave over not enough sex. If he does stay, next month the women might have another phase were she wants lots of sex with him! You’re the only one in this conversation saying things like “often” which is clearly subjective. All I’m saying is that for many women if she doesn’t want sex at all it’s a bad idea for her to force herself to have it and might actually hurt the chances of the relationship surviving.
I don’t think anyone is saying (myself included) that she should force herself to have sex. I’m just saying if it feels like it would need forcing might be worth contemplating if the relationship is healthy.
I would say Justin is seriously implying it and many couples counselors explicitly advise so - just do it, even if you don’t want to. And I think it’s not a bad idea for some women or if you’re totally neutral but forcing it while your body is saying nooo is terrible and this happens for reasons that have literally 0 to do with the relationship or the man.
For example very common for women with babies (or multiple children) to feel “touched out” and not want Brad Pitt to touch them. I mean yeah if the man manages to be more cuddly with the kids so they aren’t always wanting mom that would help the relationship but if we’re talking about divorcing every man who can’t manage that - divorce rates go way up!
My reply stands: if you don’t want to have sex with your husband you have some deeper issues and should question why you’re in that relationship (for your sake, if not his).
Beautifully conveyed. I restacked three quotes from this — two that resonated with me, and one with a note touching mostly on the part where this article doesn’t mention rape culture and women not having a strong sexual voice until recent years. And also, from which stats was the info drawn on these men who are afraid to express themselves sexually? I am nearly 55 and I don’t think I’ve met one.
I call bullshit on parts of this, you obviously didn't 'hear' what he was saying. He explicitly explained the attentiveness part and that if he is meeting your needs these are his. I think it's dishonest and an evasion of personal responsibility to immediately go to the having sex when I don't want to is like rape oh b******* it is! Have you ever been raped? Trust me it's not anything like rape and that's a terrible thing to say. The other point I want to make on the women and men should share child raising and housekeeping 50% is how many of you women work jobs like your husband does. I highly doubt you do and until you do you don't get to share everything 50/50. Life is not 50/50 what a stupid childish way to look at things and it is guaranteed to make sure you're never happy. You are entitled to your opinion but your comment goes against every piece of advice ever given by relationship experts and couples with good relationships. Lastly the entire point of his article is to have women try and look at things a little differently and understand how men work and you completely threw that out and just went into the old poor women thing, you didn't hear what he said obviously you didn't even try. This women vehemently disagrees with your statements!
YES! thank you! one third of women are sexually abused at some time, more often than not by a relative or trusted authority figure. and we wonder why many of us are skittish around men.
"The statistics say that married women are less happy than single women …"
Source? This one (link below) has chart showing "Women's Happiness by Marital Status and Children, Ages 18-55" shows between 84% and 87.1% of married women are "pretty happy" or "very happy", but single women are less so at between 75.4% and 77.3%. (In both groups, the women with children are happier.)
Surveys that contradict conventional ideas get press. Social science in general can be sketchy because the result is talked about so much but the way the study is designed is often a bigger factor in the result then the published summary. Of coarse that also applies to studies I agree with.
Do the stats really say that young single women are happier than young single men? Anecdotally, that doesn’t seem right. I know women are more than twice as likely as men to use antidepressants, which could just be an indictment on their relationships with men;)
And, I’m a happily married detective, so my exposure to young single women is limited to a rather unique lot.
According to this study, staying married tends to correlate with fewer depressive symptoms and better relationships, being unmarried can also lead to greater autonomy and personal growth. At the very least, it seems to be a mixed bag.
Also, Justin is pretty dead on with this, in my opinion. Men need sex. Men need to be better. Those previous statements out to be read in reverse order.
Really interesting report. I know very few happy continuously married couples sadly. As a 3 times formerly married , I would say my well being soars 300% between marriages :D so maybe I am just crazy to expect a different result each time!
Raping a child is one of the worst things a human can do to another human. I hope the beast was punished severely, chemical castration would be the absolute minimum.
Men are unbelievably pathetic. They are no longer legally allowed to rape their wives, so they resort to whining like this and trying to socially pressure women into having sex with their husbands even when they don’t want to.
Let me blow your mind: women also want sex with men. It’s just that most men are not good at sex. So if your wife doesn’t want to sleep with you very often, good chance it’s a skill issue.
God. you’re all such WHINERS. Cry harder that you can’t get away with forcing women to have sex with you.
It sure does but just in case it's gone over a few heads let me spell it out. Feminists are whiny bitches who can never be happy cause they bought into a stupid ideology the allows and encourages them to never take any personal responsibility for anything rather just to point fingers and blame others while being an unlikeable hypocrital screechy moron! Your welcome!
This is too harsh. I mean, read the story of feminism and see what positive political and economical influence feminists had given to this world. Such unthoughtful and insensitive comments just pours shitty light on everything people did. I mean, you yourself would have no voting power, or be considered rather as a thing than a person if not feminism back at those days. When we talk about todays realities - there are always people who go too far. Either its politics, religion or even passions. They just dont see anything around them, only a pure attack against them. So, even if i get what you say, dont should it out in such generalised way, because if the world turned around back again, you wish there were feminists in this world.
I'll grant you one thing only, I should have been more precise with my words. the feminists of my grandmother's day were a positive force but the feminists of today are exactly as I described.
Why the hostility, Liv? Life’s too short to be attacking people on the internet. I found the piece interesting, though I agree with your point about skill levels. More men definitely need better education about intimacy, but unfortunately, it’s often left to pornographers to teach young men about sex. The problem is that porn focuses on visuals rather than the emotional or practical aspects of connection.
Personally, I’ve always made an effort to read widely on a variety of topics, including intimacy, to gain a more well-rounded understanding.
I do have a question for you, though: what are your thoughts on the popularity of dark smut within female BookTok circles? Many of these readers identify as feminists, yet they seem drawn to content that I, as a man, often find macabre and over the top. At the same time, some of them criticize porn as degrading. I’d love to hear your perspective on this apparent contradiction.
LIke many feminists, you don't have a fucking clue about male sexuality -- or basic biology.
Female humans can conceive at most 1 child each year. Males, by contrast, can conceive 4 or 5 a day. And guess what? Evolution has molded their instincts to maximize that number -- and to maximize the number of genetic variations by having many different mates. If you don't get that, I recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. This is very simple evolutionarily biology. Amazing how many feminists are too stupid or ideologically blinded to understand these simple concepts.
Most women have no idea how relentless and ineluctable the male sex drive is. There is no comparison at all with women, whose evolutionary need to have sex is so minimal. I had a college roommate who would masturbate 5 times a day. Every single day. With an extra wank on weekends.
Talk to any ER doctor, and they can rattle off a hundred stories of males who have injured themselves with vacuum cleaners, gotten their penises stuck in various objects, or had various objects lodged in their rectums. They would be hard-pressed to tell you a single such story about women. And in those few cases, it was probably something a man did to them anyhow.
A researcher I know did a study of bestiality in North Africa, finding that 80% of the men in the area admitted to having sex with livestock. The other 20% were probably liars. Women polled at zero for this sort of activity.
This isn't just humans, by the way. It's all primates. Look at Goodall's research with chimps or de Waal's with bonobos. Same story. Again, females can have one child a year. Men can have hundres. That makes a big difference.
Human nature imbues us with all sorts of "base" desires. Civilization is about channeling and controlling those desires in positive ways. But that effort fails when we pretend that men and women are the same in all ways. Or when we demonize basic traits that evolution has built in over hundreds of millennia.
I do agree that many men are not emotionally capable (sometimes not physically able) to give their wives satisfying sex. And that part of the conversation is often overlooked by men.
As much as a woman might love her partner as a man, bad sex is not fun or inviting.
Yep, didn't it tho. Interesting that they think that single unmarried women are happier than married women when no studies back this up at all. Unhappy woman looking for someone to blame. That's the definition of a feminist.
Like the author aptly put, you may want to "go back to the children’s table so the rest of us can work on improving the real world. You can join the adults again when you’re ready to apologize."
You would know this if you read the article, but it seems like you may have missed the point madame.
I like all the points you made, yanina. Single women, single moms, divorced women are all 'happier' than married women and that doesn't reflect well on a society who established marriage as a key pillar.
Women’s need for sex is really not so different from men’s. I think if you flipped the sexes in your argument you might begin to understand why *pretending to enjoy sex (when you don’t actually want it)* is the fastest way to kill trust and affection. Your essay is full of the assumption that women don’t experience authentic desire, don’t experience sex as love, and that sex is therefore just something they should perform for their partner’s sake because his desire is more strong or emotional and her emotional world is not connected to sex. This simply isn’t true. Sex is emotional for everyone. There’s nothing wrong with wanting love, sex and expressing desire. There is something wrong with *demanding* your partner’s body as something you’re supposedly owed and being unable to accept when your partner is not in the mood. Also, we are not children! your partner is not your mother! We are adults, equals. If your partner cares for you and you care for them, there are lots of other ways to show love and appreciation, if one of you is not in the mood for sex or you have mismatched libidos. Good partnerships are built on trust or communication. Coercing women or suggesting they owe their partners sex does not encourage that.
On average Men have around 18 times the amount of testosterone women have (this is the hormone that is primarily responsible for libido in human beings) through out their life, starting from their teens all the way up to old age. In general it is impossible for women to consistently want sex as much as men.
I get that rejection is painful, I’ve experienced it. But I also don’t understand why people keep making this argument when you surely know that everyone has rights over their own body. It’s like, “maybe just a little bit of marital rape is fine?” Well... no, it’s quite straightforward.
Not explicitly, but there’s only one conclusion “men want sex more than women, so women basically owe it to them, even when they’re not feeling it” ends up getting to, and it’s not in a healthy, happy place with mutually fulfilling sex lives.
If a relationship is totally sexless, that is something for both parties to work on, as clearly the emotional relationship and trust has become obstructed in some way. But in a mature relationship both people should understand that they won’t always get what they want all of the time - because their partner is a person, not a vending machine. Penetrative sex is actually quite a big deal. It’s fun if you both want it. It’s not something your partner should be expected to fake-enjoy.
Maybe penetrative sex actually isn't as big a deal as certain forces within society have conditioned women to believe.
Thinking of prioritizing a partner's needs as "fake-enjoying" helps no one. We can't all always be precisely as horny as our partner, and sex that one partner wants more is not marital rape.
Maybe penetrative sex actually isn't as big a deal as certain forces within society have conditioned women to believe.
Thinking of prioritizing a partner's needs as "fake-enjoying" helps no one. We can't all always be precisely as horny as our partner, and sex that one partner wants more is not marital rape.
Not sure why this got dumped in my feed after three montsh of being posted, but hey.
What you write *feels* off, but I have to sit down and pour that into words properly.
But there's one thing that stands out:
"And what I can tell you is, if a man isn’t having sex, it’s profoundly unlikely he’s in a great relationship."
I daresay you cannot.
The reason why I *know* you can't is that I can tell you've never had a great relationship wherein sex was off the table because of medical conditions.
My relationship is pretty great, and I wouldn't want to trade it with any other, even if the alternative would involve sex.
I have found that men don't NEED sex. They WANT it, they CRAVE it. And yes, that includes me.
But we don't NEED it.
If you found the love of your life, and something happens to her brain that cancels out her sex drive completely, you're going to stick around.
What we NEED is love and acceptance. And there can be love and complete acceptance without hankypanky.
i read through this article, and while understanding the message, it also felt off to me. thank you for putting my thoughts into words!! ive been on medication that has killed my sex drive, and its made things very difficult, but a relationship doesnt just revolve around sex. this post tries to argue that we’re just stupid animals who Need to have sex all the time, when that’s not the whole picture
in contemporary life that are not referenced here. In the past, women did not have options. They were married, and they had to be with the man they were married to. Nowadays, that’s not the case. Any marriage or long-term relationship is transactional and can be easily terminated. Women are not and cannot be sexually attracted to men they don’t respect, men who don’t possess authority and strength, and the capacity to generate income. Women who work in the cash economy may find themselves possessing higher status, or greater ability to generate income than their husbands. In that case, frequently, they will not be able to be sexually attracted to their husbands. Also, if they are in the workplace, they may be attracting the attention of higher status men than their husband, they will find him comparatively unattractive, and not desire sex with him. These types of status disparities occur all the time these days, unlike in the past, and they are very significant in the sexual attraction that the woman will feel. In fact, the women will find often their husbands repellent where there are such status disparities. Also, women often settle for a man so that they can be impregnated before it’s too late, but don’t particularly like him, and once the goal of one or two children has been accomplished, his utility is exhausted and they are not interested in having intercourse with the man anymore. So, under contemporary circumstances there are lots of situations where women find that they cannot feel sexually attracted to their husbands. It becomes a chore for a woman in these circumstances to submit to sex with a man she is not attracted to, and they generally won’t do it.
In earlier times the well-being of the family required the husband to work and maintain his morale, so the woman had a stake in his physical and emotional wellbeing. The couple, and their children, rose or fell together. This is no longer true. If the man begins to fall short, the woman has other options. In fact, having her own professional career, and divorcing her husband, are higher status options than supporting his career, and staying married. Women receive approval, praise, and support when they divorce their husbands, particularly from their female friend and relatives.
It’s notable that when a man suffers a professional or financial setback, the very moment when he most needs love and support, The sex instantly dries up. The woman starts to look for ways to protect herself and her family from the consequences of the man’s professional or financial failure. This is a common phenomenon. A woman’s body, not just her mind and heart, have contempt for a failed man.
So, while your essay is valuable, and I believe completely accurate, as far as it goes, the problem is not entirely ignorance on the part of women about what men are like. It’s that their subjective motivations, and the actual feelings they experience, are quite different from what wives faced in marriages in earlier times. Status disparities, leading to a lack of sexual desire, are the inevitable consequence of female freedom. There is no going back.
Nonetheless, many women are ignorant of what men feel, and what they are like, and your essay, on the margin, could help people if they were aware of it, and open to the insights in it.
Finally, I have to think that 100 years ago women told their adult daughters when they were getting married about men and how they are. I suspect it was common knowledge until recently. We have forgotten all kinds of things that our ancestors knew.
Geez, this is long. But it was provoked by the high quality of your post.
Well for what it's worth I appreciate the long and thoughtful comment.
I don't have enough evidence to comment intelligently on the hypergamy side of things, or the modern tendency of women to ignore low-status marriages in favor of higher-status options. Although evolutionarily that would make sense, and anecdotally I can say I've seen it happen a number of times.
I do think women having more financial and social power, as it were, has crippled men in some ways and crippled sex itself.
I think people discount traditional gender roles in an effort to be moral, and throw out the baby of common sense with the bathwater of bad traditions. Men should earn more, and be strong and respectable, because yes I simply think that turns women on more. I don't even think that's controversial to say - it seems like common sense. Without women being attracted to their men, the entire social fabric falls apart and nobody can maintain a happy marriage.
Which isn't good for any of us.
Which is why one thing I think will begin to address these issues is for men to start trying to be excellent men. More so than ever before. That turns the whole thing positive-sum.
I appreciate a perspective that puts some burden on men to change rather than just railing against women. Traditional gender roles do have their place but as a woman it's hard to find a man that's both worthy of respect and has the desire for a relationship with me (or with anyone)
>Women are not and cannot be sexually attracted to men they don’t respect
So far true, I noticed it and never understood it and would appreciate if anyone could explain that without resorting to entirely speculative evo-psy, muh ancestral environment, or 1950's patriarchical bullshit.
>, men who don’t possess authority and strength, and the capacity to generate income.
No, that is either patriarchical bullshit or some kinky BDSM Dom fantasies about authority. My ex wife respected me because I can write well, she grew up in a small village, and her escape were books, so she really respects writers. A later girlfriend told me she respects and is attracted to traits like honesty, openness and self-reflection, which she thought I have.
In other words, each woman has her own personal status ladder to determine whom to respect.
Gender generalization is such a bullshit. It is as if like one would say all men work out and all women wear lipstick. So much untrue, it is crazy.
I think the evo psych stuff is not totally wrong, but there is also a LOT of guys that project the things that *they* value, admire, and respect about men onto women, and discount the things they don't. For example there are lots of studies showing that men consistently underestimate the premium women put on humor, kindness, reliability, and supportiveness. Because those aren't so much the things that men admire in other men, and there's a lot of projection there.
My mom left my very tall, very athletic and good looking, very high status and smart dad who was in every respect the typical "alpha male" type, for the guy who's now my step dad, who was shorter, fatter, balder, lower status, etc, and according to all the red pill theory stuff that is basically impossible and should never happen. Yet it did. And the reason is because my dad is a domineering asshole and my stepdad is a super nice guy who's laid back and enjoyable to be around. That kind of thing always just gets dismissed as if never happens.
Holy strawman! I know it might be a bit much to ask humble Substackers to diligently investigate the academic literature on this stuff beyond skimming a couple of Wikipedia pages, but haven’t derivative redpill memes like Alpha-fucks n Beta bucks permeated ‘round these parts yet?
Anyway, purely for the sake of dispelling some of the invidious insinuations being bandied about here about the evil ideology that must not be named, Women’s differing preferences in short-term dalliances and long-term relationships comports very nicely with acquiring “superior” genes (extraversion, ambition, confidence, height etc. that were and still are generally beneficial irrespective of contingent social arrangements) for their kiddos’ DNA while prioritizing resource provisioning, investment, stability and all that other wholesome jazz from upstanding step-dads of the Tim Walz variety. Frankly, this shoddy theory of mine seems like it could’ve fairly straightforwardly predicted all your folks’ behaviors before they ever even laid a gaze upon each other to me!
I know all about the red pill, I read WAY too much about it back circa 2012 when it was all being developed. Anyway my dad had way more money than step dad too, and my mom got nothing from him bc they split custody 50/50 and she felt too guilty to take anything in divorce. She's the one who moved into an apartment while he kept the house, etc. You're not wrong about the good genes part but step dad wasn't "provisioning" anything but being a fun, funny, nice enjoyable guy to be around, while my dad's an insufferable narcissist. Who also begged and pleaded with her for years to return to him...which at the time I was on his side and completely appalled she could leave my perfect father for this schlubby fat loser. However as an adult it's easy to see why, bc my dad's a jerk and my stepdad is cool as hell. I mean, whatever I love him bc he's my dad, but he is not a nice guy. Women cannot tolerate living with jerks for decades on end.
You all seem to expect intersexual selection to do all the work. Clearly this is the point where intrasexual selection comes in. The ancestral solution is for the “alpha” male to kick the “beta”’s ass.
Maybe each woman has her own personal status ladder, but a lot of them look pretty similar. I also agree that a person with an artistic vision, Or some other life project is seriously seriously committed to, has his own kind of strength, that at least one woman might be drawn to. By strength, I meant strength, across-the-board, not just the ability to benchpress a lot of weight. Strength of character would fall under that. Plus, of course we generalizing across huge groups of people and there are always lots of outliers. You can always find counter examples when you make generalizations. On the other hand, you have to make generalizations or the whole world is nothing but a bunch of random data points that don’t cohere into anything.
OMG, I can't believe I actually read this all the way through....you straight people are something else!!! Comparing a man listening to his wife with a woman being penetrated and potentially impregnated - sure, same thing buddy! Do you guys even like your wives? Listening to their day and feelings is a chore???!
"Without women being attracted to their men, the entire social fabric falls apart and nobody can maintain a happy marriage."
If I was a sad dude that couldn't get laid, I'd spend more time figuring out how to be an interesting person who adds something to someone elses's life. HINT HINT.
Oh this was good and as a woman, I agree with what you said. I was all for fucking my ex husband until i could no longer stand his broke mindset and thus lost respect for him while he was content with us sleeping on an old mattress after our bed broke (that I bought). so i divorced him and been way happier ever since!
Whether you are being ironic, or not, it would be better, for everyone if people were more honest about these feelings, even if the truth is ugly, and it hurts. I didn’t leave my comment to say, oh, poor men, we’re such victims, aren’t women awful? It’s more a matter of everybody understanding how they are realistically likely to feel about these things. If we talk about things that people often don’t talk about, if we had a little bit of preliminary awareness, we may end up treating each other a little better, which would be nice.
Thanks! I was 💯 for real, this is literally a true story and I pride myself on being real and saying the shit alot of people think but are too coward to say. We def have to speak up cuz thats the only way we’re gonna learn and understand each other.
Your comment is more realistic and helpful than the essay explaining why it would be good for everyone if men were not sexually frustrated. Rollo Tomasi and Rian Stone are the authors that best cover this topic in my estimation.
You seem to have ignored a lot of stats on eg domestic violence, and violence against women in general, the grossly uneven division of labour in home chores, life administration and parenting (though "helping her" with the kids after work definitely suggests that you see it as optional rather than a shared responsibility), and the orgasm gap for hetero couples.You also don't take into account that sex can be painful for a woman and runs significant additional risks for her reproductive health.
Your claims that women look to a man for strength and protection are not borne out by either the qualities many women actually look for or the experience we too often have of coercion and control.
So when you claim that women should cheerfully put out for men because the use of our bodies is a man's emotional umbrella, I feel pretty sick.
If more men treated women in a way that made them feel safe, respected, pleasured, and like an equal partner - instead of someone who owes him sex in addition to running and cleaning his home, raising his kids, and earning an income as well - they might find that women's sex drives are stronger than you assume.
I read it very carefully. Your essay was very soft on how men need to be better partners because it was so focused on how much men "need sex". The options for women seemed to be a/ hit the jackpot with a great partner b/ expect more of unwilling men and give them sex regardless of desire or c/ leave disappointing men (but recognise that men's sexual needs might then create social breakdown and sexual violence.)
You hit on the biggest flaw I found in this piece. So many words spent to say women need to willingly give men more sex, and so few spent on what women may need/want to get to that point. And those few words were either SO generalized or SO specific (I honestly couldn’t tell which) that if I were a man, I wouldn’t have had the first clue what to do. Here’s a clue: talk to your partner and find out what makes her feel respected, appreciated, and loved… and also find out what makes her feel like having sex. Hint, those might not be the same thing AT ALL.
It’s clear many women care to learn more about the perspective of the opposite sex with and open mind and did in fact read your piece. Many of these women are trying to provide feedback that takes into account a female perspective while not undermining your thesis and you seem to care more about the nuance you tried to provide being acknowledged than actually hearing us or learning in return.
It is strange that men want sex so much, but women who sleep around are looked down upon. The red pill community particularly goes hard on women. They claim men want virgins and women who have casual sex are used up. Men often don't respect the women who give it up easy. This perhaps even unconsciously makes women less likely to give it up. Marriage is a whole nother thing. Most wives are tired and drained. The way society is, most people are drained. Men seem to get rejuvenated by sex, while some women who are drained feel it is yet another chore. Of course the marriage dynamics matter too.
Men want to sexually monopolize a woman (and vice versa). They want her to be slutty for them only, so they don't have to compete with other men. Both sexes would prefer to restrain the behavior of the other and not their own, to make things easier for themselves.
"Slutty" is the wrong word, or just a comical way to say "sexy". It's the same as a woman appreciating a man that's capable of violence but not aggressive or threatening to her.
That view comes from a transactional view of sex, if one assumes women want sex less than men do, it is logical that women are "selling", exchanging sex for something else (attachment, commitment, attention) and thus selling it "cheaply" implies it is low-value sex. Hence such prejudices. It is like when you slap a $10 label on an $50 wine, people like it less - proven in experiments.
This is why the exact parallel of the "slut" is the "simp", again the same logic, a "cheap" man, who is shamed because he "pays" things like attention without even receiving sex in return, hence, low-value.
As a man who DOES only want sex and doesn't care about status except instrumentally, I think men like me would be well-served by abolishing slut-shaming and the status implications of who sluts fuck. Sluts could do a valuable public service by keeping low-status men sexually satisfied.
Yes Justin, it was good for me to read as a reminder. Because I know it's ungenerous and unappreciative for me to sometimes get annoyed by the mister's advances, but it does happen occasionally, so thanks for reminding me to get my mind right.
Though whenever I forget, and complain about him being amorous, he always says the same thing: "I'm not going to apologize for being attracted to my wife. Would you prefer it if I *didn't* want you?" And that always makes me laugh and have to concede that that is a very good point indeed!
I mean that's totally fine if you don't feel pressured to do anything you don't want to do... My girlfriend also has a higher libido and sometimes she really has a way of waking mine when I thought I wasn't in the mood. But that's a fine line and I'm glad to know I can always say "sorry, I just can't go there right now".
Of course. It's all a compromise, no one's going to be magically fully aligned all the time. Kind of funny because I had a different note making a joke about my husband pretending he's sex-starved (which absolutely is not true, it's just kind of a schtick) and there I got yelled at by a bunch of men saying I don't like sex and turn him down all the time. You can't win, lol. Everyone takes things to extremes or projects their own insecurities.
If you read carefully what you wrote you'll see that you're not making an argument that men desire sex. "inside the average man, somewhere, is the fantasy of being a powerhouse of sexual conquest and having women submit before him." That sounds like sex cause sex is involved but if you look carefully it's actually about status.
The whole game is that men feel low status and the way they prove to themselves and the world that they aren't is by having women have sex with them. The problem is that this game doesn't work, not cause women won't have sex with them but because it's irrelevant. The whole argument in the essay isn't that men should be allowed to visit prostitutes or whatever, because they don't count. The ask is that women effectively pretend that their men have high status by having sex with them. They can't do it out of pity or obligation or money, because then theres no status evidence. If that's how modern men operate and they feel like losers and need Andrew Tate to tell them how to be alpha then yea, it's cause they are.
Plenty of high status men have poor relationships with their wives (dead bedroom is one symptom) and plenty of low status men have great relationships with their wives.
As to your footnotes; the face-saving ways of saying no aren’t just feminine social niceties… by the time we are 16, we have most all learned that “no” is possibly dangerous. Of course most men are decent human beings, but by 16 I learned to wear an engagement ring. “No” was just an invitation to harassment (some of which was absolutely terrifying), while “I belong to another man” was respected.
100%. So many men do not understand that gentle ways of extricating oureselves from a situation without “humiliating” a man by disagreeing with him or declining his request (neither of which are actually humiliating to someone who isn’t centering their own ego), are because we have learnt that getting away from a dangerous situation is the most dangerous time, and we don’t know which men are going to turn an everyday situation into a dangerous one. And yes, too many men only accept a woman’s no if it is framed as already being “owned” by another man 😢
I agree with Yanina, a previous poster, about men helping with the kids and housework. Nothing makes a woman feel less supported than feeling as though these responsibilities are hers alone by default. That goes for stay at home moms, as well, who need a break at night just as much as men do.
I also agree with part of the idea (again from Yanina) that women giving sex when they don’t feel like it is unpleasant. (I wouldn’t go so far as saying horrible and certainly not akin to trauma or the rape experience, but definitely not pleasant) As she mentioned, sex feels very intimate and personal for women, and if a woman feels as though she is expected to provide sex even when she doesn’t feel like it, it’s not enjoyable; it’s work. It would be like if a woman expected a man to tell her he loves her a certain number of times a day or week. He can say the words, but he might start to resent the expectation that he must say the words. It would feel forced and it would be annoying. And saying I love you is obviously a lot less physically and mentally demanding than sex is.
Finally, I’d like to point out the obvious anatomical difference of sex for men and women, at the risk of sounding a bit graphic. When women have sex with men, they are literally receiving a man’s body part. It can feel very invasive if you’re not emotionally or physically in the right place. And that is just not an experience that men can relate to. Men can have sex without an emotional component (even when in a positive loving committed relationship) without a problem, and they can be physically exhausted and still be very happy to have sex. It’s a totally different experience for women. When women are exhausted and/or feeling emotionally alone or cut off, sex is the last thing we’re interested in.
This is true. There are a lot of compromises that are necessary to be in a successful relationship. The author of this article did specify that men want women to want to have sex with them, though.
When I've been with a woman with a higher sex drive, never has it crossed my mind that I should feel offended, insulted, or to consider myself objectified or dehumanized.
You’re a man. I wouldn’t expect the typical man to feel those things. The entire premise of the article we’re responding to is that men and women value different things and see/feel things differently. The author is explaining the man’s point of view. My comment was meant to explain the woman’s side of the story. Either you trust that men and women are different and have different experiences of sex and life or you don’t. (Unless you believe that the man’s view of things is the only view in the equation that matters.)
I'm not the typical man; I have an extra X chromosome. My testosterone is naturally low enough that I qualify as a woman by NCAA standards (womp womp). I'd say I have as balanced a view on libido as anyone but a FtM. They take “testosterone horniness” as seriously as they take “PMS hormones.”
Thank you for writing this piece! I think it captures the male perspective very well and articulates it in a way that should be insightful to women (if they’re open minded). In that sense it’s well balanced! Hopefully it helps a bunch of relationships!
And you’re absolutely right that we’re profoundly unserious as a society these days, about so many things! Maybe you should write a series of articles on various topics that we’re unserious about. Whether you do or not, you still earned at least 1 subscriber here, fwiw.
Only thing I’d quibble on the is the 3 months without sex part. Thankfully even most women don’t have that low desire for sex. I think…😬
Women actually dont need to give men sex. Men need to find ways to be fufilled without that or
get into loving relationships where women also want sex with them(you forgot the part where women have sexual desires too). It is not womens job to take care of men and biologically this is also not true: your biology argument just doesnt hold up. I would advise doing some actual research before sitting down to write. Dont blame women for “sexually frustrated” men because then you are blaming women for what these men do. Rape? Murder? Harassment? Are these women’s faults for not submitting to their man sexually? Please. I do think there is definitely a conversation to be have about certain dating cultures we have though.
To be fair, you didn’t make it clear that your essay was talking only about sex in a long term, monogamous relationship. though that did seem to be the case.
but women still dont owe men sex. if that is a part of the healthy relationship, sure, but in the context of this essay he wasnt talking about that. it is literally not womens job to “put out” so that men are satisfied or not sexually frustrated. also you sound like a middle schooler with that terminology. i am in a monogomous relationship by the way……
You clearly have no understanding of female sexuality and appear to be completely incurious about *why* women would stop “giving” their long term partners sex. Also I find it truly impossible to believe that you or many of the commenters here think the average woman doesn’t know men “need” sex when this message is so pervasive in wider culture and within heterosexual relationships.
Setting aside the issue of housework (which many commenters have brought up), it seems like most men (definitely not all) are incapable of understanding and empathizing with how horrible it feels to have sex when you are not able to become aroused. You write about duty sex as if it is something women purposefully and evilly inflict on their partners, rather than spending even a second to contemplate how miserable that must be for the woman performing duty sex, and how selfless it is of her to perform acts she is actively averse to.
Speaking from personal experience, I actually have a somewhat higher sex drive than my boyfriend, but occasionally for no discernible reason my body will simply not become aroused. In this state, the mental and physical experience of sexual interactions is intensely gross, disturbing, and upsetting—it’s completely intolerable. Luckily for me this is an infrequent occurrence, but it serves to remind me how complicated and fickle sex, sexuality, and arousal can be.
I have endless empathy for women who provide “duty sex”—I don’t believe I could suffer through. And I have endless disdain for the men who pressure their unenthusiastic partners into technically consensual but unenthusiastic sex, and are then confused as to why the woman doesn’t see sex as “loving” anymore.
This is all not to say that having a strong sexual relationship is not a good and desirable thing, I actually completely endorse couples working together to figure out mismatched libidos, but simply telling women that men “need” sex and thus they have to do it is not going to make anyone’s panties wet.
I recommend the Dr. Psych Mom podcast for good takes on this topic—she has actionable and empathetic advice for both husbands and wives. Also contrary to the discussions in the comments, she believes and has helped many couples come back from a duty sex hell—just because a woman has lost her sex drive at one point in a relationship does not at all mean that the relationship is over or that she no longer loves her partner, as many comments seem to be implying.
You're grossly exaggerating the extent to which I was saying women should "just give" sex to their husbands/boyfriends.
I don't like it when women aren't sexually cared for, and I don't like it when men don't take the proper time to make sure their wives *feel* intimate with them. I don't excuse men from having to care for their wives as human beings. I think I made this all quite clear in the piece.
“That last bit is important: to be happy in doing so.
There is nothing more depressing than duty sex — the lazy, “just to shut him up” handjob. That’s the saddest and most pathetic way to try to keep a man happy. You’re not letting him relish in it — you’re making him feel pathetic, like some sort of beggar. And then, like a man who just got off to some horrible obscure kink on PornHub, he now has to sit in the shame and filth of a self-demeaning orgasm. The tragic aftermath of a sexual release that wasn’t even good for him.
This is how men lose themselves: when sex is turned into a shameful cycle instead of an act of love. If you teach a man to hate himself for needing sex, at first he’ll probably resent you… but eventually he actually will hate himself. Not only for needing sex from someone who doesn’t want to give it to him, but for letting that happen in the first place.”
Exactly as I said in my comment above, what you wrote displays 0 empathy for the woman in this situation, and no curiosity on why she is performing unenthusiastic duty sex or how she feels about it. You’re blaming women “for teaching men to hate themselves” because they didn’t have unwanted sex enthusiastically enough. All your focus is on how terrible the man feels when obviously a woman performing duty sex is not feeling great in the first place!
You pay lip service to women’s feelings, but only as it relates to her husband emotionally supporting her, that’s not what i’m talking about. I’m talking about how little you seem to care or understand women’s experience of sex. If you did care about how horrible it is for women to perform duty sex there is no way you would have written this section this way.
Telling women “be happy in doing so” is absolutely useless if not actively dangerous advice that does nothing to address the root cause of sexless relationships/a woman’s low sex drive.
If it was made so clearly in your piece I don’t think so many real life women would be bringing up this point and similar ones. Reading through these comments you seem incredibly dismissive of any comments that disagree with you or offer differing female perspectives. You say you wanted to open up a discussion for both sides to understand each other but are only willing to really listen to those that align with your beliefs. I agreed with some of your points and disagreed with others and I think a lot of good ones have been brought up by commenters but it’s disappointing to see a lot of your responses.
My responses to civil, reasonable comments have all been civil and reasonable. Whether they agreed or disagreed with me.
But no, I don't have any patience for angry comments, comments that make me seem like some kind of insensitive clown, or comments that try to re-make points of nuance that I myself have already made. Because all those people want is to fight. And that includes comments from both men and women.
It’s hard to be a woman. I’m in menopause now and my libido is shot. Men probably don’t know what that feels like but I’ll just say that it feels like a switch has been turned to “off.” Duty sex exists for a reason. Women experience the switch turned off feeling, some more than others, and to know that you just can’t deliver the “happy to” sex you’re saying is needed is a terrible feeling!!!! I feel like I suck right now. My body isn’t sexy, I don’t feel like having sex, yet I know your article is true. I just want you to understand that it’s very difficult. And I can’t take estrogen. I start testosterone soon and hope that it helps. Being a woman is tough.
Wow everyone trying to outsmart you in the comments but I just came here to say... thank you. I cried reading this. My marriage will be better going forward because of it. I think that porn culture and the Tate-type men have really confused women (me) when it comes to understanding male sexuality. Because none of that looks like love. It looks like lust and domination and conquest and often pain and humiliation (these genres of porn are ascendant).
Your description of the woman's body as home and sex as love is certainly true (I can see now) for my husband, but he's never articulated that and I've never seen it put like that before. I get so overwhelmed with motherhood and work and day-to-day tasks that his sexual needs do often feel like yet another burden, another demand placed upon me.
I really appreciate you taking the time for this comment. That's very meaningful to me. We can all do a better job (as both husbands and wives), and if this helped spark something for you then I'm glad.
Hmm, the thing about animals though is that plenty of them never have sex? Or have it once in a lifetime? Or once a year? Nor is it, historically and cross culturally particularly unusual for significant groups of men to have little or no sex or not sex for decades etc. I would quibble with needs and wants but obviously I see that you’re using it as “needs to be happy” versus actual physical need.
The part that took me totally out of the essay in instant feminist rage was “help her with the kids” why in the world are the kids not 50% your responsibility after you come home from work?! I overall found it odd that no where here was actual workload mentioned - when I feel like whenever I’ve heard women discussing sex or relationships it super prominent. Sure, a lot of women want better or more emotional support from their men but an overwhelming majority want more childcare work and household work and feel like the resentment of this lack is killing their sex drive. The statistics say that married women are less happy than single women and vice versa for men. Finally, one of the reasons people don’t feel comfortable saying women need to give men sex is that giving sex they don’t want to give is a truly horrible experience for many women. Like an intensely traumatic one. Others just may not be able to do it. Having sex is not like doing the dishes, it’s intensely intimate personal and vulnerable. And “having” sex you don’t want is just not that distant from rape, which is no minor thing to endure. Having said all that I basically agree with you.
That was a confusing comment. At first I thought you hated me and what I wrote. It sounds like that's not the case which is pretty cool.
I tried to add some of this nuance to the piece - particularly about women not having to engage in any relationship at all with men who aren't good to them. I have seen far too many women in my life be abused my awful men and it boils my blood.
Also just for the record I do think men and women should be equal partners as parents. I guess I didn't explicitly say that.
I can see why that would be. I enjoy debate and argument but if there isn’t something interesting or true in the original post it’s not worth engaging with. I’m just a very critical person :).
"I'm just a very critical person."
You are . . . and a mental case.
👀
I would say this is a critical point for heterosexual women and one of the main reasons they may be uninterested in sex in a monogamous relationship. If you have to look after a man like he is a baby along with the *actual* children and all the cooking and housework, all the time, while probably holding down a paid job, then I dunno about everyone else but at some point I’d be totally over that guy and definitely not interested in having sex with him. He’d actually give me major ick if he couldn’t pull his weight domestically.
I think just sheer, unadulterated exhaustion is killing most sex drives. The first year is a blur of sleep deprivation then it’s endless emotional availability while 70% of moms also work outside the home, managing the emotional demands of a workplace, before going home to manage the emotional demands of a home. Most wives /mothers need a year of unrestricted sleep and recuperation physically before anything else.
A husband who makes a half-hearted, performative swipe at her daily workload before flopping on the bed to add another 20 minutes to it is going to be seen as a burden *because that is what he is*….
Being anticipated happily by an exhausted, overworked human is an unrealistic expectation.
I typed a reply, but lost it to a misclick. :( Short version: if I didn't desire sex with men, I'd never have gone through the trouble of trying to find a decent partner.
And, if men really need sex with a happy, loving woman, we have to ask: why don't they do what they do with every other need they have, that is, find out how to satisfy the need and then work towards it? If a man needs this, maybe he could be an adult, not a big child that needs help(direction) with chores, at home?
Because our real purpose for being in his life is to flesh out a mini-hierarchy where he’s always on top of the “ladder.” And being on top of a hierarchy gives him entitlements to the lives and bodies of his “lesser” people. One of those entitlements is sexual access (but not sexual fidelity - one does not require restrictions on the behavior of one’s superiors).
A lot of men have hierarchical paradigms of life. A lot of women have very territorial paradigms. We can see what matters when we see what each sex is generally willing to unalive people over. Status loss is a big trigger for men (and marriages /access to female bodies and labor are status signals).
This doesn’t sound like my idea of good time. At all.
Hmm, I agree with you.
What are some of the territorial paradigms of women that you have observed?
Heavy emphasis on the big child. If women start seeing men as a big kid, that will kill her sex drive.
This implies that men’s lust doesn’t wither if they see their partner as a child, doesn’t it? Otherwise, you would said something like ’seeing your partner as a child kills the desire’, right?
More seriously, it’s difficult to want someone new who can’t tie his own shoestrings. New, because if you’ve loved someone a long time and they start getting a bit long in the tooth, they may well still stir the flames.
“Find out how to satisfy the need” we try! Trust me I’ve spent my whole life trying to figure that out but women are very difficult to understand
Just watch a romantic play or film! There’s not just a manual, there’s an entire library! It’s not that complicated really. Everyone wants to have good time, companionship and sex.
It sounds like you're really frustrated with how some men handle relationships. What do you think men could do differently to show they're responsible?
I don't know how to respond without sounding at least a little sexist.
How do we motivate someone to dedicate attention to other people's feelings such that they actually spend enough time to notice and consider them, if they aren't inclined that way normally?
Assuming the most frustrating men are the ones who are attentionally blind to women's emotions much of the time, it's a difficult task. If they ask to be taught like a child, it's a turn-off. If they stay oblivious, it's aggravating.
And why do I start at paying attention to emotions? Because that's the reason for caring about dirty socks on the floor, as well as what happens as a response to noticing sloppily done house work.
For such men, I'd say them going to their parents and ask for instruction on how to be a good, attentive, partner, would be a good start. Maybe even a Canadian psychologist, who knows! :D
Either way: yes, it's work to pay attention to stuff you don't intrinsically care about on your free time, but if you don't want to put in that work, try to find a partner who's okay with that. Nothing comes without a price, though... Being an inattentive partner means you'll be wanted for your dick (and thus replaceable, dick isn't a scarce resource) or something else quite potentially instrumental.
I'm assuming here that, once aware of the woman's feelings, he will expend some effort to meet her needs.
Huh?
Maybe if his access to sex from her wasn't half hearted and performative he might want to do more chores.......see that works both ways. BTW you missed the whole point of the article and went straight to the 'poor women' bit, it's getting old and it's not working. It sounds like what these women need is a housekeeper or a maid not a husband.
It doesn't matter. Get a housekeeper and you still wind up having arguments about how clean the place is or isn't because I still somehow am not doing my share or because since we have a housekeeper now it means she no longer has any obligation to try to keep the place tidy.
From experience.
They want to be able to direct people more powerful than them. They enjoy that. A monster I control. That's how they get high. That intoxicates.
The "chores" are just one way they exercise their kink.
Chad, that sounds like a tough dynamic to navigate.
I find that it’s interesting how chores or household management can become about more than just the task—it’s often tied to deeper power dynamics or unmet needs.
Do you think this is more about control or frustration with perceived fairness in the relationship?
A monster I control.
That's one of their favorite things.
I think that's why they fetishize billionaires, royalty, vampires, and werewolves. Have you ever taken a look at Amazon data? Amazon can segment the data down to sex/gender and women have very interesting voluntary reading habits.
I think it's why they rescue pitbulls, and work so hard to have successful sons.
A monster I control.
Have you ever read anything about Olympias? Alexander the Great's mother?
Man that's some interesting reading.
"A Monster I control"
That certainly has a ring of truth to it. The Amazon data is pretty irrefutable in that regard.
OTOH, is that really all that unique to women? Men love monsters also. That's a reasonable interpretation of men's love for big guns and powerful vehicles too, plus the numerous power trip wish fulfillment books we tend to enjoy. Our literary and film tastes likewise are full of men who are controlled monsters or otherwise have a monstrous aspect to them. Just look at the comic book movies: Batman, Hulk, Venom, Morbius...
Heck, I read a lot of LitRPGs with literally monstrous protagonists and one of my favorite songs actually happens to be "Monster" (by Skillet).
Doesn't pretty much everyone want the scariest person in the room to be, if not themselves, at least on their side?
It's like JBP's analysis of "The meek shall inherit the Earth". Meek meaning roughly "those who bear swords but keep them sheathed". A harmless man cannot defend against danger. A man without control is himself a danger. Only a man who is capable of both harm AND control can be a protector for others, thus a suitable father. I don't think it's so much a kink as an intuitively reasonable prerequisite for husband eligibility. Women SHOULD look for controlled monsters and men SHOULD seek to be one. In a sense, vice versa also applies: female aggression tends to be expressed somewhat differently, often more reputational, but a woman who won't defend her man's reputation or actively tears him down herself are just as disqualified from being sought as wife eligible. It's sexy AF when your wife stands up for what a great man she's got and rips into anyone unfairly insulting him. I think most men would happily walk across fire and broken glass to be with a woman who does that for him.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you, you just sparked some further thoughts.
Is it like taming the beast?
A housekeeper is a great idea.
I reckon most would prefer a maid
Heidi, it sounds like you're feeling really frustrated with some relationships. What do you think could help make things better for everyone?
This is so true. I basically agree with everything the article said, but the truth is, sometimes I haven't gotten a break all day, people need things at work, and then at home, and by the time the kids are in bed, it can feel like one more thing to take care of. Sometimes, there just aren't enough hours in the day, and you have to pick who's needs to meet at the end of the day. That said, I recognize the basic point of the article is solid, and also that sometimes you need to sacrifice your own needs to meet those of a partner.
This is the kind of comment I'm always hoping for. Fine-tuning, adding nuance, maybe even disagreeing, but grasping the overall point of what I was saying.
And for what it's worth, an exhausted mother doesn't owe anyone anything. Cheers to you for continuing to look out for everyone else's needs. That's fucking magical. That's what makes a home magical. Same goes for tireless fathers, even though that's less magical.
Your post illustrates how central the woman is to the home. Everything requires her participation, work and emotional acknowledgement. The exhaustion is real.
Well said Jennifer-Exhaustion really does seem to be the silent killer of intimacy.
When someone is running on fumes, the idea of adding more emotional or physical labor—no matter how well-intentioned—feels impossible. I think it’s not about rejecting the person, but survival.
Do you think most people underestimate how much mental load and sleep deprivation impact relationships?
You are right about the animals, but don't forget that most animals have a clear estrus, at which time all the males go crazy fighting each other over access, and they just completely ignore the females at all other times, at best, or bully and harrass them at worst, and also contribute zero to raising the young. Humans have concealed ovulation which is essentially a trick to make men ALWAYS interested bc they don't know when a woman is in estrus, so they pay attention to and want to be around women all the time, both to keep other men away and bc they have no idea exactly when the time is right.
I realize that's a very dark view, and sad that they had to basically be tricked in this manner to get them to not be as big of jerks as the males of most species, but it's true. Concealed ovulation is what allows women to captivate men consistently enough to keep them always working to keep their mate, rather than a one time wham bam thank you ma'am and I'll see you next year. 😊 If they didn't constantly want sex, it's not like they'd just be peaceably letting women be and not harassing them for sex, while still contributing and being motivated to stick around and help women. Instead you would just literally never see them except once a year and the rest of the time they'd be off doing whatever they do. Again, it's dark, but so is women evolving concealed ovulation to trick them in a manner that allows us to extract attention, labor, and resources from them. It is what it is.
I fully agree with you that if you pay attention to what women are constantly talking about with each other about what THEY want, help with childcare/around the house is far and away the biggest thing. In fact when I first read Justin's original draft I believe I commented to him that their main things were 1. Help around the house, 2. Being pleasant and not grumpy, and 3. Making an effort in bed. I think Justin's point is that men DO need to do their part to meet women's needs but that women often dismiss mens' main need as if it's tertiary or not as important to them. These things can easily turn into mutual-resentment doom loops with each party unwilling to give unless the other starts first. Better to try to keep things in a mutually reinforcing positive cycle in the first place, rather than getting stuck in a resentment spiral that can be feel impossible to extract oneself from.
Can confirm, your input clarified my view on what women's strongest needs are.
Which is why these conversations are so important in the first place - men and women aren't trying hard enough to understand each other. We're just sitting around hand-waving each other's needs as "insane." It's not helpful.
What you said literally nailed it!!!
Humans but esp men are just not naturally monogamous. if it were up to them, yeah, they would fuck women and be free. but society needed to be tamed so they had to tame the men and women. anyways i have soooo much more to add but I’ll write about it later, this was great tho!!! seriously brilliant! the book Sex AT DAWN also speaks on this sexual evolution. Gorillas arent monogamous, they practice polygamy so theres one male and several females and he gets access to all of them, and there are no other males around. Then the bonobo monkeys who we’re also really close to are polyamorous but more so freaks and they all live together and fuck each other (lots of gay activity) and raise their babies together. i believe humans started off like this too.
Such an intriguing perspective—our evolutionary roots definitely make modern monogamy seem more like a societal construct than a natural default.
Sex At Dawn dives deep into this, and it’s fascinating how different primates handle relationships and mating.
Hmmm... Do you think our social structures are more about controlling behavior, or about fostering stability for survival?
I think it makes society profoundly more stable and also allows a lot of investment in children, both of which have allowed us to advance as far as we have. I don't think we would have anything close to the level of advanced civilization that we have if everyone was just constantly out looking for new mates to have sex with all the time their whole life, and putting low investment into their children. It's just a lot of energy and distraction. Monogamy in a certain sense frees up a lot of time that would otherwise be spent fighting and chasing after mates or mate guarding, which has allowed us to achieve incredible things in arts and sciences and peace. Not that that's the only factor, but it's a big one I think. That doesn't make it easy though, and people struggle with monogamy and long term commitment, and many fail to live up to their ideals or social expectations.
Nature gives us examples for almost every type of sexual relationship. In each case, only the best males get to mate and have their children survive. Do humans (men and women) have to accept that not everyone will get to mate?
This is such a fascinating take on human evolution and relationships—confronting but thought-provoking. Now concealed ovulation as a biological strategy definitely highlights the complexity of male-female dynamics across time. And you're right: without mutual effort, resentment spirals can form quickly...
That would come as a big surprise for those species that mate for life and those seahorses where the males all the work. This is bad biology.
Seahorses are used as an example exactly because they're an outlier species among millions. Anyway, I'm talking about mammals, which is what we are. Males contribute nothing whatsoever to raising young in 95% of mammals species. We are one of the 5%. Almost all monogamously mating for life species are birds.
I had previously read that chimpanzee fathers selectively play with their own offspring, but in trying to find that article again, I also found a bunch of articles saying that they don't do that, so I'm not sure.
But wolves mate for life, or close to it, and the males help raise the young. And nobody would claim that wolves (or dogs) have hidden estrus.
Yes, wolves, meerkats, some baboons and humans. There are a few species that live in families. It's just not the norm. Be glad that we are one of them! Things don't seem very nice for most of the rest. Moms do everything themselves, and the the males just wander around alone most of the time, occasionally getting into violent confrontations. It doesn't seem very enjoyable for either.
I appreciate your reality based perspective. Additional close comparisons to our primate cousins shows humans to generally be less than ideal but better than most; minimal infanticide, mixed monogamy, help rearing young, etc…
The vast majority of animal species have some sort of social structure. Just like in human societies there is a clear, bright line, connection between paternal certainty and male investment in offspring.
Solitary species are the minority.
It's always interesting when people betray their biases. This argues as if most mammal species have patriarchal organization. Which is not true.
Not every mammal species links procreation with sex. Some species are sexual for recreation. Dolphins, some whales, and quite a number of primate species come to mind.
Also quite a bit of the bullying comes from the lead mare who pushes out adolescent males.
Quite a number of species (elephants, horses, whales) have matriarchs or operate as de facto matriarchies.
Just like males historically have been assumed to be poor caregivers because apparently women are "better" at that role.
Most of these assumptions are no better than wishful thinking in service of an ideology and find neither objective nor real-world support and collapse when exposed to scrutiny.
Great comment!
If having sex with her husband is “intensely traumatic” for women then that should be giving reason to reevaluate that relationship. Because otherwise it just sounds like an excuse, as in it wasn’t traumatic when they first met and started having sex, how could it be once they’re married (and presumably much more connected to each other)?! To say nothing of one night stands…
Yeah that’s not how women work at all. A woman can be super interested in having sex with a man on day X and not at all interested on day Y and interested somewhat on day Z, all the same man. I assumed that’s how humans work to be honest but whatever at the least I can speak about women. Now a majority of men can have sex they don’t really want to and be totally fine and a minority of women can do the same. Why she doesn’t want to have sex really doesn’t matter, depression, anger, just low arousal, not feeling sexual. For some women it would be painful but for most women it’s very emotionally unpleasant and in fact can poison future sex with that person - you’re learning to associate them touching you with negative emotion. Opposite of the goal.
This. Women have a month-long cycle, give or take, with peaks and valleys around desire. Men have a 24-hour cycle, give or take, with peaks and valleys around desire. Forcing either one to do something they don’t want to do is probably going to damage the relationship. Just wait for the next into-it phase to roll around.
Chemical contraceptives reduce a woman’s libido and increase depression. Read Rachel Hills book Your brain on birth control
Ok then, if often you find yourself not interested in sex with a given person or you now associate them touching you with negative emotion (per your example), that relationship may have run its course. Since I had to make it so precise.
If there’s little or no intimacy then, you’re roommates? I guess you can split the rent still.
Sure it might have. But if a woman doesn’t force herself to have sex when she doesn’t want to - even though it makes the man sad when she feels like no sex for a while - he can decide for himself if the relationship is worth staying in or not. He can always leave over not enough sex. If he does stay, next month the women might have another phase were she wants lots of sex with him! You’re the only one in this conversation saying things like “often” which is clearly subjective. All I’m saying is that for many women if she doesn’t want sex at all it’s a bad idea for her to force herself to have it and might actually hurt the chances of the relationship surviving.
I don’t think anyone is saying (myself included) that she should force herself to have sex. I’m just saying if it feels like it would need forcing might be worth contemplating if the relationship is healthy.
I would say Justin is seriously implying it and many couples counselors explicitly advise so - just do it, even if you don’t want to. And I think it’s not a bad idea for some women or if you’re totally neutral but forcing it while your body is saying nooo is terrible and this happens for reasons that have literally 0 to do with the relationship or the man.
For example very common for women with babies (or multiple children) to feel “touched out” and not want Brad Pitt to touch them. I mean yeah if the man manages to be more cuddly with the kids so they aren’t always wanting mom that would help the relationship but if we’re talking about divorcing every man who can’t manage that - divorce rates go way up!
You nailed it—sex is so deeply tied to emotional context, especially for many women.
I believe that forcing or ignoring those feelings creates a negative association that can be hard to undo.
It’s not about excuses; it’s about understanding the emotional and physical connection. Agree?
She didn't say that sex *with the husband* is traumatic, she said sex you *don't want to have* can be.
My reply stands: if you don’t want to have sex with your husband you have some deeper issues and should question why you’re in that relationship (for your sake, if not his).
Beautifully conveyed. I restacked three quotes from this — two that resonated with me, and one with a note touching mostly on the part where this article doesn’t mention rape culture and women not having a strong sexual voice until recent years. And also, from which stats was the info drawn on these men who are afraid to express themselves sexually? I am nearly 55 and I don’t think I’ve met one.
I call bullshit on parts of this, you obviously didn't 'hear' what he was saying. He explicitly explained the attentiveness part and that if he is meeting your needs these are his. I think it's dishonest and an evasion of personal responsibility to immediately go to the having sex when I don't want to is like rape oh b******* it is! Have you ever been raped? Trust me it's not anything like rape and that's a terrible thing to say. The other point I want to make on the women and men should share child raising and housekeeping 50% is how many of you women work jobs like your husband does. I highly doubt you do and until you do you don't get to share everything 50/50. Life is not 50/50 what a stupid childish way to look at things and it is guaranteed to make sure you're never happy. You are entitled to your opinion but your comment goes against every piece of advice ever given by relationship experts and couples with good relationships. Lastly the entire point of his article is to have women try and look at things a little differently and understand how men work and you completely threw that out and just went into the old poor women thing, you didn't hear what he said obviously you didn't even try. This women vehemently disagrees with your statements!
YES! thank you! one third of women are sexually abused at some time, more often than not by a relative or trusted authority figure. and we wonder why many of us are skittish around men.
yanina, You raise some crucial points here, especially about workload and its impact on relationships.
I find that resentment from unequal labor at home is such a common thread, yet it’s often overlooked in these discussions.
And you’re absolutely right—sex isn’t a chore; it’s deeply personal, and pushing for it in the wrong context can cause real harm.
Do you think societal expectations of gender roles are shifting enough to address these imbalances?
"The statistics say that married women are less happy than single women …"
Source? This one (link below) has chart showing "Women's Happiness by Marital Status and Children, Ages 18-55" shows between 84% and 87.1% of married women are "pretty happy" or "very happy", but single women are less so at between 75.4% and 77.3%. (In both groups, the women with children are happier.)
https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-is-happiest-married-mothers-and-fathers-per-the-latest-general-social-survey
Surveys that contradict conventional ideas get press. Social science in general can be sketchy because the result is talked about so much but the way the study is designed is often a bigger factor in the result then the published summary. Of coarse that also applies to studies I agree with.
Do the stats really say that young single women are happier than young single men? Anecdotally, that doesn’t seem right. I know women are more than twice as likely as men to use antidepressants, which could just be an indictment on their relationships with men;)
And, I’m a happily married detective, so my exposure to young single women is limited to a rather unique lot.
If you have time, and are really bored, I found this study pretty interesting: https://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/2084.pdf
According to this study, staying married tends to correlate with fewer depressive symptoms and better relationships, being unmarried can also lead to greater autonomy and personal growth. At the very least, it seems to be a mixed bag.
Also, Justin is pretty dead on with this, in my opinion. Men need sex. Men need to be better. Those previous statements out to be read in reverse order.
I’m going to go work out now.
Really interesting report. I know very few happy continuously married couples sadly. As a 3 times formerly married , I would say my well being soars 300% between marriages :D so maybe I am just crazy to expect a different result each time!
Thanks for pointing this out. I find it quite appalling that this whole article came with no discussion of sexual trauma.
Women ☕️
You can’t understand male urges, don’t attempt to.
Raping a child is one of the worst things a human can do to another human. I hope the beast was punished severely, chemical castration would be the absolute minimum.
Totally agree, stupidest take ever!
Men are unbelievably pathetic. They are no longer legally allowed to rape their wives, so they resort to whining like this and trying to socially pressure women into having sex with their husbands even when they don’t want to.
Let me blow your mind: women also want sex with men. It’s just that most men are not good at sex. So if your wife doesn’t want to sleep with you very often, good chance it’s a skill issue.
God. you’re all such WHINERS. Cry harder that you can’t get away with forcing women to have sex with you.
Thank you for the feedback.
Here's how you can prove you are an ally for women. Go ahead and take the time to block and/or respond to all the misogynist comments on your post.
I love this comment because it explains what Justin was talking about perfectly.
It sure does but just in case it's gone over a few heads let me spell it out. Feminists are whiny bitches who can never be happy cause they bought into a stupid ideology the allows and encourages them to never take any personal responsibility for anything rather just to point fingers and blame others while being an unlikeable hypocrital screechy moron! Your welcome!
This is too harsh. I mean, read the story of feminism and see what positive political and economical influence feminists had given to this world. Such unthoughtful and insensitive comments just pours shitty light on everything people did. I mean, you yourself would have no voting power, or be considered rather as a thing than a person if not feminism back at those days. When we talk about todays realities - there are always people who go too far. Either its politics, religion or even passions. They just dont see anything around them, only a pure attack against them. So, even if i get what you say, dont should it out in such generalised way, because if the world turned around back again, you wish there were feminists in this world.
I'll grant you one thing only, I should have been more precise with my words. the feminists of my grandmother's day were a positive force but the feminists of today are exactly as I described.
I guess we could into a back and forth discussion, but I get what you say
*shout
That’s what you took from the piece? How sad :(
Why the hostility, Liv? Life’s too short to be attacking people on the internet. I found the piece interesting, though I agree with your point about skill levels. More men definitely need better education about intimacy, but unfortunately, it’s often left to pornographers to teach young men about sex. The problem is that porn focuses on visuals rather than the emotional or practical aspects of connection.
Personally, I’ve always made an effort to read widely on a variety of topics, including intimacy, to gain a more well-rounded understanding.
I do have a question for you, though: what are your thoughts on the popularity of dark smut within female BookTok circles? Many of these readers identify as feminists, yet they seem drawn to content that I, as a man, often find macabre and over the top. At the same time, some of them criticize porn as degrading. I’d love to hear your perspective on this apparent contradiction.
> More men definitely need better education about intimacy,
If we had it, this issue wouldn’t be so TAPAICAL-ish (<https://alicorn24.livejournal.com/44922.html>) any more; what would be the fun in that?
Besides, some will never get to experience such intimacy, so it can be argued that educating them for it is a waste of time and resources.
Seems they just wanted an argument.
Ok.
LIke many feminists, you don't have a fucking clue about male sexuality -- or basic biology.
Female humans can conceive at most 1 child each year. Males, by contrast, can conceive 4 or 5 a day. And guess what? Evolution has molded their instincts to maximize that number -- and to maximize the number of genetic variations by having many different mates. If you don't get that, I recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. This is very simple evolutionarily biology. Amazing how many feminists are too stupid or ideologically blinded to understand these simple concepts.
Most women have no idea how relentless and ineluctable the male sex drive is. There is no comparison at all with women, whose evolutionary need to have sex is so minimal. I had a college roommate who would masturbate 5 times a day. Every single day. With an extra wank on weekends.
Talk to any ER doctor, and they can rattle off a hundred stories of males who have injured themselves with vacuum cleaners, gotten their penises stuck in various objects, or had various objects lodged in their rectums. They would be hard-pressed to tell you a single such story about women. And in those few cases, it was probably something a man did to them anyhow.
A researcher I know did a study of bestiality in North Africa, finding that 80% of the men in the area admitted to having sex with livestock. The other 20% were probably liars. Women polled at zero for this sort of activity.
This isn't just humans, by the way. It's all primates. Look at Goodall's research with chimps or de Waal's with bonobos. Same story. Again, females can have one child a year. Men can have hundres. That makes a big difference.
Human nature imbues us with all sorts of "base" desires. Civilization is about channeling and controlling those desires in positive ways. But that effort fails when we pretend that men and women are the same in all ways. Or when we demonize basic traits that evolution has built in over hundreds of millennia.
I wouldn't describe men as pathetic.
I do agree that many men are not emotionally capable (sometimes not physically able) to give their wives satisfying sex. And that part of the conversation is often overlooked by men.
As much as a woman might love her partner as a man, bad sex is not fun or inviting.
This piece really brought the hateful feminists out. Lovely human beings really. Like any radicalized group they can’t look beyond their own noses.
Yep, didn't it tho. Interesting that they think that single unmarried women are happier than married women when no studies back this up at all. Unhappy woman looking for someone to blame. That's the definition of a feminist.
Like the author aptly put, you may want to "go back to the children’s table so the rest of us can work on improving the real world. You can join the adults again when you’re ready to apologize."
You would know this if you read the article, but it seems like you may have missed the point madame.
Respectfully,
Galenus
You’re definitely vaccinated.
I like all the points you made, yanina. Single women, single moms, divorced women are all 'happier' than married women and that doesn't reflect well on a society who established marriage as a key pillar.
Women’s need for sex is really not so different from men’s. I think if you flipped the sexes in your argument you might begin to understand why *pretending to enjoy sex (when you don’t actually want it)* is the fastest way to kill trust and affection. Your essay is full of the assumption that women don’t experience authentic desire, don’t experience sex as love, and that sex is therefore just something they should perform for their partner’s sake because his desire is more strong or emotional and her emotional world is not connected to sex. This simply isn’t true. Sex is emotional for everyone. There’s nothing wrong with wanting love, sex and expressing desire. There is something wrong with *demanding* your partner’s body as something you’re supposedly owed and being unable to accept when your partner is not in the mood. Also, we are not children! your partner is not your mother! We are adults, equals. If your partner cares for you and you care for them, there are lots of other ways to show love and appreciation, if one of you is not in the mood for sex or you have mismatched libidos. Good partnerships are built on trust or communication. Coercing women or suggesting they owe their partners sex does not encourage that.
On average Men have around 18 times the amount of testosterone women have (this is the hormone that is primarily responsible for libido in human beings) through out their life, starting from their teens all the way up to old age. In general it is impossible for women to consistently want sex as much as men.
You’ve not met a lot of women have you 🤦🏼♀️
None at all, i never even met Mother
Not impossible… yes, I already posted: I love sex more than any man I’ve been with although my last two husbands loved it almost as much.
As a passionate Aries, my masculine side is awake, aware and consciously alive. I honor that part of myself and subsequently love it.
I get that rejection is painful, I’ve experienced it. But I also don’t understand why people keep making this argument when you surely know that everyone has rights over their own body. It’s like, “maybe just a little bit of marital rape is fine?” Well... no, it’s quite straightforward.
Nowhere was marital rape promoted in the piece. In fact the opposite. You’re projecting!
Not explicitly, but there’s only one conclusion “men want sex more than women, so women basically owe it to them, even when they’re not feeling it” ends up getting to, and it’s not in a healthy, happy place with mutually fulfilling sex lives.
No more than “I want my partner to do work around the house” ends up getting to slavery.
If a relationship is totally sexless, that is something for both parties to work on, as clearly the emotional relationship and trust has become obstructed in some way. But in a mature relationship both people should understand that they won’t always get what they want all of the time - because their partner is a person, not a vending machine. Penetrative sex is actually quite a big deal. It’s fun if you both want it. It’s not something your partner should be expected to fake-enjoy.
Maybe penetrative sex actually isn't as big a deal as certain forces within society have conditioned women to believe.
Thinking of prioritizing a partner's needs as "fake-enjoying" helps no one. We can't all always be precisely as horny as our partner, and sex that one partner wants more is not marital rape.
Maybe penetrative sex actually isn't as big a deal as certain forces within society have conditioned women to believe.
Thinking of prioritizing a partner's needs as "fake-enjoying" helps no one. We can't all always be precisely as horny as our partner, and sex that one partner wants more is not marital rape.
I am a woman and I love sex more than any male that I’ve been with although my last two husbands loved it almost as much.
Not sure why this got dumped in my feed after three montsh of being posted, but hey.
What you write *feels* off, but I have to sit down and pour that into words properly.
But there's one thing that stands out:
"And what I can tell you is, if a man isn’t having sex, it’s profoundly unlikely he’s in a great relationship."
I daresay you cannot.
The reason why I *know* you can't is that I can tell you've never had a great relationship wherein sex was off the table because of medical conditions.
My relationship is pretty great, and I wouldn't want to trade it with any other, even if the alternative would involve sex.
I have found that men don't NEED sex. They WANT it, they CRAVE it. And yes, that includes me.
But we don't NEED it.
If you found the love of your life, and something happens to her brain that cancels out her sex drive completely, you're going to stick around.
What we NEED is love and acceptance. And there can be love and complete acceptance without hankypanky.
i read through this article, and while understanding the message, it also felt off to me. thank you for putting my thoughts into words!! ive been on medication that has killed my sex drive, and its made things very difficult, but a relationship doesnt just revolve around sex. this post tries to argue that we’re just stupid animals who Need to have sex all the time, when that’s not the whole picture
> If you found the love of your life, and something happens to her brain that cancels out her sex drive completely, you're going to stick around.
What we NEED is love and acceptance. And there can be love and complete acceptance without hankypanky.
*exactly*!!!!
It occurs to me that there are some nuances
in contemporary life that are not referenced here. In the past, women did not have options. They were married, and they had to be with the man they were married to. Nowadays, that’s not the case. Any marriage or long-term relationship is transactional and can be easily terminated. Women are not and cannot be sexually attracted to men they don’t respect, men who don’t possess authority and strength, and the capacity to generate income. Women who work in the cash economy may find themselves possessing higher status, or greater ability to generate income than their husbands. In that case, frequently, they will not be able to be sexually attracted to their husbands. Also, if they are in the workplace, they may be attracting the attention of higher status men than their husband, they will find him comparatively unattractive, and not desire sex with him. These types of status disparities occur all the time these days, unlike in the past, and they are very significant in the sexual attraction that the woman will feel. In fact, the women will find often their husbands repellent where there are such status disparities. Also, women often settle for a man so that they can be impregnated before it’s too late, but don’t particularly like him, and once the goal of one or two children has been accomplished, his utility is exhausted and they are not interested in having intercourse with the man anymore. So, under contemporary circumstances there are lots of situations where women find that they cannot feel sexually attracted to their husbands. It becomes a chore for a woman in these circumstances to submit to sex with a man she is not attracted to, and they generally won’t do it.
In earlier times the well-being of the family required the husband to work and maintain his morale, so the woman had a stake in his physical and emotional wellbeing. The couple, and their children, rose or fell together. This is no longer true. If the man begins to fall short, the woman has other options. In fact, having her own professional career, and divorcing her husband, are higher status options than supporting his career, and staying married. Women receive approval, praise, and support when they divorce their husbands, particularly from their female friend and relatives.
It’s notable that when a man suffers a professional or financial setback, the very moment when he most needs love and support, The sex instantly dries up. The woman starts to look for ways to protect herself and her family from the consequences of the man’s professional or financial failure. This is a common phenomenon. A woman’s body, not just her mind and heart, have contempt for a failed man.
So, while your essay is valuable, and I believe completely accurate, as far as it goes, the problem is not entirely ignorance on the part of women about what men are like. It’s that their subjective motivations, and the actual feelings they experience, are quite different from what wives faced in marriages in earlier times. Status disparities, leading to a lack of sexual desire, are the inevitable consequence of female freedom. There is no going back.
Nonetheless, many women are ignorant of what men feel, and what they are like, and your essay, on the margin, could help people if they were aware of it, and open to the insights in it.
Finally, I have to think that 100 years ago women told their adult daughters when they were getting married about men and how they are. I suspect it was common knowledge until recently. We have forgotten all kinds of things that our ancestors knew.
Geez, this is long. But it was provoked by the high quality of your post.
Well for what it's worth I appreciate the long and thoughtful comment.
I don't have enough evidence to comment intelligently on the hypergamy side of things, or the modern tendency of women to ignore low-status marriages in favor of higher-status options. Although evolutionarily that would make sense, and anecdotally I can say I've seen it happen a number of times.
I do think women having more financial and social power, as it were, has crippled men in some ways and crippled sex itself.
I think people discount traditional gender roles in an effort to be moral, and throw out the baby of common sense with the bathwater of bad traditions. Men should earn more, and be strong and respectable, because yes I simply think that turns women on more. I don't even think that's controversial to say - it seems like common sense. Without women being attracted to their men, the entire social fabric falls apart and nobody can maintain a happy marriage.
Which isn't good for any of us.
Which is why one thing I think will begin to address these issues is for men to start trying to be excellent men. More so than ever before. That turns the whole thing positive-sum.
You should be in a coal mine, not online trying to organize your irrational thoughts into paragraphs.
Men shouldn't be allowed to vote. This article is just more proof.
If you ever had a point, it's lost completely in your alleged sense of superiority.
How is that different than saying women should be in the kitchen?!
Based on that, it does not seem like you want equality, heads up. Something different.
You haven’t actually articulated an intelligent thoughtful reply here. As hominem attacks don’t further any cause.
What does this even mean?
Male reading comprehension skills ftw
Thanks for proving my point
Got it, you’re a radical feminist as I suspected. Thanks for confirming you can safely be ignored.
Yeah, I'm radical, I tell worthless, fucked up males in skirts and wigs that they don't belong in girls' bathrooms.
Male stupidity is so radical, just telling them no makes you radical by definition LOL
Happily, as long as my coal-mining purchases my wife's poontang at the beginning and end of the workday.
I appreciate a perspective that puts some burden on men to change rather than just railing against women. Traditional gender roles do have their place but as a woman it's hard to find a man that's both worthy of respect and has the desire for a relationship with me (or with anyone)
>Women are not and cannot be sexually attracted to men they don’t respect
So far true, I noticed it and never understood it and would appreciate if anyone could explain that without resorting to entirely speculative evo-psy, muh ancestral environment, or 1950's patriarchical bullshit.
>, men who don’t possess authority and strength, and the capacity to generate income.
No, that is either patriarchical bullshit or some kinky BDSM Dom fantasies about authority. My ex wife respected me because I can write well, she grew up in a small village, and her escape were books, so she really respects writers. A later girlfriend told me she respects and is attracted to traits like honesty, openness and self-reflection, which she thought I have.
In other words, each woman has her own personal status ladder to determine whom to respect.
Gender generalization is such a bullshit. It is as if like one would say all men work out and all women wear lipstick. So much untrue, it is crazy.
I think the evo psych stuff is not totally wrong, but there is also a LOT of guys that project the things that *they* value, admire, and respect about men onto women, and discount the things they don't. For example there are lots of studies showing that men consistently underestimate the premium women put on humor, kindness, reliability, and supportiveness. Because those aren't so much the things that men admire in other men, and there's a lot of projection there.
My mom left my very tall, very athletic and good looking, very high status and smart dad who was in every respect the typical "alpha male" type, for the guy who's now my step dad, who was shorter, fatter, balder, lower status, etc, and according to all the red pill theory stuff that is basically impossible and should never happen. Yet it did. And the reason is because my dad is a domineering asshole and my stepdad is a super nice guy who's laid back and enjoyable to be around. That kind of thing always just gets dismissed as if never happens.
Holy strawman! I know it might be a bit much to ask humble Substackers to diligently investigate the academic literature on this stuff beyond skimming a couple of Wikipedia pages, but haven’t derivative redpill memes like Alpha-fucks n Beta bucks permeated ‘round these parts yet?
Anyway, purely for the sake of dispelling some of the invidious insinuations being bandied about here about the evil ideology that must not be named, Women’s differing preferences in short-term dalliances and long-term relationships comports very nicely with acquiring “superior” genes (extraversion, ambition, confidence, height etc. that were and still are generally beneficial irrespective of contingent social arrangements) for their kiddos’ DNA while prioritizing resource provisioning, investment, stability and all that other wholesome jazz from upstanding step-dads of the Tim Walz variety. Frankly, this shoddy theory of mine seems like it could’ve fairly straightforwardly predicted all your folks’ behaviors before they ever even laid a gaze upon each other to me!
I know all about the red pill, I read WAY too much about it back circa 2012 when it was all being developed. Anyway my dad had way more money than step dad too, and my mom got nothing from him bc they split custody 50/50 and she felt too guilty to take anything in divorce. She's the one who moved into an apartment while he kept the house, etc. You're not wrong about the good genes part but step dad wasn't "provisioning" anything but being a fun, funny, nice enjoyable guy to be around, while my dad's an insufferable narcissist. Who also begged and pleaded with her for years to return to him...which at the time I was on his side and completely appalled she could leave my perfect father for this schlubby fat loser. However as an adult it's easy to see why, bc my dad's a jerk and my stepdad is cool as hell. I mean, whatever I love him bc he's my dad, but he is not a nice guy. Women cannot tolerate living with jerks for decades on end.
You all seem to expect intersexual selection to do all the work. Clearly this is the point where intrasexual selection comes in. The ancestral solution is for the “alpha” male to kick the “beta”’s ass.
Maybe each woman has her own personal status ladder, but a lot of them look pretty similar. I also agree that a person with an artistic vision, Or some other life project is seriously seriously committed to, has his own kind of strength, that at least one woman might be drawn to. By strength, I meant strength, across-the-board, not just the ability to benchpress a lot of weight. Strength of character would fall under that. Plus, of course we generalizing across huge groups of people and there are always lots of outliers. You can always find counter examples when you make generalizations. On the other hand, you have to make generalizations or the whole world is nothing but a bunch of random data points that don’t cohere into anything.
OMG, I can't believe I actually read this all the way through....you straight people are something else!!! Comparing a man listening to his wife with a woman being penetrated and potentially impregnated - sure, same thing buddy! Do you guys even like your wives? Listening to their day and feelings is a chore???!
"Without women being attracted to their men, the entire social fabric falls apart and nobody can maintain a happy marriage."
If I was a sad dude that couldn't get laid, I'd spend more time figuring out how to be an interesting person who adds something to someone elses's life. HINT HINT.
Taking an overarching swing at straight guys.
Gee, thanks. I didn't know I needed that. 🙄
Oh this was good and as a woman, I agree with what you said. I was all for fucking my ex husband until i could no longer stand his broke mindset and thus lost respect for him while he was content with us sleeping on an old mattress after our bed broke (that I bought). so i divorced him and been way happier ever since!
Whether you are being ironic, or not, it would be better, for everyone if people were more honest about these feelings, even if the truth is ugly, and it hurts. I didn’t leave my comment to say, oh, poor men, we’re such victims, aren’t women awful? It’s more a matter of everybody understanding how they are realistically likely to feel about these things. If we talk about things that people often don’t talk about, if we had a little bit of preliminary awareness, we may end up treating each other a little better, which would be nice.
Thanks! I was 💯 for real, this is literally a true story and I pride myself on being real and saying the shit alot of people think but are too coward to say. We def have to speak up cuz thats the only way we’re gonna learn and understand each other.
Agreed. Thanks.
Your comment is more realistic and helpful than the essay explaining why it would be good for everyone if men were not sexually frustrated. Rollo Tomasi and Rian Stone are the authors that best cover this topic in my estimation.
Oh Lord, not those specimens! Red Pill alert!
MRA nonsense.
Great deal of truth, times have changed. Given that truth, how does the human race continue?
Do we hire that done too?
Yes, a woman will not be attracted to a husband unless securely owned.
You seem to have ignored a lot of stats on eg domestic violence, and violence against women in general, the grossly uneven division of labour in home chores, life administration and parenting (though "helping her" with the kids after work definitely suggests that you see it as optional rather than a shared responsibility), and the orgasm gap for hetero couples.You also don't take into account that sex can be painful for a woman and runs significant additional risks for her reproductive health.
Your claims that women look to a man for strength and protection are not borne out by either the qualities many women actually look for or the experience we too often have of coercion and control.
So when you claim that women should cheerfully put out for men because the use of our bodies is a man's emotional umbrella, I feel pretty sick.
If more men treated women in a way that made them feel safe, respected, pleasured, and like an equal partner - instead of someone who owes him sex in addition to running and cleaning his home, raising his kids, and earning an income as well - they might find that women's sex drives are stronger than you assume.
You just re-made the entire point of my essay. I already said all of that.
If you think my essay was about women "owing" men sex without expecting men to treat them well, you didn't read it.
I read it very carefully. Your essay was very soft on how men need to be better partners because it was so focused on how much men "need sex". The options for women seemed to be a/ hit the jackpot with a great partner b/ expect more of unwilling men and give them sex regardless of desire or c/ leave disappointing men (but recognise that men's sexual needs might then create social breakdown and sexual violence.)
You hit on the biggest flaw I found in this piece. So many words spent to say women need to willingly give men more sex, and so few spent on what women may need/want to get to that point. And those few words were either SO generalized or SO specific (I honestly couldn’t tell which) that if I were a man, I wouldn’t have had the first clue what to do. Here’s a clue: talk to your partner and find out what makes her feel respected, appreciated, and loved… and also find out what makes her feel like having sex. Hint, those might not be the same thing AT ALL.
No doll, you didn't read it or you read it wrong. I have to leave this comments section now, way too many 'poor me feminists'.
It’s clear many women care to learn more about the perspective of the opposite sex with and open mind and did in fact read your piece. Many of these women are trying to provide feedback that takes into account a female perspective while not undermining your thesis and you seem to care more about the nuance you tried to provide being acknowledged than actually hearing us or learning in return.
It is strange that men want sex so much, but women who sleep around are looked down upon. The red pill community particularly goes hard on women. They claim men want virgins and women who have casual sex are used up. Men often don't respect the women who give it up easy. This perhaps even unconsciously makes women less likely to give it up. Marriage is a whole nother thing. Most wives are tired and drained. The way society is, most people are drained. Men seem to get rejuvenated by sex, while some women who are drained feel it is yet another chore. Of course the marriage dynamics matter too.
Men want to sexually monopolize a woman (and vice versa). They want her to be slutty for them only, so they don't have to compete with other men. Both sexes would prefer to restrain the behavior of the other and not their own, to make things easier for themselves.
How can she be slutty for him only? Would she then be not slutty?
That is indeed the paradox
"Slutty" is the wrong word, or just a comical way to say "sexy". It's the same as a woman appreciating a man that's capable of violence but not aggressive or threatening to her.
I’d get a very different reaction from my wife if I called her slutty or sexy. Very different!
Yes wholeheartedly agree with this, from my experience.
That view comes from a transactional view of sex, if one assumes women want sex less than men do, it is logical that women are "selling", exchanging sex for something else (attachment, commitment, attention) and thus selling it "cheaply" implies it is low-value sex. Hence such prejudices. It is like when you slap a $10 label on an $50 wine, people like it less - proven in experiments.
This is why the exact parallel of the "slut" is the "simp", again the same logic, a "cheap" man, who is shamed because he "pays" things like attention without even receiving sex in return, hence, low-value.
As a man who DOES only want sex and doesn't care about status except instrumentally, I think men like me would be well-served by abolishing slut-shaming and the status implications of who sluts fuck. Sluts could do a valuable public service by keeping low-status men sexually satisfied.
Yes Justin, it was good for me to read as a reminder. Because I know it's ungenerous and unappreciative for me to sometimes get annoyed by the mister's advances, but it does happen occasionally, so thanks for reminding me to get my mind right.
Though whenever I forget, and complain about him being amorous, he always says the same thing: "I'm not going to apologize for being attracted to my wife. Would you prefer it if I *didn't* want you?" And that always makes me laugh and have to concede that that is a very good point indeed!
I am going to borrow that line without giving credit.
You're very welcome, and thank you for working with me on this. Couldn't have done it without you.
I mean that's totally fine if you don't feel pressured to do anything you don't want to do... My girlfriend also has a higher libido and sometimes she really has a way of waking mine when I thought I wasn't in the mood. But that's a fine line and I'm glad to know I can always say "sorry, I just can't go there right now".
Of course. It's all a compromise, no one's going to be magically fully aligned all the time. Kind of funny because I had a different note making a joke about my husband pretending he's sex-starved (which absolutely is not true, it's just kind of a schtick) and there I got yelled at by a bunch of men saying I don't like sex and turn him down all the time. You can't win, lol. Everyone takes things to extremes or projects their own insecurities.
Jokingly I'll suggest the same thing to my fiance! "Do you wish that I was *not* into you?"
If you read carefully what you wrote you'll see that you're not making an argument that men desire sex. "inside the average man, somewhere, is the fantasy of being a powerhouse of sexual conquest and having women submit before him." That sounds like sex cause sex is involved but if you look carefully it's actually about status.
The whole game is that men feel low status and the way they prove to themselves and the world that they aren't is by having women have sex with them. The problem is that this game doesn't work, not cause women won't have sex with them but because it's irrelevant. The whole argument in the essay isn't that men should be allowed to visit prostitutes or whatever, because they don't count. The ask is that women effectively pretend that their men have high status by having sex with them. They can't do it out of pity or obligation or money, because then theres no status evidence. If that's how modern men operate and they feel like losers and need Andrew Tate to tell them how to be alpha then yea, it's cause they are.
Great comment and explains why incels feel so disenfranchised - it’s not just about sex but status.
Plenty of high status men have poor relationships with their wives (dead bedroom is one symptom) and plenty of low status men have great relationships with their wives.
I wonder what status their wives would perceive those men to have?
Very insightful comment.
As to your footnotes; the face-saving ways of saying no aren’t just feminine social niceties… by the time we are 16, we have most all learned that “no” is possibly dangerous. Of course most men are decent human beings, but by 16 I learned to wear an engagement ring. “No” was just an invitation to harassment (some of which was absolutely terrifying), while “I belong to another man” was respected.
100%. So many men do not understand that gentle ways of extricating oureselves from a situation without “humiliating” a man by disagreeing with him or declining his request (neither of which are actually humiliating to someone who isn’t centering their own ego), are because we have learnt that getting away from a dangerous situation is the most dangerous time, and we don’t know which men are going to turn an everyday situation into a dangerous one. And yes, too many men only accept a woman’s no if it is framed as already being “owned” by another man 😢
I agree with Yanina, a previous poster, about men helping with the kids and housework. Nothing makes a woman feel less supported than feeling as though these responsibilities are hers alone by default. That goes for stay at home moms, as well, who need a break at night just as much as men do.
I also agree with part of the idea (again from Yanina) that women giving sex when they don’t feel like it is unpleasant. (I wouldn’t go so far as saying horrible and certainly not akin to trauma or the rape experience, but definitely not pleasant) As she mentioned, sex feels very intimate and personal for women, and if a woman feels as though she is expected to provide sex even when she doesn’t feel like it, it’s not enjoyable; it’s work. It would be like if a woman expected a man to tell her he loves her a certain number of times a day or week. He can say the words, but he might start to resent the expectation that he must say the words. It would feel forced and it would be annoying. And saying I love you is obviously a lot less physically and mentally demanding than sex is.
Finally, I’d like to point out the obvious anatomical difference of sex for men and women, at the risk of sounding a bit graphic. When women have sex with men, they are literally receiving a man’s body part. It can feel very invasive if you’re not emotionally or physically in the right place. And that is just not an experience that men can relate to. Men can have sex without an emotional component (even when in a positive loving committed relationship) without a problem, and they can be physically exhausted and still be very happy to have sex. It’s a totally different experience for women. When women are exhausted and/or feeling emotionally alone or cut off, sex is the last thing we’re interested in.
Sometimes being in a relationship is work... Not everything in life can happen when we would most want it to happen.
This is true. There are a lot of compromises that are necessary to be in a successful relationship. The author of this article did specify that men want women to want to have sex with them, though.
When I've been with a woman with a higher sex drive, never has it crossed my mind that I should feel offended, insulted, or to consider myself objectified or dehumanized.
You’re a man. I wouldn’t expect the typical man to feel those things. The entire premise of the article we’re responding to is that men and women value different things and see/feel things differently. The author is explaining the man’s point of view. My comment was meant to explain the woman’s side of the story. Either you trust that men and women are different and have different experiences of sex and life or you don’t. (Unless you believe that the man’s view of things is the only view in the equation that matters.)
I'm not the typical man; I have an extra X chromosome. My testosterone is naturally low enough that I qualify as a woman by NCAA standards (womp womp). I'd say I have as balanced a view on libido as anyone but a FtM. They take “testosterone horniness” as seriously as they take “PMS hormones.”
Most of men’s contributions to civilization can be described as mating display.
Men climb power poles in storms at night to put women’s lights back on.
A certain faction of women have spent the last few decades trying to demotivate half the population.
Bob, you're a software developer. How exactly have women demotivated you from your courageous work?
That was a pretty childish comment.
Are you trolling, or have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years?
💀💀 i absolutely howled at your comment! He’s giving low testosterone male? Is that how they describe it?
Wow, and I thought electrical company workers got paid! And that they restored men’s lights too!
They do get paid, and quite well, too. Why don’t you give it a try?
… why do I only see this drivel rather silly argument now?
A sizable faction of men have spent the last few centuries trying to demotivate half the population.
Thank you for writing this piece! I think it captures the male perspective very well and articulates it in a way that should be insightful to women (if they’re open minded). In that sense it’s well balanced! Hopefully it helps a bunch of relationships!
And you’re absolutely right that we’re profoundly unserious as a society these days, about so many things! Maybe you should write a series of articles on various topics that we’re unserious about. Whether you do or not, you still earned at least 1 subscriber here, fwiw.
Only thing I’d quibble on the is the 3 months without sex part. Thankfully even most women don’t have that low desire for sex. I think…😬
Lol right, that part is tough.
I appreciate the feedback. Actually that may be an idea for a future post or series of posts. We shall see. Thank you
Women actually dont need to give men sex. Men need to find ways to be fufilled without that or
get into loving relationships where women also want sex with them(you forgot the part where women have sexual desires too). It is not womens job to take care of men and biologically this is also not true: your biology argument just doesnt hold up. I would advise doing some actual research before sitting down to write. Dont blame women for “sexually frustrated” men because then you are blaming women for what these men do. Rape? Murder? Harassment? Are these women’s faults for not submitting to their man sexually? Please. I do think there is definitely a conversation to be have about certain dating cultures we have though.
Women don’t owe men sex; couples owe each other sex, and men tend to ask for more than women.
But the context of the essay is relationships; he isn’t suggesting random women need to step up and put out!
Exactly what I wish some of these commenters understood. Well said.
To be fair, you didn’t make it clear that your essay was talking only about sex in a long term, monogamous relationship. though that did seem to be the case.
You can't expect monogamy if you can't be expected to put out.
You have a lot of learning to do, young man.
Be prepared: you're not gonna like all of it.
this comment doesnt even make sense….that is not the gotcha you think it is
Especially as I’m nearly 50. I'm quite certain that putting out is as much a part of monogamy as not cheating.
but women still dont owe men sex. if that is a part of the healthy relationship, sure, but in the context of this essay he wasnt talking about that. it is literally not womens job to “put out” so that men are satisfied or not sexually frustrated. also you sound like a middle schooler with that terminology. i am in a monogomous relationship by the way……
The context of this essay was having a healthy relationship.
so you just dont have literacy skills then……..
I think you might be in for a couple nasty surprises later on, kiddo.
If you have wisdom to share, share it, old man.
That would mean repeating myself extensively.
But think at what life might throw at you when you learn about:
- medical conditions and drug responses
- the physical inability for a woman to experience vaginal orgasms
and, last but definitely not least:
- when you find out that sex is a lot better when both parties actually WANT it, rather than feel obliged to it.
You clearly have no understanding of female sexuality and appear to be completely incurious about *why* women would stop “giving” their long term partners sex. Also I find it truly impossible to believe that you or many of the commenters here think the average woman doesn’t know men “need” sex when this message is so pervasive in wider culture and within heterosexual relationships.
Setting aside the issue of housework (which many commenters have brought up), it seems like most men (definitely not all) are incapable of understanding and empathizing with how horrible it feels to have sex when you are not able to become aroused. You write about duty sex as if it is something women purposefully and evilly inflict on their partners, rather than spending even a second to contemplate how miserable that must be for the woman performing duty sex, and how selfless it is of her to perform acts she is actively averse to.
Speaking from personal experience, I actually have a somewhat higher sex drive than my boyfriend, but occasionally for no discernible reason my body will simply not become aroused. In this state, the mental and physical experience of sexual interactions is intensely gross, disturbing, and upsetting—it’s completely intolerable. Luckily for me this is an infrequent occurrence, but it serves to remind me how complicated and fickle sex, sexuality, and arousal can be.
I have endless empathy for women who provide “duty sex”—I don’t believe I could suffer through. And I have endless disdain for the men who pressure their unenthusiastic partners into technically consensual but unenthusiastic sex, and are then confused as to why the woman doesn’t see sex as “loving” anymore.
This is all not to say that having a strong sexual relationship is not a good and desirable thing, I actually completely endorse couples working together to figure out mismatched libidos, but simply telling women that men “need” sex and thus they have to do it is not going to make anyone’s panties wet.
I recommend the Dr. Psych Mom podcast for good takes on this topic—she has actionable and empathetic advice for both husbands and wives. Also contrary to the discussions in the comments, she believes and has helped many couples come back from a duty sex hell—just because a woman has lost her sex drive at one point in a relationship does not at all mean that the relationship is over or that she no longer loves her partner, as many comments seem to be implying.
You're grossly exaggerating the extent to which I was saying women should "just give" sex to their husbands/boyfriends.
I don't like it when women aren't sexually cared for, and I don't like it when men don't take the proper time to make sure their wives *feel* intimate with them. I don't excuse men from having to care for their wives as human beings. I think I made this all quite clear in the piece.
Quote directly from your piece:
“That last bit is important: to be happy in doing so.
There is nothing more depressing than duty sex — the lazy, “just to shut him up” handjob. That’s the saddest and most pathetic way to try to keep a man happy. You’re not letting him relish in it — you’re making him feel pathetic, like some sort of beggar. And then, like a man who just got off to some horrible obscure kink on PornHub, he now has to sit in the shame and filth of a self-demeaning orgasm. The tragic aftermath of a sexual release that wasn’t even good for him.
This is how men lose themselves: when sex is turned into a shameful cycle instead of an act of love. If you teach a man to hate himself for needing sex, at first he’ll probably resent you… but eventually he actually will hate himself. Not only for needing sex from someone who doesn’t want to give it to him, but for letting that happen in the first place.”
Exactly as I said in my comment above, what you wrote displays 0 empathy for the woman in this situation, and no curiosity on why she is performing unenthusiastic duty sex or how she feels about it. You’re blaming women “for teaching men to hate themselves” because they didn’t have unwanted sex enthusiastically enough. All your focus is on how terrible the man feels when obviously a woman performing duty sex is not feeling great in the first place!
You pay lip service to women’s feelings, but only as it relates to her husband emotionally supporting her, that’s not what i’m talking about. I’m talking about how little you seem to care or understand women’s experience of sex. If you did care about how horrible it is for women to perform duty sex there is no way you would have written this section this way.
Telling women “be happy in doing so” is absolutely useless if not actively dangerous advice that does nothing to address the root cause of sexless relationships/a woman’s low sex drive.
If it was made so clearly in your piece I don’t think so many real life women would be bringing up this point and similar ones. Reading through these comments you seem incredibly dismissive of any comments that disagree with you or offer differing female perspectives. You say you wanted to open up a discussion for both sides to understand each other but are only willing to really listen to those that align with your beliefs. I agreed with some of your points and disagreed with others and I think a lot of good ones have been brought up by commenters but it’s disappointing to see a lot of your responses.
My responses to civil, reasonable comments have all been civil and reasonable. Whether they agreed or disagreed with me.
But no, I don't have any patience for angry comments, comments that make me seem like some kind of insensitive clown, or comments that try to re-make points of nuance that I myself have already made. Because all those people want is to fight. And that includes comments from both men and women.
It’s hard to be a woman. I’m in menopause now and my libido is shot. Men probably don’t know what that feels like but I’ll just say that it feels like a switch has been turned to “off.” Duty sex exists for a reason. Women experience the switch turned off feeling, some more than others, and to know that you just can’t deliver the “happy to” sex you’re saying is needed is a terrible feeling!!!! I feel like I suck right now. My body isn’t sexy, I don’t feel like having sex, yet I know your article is true. I just want you to understand that it’s very difficult. And I can’t take estrogen. I start testosterone soon and hope that it helps. Being a woman is tough.
Absolutely bang on 👍
Wow everyone trying to outsmart you in the comments but I just came here to say... thank you. I cried reading this. My marriage will be better going forward because of it. I think that porn culture and the Tate-type men have really confused women (me) when it comes to understanding male sexuality. Because none of that looks like love. It looks like lust and domination and conquest and often pain and humiliation (these genres of porn are ascendant).
Your description of the woman's body as home and sex as love is certainly true (I can see now) for my husband, but he's never articulated that and I've never seen it put like that before. I get so overwhelmed with motherhood and work and day-to-day tasks that his sexual needs do often feel like yet another burden, another demand placed upon me.
Gratitude for the change in perspective.
I really appreciate you taking the time for this comment. That's very meaningful to me. We can all do a better job (as both husbands and wives), and if this helped spark something for you then I'm glad.