Was there ever a time where it was socially excepted for a woman to fulfill her man's sexual needs even when she wasn't in the mood?

CainPrice · 2018-12-12T20:06:28+00:00

Sure. Men used to be able to rape their wives and it wasn't a crime. But it's nearly 2019 now.

The way I see things, women are in 1 of 3 states at any given time:

I definitely want to have sex with my man. I am in the mood.
I definitely don't want to have sex with my man. I am definitely not in the mood.
I am not entirely unwilling to have sex, but I'm not really in the mood either.

Where people shit a brick is #3. Should the woman dig deep and have sex anyway, even though she's not 100% in the mood? She's not unwilling. She even likes having sex with her man. She likes pleasing him, and even if she's not 100% in the mood, she enjoys the sex okay. But it wasn't exactly 100% what she wanted to do tonight. Part of the reason she did it was because he wanted to.

Some radical people shit a brick over that. Most people think that's perfectly fine and normal.

CreightonWAbrams · 2018-12-12T20:20:19+00:00

Sex was expected to be a part of marriage. That said, it was also expected that sex would fall off greatly after the children were born, and that the husband would have the good grace to bring his base animal urges to a whore. Prostitutes used to be much more common 100 years ago. Hell, even 60 years ago.

Wives were absolutely not expected to go down on their husbands, to do anal, to do threesomes, to do anything degenerate. The whole purpose of Western patriarchy was to protect "good" women - wives and virgin daughters - from predatory male sexuality. Even their husband's predatory male sexuality.

Marriage was for family formation and social stability, not the fulfillment of sexual desire.

AllahHatesFags · 2018-12-12T21:18:34+00:00

Yes, it was called "All of human history except the past few decades"

CatchPhraze · 2018-12-12T20:00:21+00:00

We have sex about five times a week. 2 times I'm down, 1 time I'm the initiator, 2 times I'm not really into it but I agree and get into later. He gets turned down two days because I'm tired or busy.

That makes up our week. I think it's important that women show the love language most important to men properly. I also think it's important for men to respect boundaries and show woman affection even if they aren't getting laid that night.

Belugoid · 2018-12-12T20:34:54+00:00

Yeah, this used to be a widespread way of thinking. Never heard of the phrase "lie back and think of England"? Or hell, the fact that marital rape wasn't a thing in the past.

I wouldn't find any satisfaction in it. If we're not both into it I don't want it.

goatismycopilot · 2018-12-12T20:07:27+00:00

No, you are the only woman in existence with this mindset which makes you a special person above all other womanhood in ethereal majesty. May you float above and meet the rings of Saturn.

Whiteliesmatter1 · 2018-12-12T20:18:31+00:00

Although dead bedrooms are split down the middle as to which gender is the refusing partner, the reasons for not wanting to have sex tend to be different for men than women.

Our culture tends to shed more light on the trope of the horny husband and the coy wife. If you head over to r/deadbedrooms, you will see that isn’t the reality. The cases there seem to be 50/50 even though reddit usership is mostly (69 pct) male. So you might argue that more women have a hard time getting their partners to fuck them than men are.

All that to say that there is no need to point this specific question at men. Although men’s answers may be different.

In my partnership, my wife and I have mismatched libidos. She prefers morning sex, and I prefer evening sex.

I always oblige her in the mornings until one day, she complained that she wasn’t in the mood in the evenings. I said, that I don’t really enjoy morning sex but I do it for her. Then she became turned off by morning sex (for like a week until she forgot about it). But for me, I think all couples need to be willing to have sex without being “in the mood” because one time, one partner may be in the mood, another time the other partner is in the mood. If you wait for the perfect mood to strike both partners, you may have to wait longer than both partners wish before having sex.

For instance. If we had to wait for us both to be in the mood, my partner and I would probably only have sex on the weekends, which isn’t enough for either of us.

poppy_blu · 2018-12-12T20:20:20+00:00

This was common place up until about 30 years ago or so.

I think it’s impetative to view this question through the lens of history.

GenX women were the first generation raised to be empowered to admit that we really like sex and demand what we want from our sexual relationships. Even our mothers (boomers) can recount being told by their mothers before their weddings about the “chore” they would be required to do, even given tips on how to get their husbands to demand it less without appearing to protest. Many of the men of that generation can recount the counsel of older men who told them if your wife is high libido watch out — she’s a slut who will invariably cheat on you. (doesn’t that sound familiar around here?)

The inherent assumption up until the sexual revolution was that women just don’t enjoy sex and if they do they’re sluts who can only make bad wives. This was programmed into generation after generation.

Of course a lot of this was for show, to signal you were a “proper” Christian with good values who didn’t air your dirty laundry, and plenty of couples were happily fucking like bunnies in the privacy of their bedrooms. But a lot of other people took it to heart and believed it.

Tl;dr throughout the history modern religious societies this has been the case. Not because men were brutes who forced their wives but because young people were just taught untruths about human sexuality that created dynamics in relationhsips that were harmful to both women and men.

crackrocksteady7 · 2018-12-12T20:00:30+00:00

If so, what changed?

Strong independent bitch culture became a thing

petrichordium · 2018-12-12T20:18:57+00:00

All of my partners have been evil 21st century feminists, and all of them have been happy to take one for the team when in a sexually neutral mood. Sometimes she’s in a nympho frenzy halfway through, sometimes she’s asking which of the remaining chores for the evening I’m taking off her hands in exchange, and sometimes it’s literally just a generous hearted “make you happy” sort of thing.

However, when you know your partner has that capability, you also know to respect them when they’re just generally not feeling it in a way below neutral.

So yeah, you’re not the only one. I’ll let the ladies shitpost responses.

KikiYuyu · 2018-12-12T22:30:17+00:00

My grandmother told my mother when she was young that she would always have to say yes to her future husband.

Thounumber1 · 2018-12-12T20:32:00+00:00

I'm curious, does your man know that you do this stuff with him even though you don't want to? Is he under the false impression that you want to?

Personally I would feel really bad if my SO felt she had to do this just out of a sense of obligation or maintenance, it's not very flattering. I'd rather she fulfill my needs because she is actually attracted to me or she enjoys it. If I knew it was done because of "maintenance" i'd probably honestly not be in the mood anymore.

diffdedbed · 2018-12-12T21:00:53+00:00

Also for men, would you actually find satisfaction if your women fulfilled your sexual desires even when she wasn't always in the mood or would you feel like it's not worth it if she isn't turned on every time?

I've had my wife do this and duty sex isn't exactly sexy. I've also since learned my wife has "responsive desire" which means she doesn't often get spontaneously horny but will if properly stimulated. As such I work on that part rather then have duty sex.

SpencerWS · 2018-12-12T23:13:57+00:00

Yes, this used to be a cultural expectation in America (and probably most other countries throughout history). There are instructional materials from 19th century about being ready in bed for your man to do what he wants. Marriage licences also contained the first half of the Bible verse that "The wife does not have authority over her body, but [it belongs to] her husband..." 1 Corinthians 7:4. (The other half of the passage says the same thing about the husbands body, but that was not included.) You can call it all misogyny, and to an extent it was, but it was also considered a service that men deserved, since they worked all day to provide for the family, and granted the fact that men are typically more interested in sex outside of emotional context. I dont like the perspective myself because the enthusiasm is a big factor for me (am male), but that's the sense behind it.

GayLubeOil · 2018-12-13T21:56:35+00:00

What changed? A group of "subversives" came from Frankfurt Germany developed Critical Theory and used this critical theory to chip away at the foundation of marriage and civilization in general.

Then the universities and media spread this critical theory.

The hard working plaid shirt wearing cattle wrestling merican he men who don't read books none failed to stop the subversive idiology. Cuz how can a man have time to read that there Adorno when he got a tractor to drive? Ya hear?

Then a Russian came and started making commentary about how fucked the situation was.

gasparddelanuit · 2018-12-12T20:43:23+00:00

Yes, that's where the advice to lie back and think of England comes from.

What changed was feminism's influence in portraying sexual intercourse as symbolic of men's oppression of women, a violating act and an unjustified expectation on the part of men, whatever the circumstances. People like Andrea Dworkin where very influential in the promotion of this message. She even wrote a book called Intercourse expressing these very views. Feminists who shared this outlook where a big part of the second Wave and are sometimes labelled as sex-negative feminists. Their impact has affected all subsequent Waves and society, which categorize men as oppressors of women and is intolerant of the notion that women ever be expected to compromise sexually or cater to men's sexual needs. Of course, the emphasis is that men compromise and cater to women.

Personally, I would not have a problem if a woman was not always in the mood when satisfying me sexually, provided it was not an issue for her and she did it gladly or without resentment. Sex can be an emotional experience, but it is also a carnal pleasure and functional aspect of a man's life. A woman who understood and accepted this would be much appreciated by any man.

AutoModerator · 2018-12-12T19:50:47+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Sheairah · 2018-12-12T23:39:45+00:00

“In the United States, prior to the mid-1970s marital rape was exempted from ordinary rape laws. The exemption is also found in the 1962 Model Penal Code, which stated that "A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if: (...)".[5]”)

TheBookOfSeil · 2018-12-13T00:13:00+00:00

Was there ever a time where it was socially excepted for a woman to fulfill her man's sexual needs even when she wasn't in the mood?

Yes, there was. Multiple times, in fact.

The problem with this question is that it comes from a modern, presumably American (so, "1st World"), entitled perspective. You have no concept of living in any other time nor civilization where your thoughts and desires were not taken into consideration. If it weren't for written law and "progressive thinking," consent wouldn't matter.

From a historical perspective beyond modern thinking, "consent" would amount to "Is this man that is trying to have sex with me physically attractive? If yes, he may proceed. If not, resist."

Our own anatomy coupled with our basal human nature tells us more about ourselves than our conscious, modern brains do, and this is where people mistakenly draw the line closer to what their conscious brain tells them, rather than what their subconscious brain/physiological responses tells them.

Also for men, would you actually find satisfaction if your women fulfilled your sexual desires even when she wasn't always in the mood or would you feel like it's not worth it if she isn't turned on every time?

I personally prefer to hear and see when a woman is "into it," of course, but from a basal nature perspective, it is not necessary to achieve the end result, which is spreading my DNA through my progeny. If anyone didn't know already, non-consensual sex is a natural occurrence, and it exists as a viable means in reproduction not only in our own species, but in other species as well. Whether anyone deems it "right" or "wrong" does not matter in terms of objective reality, because nature is, to personify it, indifferent.

PanderjitSingh_k · 2018-12-13T00:58:37+00:00

The film Fanny & Alexandar shows this. She simply bends over the bed and lifts her skirts when he wants. Not much fun for anyone probably.

And when I had a partner who was somewhat less interested I expected my partner to be willing to participate whether in the mood or not since I did the same.

Obviously It’s not rape as some politically motivated others seem to be suggesting. Everyone is allowed to have relationship requirements and make them known.

Eastuss · 2018-12-13T08:04:08+00:00

Raping your wife was never expected, but cheating was less harshly punished. Nowadays cheating is harshly punished, lack of sex should be punished as well.

Otherwise it's rather common in monotheist religions to have marital sex a duty. I think it's even written down in the quran that both partner should seek each other's pleasure and do their best.

Willow-girl · 2018-12-13T13:24:05+00:00

I think women in earlier generations probably felt this way. They were dependent on men for a meal ticket, after all! While we never talked about sex specifically, my mother (b. 1935) lectured me often on the important of keeping up one's appearance so as to remain attractive to one's husband. If a woman "let herself go," it would be her own fault if her husband left her for someone better! In my mother's scheme of things, this was practically a death sentence, as it meant being cast into poverty and shame, and becoming the laughingstock of one's friends. There would be no sympathy for a woman who had willfully "let herself go." I expect that women who felt this way also accepted that they had to give up the goods sexually.

nemma88 · 2018-12-13T16:19:00+00:00

To a extent, but before reliable birth control sex ended in pregnancy more often... Like... that's why everyone had seven kids, sex was primarily a function of pro creation... and pretty much the only thing to do for fun.

TriadFamilyTimes · 2018-12-14T23:14:43+00:00

Marital rape used to be a thing that couldn't be a crime because a wife legally owed her husband sex. So, yeah there was.

These days you find women who enjoy that most often in BDSM relationships. If you haven't met a woman who enjoys satisfying her partners needs when she's not particularly in the mood I suggest you look into the "Freeuse" kink lol.

IlluminatedElf · 2018-12-16T03:11:48+00:00

One of my mentor's is an established professor in psychology and also a relationship counselor; one of the most poignant things she has mentioned is what I call her "I could eat" rule.

It basically goes, if someone says "Hey, would you like to go out for a meal/get pizza/etc." and you know that you would've generally enjoy the meal/person's company, but don't want it at the moment, just say, "I could eat."

First and foremost, a lot of invitations are not invitations to do a certain activity, but to connect as individuals. Some people (myself included) are more caught up in being in the right state of mind to enjoy the activity instead of seeing it as a way to connect and foster a relationship with the person; in these circumstances, you aren't expected to be excellent at the activity or to take part with maximum gusto, but to be a good participant and not leave the other person missing out.

I know that I am likely to decline physical affection if I'm feeling bloated, too full, sore, ugly, tired, etc. but it's a reflection of my own standards for what I think my participation to sex should look like, etc.

I think the above has always been something that's passed on to women, simply because women are known to have a more malleable perception towards sex, relative to men. In my household, it was said as "A woman shouldn't go to bed before her husband" because it was frowned upon for a woman to use the excuse that she's too tired to connect with her husband.

On the other hand, in a lot of Abrahamic religion, it was a rule that a man was supposed to "provide" physically for a woman to her satisfaction. I believe that it's a hard and fast rule in Orthodox Judaism (which isn't a patriarchal as other Abrahamic religion) for a man to give to his wife sexually, if she requests it.

Some say that this existed because men had multiple wives and needed to ensure that they were all satisfied with his contribution, etc.

I'm not too certain of the religious aspects so feel free to correct me.

peterlongc · 2018-12-12T21:09:19+00:00

Absolutely, people used to care about and respect each others need. They respected and cared for their partner, but it was a two way street. Man serves woman and woman serves man. Woman doesn't need man anymore, woman doesn't need to serve man. Man doesn't need woman, man doesn't serve woman. That's the whole story of now.

ferretsRfantastic · 2018-12-12T20:51:41+00:00

I understand what you're saying but there is a fine line. I do think that both partners should be respectful of their partners sexual desires. However, I don't think one should just simply engage in sex with their husbands when they haven't been in the mood for a month+. I think they should communicate what could be going wrong. Has he not been helping around the house and you're extra tired? Has he stopped putting effort into looking good? Has sex become stale and yall havent been on a date in a while? All these things should be explored.

LewisCross · 2018-12-12T21:51:28+00:00

What are you asking here? Are you asking whether most women view marital sex the same way you do - i.e. that you're not always in the mood but you have sex anyway because you know it's good for the marriage and for him and for you? Are you asking if it's always been this way?

Also for men, would you actually find satisfaction if your women fulfilled your sexual desires even when she wasn't always in the mood or would you feel like it's not worth it if she isn't turned on every time?

Yes, I, and I think most men, would be fine with their women fucking them regularly even if she doesn't want to do it every time I want to do it. No woman is in the mood for sex ALL the time, or every time her man wants to do it, because women just don't work the same way as men do nor do they approach sex the same way as men do.

Even if she isn't turned on every time, it's worth it, because at least I am getting what I want and need out of it, and if that's all that happens at that particular time, I'm ok with that.

OfSpock · 2018-12-12T20:12:17+00:00

[deleted]

Lotus_towers · 2018-12-12T22:36:53+00:00

The depressing truth is that rape was (maybe still is) relatively common, acceptable and also seen in some cases as a means of reclaiming "masculinity".

Title	Was there ever a time where it was socially excepted for a woman to fulfill her man's sexual needs even when she wasn't in the mood?
Author	LittleMissAfrodite
Upvotes	21
Comments	279
Date	December 12, 2018 7:50 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/a5lmay/was_there_ever_a_time_where_it_was_socially/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/was-there-ever-a-time-where-it-was-socially.258582 https://theredarchive.com/post/258582

Comments