When does a woman owe you sex chart

Post Reply New Topic

As it happens, I use considerably less healthcare than most adults, even those a decade younger than I am. However, I was talking about the context of a romantic relationship, not a social contract. In terms of a social contract, I am perfectly happy to pay higher taxes for national health, also to do without the end-of-life heroics we do so expensively here.

I think your forebears would have a hearty & dirty laugh about that. Big ol' antique hur.

As for the rest: jesus, you're not on about that again, are you? Didn't we already have those conversations?

You know, when I was still a little girl with a flat chest, my daddy taught me that some guys would have this attitude. "I took you out, so you owe me." My daddy taught me that I NEVER owed anyone sex. EVER.

My daddy also taught me that it was less trouble to buy my own dinner than to go through this rigmarole with a guy, and that it was safer to get my own drinks than end up having someone slip me a roofie.

My daddy was a really smart guy.

I ALWAYS bought my own meals, paid for half the pool games, and purchased my own tickets. I would have gotten my own drinks, but I learned real quick that I was better off not to drink in restaurants and bars, or around strangers.

I remember the first time Hubby and I went out. He was 18; I was 20. We were both in college, but he was significantly more broke than I was. To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't even an official date. We were meeting at a restaurant for dinner as friends.

I paid for my own dinner.

This upset him, actually rather a lot.

Fast-forward sixteen years.

I teach my son that a woman absolutely does not, cannot, will not, and should not "owe" him sex for ANYTHING, EVER. I teach my daughters that they do not, cannot, will not, and should not "owe" anyone sex for ANYTHING, EVER. I also teach my son to expect a woman to buy her own dinner unless arranged beforehand; I teach my daughters to buy their own dinner and get their own drinks.

Because my father was a smart man.

My father was also an idealist.

I've been told by guys that I "owe" them sex because I had sex with the last guy I dated (never mind that I'd known him for two years previously, while I had known Mr. Bookkeeper for two months and had yet to so much as meet his mother).

I've been told by guys that I "owe" them sex because they gave me a cigarette. No kidding. I have learned to be suspicious of generous men.

I have also learned that, while sex may not be owed in a marriage, it sure greases the skids toward keeping said marriage sweet. If I don't feel like it?? Smile, act enthusiastic, and remember that it only takes about 10 minutes and I'll feel good about myself for having done it. If I'm angry?? Put it aside, smile, act enthusiastic, and remember that it only takes about 10 minutes and causes the release of happy hormones that will take the edge off my anger. If I'm tired and busy?? Smile, act enthusiastic, and remember that it only takes 10 minutes, and it's autistic to be so focused on how I feel and what I want to accomplish that I do not tend to my husband's needs before my own.

I teach my son that sex cannot be owed. I teach my daughters the same thing-- but I also teach them that, once married, no matter how much you don't want to, it's best if, at least twice a week, you lie back and try to look like you're not thinking of England. Not because I want them to be submissive doormats, but because, if they choose marriage, I want them to go into it clear-eyed, not wearing idealistic blinders.

I think the fact that I do not have the right to control of my own body, time, and resources has more to do with autism than it does with womanhood. It is just one more way in which I am slightly less a person than an NT female would be. It bothers me, but it is best accepted and not agonized over. Raging about the unfairness of it, after all, means I'm acting autistic again (but only, I note, if I complain about something being disrespectful or unfair to me).

(a) I've had a lot of very old friends. Even if you were twice my age, it's unlikely that you'd have a better grasp of what they went through than I do.

(b) My post was no more repetative than your earlier ones.



Of course you're OK with it. It serves your self-interest. Your position on end-of-life care would only put you on par with a large fraction of men, and wouldn't change the overall numbers.

You seem to see the work of other people as some sort of commodity that comes out of a faucet, while thinking of your contribution is magical and special.

@BuyerBeware: Your post makes me really sad.

I try not to take some of the posts here as being representative of every guy's attitude, because I don't think I'd ever date again if I believed that every guy genuinely believed that it was my job to give him sex, whether or not I actually wanted to have sex with him, in order to keep him happy. I don't know why I would agree to an arrangement like that -- after all, I've got a pretty nice life as is, so I don't know why I'd put myself through that. It hadn't occurred to me that "I'm a grownup; you be one too" was really thaaaaat big a thing to ask.

And it just flat-out wouldn't occur to me to bug a guy who didn't feel sexy, or like he wanted sex specifically with me, just because I'm horny. It seems to me an attitude like that's pretty much a recipe for making him feel awful, too, if he actually wanted to but couldn't, and preferred to pass altogether, just wanted to cuddle with no pressure. Sure, he could get me off other ways, but...so can I.

I've been thinking about this over the last few days, actually, because of how surprised I was at the strength of my reaction to the idea of a guy having sex with me just to please me. Without desire. It's a pretty awful thing to imagine -- to me, it feels dirty, and not a good dirty, either. It's as bad as a guy hanging around for form's sake, not because he actually wants to be with me or enjoys my company. Sex as a favor, without desire, or, worse, as a way of placating me somehow...no, man, no. The whole point of sex with someone else is desire, yours *and* theirs, that's why it's hot. Yeah, that's me, and I'm not meaning to judge your arrangement, BB, but...mm, no, I really don't get wanting your spouse to just do it for you because you want it, even if they don't particularly.

Maybe I should consider hanging onto my house, after my daughter flies, so that she knows she has choices, even if she's got kids. I don't expect she'll need the help -- she'll probably make a hell of a lot more than I do, and she's a tough customer -- but maybe even so.

@NK: hey, enjoy your ragebox. I've got too much to do to engage with nasty/misogynistic convo, esp. if it's going to get conveniently amnesiac like this.

Why do topics like this and "nice guys" garner more replies on here than actual relationship advice?

If Buyer and I were both single and looking, it sounds like we'd be waaaaay compatible.

What you said here pretty much sums up why I don't like having sex with a woman who's just doing it for me and isn't getting anything out of it or doesn't want to. That whole dirty feeling, like something's missing. My wife doesn't care--she's happy if she makes me happy. But I'm the same way. If I'm unable to climax, I'm tired, or otherwise just not into it, I take a lot of joy in making her feel good.

I'm pretty sure I've technically been raped by her on a couple of occasions when she wanted sex because she was angry and just wanted to let off some steam. But, y'know? I'm perfectly ok with that. I'm ok with being a sex toy if that's what she needs because her needs are more important to me than my own. She would do the same for me, and I know all I have to do is just ask. But when I did that before, I just felt, I dunno, weird afterwards. And I think she's kinda the same way about it.

I think we get more pleasure pleasing each other than we do pleasing ourselves, which is why we don't mind getting used if that ever happens. It just feels weird to be the one using, which is why it's rare that we do that.

My wife tells me that most of the time she's not in the mood and that half the fun is what I do to turn that around. She also lets me know if it's not going to work and when I should stop. I gain nothing if I don't try. After 9 years of marriage and 3 kids later, I still find her desirable. So even if it annoys her sometimes, I hope it makes her feel good to know she still got it!

But if she ever wanted sex and I didn't at the moment, I'd highly encourage her to bug me about it.

Relationships are about giving and receiving,not owing,that's a debt.

True. I am very happy for him that he found love and is now engaged.

Uh-huh?

Very briefly - the historical context (and in some parts of the world, current context) is that women had fewer rights and opportunities than men - legally, economically, politically etc. Legal details vary from country to country - but women were lesser than men, and were treated as their property. Change has been slow, but over the past 150 years or so, women have gradually gained an independence and autonomy in various aspects of their lives - in the public and private spheres.

The legal changes in relation to marital rape took place within the past 3 decades, mostly in the 1990s as far I can recall, so we're not going back to "the olden days" here.

Men must have had very good aim in the past that you describe. You say they didn't have time for sex, but they still managed to have plenty of children.

Doesn't matter whether the sex was recreational or procreative, the fact remains that, within marriage, it could legally be non-consensual and not be rape.

"The idea that the developed world was swarming with privileged men who used their wives as recreational sex slaves is convenient for some politicians, but historically dishonest." I suspect that this idea is yours, and yours alone.

Cause people that have had a number of relationships are usually the ones who feel "entitled" when not currently in one(i.e. they think of it as the norm), but then they also like to run their mouth about the subject and pretend it's the other way around.(hence all the replies you speak of)

You're using a very narrow definition of "opportunity." One opportunity that men didn't have is the opportunity to stay home in relative safety and have someone else provide for them. You're asking men to be sympathetic to the few women who would have chosen liberty over security, but you show no sympathy for the majority of men consistently do the opposite when they have the choice. Lots of men choose corporate jobs over starting their own businesses because job-security is more important to them than power. They would have been disenfranchised in greater numbers by the old system.



And yet we still have breech of promise suits in the US. Women can still claim alimony. If a crazy woman gets pregnant with a used condom that her boyfriend left in a trash can, she can own him for the next 18 years. He can be thrown in prison if a family court judge thinks that he could earn more money.



Women in Scotland have had equal voting rights since 1928. You can't palm all of the blame off onto men.



What are you saying? That women were required to have sex 30-60 times in their whole lives? A typical American boy spends 13 years in public schools under creepy female teachers who see him as nothing more than a future wage-slave and emotional garbage dump, and have no qualms about grooming children to serve their own urges.

Yeah, I kept my response brief because there were less than subtle indications in your first post that you would respond like this.

So much of what you say makes so little sense that I'm not going to attempt to engage with you any further on this topic.

I think the lady who wrote the article missed the point completely. I don't think it was implied that she owed him sex, he was just trying to initiate a divorce in possibly the most immature way possible.

Although, yes, could possibly be fake, and if it's real, who knows if his intent was for it to reach the Internet. I could picture making up the chart for his own private use, the same way people make "pros and cons" lists to try to make a difficult decision. Maybe he sent it to her under the influence of alcohol, or maybe he had just had enough.

^ This post, thank you. Yes.

Sex is not giving or taking or owing or "brownie points", it is sharing, and this relationship is obviously in serious peril, whether or not she was willing to admit it to herself or anyone else.

Upon seeing the title of this topic, I got a bit angry ; but the initial post removed that feeling immediately. I'm a straight man, but I hate any form of discrimination or stereotyping. Gender stereotyping is terrible. Men and women don't owe each other a thing, they give each other love (and sex, if applicable) spontaneously when feelings are involved. There is no obligation in it, you only give or receive love, and only make love, if it's spontaneous. That is also part of why it can be very beautiful.

I would not want a woman to owe me a thing. Not even if she'd be my girlfriend or wife. I would want her to be spontaneous. If she decides to give herself to me, it has to be her own decision, not something she does out of feeling obliged. I would never want a woman to force herself to please me ; and if a future girlfriend decides to give herself to me, I'll feel truly privileged because I know it will be her own spontaneous decision. An expression of love. The moment it'd be an obligatory thing, there is no love involved anymore.

Men and women don't owe each other a thing. If a couple make love, it is because of mutual feelings of love existing, and totally voluntarely. And then it can be very beautiful. The moment it'd be obligatory, it would take away all beauty involved.

In religions there are some rules about sex yes. In Islam, Christianity and Judaism (you see they share some points of view ) it is expected you wait having sex until marriage. Blood stains on the bed's blanket are often shown to family as proof that "it" happened on the first night as husband and wife and never happened before. Sex before marriage is forbidden, but sex after marriage is obligatory since pleasing your partner is a duty.
See how much the three abrahamic religions are having in common? And in all religious books, there's a lot of sex talk if you come to think of it (the rules describing how to act prior to sex and after sex, the purification rituals attached to menstruation, the allowed sexual positions and the disallowed ones, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah that were destroyed due to stuff including hyperactive sexual experiences of the locals, ... Coming to think of it, the religious books have quite a lot of sexual passages in it )

But in theory sex is forbidden until marriage in all three monotheistic religions, but the moment you're married it becomes one of the obligations towards your partner.

Oh yes, using the back door is forbidden in all three religions too. Another rule they all have in common. The moment you're married you're allowed to have sex whenever you want, but oh hell awaits the moment you experiment with certain positions not included nor approved by the holy books!