Conference turris::womannotes-v2

           
    
    Well _I_ sure as hell haven't.
                             
    
    Roberta

    I have never used it as such either!!!!    I have listened to that
    song by Pat Benatar though..... That's probably the closest I've
    come to using it as such....
    
    Anna
    

    I don't do to my husband, what I don't want him to do to me.  
    I consider it a cheap shot.
    
    Barb

    Having been  on  the  receiving end once, I don't recommend it. My
    (then)  girlfriend  used  to  try  to  manipulate me with sex. The
    "We'll  only  have  sex if you do this that or the other thing for
    me."  It  started  10 months into the relationship, so I was quite
    invested in her. I figured she was having a bad time, and tried to
    be  supportive,  but  after  a month I broke it off. I just wasn't
    going  to  be  around  someone who could be that manipulative. She
    then  only got in touch with me if she wanted something. She's the
    only  one  of  my long term girlfriends who I don't try to stay in
    touch with.

--David

    It's sort of like "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
    
    I don't recommend it.
    
    SandieD

In the middle ages, the Chinese invented gunpowder. Wonderful
stuff, powerful, made great firecrackers for celebrations.
Then the Europeans got hold of it and turned it into a new
weapon. 

Sex. Wonderful stuff, powerful, great for celebrating life.
Do you really want to emulate the damfool Europeans ?

    
    Very good point, that men could do this as well as women. I was
    n't thinking of it in those terms. 
    
    I have a good friend in New York who was very very obese. Her husband
    was a real SOB about it. If they got into a fight about something,
    he would start calling her all sorts of horrible names related to
    her weight. Towards the end of their marriage they had virtually
    no sex life. I guess this is sort of the same thing. In effect, he
    was subtly threatening to find someone thin to sleep with.
    
    BTW, she's now divorced and has lost over 100 pounds, and has a
    new boyfriend. So much for sex as an _effective_ weapon.
    
    Roberta
    

    Re .7, & .8, I disagree with both of you.  I don't think that the
    situations you describe are at all the same thing as withholding
    sex in order to manipulate an SO.  To me, when a person withholds
    sex deliberately in order to manipulate, they are not refusing to
    have sex because their partner no longer appeals to them.  They
    are refusing in order to get their own way on an issue.  I agree
    that this type of manipulation is wrong.
    
    However, if an SO lets themself become very obese then their partner
    may actually be physically turned off.  I know I would be.  If a
    person is actually grossed out by the idea of having to be intimate
    with another person because they have let themselves get unappealingly
    fat, or don't brush their teeth and have bad breath or body odor
    or whatever, then I don't blame the person for refusing sex.  
    
    There is a difference between deliberately refusing sex in order
    to manipulate, and refusing sex because of being physically repelled
    by the other person.  Afterall, I thought most people agree
    that nobody should ever feel that they are obliged to have sex with
    someone.  People do have a right to say, No.  Manipulation is wrong
    if that is the motive.  But, if a person is just not interested
    then that is their business.
    
    Lorna
     

    Re: .9
    
    As usual, it comes down not to what is done, but why it is done.
    What's the primary motivation for refusing to have sex?  It is a
    lack of desire, produced by an unattractive partner?  Or is it a
    desire to blackmail the partner into changing in specific ways?

    
    Whatever the motiviation of my friend's husband, the result was
    that she was made to feel unworthy of his physical affection. This
    is the way in which I saw sex being used as a weapon. Because she
    ended up feeling unattractive and having low self-esteem.
    
    Roberta

    Re: .12
    
    Roberta, you say that whatever your friend's husband motivation
    may have been, the result was that she was made to feel unworthy
                                       ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
    of his physical affection.
    
    Some will argue that no other person can make us feel unworthy,
    unless we allow ourselves to feel unworthy.
    
    If her husband said something to her like, "You're too fat, and
    unless you lose 100 pounds, I'm not going to have sex with you
    anymore", then I might agree that he was using sex as a weapon.
    
    However, if he never made any negative comment to her about her
    weight, but was nevertheless sexually turned off to her because
    of it, I don't think he was using sex as a weapon. He was plain
    turned off by her - it's hard (no pun meant) to fake an erection.
    
    If your friend ended up feeling unattractive, perhaps it was because
    she actually was, being 100 pounds overweight.
    
    I have to agree with what Lorna said in her previous note; nobody
    should feel obligated to have sex with someone who turns them off.
    
     Alan

re.9 Lorna,
    
    
    
    >Re .7, & .8, I disagree with both of you.  I don't think that the
    >situations you describe are at all the same thing as withholding
    >sex in order to manipulate an SO.  To me, when a person withholds
    >sex deliberately in order to manipulate, they are not refusing to
    >have sex because their partner no longer appeals to them.  They
    >are refusing in order to get their own way on an issue.  I agree
    >that this type of manipulation is wrong.
    
 Does this mean that you don't believe that 'cosmetics' (for lack of a 
 better term) may be the _issue_(s) that one partner may try to use to 
 manipulate another partner?
 
    >However, if an SO lets themself become very obese then their partner
    >may actually be physically turned off.  I know I would be.  If a
    >person is actually grossed out by the idea of having to be intimate
    >with another person because they have let themselves get unappealingly
    >fat, or don't brush their teeth and have bad breath or body odor
    >or whatever, then I don't blame the person for refusing sex.  
    
 I agree that you may have a point, but this is not the situation that
 I was trying to present. I am not assuming that the *reasons* are valid,
 as you undoubtedly believed after reading the previous input.    
       
 Maybe the examples I used to communicate my point were not the best.

 If a situation existed when one partner has a basic disinterest in sex 
 (generic disinterest, not necessarily motivated by the other partner),
 but the disinterested party was continually 'citing' that their reasons for 
 abstentian were due to various issues (that *seemed* to be cosmetic in 
 nature) about the second partner.  Instead of the communication being 
 centered on partner #1's general disinterest in sex, what is implied is 
 that there is something partner #2 can *change* in about their own 
 behavior/appearence that will infuence #1's disinterest.  When in fact, no
 matter what partner #2 did, partner #1 would still not have a very strong
 interest in participating sexually.
 
 I guess, in order to believe that the above scenario is actually 
 *manipulating* another person, one would have to agree that there really
 are people in this world, who at one time or another in their life, are 
 just plain not interested in having sex.

    >There is a difference between deliberately refusing sex in order
    >to manipulate, and refusing sex because of being physically repelled
    >by the other person.  Afterall, I thought most people agree
    >that nobody should ever feel that they are obliged to have sex with
    >someone.  People do have a right to say, No.  Manipulation is wrong
    >if that is the motive.  But, if a person is just not interested
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
    >then that is their business.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Again, it sounds as if your assumption here is that the *reasons*,thrown
  out as examples in .7 are true.  My assumption when writing what I did
  was that the reasons were just smoke to cover up one person's inability
  to admit that their lack of interest HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PARTNER #1. 
  Admiting to this, would allow partner #2 to deal with the ISSUE
  as it exists.  Without admitting this, partner #2 continues to believe 
  that the disinterest is somehow their 'fault'.


  (This is about as clear as mud, huh? :-)


~robin     
                                          

    
    I thought I made it clear in .8 that he DID mention it to
    her. He used to call her "fat pig" and other horrible things when
    they had fights, until she was in tears!
    
    I believe that, because he deliberately made it clear that he was
    repulsed by her, it was very easy for her to conclude that this
    was why he wasn't having sex with her, and therefore he was using
    sex as a weapon.
    
    Roberta

    Re .14 & .15, I feel sorry for anybody who finds themself in a
    relationship with someone who doesn't seem to want to have sex with
    them.  I feel sorry for them, not because the other person is
    necessarily "the bad guy" but because it's a sad situation, and
    it's obvious that something is wrong with the relationship, and
    that it may not be going to work much longer.  I do realize that
    sometimes people are "just plain not interested in having sex."
     I also have to wonder why anybody who is "just plain not interested
    in having sex" should have to have sex?  Of course, the person who
    wants to have sex with them will feel bad, and I sympathize with
    them.  But, that still doesn't mean that the other person should
    be forced to have sex (even if they're married).  I wish all
    relationships could be mutual.  Human beings would have much happier
    lives if that were the case, but for most of us only a few/if any
    relationships are mutual, for any length of time anyway.
    
    I have had two male friends (who didn't know each other) who have
    told me similar stories about the attractiveness of their ex-wives.
     Both said that they married slim women, whom they found to be very
    physically attractive.  Both said that after a few years their wives
    put on an incredible amount of fat, and both men lost interest in
    having sex with their wives.  They were miserable over it, but they
    both married thin women, and found themselves, after several years,
    married to extremely overweight women whom they couldn't get interested
    in making love to.  I don't think they could help it.  One man told
    me it made him sick to his stomach to see his wife naked after awhile.
    I don't think they were using sex as a weapon.  I think they were
    very unhappy about their love lives for awhile.
    
    In other words, I don't think that the person who doesn't want to
    make love to his overweight wife, is refusing out of manipulation.
     He's probably refusing because he just doesn't find her attractive
    anymore.
    
    This entirely different than some bitchy woman telling her husband
    that she won't have sex with him until he buys her a fur coat or
    something!
    
    Lorna
    

re .16 Lorna,


>    Re .14 & .15, I feel sorry for anybody who finds themself in a
>    relationship with someone who doesn't seem to want to have sex with
>    them.  I feel sorry for them, not because the other person is
>    necessarily "the bad guy" but because it's a sad situation, and
>    it's obvious that something is wrong with the relationship, and
>    that it may not be going to work much longer.  I do realize that
>    sometimes people are "just plain not interested in having sex."

  While I agree that one partner's disinterest in sex affects the 
relationship, I don't believe in a long term relationship that sex plays
such a major role.  The levels of sexual interest fluctuate over the years, 
IMO.  I just don't think that someone who is disinterested should attach 
seemingly manipulative behavior to their disinterest.  I don't necessarily
believe that the relationship is in trouble.  Maybe you and I place 
a different value on the sexual aspect of a <long term> relationship.

>     I also have to wonder why anybody who is "just plain not interested
>    in having sex" should have to have sex?  Of course, the person who

  I can't think of any reason they should 'have to have sex'. Although I 
 do think that they might _agree_ to have sex if there were some kind of
 compromise worked out between the partners. I don't believe that is 
 necessary though for the relationship to survive thru this 'phase' (which 
 is what I think it usually is... a phase).

>                                                            I wish all
>    relationships could be mutual.  Human beings would have much happier
>    lives if that were the case, but for most of us only a few/if any
>    relationships are mutual, for any length of time anyway.
 
I think that commited long-term relationships 'work thru' these periods of
non-mutuality (I doubt that is a word, but it worked). My original point is
that *when* you (generic) work thru these periods, identify the real issues
instead of creating excuses to manipulate the other person.
   

I understand the other point you are making. I find it hard to comment on
because it seems as only one perspective is available. I don't *think* I 
would consider what you went on to discribe as 'using sex as a weapon'.


        

~robin     
                                          

I've been in other notesfiles where a conversation got to this point: "I just
don't find <characteristic> attractive. You can't make me have sex with someone
with <that characteristic>." I find it kind of depressing when the
<characteristic> in question also happens to be one that rarely, if ever,
appears in media presentations of what is attractive. I find myself wanting to
work harder at broadening my perspective on what is beautiful. Like, now I want
to rush out and look at a lot of Rococo portraits of naked women. Did they have
Rococo men?
	Mez

  I have successfully used sex as a weapon.  The first time I told my wife
  Alison that she was "cut off," she laughed so hard that she lost track
  of the argument we were having.  So of course I won...

  Hope this helps,

  JP

    I thank the stars that no idiot has sidetracked this discussion
    with dumb remarks about the nature of the weaponry (or lack thereof).
    
    Steve
    
    (Uh, Sarge. . .I think my gun's broke. . .)

    Well, since you brought it up, I was wondering about loading the
    weapons.
    
    Dondi

    re .18 "rococo women"
    
    Yea, they also painted men. Look at the Rubens paintings. Essentially
    big, and quite muscle-bound bodies. Heavy legs. Beauty is in the
    eye of the beholder. enjoy. A shame you cant touch - it would be
    a nice handfull.
    
    Regards,
    Heinrich 

    A very good friend of mine, who's marriage is in trouble, stated...
    
    "My wife decided, over a year ago, that 'Sex just didn't make sense.'" 

    No discussion preceeded her decision nor followed it.
    
    He stated "That sure told me exactly what she thought of me."
    
    Then he concluded "Message received".
    
    I couldn't add a word.
    
    				Charlie.

That's funny; in my experience it's usually the male who makes a decision and
announces it. 

Sometimes when people make statements like that, they're crying out for help,
or support, or discussion.

Though I understand how threatened someone on the receiving end can feel.
	Mez

    Re: .24
    
    Flipping through the December Reader's Digest to find all the funny
    bits, I saw an article that discussed the differences in conversational
    patterns with men and women.  The use of questions, the use of
    acknowledging remarks, all sorts of little things that add up.

Anyone willing to say what differences were in the Reader's Digest article?
Chelsea? 
	Mez

    I only scanned the article, so I don't remember much.  One difference
    is the use of questions; women will often use them to continue the
    conversation, while men tend see them as requests for information.
    Women use acknowledging sounds ("Mmm hmm") more than men; this leads
    women to think that men aren't really paying attention.
    
    The opening 'case' involved a woman who was concerned about an upcoming
    venture.  She mentioned to her husband, who fired off four 'commands'
    ("Hire an accountant").  She was upset because her husband wasn't
    being supportive.  He thought he *was* being supportive by giving
    her advice.  Apparently men tend to see discussions as problem-solving
    sessions while women seem to want reassurance and emotional support.