3 ms·

I expect this will get lost in the commotion here, but: The author uses language around sex that I think treats it, subtly but disturbingly, as a commodity. Th

I expect this will get lost in the commotion here, but: The author uses language around sex that I think treats it, subtly but disturbingly, as a commodity. They write of a "withholder/withholdee", of "women who want to provide sexual intimacy" (note the word "provide"), and of "women... putting out". The problem with this framework (which is endemic to the larger culture) is that it runs against bodily autonomy for all of us. If sex is a commodity, then the people who provide or withhold it are just means to an end. And treating people (including ourselves) as means to an end is rather degrading. Imagine using the same language for any other consensual activity. If someone's partner no longer wanted to go out dancing, play board games, or make music together, would we say they were "withholding gameplay" or failing to "provide entertainment" or no longer "putting out music"? I hope not.

xputer 5y ago
The comparison seems off. What you're missing is monogamy. If your partner does not want to play board games as frequently as you, then it is perfectly acceptable to find someone else to play board games with. With sex in a monogamous relationship not so much. Even still, a healthy relationship is giving and taking. My wife may want me to go for evening walks with her while I hate them, but still I go with her because I know it makes her happy. Dead bedrooms are imo a sign of one partner not giving.
old_fart_dev 5y ago
This is an excellent point. I always assumed the emotional aspect of sex was part of the reason the verb "withholding" was used, much in the same way it's used to describe a more generalized "withholding" of love and affection, whether it's as simple as a kind word or hug on upwards to the more carnal. But withholding something implies that thing is deserved or earned, which runs contrary to body autonomy. Even though he used this language, I thought the author did a pretty good job explaining why sex isn't something that's rarely "withheld" as a means to an end. But our language around love (physical and emotional) and relationships needs work.
troway357924 5y ago
If your weekly tennis partner started canceling on you at the last minute, you'd get annoyed too. The difference is sex is often intrinsic to the relationship. When someone wants it a lot less or more or different than before then the terms of the relationship unexpectedly become worse for at least one person. That can feel like bad faith even if it wasn't.

xputer 5y ago

The comparison seems off. What you're missing is monogamy. If your partner does not want to play board games as frequently as you, then it is perfectly acceptable to find someone else to play board games with. With sex in a monogamous relationship not so much. Even still, a healthy relationship is giving and taking. My wife may want me to go for evening walks with her while I hate them, but still I go with her because I know it makes her happy. Dead bedrooms are imo a sign of one partner not giving.

old_fart_dev 5y ago

This is an excellent point. I always assumed the emotional aspect of sex was part of the reason the verb "withholding" was used, much in the same way it's used to describe a more generalized "withholding" of love and affection, whether it's as simple as a kind word or hug on upwards to the more carnal. But withholding something implies that thing is deserved or earned, which runs contrary to body autonomy. Even though he used this language, I thought the author did a pretty good job explaining why sex isn't something that's rarely "withheld" as a means to an end. But our language around love (physical and emotional) and relationships needs work.

troway357924 5y ago

If your weekly tennis partner started canceling on you at the last minute, you'd get annoyed too. The difference is sex is often intrinsic to the relationship. When someone wants it a lot less or more or different than before then the terms of the relationship unexpectedly become worse for at least one person. That can feel like bad faith even if it wasn't.