Guys, if it were physically possible, would you allow your exclusive-relationship girl to have sex with you when you're not in the mood?

[Anonymous]

The differences in genital anatomy are at the root of gender conflicts. Let me explain. For a girl to obtain sexual gratification with her male partner requires him to 1) take action (thrusting, licking or rubbing) and/or 2) be hard. This is not the case for a guy to obtain gratification with his female partner. Guys, if it were possible for you to get hard without being aroused (without your taking dangerous drugs) and have sex without exerting any effort your partner could theoretically ride you while you just lie there. This hypothetical is the analog of what actually is possible the other way around. Would you consent to that? Many women do not. This refusal to help a partner obtain sexual gratification (or meet any need whatsoever) while exerting no effort or paying any cost leaves a lot of guys (in my opinion, understandably) pretty miffed. That leads to the problems. Since physics, exertion and health risk can't account for the refusal, spite, malice and contempt fill the vacuum of explanation in the guy's mind. It is like asking a friend with an extra seat in their car for a ride to work and them simply saying 'no'. Why would they do that? I completely appreciate how much better sex is when both people are in the mood. But when only one of them is in the mood through no fault of their own (endocrine response is involuntary) which is naturally going to happen a lot regardless of how in love people are, why should the best course of action be for that person to be left wanting when the alternative is physically possible, requires no effort on the part of the other person and poses no health risk or any other cost? One more thing that doesn't need mentioning - lube exists.

[JoeCensored]

I always have sex with her when I'm not in the mood. In those cases I don't complain, but I either put her on top of me (which is her favorite anyway so all the better for her), or I just go down on her. After she cums a few times I decide if I'm going to go for it myself or if I'd rather at that point end it with a feeling of mission accomplished that I satisfied her needs.

I do this because I've decided I will never deny her, even though she seems to want sex all the time. Part of the reason is because she have never ever denied me. She's never been too tired, hever a headache, never anything, and she always does basically anything I want, so I'd like to always do the same for her.

[Tarvold]

Yes. I think it's the responsibility of anyone in a relationship to put their partner's desires first.

[OrdinaryGentleman]

Yes I would, I would most likely go down on her, then get horny then have sex.

[AngryHorny]

Yes, withholding sex is a bitch move.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely, if I couldn't get it up I'd use my hands or mouth.

[Asker]

I think this is another situation. The one that puzzles me is that of the woman refusing EVEN THOUGH it would cost her nothing to comply. Using your hands or mouth is an actual thing you would have to do, but laying there on her back is literally doing nothing. There is zero cost, her partner has pledged to not have sex with anyone else, but she still refuses.

[Opinion Owner]

Well it wouldn't be much fun anyway with someone who wasn't interested. Personally I'd just go out and find someone enthusiastic about having sex with me if my wife did that. I'd tell her first, I wouldn't do it behind her back.

[Asker]

That seems like a pretty drastic measure. And I would imagine few people would do that. Fewer still would get approval from their wifes! I agree that sex with someone while they're not horny wouldn't be the most fun you ever had, but I think it would be better than just lying there waiting to be not horny anymore.

[Opinion Owner]

Sex is like food, I wouldn't just let my wife starve me either. Life is too short for that. I don't see why I need my wife's consent. She promised to love me, if she doesn't and it's a regular thing then she broke the oath, not me.

[Asker]

I'm with you. I'd reckon that the terms of relationships are often not made clear. It's a pretty unpleasant thing to make clear. The default, unspoken, terms are then left up to society and filmmakers to determine which seem to be 'both people have to be horny for sex to happen'. I can understand a guy saying 'no' when he can't get hard or doesn't want to do the work, but I don't understand why exactly a woman would ever say no to someone she claims to love when she doesn't have to get hard and doesn't have to do any work. It seems to happen a lot. It has to me with different people.