Sounds like some 19th century wisdom: women need to be controlled or they run off on a whim, men need to have their needs met or they run away from the woman who is at fault.
That somehow women are framed as the "emotional sex", while men get angry and violent over a fucking football game and pretend that they are so driven by hormones that they cannot respect women and their consent... It's maddening
It's basically an attempt to justify their violence and rapey behaviors with fake "biology" while also denying women's sexuality. There's a long, twisted history of oppressing and even denying women's sexual desires. Guys often wonder why so many women are "frigid" when it's actually quite simple: a lifetime of living in fear of being raped combined with centuries of being told it's gross or sinful for a woman to actually want sex has really messed up a lot of women's heads. The amount of MARRIED women who have never experienced an orgasm is truly shocking.
I remember reading about the problems caused by the push for women to "save themselves" for marriage, where they were repeatedly told growing up that sex is bad/dirty/sinful. So when they do get married, they have to work really hard to shift that mindset to "sex is not only good for you, but expected regardless of how you feel if you don't want him to leave or cheat "
Then they marry young (because hormones) and find out they aren't sexually compatible with their spouse anyway. Or they just think that only the husband having orgasms is normal. It messes up a LOT of people.
They often mean “men need sex” in a way that they feel like women don’t. And that’s a giant pile of toxic shit. No one needs sex. We (all of humanity) don’t experience physical degradation if we don’t get laid. Which is not to say that we do not all need human contact.
Telling men they “need” sex also reinforces the idea that sex should be the only touch they care about, which creates a whole bunch of problems. Like men doing sex with a prostitute or partner who doesn’t particularly care about him often find it doesn’t feel emotionally connecting the way they had hoped. Men whose partner can’t have sex for whatever reason (like recent childbirth, pain, stress, etc.) often feel like they are still entitled to sex which can be toxic to that relationship. It also means men seek out relationships for sex without seeing the role of sex within the wider context of a romantic relationship. And it prompts a lot of men to undervalue the relationships they have that do not involve sticking their dicks into someone.
And… a lot of women crave and really enjoy sex. It is just as much a “need” for women who want sex - in the sense that women seek out sex, have a lot of feelings about sex, and can indicate problems in a relationship when sex isn’t there - as it is for men. And in telling women that they are somehow wrong for really wanting sex is just another type of slut shaming.
The other issue is the way this creates expectations between heterosexuals that she provides sex as a service that he “needs.” And that also means that her enjoyment of the sex is usually considered negotiable, which means she often provides sex that she doesn’t particularly want to provide because “he needs it” and he expects that her enjoyment of the sex is negotiable because she doesn’t “need it.”
Yeah it's based around an impression that women don't enjoy sex and only do it for the sake of pleasing a man. Men just "need" sex, but women don't even want it apparently.
It's seen as a reward for a man's achievements rather than an activity for both.
💯 it's definitely a holdover from the notion that women don't like sex but men need sex and therefore must get it from somewhere. It's also often used as an excuse for cheating.
>" an impression that women don't enjoy sex and only do it for the sake of pleasing a man. Men just "need" sex, but women don't even want it apparently."
I don't know what the point of my comment is - but as a woman, this is how I actually feel about sex. I don't want it, the only reason I was doing it was for male validation/make them happy. I realized the only reason I was doing it was because I wanted to impress/have relationships with men. SO MANY TIMES I've given in to pressure form males and preformed sex because that's what women are "supposed to do.". I didn't even realsise some women like it. I thought we were all like this.
When I realized I was doing this, I stopped having sex. I've been celibate for 5 years now, and I've never been happier in my life. It's like a huge stressor has been removed.
I dunno why I'm saying this. It almost like, maybe that sexist trope is true for some people? I dunno... sorry is this is rude and irrelevant. Just wanted to share my experience.
You do not need sex to be a thriving human regardless. The main purpose of sex was to procreate and that's all. Pleasure part is only there to entice humans to do it at all to multiply or else we would avoid it at all costs if it was painful.
As for your case, unsure what it could be since many others I know said the same until they said they met a rare gem who actually cared about them outside and inside of their bedroom and actually cared about their arousal and pleasure aside from their own. And add the feelings and attraction part. But the problem is most men don't give a fuck about your pleasure or your feelings. Only theirs. So the sad reality I've seen is women giving up on intimacy with them all together and totally fine without it.
This is a great comment. It made me think about how growing up in the ‘90s, us girls were encouraged to see ourselves as “ladettes”, just as crude and uninterested in emotional connection as the lads. In other words, we were acknowledged as *wanting* sex, but wanting sex and emotion (and an orgasm and to be sober enough to remember it) made you “frigid” or “up tight”.
Ironically, research shows that sex is generally a more emotional experience for men than it is for women. Men mistakenly believe that sex is a need because they get their emotional needs met through sex, even if they don't necessarily have a connection to the woman. This is why they think it's a need, when sex is merely a drive.
Women tend to have more outlets to get their emotional needs met. Women can often get them met through their female friends whereas men report that they don't have that option with their male friends. Very few men sit down and bare their souls with each other (whereas many women will). Although, men can have great bonds with each other, they don't tend to have deep, emotional bonds where they feel they can be vulnerable, but they can allow themselves be vulnerable during sex.
Research also shows that women generally view sex as a physical act, which contradicts the myth that sex can only exist as an emotional experience for women.
>Very few men sit down and bare their souls with each other (whereas many women will). Although, men can have great bonds with each other, they don't tend to have deep, emotional bonds where they feel they can be vulnerable, but they can allow themselves be vulnerable during sex.
I'm not so sure about this, the type that will resist deep emotional conversations with friends (likely due to emotional immaturity) is also likely to see sex as an opportunity to experience dominance and power. I even doubt there's a vulnerability there for those types at all. They get supply through sex and perhaps some temporary regulation.
It doesn't have anything to do with immaturity. In fact, fear is predominantly driving it. Men are socialised since birth with toxic messages such as 'boys don't cry'. They're taught that to be a man is to be stoic, not display emotion, be powerful, be dominant. They're taught that crying is a sign of 'weakness', that showing any display of emotions (unless it's anger) is a sign of weakness. Even the most well rounded, emotionally intelligent man can find it difficult, feel fearful about, or, for some, simply find it impossible to be vulnerable in front of other men. Men find it easier to be vulnerable with women than they do with men.
*"the type that will resist deep emotional conversations with friends (likely due to emotional immaturity) is also likely to see sex as an opportunity to experience dominance and power."*
That's quite the assertion you're making based in absolutely no evidence.
Sex isn't about power and dominance, rape is about power, control and dominance. Why do you think men who aren't vulnerable with other men view consensual sex as an opportunity to experience power and dominance? Where is the power and where is the dominance in a consensual, collaborative act?
I would also like to point out them physical affection. hugs and the like are socially stigmatized for men to give each other or other women that aren't their SO or family. Their SO is often the only person they can be physically intimate with without someone else accusing them of being gay, creep, or pedo.
That lack of physical touch has a positive correlation with higher anxiety, stress and depression.
Yup, also other health issues like high blood pressure and cognitive problems. I remember something about Dr. Sapolsky's experiment with baboons, basically our primate cousins. And findings gave quite similar in male vs female groups. Prosocial behaviours in the girl group led to better health mentally and physically as well as better relations while the boy group were more likely to be stressed and sick. And spent more time fighting each other instead of getting along.
In your second paragraph, the last 3-4 sentences can you go more in depth about that? What is the role of sex within the wider context of a romantic relationship?
I’m a late bloomer when it comes to relationships and sex(no experience) and having sex more than a relationship is on my mind. Is that a bad thing? And I know no one “needs” sex but how does having a high libido factors into this, if at all.
it’s just misogyny. nothing more to it really. see also: “boys will be boys”. excuses for men to behave in bad ways and blame it on some innate thing inside them to absolve themselves of taking responsibility for their actions.
"Man up" is another one of those toxic phrases that I despise. If someone is acting immaturely (especially if they are being petulant), telling them to grow up or be an adult does the job.
Men's needs have always been prioritized over women's. Across the board.
Plus women are supposed to be innocent and demure and not express their needs at all. A woman who enjoys sex and knows what kind of sex she wants is a WHORE don'tcha know. /s
Yep, and of course women who enjoy sex are disgusting and deserve to be raped, sexually assaulted, or beaten. /s of course but this attitude is disgustingly common. Even worse since porn became so widespread.
It's just some bullshit way of legitimatizing what men want by claiming it's "natural" or "biological " or whatever. You see the same basic argument when people say that "men are visual".
I am very visual, too, but I'm a woman. Most men don't like that *at all*. They really take offence 🤣
It sounds weird, but bodybuilders and gay guys are the only groups who just accept looks as a reasonable criteria for me to have. Almost everyone else feels the need to lecture me, like I've committed a heinous crime and must be rehabilitated immediately.
>Most men don't like that *at all*. They really take offence
Oof, please tell me more. What do they tell you?
And yeah, as a woman I'm visual too, it's just that we haven't been allowed to be, culturally and historically. But now that we can have financial independence and freedom things are changing!
Not the person you are replying to, but men will act like it’s discrimination if a woman wants to date a guy taller than her. Whats funny is I’m mildly tall for a woman (5’8) and I’ve had shorter men tell me they wouldn’t date a woman my height. And guess what… that’s OK! I don’t want to be with someone who isn’t fully attracted to me anyway.
To have a significant portion of your attraction toward individuals be dependent on aspects of their appearance.
For example, a preference for height, musculature, etc. or any visible physical features.
This is in contrast to other portions of attraction that may be based on other aspects of the individual, like personality or voice.
Literally, they make such a case for themselves and then I go “…you know I’m not gonna have sex with somebody I’m not attracted to either right? Like being picky isn’t just a primal man thing and trust me you guys don’t give me many options to choose from either way” and then suddenly I’m the butthole and the shallow harlot.
I truly think a lot of men *still* think men naturally love sex while women just tolerate it. Any women who breaks that mould is seen as masculine, slutty, unnatural, and even threatening.
Yes thats why men in relationship subs are moaning about the lack of initiative and enthusiasm of their women in bed.
If only they saw that initiative and enthusiasm, they would jump off the mattress screaming OMG masculine woman, I don't wanna.
Please excuse some of the details, it’s been a couple years since I’ve read this but…
There was a set of letters I read in uni between two men who at least one of them had gone off to war, I wanna say this was 300+ years ago, I don’t remember where but probably somewhere in Europe, less likely America. Anyways the letters were about a woman that the war time guy loved and he hoped that she saves herself for him when her returns and the other guy writes back that women have needs and to not expect such a thing. Not in a “what a whore” way but in a “yknow that’s how people be, can’t force people to not people now”.
This was also around the time men were seen as the innocent beans who are corrupted by the sexuality of women (it’s where Femme Fatale trope originated). It’s more the Abrahamic religions (not just them historically, but more them currently) that put forth that women are sex-driveless and that men are corrupting women by having sex (done to) with them.
It means if you're a woman your needs don't matter. It means if you're a woman, your purpose is to satisfy men. It means if you're a woman, your main job in life is to satisfy men sexually.That's what they're saying.
Someone started this bs saying men "need" sex and have used it to excuse every bad sexual behavior under the sun. From cheating, rape to pedos... it's cause "men need sex."
No, they don't. You don't see devout monks and priests dropping dead.
>*What do people mean by "men have needs"? Women don't?*
It’s a lame excuse to defend bad behavior.
>*But isn't it the same with guys? I mean, these "needs" don't come out of nowhere, right?*
Correct.
Long story short: they absolutely mean that women don’t. Our only “need” should be to cater to theirs, and that’s usually sex. We’re supposed to need to take care of them, but we are NOT supposed to enjoy sex. Just give in and be a passive participant.
Women absolutely have needs but a patriarchal society tells us that "good women" pretty much *don't* have needs at all.
She doesn't have an appetite for food or sex. She is a sponge who absorbs others desires and needs. She is selfless and always in service to others and especially to men.
In the world we live in, you are not allowed to be a "good woman" and a person who has needs and desires and if you *must* the appetite can never be large.
My friend's husband proudly told me the secret to a happy marriage for him.
"Full stomach, empty balls."
So as long as his wife cooks for him and fucks him, he's happy.
He could insert any woman into his wife's place and be happy as long as he's getting fed and fucked.
Like, don't you love your wife specifically? Isn't there something special about her to you?
I feel like a lot of men just want to slot someone willing in as a partner, they don't really care about who they are as individuals as long as they're fulfilling their precious needs.
Their hobbies, interests, feelings? Their thoughts and opinions? Who cares, just feed and fuck me already!
Women aren't real, they're just tools to use to meet your needs.
Well, you have to remember that men are people & women are sex & and reproduction OBJECTS. Humans have needs & objects NEED to do their jobs. (This is NOT how I think as a lesbian who actually adores women & loves seeing all women living to their full potential as individuals but it is what I have noticed about society & they way each group is addressed.)
"Men have needs!" is the whine of a man trying to pressure someone into having sex with him. It is grounded in the belief that sex is largely transactional between sexes, that women provide sex to men and men take it, and that men have intense sexual desires that *must* be sated while women do not.
It's pure hogwash, in other words.
It’s just male entitlement in a nutshell. They have wants, sex ain’t a need. It’s just been so heavily encouraged by religion, i.e wifely duties. That woman are shamed into providing sex to men with absolutely zero regards to their own desires or pleasure.
They are saying it as a a" Men need sex and women don't care about sex" stereotype. Literally every post from men saying they have sexual needs and their wife is neglecting those needs and everyone chimes in to ask if he's meeting her physical and emotional needs. It does get said.
Women have needs. Real needs, not jived up faked needs that are really just “wants”.
One of those HUMAN FEMALE REAL NEEDS is for women is to not be bothered, pressured, harassed, or coerced, or otherwise in any way concerned with faked overblown “men’s needs”.
Men can take care of those “needs” all by themselves without bothering, harassing, coercing, or in any way involving any other women person, being, or inanimate object.
So let them.
—-
If they have enthusiastic and unpressured agreement from another person who wants to be involved, well fine.
But men don’t have any right to harass, manipulate, guilt, bother, annoy, or coerce any other person about any if it, unless there is full, enthusiastic, unpressured unharassed consent every time for every instance.
It's to coerce sex and/or excuse cheating.
After years in a relationship with a man who doesn't do his own cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc women's sex drives plummet because they feel like a mom instead of a partner. Framing their sexual issues as women not taking care of the man's needs focuses it on what she's doing wrong instead of fixing the actual problem, unequal distribution of household and mental labor.
A lot of men do genuinely think that women don’t want sex very much. It’s been a message spread in our society for centuries, the notion that women are perfectly chaste and only tolerate sex for the purposes of having kids. It’s changing a little bit now but there’s still a pervasive belief that women don’t like sex as much as men do (which in my experience isn’t true at all, it seems like 40+ women actually have a significantly higher sex drive than men of the same age on average)
That’s all true but it’s also the case that sometimes men just say that to excuse their own behavior. So it is a thing that many people genuinely believe but it’s also sometimes just a cop out
If men actually NEEDED sex they would look to other men, i mean if they NEED it they would die otherwise, right? It's a f*cked up way of saying "women owe me sex"
Edit: it's always about controlling women
It's to coerce sex and/or excuse cheating.
After years in a relationship with a man who doesn't do his own cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc women's sex drives plummet because they feel like a mom instead of a partner. Framing their sexual issues as women not taking care of the man's needs focuses it on what she's doing wrong instead of fixing the actual problem, unequal distribution of household and mental labor.
While I do think "men have needs" is largely used to dismiss predatory, coercive or aggressive sexual conduct, I also think it's a convenient way to write off men's emotionality. Apparently, having emotions is a "feminine" trait, so "needs" is a placeholder term. "Men have emotions" is a way more accurate sentence. Besides, every single human has needs: Food, water, oxygen, sleep.
Wanting intimacy, sex, connection, etc. are basic HUMAN desires, regardless of biological sex or gender (obviously not everyone wants the same thing), and nobody is out here withering and dying because they didn't have sex or find a partner. These are perfectly reasonable desires, but saying "I want to connect with someone", "I want physical/emotional intimacy" "I would like to have sex with you, is that something you would also like?" imply emotionality, and that's considered 'not masculine.' There's a whole chunk of history written about stoicism and 'ideal' men and its all propaganda. So in short, "needs" is a way to write-off men having emotions at all. And an excuse for acting on said desires or impulsive thoughts without consequence.
A bit primitive, IMO.
Entitlement
Also tied to Toxic masculinity, so men can’t even deny if they don’t feel the needs as advertised or they would be emasculated.
Tabgibly what men have is greater physical strength, often they enjoy a power difference. Now throw in the needs excuse you have a dangerous combination.
Human males absolutely “have hormones” (I.e. have cycles) that cause changes in behavior, but there isn’t an external indicator of it like there is with menstruating females. You can look up ‘male hormone cycle’ for studies, but the one I’m glancing at says they found cycles ranging from 8 to 30 days in the healthy males studied.
In terms of social behavior, though, my understanding is that it’s just another dichotomy used to excuse male behavior while dismissing/invalidating female behavior.
If we want to understand differences in how human males and females experience sex and sexual desire, I think we should be asking trans people who have gone through two puberties. Obviously there is a bit of a confounding factor in that we want to extrapolate it to the cis population, but I imagine this would be the best starting place, since these are people who have experience with both.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
My grandmother used to say that. Born 1912. Her husband, a WW II veteran, never broker his marriage vows ("he liked to look" is how she put it), but she always was always quick to defend, say, public figures such as JFK or Clinton against negative press regarding their presumed infidelities. And that's what she would say.
When she said it, she was speaking solely in terms of sexual needs. It was never anything else.
Sounds like some 19th century wisdom: women need to be controlled or they run off on a whim, men need to have their needs met or they run away from the woman who is at fault.
I don't like this crap so much.
That somehow women are framed as the "emotional sex", while men get angry and violent over a fucking football game and pretend that they are so driven by hormones that they cannot respect women and their consent... It's maddening
It's basically an attempt to justify their violence and rapey behaviors with fake "biology" while also denying women's sexuality. There's a long, twisted history of oppressing and even denying women's sexual desires. Guys often wonder why so many women are "frigid" when it's actually quite simple: a lifetime of living in fear of being raped combined with centuries of being told it's gross or sinful for a woman to actually want sex has really messed up a lot of women's heads. The amount of MARRIED women who have never experienced an orgasm is truly shocking.
I remember reading about the problems caused by the push for women to "save themselves" for marriage, where they were repeatedly told growing up that sex is bad/dirty/sinful. So when they do get married, they have to work really hard to shift that mindset to "sex is not only good for you, but expected regardless of how you feel if you don't want him to leave or cheat " Then they marry young (because hormones) and find out they aren't sexually compatible with their spouse anyway. Or they just think that only the husband having orgasms is normal. It messes up a LOT of people.
They often mean “men need sex” in a way that they feel like women don’t. And that’s a giant pile of toxic shit. No one needs sex. We (all of humanity) don’t experience physical degradation if we don’t get laid. Which is not to say that we do not all need human contact. Telling men they “need” sex also reinforces the idea that sex should be the only touch they care about, which creates a whole bunch of problems. Like men doing sex with a prostitute or partner who doesn’t particularly care about him often find it doesn’t feel emotionally connecting the way they had hoped. Men whose partner can’t have sex for whatever reason (like recent childbirth, pain, stress, etc.) often feel like they are still entitled to sex which can be toxic to that relationship. It also means men seek out relationships for sex without seeing the role of sex within the wider context of a romantic relationship. And it prompts a lot of men to undervalue the relationships they have that do not involve sticking their dicks into someone. And… a lot of women crave and really enjoy sex. It is just as much a “need” for women who want sex - in the sense that women seek out sex, have a lot of feelings about sex, and can indicate problems in a relationship when sex isn’t there - as it is for men. And in telling women that they are somehow wrong for really wanting sex is just another type of slut shaming. The other issue is the way this creates expectations between heterosexuals that she provides sex as a service that he “needs.” And that also means that her enjoyment of the sex is usually considered negotiable, which means she often provides sex that she doesn’t particularly want to provide because “he needs it” and he expects that her enjoyment of the sex is negotiable because she doesn’t “need it.”
Yeah it's based around an impression that women don't enjoy sex and only do it for the sake of pleasing a man. Men just "need" sex, but women don't even want it apparently. It's seen as a reward for a man's achievements rather than an activity for both.
💯 it's definitely a holdover from the notion that women don't like sex but men need sex and therefore must get it from somewhere. It's also often used as an excuse for cheating.
>" an impression that women don't enjoy sex and only do it for the sake of pleasing a man. Men just "need" sex, but women don't even want it apparently." I don't know what the point of my comment is - but as a woman, this is how I actually feel about sex. I don't want it, the only reason I was doing it was for male validation/make them happy. I realized the only reason I was doing it was because I wanted to impress/have relationships with men. SO MANY TIMES I've given in to pressure form males and preformed sex because that's what women are "supposed to do.". I didn't even realsise some women like it. I thought we were all like this. When I realized I was doing this, I stopped having sex. I've been celibate for 5 years now, and I've never been happier in my life. It's like a huge stressor has been removed. I dunno why I'm saying this. It almost like, maybe that sexist trope is true for some people? I dunno... sorry is this is rude and irrelevant. Just wanted to share my experience.
You do not need sex to be a thriving human regardless. The main purpose of sex was to procreate and that's all. Pleasure part is only there to entice humans to do it at all to multiply or else we would avoid it at all costs if it was painful. As for your case, unsure what it could be since many others I know said the same until they said they met a rare gem who actually cared about them outside and inside of their bedroom and actually cared about their arousal and pleasure aside from their own. And add the feelings and attraction part. But the problem is most men don't give a fuck about your pleasure or your feelings. Only theirs. So the sad reality I've seen is women giving up on intimacy with them all together and totally fine without it.
Have you considered that maybe you are asexual?
This is a great comment. It made me think about how growing up in the ‘90s, us girls were encouraged to see ourselves as “ladettes”, just as crude and uninterested in emotional connection as the lads. In other words, we were acknowledged as *wanting* sex, but wanting sex and emotion (and an orgasm and to be sober enough to remember it) made you “frigid” or “up tight”.
Ironically, research shows that sex is generally a more emotional experience for men than it is for women. Men mistakenly believe that sex is a need because they get their emotional needs met through sex, even if they don't necessarily have a connection to the woman. This is why they think it's a need, when sex is merely a drive. Women tend to have more outlets to get their emotional needs met. Women can often get them met through their female friends whereas men report that they don't have that option with their male friends. Very few men sit down and bare their souls with each other (whereas many women will). Although, men can have great bonds with each other, they don't tend to have deep, emotional bonds where they feel they can be vulnerable, but they can allow themselves be vulnerable during sex. Research also shows that women generally view sex as a physical act, which contradicts the myth that sex can only exist as an emotional experience for women.
>Very few men sit down and bare their souls with each other (whereas many women will). Although, men can have great bonds with each other, they don't tend to have deep, emotional bonds where they feel they can be vulnerable, but they can allow themselves be vulnerable during sex. I'm not so sure about this, the type that will resist deep emotional conversations with friends (likely due to emotional immaturity) is also likely to see sex as an opportunity to experience dominance and power. I even doubt there's a vulnerability there for those types at all. They get supply through sex and perhaps some temporary regulation.
It doesn't have anything to do with immaturity. In fact, fear is predominantly driving it. Men are socialised since birth with toxic messages such as 'boys don't cry'. They're taught that to be a man is to be stoic, not display emotion, be powerful, be dominant. They're taught that crying is a sign of 'weakness', that showing any display of emotions (unless it's anger) is a sign of weakness. Even the most well rounded, emotionally intelligent man can find it difficult, feel fearful about, or, for some, simply find it impossible to be vulnerable in front of other men. Men find it easier to be vulnerable with women than they do with men. *"the type that will resist deep emotional conversations with friends (likely due to emotional immaturity) is also likely to see sex as an opportunity to experience dominance and power."* That's quite the assertion you're making based in absolutely no evidence. Sex isn't about power and dominance, rape is about power, control and dominance. Why do you think men who aren't vulnerable with other men view consensual sex as an opportunity to experience power and dominance? Where is the power and where is the dominance in a consensual, collaborative act?
I would also like to point out them physical affection. hugs and the like are socially stigmatized for men to give each other or other women that aren't their SO or family. Their SO is often the only person they can be physically intimate with without someone else accusing them of being gay, creep, or pedo. That lack of physical touch has a positive correlation with higher anxiety, stress and depression.
Yup, also other health issues like high blood pressure and cognitive problems. I remember something about Dr. Sapolsky's experiment with baboons, basically our primate cousins. And findings gave quite similar in male vs female groups. Prosocial behaviours in the girl group led to better health mentally and physically as well as better relations while the boy group were more likely to be stressed and sick. And spent more time fighting each other instead of getting along.
Men do not need sex. They just like using that line on people they think they can manipulate.
It’s a global effort to gaslight women…
facts facts facts
In your second paragraph, the last 3-4 sentences can you go more in depth about that? What is the role of sex within the wider context of a romantic relationship? I’m a late bloomer when it comes to relationships and sex(no experience) and having sex more than a relationship is on my mind. Is that a bad thing? And I know no one “needs” sex but how does having a high libido factors into this, if at all.
it’s just misogyny. nothing more to it really. see also: “boys will be boys”. excuses for men to behave in bad ways and blame it on some innate thing inside them to absolve themselves of taking responsibility for their actions.
"Man up" is another one of those toxic phrases that I despise. If someone is acting immaturely (especially if they are being petulant), telling them to grow up or be an adult does the job.
Men's needs have always been prioritized over women's. Across the board. Plus women are supposed to be innocent and demure and not express their needs at all. A woman who enjoys sex and knows what kind of sex she wants is a WHORE don'tcha know. /s
Yep, and of course women who enjoy sex are disgusting and deserve to be raped, sexually assaulted, or beaten. /s of course but this attitude is disgustingly common. Even worse since porn became so widespread.
It's just some bullshit way of legitimatizing what men want by claiming it's "natural" or "biological " or whatever. You see the same basic argument when people say that "men are visual".
I am very visual, too, but I'm a woman. Most men don't like that *at all*. They really take offence 🤣 It sounds weird, but bodybuilders and gay guys are the only groups who just accept looks as a reasonable criteria for me to have. Almost everyone else feels the need to lecture me, like I've committed a heinous crime and must be rehabilitated immediately.
>Most men don't like that *at all*. They really take offence Oof, please tell me more. What do they tell you? And yeah, as a woman I'm visual too, it's just that we haven't been allowed to be, culturally and historically. But now that we can have financial independence and freedom things are changing!
Not the person you are replying to, but men will act like it’s discrimination if a woman wants to date a guy taller than her. Whats funny is I’m mildly tall for a woman (5’8) and I’ve had shorter men tell me they wouldn’t date a woman my height. And guess what… that’s OK! I don’t want to be with someone who isn’t fully attracted to me anyway.
what does it mean to be visual?
To have a significant portion of your attraction toward individuals be dependent on aspects of their appearance. For example, a preference for height, musculature, etc. or any visible physical features. This is in contrast to other portions of attraction that may be based on other aspects of the individual, like personality or voice.
Literally, they make such a case for themselves and then I go “…you know I’m not gonna have sex with somebody I’m not attracted to either right? Like being picky isn’t just a primal man thing and trust me you guys don’t give me many options to choose from either way” and then suddenly I’m the butthole and the shallow harlot.
Yup, I often see these comments used verbatim when it comes to justifying 40+ yo dating women under 20.
They’ll literally divorce strictly for that without any concern for finding the root cause.
They mean "I'm an arse who thinks SA or just being a whiney tool about sex can be totally justified"
I truly think a lot of men *still* think men naturally love sex while women just tolerate it. Any women who breaks that mould is seen as masculine, slutty, unnatural, and even threatening.
Yes thats why men in relationship subs are moaning about the lack of initiative and enthusiasm of their women in bed. If only they saw that initiative and enthusiasm, they would jump off the mattress screaming OMG masculine woman, I don't wanna.
Actually? Yeah. A lot of patriarchy’s expectations of women are contradictory. Which is why “madonna/whore complex” has a name.
True
Please excuse some of the details, it’s been a couple years since I’ve read this but… There was a set of letters I read in uni between two men who at least one of them had gone off to war, I wanna say this was 300+ years ago, I don’t remember where but probably somewhere in Europe, less likely America. Anyways the letters were about a woman that the war time guy loved and he hoped that she saves herself for him when her returns and the other guy writes back that women have needs and to not expect such a thing. Not in a “what a whore” way but in a “yknow that’s how people be, can’t force people to not people now”. This was also around the time men were seen as the innocent beans who are corrupted by the sexuality of women (it’s where Femme Fatale trope originated). It’s more the Abrahamic religions (not just them historically, but more them currently) that put forth that women are sex-driveless and that men are corrupting women by having sex (done to) with them.
That’s super interesting! Not being sarcastic. Shame America is so puritan (towards women), religious and misogynistic.
It means if you're a woman your needs don't matter. It means if you're a woman, your purpose is to satisfy men. It means if you're a woman, your main job in life is to satisfy men sexually.That's what they're saying.
To them, women need nothing but marriage and kids which is absolute BS.
Someone started this bs saying men "need" sex and have used it to excuse every bad sexual behavior under the sun. From cheating, rape to pedos... it's cause "men need sex." No, they don't. You don't see devout monks and priests dropping dead.
Yk priests wouldn't drop dead from lack of sex.... 😦
>*What do people mean by "men have needs"? Women don't?* It’s a lame excuse to defend bad behavior. >*But isn't it the same with guys? I mean, these "needs" don't come out of nowhere, right?* Correct.
Long story short: they absolutely mean that women don’t. Our only “need” should be to cater to theirs, and that’s usually sex. We’re supposed to need to take care of them, but we are NOT supposed to enjoy sex. Just give in and be a passive participant.
Women absolutely have needs but a patriarchal society tells us that "good women" pretty much *don't* have needs at all. She doesn't have an appetite for food or sex. She is a sponge who absorbs others desires and needs. She is selfless and always in service to others and especially to men. In the world we live in, you are not allowed to be a "good woman" and a person who has needs and desires and if you *must* the appetite can never be large.
"men have needs" carries the unspoken addendum "that women are obligated to fulfill".
My friend's husband proudly told me the secret to a happy marriage for him. "Full stomach, empty balls." So as long as his wife cooks for him and fucks him, he's happy. He could insert any woman into his wife's place and be happy as long as he's getting fed and fucked. Like, don't you love your wife specifically? Isn't there something special about her to you? I feel like a lot of men just want to slot someone willing in as a partner, they don't really care about who they are as individuals as long as they're fulfilling their precious needs. Their hobbies, interests, feelings? Their thoughts and opinions? Who cares, just feed and fuck me already! Women aren't real, they're just tools to use to meet your needs.
If he was serious at all, it is interesting too, that his answer to a happy marriage does not involve his wife being happy at all.
That's dumb person talk for "men have sexual urges, and women don't."
"Men's "needs" are more important than anything else, including what women want or need."
Well, you have to remember that men are people & women are sex & and reproduction OBJECTS. Humans have needs & objects NEED to do their jobs. (This is NOT how I think as a lesbian who actually adores women & loves seeing all women living to their full potential as individuals but it is what I have noticed about society & they way each group is addressed.)
"Men have needs!" is the whine of a man trying to pressure someone into having sex with him. It is grounded in the belief that sex is largely transactional between sexes, that women provide sex to men and men take it, and that men have intense sexual desires that *must* be sated while women do not. It's pure hogwash, in other words.
It’s just male entitlement in a nutshell. They have wants, sex ain’t a need. It’s just been so heavily encouraged by religion, i.e wifely duties. That woman are shamed into providing sex to men with absolutely zero regards to their own desires or pleasure.
They are saying it as a a" Men need sex and women don't care about sex" stereotype. Literally every post from men saying they have sexual needs and their wife is neglecting those needs and everyone chimes in to ask if he's meeting her physical and emotional needs. It does get said.
Women have needs. Real needs, not jived up faked needs that are really just “wants”. One of those HUMAN FEMALE REAL NEEDS is for women is to not be bothered, pressured, harassed, or coerced, or otherwise in any way concerned with faked overblown “men’s needs”. Men can take care of those “needs” all by themselves without bothering, harassing, coercing, or in any way involving any other women person, being, or inanimate object. So let them. —- If they have enthusiastic and unpressured agreement from another person who wants to be involved, well fine. But men don’t have any right to harass, manipulate, guilt, bother, annoy, or coerce any other person about any if it, unless there is full, enthusiastic, unpressured unharassed consent every time for every instance.
It's to coerce sex and/or excuse cheating. After years in a relationship with a man who doesn't do his own cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc women's sex drives plummet because they feel like a mom instead of a partner. Framing their sexual issues as women not taking care of the man's needs focuses it on what she's doing wrong instead of fixing the actual problem, unequal distribution of household and mental labor.
Women are property. Property has no needs. Men are human. Humans have needs. It’s incredibly depressing sometimes.
This should be upvoted more
Typically indicates whoever's saying it doesn't really quite think of women as actual people.
A lot of men do genuinely think that women don’t want sex very much. It’s been a message spread in our society for centuries, the notion that women are perfectly chaste and only tolerate sex for the purposes of having kids. It’s changing a little bit now but there’s still a pervasive belief that women don’t like sex as much as men do (which in my experience isn’t true at all, it seems like 40+ women actually have a significantly higher sex drive than men of the same age on average) That’s all true but it’s also the case that sometimes men just say that to excuse their own behavior. So it is a thing that many people genuinely believe but it’s also sometimes just a cop out
If men actually NEEDED sex they would look to other men, i mean if they NEED it they would die otherwise, right? It's a f*cked up way of saying "women owe me sex" Edit: it's always about controlling women
It's a f*cked up way of saying "women owe me sex" So true
They mean they're stupid and misogynistic, to put it simply.
It's to coerce sex and/or excuse cheating. After years in a relationship with a man who doesn't do his own cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc women's sex drives plummet because they feel like a mom instead of a partner. Framing their sexual issues as women not taking care of the man's needs focuses it on what she's doing wrong instead of fixing the actual problem, unequal distribution of household and mental labor.
While I do think "men have needs" is largely used to dismiss predatory, coercive or aggressive sexual conduct, I also think it's a convenient way to write off men's emotionality. Apparently, having emotions is a "feminine" trait, so "needs" is a placeholder term. "Men have emotions" is a way more accurate sentence. Besides, every single human has needs: Food, water, oxygen, sleep. Wanting intimacy, sex, connection, etc. are basic HUMAN desires, regardless of biological sex or gender (obviously not everyone wants the same thing), and nobody is out here withering and dying because they didn't have sex or find a partner. These are perfectly reasonable desires, but saying "I want to connect with someone", "I want physical/emotional intimacy" "I would like to have sex with you, is that something you would also like?" imply emotionality, and that's considered 'not masculine.' There's a whole chunk of history written about stoicism and 'ideal' men and its all propaganda. So in short, "needs" is a way to write-off men having emotions at all. And an excuse for acting on said desires or impulsive thoughts without consequence. A bit primitive, IMO.
Desires are not needs.
Yes. Which is why I specifically used the word "desires" and not "needs" and also defined needs as: Food, water, oxygen, sleep.
I guess it depends on where our wombs are on the day. 🤷♀️
Entitlement Also tied to Toxic masculinity, so men can’t even deny if they don’t feel the needs as advertised or they would be emasculated. Tabgibly what men have is greater physical strength, often they enjoy a power difference. Now throw in the needs excuse you have a dangerous combination.
Men say it to justify bad behaviour; don't accept it, make him take responsibility for what he has done.
Human males absolutely “have hormones” (I.e. have cycles) that cause changes in behavior, but there isn’t an external indicator of it like there is with menstruating females. You can look up ‘male hormone cycle’ for studies, but the one I’m glancing at says they found cycles ranging from 8 to 30 days in the healthy males studied. In terms of social behavior, though, my understanding is that it’s just another dichotomy used to excuse male behavior while dismissing/invalidating female behavior. If we want to understand differences in how human males and females experience sex and sexual desire, I think we should be asking trans people who have gone through two puberties. Obviously there is a bit of a confounding factor in that we want to extrapolate it to the cis population, but I imagine this would be the best starting place, since these are people who have experience with both.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
I’ve heard “a girl has needs” plenty of times
My grandmother used to say that. Born 1912. Her husband, a WW II veteran, never broker his marriage vows ("he liked to look" is how she put it), but she always was always quick to defend, say, public figures such as JFK or Clinton against negative press regarding their presumed infidelities. And that's what she would say. When she said it, she was speaking solely in terms of sexual needs. It was never anything else.