Paying for romance with sex?

[Heather]

I've been noticing a pattern with some of our users I want to talk about, and think is really important to address.

In a word, we keep hearing from people who seem to be saying that in certain relationships, they don't really want to be engaging in sex, or don't want to have some kinds of sex they are having, but feel that sex is something they have to do if they want to be in a given relationship. To put more blunt a point on it: that sex is what they need to do with someone to buy or earn an emotionally intimate relationship with them.

And pretty much always, this is coming from young women in relationships with men (there have, however, been some young men who have voiced something similar).

Here's the thing about this: by all means, sometimes what someone wants is a sexual relationship AND a romantic relationship (mind, historically, those are actually synonyms in many ways: the history of romantic love as a concept is only about four centuries old, and it was pretty much all about sex). But when they are going to have both of those kinds of relationships (or that one kind, again, they are pretty intertwined), the given should be that that's only because both people want both those things. And if and when any one of those relationships isn't working or good for anyone involved, the given should be that either needs to be remedied or folks just need to part ways so each can find someone where both those ways of interacting ARE a fit for everyone, not where one person just keeps going through the motions because they want something they feel they have to pay for with sex.

You know, before second-wave feminism (though this changed for a lot of women after the first wave), the idea that sex was a duty women had to perform for men, that was about men, and the way it was about women was that the sex meant they could keep a roof over their heads, feed their kids, etc., was common. But that was also very much part of the socioeconomic conditions for many women (as it still is for many women in developing nations). And that is very much not an issue for most of the users we hear from in these situations, either because their parents are the ones paying their bills, or they are paying their own bills.

However, I still often feel, when folks talk about this kind of dynamic, like I got thrown back to 1950 or even 1850 for that matter. And it's 2014!

So, what gives? Why do you think some young people - and again, usually women -- don't feel able to only engage in sex when it is something they want, and something that is just as much about and for them as their partners? Why do you think some young women feel they have so few options that they have to accept relationships that clearly aren't a fit, rather than seeking out those that are, or have sex to "keep a man," or "get a man," when they either don't want to be having sex, or when they do, but the sexual relationship they have with this person clearly sucks and isn't going to get fixed, either because they aren't going to say anything about how much it sucks, or they have, but nothing is changing?

[SilentDragon]

I definitely want to try to tackle this one, as I have been one of those women who has felt this way (and am still trying to completely eradicate the idea from my brain).

From my own experience, it's a combination of several interconnected factors. Others may not have/have had any or all of these things factoring in to their experiences with this, and I apologize if my experiences are worded in such a way that make it seem like they do/did.

The first factor is that the idea that you have to have sex (of any or all sorts) with your partner in order for them to not leave you (and/or give you love and affection) is absolutely still prevalent in our culture, even though it absolutely should be gone by now. (I think it has several other, also wrong, connected cultural ideas, too, like "guys only want one thing.") I have personally heard it, in several different forms (but they all meant the same thing), from a female friend, the only two boyfriends I've had, and my father. So, it can certainly come from people who are supposed to be trusted, whose opinions are more likely to be taken to heart. It is also connected to other cultural messages, which can also be found pretty easily online and in the media, that "everyone is having sex" and "romantic love=sex." Even if everyone is not in fact actually having sex, and not everyone wants both at exactly the same time (or at all), which is definitely not something everyone knows, all those messages are still there and are hard to overcome when you hear them from all over, especially if...

You have low self-esteem. This can be at least partially caused by said messages, which say your opinions and feelings around sex do not matter and are not important. And if, like me, you were not able to obtain a partner when you wanted one (and when everyone around you seemed to have no trouble finding one), or for whatever reason, your dating pool (or perceived dating pool) is small, low self-esteem can leave you feeling you like you will never ever be able to find a partner or a partner that's the right fit sexually, or you are not worthy of any partner or a partner with certain physical and/or personality characteristics (which is connected to another wrong cultural idea: "out of your league"). Then, when do you find a partner, your low self-esteem and those cultural messages can combine to make you feel like you have to have the sex that your partner wants or the sex you think your partner wants. This combination can also make you feel like you will not be able to find anyone better than your current partner or find a partner that will have the same sort of sexual wants and needs, and/or that you will have to make the sacrifice (which is also sometimes worded as compromise or other similar words) of having sex you don't want in order to get the love you do want (because you're "supposed to" want to make sacrifices for and "compromises" with those you love). Any or all of these ideas can also come from...

The male partners. They encounter these cultural messages, too. And then they either were not taught or did not find information about consent, were taught wrong ideas or found wrong information about consent, or simply don't care about consent. Which leads them to try to get their partners to have sex with them when their partner may not be feeling up to it. Then you get those awful phrases like "if you love me, you'll do it." I'm glad I knew enough to get out of the relationship when my first boyfriend said that; I know others were not so lucky.

...This has been my experience of it (and I hope it wasn't too confusing a description). I do suspect a lot of it, though, is simply the first factor I mentioned (perhaps with some of the second), where the women hear the "you must have sex" messages but have never encountered any counter messages, which are here on Scarleteen (thanks guys!), that say they do not have to have sex or certain kinds of sex or sex under certain circumstances (like if it hurts) at any or all points in their relationships or that they should and can talk to their partners about these things or that they can find partners that fit well in this regard, or if they have heard the counter messages, they don't believe them or don't believe them completely, which, again, is something I'm still working on myself.

P.S. I also think this area could be a good place to discuss the "sex is a commodity" cultural concept I have read about on feminist blogs (and what I think Heather may be talking about in her post?), but I, myself, don't know enough about it to discuss it properly.

[Keda]

I was going to make some of the same points SilentDragon has made, but maybe in a different way. I'm lucky enough that I don't think I've ever really felt like this, because whenever I've been in a romantic relationship with someone, I've also wanted a sexual relationship with them, and they've felt the same way. But if that wasn't my experience, I can imagine I'd probably feel something like this...

Society sends us the message that if you love someone romantically, you want sex with them, as explained excellently above. If you don't feel that way, you might feel like you're the only one in the world; even if you know that there are others who want romance without sex (in some or all situations with some or all people), you'll still probably feel like part of a small minority. So in order to have the kind of relationship you want, you have to find someone else in that small minority, who also likes you and you want to date each other. If you don't have an awful lot of confidence, you might find it hard to believe that that's going to happen - it seems like a lot of people, maybe young people in particular, feel like finding a partner is something that's not gonna happen easily or often, and even more so if you consider yourself an unusual taste. And so... if you want a romantic relationship, you have to settle, I guess would be the flawed conclusion.

I think (hope?) I'd be able to avoid that kind of thinking myself, because a few relationships have taught me that, actually, 95% of the people I meet would never make good partners for me anyway, so adding one more requirement won't reduce the chances much further, and I haven't struggled to meet partners up til now. But I'm not sure - it's easy to say that when I'm happy and secure in a relationship, it might not be so straightforward if I was single and wanted a partner.

[zeitvogel]

One thing I've seen is a less direct exchange, not "sex for romance", but "I'm a girl in a romantic relationship, I want to be a good girlfriend, and part of being a good girlfriend is providing sex". Thus, not a fear of losing someone, but part of the drive to be a good person. Who wouldn't want to be a good whatever-they-are? And that seems a lot harder to address. It needs a whole new filling-in of what it means to be a good girlfriend.

[Heather]

This is great input, you guys.

That said, Zeitvogel, I doubt that is about the idea of being "a good person." Especially since for a lot of women, having sex at all -- especially outside marriage -- is very clearly often presented as not being "a good girl," but quite the opposite.

Of course, part of the rub there may be that, say someone's mother's idea of what a "good girl," is and someone's boyfriend's idea may well involve very different takes on what that means in regards to sex.

But still, not sure I'm feeling this one so much, especially since if it was about people being good people, I can't see how anywhere in there there's room for someone having sex when it is not what they want, or paying for love with sex.

Yet again, this whole business is so convoluted and so filled with gender-bleck-mines (and often with a lack of honesty, even with oneself, this is what someone is doing, selling sex to get paid with love), there's going to be a lot with it that manages to both seem to make sense and be a total oxymoron at the same time.

(How many times can I go back and forth in one short post? Heh.)

[Heather]

I also wonder if anyone wants to pitch in and talk about the heteronormativity that is part and parcel with all of this, since way more times than not, this is a a straight-people-thing rather than something we see much of in queer culture or relationships.

(In fact, there are still strong messages that the LAST thing queer people should do with their romantic feelings or relationships is engage in sex, as well as messages that when queer people have sexual relationships, that must be all they are and our only or primary motivation in nearly any kind of relationship.)

[Keda]

I think zeitvogel's point wasn't necessarily about being a good person per se - being a good x, whether that's a good girlfriend, good parent, good friend or anything else, isn't so much about being morally upstanding, as it is about making the extra effort to make the person you're a good something to happy or, from a more cynical perspective, meeting the job requirements for that role in someone's life. I think there definitely is a sense that being a good partner - or maybe even just being a good girlfriend, not a good boyfriend - means having sex, even if that might conflict with more general "good person" crap; and that someone whose partner doesn't want to have sex is graciously settling for no sex, rather than cheerfully building (mutually) a sex-free relationship.

You can see it in a lot of the posts here - there've been quite a few young women saying something like "I've told my boyfriend that I don't want to do <sexual activity> yet/ever, and he's been really good about that" or "he's been really patient" or "he's been really understanding" - which is great of course, but does betray the idea that relationships should have sex by default - a good girlfriend/boyfriend has sex - and if there's no sex then that's one of those compromises or sacrifices you make for someone you really care about, for a partner who's not perfect but who you want to be with anyway (which is also problematic).

[SilentDragon]

Keda, you just explained what I was trying to say in the first paragraph of my explanation! Society is sending the message that a person with a vagina in a relationship with a person with a penis (or vice-versa) should be having any/all kinds of sex and that both people should be (or should be working towards being) completely okay and comfortable with doing any/all these things. Which, of course, ignores the reality that people are different and like different things. And it makes a discussion of boundaries/limits that much more challenging because just having those boundaries/limits goes against what is perceived as the societal norm.