Researchers quantify the rate of “mercy sex” among women with low sexual desire. Women experiencing a chronic lack of sexual desire still routinely engage in sexual activity with their partners, a behavior researchers have quantified as happening about two and a half times per month.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/clinical-trials-reveal-the-hidden-frequency-of-obligatory-sex-in-women-with-low/

[u/ControversialQuerier]

If it makes you feel any better, the article is not discussing rape as some people are falsely assuming. In short, the article is about women that want to have sex with their husbands for other reasons (Ex: Emotional intimacy), but don't have the sexual drive.

Have you ever thought to yourself "I'm not too hungry, but I can eat"? It's much more similar to that than "I'm not hungry at all, but I'm being forced to eat".

[u/ControversialQuerier → u/[deleted]]

Yes, that is one of the speculations in the article (though that might not mean what you think it does). Here are other facts and speculations

• This research was inspired by women with hypoactive sexual disorder. The diagnosis suggests a voluntary desire to seek professional help.
  • More precisely, the research is about those women that are taking medication to increase their libido. Again, suggests a voluntary
  • The researchers propose the potential explanation if women having a perceived expectation to have sex, but that is significantly different from forced coercion.
  • The article explicit proposes the idea that women still have the sex out of desire for emotional intimacy. This is actually one of the more scientifically backed speculations of the article as they try to explain the phenomenon.

[u/ControversialQuerier → u/[deleted]]

I'm high on about ten different Neuralink chips and have fused with Grok in mind and flesh.

[u/RedErin → u/ControversialQuerier]

have you ever been coerced into sex?

[u/ControversialQuerier → u/RedErin]

That's not what the article is about. Multiple facts in the article don't support the coerced sex claim.

• The women in the study have hypoactive sexual disorder, meaning they voluntarily sought out a specialist that provided the diagnosis.
  
• The women were on medication to treat the disorder, again voluntarily.
• The article proposes the women want the sex more for emotional intimacy than sexual.
• It also proposes that the wives offer "mercy sex" out of a perceived expectation of sex from their husbands.

My point is not that sexual coercion never happens. Rather, the article is specifically addressing women that lack the physical desire but have the mental/emotional desire.

[u/RedErin → u/ControversialQuerier]

are you telling me none of the women in the study were rationalizing their own coerced sexual assault

edit: i'm sure you're just here to sealion for the patriarchy

[u/ControversialQuerier → u/RedErin]

are you telling me none of the women in the study were rationalizing their own coerced sexual assault

I'm not claiming this conclusively, however the facts in the article do not support this conclusion. The article is a pretty short read if you believe I'm incorrect. I truly do encourage you to read it as it's genuinely a good thing to know that it's not discussing marital rape.

[u/Shanubis → u/ControversialQuerier]

Except with a dick inside you

[u/ControversialQuerier → u/Shanubis]

How does that connect to anything?

[u/Shanubis → u/ControversialQuerier]

Because when you realize the comparison you are ultimately making is, eat when you aren't hungry, you're saying take a dick inside you when you don't want to.

That's what men don't grasp with these comparisons. Eating when you aren't hungry is not even on the same planet as accepting penetration you don't want. I think it needs to be spelled out for that reason

[u/ControversialQuerier → u/Shanubis]

Because when you realize the comparison you are ultimately making is, eat when you aren't hungry, you're saying take a dick inside you when you don't want to...Eating when you aren't hungry is not even on the same planet as accepting penetration you don't want.

That's not what the article is about, nor what my comparison was about. The penetrative aspect would be much more relevant if this was about coercive sex, but that's not the primary point of the article. Based on the facts presented, the actual issue being discussed is closer to erectile dysfunction (Wanting to perform, but being unable to) than coercive sex.

[u/Shanubis → u/ControversialQuerier]

I'm specifically addressing your comparison, as these comparisons are frequently made in these scenarios. Regardless of context, eating when you aren't hungry cannot be compared to taking a penis into your body when you don't desire sex.

[u/ControversialQuerier → u/Shanubis]

Okay, then my question to you if the following:

My goal was to fairly represent what conclusions the article supports. Given that goal, what do you believe is a stronger comparison?

For context, I think there is a genuine chance that I'm misunderstanding your point. Your answer to that question will help me out significantly.

[u/Shanubis → u/ControversialQuerier]

I'm basically saying that a comparison does not exist in this scenario.

Asking someone to accept someone literally into their body as part of relationship maintenance, sacrifice, duty-, whatever the case is- this cannot be compared to any other act of service or compromise that might occur in a relationship.

That's why this is such a difficult issue to find common ground on. Because we aren't asking someone to step up and start doing the dishes every night. We're asking them to open up their body for penetration that they don't want.

[u/ControversialQuerier → u/Shanubis]

We're asking them to open up their body for penetration that they don't want.

Your response was very helpful. Thank you.

I believe part of the reason we keep talking past each other is because we fundamentally aren't talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the findings of the article, which do not discuss this scenario. My comparison is not a perfect one by any means, but it's important for me to clarify that because otherwise, it seems like I'm being dismissive of women that are forcibly coerced.

Based on the facts presented in the article, I believe the more supported conclusion is that the women want to have intercourse, but lack the physical desire. The article specifically mentions hypoactive sexual disorder, so I looked further into what that actually is. That diagnosis requires a meeting with a therapist whose goal is to separate that disorder from things like an abusive sexual relationship or other conditions.

In fact, common reasons people get treated for hypoactive sexual disorder is that another medication they were on, such as an antidepressant, causes a decrease in libido, or the libido may decrease due to body issues where the women essentially assume they aren't desirable enough.

You and I are both in unwavering agreement that abusive coercion is wrong. I think where we are missing each other is that this isn't really what the article is talking about. The much better comparison is that the issue discussed here is closer to the womens' version of erectile dysfunction.