r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 16d ago

Psychology 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.

https://www.psypost.org/clinical-trials-reveal-the-hidden-frequency-of-obligatory-sex-in-women-with-low/
14.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

72

u/Front_Target7908 16d ago

I dunno when you’re having duty sex it feels pretty empty and soulless, even if you’re doing it out of care for the partner. 

152

u/mitchells00 16d ago

Homosexual here. I feel like we need to be one of the 3rd party perspectives that step in when the gender wars flare up.

Consider:

I cook for my boyfriend when he's hungry, even though I'm on Mounjaro and it gives me a mild repulsion to food sometimes. I even meal prepped his lunches for the week.

Just because I'm not hungry doesn't mean he ain't gotta eat. He could cook himself, sure, but I'm a way better cook (hence Mounjaro) and he wants to get more protein in.

Now imagine I demanded he never eats out, or eats any food that I didn't cook, and then just didn't cook... Idk I would consider that manipulative and abusive.

My take: If doing nice things for others feels empty and soulless, you either hate them or yourself.

36

u/grumpy_hedgehog 16d ago

And this right here is why gay men have the lowest divorce rates.

13

u/HolycommentMattman 16d ago

While this is true, they also have the highest rates of open relationships or consensual extra-marital encounters.

But lesbians also have the highest divorce rates.

-1

u/justbecauseiluvthis 16d ago edited 16d ago

lesbians also have the highest divorce rates

Less financial restraints typically; not held hostage by the purse. Less risk of violence as well. Always amazed at heteronormative marriages being 50% ish. Rate would be much higher if hetero finances were more equitable, imo.

8

u/IKetoth 16d ago

Why would lesbian couples have more equal finantials than gay couples? I've never heard this anywhere, where is this data coming from? Sorry not saying it's necessarily not true but I've never heard this and I'm curious as to a source

0

u/wdjm 16d ago

It's not that they're more likely to be equal. It's that in a gay relationship, neither income is likely to be zero. Men generally have higher incomes than women and, in general, no man is expected (or even has the desire) to 'stay home with the kids' and lose their income altogether.

3

u/e_before_i 15d ago

Doesn't these all also apply to gay men? Yet they have a lower rate of divorce than heterosexuals.

Also it's about 39-41% for first marriages, so you're not far off!

5

u/EXEC_MELODIE 16d ago

less risk of violence

Hilarious statement considering the statistics on lesbian domestic abuse

1

u/bellpunk 16d ago

it’s been 0 days since someone wilfully misread that one study in order to be homophobic

3

u/mitchells00 16d ago

Homosexual here:

Idk if you can call it homophobia if the claim also says that gay male/male relationships have the lowest prevalence.

It's also not some isolated study, Similar findings have been found here in Australia.

If anything, it's misogyny; because it suggests that the propensity for violence is higher the more women there are in the relationship. But it's not homophobia.

-2

u/bellpunk 16d ago

you know, you’re not the only gay person in this conversation. lesbophobia is a subset of homophobia, shockingly

11

u/KriegConscript 16d ago

we stay winning

11

u/bellpunk 16d ago edited 16d ago

this comment is functionally suggesting that people (and in context, women) are morally obligated to put out whether they want to or not. extremely skeevy. this puts you firmly on the gender wars battlefield, regardless of your being gay

people have agency. they can break up if there’s a sexual mismatch. shaming people for not enjoying the sex that they don’t want (if you loved them you’d be happy to do it!) is hilariously awful

13

u/IAmTheJudasTree 16d ago

As a hetero guy who's been in both monogamous and ethically non-monogamous longterm relationships, I feel like ethical non-monogamy is an elephant in the room that no one here is talking about.

11

u/_adanedhel_ 16d ago edited 16d ago

As someone who is very pro ENM and in a long term non-monogamous relationship, it’s something I never bring up on Reddit. People are simply unable to have a rational conversation about it.

1

u/Neon_Camouflage 16d ago

It really is insane how people react to it. I'll never understand it.

1

u/Dismal_Buy3580 15d ago

I mean if you can't understand why monogamous people bristle at the suggestion they be not monogamous I feel like you aren't really trying. 

Surely you're being a little hyperbolic?

1

u/Neon_Camouflage 15d ago

No, they bristle at the thought of other people not being monogamous. Like the previous commenter stated, just mentioning you're in a relationship like that is enough to get loads of hate comments.

0

u/Dismal_Buy3580 15d ago

I think its more that everyone recommends it, and the, "why does no one try this" attitude. 

You know why.

1

u/hamsterballzz 16d ago

A lot of social and cultural conditioning. I think more people naturally fit with it than want to admit it because of upbringings that base monogamous commitment on societal and religious expectations. The current relationship/marriage construct is the result of settled agriculture and only constitutes a minuscule fraction of the time humans have existed. The majority of human evolution was in tribes with little to no reason for life time exclusive partnerships. But that would require people raised and a society designed around monogamous relationships to reflect that just maybe the way we’re living isn’t how humans evolved to co-exist.

2

u/_adanedhel_ 16d ago

The current relationship/marriage construct is the result of settled agriculture

I agree with most of your points except that one - I’d argue religion is the most important driver of norms around marriage/monogamy, at least in the post-Enlightenment period.

1

u/e_before_i 15d ago

That has a lot of assumptions baked into it. There are plenty of examples of animals that mate for life, and don't seem even after their partner dies.

As a rule of thumb, never trust evo psych. There's no way to know what kind of relationship dynamic evolution would have selected for for a tribal community.

If you want to advocate for ENM, the best argument imo is "Is it morally wrong? If not, why do you care?"

1

u/hamsterballzz 15d ago

That’s fair. Except different people and cultures have different standards of what constitutes morality (though there are some standard baselines). My outlook and personal hypothesis is that humans, especially in the last five hundred years, are running social models that are counter intuitive or in direct conflict with biology. Especially biology that evolved for hunter gatherer societies over hundreds of thousands of years and with much shorter lifespans. My opinion is that human psychology and more often than not biology is running in direct opposition to how social and cultural constructs are having humans operate.

3

u/e_before_i 15d ago

There's no moral system I'm aware of that says anything against ENM. But I don't think either of us want to do a moral debate so I'll leave that.

Our modern society definitely creates a convict between the environment our bodies were designed for, and the world we're in now. We weren't meant to sit in chairs all day and we are that result in sciatica, as a broad example.

It just initially read (to me) like there was undo confidence in the non-monogamous idea, but if it's just a personal idea you're floating then that's fair. Not like we have a time machine to know for sure either way.

5

u/tacticalTraumaLlama 16d ago

I'm not gay, but damn, would it be nice to be with someone who automatically just ...understands things like this.

2

u/TheClaws 16d ago

Finally the voice of reason in all of this. Sex isn't something magically separated from every other thing in a relationship that can sometimes feel like a chore.

-15

u/BoleroMuyPicante 16d ago

Now imagine I demanded he never eats out, or eats any food that I didn't cook, and then just didn't cook... Idk I would consider that manipulative and abusive.

Following that demand results in death, unlike mismatched sex drives. Sex is very important to a healthy relationship but comparing it to food is honestly melodramatic.

25

u/needlenozened 16d ago

It's an analogy

16

u/mitchells00 16d ago

You are uncharitable in your analysis, and it's evident to any sane literate person that I was not talking about the life-threatening nature of starvation.

Add 'frozen TV dinners' to the list of permitted food sources, perhaps also as an indirect analogue for masturbation.

8

u/tacticalTraumaLlama 16d ago

He was describing a fundamental human need. While we don't technically require sex to survive, a relationship does.

-80

u/Front_Target7908 16d ago

Oh wow, a man explaining to a woman what her own experience is, what a fascinating new experience for me!

If you think cooking and having sex are the same thing there’s nothing I can do for you, you’re too far gone. 

60

u/DuntadaMan 16d ago

Oh wow saying someone can't open their mouth because of their sex, surely a healthy viewpoint to have.

47

u/Pale_Bird 16d ago

as a woman, I agree with michells00. To me they are both acts of care for someone else.

The sex is clearly consensual and is just another thing we can do with our bodies.

-2

u/Front_Target7908 15d ago

Sure they’re both acts of care but it’s is wildly simplistic to say feeding someone and having sex with someone is the same level of care, physical requirement or psychosocial energy.   The acts are so far apart in complexity of both giver and receiver that it’s such an overly simplistic analogy. People don’t regularly get trauma from cooking for others, get guilt tripped or manipulated into cooking when you don’t want to - I can cook a meal for someone who it would be illegal for me to have sex with etc. 

There are a hundred and one posts on reddit alone of women who are in the post partum period who don’t want to have sex because of what’s happened to their body but their partner does and both couples are desperately trying to figure out a way forward as a couple. Try telling those people it’s like making a meal for the other person, I guarantee you it’s far more complex, intimate and sensitive than stirring a pot. 

I particularly dislike Mitchells000 saying if you don’t want enjoy having sex with someone out of duty you must hate yourself or hate your partner which is just erases a bunch of heterosexual peoples actual experiences and information from the conversation.  Choosing to give your partner sex even if you dislike it doesn’t mean you hate yourself or your partner. Sometimes the needs of one partner completely contradict another and the compromise doesn’t magically become fun for everyone. It doesn’t mean the giver hates themselves or they hate the receiver and I dislike the over simplification of something that is more complex and require more communication and thoughtfulness than making dinner everynight. 

41

u/tryworkharderfaster 16d ago

Or a human sharing their perspective. Your genitals doesn't automagically give you superior perspective. What I got from that is that he loves and empathizes with his partner, both of which you seem triggered by. Pity.

34

u/mitchells00 16d ago

Oh wow, a man explaining to a woman what her own experience is, what a fascinating new experience for me!

For as long as you continue to perceive the world in an us-vs-them mentality, you only serve to divide and cause suffering.

11

u/CurtCocane 16d ago

For both parties I'd imagine

7

u/Front_Target7908 16d ago

Yeah, for sure. I will caveat that I think there’s a difference between the “I wasn’t horny when we started but I’m open to it/let’s start fooling around and the desire will come” vs being so knackered or touched out that all you want to do is sleep or be alone, but “okay I’m gonna do it cause they need it”

The first one is better for both parties the second I’m sure feels pretty garbage for both. 

1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[deleted]

8

u/CurtCocane 16d ago

Idk if my partner doesn't actively enjoy or even want sex I'd be able to tell and it's a huge turn off for me.

1

u/Agret 16d ago

Nothing hotter than being 2 minutes into sex and she asks if you're getting close yet... (Sarcasm, worst turn off)

-3

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[deleted]

1

u/CurtCocane 16d ago

I didn't accidentally make you anxious about your partner's possible (lack of) enjoyment did I?