I think there's a big difference between buying people whatever they want, whenever they want it, and sexual satisfaction. Of course you do not buy your partner jewellery every day or week. Good jewellery is expensive. And you can only wear so much.
But sexual satisfaction is different. Sex is free. And if the guy is not satisfied in their normal sexual behaviour, and has to wait until his birthday when he can really do all those things he wanted to do the rest of the year - well, I think that is weird and kind of pathological.
So yes in summary, in bed, of course each person in a couple should be able to "do whatever they want". Why wouldn't they? Just like they should be able to talk about whatever they want and watch whatever they want. If they can't do these basic things then .. what's the point of even being a couple?
This sounds good, but it's not true in reality. Couples rarely see eye to eye on 100% of topics, so in a stable relationship, many things become a compromise of sorts.
Everyone should feel fulfilled by sex, but that doesn't mean that the woman should be expected to do depraved sex acts that she's uncomfortable with, just like the man shouldn't be expected to spread rose petals on the bed and sing sonnets each time.
If a couple isn't in the same ballpark on sex, they should probably not be a couple.
If a woman really wants rose petals/sonnets, she shouldn't have to wait for her birthday to get it. It's hardly an unreasonable request every 1-2 weeks. And if her partner can't give it to her, she should move on.
It doesn't need to be such a point of contention and resentment, though -- the author of the article writes as if sex is a begrudging gift, and that the way she happens to view sex is the way we men need to learn to see it. In short: emotionally she's about 11 years old.
Agreed, the author isn't sexually mature. I think I was more sexually mature when I was 13 than the author appears to be.
Sex is a partnership. It's (generally) two people and (generally) one bed. If your sex life isn't to people participating, it isn't sex. The author sounds like she's a 'lays down and take it' kind of 'lover', which gives me the shudders.
Sex is a lot of things, but non-participating in it is IMHO akin to trying to be raped. It's nonsensical, and it IMHO sounds like non-consensual sex. I clearly don't comprehend it, but perhaps that's because when I wasn't even sexually developed I was aware of what sex was supposed to be.
I think there's a big difference between buying people whatever they want, whenever they want it, and sexual satisfaction. Of course you do not buy your partner jewellery every day or week. Good jewellery is expensive. And you can only wear so much.
But sexual satisfaction is different. Sex is free. And if the guy is not satisfied in their normal sexual behaviour, and has to wait until his birthday when he can really do all those things he wanted to do the rest of the year - well, I think that is weird and kind of pathological.
So yes in summary, in bed, of course each person in a couple should be able to "do whatever they want". Why wouldn't they? Just like they should be able to talk about whatever they want and watch whatever they want. If they can't do these basic things then .. what's the point of even being a couple?