As a woman, I am offended by this whole post. The overall message I am getting from this is "women should say yes to sex because men like having sex". Not once in this entry did you look at sex from the female's perspective. Your view that women should just have sex with men whenever they feel exhausted (welcome to life, mark, people feel exhausted often) is insulting to men also. Not all men are scumbags and don't run to hookers and mistresses the second their sexual demands aren't met (and those who do should take responsibility for their actions). I see your point about emphasizing communication but it is so hidden in this sexist writing. Another problem I have with this is your discrediting masturbation so quickly. Sexual compatibility is important but two partners can't be in tune 100% of the time. Every once in a while, masturbation can be used as a healthy sexual outlet, by both sexes, and does not need to be looked down on as pathetic. I've read some of your other entries and I've enjoyed them but I'm not sure if sex is your forte to discuss. And by the way, "using women for sex" is a disgusting way to put it.

I appreciate and agreed with everything you said. It's a shame that we need an edge in the world to trigger responses. If the reality of the internet is how much "traffic" you get, an edgy post will get more than one that people agree with. My "Sex-Starved Husbands" blog at people jam quickly received more than 1500 views, my more soulful ones were hardly viewed at all.
That seems to be a metaphor about modern life. That's a shame.

Mark Goulston, M.D.
"Get Out of Your Own Way"
http://markgoulston.com
http://markgoulston.com/blog

The fact is: the majority of users on the internet will click any article with sex in the title. That says nothing about your writing, the content, or their actual interest to finishing reading the blog. If traffic is what you are actually after (and I would think your goal on a self-help website would be to help people, not just get more traffic), then an edgy title would get an equal amount of traffic if it was followed by great insightful writing or poor sexist rambling. To take it one step further, great writing would keep web-surfers on this website or following your blog which in the end will produce the most traffic (where are those 1500 now?). That being said, I don't think your response addressed anything I said. How can you agree with everything I said when it clearly clashes with what you originally wrote?

The point I was getting to in my original post is that if you understand someone else's need and offer it freely to them or have them ask for it in a respectful way, than using or being used falls out of the relationship.
The original title, women should let men use them for sex, was meant to stir controversy and debate and deeper thinking as it has with you.
The problem in too many relationships is that couples need each other for a variety of things. Often one may need more sex from the other than the other needs; or one may need more financial contribution from the other than the first person can give; or one needs more from the other in minding certain details that the first person in not able to do, etc.
A mature relationship is filled with interdependency. The problem comes when people are not explicit about it. So when the man (or woman) will not ask in a respectful way for the sex either needs but instead guilt trips, pouts, threatens, etc., the other feels used; or if the woman (or man) will not ask for money in a respectful way, the other can feel used about that.
Maybe a more accurate title would be: couples should let each other use them for what each needs, but should communicate those needs in a respectful way. That would have been more constructive, but not stirred debate or even said anything perhaps even worth thinking about.
BTW is there a reason you have chosen to be anonymous and identify yourself by a picture of a growling dog? Certainly leaves a lot to the imagination.

Mark Goulston, M.D.
"Get Out of Your Own Way"
http://markgoulston.com
http://markgoulston.com/blog

Yes, I understand that point very well. My problem was not with what you were trying to say but in the inadequate manner you were going about doing so originally. My picture is of a dog because I'm allowed to keep myself anonymous. I do not mean to spark your imagination. I'm a woman in my twenties and that's enough for you to know.

. . . and he was right. I used him for sex and I don't feel the least bit bad about it. I was 20, in college and certainly not thinking about a life long commitment at that age. . . However, he was uncomfortable with his sexuality (uber Catholic) and tried to make me feel bad about mine. That's wrong. . . We're fed a lot of BS as kids; much of it fear and shame based. It's strange how many people hang onto the "sex is bad" teachings and discard the other nonsense like Santa Claus, not licking cake batter from the bowl and lying is always wrong . . . Then again, there are women who will use sex to land a man and then after she says, "I do," she "doesn't" anymore- or worse yet, it becomes a perfunctory task. . . Although the title of this post is definitely sensationalistic, at least it generated a dialogue. . . Withholding affection is used as a weapon in relationships and is just as emotionally abusive if not more as constant criticism. It usually occurs when communication has broken down- that's if the couple in question ever really communicated in the first place. . .TJP

Being a lay person, even I understood the doc was using "tongue-in-cheek" approach to this. He's simply saying, "Honestly communicate your needs in a forthright manner and , perhaps, your partner will understand and , lovingly, help you. Sex isn't only like the romance novels.....it's also a physiological need and ,in this case, an effective solution to a "seemingly" unrelated issue. We're complex animals......part of the caring and concern matrix is understanding and faith in mutual good intentions. By the way, the Dr.s book helped me get over my young life of both sexual violence and physical violence. Because of his book, I now see that most "shoulds" generate fear and are the very myths that keep the violence and victims safely enshrouded. I now feel courageous because I not only survived, I now can better appreciate the complexities of being human......and with his guidance I isolate less and better know how to both "be" and "recognise and appreciate" the finer aspects of being human.
I'd feel VERY COMPLIMENTED if my partner trusted me to be so forthright....