Part III: The Concluding Discussion

From Entitlement to Ethical Intimacy — Reconstructing the Meaning of Sexual Relationship

The central point for consideration in our final discussion is this; “If culturally adopted sexual scripts can produce entitlement and coercion based thinking, what can be done to replace them?” This critical question leads us to our premise that correcting harmful behavior requires more than stopping those actions. It requires that we examine and reconstruct the meaning we make of behavior to what is reasonable and deserved across all of society. 

Behavior Cessation is not the Same as Corrected Thinking 

Men can learn that pressuring their wives for sex drastically impacts her interest in being intimate. She may want to connect sexually, but not the way he is approaching it. So they have a conversation (or many of them), he learns to adjust his approach, but he does not alter the beliefs he holds, such as, “She’s my wife, she is supposed to have sex with me.” 

Stopping a behavior is not the same as correcting the way one thinks. The series of discussions may have modified his actions, but it did not reconstruct and clarify meaning. He did not adapt what he believes about his rights to sex with his wife, or how his approaches cause her to pull away. Likely, the issues in their sex life will resurface. What has been demonstrated is behavioral modification, not necessarily relational redirection and edited value alignments.

Behavioral modification looks like, “I’m not supposed to pressure her for sex.” Whereas, relational correction and regard sound like, “My desire for sex cannot override her agency to choose when she is intimate with me. Therefore, any disappointment I experience is mine to address.”  This second example is critical for true change to be present and for the relationship to feel safe. 

From “What do I Get?” to “What are we Building?”

The common cultural script of male-entitlement conceptualizes sex as something one person ‘gets’ from the other. This type of thinking destroys intimacy, it creates a power or hierarchical type dynamic that erodes the relationship. 

At Center for Peace, our model incorporates relationally ethical values that build imtimacy.

 →  Instead of sexual acquisition, we build towards appropriate and consensual participation

 →  Instead of an entitlement-based mindset, we build towards loving bids and invitations 

 →  Instead of forced obligation, we build towards regard for the autonomy of our partner within the confines of the marriage agreement

 →  Instead of sexual performance and ego, we build towards regard and connection

 →  Instead of expected access, we build towards agentic relationships and respect

 →  Instead of marital possession and demand, we build towards respect for personhood and autonomy

The application of each step in this model helps to ensure we are getting deeper than behavioral modification that will not have a lasting effect, nor will it create depth in the marriage. These values change the internal relational attitudes, reconstructing poorly acquired sexual scripts and inappropriate sexual expectations a man holds over a woman, while also protecting desire and dignity in both parties.  

Desire Without Entitlement

There are many factors we could address when discussing the construct of ‘male sexual entitlement’ thinking patterns, and their adopted ideologies that they are owed sex, or that men are designed such that they are organized around sex differently than women. 

While there are many who suggest this is an inherent trait in male-ness, this myth can encourage permission-giving beliefs that encourage men to behave in ways that violate consent, disrespect women, and oppress and abuse them.

Men and women do not have inherent ‘ sexual hardwiring’ that is distinct and different male to female. Rather, humans have highly flexible brain plans rather than gender-specific designs. The binary focus is a cultural trope. It is not representative of the massive overlap between genders when evaluating the psychological aspects of sexual desire, emotional processing and behavior.  

Thus, the idea that one can deeply desire a sexual experience, while also holding to the truth that they do not possess an entitlement to that experience without the expressed of their partner is very doable, and more conducive to an ethical relationship.

As we stated in previous sections of this series, the issue has never been about human desire, but rather in what we do when we feel those sensations.  There is no truth to a claim that men are entitled to, or can expect sex from a wife; nor is there validity to the ideas that pressure, or coercion are options if she objects.   

An appropriate reconstruction of these false scripts suggests a reasonable approach from one’s desire to an appropriate expression and invitation coupled with respect for the response given in return. This value system, when held deeply, shows the level of relational ethics one has built within themselves and uses in their relationship.

Learning to Tolerate ‘No’

In the earlier sections of this series, we have established the position that a wife holds her own agency to voice her responses, positive or negative to her husband’s bid for sex. Likewise, marriage holds no guarantee for sexual events. The hope is that the couple builds this part of the life together, with dignity and regard. 

However, many women have experienced unfortunate outcomes of saying, ‘no’ to her husband. His culturally scripted sexual operating system views rejection as problematic. His responses to his wife’s ‘no’ are often coercive and even abusive. 

A wife has the right to run her own ethical evaluation with each sexual bid from her husband. These question suggestions may help in this navigation.

• Does he tolerate disappointment?
• Does he regulate his own emotional response?
• Does he avoid punishment?
• Does he avoid withdrawal as manipulation?
• Does he avoid sulking, anger, guilt, threats, bargaining, or retaliation?
• Does he preserve his wife’s dignity while experiencing his own disappointment?
• Does he maintain connection without obtaining the outcome he wanted?

In short, a husband has his own ethical responsibility to use his agency well in how he tolerates his own emotional experience when his wife does not consent to his bid. Consent does not position the wife in a power position (another culturally adapted trope), nor does it suggest that women are gatekeepers to men ‘getting’ sex. Consent is the floor, or the foundational element of a much larger construction we refer to as relational ethics. 

A relationship where consent is genuinely protected, not just technically respected is a relationship that holds to strong relational ethics. This is the kind of relationship where intimacy is founded in dignity and respect. 

The shift in direction does not occur in the answer to, “Did he stop when she said ‘no?’ Rather it is answered by this question; “How did he conduct himself when his wife exercises her agency to remove consent?”

Reciprocity is not Debt

A second element in the construction of relational ethics is a clear understanding of reciprocity. In a socially scripted model it might sound like, “I did X for you, so you owe me Y.”  You may have experienced something like,

• “I work hard, therefore…”
• “I’m a good husband, therefore…”
• “I’ve been patient, therefore…”
• “You haven’t been affectionate lately, therefore…”
• “We’ve been married for 20 years, therefore…”

There is no sexual authority or relational ethics in these examples. These are transactional at best and potentially abusive and violent in the worst extreme.  

A relational model would view the exchange as both the husband and the wife holding their own agentic authority within themselves, which makes contributions to one another that are rewarding and respectful. It is critical to the well-being of both individuals to hold fast to the truth that marriage creates a commitment, not an authority over their spouse’s body. 

   *An important note on this point, especially for the population we work with at Center for Peace, is that one’s right to sexual “choice” is a distinction that one’s autonomy and agency does not afford anyone the excuse or justification to violate relational commitments when one partner removes consent. This violation includes the use of pornography, and any cognitive or visual use of women – including your wife.

The Reconstruction of Masculinity

It is imperative that we raise the issue that how a man constructs his identity, agency, dignity and relational power when his wife’s autonomy creates a challenge for him when he is interested in sex with her is central to a discussion on sexual scripts. 

One’s masculinity is not evidenced in one’s access to sex. Neither is it evidenced in how much he is desired by his wife (or by women he seeks attention from outside of his marriage). Masculinity has no foundational bearing in how his wife responds to him, submits (or not) to his bids for sex, or cooperates with his sexual styles. In this framework, her autonomy becomes a threat to his identity. This is not the requirement or obligation of a wife. 

A deeper question might be submitted here with this thought, “What kind of man wants something of another, while at the same time, this person maintains their full right to say no?” 

Mature masculinity demands self-government or self-leadership. It demands a solid operational system of human regard, not a misplaced belief in sexual conquests, rights to access, coercion when one doesn’t receive what is expected, or in ideas built around ‘getting one’s needs met.’

Masculinity is not demonstrated by one’s ability to obtain access; it is demonstrated through one’s capacity to govern one’s own desire, disappointment, behavior, and relational power. It is founded on values of responsibility, restraint, reciprocity, respect for the dignity and agency of others, and relational integrity.  

This reconstruction of scripts, moves one from a belief of men being condemned or demeaned because they desire sex, to an ideal that sexual experiences with a partner are not obligatory in design or nature, and therefore require relational integrity and dignity in the exchange. 

The Rejection of Coercive Narratives to the Cultivating of Peaceful Relationships

Cultivating sexually peaceful relationships requires a change in our current ideologies curated from cultural narratives, media, religious dogmas, and other sources that have educated us on sex. It requires us to look at how we actually treat one another as sexual partners. 

A husband’s demanding or pressuring posture destroys desire in a wife. Ideologies that prop up that behavior, are often also beliefs that result in punishment when he is rejected. Obligatory sexual engagement beliefs have roots in male power and control narratives. These are coercive in nature and destructive in their outcomes.

Rather than engage in coercive scripts, we recommend cultivating and reconstructing one’s sexual practices to those that encourage communication without manipulation and connection with respect for autonomy. This allows for the freedom to give rather than compelling obligation and encouraging relationally ethical desire in the coupleship.

“Relationally Ethical Desire”

Relationally ethical desire is the capacity to experience and express one’s desires while simultaneously recognizing that the person toward whom those desires are directed remains a separate agent, possessing equal dignity, autonomy, and authority over their own choices.

A relationally ethical desire does not mean suppressing desires, rather it affords respect and dignity in the companionship. With this understanding there is emotional closeness as well as the sexual interaction that meet both partner’s needs. 

In contrast, and in many relationships, a belief of entitlement drives desire. This leads to oppressive expectations, ideas that one should not be deprived sex, for any reason, and that one’s partner is required to fulfil needs and grant access to sex when petitioned – no matter what.

Spouses can reasonably expect honesty, fidelity, care and good-faith participation in the relationship. However, expectations become ethically problematic when one treats their partner’s autonomy as irrelevant. 

What we have come to believe we have a right to receive from marriage, or from a person we love has survived socially due to normalizing this idea. Normalizing does not validate the practice. As we have seen in our society, great harm has occurred when beliefs produce behaviors that harm.

What would change in your relationship if you evaluated your ideas on desire not only by whether you believe everyone else does this, but by whether your actions preserve the dignity, agency, autonomy and peace of the person you pursue and want beside you?  

A peaceful sexual relationship is not one in which nobody ever experiences disappointment, disagreement, rejection, or unmet desire. It is one in which those human experiences can occur without one person’s dignity or agency becoming the price of the other’s emotional regulation.

The Character Reboot

If you have mired yourself in the social narratives that are destroying your character and your marriage, or if you are looking to recalibrate your character to be more relationally ethical and sound our Character Reboot Program is for you.

Book a Discovery Call today.