‘She doesn’t think that happens’: When heterosexual men say no to sex. Joni L Meenagh. Sexualities, July 6, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460720936460
h/t David Schmitt article explores three young people’s experiences of men saying ‘no’ to a woman’s request for sex within an ongoing relationship. In each of these instances the refusal was, to some extent, not respected
Abstract: Dominant understandings of men’s sexuality claim that men are always up for sex; as such, research on heterosexual men’s sexual refusals is sparse. Drawing on interviews conducted with young people (aged 18–23) living in and around Melbourne, Australia, this article explores three young people’s experiences of men saying ‘no’ to a woman’s request for sex within an ongoing relationship. In each of these instances the refusal was, to some extent, not respected. This presents a challenge to men’s masculinity which then needs to be redressed through compensatory manhood acts. This article explores how the truth claims of hegemonic masculinity and the male sexual drive discourse are reproduced through men and women’s social interactions, and unpacks the implications of men’s sexual refusals not being heard for sexual ethics education programmes.
Keywords Hegemonic masculinity, heterosexuality, male sexual drive discourse, sexual ethics, sexual refusals
Discussion and conclusion
Under the male sexual drive discourse men are expected to say yes to sex. Withinheterosexual relationships, women police the boundaries of appropriate masculin-ity. One way they do this is through not ‘hearing’ men’s sexual refusals. This is apotentially volatile position to be in: between feeling like they cannot say no to sexand having their refusal ignored, some men may not get the chance to learn how tonegotiate their own sexual boundaries. This is a problem, given the current pushtowards ‘sexual ethics’ and ‘respectful relationships’ type sexuality education pro-grams in Australia (Carmody, 2013; Fileborn, 2016; Our Watch, 2019).These programs seek to prevent violence against women by instilling in youngpeople an understanding of gendered power dynamics and behavioral tools forpromoting gender equity within their relationships; however, they do not yet go farenough in disrupting traditional gender norms. While these programs are a prom-ising development, research on young people’s experiences with theSex & EthicsViolence Prevention Programindicates that men improved in their understandingsof their partner’s needs, while women improved in caring for themselves(Carmody, 2013; Carmody and Overden, 2013). Looking at post-training feedbackfrom young men, assumptions that men are always up for sex are not challenged; instead, these young men have learned to better temper their sexual ‘drive’(Carmody, 2013).The stories told by John, Ash, and Berry indicate that traditional gendereddiscourses may be reproducing themselves in insidious ways through young peo-ple’s sexual negotiations. While this study reports on a small number of instances,it points to the need to look deeper at what is happening within young people’sromantic and sexual relationships. The sexual refusals discussed here all occurredamidst moments of emotional complexity within their relationships: John waswary of being hurt by Rachel; Ash was upset with his girlfriend’s apparent prior-itization of her career over their relationship; and Dave was trying to move onfrom his relationship with Berry. By requesting sex and ‘ignoring’ their partner’srefusal, these young women exercise power – albeit to limited effect – within theirrelationships. This has important implications for how we understand the gendereddynamics of relationship negotiation, and for promoting ethical frameworks ofsexual negotiation – most notably, that gendered power dynamics are complex andhegemonic norms can resurface in seemingly progressive ways.Sexual ethics education and violence prevention programs need to move beyondthe focus on negotiation based on women’s sexual pleasure and desire (seeCarmody, 2009). We expect women to be able to say both ‘no’ and ‘yes’ to sex,and we need to make this available to men as well. Without challenging anddisrupting the dominant discursive claim that men constantly desire sex andsexual attention, women – whether accidentally or deliberately – upholster themale sexual drive discourse and the gendered norms and double standards thatcome with it. We need to hear men’s stories of not wanting to have sex andunderstand their reasons for saying no in order to open space for more fluidtypes of masculinity to emerge. Without taking men’s experiences into account,we do a disservice to both women and men as we attempt to develop more ethicalsexual subject positions. However, we also need to remember that hegemonic mas-culinity is slippery, and what can seem like a fresh take on gendered norms mayjust be hegemonic masculinity playing out in a different way.
Limitations and directions for future research
This article has provided novel insights into heterosexual men’s experiences ofsaying ‘no’ to sex within their ongoing relationships, however there are anumber of limitations to this analysis. The research this study is drawn fromlooked at young people’s negotiation of their romantic and sexual relationshipsand did not explicitly seek to speak to heterosexual men about their sexual refusals.While the three stories presented here indicate that this is a potentially commonexperience, it is not possible to make inferences about the extent that it occurs.While there is a commonality in how these men then reasserted a more hegemonicmasculinity within their relationships, other men may respond differently – andother women may more readily ‘hear’ their partner’s sexual refusals. This is an arearipe for future research to explore, particularly given the implications for violence prevention programs. The potential for heterosexual men’s sexual refusals to gounheard, and for this to then trigger compensatory manhood acts which reasserttheir dominance, raises a number of questions about how best to work with menandwomen to promote respectful, ethical sexual negotiation.
Posts
