Question of the day: Isn't it time to abolish the "conjugal debt"?

Serious passions flared up in social networks after psychologist Olga Zygmantovich published a post on her blog entitled “How to have sex if you don’t want to”. In it, she made quite strange from the point of view of modern science, openly patriarchal statements. Including the following:

“If you don't have sexual debts, it's cool, you don't have to.

If there is a debt, and your couple is fundamentally having sex, then the answer is unequivocal.

Have sex without desire.

Oh, what happened, why did your face leave?

Your partner says to you: "Hey, please come to the store, buy some bread, there is no home." Scrap it, but you stopped by and bought it.

What the fuck is wrong with sex? ⠀

Your partner says to you: "Listen, I want (to have intimacy), with you, please come here".

That's what's fundamentally changing, huh?

Physically you can't - there are other body parts and toys from the sex shop.

There is no mood - well, you somehow work without a mood, so work here and here... What kind of dancing with a tambourine?

Or again I have lost in my head something about the unity of hearts, cosmic energies and great love..."

These revelations did not pass by the female online community: it is clear that mainly representatives of the “fairer sex” took part in the discussion, since this problem directly concerns gender equality. The most detailed answer was given by another psychologist - Yulia Diaghileva:

“Let's say some obvious things once again.

Any sex that cannot be stopped at any time of its own accord is violence.

Any forced sex, no matter how this coercion is expressed, from physical pressure to explanations “you have to endure” - this is violence.

Here the psychologist is not in the know, but the term "spousal rape" exists and includes exactly what she writes about.

There is no sexual "conjugal duty". There is no “right to sex”.

Sex is a way for adults to communicate, nothing else. It is not a resource that women own and can “give” or “not give”.

The psychologist invites women to sexually serve a partner, despite their own reluctance, and presents this as a recipe to keep passion in a couple.

Only this is a lie.

If you have to have sex without desire, then your partner will quickly begin to cause completely negative feelings.

Everything that the psychologist writes in this text is quite in the patriarchal paradigm: the desires of a woman do not matter, the role of a woman is reduced to an instrument of masturbation.

Separately impressive is the census of men in the comments, for whom the proposed is normal. Well, that is, there are straight living people who normally have sex with a woman who does not want to.

Suffer, she has a debt.

This is not sex, guys. This is masturbation about a living woman. This is violence.

And warning all sorts of zapoloshnye screams "but if you do not give it and he will go to the left".

Who, tell me, generally needs a relationship in which a partner puts before the choice “either you tolerate without desire or I’ll go to the left with every right”?

P. S. The concept of sex as a "duty" in a couple is absolutely patriarchal, yes.

There is only one answer to the question "how to have sex without desire" - in no way.

If the sexual component in a couple is important, then efforts are made in order to regain desire.

First - desire, then - sex, and not "married debt owed"...