One topic which is always bound to attract a lot of attention is that of sex. In fact, I'm sure I'd get many more readers if only I wrote posts on "great tips for marital sex" or discussed the details of my own private life with my husband or gave dating advice or something similar. While having great sex life is beneficial for any marriage, some people tend to demonstrate an obsession with sex normally only typical for horny teenagers.
In fact, I'm reliably informed that all and every marriage problem can be explained by one thing: wives refusing to have sex with their husbands. If only they stopped doing it, the divorce rate would go down immediately. Does your husband cheat on you? Watch porn? Spend too much money? Call you names? If only he had more sex, he wouldn't do any of this! Heck, some folks speculated that Andreas Lubitz crashed the plane into the mountain because he couldn't get enough you know what (that in Germany, the country where the prostitutes advertise their craft in local newspapers).
While the idea that any wrong thing a man does can be explained by him being not satisfied sexually is rather simplicistic, to say the least, nevertheless, the discussions raise a serious issue, namely that of what in the more discreet era used to be called "marital rights" or "marital debt". In the past, the wife refusing "marital rights" to her husband was grounds for divorce.
However, this right came with responsibilities attached: namely, the wife was entitled to be financially supported by her husband. Traditional marriage was based on property rights: in a traditional marriage contract the wife exchanged her sexuality and the products thereof, i.e. children for life-long financial support of her husband. That's why the wife could divorce her husband on grounds of abandonment (non-support) but not on the grounds on his infidelity alone, but the husband could get a divorce on the grounds of the wife's adultery (though some countries allowed legal separation in the case of the husband's infidelity).
In fact, this system still exists in more patriarchal countries, such as India. Some time ago there was a controversy about an article written by an Indian man who attacked the concept of "marital rape" which is currently not acknowledged by Indian law. He stated that since sex outside marriage is criminalised in India and Indian men have a duty to support their wives financially, the wife has to perform her marital duty or otherwise file for divorce.
Here is an excerpt:
Rights come with duties. A woman in India has a right to maintenance
even when husband is sick, and incapable of earning or is unemployed. He
is duty bound to pay his wife alimony even after divorce. The Indian
Courts have held that a man must “beg, borrow or steal” but he must
maintain his wife. Then why shouldn’t a man have right to have coitus
with his wife if he is duty bound to maintain her?
Well, I'd say it's a two way street. If the wife isn't supposed to ever deny her husband, as some men claim, even when he is being a total jerk, then a man must "beg, borrow or steal" but maintain his wife, even after divorce. That's what a real patriarchy looks like. Something tells me that not everybody complaining on the net about the wickedness of modern wives would like it.