On election day, we talk about coalitions, promises, compromises and every citizen's right to have a voice. But negotiations also take place in relationships: Who initiates intimacy, who responds, who gives in and who feels unheard? There is, however, one fundamental difference between the Knesset and the bedroom. In politics, a majority can win a vote even when the minority objects. In sexuality, no majority gives anyone the right to make decisions about another person's body.
In sex therapy, it is essential to distinguish between two principles that do not contradict each other. Every person has the absolute right to decide whether they want sexual contact, what kind of contact they are comfortable with and when they want to stop. That remains true after decades of marriage, even if they agreed yesterday, and even if their partner feels disappointed.
Gallery
Couple in bed. No majority gives anyone the right to make decisions about another person's body
(Photo: Shutterstock)
At the same time, someone who wants sex more often has every right to express their longing for intimacy, their hurt at being rejected or their desire for change. The right to refuse sex does not cancel the other person's right to express emotional pain. It does, however, rule out using pressure to turn a "no" into a "yes."
When differences in sexual desire become persistent
What happens when two partners experience different levels of sexual desire over a prolonged period? Unlike the Knesset, this is not a situation that can be resolved by holding a vote. Instead, the couple needs to understand what is really missing.
Is it sex itself, physical touch, the feeling of being desired, security or emotional intimacy? And on the other side, is the reluctance to have sex connected to exhaustion, pain, unsatisfying sexual experiences or tension within the relationship?
These questions matter because what appears to be a disagreement about how often to have sex may actually reflect very different emotional and physical needs. Addressing the underlying issue can sometimes be more important than negotiating the frequency of sexual encounters.
Sometimes, even after sincere attempts to bridge the gap, partners must consider whether the relationship can continue. Separation can be a legitimate choice when fundamental needs remain unmet. But the possibility of ending a relationship must never be used as a threat designed to obtain sexual consent.
What does the research tell us?
This is not merely a moral or philosophical question. Research also offers insights into how sexual autonomy and relationship satisfaction are connected.
An article published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, describing three studies involving 786 participants, found an association between feeling that a partner respects and supports one's sexual autonomy and higher levels of both sexual and relationship satisfaction.
Prof. Rafi HerutiPhoto: Yanai YechielAnother study, published in The Journal of Sex Research, involving 250 couples across two research settings, identified a particularly important distinction. Responding to a partner's sexual needs out of genuine willingness and generosity was associated with greater satisfaction, while doing so because of pressure, obligation or the suppression of one's own needs was associated with less favorable outcomes.
In simple terms, not every compromise is surrender, and not every agreement necessarily represents a free choice.
Sometimes, a person agrees to a sexual encounter without feeling intense desire at the outset because they want to experience closeness or believe the encounter could become enjoyable. This can be a genuinely free and positive choice.
But when the motivation is fear of the partner's reaction, an argument or emotional punishment, the situation is entirely different.
One of the questions I find particularly useful in therapy is not simply, "Did you want to?" but also, "What do you think would have happened if you had said no?"
If the answer is, "He would have been disappointed, but he would have accepted it," that tells us one thing. If the answer is, "She would have punished me with days of silence," we are dealing with something very different.
Disappointment is a legitimate human emotion. Punishment is not a way to create desire.
Single people have the right to choose, too
Single men and women do not need to form a coalition to decide whom to date, whether to kiss someone or when to go home. Yet the dating world is filled with pressures of its own.
After three dates, some people begin to feel that refusing intimacy would be awkward or unfair. After months on dating apps, they may feel they should settle for someone who has finally agreed to meet them. And somewhere in the background, there is often a committee of concerned relatives ready to remind them of their age.
Not every compromise is surrender, and not every agreement necessarily represents a free choice
(Photo: Shutterstock)
But a date is not a coalition agreement. Dinner is not a down payment on sex, and agreeing to something at the beginning of the evening does not create an obligation to continue until the end.
People are free to choose a committed relationship, a consensual casual encounter or a period without any romantic relationship at all. They are also free to change their minds.
Sometimes, the ability to say "This isn't right for me" is precisely what allows someone to keep searching for what is right.
Four fundamental rules for a healthy intimate life
1. There is no law requiring sexual desire
You can ask for physical affection, suggest having sex or share a fantasy. But you cannot demand sexual arousal or interpret every refusal as a vote of no confidence. "Not now" does not necessarily mean "Not you."
2. Consent has no term limit
You can change your mind at any point, including in the middle of a sexual encounter. Freely given consent does not require overwhelming desire from the very beginning, but it does require a genuine ability to refuse, slow down or stop without facing sanctions or punishment.
3. Not every disagreement requires another election
Instead of repeatedly arguing about how often sex should take place, it is worth asking what is actually missing. Sometimes the solution involves expanding the ways partners express intimacy. In other cases, a medical assessment may be necessary because of pain, changes in sexual functioning or the effects of medication. Not every problem in the bedroom can be solved through negotiation.
4. Without free choice, there is no intimate democracy
In a relationship involving fear, threats, controlling behavior or coercion, suggesting another couples' exercise makes little sense if both partners are not equally free to make decisions. Safety must come first. Only afterward should the possibility of change be considered.
What will we ultimately choose?
After many years in the therapy room, I have come to believe that sexual difficulties are not always disagreements about what should happen in bed. Sometimes they reflect a much deeper question: Who is allowed to want something, who is allowed to refuse, and can two people remain close even when they disagree?
Democracy teaches us that every person has a voice. Sexuality adds another essential principle: Nobody loses that voice simply because they have fallen in love, gotten married or climbed into bed with someone.
So yes, it is important to go out and vote. But when you return home, perhaps you should ask the person beside you a question that appears in no political platform: "What would you like us to choose together?"
And if you decide to spend election night in bed while the votes are being counted, there is no need to wait for the official results. Just make sure that both of you genuinely had the right to choose.
And if you are on your own, a majority of one is enough.
Prof. Rafi Heruti is a specialist in rehabilitation medicine, a Fellow of the European Committee of Sexual Medicine (FECSM), and a certified sex therapist and supervisor.