Sex in 'life partnerships': privilige or entitlement?

[The Congregationists]

I've noticed a number of articles and columns on sex starved marriages in personal advice sections of papers lately, and think it raises a thorny question:

Do people involved in a marriage, common law situation or other kind of life partnership or intimate relationship have a right to sexual activity in that relationship?

On the one hand, one of the reasons we have relationships of this nature is to allow for release of sexual desire, which we see (or most of us see, leastwise) as being at least natural, if not good. We also see sexual infidelity as grounds to end such relationships. That being so, does this not implicitly recognize the fact that these relationships are intrinsically sexual, and if you don't want to partake in sexual behaviors, perhaps don't enter into such a union in the first place. To demand someone be faithful and not cheat, while at the same time being unwilling to have relations with them, strikes me as wanting to have your cake and eat it too, and seems like quite a controlling and possessive attitude.

On the other had, the notion of entitlement carries certain grave dangers - namely that it can sanction rape in marriage. Partners don't give up essential bodily autonomy when they marry. Sex is not a need per-se, merely a desire and something people can live without. Least wise, obligation is a desire-killer, and "putting out" just to please a partner's just a drag. A far cry from an act of mutual love and pleasure.

I think both sides have a point. Certainly rape in marriage (or in any circumstance) cannot ever be sanctioned. But I don't think sexually frustrated partners should be expected simply to shut up and cross their legs either. What are your thoughts?

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

I'm amazed you actually needed to ask that

[Augustus Este]

Who on earth thinks sex is an entitlement?

[Ifreann]

Do people involved in a marriage, common law situation or other kind of life partnership or intimate relationship have a right to sexual activity in that relationship?

No, and you should feel bad for asking.

[Trollgaard]

Not a right, but an expectation of sex at some level of frequency...

[The lepearchauns]

Well, according to the right we cant have sex until we are married. According to the article, we dont get sex once we are married. So the human species is f**ked...wait, we arent

[The Congregationists]

No, and you should feel bad for asking.

I don't believe in sacred cows.

[Ifreann]

No, and you should feel bad for asking.

I don't believe in sacred cows.

It's nothing to so with sacred cows. This is just obvious, at least to anyone who isn't a rapist. You don't have a right to sex.

[The Alchemists Guild]

I think both sides have a point. Or could there be a middle ground somewhere? What do you think?

The middle ground you're searching for is, not every marriage/relationship has to be monogamous, it's would be odd to demand sexual exclusivity in a sexless marriage, and without exclusivity it couldn't matter less.

[The Congregationists]

[You don't have a right to sex.

I agree. On the other hand though, do you have a right to sexual fidelity?

[Ifreann]

[You don't have a right to sex.

I agree. On the other hand though, do you have a right to sexual fidelity?

No.

[Lackadaisical2]

Pretty obviously you can't be raping people, but I can easily see it as grounds for divorce.

[Laskheaomjgiien]

I think this is pretty clear cut, No.

I agree. On the other hand though, do you have a right to sexual fidelity?

No.

YAY...

[The Congregationists]

No.

Fair enough - you're consistant.

Pretty obviously you can't be raping people, but I can easily see it as grounds for divorce.

This, or an opening of the relationship. The same principle that forbids sex being an entitlement also forbids fidelity being an entitlement. We don't own other people. That said, I would encourage and be open to communication and negotiation in a relationship over this, or frankly any matter. Relationship success means seeing that beyond the preservation of our basic rights, it's not always about "me." Entering into a relationship expecting the other to capitulate to your own wishes and desires on everything, sex included, is selfish and immature.

[Laskheaomjgiien]

Pretty obviously you can't be raping people, but I can easily see it as grounds for divorce.

This, or an opening of the relationship. The same principle that forbids sex being an entitlement also forbids fidelity being an entitlement. We don't own other people. That said, I would encourage and be open to communication and negotiation in a relationship over this, or frankly any matter. Relationship success means seeing that beyond the preservation of our basic rights, it's not always about "me." Entering into a relationship expecting the other to capitulate to your own wishes and desires on everything, sex included, is selfish and immature.

Simply solution or rather a suggestion, their should be a Prerogative to exit a relationship that is harmful to oneself or from which one fails to benefit. or rather it's my opinion.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Do people involved in a marriage, common law situation or other kind of life partnership or intimate relationship have a right to sexual activity in that relationship?

No, and you should feel bad for asking.

Why?

[Mushet]

If one of them don't wanna do it then they shouldn't be forced to do it, if it ain't working out that much they can get a divorce

So privelege, I suppose

[Ifreann]

No, and you should feel bad for asking.

Why?

...This is just obvious, at least to anyone who isn't a rapist. You don't have a right to sex.

[SD_Film Artists]

Is lowering the seat/lid on the toilet and giving flowers from a florist rather than half-price at the oil-slicked garage a privilige or an entitlement?

[The Congregationists]

Is lowering the seat/lid on the toilet and giving flowers from a florist rather than half-price at the oil-slicked garage a privilige or an entitlement?

Privilige certainly. But not listening to your partner or taking their concerns with the relationship seriously is a good way to discover rather painfully that the continued existance of the relationship is also a privilige.

[Big Jim P]

Me and my wife both have a right to sex in our marriage, and should either partner not be in the mood, we have our lefts as well.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Why?

...This is just obvious, at least to anyone who isn't a rapist. You don't have a right to sex.

And yet, why should somebody feel bad just for asking? Or are you saying some questions should be censored because acting on one of the answers is wrong? (Yes, attempting to discourage people from asking a question by saying they should feel bad for asking is censorship.)

[Bottle]

No, you are never entitled to use somebody's body for your sexual gratification without their consent.

You are entitled to leave a relationship if you feel that it is not meeting your emotional or physical needs.

This is not rocket surgery folks.

[Wikkiwallana]

They have a right to their activity to be free from outside interference, but they don't have a right to demand it from their partner.

[Bottle]

And yet, why should somebody feel bad just for asking? Or are you saying some questions should be censored because acting on one of the answers is wrong? (Yes, attempting to discourage people from asking a question by saying they should feel bad for asking is censorship.)

Wrong. Telling people they should feel bad for saying something is not censorship in any way, shape, or form. It is simply responding with an opinion. I am really goddamn sick of the way people are constantly crying "censorship" whenever somebody challenges a statement or responds harshly...fuck that noise. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean you get to say whatever you want and everyone else is forbidden to argue with you or tell you you're a jackass. In fact, REAL censorship is what happens when you tell people they aren't allowed to dissent.

Personally, I agree that somebody should feel bad for asking whether a person is entitled to rape their spouse. If you're asking that question honestly, you should feel bad for your lack of empathy and your utter disregard for the humanity of your sex partner(s). If you're asking it in jest then you should feel bad for being so un-funny, because what the fuck is humorous about sexually assaulting the very person you swore to be partner to for life? And if you really do know the answer but you think it's fun to stir up "debate" on the subject then you should feel bad because marital rape is already horrifically common and people already refuse to believe spouses who have been raped, and they really don't need more people trying to argue that they totally deserved it.