Sex in 'life partnerships': privilige or entitlement?

[Northwest Slobovia]

Well this is interesting! Much to my surprise*, it appears the Catholic Church's official answer to this question is:

THE EFFECTS OF MARRIAGE

Can. 1134 From a valid marriage there arises between the spouses a bond which by its nature is perpetual and exclusive. Moreover, a special sacrament strengthens and, as it were, consecrates the spouses in a Christian marriage for the duties and dignity of their state.

Can. 1135 Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life.

Source... "vatican.va" is the Church's official TLD, yes?

Could somebody knowledgeable in Catholic theology comment before I say something regrettable about the further utitilty of the Church?

*: I expected it would say something "Thou art required to have thy kiddos, lest ye burn in hellfire for all eternity &c", but not, "You gotta put out for God.".

[Ifreann]

And yet, why should somebody feel bad just for asking?

If you find yourself being like a rapist in some way, you should feel bad.

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.)

No, I'm saying that if you find yourself being like a rapist in some way, you should feel bad.

[Northwest Slobovia]

And yet, why should somebody feel bad just for asking?

If you find yourself being like a rapist in some way, you should feel bad.

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.)

No, I'm saying that if you find yourself being like a rapist in some way, you should feel bad.

What a charmingly vague yet loaded statement! Anything you declare to be "like a rapist" is off limits! How lovely! Do you feel the same way about "being like a terrorist"? How 'bout "being like a torturer"? Or even -- whisper it softly -- "being like a censor"?

[The Congregationists]

The idea that "sex is a right" or at least an intrinsic part of some kinds of relationships can get more involved than that, mind you. Consider this article I read a few months back:

London: In a unique ruling, a French court has reportedly ordered a 51-year-old man to pay his ex-wife nearly 8,500 pounds in damages for failing to have enough sex with her during their 21-year marriage.

The man, Jean-Louis B, was fined under Article 215 of France's civil code which states that married couples must agree to a "shared communal life", the 'Daily Express' reported.

Our legal systems are chalk full of "rights" that we don't recognize as being enforcable by violent acts. A law like the one cited in the above article, or in Northwest Slobovia's article on Catholic doctrine could serve as a means of enforcing such a "right" without sanctioning rape in marriage.

What a charmingly vague yet loaded statement! Anything you declare to be "like a rapist" is off limits! How lovely! Do you feel the same way about "being like a terrorist"? How 'bout "being like a torturer"? Or even -- whisper it softly -- "being like a censor"?

I just don't speak to attempts at emotional blackmail. You have to do better than that with me. I don't even dignify it with a response, other than what I have to say here. If, and I mean IF someone wants to suggest that I am being "like a rapist" in some way, than they can present the evidence that I have non-consentual sex with people - if they have such evidence they should be taking it to the police. If not they can STFU. I have no more to say on that matter.

[Laskheaomjgiien]

So what sort of laws worth having are at the same time not worth enforcing?
I'm going to simply assume in the future that every legal system is as complicated as is possible while contradicting itself in as many ways as possible.

[Northwest Slobovia]

]

What a charmingly vague yet loaded statement! Anything you declare to be "like a rapist" is off limits! How lovely! Do you feel the same way about "being like a terrorist"? How 'bout "being like a torturer"? Or even -- whisper it softly -- "being like a censor"?

I just don't speak to attempts at emotional blackmail. You have to do better than that with me. I don't even dignify it with a response, other than what I have to say here. If, and I mean IF someone wants to suggest that I am being "like a rapist" in some way, than they can present the evidence that I have non-consentual sex with people - if they have such evidence they should be taking it to the police. If not they can STFU. I have no more to say on that matter.

"Emotional blackmail"? Nah, heavy sarcasm... I believe the statement to be 100% pure doublespeak, and returned fire in kind. The statement is loaded -- nobody wants to be compared to any sort of criminal -- yet it doesn't actually answer the question of censorship.

[Ifreann]

If you find yourself being like a rapist in some way, you should feel bad.

No, I'm saying that if you find yourself being like a rapist in some way, you should feel bad.

What a charmingly vague yet loaded statement! Anything you declare to be "like a rapist" is off limits!

Exactly. Because when I say "you should feel bad" what I mean is "you should feel bad because you're facing prosecution for thought crime, criminal scum!"

How lovely! Do you feel the same way about "being like a terrorist"? How 'bout "being like a torturer"? Or even -- whisper it softly -- "being like a censor"?

Of course. I'd be worried if someone could be like a terrorist or torturer without feeling bad about it. Censorship, I believe, is somewhat more popular. Indeed, as much as you're accusing me of it, you seem to want to shut me down for expressing an opinion you don't approve of.

---

]


I just don't speak to attempts at emotional blackmail. You have to do better than that with me. I don't even dignify it with a response, other than what I have to say here. If, and I mean IF someone wants to suggest that I am being "like a rapist" in some way, than they can present the evidence that I have non-consentual sex with people - if they have such evidence they should be taking it to the police. If not they can STFU. I have no more to say on that matter.

"Emotional blackmail"? Nah, heavy sarcasm... I believe the statement to be 100% pure doublespeak, and returned fire in kind. The statement is loaded -- nobody wants to be compared to any sort of criminal -- yet it doesn't actually answer the question of censorship.

I don't tend to bother with questions that are crap.

[Bottle]

The idea that "sex is a right" or at least an intrinsic part of some kinds of relationships can get more involved than that, mind you. Consider this article I read a few months back:

London: In a unique ruling, a French court has reportedly ordered a 51-year-old man to pay his ex-wife nearly 8,500 pounds in damages for failing to have enough sex with her during their 21-year marriage.

The man, Jean-Louis B, was fined under Article 215 of France's civil code which states that married couples must agree to a "shared communal life", the 'Daily Express' reported.

Our legal systems are chalk full of "rights" that we don't recognize as being enforcable by violent acts. A law like the one cited in the above article, or in Northwest Slobovia's article on Catholic doctrine could serve as a means of enforcing such a "right" without sanctioning rape in marriage.

Marital rape was legal in the US only a few decades ago. Lots of laws are crummy. I don't believe in sending the message that anybody is entitled to use another person's body without their consent, and ESPECIALLY not that marriage creates such an entitlement...in my eyes, it's even more fucked up to violate your spouse in that way, because that's a person you are supposed to love and cherish and protect. If anything, it's MORE of a violation and a betrayal for you to force yourself on a person that you have explicitly promised to care for.

[Saiwania]

Marital rape was legal in the US only a few decades ago.

Care to point to any specific law which legalized marital rape, or are you saying that there was a lack of any formal legislation on the matter back then?

[Bottle]

Marital rape was legal in the US only a few decades ago.

Care to point to any specific law which legalized marital rape, or are you saying that there was a lack of any formal legislation on the matter back then?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=USA+legality+of+marital+rape

[The Congregationists]

Marital rape was legal in the US only a few decades ago. Lots of laws are crummy. I don't believe in sending the message that anybody is entitled to use another person's body without their consent, and ESPECIALLY not that marriage creates such an entitlement...in my eyes, it's even more fucked up to violate your spouse in that way, because that's a person you are supposed to love and cherish and protect. If anything, it's MORE of a violation and a betrayal for you to force yourself on a person that you have explicitly promised to care for.

Well I'm very, VERY uncertain about a law such as the french example I cited - more for the purposes of showing how such a right could be enforced without resort to violent acts than to actually advocate it. For example, the article suggested that the man so sued claimed to be unable to have sex with her due to health problems. So do we allow one partner or the other to sue in such a case? On the other hand, I don't think the woman in this case should be required or expected to live a life of celibacy because her husband's health makes sex impossible - unless she chooses to. My wife and I have actually discussed this, and I've told her that should ill health render me impotent, I'd effectively "release" her from any mutually agreed upon expectation of fidelity while still being commited to other aspects of our marriage - child rearing and so on. Whether she'd actually go elsewhere is another matter (she says she wouldn't) but like I say, her choice. The woman in this case was well within her rights to seek a divorce - but fining the poor guy 8500 euros was pretty fucking draconian, IMO.

Other problems include: who decides how much sexual activity is "too little" and thus falls below the threshold that opens itself up to legal action? In some relationships, both partners are quite content to have relations once every six months. Do they thus expose one another to civil litigation, especially if the marriage fails? I think this would be very problematic indeed.

Again, I think a dispute like this should be grounds for divorce - more due to both partner's inability to work it out in good faith than anything else. Were my wife to bring to me a grievance that we do not have sex often enough, I would, out of love and respect for her and our marriage, work it out in good faith. Were I to have a similar grievance, I'd discuss it with her with the same expectation, and would myself be willing to meet halfway on it somewhere. Hell will freeze over before I coerce her to have sex with me - be sure of that.

[Sailsia]

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.

He's asking a question to spark a debate, I don't think we was specifically saying people /should/ have a right to sex.

[Bottle]

Marital rape was legal in the US only a few decades ago. Lots of laws are crummy. I don't believe in sending the message that anybody is entitled to use another person's body without their consent, and ESPECIALLY not that marriage creates such an entitlement...in my eyes, it's even more fucked up to violate your spouse in that way, because that's a person you are supposed to love and cherish and protect. If anything, it's MORE of a violation and a betrayal for you to force yourself on a person that you have explicitly promised to care for.

Well I'm very, VERY uncertain about a law such as the french example I cited - more for the purposes of showing how such a right could be enforced without resort to violent acts than to actually advocate it. For example, the article suggested that the man so sued claimed to be unable to have sex with her due to health problems. So do we allow one partner or the other to sue in such a case? On the other hand, I don't think the woman in this case should be required or expected to live a life of celibacy because her husband's health makes sex impossible - unless she chooses to. My wife and I have actually discussed this, and I've told her that should ill health render me impotent, I'd effectively "release" her from any mutually agreed upon expectation of fidelity while still being commited to other aspects of our marriage - child rearing and so on. Whether she'd actually go elsewhere is another matter (she says she wouldn't) but like I say, her choice. The woman in this case was well within her rights to seek a divorce - but fining the poor guy 8500 euros was pretty fucking draconian, IMO.

Other problems include: who decides how much sexual activity is "too little" and thus falls below the threshold that opens itself up to legal action? In some relationships, both partners are quite content to have relations once every six months. Do they thus expose one another to civil litigation, especially if the marriage fails? I think this would be very problematic indeed.

Again, I think a dispute like this should be grounds for divorce - more due to both partner's inability to work it out in good faith than anything else. Were my wife to bring to me a grievance that we do not have sex often enough, I would, out of love and respect for her and our marriage, work it out in good faith. Were I to have a similar grievance, I'd discuss it with her with the same expectation, and would myself be willing to meet halfway on it somewhere. Hell will freeze over before I coerce her to have sex with me - be sure of that.

I'm with you on all of the above. I believe that one is entitled to say, "This relationship is not providing me with the sexual satisfaction I need, and therefore we need to discuss our options." The options include:

-We change how our sex life works, until we're both content (unlikely to work, since if it were possible it probably already would have been happening)
-We open our marriage, so that we are both allowed to seek sexual satisfaction with outside parties, and we set up terms for how this will work that we both can agree to
-We separate and/or divorce

I think it is legit to end a marriage if it is not meeting your sexual needs and your partner is not willing to allow you to have sexual contact with other parties. It is not legit to:

-Force or coerce a partner to have sex against their wishes
-Have sex with others without disclosing this to your partner
-Have sex with others if your partner has specifically said they're not cool with it (you should break up FIRST)
-Stay in a relationship that makes you miserable, growing more resentful with every passing day, until finally the resentment reaches a breaking point and you shatter a relationship completely when you might otherwise have been able to at least part on civil terms

Them's my two cents. The only rules I want to see enforced by law are the ones about how nobody gets to use anybody else's body without consent. The other shit is between the couple in question.

[Threlizdun]

Raping your partner is not justifed by claiming a "right to sex".

[Anti-Obamaland]

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?

If a person doesn't PUT OUT for their partner, then they can't act all butthurt when said partner strays.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Who on earth thinks sex is an entitlement?

Eh...about 49% of the population.

[Bottle]

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?

If a person doesn't PUT OUT for their partner, then they can't act all butthurt when said partner strays.

If you cheat, your partner has every right to be pissed at you, no matter if they were "putting out" or not. You should have been honest and broken up first, not been a liar and a coward and put sexual partners at physical risk without letting them know what you were doing.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Nobody needs sex anyway. You just need to have some inner strength.

[Idaho Conservatives]

Nobody needs sex anyway. You just need to have some inner strength.

[Ifreann]

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?

If a person doesn't PUT OUT for their partner, then they can't act all butthurt when said partner strays.

Yes they can. Of course they can. If one isn't happy with one's relationship, then one should fix it or end the relationship. One shouldn't be a cunt douchecanoe and cheat.

[SD_Film Artists]

Nobody needs sex anyway. You just need to have some inner strength.

Or best of both worlds- having sex and...."inner strength".

[Bottle]

If a person doesn't PUT OUT for their partner, then they can't act all butthurt when said partner strays.

Yes they can. Of course they can. If one isn't happy with one's relationship, then one should fix it or end the relationship. One shouldn't be a cunt and cheat.

Hey now. We've been over this. Cunts are charming, and, what's more, they are extremely faithful...mine's been with me for several decades without straying for a moment.

[Ifreann]

Who on earth thinks sex is an entitlement?

Eh...about 49% of the population.

Speak for yourself.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Or best of both worlds- having sex and...."inner strength".

Inner strength is measured by your ability to survive as much misery as possible. The more miserable you're capable of being without either offing yourself, having a breakdown, or improving conditions, the stronger you are. If you're incapable of living without sex, that's a sign of weakness.

[Four-sided Triangles]

One shouldn't be a cunt and cheat.

Please don't use misogynistic language.