Sex in 'life partnerships': privilige or entitlement?

[Lackadaisical2]

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.

Just because one does something doesn't mean they couldn't live without it.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

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.

Just because one does something doesn't mean they couldn't live without it.

True. I could totally get off the smack any time I wanted to.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Eh...about 49% of the population.

Speak for yourself.

I was.

[Ifreann]

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.

Yes, good point. I'll have to think of a better word there.

[Arborlawn]

Yes, once married, or really in any consensual intimate relationship, you have the right to sex.

When you enter into an intimate relationship with anyone, you are no longer your own. What you have now belongs to whoever you love, and what whoever you love has now belongs to you.

Both of you have the right to have your sexual needs fulfilled and to engage in happiness with each other.

If you look upon it as an entitlement, then you starve each other, and make each other work for something that should naturally come with a relationship. This leaves so much room for one to abuse the other, for one to manipulate the other with the idea of sex.

If you both look upon it as a right, you must respect each other's needs, or you are harming each other, and depriving each other of something natural to human relationships.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Just because one does something doesn't mean they couldn't live without it.

True, but if you could live without something, and that something is of questionable value, why would you so actively seek it out?

[The Congregationists]

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

PROVIDED you did all in your power to try to work things out and your partner refused to negotiate in good faith, and then upon that failure you were up front with them about terminating the relationship, yes I do agree with this. But like some others here, I don't think that sneaking around behind his/her back and cheating is cool either.

[Bottle]

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.

Yes, good point. I'll have to think of a better word there.

The problem is that a lot of these "genital swear words" just SOUND so good when you want to curse with them. Cunt, dick, etc...just so useful.

I tend to use douche as a replacement, since medical science has concluded that douching is both unnecessary and often harmful, so a "douche" is a person who is being obnoxious in a manner that is unnecessary and/or harmful.

[Ifreann]

Just because one does something doesn't mean they couldn't live without it.

True. I could totally get off the smack any time I wanted to.

Where's the fun in that, though?

[Revolutopia]

Just because one does something doesn't mean they couldn't live without it.

True, but if you could live without something, and that something is of questionable value, why would you so actively seek it out?

Because sex isn't of questionable value, it is pleasurable activity that has many positive attributes.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Yes, once married, or really in any consensual intimate relationship, you have the right to sex.

When you enter into an intimate relationship with anyone, you are no longer your own. What you have now belongs to whoever you love, and what whoever you love has now belongs to you.

Both of you have the right to have your sexual needs fulfilled and to engage in happiness with each other.

If you look upon it as an entitlement, then you starve each other, and make each other work for something that should naturally come with a relationship. This leaves so much room for one to abuse the other, for one to manipulate the other with the idea of sex.

If you both look upon it as a right, you must respect each other's needs, or you are harming each other, and depriving each other of something natural to human relationships.

So if one doesn't have sex, then what? Should they be forced to have sex against their will? Should they be punished for abstaining from sex? How exactly would the idea that sex is a "right" work in practice?

[Bottle]

Yes, once married, or really in any consensual intimate relationship, you have the right to sex.

When you enter into an intimate relationship with anyone, you are no longer your own. What you have now belongs to whoever you love, and what whoever you love has now belongs to you.

Both of you have the right to have your sexual needs fulfilled and to engage in happiness with each other.

If you look upon it as an entitlement, then you starve each other, and make each other work for something that should naturally come with a relationship. This leaves so much room for one to abuse the other, for one to manipulate the other with the idea of sex.

If you both look upon it as a right, you must respect each other's needs, or you are harming each other, and depriving each other of something natural to human relationships.

Just FYI, not only do a lot of people not view relationships that way (and hence you may be in for some nasty surprises) but the laws of a lot of countries also don't agree with you. So I'd be careful how you put these views into practice.

[Four-sided Triangles]

The problem is that a lot of these "genital swear words" just SOUND so good when you want to curse with them. Cunt, dick, etc...just so useful.

You should stop using that word.

[Ifreann]

Yes, good point. I'll have to think of a better word there.

The problem is that a lot of these "genital swear words" just SOUND so good when you want to curse with them. Cunt, dick, etc...just so useful.

I tend to use douche as a replacement, since medical science has concluded that douching is both unnecessary and often harmful, so a "douche" is a person who is being obnoxious in a manner that is unnecessary and/or harmful.

I like douchecanoe.

[Revolutopia]

The problem is that a lot of these "genital swear words" just SOUND so good when you want to curse with them. Cunt, dick, etc...just so useful.

You should stop using that word.

I agree "genital" just sounds funny, use Sexual Playthings.

[Ifreann]

The problem is that a lot of these "genital swear words" just SOUND so good when you want to curse with them. Cunt, dick, etc...just so useful.

You should stop using that word.

Etc? It's not really a word, per se.

[Hathradic States]

One has all right not to engage in sexual activities if they do not wish to. However, if one partner decides they don't want to have sex anymore, they should not be surprised when their partner goes to somebody else.

[Four-sided Triangles]

How about "creationist" or "loop quantum gravity proponent" or something like that as a generic insult?

[Bottle]

The problem is that a lot of these "genital swear words" just SOUND so good when you want to curse with them. Cunt, dick, etc...just so useful.

I tend to use douche as a replacement, since medical science has concluded that douching is both unnecessary and often harmful, so a "douche" is a person who is being obnoxious in a manner that is unnecessary and/or harmful.

I like douchecanoe.

Oh certainly. Douchenozzle, douchewad, and uberdouche are also useful variants.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Etc? It's not really a word, per se.

What do you mean? C*** is definitely a word. It's a word traditionally used to degrade one historically oppressed gender.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

You should stop using that word.

I agree "genital" just sounds funny, use Sexual Playthings.

Genital warts sounds even worse, if that's possible, as 'Sexual Plaything warts'

[Revolutopia]

Etc? It's not really a word, per se.

What do you mean? C*** is definitely a word. It's a word traditionally used to degrade one historically oppressed gender.

They are making fun of you dude, by acting like your objection is over "etc" not cunt.

[The Congregationists]

Yes, once married, or really in any consensual intimate relationship, you have the right to sex.

When you enter into an intimate relationship with anyone, you are no longer your own. What you have now belongs to whoever you love, and what whoever you love has now belongs to you.

By God! Marriage sounds like a fairly Stalinist idea here.

Both of you have the right to have your sexual needs fulfilled and to engage in happiness with each other.

If you look upon it as an entitlement, then you starve each other, and make each other work for something that should naturally come with a relationship. This leaves so much room for one to abuse the other, for one to manipulate the other with the idea of sex.

If you both look upon it as a right, you must respect each other's needs, or you are harming each other, and depriving each other of something natural to human relationships.

I think that morally, you have an obligation to negotiate with your partner in good faith on all issues of relational importance, including sex, with the objective of coming to an agreement that's mutually acceptable. As such, I make it an objective to provide sexual satisfaction to my marriage partner. I do not forsake my fundamental rights in doing so however - my body is not her "property" nor her's "mine."

[Arborlawn]

Yes, once married, or really in any consensual intimate relationship, you have the right to sex.

When you enter into an intimate relationship with anyone, you are no longer your own. What you have now belongs to whoever you love, and what whoever you love has now belongs to you.

Both of you have the right to have your sexual needs fulfilled and to engage in happiness with each other.

If you look upon it as an entitlement, then you starve each other, and make each other work for something that should naturally come with a relationship. This leaves so much room for one to abuse the other, for one to manipulate the other with the idea of sex.

If you both look upon it as a right, you must respect each other's needs, or you are harming each other, and depriving each other of something natural to human relationships.

So if one doesn't have sex, then what? Should they be forced to have sex against their will? Should they be punished for abstaining from sex? How exactly would the idea that sex is a "right" work in practice?

It works on a consensual level. Going into the mindset from the conception of the relationship that both individuals have the right to sex, it simply becomes part of the relationship. However, this doesn't mean that someone must practice their right. This philosophy makes someone submit what they have to their lover, and their lover to them. It creates an equal submission to each other. From there, the two in the relationship have a huge space for compromise and mutual agreement.

[Revolutopia]

I agree "genital" just sounds funny, use Sexual Playthings.

Genital warts sounds even worse, if that's possible, as 'Sexual Plaything warts'

That will make it less likely for people to take unnecessary risks that might result in them.