Sex in 'life partnerships': privilige or entitlement?

[SD_Film Artists]

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.

But I thought you think that sex doesn't matter (apart from procreation) and thus it isn't misery- your inner strength isn't challenged because, by what I think you thuoght in other threads, sex is a non-issue. If you turn yourself into a flagellant then you're accepting that sex is needed for a happy life.

[Four-sided Triangles]

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.

You're being very vague. Define the right to sex in an operational way.

[Four-sided Triangles]

But I thought you think that sex doesn't matter (apart from procreation) and thus it isn't misery- your inner strength isn't challenged because, by what I think you thuoght in other threads, sex is a non-issue. If you turn yourself into a flagellant then you're accepting that sex is needed for a happy life.

Happiness and pleasure are not necessary for survival.

[Lackadaisical2]

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.

My name is Lacky and I'm a sexaholic, I've been chaste for 2 and a half years this Tuesday.

[Four-sided Triangles]

My name is Lacky and I'm a sexaholic, I've been chaste for 2 and a half years this Tuesday.

Have you admitted that you're powerless and submitted your fate to a higher power? 12-stepping won't work otherwise.

[Tahar Joblis]

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?

My thought is that you have a right to terminate the relationship when you aren't getting what you want or need out of it. You have a right to terminate that relationship at any time.

There is clearly no entitlement to sex; but we can say that if one partner is denying the other sexual satisfaction, that it's unfair. It may be abusive. They aren't entitled to sex, but they deserve to be treated fairly.

[SD_Film Artists]

But I thought you think that sex doesn't matter (apart from procreation) and thus it isn't misery- your inner strength isn't challenged because, by what I think you thuoght in other threads, sex is a non-issue. If you turn yourself into a flagellant then you're accepting that sex is needed for a happy life.

Happiness and pleasure are not necessary for survival.

Then why survive at all? True strength is being happy or at least mildly content no matter how bad your situation is*- rather than going "I'm not going to have sex because I want to prove that I can survive misery!!"

*within reason, as otherwise that person would be a fool.

[The Merchant Republics]

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.".

The intent I doubt is, "It's ok to rape your wife" and more, "Don't let life get in the way of your physical needs with each other", the duty being more "If it's a sexless marriage, you're doing it wrong" rather than "It's ok to demand sex at a whim".

That said, it's fairly consistent with the religious reasons for marriage, as I believe Paul laid out to the Corinthians, marriage is supposed to be the God-approved way to have sex. The point of marriage as Christians would have was less to have kids and more to keep you from raping and lusting out of wedlock.

The notion itself being that it's better to have an exclusive partnership stating that you'll satisfy each other's sexual needs in a partnership based on love, then going about whoring yourself, as the Romans and Corinthians often did.

Not Catholic though.

Funny to mention it but I find it strange how "expecting" sex in marriage is treated very negatively here, as is the occasional example of married women being taught in church groups or otherwise to better satisfy and be sexually available to their husbands.
Yet the massive societal pressure, media presentation and to extent education of many popular magazines often tends to glamorize, teach and expect both men and women to have pre-marital sex. While the actual idea of pressuring anyone into sex is universally reviled, and that's good. Scant few television shows portray people "saving themselves" as more than kooks. I'm not saying that exonerates the idea that married people should be entitled to sex, but I'm just saying there is a startling contrast when the "You should expect sex on the third date" is no less something people are taught, even though it may very well lead them to have sex when they don't really want to out of a particular expectation of the other party.

If there's anywhere more appropriate to "expect" sex, I would say it's marriage, that doesn't mean, sex isn't a matter of consent, but I would say, there is a... for lack of a better word unspoken entitlement to a husband and a wife to romantic intimacy, in the same way that a marriage presumes and expects i.e. takes as an entitlement sexual exclusivity. Unless stated otherwise. That doesn't mean rape isn't rape if it's between a married couple, I would say it means refusal to have sex is grounds for divorce. A shallow and stupid grounds for divorce, but we live in a shallow and stupid age.

[Four-sided Triangles]

My thought is that you have a right to terminate the relationship when you aren't getting what you want or need out of it. You have a right to terminate that relationship at any time.

There is clearly no entitlement to sex; but we can say that if one partner is denying the other sexual satisfaction, that it's unfair. It may be abusive. They aren't entitled to sex, but they deserve to be treated fairly.

Funny, I think marrying someone and then refusing to have sex with them is a great pragmatic way to lower the total amount of sex that occurs in the world. Sure, it wouldn't eliminate it, but it would definitely limit it.

[Lackadaisical2]

My name is Lacky and I'm a sexaholic, I've been chaste for 2 and a half years this Tuesday.

Have you admitted that you're powerless and submitted your fate to a higher power? 12-stepping won't work otherwise.

I've submitted to the all powerful Mods long ago.

[Lackadaisical2]

My thought is that you have a right to terminate the relationship when you aren't getting what you want or need out of it. You have a right to terminate that relationship at any time.

There is clearly no entitlement to sex; but we can say that if one partner is denying the other sexual satisfaction, that it's unfair. It may be abusive. They aren't entitled to sex, but they deserve to be treated fairly.

Funny, I think marrying someone and then refusing to have sex with them is a great pragmatic way to lower the total amount of sex that occurs in the world. Sure, it wouldn't eliminate it, but it would definitely limit it.

You should probably get on that boss, sexaholics out there need you.

[Big Jim P]

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

My name is Lacky and I'm a sexaholic, I've been chaste for 2 and a half years this Tuesday.

Well let someone catch you. Duh.

[Bottle]

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





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.".

The intent I doubt is, "It's ok to rape your wife" and more, "Don't let life get in the way of your physical needs with each other", the duty being more "If it's a sexless marriage, you're doing it wrong" rather than "It's ok to demand sex at a whim".

That said, it's fairly consistent with the religious reasons for marriage, as I believe Paul laid out to the Corinthians, marriage is supposed to be the God-approved way to have sex. The point of marriage as Christians would have was less to have kids and more to keep you from raping and lusting out of wedlock.

The notion itself being that it's better to have an exclusive partnership stating that you'll satisfy each other's sexual needs in a partnership based on love, then going about whoring yourself, as the Romans and Corinthians often did.

Not Catholic though.

Funny to mention it but I find it strange how "expecting" sex in marriage is treated very negatively here, as is the occasional example of married women being taught in church groups or otherwise to better satisfy and be sexually available to their husbands.
Yet the massive societal pressure, media presentation and to extent education of many popular magazines often tends to glamorize, teach and expect both men and women to have pre-marital sex. While the actual idea of pressuring anyone into sex is universally reviled, and that's good. Scant few television shows portray people "saving themselves" as more than kooks. I'm not saying that exonerates the idea that married people should be entitled to sex, but I'm just saying there is a startling contrast when the "You should expect sex on the third date" is no less something people are taught, even though it may very well lead them to have sex when they don't really want to out of a particular expectation of the other party.

If there's anywhere more appropriate to "expect" sex, I would say it's marriage, that doesn't mean, sex isn't a matter of consent, but I would say, there is a... for lack of a better word unspoken entitlement to a husband and a wife to romantic intimacy, in the same way that a marriage presumes and expects i.e. takes as an entitlement sexual exclusivity. Unless stated otherwise. That doesn't mean rape isn't rape if it's between a married couple, I would say it means refusal to have sex is grounds for divorce. A shallow and stupid grounds for divorce, but we live in a shallow and stupid age.

I don't think two wrongs make a right here. It's fucked up and uncool that society puts so much pressure on women to be sexually available (in only the right ways of course), and so much pressure on men to prove their virility by always being sexually aggressive. It's fucked up and uncool that there is pressure for everyone to be all about sex, all the time. And it's fucked up and uncool that there is the perception that consenting to marry somebody (or even just to date somebody) means you've consented to let them use your body whenever and however they want. All of the above are lousy attitudes and we should throw rocks at them.

But then, I also think it's fucked up and uncool to act like it's "shallow and stupid" to get divorced because one isn't having one's needs met...I think that's a superb reason to get divorced, and I wish we could encourage more people to get divorces when their needs aren't being met.

[Revolutopia]

My thought is that you have a right to terminate the relationship when you aren't getting what you want or need out of it. You have a right to terminate that relationship at any time.

There is clearly no entitlement to sex; but we can say that if one partner is denying the other sexual satisfaction, that it's unfair. It may be abusive. They aren't entitled to sex, but they deserve to be treated fairly.

Funny, I think marrying someone and then refusing to have sex with them is a great pragmatic way to lower the total amount of sex that occurs in the world. Sure, it wouldn't eliminate it, but it would definitely limit it.

Seems Misogynistic of you to trick a woman into marrying you, only for you to use this as way to prevent her from having sexual intercourse.

[SD_Film Artists]

One shouldn't be a cunt and cheat.

Please don't use misogynistic language.

That's no more misogynistic than "dick" is misandrist.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Seems Misogynistic of you to trick a woman into marrying you, only for you to use this as way to prevent her from having sexual intercourse.

If I move a few miles north of here, I wouldn't have to marry a women.

[Four-sided Triangles]

That's no more misogynistic than "dick" is misandrist.

There's no symmetry between those words, or rather, the patriarchal nature of society means that the symmetry between those words is spontaneously broken.

[Revolutopia]

Seems Misogynistic of you to trick a woman into marrying you, only for you to use this as way to prevent her from having sexual intercourse.

If I move a few miles north of here, I wouldn't have to marry a women.

Misandristic of you then.

[Four-sided Triangles]

But then, I also think it's fucked up and uncool to act like it's "shallow and stupid" to get divorced because one isn't having one's needs met...I think that's a superb reason to get divorced, and I wish we could encourage more people to get divorces when their needs aren't being met.

Sex isn't a need, though.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Misandristic of you then.

1. No, it's really not.

2. I've already admitted that I'm not a fan of my own gender.

[SD_Film Artists]

That's no more misogynistic than "dick" is misandrist.

There's no symmetry between those words, or rather, the patriarchal nature of society means that the symmetry between those words is spontaneously broken.

How is one worse?

[Big Jim P]

But then, I also think it's fucked up and uncool to act like it's "shallow and stupid" to get divorced because one isn't having one's needs met...I think that's a superb reason to get divorced, and I wish we could encourage more people to get divorces when their needs aren't being met.

Sex isn't a need, though.

But it is (normally) the second strongest instinctual drive (after survival).

[Revolutopia]

Misandristic of you then.

1. No, it's really not.

2. I've already admitted that I'm not a fan of my own gender.

1. You are engaging in trickery in effort to deny a person the ability to have sex seems like a hateful act.

2. That is stupid, men are no worse the women and vice versa.

[The Merchant Republics]

I don't think two wrongs make a right here. It's fucked up and uncool that society puts so much pressure on women to be sexually available (in only the right ways of course), and so much pressure on men to prove their virility by always being sexually aggressive. It's fucked up and uncool that there is pressure for everyone to be all about sex, all the time. And it's fucked up and uncool that there is the perception that consenting to marry somebody (or even just to date somebody) means you've consented to let them use your body whenever and however they want. All of the above are lousy attitudes and we should throw rocks at them.

But then, I also think it's fucked up and uncool to act like it's "shallow and stupid" to get divorced because one isn't having one's needs met...I think that's a superb reason to get divorced, and I wish we could encourage more people to get divorces when their needs aren't being met.

We are in (admittedly very rare) agreement.

It's fucked and uncool to ever expect sex from another person. Even in marriage. Your husband or wife has feelings and desires just as much as you do, and if you aren't respecting them then you certainly don't have any entitlement to their body. The foundation of a marriage like any other relationship should be mutual respect, love and trust, if you respect, love and trust your wife or husband then you shouldn't need any hypothetical entitlement to their body.

Caught your edit: I was talking more about the immediate and sexual sense. Obviously if in the long-term neither of you are actually making each other happy, then it wouldn't make sense for you to remain married. It would however be fucked up and uncool to divorce someone because they didn't have sex with you last night. It would also be shallow and stupid.

You just can't let us agree can you Bottle?

[Ifreann]

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.

I think we did this one already. Cheating is bad, have the mettle to end the relationship if you aren't happy with it and can't fix it.

---

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

They're a bit specific to be generic insults.