23% of men in parts of Asia admit to rape

[Mystis land]

How is that not rape?

Have you ever had sex with your partner when you knew she didn't want to but you thought she should agree because she's your wife/ partner?

Because while the use of force could be involved, it could just as easily not be involved.

She did not want to, but she agreed anyway because her boyfriend / husband was being stubborn / annoying / whatever. I don't really think of that as rape. If her boyfriend or husband threatens her in order to get her to have sex with them, then I do consider it rape.

It is rape. It causes the same anguish as being forced...well actually possibly more, because you feel like you have to have sex with them because they are your other half. If you don't want to have sex you don't have too....and the guy is a prick if he convinces you to have sex. My ex used to do this to me. He RAPED me. There is no if or buts about it. Rape is when you have sex with someone who does not want to have sex with you. They can also say stop when you both have got all excited and you haven't even started yet. They can say no part of the way through if they do not want to continue, etc. It is rape if you continue or try and convince her/him to continue. I wish I had learnt this sooner.

[NERVUN]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but having sex with your partner when they don't want it ...even begging them and making them feel bad so they have sex with you IS RAPE.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, it's not.

Yes, it is. It's done without consent, it's rape.

Rape is when you have sex with someone who hasn't given full consent

Indeed.

...and even if they give consent to start off with and they decide they don't want to continue half way through but you continue anyway that is also RAPE.

Which is not the point of contention. The point of contention is whether or not a lack of desire equates to a lack of consent. And, of course, it doesn't.

No, that's your attempt at it, the original question doesn't read that way.

My ex used to rape me. I would say no but he would hassle me and hassle me until I said okay.

Sorry, that's not rape, and you are doing a diservice to rape victims everywhere by acting like you have been raped.

Bullshit, again, one doesn't have to have a gun held to their head to be raped. You're the one doing the disservice.

Several times he would ask me to get into a position I didn't want too and when I said 'I don't want too' he would force me too. That was rape.

Define "force". Because if by "force" you mean "asked me repeatedly until I said alright", that's not rape, nor "forcing" by any rational sense of the term.

Really? Using emotional abuse isn't force?

Your idea of rational and everyone else's seems to differ quite a bit.

[Raktio]

And I just figured out why the school I go to blocked nation states.

[Aurora Novus]

I recall Parkus said differently,

Yes, he did.

My specific situation was a rebuttle to his broad situation. This isn't a hard concept to understand.

you might have imagined everything else to make it a-ok, but that is not what was said.

Indeed, Parkus gave a very broad generalization. Of course I would not say everything that falls into that broad catageory is okay.

What Parkus did, however, was claim everything within that broad catagory was not okay. Eneter my highly specific response to him, showing that his statement was flawed.

You can keep trying to force this issue all you like, but it's completely fabricated. You're ignoring the discussion Parkus and I were having.

You are however being robbed if they just take the money even after you say you don't want to lend it to them. That's the point.

That's a point, but that's not the point. The point PArkus was attempting to make was that taking the wallet, period], was theft.

Which is why I gave the example I did, to show that not all such situations would be theft.

Yeah, see there's a large difference between "I'm not really in the mood tonight, but whatever" and "I don't want to." To take your analogy further, you are if you state, "No, really, I don't want to. Let me out." and they don't.

If they state that, of course.

That's not what I'm arguing against. You are now brinigng up entirely different things. I'm not talking about soneone who directly states "No, I will not go along with this". That is a denial of consent. I'm talking about someone who merely expresses disaproval or distatse at an idea, but is still willing to go along with it. That is what I mean by a lack of desire not equating to a lack of consent.

Do you have an actual argument against this position?

Good for you, however again you're adding in layers to make the original question lean your way, layers that were not there.

So me pointing out why a very broad statement is flawed due to occurances that may happen within it, is "adding layers that were not there"?

I mean, I guess. But that hardly makes my position flawed. Rather, it perfectly demonstrates why making very specific claims about very broad subjects is flawed.


I take it then you do not have an actual argument against me, seeing as you've stuck to attempting to make an issue out of nothing.

[Freelanderness]

If a lack of resistance implies consent, then why is paedophilia a crime?

Er, it's not? Child molestation is.

Potato, french fries. We all understood what I meant.

It was aimed at Aurora Novus so if I could get a reply.

But what I mean by this, is that a child does not have to fight their molester off for it to be considered a crime. So why is it okay in one instance, and not in another?

[Aurora Novus]

Yes, it is. It's done without consent, it's rape.

One problem: Consent was given. Ergo, not rape.

No, that's your attempt at it, the original question doesn't read that way.

The original question reads precisely that way. The only things it points out are (1) the wife's lack of desire, and (2) the husband's thoughts on why they should have sex.

It speaks nothing of whether or not the wife specifically says "yes" or "no" to sex, only that she dind't want it. That is conflating lack of desire with lack of consent.

Bullshit, again, one doesn't have to have a gun held to their head to be raped. You're the one doing the disservice.

It's a good thing that my claim was nothing of the sort then. Care to show a shread of intellectual honesty? Or do you prefer to soft comfort of strawmen?

Really? Using emotional abuse isn't force?

"Begging" isn't emotional abuse. Expressing mere disaproval or frustation isn't emotional abuse.

If the poster in question wishes to share anything that would hint at emotional abuse, they are more than welcome to. But by their own words, he would "hassle" her. That does not, to me, seem to hint at abuse, but more things along the lines of "Come on, why won't you get it on with me? Ugh, you're really frustrating me. *pouty face*"

[NERVUN]

I recall Parkus said differently,

Yes, he did.

My specific situation was a rebuttle to his broad situation. This isn't a hard concept to understand.

You seem to be unaware that shifting goalposts like this is generally considered bad form.

you might have imagined everything else to make it a-ok, but that is not what was said.

Indeed, Parkus gave a very broad generalization. Of course I would not say everything that falls into that broad catageory is okay.

What Parkus did, however, was claim everything within that broad catagory was not okay. Eneter my highly specific response to him, showing that his statement was flawed.

And again, changing what the other person said in order to allow you to claim their point is false is moving the goalposts, possibly strawmanning the argument.

You can keep trying to force this issue all you like, but it's completely fabricated. You're ignoring the discussion Parkus and I were having.

Dude, the only one ignore what the other person was saying is you, you constantly and consistently change what was said in order to rebut it.

You are however being robbed if they just take the money even after you say you don't want to lend it to them. That's the point.

That's a point, but that's not the point. The point PArkus was attempting to make was that taking the wallet, period], was theft.

Which is why I gave the example I did, to show that not all such situations would be theft.

At which point you have changed the situation so much it is no longer the same situation.

Yeah, see there's a large difference between "I'm not really in the mood tonight, but whatever" and "I don't want to." To take your analogy further, you are if you state, "No, really, I don't want to. Let me out." and they don't.

If they state that, of course.

That's not what I'm arguing against. You are now brinigng up entirely different things. I'm not talking about soneone who directly states "No, I will not go along with this". That is a denial of consent. I'm talking about someone who merely expresses disaproval or distatse at an idea, but is still willing to go along with it. That is what I mean by a lack of desire not equating to a lack of consent.

So what part of "No, I don't want to have sex with you" are you failing to grasp as denial of consent? That sounds very much a matter of "I will not" not a "eh, whatever".

Do you have an actual argument against this position?

See above.

Good for you, however again you're adding in layers to make the original question lean your way, layers that were not there.

So me pointing out why a very broad statement is flawed due to occurances that may happen within it, is "adding layers that were not there"?

I mean, I guess. But that hardly makes my position flawed. Rather, it perfectly demonstrates why making very specific claims about very broad subjects is flawed.

Seriously, your argument is based on this notion that you can THINK of reasons why a woman may have not, not consented and because of that it calls the whole study into question?

I take it then you do not have an actual argument against me, seeing as you've stuck to attempting to make an issue out of nothing.

When in doubt, declare victory for your strawman and go home?

[Aurora Novus]

It was aimed at Aurora Novus so if I could get a reply.

If you missed it, I didn't reply, because I answered your query in a subsequent post directed at another user.

Namely, that my argument is not that a lack of resistance equates to auto-consent. Rather, that a lack of desire does not equate to a lack of consent. The two are seperate things, and one can disapprove and not enjoy something, or not want to do something, and yet, consent to it.

[NERVUN]

Yes, it is. It's done without consent, it's rape.

One problem: Consent was given. Ergo, not rape.

And since the person here is saying she didn't want to... That sounds like rape.

No, that's your attempt at it, the original question doesn't read that way.

The original question reads precisely that way. The only things it points out are (1) the wife's lack of desire, and (2) the husband's thoughts on why they should have sex.

It speaks nothing of whether or not the wife specifically says "yes" or "no" to sex, only that she dind't want it. That is conflating lack of desire with lack of consent.

No, that says she didn't want to have sex. That means no. You know, most children learn that no means no. Not maybe, not perhaps, but, you know, no. Didn't you know that?

Bullshit, again, one doesn't have to have a gun held to their head to be raped. You're the one doing the disservice.

It's a good thing that my claim was nothing of the sort then. Care to show a shread of intellectual honesty? Or do you prefer to soft comfort of strawmen?[/QUOTE]
Please don't play such obvious games.

Really? Using emotional abuse isn't force?

"Begging" isn't emotional abuse. Expressing mere disaproval or frustation isn't emotional abuse.

Really? There are many who disagree.

If the poster in question wishes to share anything that would hint at emotional abuse, they are more than welcome to. But by their own words, he would "hassle" her. That does not, to me, seem to hint at abuse, but more things along the lines of "Come on, why won't you get it on with me? Ugh, you're really frustrating me. *pouty face*"

And you're yelling at me for assumptions?

[Wikkiwallana]

The Democratic peoples republic of Korea makes up 0% of the crimes!

This meme already sucks. This is just making an even bigger ass of yourself. Making light of something like this is truly disgusting.

[Aurora Novus]

Yes, he did.

My specific situation was a rebuttle to his broad situation. This isn't a hard concept to understand.

You seem to be unaware that shifting goalposts like this is generally considered bad form.

It's not shifting goal posts. It's pointing out the flaws in stating absolutes about very broad situations.

If I said "All black men are criminals", it would not be "shifting goal posts" for someone to come in and display highly specific situations, wherein black men are shwon to not be crimials by any definitions. Rather, it would be them explaining to me why such a statement is horrendously flawed.

And that is precisely what my response to Parkus was. Again, you're pushing a non-existant issue. I suspect because you might realize your error, but are too full of yourself to admit it.

And again, changing what the other person said in order to allow you to claim their point is false is moving the goalposts, possibly strawmanning the argument.

No, it's not.

When someone makes a very broad assertion (i.e, "All X are Y), it is not strawmanning, nor shifting goalposts, to take a hihgly specific situation within that broad assertion, and display how, in that instance, not all X are Y. Rather, it is pointing out reality, and logically and effectively disproving a claim.

Dude, the only one ignore what the other person was saying is you, you constantly and consistently change what was said in order to rebut it.

Not at all. You are flat out lying now. I challenge you to prove one skerrick of evidence of this.

What I ahve done is taken someone's broad assertion, and pointing out scenarios within that broad catagory that prove the assertion false. That's not "changing what was said in order to rebute it".

At which point you have changed the situation so much it is no longer the same situation.

No, it was the same situation. With added depth.

Do you actually know what Parkus posted?

So what part of "No, I don't want to have sex with you" are you failing to grasp as denial of consent?

Because "No, I don't want to", is not the same as "No, I will not". It expresses a lack of desire, not a lack of consent.

Further more, that's not exactly what the question said. It stated: "Have you ever had sex with your partner when you knew she didn't want to but you thought she should agree because she's your wife/ partner?"

"Knew she didn't want to" doesn't necessarily mean "No, I don't want to have sex with you". It could very well mean "Eh, I don't particularly want to, but whatever".

:palm: Seriously, your argument is based on this notion that you can THINK of reasons why a woman may have not, not consented and because of that it calls the whole study into question?

When one of the questions advertised can so easily be taken to be unrelated to rape, yes, I would question the study. Because if those are the types of questions it's asking, the type that conlfate lack of desire and lack of consent as the same thing, I'm going to be very skeptical of those it calls "rapists".

When in doubt, declare victory for your strawman and go home?

Well considering up till now you've been pushing this idotic notion that calling into question broad statements by means of specific situations is someone me "shifting goalposts", and asserting I've argued for something I haven't been, I wouldn't exactly call it a strawman. Rather, it's been reality.

[Wikkiwallana]

So which nations or region in Asia are more prone to this.

That is why women in Asia especially when young should try to go to Wushu school training.

An example - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vObJ7BGbbqM

How is that going to help?

Men were asked questions like:

Have you ever had sex with your partner when you knew she didn't want to but you thought she should agree because she's your wife/ partner?
Have you ever had sex with a woman or girl when she was too drunk or drugged to say whether she wanted it or not?

[Mystis land]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but having sex with your partner when they don't want it ...even begging them and making them feel bad so they have sex with you IS RAPE.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, it's not.

Rape is when you have sex with someone who hasn't given full consent

Indeed.

...and even if they give consent to start off with and they decide they don't want to continue half way through but you continue anyway that is also RAPE.

Which is not the point of contention. The point of contention is whether or not a lack of desire equates to a lack of consent. And, of course, it doesn't.

My ex used to rape me. I would say no but he would hassle me and hassle me until I said okay.

Sorry, that's not rape, and you are doing a diservice to rape victims everywhere by acting like you have been raped.

Several times he would ask me to get into a position I didn't want too and when I said 'I don't want too' he would force me too. That was rape.

Define "force". Because if by "force" you mean "asked me repeatedly until I said alright", that's not rape, nor "forcing" by any rational sense of the term.

Whether it is to force physically or emotionally it is still rape. I did not want to have sex. I said no over and over again, but gave in eventually. I felt I had no choice. And I am not doing rape victims a disservice. I was raped plain and simple. I have been seeing a therapist and working through it for over a year now.
You are the one doing rape victims a disservice for saying that certain types of rape is not rape...by telling people who have been raped that they were not raped. That my experience does not matter.
And are you a therapist, or have you learnt psychology, sociology, etc? Do you even know what you are talking about?
As a person who was sexually abused when I was a child and then I got myself into a relationship where I was sexually abused and I have been in many dangerous situations where rape was a real danger I know alot about rape. I know what rape is and my therapist would back me up.

[187 Mobstaz]

Now that's pretty shocking.

[Aurora Novus]

One problem: Consent was given. Ergo, not rape.

And since the person here is saying she didn't want to... That sounds like rape.

Actually, what she said was that he didn't want to, but he would pester her about it "till she said yes". That's consent. She may regret giving said consent later on, but it's still consent.

Call him what you like. A douche, a jerk, but by that description alone, he's not a rapist.

No, that says she didn't want to have sex. That means no.

No, it doesn't.

"Didn't want to have sex" means only that. She didn't want to have sex.

You don't seem to understand, or are refusing to acknowledge that someone can "not want" to do something, but still do it.

You know, most children learn that no means no. Not maybe, not perhaps, but, you know, no. Didn't you know that?

What children learn is irrleevant to adult interaction honestly. They may learn "no means no", but that's proven completely false by adault human interaction. No does not always mean no.

Of course, "No, I don't want to" and "No, I will not" are two different statements as well. You keep using the first, but acting like it's the second.

Please don't play such obvious games.

So do you retract your statement then?

OR are you going to bother to actually show some proof of your claim? Because until then, I'm lef tot conclude you are either under some misaprehension of the situation, or are being intentionally dishonest.

Really? There are many who disagree.

There are many who disagree that the earth is round too.

They're still wrong, regardless what they think.

And you're yelling at me for assumptions?

Yes. What, innocent until proven guilty is a radical concept now? Based on the description given, there is nothing to seriously suggest emotional abuse was involved. So until such evidence is put forth...I won't assume it happened. Shocker, I know.

Evidently, you think otherwise. Shameful.

[Freelanderness]

It was aimed at Aurora Novus so if I could get a reply.

If you missed it, I didn't reply, because I answered your query in a subsequent post directed at another user.

Namely, that my argument is not that a lack of resistance equates to auto-consent. Rather, that a lack of desire does not equate to a lack of consent. The two are seperate things, and one can disapprove and not enjoy something, or not want to do something, and yet, consent to it.

This is not a difficult concept. If someone does not want to have sex, you don't have sex. Is that really difficult? You do not have sex with someone who doesn't want to, because that's not sex: that's raping them. Yes it's rape, regardless of whether it is legally rape (because fuck the legal system), it is rape. It is bad. Do not do it.

Also: If you do not think that having sex will positively benefit them, don't have sex. If you don't think they're in a proper state of mind, don't have sex. If you don't like the way that they are reacting to sexual come-ons, don't have sex. If you feel uncomfortable, don't have sex. If you think they're too inebriated, don't have sex. If you think they're only saying yes because they're afraid of upsetting you, don't have sex. If you have any doubt about whether they want to, don't have sex!!!

[Aurora Novus]

[Whether it is to force physically or emotionally it is still rape. I did not want to have sex. I said no over and over again, but gave in eventually.

Ergo, you consented.

You may feel regretful that you consented...but you still consented.

I felt I had no choice.

No, you felt you had a choice between telling him to piss off, and potentially lose the relationship, or giving into his desires. You chose the latter.

The fact that you might have lost the relationship by choosing the former, doesn't make the sex rape. Potential failure of a relationship over sex is not "forcing" you to have sex. It's puttig you into a position where you have to make a value judgement. Are you going to stand up for your own desires? Or set aside yours for someone else's?

Evidently, you chose the latter. That doesn't make it rape however. You still consnted to that path.

And I am not doing rape victims a disservice. I was raped plain and simple. I have been seeing a therapist and working through it for over a year now.

That you are seeking emotional support for a delusion you've conviced yourself is real, doesn't make it any less of a delusion.

You are the one doing rape victims a disservice for saying that certain types of rape is not rape...by telling people who have been raped that they were not raped.

You realize this is like telling an athiest they're going to burn in Hell, right?

That my experience does not matter.

Well, yeah. How something makes you feel doesn't really figure into whether or not a crime was actually commited. I love it when your type falls back on this emotional nonsense. It only reaffirms my ground.

And are you a therapist, or have you learnt psychology, sociology, etc?

Actually, yes, now that you mention it. Before I switched majors, I was studying psychology, particularly forensic psychology.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

I should think so. Do you?

As a person who was sexually abused when I was a child and then I got myself into a relationship where I was sexually abused

Giving into someone begging you for sex is not "sexual abuse". It's pity sex.

I think you feel bad for having sex with someone you have a disliking for now. I think you feel bad for letting your desires subcumb to his. And you express this frustration and sadness by lashing out, and calling his actions rape. You're attempting to dissasociate yourself from your own choices and actions. You want to be a helpless victim, psychologically, to make yourself feel better. Because you don't want to believe you are the kind of person who would have sex with him, and give into his desires.

But, you are. Or at least you were. Whether or not you still are depends on your choices.

and I have been in many dangerous situations where rape was a real danger I know alot about rape. I know what rape is and my therapist would back me up.

Your therapist would be wrong if they backed you up.

Of course, all of this could be put to bed if you gave us actual notions that abuse was occuring...but we're two posts into our exhcnage, and that hasn't happened yet. So I'm skeptical it actually occured.

[Aurora Novus]

If you missed it, I didn't reply, because I answered your query in a subsequent post directed at another user.

Namely, that my argument is not that a lack of resistance equates to auto-consent. Rather, that a lack of desire does not equate to a lack of consent. The two are seperate things, and one can disapprove and not enjoy something, or not want to do something, and yet, consent to it.

This is not a difficult concept. If someone does not want to have sex, you don't have sex. Is that really difficult? You do not have sex with someone who doesn't want to, because that's not sex: that's raping them.

No, it's not. you have not given enough information to assert a denail of consent. Only an expression for a lack of desire. The two are not the same thing, as I have demonstrated repeatedly in this topic.

Unless of course you think stopping for a burger when one member of a group doesn't want to stop for burgers, is kidnapping.

Yes it's rape, regardless of whether it is legally rape (because fuck the legal system), it is rape. It is bad. Do not do it.

Well I'm not one to tote the law around as some system we should look to in debates, but I do find it amusing that you recognize what you are callign rape is not punsihable under the law, but you are going to call it rape anyway. Very amusing.

However, you're wrong. It is rape neither legally, nor philisophically. It is not a lack of consent.

Also: If you do not think that having sex will positively benefit them, don't have sex.

Advice that I think is good advice, and agree with.

But irrelevant to whether or not soemthing is rape nonetheless.

If you don't think they're in a proper state of mind, don't have sex. If you don't like the way that they are reacting to sexual come-ons, don't have sex. If you feel uncomfortable, don't have sex. If you think they're too inebriated, don't have sex. If you think they're only saying yes because they're afraid of upsetting you, don't have sex. If you have any doubt about whether they want to, don't have sex!!!

All irrelevant to whether or not having sex with them would be rape.

[Freelanderness]

So Aurora Novus, if someone says "Either you die, or your child dies" and you consent to being killed, is it really murder?

[Aurora Novus]

So Aurora Novus, if someone says "Either you die, or your child dies" and you consent to being killed, is it really murder?

Of course not. But that is wholly incomparable to the situation described.

You realize life is not black and white, yes? Life is nuanced. And there are varying degrees of resonability with things. Not all "theft" is going to be immoral, neither all killing.

And likewise, not all "demands" or "threats" are going to be wrong. We can say your example is wrong, due to the extremity of it, sure. But that doesn't mean we can then say stating "have sex with me or the relationship is over" is somehow equivalent, and also wrong. And in fact, it wouldn't be.

[Freelanderness]

So Aurora Novus, if someone says "Either you die, or your child dies" and you consent to being killed, is it really murder?

Of course not. But that is wholly incomparable to the situation described.

You realize life is not black and white, yes? Life is nuanced. And there are varying degrees of resonability with things. Not all "theft" is going to be immoral, neither all killing.

And likewise, not all "demands" or "threats" are going to be wrong. We can say your example is wrong, due to the extremity of it, sure. But that doesn't mean we can then say stating "have sex with me or the relationship is over" is somehow equivalent, and also wrong. And in fact, it wouldn't be.

Your inability to understand the dynamics of abusive relationships astound me. (or rather, unwillingness) If it would change your mind, I'd love to describe what it's like; however, many before me have tried, and failed, so I don't see the point.

And that situation is entirely comparable. It is your fault, by your logic, that you died. You consented. You chose.

[Aurora Novus]

Of course not. But that is wholly incomparable to the situation described.

You realize life is not black and white, yes? Life is nuanced. And there are varying degrees of resonability with things. Not all "theft" is going to be immoral, neither all killing.

And likewise, not all "demands" or "threats" are going to be wrong. We can say your example is wrong, due to the extremity of it, sure. But that doesn't mean we can then say stating "have sex with me or the relationship is over" is somehow equivalent, and also wrong. And in fact, it wouldn't be.

Your inability to understand the dynamics of abusive relationships astound me.

If threatening to leave someone because they do not live up to the standards you want in a relationship constitutes an "abusive relationship", all you have convinced me of is that not all such relationships are morally wrong.

It is perfectly within one's rights to deny certain things to another human being, on the basis that they do not like them, or are not living up to a certain standard they desire. As someone else has stated, you don't not own other human beings. And you labeling the above example as abusive is just that. Attempting to assert some form of ownership over another person, by claiming that they do not have a reasonable right to end a relationship whenever they wish, for whatever reason they wish.

[Freelanderness]

Your inability to understand the dynamics of abusive relationships astound me.

If threatening to leave someone because they do not live up to the standards you want in a relationship constitutes an "abusive relationship", all you have convinced me of is that not all such relationships are morally wrong.

It is perfectly within one's rights to deny certain things to another human being, on the basis that they do not like them, or are not living up to a certain standard they desire. As someone else has stated, you don't not own other human beings. And you labeling the above example as abusive is just that. Attempting to assert some form of ownership over another person, by claiming that they do not have a reasonable right to end a relationship whenever they wish, for whatever reason they wish.

Again, you're demonstrating the same as above. Saying over and over "I'm going to leave you if you don't..." is a form of manipulation.

[Wikkiwallana]

And since the person here is saying she didn't want to... That sounds like rape.

Actually, what she said was that he didn't want to, but he would pester her about it "till she said yes". That's consent. She may regret giving said consent later on, but it's still consent.

Much like a tree consents to falling over after be hit enough times with an axe.

[Aurora Novus]

Again, you're demonstrating the same as above. Saying over and over "I'm going to leave you if you don't..." is a form of manipulation.

And? Saying "Hey, will you go buy us a gallon of milk from the corner store" is also a form of manipulation.

I'm conserned with what's reasonable here, not what is. If you wish to call it manipulation, fine. But it's perfectly reasonable and within somoene's right to say that. They have no obligation to remain in a relationship with someone, under any circumstances. You don't get to own people, just because it would hurt your precious little feelings if they did something you didn't like.