by The Congregationists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:25 pm
by Fionnuala_Saoirse » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:27 pm
by Ifreann » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:29 pm
The Congregationists wrote: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?
by Trollgaard » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:32 pm
by The lepearchauns » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:34 pm
by The Congregationists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:36 pm
by Ifreann » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:39 pm
by The Alchemists Guild » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:41 pm
I think both sides have a point. Or could there be a middle ground somewhere? What do you think?
by The Congregationists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:41 pm
Ifreann wrote:[You don't have a right to sex.
by Lackadaisical2 » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:42 pm
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Laskheaomjgiien » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:50 pm
by The Congregationists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:50 pm
Ifreann wrote:No.
Lackadaisical2 wrote:Pretty obviously you can't be raping people, but I can easily see it as grounds for divorce.
by Laskheaomjgiien » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:54 pm
The Congregationists wrote:Lackadaisical2 wrote: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.
by Northwest Slobovia » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:21 pm
by Mushet » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:45 pm
by Ifreann » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:48 pm
Ifreann wrote:...This is just obvious, at least to anyone who isn't a rapist. You don't have a right to sex.
by SD_Film Artists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:48 pm
by The Congregationists » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:51 pm
SD_Film Artists wrote: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?
by Big Jim P » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:54 pm
by Northwest Slobovia » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:55 pm
by Bottle » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:57 pm
by Wikkiwallana » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:58 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Bottle » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:09 pm
Northwest Slobovia wrote:Ifreann wrote:
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.)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bagong Timog Mindanao, Google [Bot], Heiliges Romisches Reich Deutschernation, Hrstrovokia, The Huskar Social Union
Advertisement