NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/international/americas/17mexico.html?th&emc=th

I see this as a good thing, but I have one very serious question about this topic in general: why would or should a husband ever have a NEED to rape his wife????

Why would anyone rape a woman? You tell me...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/international/americas/17mexico.html?th&emc=th

I see this as a good thing, but I have one very serious question about this topic in general: why would or should a husband ever have a NEED to rape his wife????
If by need, you mean "have an overwhelming sexual urge," then you're missing the point behind rape. In almost every case, rape is about power and dominance, and that's the ultimate way of expressing dominance over a woman (or a man)--penetrating them against their will. In cases of spousal rape, it's often a way of the husband expressing his dominance over his wife.

If by need, you mean "have an overwhelming sexual urge," then you're missing the point behind rape. In almost every case, rape is about power and dominance, and that's the ultimate way of expressing dominance over a woman (or a man)--penetrating them against their will. In cases of spousal rape, it's often a way of the husband expressing his dominance over his wife.Exactly. My father was deeply violent towards my mother, and rape was just one of the ways he manifested it. :mad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/international/americas/17mexico.html?th&emc=th

I see this as a good thing, but I have one very serious question about this topic in general: why would or should a husband ever have a NEED to rape his wife????

Why would anyone ever NEED to rape anyone? They are lousy excuses for human beings that feel like they have to gain power over another by forcing themselves upon someone else.

Exactly. My father was deeply violent towards my mother, and rape was just one of the ways he manifested it. :mad:

There's an aluminum bat in my closet that doesn't get much use... :D

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/international/americas/17mexico.html?th&emc=th

I see this as a good thing, but I have one very serious question about this topic in general: why would or should a husband ever have a NEED to rape his wife????

It's a good question. Anyway, I am against so...

There's an aluminum bat in my closet that doesn't get much use... :DGratifyingly, my mother had something similar to hand a couple of times :)

Why would anyone rape a woman? You tell me...
I know most rape is really a crime of aggression, but how is it possible to "rape" someone who is willing???

Exactly. My father was deeply violent towards my mother, and rape was just one of the ways he manifested it. :mad:
Ouch! But that still leaves the question unanswered. :(

If by need, you mean "have an overwhelming sexual urge," then you're missing the point behind rape. In almost every case, rape is about power and dominance, and that's the ultimate way of expressing dominance over a woman (or a man)--penetrating them against their will. In cases of spousal rape, it's often a way of the husband expressing his dominance over his wife.
Interesting, and most likely true, but it doesn't address the question.

I know most rape is really a crime of aggression, but how is it possible to "rape" someone who is willing???
It isn't. Unless you pretending. Some women like that sort of thing but that isn't rape. I'm not really sure what you're saying. Are you saying that it's not possible to rape your wife?

I know most rape is really a crime of aggression, but how is it possible to "rape" someone who is willing???

I think the whole point is that the wife was not willing.

I know most rape is really a crime of aggression, but how is it possible to "rape" someone who is willing???

I think your assumption is just what so far had made it impossible to prosecute rape within a marriage. The fact that a couple are married does not automatically imply that either of them is constantly "willing".
So, if the wife is not willing, and the husband rapes her, it can now be legally dealt with. Before that, you more or less signed away your right to decide when you wanted to have sex when marrying. The same change in law has been made in Germany a few years back.

It isn't. Unless you pretending. Some women like that sort of thing but that isn't rape. I'm not really sure what you're saying. Are you saying that it's not possible to rape your wife?
No, I'm not saying that it's not possible to rape your own wife. That would be flying in the face of the facts. What I am asking is how is it possible to "rape" someone who is willing to have sex with you??? What's so hard to understand about that???

I know most rape is really a crime of aggression, but how is it possible to "rape" someone who is willing???
Are you making the assumption that just because two people are married that the wife is by definition "willing?"

I think the whole point is that the wife was not willing.
Ah HA! And why would that be, pray tell?

Are you making the assumption that just because two people are married that the wife is by definition "willing?"
No. I'm asking why she would not be.

No, I'm not saying that it's not possible to rape your own wife. That would be flying in the face of the facts. What I am asking is how is it possible to "rape" someone who is willing to have sex with you??? What's so hard to understand about that???

You assume that a wife HAS to be willing 24/7??? I thought you were married once?

No, I'm not saying that it's not possible to rape your own wife. That would be flying in the face of the facts. What I am asking is how is it possible to "rape" someone who is willing to have sex with you??? What's so hard to understand about that???
Yeah, but that's not what the article you posted was talking about--you can understand our confusion, can't you?

Ah HA! And why would that be, pray tell?
Headache? Does it really matter why?

You assume that a wife HAS to be willing 24/7??? I thought you were married once?
LOL! True, but it would never have occured to me to rape my wife. As a matter of fact, the very thought of that makes me unable to ... uh ... function.

But why would a wife be unwilling to have sex with her own husband? Is sex not a legitimate part of being married?

Yeah, but that's not what the article you posted was talking about--you can understand our confusion, can't you?
The article was just the thought-starter for the question I asked. Sorry for the confusion. My bad. :(

Ah HA! And why would that be, pray tell?

I don't know. Maybe the husband's been showing more and more signs of aggressive behavior since they got married, and she's not "in the mood".

You seem to be forgetting that consent to sex isn't just "who", it's also "when" and "where" and "how".

I don't know. Maybe the husband's been showing more and more signs of aggressive behavior since they got married, and she's not "in the mood".

You seem to be forgetting that consent to sex isn't just "who", it's also "when" and "where" and "how".
Ah. So the when, where and how is strictly the wife's decision to make, yes?

Headache? Does it really matter why?
No, the question that really matters is "why not?"

No, the question that really matters is "why not?"
Matters? Why? Would it justify forcing them to have sex with you? I'm still not sure what you point is?

Ah. So the when where and how is strictly the wife's decision to make, yes?

I`d say each person has the absolute right to decide who, when, where and how to have sex. But, of course, if the husband was in the mood and the wife wasn't, he could've tried to put her in the mood. Seduce her, turn her on, etc etc. If, instead of doing that he grabs her forcefully and fucks her, yes, it`s rape.

Ah. So the when, where and how is strictly the wife's decision to make, yes?

No fucking means no - no matter what. It is strictly the denying person's decision to make.

You are scaring me with your comments here, you really are.

Matters? Why? Would it justify forcing them to have sex with you? I'm still not sure what you point is?
I'm simply trying to understand why there would ever be a need or even a desire to "rape" your own wife. Yes, I understand that it happens. Yes, I understand that it's a form of aggression and domination. But my understanding of "rape" is that it's forced sex. Where my confusion comes in is why there would or should ever be any sort of "forced sex" between a husband and wife.

Ah. So the when, where and how is strictly the wife's decision to make, yes?
Not always--perhaps the wife could be in the mood and the husband is not, or is busy, etc. It's always a mutual decision. That the husband may never say no is immaterial--he always has the option, as should the wife.

No fucking means no - no matter what. It is strictly the denying person's decision to make.

You are scaring me with your comments here, you really are.
Then you're too easily scared, Fass! Heh! :p

I understand that "no" means "no." That goes without question. What I don't understand is why there would ever be a reason for a wife to say "no" to her own husband. Can someone please explain this to me!

Not always--perhaps the wife could be in the mood and the husband is not, or is busy, etc. It's always a mutual decision. That the husband may never say no is immaterial--he always has the option, as should the wife.
Of course each of them has that option. That's not what I'm asking. The question is, "Why would either ever say no to the other if they are married and truly care about each other?"

You assume that a wife HAS to be willing 24/7??? I thought you were married once?

Maybe that's why he's divorced. :p

I'm simply trying to understand why there would ever be a need or even a desire to "rape" your own wife. Yes, I understand that it happens. Yes, I understand that it's a form of aggression and domination. But my understanding of "rape" is that it's forced sex. Where my confusion comes in is why there would or should ever be any sort of "forced sex" between a husband and wife.

Why should there ever be forced sex between any two people??

I understand that "no" means "no." That goes without question. What I don't understand is why there would ever be a reason for a wife to say "no" to her own husband. Can someone please explain this to me!

I'm sorry, but you cannot be this dense in this matter! How hard is it to understand that the marriage contract does not equal automatic consent to sex?

Why should there ever be forced sex between any two people??
Why indeed!

Of course each of them has that option. That's not what I'm asking. The question is, "Why would either ever say no to the other if they are married and truly care about each other?"
See--in that particular situation, the likelihood of spousal rape approaches zero. But we're both old enough to know that not all marriages (most marriages, if the divorce rate is any indicator) are like that. And in those cases, where the man decides that he has to show his bitch of a wife who's boss by fucking her while she cries and begs him to stop, he can and should be charged with rape.

Of course each of them has that option. That's not what I'm asking. The question is, "Why would either ever say no to the other if they are married and truly care about each other?"

Obviously, if there's rape in the story, at least one of them doesn't truly care about the other. At all.

I know most rape is really a crime of aggression, but how is it possible to "rape" someone who is willing???That's the whole point behind rape: They AREN'T willing.

Rape is a crime of forcing someone to have sexual intercourse against their will. It's a crime of power; namely, the power the attacker has on the victim.

I'm sorry, but you cannot be this dense in this matter! How hard is it to understand that the marriage contract does not equal automatic consent to sex?
Heh! One of two things must be true here: either I'm not getting my point accross, or you're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

Look ... two people get married. A major part of the reson they get married is to legalize the sexual relationship. They supposedly care deeply about each other ( hopefully, anyway ). Part of caring about another person is being kind to them, yes? So if either of them desires sex, why would that care not translate into having sex with them even if you're "not in the mood?"

Obviously, if there's rape in the story, at least one of them doesn't truly care about the other. At all.
Probably. But if so, which one?

See--in that particular situation, the likelihood of spousal rape approaches zero. But we're both old enough to know that not all marriages (most marriages, if the divorce rate is any indicator) are like that. And in those cases, where the man decides that he has to show his bitch of a wife who's boss by fucking her while she cries and begs him to stop, he can and should be charged with rape.
I totally agree. But those are what some refer to as "dysfuntional relationships," yes?

Heh! One of two things must be true here: either I'm not getting my point accross, or you're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

Look ... two people get married. A major part of the reson they get married is to legalize the sexual relationship. They supposedly care deeply about each other ( hopefully, anyway ). Part of caring about another person is being kind to them, yes? So if either of them desires sex, why would that care not translate into having sex with them even if you're "not in the mood?"
On the other hand, if she's not in the mood why would that care not translate into respecting her wishes?

Maybe that's why he's divorced. :p
:p

On the other hand, if she's not in the mood why would that care not translate into respecting her wishes?
That's begging the question. I've already stated that any non-consentual sex is rape. What more do you want?

Look ... two people get married. A major part of the reson they get married is to legalize the sexual relationship. They supposedly care deeply about each other ( hopefully, anyway ). Part of caring about another person is being kind to them, yes? So if either of them desires sex, why would that care not translate into having sex with them even if you're "not in the mood?"

I'll put it like this to you: I had a boyfriend that I dumped because he got too unwilling to take a no for an answer at times. After a day at the hospital sometimes I just didn't feel like taking it up the ass. It had nothing to do with our relationship or how much I cared for or whatever. It had to do with me not being in the mood. It's that simple.

Sex is not a relational obligation, and if you think it is, and would choose to use a person you "care about" (that cuts both ways, old boy) as a fuck hole, disregarding their unwillingness, seeing them as obligationally constrained to have sex with you and not caring (ooh, there it is again) about their feelings, then I don't know what to say to you.

I totally agree. But those are what some refer to as "dysfuntional relationships," yes?Yeah--and there are an awful lot of dysfunctional relationships called marriages in this world. I used to be in one--never involved rape, I might add, and my ex and I get along better now than we ever did before.

I'm simply trying to understand why there would ever be a need or even a desire to "rape" your own wife. Yes, I understand that it happens. Yes, I understand that it's a form of aggression and domination. But my understanding of "rape" is that it's forced sex. Where my confusion comes in is why there would or should ever be any sort of "forced sex" between a husband and wife.

For one obvious reason : The husband doesn't understand or accept a simple "no"

Heh! One of two things must be true here: either I'm not getting my point accross, or you're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

Look ... two people get married. A major part of the reson they get married is to legalize the sexual relationship. They supposedly care deeply about each other ( hopefully, anyway ). Part of caring about another person is being kind to them, yes? So if either of them desires sex, why would that care not translate into having sex with them even if you're "not in the mood?"

1- AFAIK, in western countries, sex is perfectly legal outside of marriage.

2- Supposedly they do care about each other. But I really hope you're not so naive as to think that's the case with all marriages. Besides, things change. They could've cared about each other in the past, but the sentiment faded and died. Look up "divorce".

3- Caring does not translate into sex whenever the other wants. You may have a hard time understanding this as you are a guy, with a penis, and it's probably difficult for you to imagine having sex without first getting an erection so you could penetrate your wife. Try putting yourself on the receiving end of the stick and maybe you'll get why "not being in the mood" is a valid reason to refuse to have sex.

I'll put it like this to you: I had a boyfriend that I dumped because he got too unwilling to take a no for an answer at times. After a day at the hospital sometimes I just didn't feel like taking it up the ass. It had nothing to do with our relationship or how much I cared for or whatever. It had to do with me not being in the mood. It's that simple.

Sex is not a relational obligation, and if you think it is, and would choose to use a person you "care about" (that cuts both ways, old boy) as a fuck hole, disregarding their unwillingness, seeing them as obligationally constrained to have sex with you and not caring (ooh, there it is again) about their feelings, then I don't know what to say to you.
LOL! Sigh! Look ... what part of my question about this do you not understand? No one said anything about using "a person you 'care about' as a fuck hole." All I'm asking is why, if a wife truly cares about her husband, would she deny him sex? WTF is so hard to understand about that???

Probably. But if so, which one?

The rapist. The fact you even have to ask disturbs me very deeply.

All I'm asking is why, if a wife truly cares about her husband, would she deny him sex? WTF is so hard to understand about that???

BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT FEEL LIKE HAVING SEX ALL THE FUCKING TIME HE WANTS TO!

His fucking horniness is not more important then her lack of it. It has nothing to do with her being an uncaring wife.

You really are shocking me here.

LOL! Sigh! Look ... what part of my question about this do you not understand? No one said anything about using "a person you 'care about' as a fuck hole." All I'm asking is why, if a wife truly cares about her husband, would she deny him sex? WTF is so hard to understand about that???

Are you trying to imply that denying the husband sex is a sign of an uncaring wife?

The rapist. The fact you even have to ask disturbs me very deeply.
Oh for God's sake! Please get off of that! I have repeatedly stated that nothing justifies rape ... nothing! Given that, the original question still remains: why would or should either partner in a marriage ever deny the other sex?

LOL! Sigh! Look ... what part of my question about this do you not understand? No one said anything about using "a person you 'care about' as a fuck hole." All I'm asking is why, if a wife truly cares about her husband, would she deny him sex? WTF is so hard to understand about that???

Because she doesn't want to have sex at that particular moment.

Are you trying to imply that denying the husband sex is a sign of an uncaring wife?
Perhaps. That's part of what I'm trying to figure out here.

Because she doesn't want to have sex at that particular moment.
Ah! Can we then conclude that her "care" for him doesn't extend very far, or is absent altogether???

Perhaps. That's part of what I'm trying to figure out here.

Oh, so, if you had a vagina whose lubrication is dependant on you being in the mood, and your penetrator wanted to fuck you even when you weren't in it, would you jump on him with your dry twat?

Okay, let's try an extreme example.

Let's say a husband beats his wife. She doesn't leave him out of fear and stays in the marriage, but she doesn't love him and doesn't want to have sex with him. He then goes further in his abuse and forces her to have sex with him. That would be spousal rape.

I still can't understand why you can't accept that however much you may love someone, care about them and want them to be happy, you won't always want to have sex with them. The fact that you expect someone who loves you to have sex with you whenever you want is really quite scary IMO.

Oh for God's sake! Please get off of that! I have repeatedly stated that nothing justifies rape ... nothing! Given that, the original question still remains: why would or should either partner in a marriage ever deny the other sex?

Because s/he doesn't want to have sex at the moment.

Ah! Can we then conclude that her "care" for him doesn't extend very far, or is absent altogether???

As well as his if he would disregard her unwillingness just for his own gratification. Caring cuts both ways, as I said.

BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT FEEL LIKE HAVING SEX ALL THE FUCKING TIME HE WANTS TO!

His fucking horniness is not more important then her lack of it. It has nothing to do with her being an uncaring wife.

You really are shocking me here.
Ouch! There's really no need to shout, old boy.

Why does it follow that, if she ( or he, for that matter ) chooses to not have sex when he ( or she ) wants to, she ( or he ) truly cares about the other? As far as I can remember, every single time my wife desired sex, I did my very best to comply, regardless of my "mood."

Let's say you're an impotent man whose wife has a thing for fucking you with a strap-on. One night you're not in the mood for sex. Would you take it up the ass like a good boy, nevertheless, Eutrusca?

As well as his if he would disregard her unwillingness just for his own gratification. Caring cuts both ways, as I said.
I agree, which is why I absolutely despise anyone who would force themselves on another person.

Ah! Can we then conclude that her "care" for him doesn't extend very far, or is absent altogether???

Caring about someone doesn't include screwing them whenever they're horny!

And you completely ignored when I said the horny party should try to put the not-horny party in the mood as opposed to expecting them to just "put out" or worse, rape them.

You also ignored my suggestiong to put yourself in the receiving end of non-consentual sex.

Let's say you're an impotent man whose wife has a thing for fucking you with a strap-on. One night you're not in the mood for sex. Would you take it up the ass like a good boy, nevertheless, Eutrusca?
ROFL! No, because I would never have submitted to such a thing in the first place. :p

Ouch! There's really no need to shout, old boy.

Why does it follow that, if she ( or he, for that matter ) chooses to not have sex when he ( or she ) wants to, she ( or he ) truly cares about the other? As far as I can remember, every single time my wife desired sex, I did my very best to comply, regardless of my "mood."

Good for you. Doesn't mean everybody has to.

ROFL! No, because I would never have submitted to such a thing in the first place. :p

But it's your wife! You care about her! You've just been saying that that should mean you submit to sex despite not wanting to. Are you a hypocrite? You would not offer the person you care about sex because of your own feelings?

What kind of an uncaring person are you to not want to have sex with your penetrating wife at her discretion? :eek:

I agree, which is why I absolutely despise anyone who would force themselves on another person.

You "despise" anyone forcing themselves on another person, but if the other person refuses you think s/he is uncaring??

Caring about someone doesn't include screwing them whenever they're horny!

And you completely ignored when I said the horny party should try to put the not-horny party in the mood as opposed to expecting them to just "put out" or worse, rape them.

You also ignored my suggestiong to put yourself in the receiving end of non-consentual sex.
Why would I want to do that, even if I could? That's so far outside my experience and imagination that I couldn't put myself in that place even if I wanted to.

This is putting words in my mouth: "And you completely ignored when I said the horny party should try to put the not-horny party in the mood as opposed to expecting them to just "put out" or worse, rape them."

I never even addressed that issue, much less indicated that I thought they should just "put out" or "rape them!" Where the hell did THAT come from???

Ah HA! And why would that be, pray tell?
Um, not everybody wants to have sex all the time. Agreeing to marry somebody does NOT mean that you agree to have any kind of sex they want, any time they want it.

If your wife (or husband) just doesn't feel like having sex with you, and she says "No," you don't get to say, "But you married me, so that means you are willing!"

You "despise" anyone forcing themselves on another person, but if the other person refuses you think s/he is uncaring??
Close. Very close. There are, I am sure, certain circumstances where consenting to sex with the person you cared enough about to marry is impossible: extreme fatigue, sickness, a continuing need to care for small children, perhaps a few others. But, IMHO, they are damned few and far between.

Um, not everybody wants to have sex all the time. Agreeing to marry somebody does NOT mean that you agree to have any kind of sex they want, any time they want it.

If your wife (or husband) just doesn't feel like having sex with you, and she says "No," you don't get to say, "But you married me, so that means you are willing!"
ROFL! No shit!

LOL! Sigh! Look ... what part of my question about this do you not understand? No one said anything about using "a person you 'care about' as a fuck hole." All I'm asking is why, if a wife truly cares about her husband, would she deny him sex? WTF is so hard to understand about that???
If a husband really loved his wife, why would he be demanding sex from her? Why would he be insisting on having sex with somebody who isn't into it? Why would he be putting his own selfish needs above her right to say "no"?

And, more importantly, why would anybody want to get married if it meant they would be forever obligated to do things they didn't want to do at the whim of another person? If being married means having to let your husband pump away at you, whether or not you want it, then why the hell would any woman choose that? And why would any self-respecting man want a woman who would put up with that?

Why would I want to do that, even if I could? That's so far outside my experience and imagination that I couldn't put myself in that place even if I wanted to.

This is putting words in my mouth: "And you completely ignored when I said the horny party should try to put the not-horny party in the mood as opposed to expecting them to just "put out" or worse, rape them."

I never even addressed that issue, much less indicated that I thought they should just "put out" or "rape them!" Where the hell did THAT come from???

That is what you're saying. That if the husband wants to have sex and the wife doesn't (or the other way around, I'll stick with this example to simplify things), she should just go ahead and "put out" anyway to satisfy her husband.

But you're wrong about it being outside your imagination. It's about not wanting to be hurt. Having sex without being in the mood hurts, physically hurts for the woman. Can you understand not wanting to be in pain?

If a husband really loved his wife, why would he be demanding sex from her? Why would he be insisting on having sex with somebody who isn't into it? Why would he be putting his own selfish needs above her right to say "no"?

And, more importantly, why would anybody want to get married if it meant they would be forever obligated to do things they didn't want to do at the whim of another person? If being married means having to let your husband pump away at you, whether or not you want it, then why the hell would any woman choose that? And why would any self-respecting man want a woman who would put up with that?
Obviously ( or at least it should be obvious ) a husband who truly loved his wife would respect her wishes in almost everything, including sex. But, would not a wife who truly loved her husband not wish to please him in almost everything, including sex? As you indicated, it cuts both ways.

ROFL! No shit!
Then where is your problem with this issue? Both women and men will have times they simply don't feel like having sex. Sometimes, in a relationship, you go along with your partner's desires because you want to, and because you feel hopeful that you will "get into it" as things progress, and sometimes that's ok. But sometimes you just don't want to do it. If you say "No," and your partner tries to insist or guilt you by saying, "You must not really love me if you won't put out right now," then that means THEY are proving they don't really care about you. If they try to tell you that you are selfish for not submitting to their desires, then THEY are the selfish one and you should insist they grow up or you will leave. If they further insist or force you after you say "No," then they are a rapist.

Then where is your problem with this issue? Both women and men will have times they simply don't feel like having sex. Sometimes, in a relationship, you go along with your partner's desires because you want to, and because you feel hopeful that you will "get into it" as things progress, and sometimes that's ok. But sometimes you just don't want to do it. If you say "No," and your partner tries to insist or guilt you by saying, "You must not really love me if you won't put out right now," then that means THEY are proving they don't really care about you. If they try to tell you that you are selfish for not submitting to their desires, then THEY are the selfish one and you should insist they grow up or you will leave. If they further insist or force you after you say "No," then they are a rapist.
I agree. IMHO, truly loving someone will result in you doing your best to please them.

Close. Very close. There are, I am sure, certain circumstances where consenting to sex with the person you cared enough about to marry is impossible: extreme fatigue, sickness, a continuing need to care for small children, perhaps a few others. But, IMHO, they are damned few and far between.

In your opinion, sure. But what counts here is the opinion of the person unwilling to have sex, and they might have a very different opinion.

Obviously ( or at least it should be obvious ) a husband who truly loved his wife would respect her wishes in almost everything, including sex. But, would not a wife who truly loved her husband not wish to please him in almost everything, including sex? As you indicated, it cuts both ways.
Yes and no. For instance, I know it would please my boyfriend if I always did his laundry for him. Does this mean I am uncaring or a "bad" partner if I expect him to do his share of the laundry?

It would please me if my boyfriend did every single household chore, so that I would never need to clean or cook...does this mean I think he doesn't care about me when he asks me to do my own share around the house? Hell no.

A wife who loves her husband will want to make him happy, but that doesn't mean you always give your partner everything they want. Relationships are a balance, and sometimes you have to draw the line. Doing so doesn't mean you love your partner any less, it just means you have a spine.

In your opinion, sure. But what counts here is the opinion of the person unwilling to have sex, and they might have a very different opinion.
And if those opinions are consistently and radically different than yours?

You're not answering my question, Eutrusca. What sort of uncaring hypocrite are you? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9952497&postcount=69)

And if those opinions are consistently and radically different than yours?

Please reply to this post of mine, you must've missed it.

But you're wrong about it being outside your imagination. It's about not wanting to be hurt. Having sex without being in the mood hurts, physically hurts for the woman. Can you understand not wanting to be in pain?

Yes and no. For instance, I know it would please my boyfriend if I always did his laundry for him. Does this mean I am uncaring or a "bad" partner if I expect him to do his share of the laundry?

It would please me if my boyfriend did every single household chore, so that I would never need to clean or cook...does this mean I think he doesn't care about me when he asks me to do my own share around the house? Hell no.

A wife who loves her husband will want to make him happy, but that doesn't mean you always give your partner everything they want. Relationships are a balance, and sometimes you have to draw the line. Doing so doesn't mean you love your partner any less, it just means you have a spine.
IMHO, the laundy, cleaning, and cooking rank considerably below sex, but that's beside the point.

Relationships are indeed "a balance." However, I hope you're not saying that either partner should "draw the line" on sex just to prove they have "a spine." :(

Please reply to this post of mine, you must've missed it.
"But you're wrong about it being outside your imagination. It's about not wanting to be hurt. Having sex without being in the mood hurts, physically hurts for the woman. Can you understand not wanting to be in pain?"

Of course I can understand that. Nowhere have I suggested that anyone should submit to pain just to "please" someone else. I see this as primarily the responsibility of the other partner. If my partner isn't "in the mood" and yet doesn't push me away, I will do my very best ( which is quite good, actually! ;) ) to get her "in the mood." I think the key here is that the partner who isn't "in the mood" at least be open to persuasion.

You're not answering my question, Eutrusca. What sort of uncaring hypocrite are you? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9952497&postcount=69)
Very funny, Fass. :rolleyes:

I would never have been in relationship with a woman who was into that sort of thing in the first place, and you should know that, knowing me. :p

Eutrusca, let me try to put it into terms you understand.

You say you had sex with your wife even when you weren`t originally in the mood, yes? Well, I assume you did at some point get a hard-on, possibly after some foreplay.

You see, the female being "in the mood" is the equivalent of the male hard-on. It's possible for you to begin engaging in sexual activity, if you'd like, without having a hard-on, but if this hard-on doesn't happen within a reasonable time, you will have to give up and not have sex. You'll be forced to do this because you can't properly penetrate your wife with a limp dick. It just so happens that when women can't get aroused it's still physically possible to have intercourse, but it hurts.

So, if you declare that you, as caring husband, have to have sex with your wife even if you can't get hard, then you can say caring wives ought to have sex even if they're not aroused. But I will require evidence that you have screwed your wife with a limp dick.

Heh! One of two things must be true here: either I'm not getting my point accross, or you're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

Look ... two people get married. A major part of the reson they get married is to legalize the sexual relationship. They supposedly care deeply about each other ( hopefully, anyway ). Part of caring about another person is being kind to them, yes? So if either of them desires sex, why would that care not translate into having sex with them even if you're "not in the mood?"

Eutrusca, I can't believe you're not getting this. If you care about someone, and they're not in the mood for sex, you'll realize that, ultimately, sex is just an instinct and a want, and not a need. No one should EVER feel obligated to have sex with someone. Ever. Love and marriage, believe it or not, is not about sex. Sex can be a way to show it, yes, but it's not always approrpriate or desired. If you're making someone feel obligated to have sex with you, that's use of pressure, which is just bloody wrong.

"But you're wrong about it being outside your imagination. It's about not wanting to be hurt. Having sex without being in the mood hurts, physically hurts for the woman. Can you understand not wanting to be in pain?"

Of course I can understand that. Nowhere have I suggested that anyone should submit to pain just to "please" someone else. I see this as primarily the responsibility of the other partner. If my partner isn't "in the mood" and yet doesn't push me away, I will do my very best ( which is quite good, actually! ;) ) to get her "in the mood." I think the key here is that the partner who isn't "in the mood" at least be open to persuasion.

I should think that someone who isn't "open to persuasion" for sex has a good reason not to be. You may not agree with them, but it's really none of your business.

Heh! One of two things must be true here: either I'm not getting my point accross, or you're misunderstanding what I'm asking.

Look ... two people get married. A major part of the reson they get married is to legalize the sexual relationship. They supposedly care deeply about each other ( hopefully, anyway ). Part of caring about another person is being kind to them, yes? So if either of them desires sex, why would that care not translate into having sex with them even if you're "not in the mood?"

No, it wouldn't. For one thing, if I'm not in the mood, sex is damn painful. If I'm on the rag, I'm generally not in the mood, and I really don't like dealing with the mess.

One could just as easily say, "Part of caring about another person is being kind to them, yes? So if one of them is not in the mood, would that not translate into kindly leaving them alone until they are?"

Obviously, a marriage probably isn't going to work if someone is always saying no. However, both people have to care about the needs of the other. If someone needs to go to sleep instead of having sex one night, the other partner should be accepting of that. And every now and then, someone may have to try and get "in the mood" for the other person.

But, no. One person being horny does not automatically translate into "We're going to have sex right now."

Ah! Can we then conclude that her "care" for him doesn't extend very far, or is absent altogether???

If a man isn't willing to wait when she isn't feeling well, can we then conclude that his "care" for her doesn't extend very far, or is absent altogether?

Eutrusca, let me try to put it into terms you understand.

You say you had sex with your wife even when you weren`t originally in the mood, yes? Well, I assume you did at some point get a hard-on, possibly after some foreplay.

You see, the female "not being in the mood" is the equivalent of the male hard-on. It's possible for you to begin engaging in sexual activity, if you'd like, without having a hard-on, but if this hard-on doesn't happen within a reasonable time, you will have to give up and not have sex. You'll be forced to do this because you can't properly penetrate your wife with a limp dick. It just so happens that when women can't get aroused it's still physically possible to have intercourse, but it hurts.

So, if you declare that you, as caring husband, have to have sex with your wife even if you can't get hard, then you can say caring wives ought to have sex even if they're not aroused. But I will require evidence that you have screwed your wife with a limp dick.
ROFLMFAO!!! OMG!

Well, I know this isn't what you really want to hear, but there's always the tongue substitute! :p

The entire point here is that anyone, male or female, who is in a caring relationship with another person will want to please them as much as possible. If that means trying to get yourself "in the mood" even though you aren't initially there, then so be it.

Maybe he just finished beating her and she's not in the mood for sex because she's nursing her new bruises and cuts.

Maybe he just finished beating her and she's not in the mood for sex because she's nursing her new bruises and cuts.
:rolleyes:

ROFLMFAO!!! OMG!

Well, I know this isn't what you really want to hear, but there's always the tongue substitute! :p

Yes, and plenty of guys not willing to do that either.

The entire point here is that anyone, male or female, who is in a caring relationship with another person will want to please them as much as possible. If that means trying to get yourself "in the mood" even though you aren't initially there, then so be it.

Sometimes it's just not possible.

This is really quite pointless.

(...I thought it was mainly stupid teenage guys who used the line "if you love me, you'll sleep with me"...)

I'm just wondering, are there any woman out there who agree with Eutruscas view on love? i.e That if you truly love someone you'd be willing to have sex with them, whenever they want, if it makes them happy.

Because I sure as hell can't think of anyone I know who would agree with that.

Good luck! :p

Yes, and plenty of guys not willing to do that either.

Sometimes it's just not possible.
I agree ... on both counts. Sigh.

Personally, I think guys who aren't willing to take that route are missing out on half the fun! :D

This is really quite pointless.

(...I thought it was mainly stupid teenage guys who used the line "if you love me, you'll sleep with me"...)

I'm just wondering, are there any woman out there who agree with Eutruscas view on love? i.e That if you truly love someone you'd be willing to have sex with them, whenever they want, if it makes them happy.

Because I sure as hell can't think of anyone I know who would agree with that.

Good luck! :p

I don't know anyone (well, anyone who has the self-esteem of a warf rat) who would agree with that.

Yes, when you love someone you want to make them happy, but not at the expense of your own happiness. In a relationship both members sometimes have to make sacrifices for the other, or the relationship isn't healthy. Sometimes that sacrifice may be truly trying to get in the mood or simply giving oral sex if you're not in the mood. Sometimes that sacrifice may be going to bed horny (or taking care of it yourself) instead of bugging the other person. Eutrusca's stance that the person not in the mood should always be the one to sacrifice and do for the other is truly idiotic.

I'm just wondering, are there any woman out there who agree with Eutruscas view on love? i.e That if you truly love someone you'd be willing to have sex with them, whenever they want, if it makes them happy.
That isn't what I said and you know it. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]No, it wouldn't. For one thing, if I'm not in the mood, is damn painful. If I'm on the rag, I'm generally not in the mood, and I really don't like dealing with the mess.

One could just as easily say, "Part of caring about another person is being kind to them, yes? So if one of them is not in the mood, would that not translate into kindly leaving them alone until they are?"

As a former victim of ual abuse, must only be indulged in when I really want it. Otherwise it feels like all over again in spite of saying yes.

Eutrusca, check your telegrams, you old fart.

Eutrusca's stance that the person not in the mood should always be the one to sacrifice and do for the other is truly idiotic.
You may be one of those strange individuals who can write, but not read, although I doubt it. That is not now, nor has it ever been, my "stance" Kindly quit putting words in my mouth. Thank you.

That isn't what I said and you know it. :rolleyes:

Actually, it's exactly what you've been saying. You have constantly suggested that anyone who would deny their partner sex, no matter how temporarily, simply doesn't love their partner.

You may be one of those strange individuals who can write, but not read, although I doubt it. That is not now, nor has it ever been, my "stance" Kindly quit putting words in my mouth. Thank you.

So you didn't say the following:


Ah! Can we then conclude that her "care" for him doesn't extend very far, or is absent altogether???

Of course, you then said:

Nowhere have I suggested that anyone should submit to pain just to "please" someone else.

Which is rather contradictory. So which is it?

And then you pointed out what you apparently believe to be "ok" reasons for not having sex with your partner, whether you want it or not:

There are, I am sure, certain circumstances where consenting to sex with the person you cared enough about to marry is impossible: extreme fatigue, sickness, a continuing need to care for small children, perhaps a few others.

Apparently, it isn't ok to ask for a rain check if you really just want to sleep tonight, or if you're on the rag, or a myriad of other reasons that may mean you don't want sex now, but may want it later...

Eutrusca, check your telegrams, you old fart.
I did, young phoole! :D

So you didn't say the following:
It's a question. Duh!

Actually, it's exactly what you've been saying. You have constantly suggested that anyone who would deny their partner sex, no matter how temporarily, simply doesn't love their partner.
It's not what I've been "suggesting." It's what I've been ASKING! Jeeze!

I don't know anyone (well, anyone who has the self-esteem of a warf rat) who would agree with that.

Yes, when you love someone you want to make them happy, but not at the expense of your own happiness. In a relationship both members sometimes have to make sacrifices for the other, or the relationship isn't healthy. Sometimes that sacrifice may be truly trying to get in the mood or simply giving oral sex if you're not in the mood. Sometimes that sacrifice may be going to bed horny (or taking care of it yourself) instead of bugging the other person. Eutrusca's stance that the person not in the mood should always be the one to sacrifice and do for the other is truly idiotic.
BTW ... in any good relationship, each party is willing to sacrifice his/her happiness ( or at least a portion thereof ) for the other. It's one of the primary things which makes any relationship a "good" one.

As a victim of previous ual abuse, saying yes when I don't really mean it makes me feel like I'm being d again. I won't do that, I don't love anyone that much.

Eutrusca, check your TG's, you old fart.

It's not what I've been "suggesting." It's what I've been ASKING! Jeeze!

The fact that you have been asking it, as if you don't already know the answer, clearly shows that you feel it to be true.

If I ask, "If a woman wears a short skirt, is it ok for someone to rape her?" am I not suggesting that it might be ok?

As a victim of previous ual abuse, saying yes when I don't really mean it makes me feel like I'm being d again. I won't do that, I don't love anyone that much.
How about saying "maybe" instead of "no?" :)

BTW ... in any good relationship, each party is willing to sacrifice his/her happiness ( or at least a portion thereof ) for the other. It's one of the primary things which makes any relationship a "good" one.

In a healthy relationship, neither partner will need to sacrifice his/her happiness for the other. Why? Because BOTH are willing to do it! In your little scenario, you seem to think that the person who isn't willing/able to have sex that night must not care about the other, but somehow the person pushing for it even though it makes the other unhappy "cares".

The fact that you have been asking it, as if you don't already know the answer, clearly shows that you feel it to be true.

If I ask, "If a woman wears a short skirt, is it ok for someone to rape her?" am I not suggesting that it might be ok?
I wouldn't know. All I can say is what I intended. If my questions are interpreted as statements there's not much I can do about it. :rolleyes:

In a healthy relationship, neither partner will need to sacrifice his/her happiness for the other. Why? Because BOTH are willing to do it! In your little scenario, you seem to think that the person who isn't willing/able to have sex that night must not care about the other, but somehow the person pushing for it even though it makes the other unhappy "cares".
Not what I intended to indicate. Sorry about that.

IMHO, the laundy, cleaning, and cooking rank considerably below sex, but that's beside the point.

When it comes to compromise, it is just as unreasonable to demand sex as it is to demand that your partner do all the housework.

Think of it this way: I would be pleased if my boyfriend would do all the chores. He, on the other hand, would be equally please if I did all the chores. As a result, we compromise and each do an equal share. Sex is a similar compromise. If it would please me to have sex, and it would please him equally to NOT have sex, then why should my pleasure be more important than his?

Relationships are indeed "a balance." However, I hope you're not saying that either partner should "draw the line" on sex just to prove they have "a spine." :(
In a perfect relationship, you'd never have to draw the line because your partner would never push it. But no relationship is perfect. You should indeed draw the line, and be assertive about your needs, wants, and limits, if you want to establish that you have a backbone. This doesn't mean denying your partner all the time, it simply means that you are clear about the boundaries you feel comfortable with. If you care about your partner, if you respect them at all, you owe it to them to "draw the line" clearly and honestly.

Put it another way: more than sex, more than pleasure, more than even love itself, I owe my partner respect and honesty. If I were to "fake it" to please him, that would be a lie, plain and simple. I owe him better than that. I owe it to him to be honest and clear about my needs and wants, both sexual and otherwise. So if he wants sex and I do not want sex, I owe it to him to be honest about how I feel. If it turned out that my partner was perfectly content to have sex with somebody who didn't want to have sex, then I would be an idiot to stay in that relationship because clearly he would have some serious sexual and control issues. Any man or woman who enjoys having sex with an uninterested (yet submissive) partner is not worthy of any partner at all, and certainly is not worthy of getting "pleased" by a compliant spouse.

BTW ... in any good relationship, each party is willing to sacrifice his/her happiness ( or at least a portion thereof ) for the other. It's one of the primary things which makes any relationship a "good" one.
Right. So in a situation where one person would be made happy by having sex, but the other person would be made happy by NOT having sex, why should the sex-wanting partner's happiness always take priority? Why would you be insisting that a "loving wife" would always want to please her husband by submitting to sex, without insisting just as loudly that the husband should make his wife happy by not insisting on having sex in the first place?

This is really quite pointless.

(...I thought it was mainly stupid teenage guys who used the line "if you love me, you'll sleep with me"...)

I wish.


I'm just wondering, are there any woman out there who agree with Eutruscas view on love? i.e That if you truly love someone you'd be willing to have sex with them, whenever they want, if it makes them happy.

Hell no. Any person who would ask that of me in the first place is utterly unworthy of my love.

Right. So in a situation where one person would be made happy by having sex, but the other person would be made happy by NOT having sex, why should the sex-wanting partner's happiness always take priority? Why would you be insisting that a "loving wife" would always want to please her husband by submitting to sex, without insisting just as loudly that the husband should make his wife happy by not insisting on having sex in the first place?

Better yet, why would you want to have sex with someone who was reluctant to have sex? I.E., didn't want to, but was only going through the motions to make the other person happy.

Even if I was horny as hell, I wouldn't want bad sex - and that falls into the category of bad sex.

On top of that, it builds resentment for sex to be turned into something you "have to do" in order to make the other person "happy".

Apparently, it isn't ok to ask for a rain check if you really just want to sleep tonight, or if you're on the rag, or a myriad of other reasons that may mean you don't want sex now, but may want it later...
Of course not. Women are obligated to provide sexual, domestic, or breeding services at any time when they are not physically incapacitated or functioning in the role of Mommy. This is because a female's sexual desires are irrelevant to her sexual obligations.

Put it another way: more than sex, more than pleasure, more than even love itself, I owe my partner respect and honesty. If I were to "fake it" to please him, that would be a lie, plain and simple. I owe him better than that. I owe it to him to be honest and clear about my needs and wants, both sexual and otherwise. So if he wants sex and I do not want sex, I owe it to him to be honest about how I feel. If it turned out that my partner was perfectly content to have sex with somebody who didn't want to have sex, then I would be an idiot to stay in that relationship. Any man or woman who enjoys having sex with an uninterested (yet submissive) partner is not worthy of any partner at all, and certainly is not worthy of getting "pleased" by a compliant spouse.

Exactly!

Early on in my relationship with my boyfriend, I tried to "push" myself into wanting sex, even when I really didn't. Thing is, I didn't enjoy it, even though I was trying - and because of that, neither did he. Neither of us enjoy sexual play of any sort if the other person isn't into it as well.

So now, if one of us is horny and the other isn't, either of us may start to try and get the other in the mood (unless the person not in the mood simply says no). But, if it doesn't work, we don't have sex. The unwilling party gives the other a raincheck, essentially. It's not like we never have sex, and both of us are either willing or willing to try to get there 90-some% of the time, but neither of us is going to continue to push for it if the other obviously isn't into it. It's never been a problem. And we're certainly not going to try, "If you loved me, you'd do it..."

Put it another way: more than sex, more than pleasure, more than even love itself, I owe my partner respect and honesty. If I were to "fake it" to please him, that would be a lie, plain and simple. I owe him better than that. I owe it to him to be honest and clear about my needs and wants, both sexual and otherwise. So if he wants sex and I do not want sex, I owe it to him to be honest about how I feel. If it turned out that my partner was perfectly content to have sex with somebody who didn't want to have sex, then I would be an idiot to stay in that relationship because clearly he would have some serious sexual and control issues. Any man or woman who enjoys having sex with an uninterested (yet submissive) partner is not worthy of any partner at all, and certainly is not worthy of getting "pleased" by a compliant spouse.
Well said! Excellent answer! Bottle, you continue to amaze me! :D

Any relationship is a balancing of needs, with certain needs of each party having a bit more weight than others, yes??

Right. So in a situation where one person would be made happy by having sex, but the other person would be made happy by NOT having sex, why should the sex-wanting partner's happiness always take priority? Why would you be insisting that a "loving wife" would always want to please her husband by submitting to sex, without insisting just as loudly that the husband should make his wife happy by not insisting on having sex in the first place?
Um ... because that's the question that was on my mind when I made the original post? Ya think? :D

For some reason the library computer doesn't like this thread. It keeps giving me weird errors and garbling my replies. But I believe the part about Eutrusca, you old fart, check your TG's should be clear.

Of course not. Women are obligated to provide sexual, domestic, or breeding services at any time when they are not physically incapacitated or functioning in the role of Mommy. This is because a female's sexual desires are irrelevant to her sexual obligations.
Now you're just being sarcastic. :rolleyes:

So now, if one of us is horny and the other isn't, either of us may start to try and get the other in the mood (unless the person not in the mood simply says no). But, if it doesn't work, we don't have sex. The unwilling party gives the other a raincheck, essentially. It's not like we never have sex, and both of us are either willing or willing to try to get there 90-some% of the time, but neither of us is going to continue to push for it if the other obviously isn't into it. It's never been a problem.
Works for me. :)

Better yet, why would you want to have sex with someone who was reluctant to have sex? I.E., didn't want to, but was only going through the motions to make the other person happy.

Even if I was horny as hell, I wouldn't want bad sex - and that falls into the category of bad sex.

On top of that, it builds resentment for sex to be turned into something you "have to do" in order to make the other person "happy".
Exactly.

Not to give TMI, but in my own relationship we've actually experienced this issue in both directions. There was a stretch of time when I was adjusting to new medication that killed my sex drive, and there was a time when my partner went through a similar "dry spell." Unfortunately, these times did not overlap :P. Thus, each of us experienced being at both ends of the situation.

It can be frustrating to be very attracted to your partner, and to want to get physical with them, but to know they aren't interested. If any guys out there think women can't appreciate the feeling of "blue balls," then let me clear up that misconception for you right now! On the other hand, it's equally crappy to find yourself unable to enjoy sex, or to be simply uninterested in sex for whatever reason, because even though you care about your partner and you want to make them happy, you can come to resent having to do something you don't like over and over just to please them.

Ouch! But that still leaves the question unanswered. :(Well, although my parents generally had a normal sexual relationship (my mother has luckily been very frank with me), at the times my father was most violent, he would rape her to further emphasise his dominance over her. For the record, they were a married couple at the time.

That's a personal example of course. I am a criminologist myself, and can verify from my research, and the statistical evidence that I have studied, that the claim that rape is not a crime about sex is almost always true. It is a crime about dominance. Sexual predators - for example, the likes of Ted Bundy - seek dominance over women (usually women, but I know at least one man that has been raped too); it is true regardless of their relationship to the victim. It is about asserting supposed authority, and is simply another form of violence. Perhaps, indeed, the most heinous act of violence since it is by its very nature so deeply personal for the victim. Sexual offenders tend to know this, whether they think about it in the supposed heat of the moment or not.

Now you're just being sarcastic. :rolleyes:
What was your first clue?

For some reason the library computer doesn't like this thread. It keeps giving me weird errors and garbling my replies. But I believe the part about Eutrusca, you old fart, check your TG's should be clear.
Nevermind, I took my own advice.:rolleyes:

No. I'm asking why she would not be.Oh, OK. Well, my boyfriend and I have a normal sexual relationship, but sometimes I just don't feel like it (and vice versa). A husband (or partner) who has a violent disposition may simply not want to take 'no' for an answer. Furthermore, on other occasions (such as those in the personal example I cited), he may just randomly become aroused, and without his wife/partner's consent, descend upon him/her. That could be construed as sexual, certainly, but really in that context it still boils down to violence and dominance.

That's a personal example of course. I am a criminologist myself, and can verify from my research, and the statistical evidence that I have studied, that the claim that rape is not a crime about sex is almost always true. It is a crime about dominance. Sexual predators - for example, the likes of Ted Bundy - seek dominance over women (usually women, but I know at least one man that has been raped too); it is true regardless of their relationship to the victim. It is about asserting supposed authority, and is simply another form of violence. Perhaps, indeed, the most heinous act of violence since it is by its very nature so deeply personal for the victim. Sexual offenders tend to know this, whether they think about it in the supposed heat of the moment or not.

Exactly!

And even if someone is generally willing to have sex, they may not be willing to do so under these circumstances. A person who wants to rape another isn't going to wait and go through foreplay - they are going to grab the victim and go at it. It is generally violent from the start, so, in truth, the issue of consent will never come into it. I can certainly consent to sex with someone, but if it starts out violent, even with someone I would normally consent with, you can be assured that I would *not* consent.

For some reason the library computer doesn't like this thread. It keeps giving me weird errors and garbling my replies. But I believe the part about Eutrusca, you old fart, check your TG's should be clear.
ROFLMAO! Yeah ... and I said "Check YOUR TGs, young phoole!" :D

:rolleyes:

Good response. I expected nothing less from your caveman mentality on this issue.

And even if someone is generally willing to have sex, they may not be willing to do so under these circumstances. A person who wants to rape another isn't going to wait and go through foreplay - they are going to grab the victim and go at it. It is generally violent from the start, so, in truth, the issue of consent will never come into it. I can certainly consent to sex with someone, but if it starts out violent, even with someone I would normally consent with, you can be assured that I would *not* consent.Amen.

It can be frustrating to be very attracted to your partner, and to want to get physical with them, but to know they aren't interested. If any guys out there think women can't appreciate the feeling of "blue balls," then let me clear up that misconception for you right now! On the other hand, it's equally crappy to find yourself unable to enjoy sex, or to be simply uninterested in sex for whatever reason, because even though you care about your partner and you want to make them happy, you can come to resent having to do something you don't like over and over just to please them.
"Mutuality" is key, I think. The ideal relationship would be one where each partner respects the wishes of the other, as well as their needs. It's that mutual respect which leads to a deeper care for each other and a willingness to adapt to each other, IMHO.

Well said! Excellent answer! Bottle, you continue to amaze me! :D
I'm pretty impressed with myself, now that you mention it...I can't believe I managed to be coherant as I wrote that.


Any relationship is a balancing of needs, with certain needs of each party having a bit more weight than others, yes??
I don't know if I would say "more weight," but you certainly get to know specific individual things about your partner that you should take into consideration. For instance, I happen to be dating a person who is extremely uncomfortable with heights, so it would be mean of me to insist that we go sky diving together (even though I would really love to do that). In that situation, I feel that his discomfort would make it impossible for me to enjoy sky diving with him, because the whole time I would just be feeling lousy for making him do something that he would not enjoy at all. In that sense, his happiness "out-ranks" my desire when it comes to sky diving.

"Mutuality" is key, I think. The ideal relationship would be one where each partner respects the wishes of the other, as well as their needs. It's that mutual respect which leads to a deeper care for each other and a willingness to adapt to each other, IMHO.
Right. And spousal rape occurs in relationships where there isn't mutuality. A man (or woman) who insists on sex from an unwilling, uninterested, or grudgingly conceding spouse is not being respectful. At the very least, they're being an utter slimeball, and I am of the opinion than slimeballs should never get to have sex. In many cases, they are also being a rapist.

Good response. I expected nothing less from your caveman mentality on this issue.
And I've come to expect your insults, so I guess that makes us even. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty impressed with myself, now that you mention it...I can't believe I managed to be coherant as I wrote that.

I don't know if I would say "more weight," but you certainly get to know specific individual things about your partner that you should take into consideration. For instance, I happen to be dating a person who is extremely uncomfortable with heights, so it would be mean of me to insist that we go sky diving together (even though I would really love to do that). In that situation, I feel that his discomfort would make it impossible for me to enjoy sky diving with him, because the whole time I would just be feeling lousy for making him do something that he would not enjoy at all. In that sense, his happiness "out-ranks" my desire when it comes to sky diving.
In your case, "coherence is us!" :D

Good analogy, BTW, and I agree with you on it.

"Mutuality" is key, I think. The ideal relationship would be one where each partner respects the wishes of the other, as well as their needs. It's that mutual respect which leads to a deeper care for each other and a willingness to adapt to each other, IMHO.I agree with you. However, sex can be such a deeply personal issue, that it doesn't seem appropriate just to demand it, and expect your partner to provide it. Certainly, there have been times when I have had sex with my boyfriend when I frankly couldn't be bothered, but as Bottle so articulately said (hands up if you think Bottle is fantastic! I've always thought her one of NS's most articulate and interesting debaters :)), is that fair? Don't I owe him honesty in relation to this, as well as any other number of issues?

One time stands out in my head. I really didn't want to be bothered having sex, but because he wanted it, I went along with it. (NB. Despite my apathy, I did consent). He realised, though, cos afterwards he said he felt like "a dirty old rapist". Is it fair that he, a generally very good example of humanity, had to feel like this? In short, because I consented reluctantly, he felt bad. Had I been honest, that would not have occurred. Therefore, is it not better - for both party's sake - that if either one doesn't feel like having sex, that they simply don't?

"Mutuality" is key, I think. The ideal relationship would be one where each partner respects the wishes of the other, as well as their needs. It's that mutual respect which leads to a deeper care for each other and a willingness to adapt to each other, IMHO.

But wouldn't "mutuality" also entail respecting the wishes and needs of your spouse when he/she is NOT interested in sex at a particular moment?

One time stands out in my head. I really didn't want to be bothered having sex, but because he wanted it, I went along with it. (NB. Despite my apathy, I did consent). He realised, though, cos afterwards he said he felt like "a dirty old rapist". Is it fair that he, a generally very good example of humanity, had to feel like this? In short, because I consented reluctantly, he felt bad. Had I been honest, that would not have occurred. Therefore, is it not better - for both party's sake - that if either one doesn't feel like having sex, that they simply don't?
I suspect it varies with the circumstances and how the parties feel at the time. Since I've never "pushed the issue" with anyone, even my ex, I wouldn't know at a personal level.

But wouldn't "mutuality" also entail respecting the wishes and needs of your spouse when he/she is NOT interested in sex at a particular moment?
Of course, as I have repeatedly stated on here.

This is what happens when you just read one or two posts in a thread. :(

I suspect it varies with the circumstances and how the parties feel at the time. Since I've never "pushed the issue" with anyone, even my ex, I wouldn't know at a personal level.Kudos to you, then. (By the way, I mean that seriously, not sarcastically, in case anyone has any doubt). My boyfriend, luckily, would not be one to push the issue either, but in some ways - in the past at least - I felt I owed him something. In the cases of others, some men (women as well, sometimes) often do push it, which can lead to problems.

I know most rape is really a crime of aggression, but how is it possible to "rape" someone who is willing???
Just because two people are married it doesn't mean that the woman is always willing to have sex.

Just because two people are married it doesn't mean that the woman is always willing to have sex.
Um ... that issue has pretty much been beat to death in this thread. :)

Kudos to you, then. (By the way, I mean that seriously, not sarcastically, in case anyone has any doubt). My boyfriend, luckily, would not be one to push the issue either, but in some ways - in the past at least - I felt I owed him something. In the cases of others, some men (women as well, sometimes) often do push it, which can lead to problems.
Well, I've never been a very "pushy" sort of person, either in bed or out, so all of this is kinda beyond my experience level, which is one reason I had so many questions and issues, I suppose. My ex cut me off without any good reason that I could discern, except that I was laid off from my rather high-paying job with Exxon. I held out for three years ... and if you knew me ... !!

Anyway, that's all water under the bridge a long time ago.

Um ... that issue has pretty much been beat to death in this thread. :)
I noticed.

*insert embarassed emoticon here*

Kudos to you, then. (By the way, I mean that seriously, not sarcastically, in case anyone has any doubt). My boyfriend, luckily, would not be one to push the issue either, but in some ways - in the past at least - I felt I owed him something. In the cases of others, some men (women as well, sometimes) often do push it, which can lead to problems.

I've made it very clear to guys in the past that "pushing" is exactly the way to not get laid. Very few things are as much of a turn-off to me as a guy being pushy.

I agree with you. However, sex can be such a deeply personal issue, that it doesn't seem appropriate just to demand it, and expect your partner to provide it.

Sex certainly is one of the strongest examples of this, but I think it shows up in plenty of other areas of a relationship as well. Extreme one-sidedness will usually kill a relationship even if it shows up in a "less important" area, even in outwardly silly areas like choice of movie. If one partner feels that they are always being forced to give in on a certain subject, then that subject will become magnified in importance...this is why couples can have knock-down, drag-out fights over things like what tile to put down in the kitchen or where to place the cat's feeding dish. It's not that the specific issue itself is what is important, it's about feeling like your partner isn't showing equal respect/consideration for you.


(hands up if you think Bottle is fantastic! I've always thought her one of NS's most articulate and interesting debaters :)),
Awww, shucks. Likewise, I'm sure! :)


Don't I owe him honesty in relation to this, as well as any other number of issues?

One time stands out in my head. I really didn't want to be bothered having sex, but because he wanted it, I went along with it. (NB. Despite my apathy, I did consent). He realised, though, cos afterwards he said he felt like "a dirty old rapist". Is it fair that he, a generally very good example of humanity, had to feel like this? In short, because I consented reluctantly, he felt bad. Had I been honest, that would not have occurred. Therefore, is it not better - for both party's sake - that if either one doesn't feel like having sex, that they simply don't?
Exactly!

The way I see it, there are several possibilities when you are in a situation with unequal sexual desire:

1) Nobody talks about it. The couple continues to try to have a "normal" sex life, and both simply refuse to discuss the fact that it's getting increasingly uncomfortable and pointless. This is pretty much like the "traditional" relationship model, wherein the wife does her wifely duties and the husband enjoys her services as his reward for paying the bills. This is extremely crappy.

2) They talk about it, but badness ensues because the less interested party is rude or dismissive about their partner's wishes. The less interested party may flatly refuse to communicate about why they don't want sex, and also may refuse to discuss their partner's feelings on the subject. This is crappy.

3) They talk about it, but badness ensues because the more interested party insists on sex, regardless of the other party's lack of enthusiasm. They may make some attempts to help their partner "get into it," but this often does not work, and when it doesn't then you're still back in a situation where one person is insisting on getting sex from an barely-willing partner. This is also crappy.

4) They talk about it like grown ups. They each recognize that they are dealing with their lover, their partner, somebody who they care about and want to be happy with. They keep in mind that the best-case scenario they are really shooting for is one in which everybody is happy, not one in which they "win" out over their partner. This can end up being slightly crappy, because sometimes it turns out they simply aren't sexually compatible, but even in that case it's still less crappy then all the other possibilities. Plus, you have a high chance of being able to work out a situation in which you DO get to be happy together. And there is much rejoicing.

I agree. IMHO, truly loving someone will result in you doing your best to please them.

But sometimes, you are just incapable of fulfilling a request.

I am a man, but sometimes I am really tired at the end of a day, after spending 5 hours commuting back and forth plus 8 hours working and dealing with crazy work requests, I may just want to collapse into bed and fall asleep.

And my wife does not do sex while on her period, or if she is feeling fat (doesn't matter what I say to the contrary), or if she is feeling nauseous, etc...

She still loves me, but sometimes, things just don't work out to our mutual satisfaction.:(

And my wife does not do sex while on her period,

I'm not the only one!! ((I've been told I'm odd for this little preference of mine))

I'm not the only one!! ((I've been told I'm odd for this little preference of mine))
No, you're definitely not the only one. Not even close! It's just too ... ewww! :D

I'll put it like this to you: I had a boyfriend that I dumped because he got too unwilling to take a no for an answer at times. After a day at the hospital sometimes I just didn't feel like taking it up the ass. It had nothing to do with our relationship or how much I cared for or whatever. It had to do with me not being in the mood. It's that simple.

Sex is not a relational obligation, and if you think it is, and would choose to use a person you "care about" (that cuts both ways, old boy) as a fuck hole, disregarding their unwillingness, seeing them as obligationally constrained to have sex with you and not caring (ooh, there it is again) about their feelings, then I don't know what to say to you.
Your problem is sodomy: it seems sick to me.

Now if you had a problem because he was doing you missionary to much and it was sore: I could see what you mean, but your example is far too extreme.

It wasn't about you noit beeing inthe mood Fas. You were wounded. You coud have been in the mood and still wounded: but the fact was you were wounded.

He should have respected that your bum hurt. Seconbd, your not married so you don't enter into spousal rape.

Also, your problem seems to stem from fetishes. Maybe you should go back to missionary for a small while :p

Really, I think Eutrusca means have sex in a non-fetish way. Anal=fetish. It isn't the normal way to have sex for straight people (unless your really gay I guess).
A relationship should be give and take. You should be each others help-mate.
Try your best fulfill each other's needs, but than again don't forget yourself.


If I ask, "If a woman wears a short skirt, is it ok for someone to rape her?" am I not suggesting that it might be ok?

I'd day you are not suggesting it, Dempublicents1. You are just checking everyone's opinion. How does asking a question=support question?


nk of it this way: I would be pleased if my boyfriend would do all the chores. He, on the other hand, would be equally please if I did all the chores. As a result, we compromise and each do an equal share. Sex is a similar compromise. If it would please me to have sex, and it would please him equally to NOT have sex, then why should my pleasure be more important than his?

Agreed. Sex should be a compromise. shouldn't all things in a relationship be though?


don't know if I would say "more weight," but you certainly get to know specific individual things about your partner that you should take into consideration. For instance, I happen to be dating a person who is extremely uncomfortable with heights, so it would be mean of me to insist that we go sky diving together (even though I would really love to do that). In that situation, I feel that his discomfort would make it impossible for me to enjoy sky diving with him, because the whole time I would just be feeling lousy for making him do something that he would not enjoy at all. In that sense, his happiness "out-ranks" my desire when it comes to sky diving.

But wouldn't you want to get him over his fear of hieghts? One way is to get him really high and show him it isn't as bad as he thought.


And my wife does not do sex while on her period, or if she is feeling fat (doesn't matter what I say to the contrary), or if she is feeling nauseous, etc...
Teah, it is'nt bloody likely that will occur. If you get the pun.

Your problem is sodomy: it seems sick to me.

Erm....just so you know, Fas is gay. Sodomy is par for the course in his relationships, if they get to the sexual stage....

It wasn't about you noit beeing inthe mood Fas. You were wounded. You coud have been in the mood and still wounded: but the fact was you were wounded.

I think he was saying he works at a hospital, although I could be wrong.

I'd day you are not suggesting it, Dempublicents1. You are just checking everyone's opinion. How does asking a question=support question?

If you are asking a question, you are admitting the possibility that either answer could be right. I'm not going to ask people, "Is the sky blue?" I know it is. Likewise, I'm not going to ask, "Does a girl who wears a short skirt deserve to be raped?" I know she doesn't.

That isn't what I said and you know it. :rolleyes:

No. No, I didn't. You seem to have clarified it now though.

The problem was that your questions sounded as if you were implying that there was no decent answer, or any valid reason why a wife who loved her husband would not be willing to have sex all the time. The questions could easily have been taken as rhetorical questions, sounding like the answer was obvious.

It's like someone saying "Why the hell would rape ever be necessary?" It implies that the asker believes rape is never necessary; even if it is an honest, curious question and the person is interested in answers, you get a very strong feeling that the person thinks rape is never necessary.

When you kept asking "how is it possible to "rape" someone who is willing???" after talking about spousal rape, that seemed to assume a wife would/should always be willing.

When you asked "But why would a wife be unwilling to have sex with her own husband?" it makes it sound as if you think there is no good reason for a wife being unwilling to have sex.

When you said "What I don't understand is why there would ever be a reason for a wife to say "no" to her own husband" that pretty clearly seems to state is that you don't think there is a good reason for a wife to say no.

When you ask "Why would either ever say no to the other if they are married and truly care about each other?" that pretty strongly implies that you think truly caring about someone means never saying no.

More examples:

"So if either of them desires sex, why would that care not translate into having sex with them even if you're "not in the mood?""
"Why would or should either partner in a marriage ever deny the other sex?"
"Can we then conclude that her "care" for him doesn't extend very far, or is absent altogether???"
"Obviously ( or at least it should be obvious ) a husband who truly loved his wife would respect her wishes in almost everything, including sex. But, would not a wife who truly loved her husband not wish to please him in almost everything, including sex?" [saying that it seems obvious seems to me to be a very clear indication you believe the statement and therefore the related, following question seems probable to be something you also believe]

Reading all those comments, it's still hard to see how you don't believe them but considering you insist that isn't true, I'll take your word for it :) Can you not see where the confusion is though? It would have been a lot less complicated if you had said, much earlier on that you were playing devils advocate/clarifying your current position by questioning it/simply asking questions.

It would have been a lot less complicated if you had said, much earlier on that you were playing devils advocate/clarifying your current position by questioning it/simply asking questions.
Like I said earlier ... my bad. Thanks for taking all that time to clarify just where I went off the beaten path. :)

How about saying "maybe" instead of "no?" :)

<beating you over the head with a rolled newspaper> NO MEANS NO! NO MEANS NO!!

"Mutuality" is key, I think. The ideal relationship would be one where each partner respects the wishes of the other, as well as their needs. It's that mutual respect which leads to a deeper care for each other and a willingness to adapt to each other, IMHO.

The only way a non-horny person can disrespect the wishes of his/her horny partner would be if s/he prohibited his/her partner from masturbating.

I'm not the only one!! ((I've been told I'm odd for this little preference of mine))

You're definitely not the only one.

Your problem is sodomy: it seems sick to me.

Now if you had a problem because he was doing you missionary to much and it was sore: I could see what you mean, but your example is far too extreme.

It wasn't about you noit beeing inthe mood Fas. You were wounded. You coud have been in the mood and still wounded: but the fact was you were wounded.

He should have respected that your bum hurt. Seconbd, your not married so you don't enter into spousal rape.

Also, your problem seems to stem from fetishes. Maybe you should go back to missionary for a small while :p

Really, I think Eutrusca means have sex in a non-fetish way. Anal=fetish. It isn't the normal way to have sex for straight people (unless your really gay I guess).
A relationship should be give and take. You should be each others help-mate.
Try your best fulfill each other's needs, but than again don't forget yourself.


I'd day you are not suggesting it, Dempublicents1. You are just checking everyone's opinion. How does asking a question=support question?


Agreed. Sex should be a compromise. shouldn't all things in a relationship be though?


But wouldn't you want to get him over his fear of hieghts? One way is to get him really high and show him it isn't as bad as he thought.

Teah, it is'nt bloody likely that will occur. If you get the pun.

It's not "sore", it fusking hurts. Ever had a rope burn on your genitals? Then you'd know better than to say "it was sore".

By the way, you should get used to the idea of anal sex. It's not just for gays anymore. Soon enough it'll be as much of a fetish as oral.

I'm not the only one!! ((I've been told I'm odd for this little preference of mine))
I don't want to get too personal, but if you don't mind my asking: what about it do you not like? Is it physically uncomfortable for you, or is it the mess, or what?

I don't want to get too personal, but if you don't mind my asking: what about it do you not like? Is it physically uncomfortable for you, or is it the mess, or what?

Most of the times I've tried it, it's been physically uncomfortable - more soreness during and afterwards - in addition to the added messiness. If it's towards the end of the week, when the bleeding is light and my period is just about done, it's really just the mess that keeps me from going for it (and that actually doesn't always stop us).

Edit: I don't generally mind personal questions. I wouldn't bring it up at all ilf I wasn't willing to talk about it. =)

Most of the times I've tried it, it's been physically uncomfortable - more soreness during and afterwards - in addition to the added messiness. If it's towards the end of the week, when the bleeding is light and my period is just about done, it's really just the mess that keeps me from going for it (and that actually doesn't always stop us).

Okay, that makes sense. Not wanting to give too much personal info here, but I find my sex drive is dramatically elevated right around my period, which pretty much balanced out the slight "ick" factor that the mess can generate. I didn't know that there were people who abstained from sex during menses until a couple of years ago, and then I started wondering if I was a freak because it had never occured to me NOT to have sex during that time. Of course I then developed a complex about it, convinced that I had been doing something disgusting for years and grossing out my lovers. Now I'm trying to get back to a saner frame of mind :).

Edit: I don't generally mind personal questions. I wouldn't bring it up at all ilf I wasn't willing to talk about it. =)
I figured you wouldn't be squeemish, but I tend to tread carefully when talking about anything that eminates from people's genitals. It's one of those subject areas that can get surprisingly strong reactions :P.

Okay, that makes sense. Not wanting to give too much personal info here, but I find my sex drive is dramatically elevated right around my period, which pretty much balances out the slight "ick" factor that the mess can generate.

I guess I'm lucky there. Mine seems to get really elevated just before, and then goes down until the end of the week, when it jumps back up again for a few days.

I didn't know that there were people who abstained from sex during menses until a couple of years ago, and then I started wondering if I was a freak because it had never occured to me NOT to have sex during that time. Of course I then developed a complex about it, convinced that I had been doing something disgusting for years and grossing out my lovers, and it took a while for me to get over that.

I thought kind of the opposite, that there might be something wrong with me for being a little put off by it. And I still wonder if the discomfort is more pyschological than anything actually physical, since I know that plenty of women seem to have no problem with it. My boyfriend never seems to mind, so I felt like I probably shouldn't either. hehe

I guess I'm lucky there. Mine seems to get really elevated just before, and then goes down until the end of the week, when it jumps back up again for a few days.



I thought kind of the opposite, that there might be something wrong with me for being a little put off by it. And I still wonder if the discomfort is more pyschological than anything actually physical, since I know that plenty of women seem to have no problem with it. My boyfriend never seems to mind, so I felt like I probably shouldn't either. hehe
See, this is one of the topics I wish they would cover in sex ed. A little open discussion probably could have saved us both some trouble, because we probably would have found out that (as with most sexual topics) there's no "right way" to deal with this, and it's just a matter of to-each-her-own. Then neither one of us would have been left wondering if we were messed in the head for feeling the way we do.

Ah HA! And why would that be, pray tell?


Maybe he's been being an asshole!? I mean you can list the reasons why she would be willing easier than you can the reasons not.

Edit: you never know what goes on behind closed doors, on both their parts.

<beating you over the head with a rolled newspaper> NO MEANS NO! NO MEANS NO!!
ROFLMAO!!! Ouch!

Well, if "no" means "NO," then why not say, "Maybe, big boy; see if you can get my motor running!" Hehehe! :D

I've arrived late to this discussion (and while I was reading the first 10 pages you lot just kept adding to it :p ), but for what it's worth I might have something to contribute that's vaguely new.

When one partner isn't "in the mood" it's not always about one person having to have reluctant sex, or about the other person remaining unfulfilled. There are times when my husband's horny and even though we try this and that my juices just won't get going. But I love my husband and unless I'm ill/really tired/have a headache (a real one), I generally oblige him by performing oral sex. On occasion that's sometimes enough to get the rest happening as well.

Conversely, if I'm the horny one and he's just not rising to the occasion (so to speak), then he will often perform oral sex on me, unless he's ill/really tired, etc.

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by Bottle and others in this thread, that a truly loving, caring relationship is all about finding balance. There are more sides to this dilemma than sex/not sex, though. There are those nice half-way alternatives that accommodate both partners.

BTW, I'm really glad you clarified your position, Eutrusca. I was feeling really pissed off at you during those first few pages. I'm glad I waited to read the whole thread before I had a go at you.

And I'm with Dem - I tend to get pretty horny just before my period, then it drops off until the last couple of days. As for the mess - put a towel on the bed. That works for me. ;)

ROFLMAO!!! Ouch!

Well, if "no" means "NO," then why not say, "Maybe, big boy; see if you can get my motor running!" Hehehe! :D

Because I believe in education, and teaching boys from a young age that NO MEANS NO!! <smacks you with the newspaper>

If she wants to give it a try, she'll say maybe, if she says "no", it's no.