NationStates Jolt Archive

Where did he EXPECT anything? He asked her if she wanted to. She refused. It seems that SHE is the one EXPECTING something of him.

You were the one who suggested he should do what he does not want to do. If he does it, but does not want to, then consent is not freely given.

Sounds like rape to me.

You may be right, but his suggestion of anal in the first instance indicates to me that he wanted it. Of course I may be reading the situation entirely incorrectly (it certainly wouldn't be the first time) but I stand by what I have said.

And I never said that his wife should rape him. I said he ought to try it before wanting to give it to his wife.

As for your final comment, did you not read what I said on the legal aaspect? I do tire of having to repeat myself. If he allows her to peg him, whether he is really comfortable with it or not, the fact that he says OK honey I'm ready for that dildo now (or words to that effect) makes it not rape.

Why are people still debating this?

Trying things you're not sure if you will like because it would make your partner happy = good.

Being pressured to try something after you've explicitly declined = bad.

Having a freaking honest conversation with your partner = good.

Conducting some sort of weird sexual negotiation via newspaper columns instead of having a freaking honest conversation with your partner = bad.

Amen to that. Finally...somebody I agree with.

You may be right, but his suggestion of anal in the first instance indicates to me that he wanted it. Of course I may be reading the situation entirely incorrectly (it certainly wouldn't be the first time) but I stand by what I have said.

Perhaps, but he may have only wanted to give anal to her, and had no desier to go the other way.

Seriously, who thought of this idiotic idea that every sexual act committed between partners should be equally reciprocated? Do you people bring adding machines to bed?

As for your final comment, did you not read what I said on the legal aaspect? I do tire of having to repeat myself. If he allows her to peg him, whether he is really comfortable with it or not, the fact that he says OK honey I'm ready for that dildo now (or words to that effect) makes it not rape.

I'm pretty sure my understanding of the law is a tad better than yours. Consent given by intimidation or coercion is not consent.

So if you want your wife to dress like a schoolgirl, she has the right to ask you to dress like a schoolgirl first?

Oh that would be so phoney.

Perhaps, but he may have only wanted to give anal to her, and had no desier to go the other way.

Seriously, who thought of this idiotic idea that every sexual act committed between partners should be equally reciprocated? Do you people bring adding machines to bed?

No. Don't be ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure my understanding of the law is a tad better than yours. Consent given by intimidation or coercion is not consent.

Wow. I'm actually not sure how to respond to that. For once I am actually speechless.

And who said she intimidated or coerced him? If he agreed simply to make her happy there is no coercion or intimidation there. Just because she went out and bought the strap-on does not mean that she is intimidating him.

And the way I see it, you and I are clearly never going to agree on this. I'm bored now...can we just agree to disagree and move on?

Perhaps, but he may have only wanted to give anal to her, and had no desier to go the other way.

Seriously, who thought of this idiotic idea that every sexual act committed between partners should be equally reciprocated? Do you people bring adding machines to bed?



I'm pretty sure my understanding of the law is a tad better than yours. Consent given by intimidation or coercion is not consent.
yeah withholding kinky sex until he complies with her pegging request makes it RAPE.

are you sure youre a lawyer?

yeah withholding kinky sex until he complies with her pegging request makes it RAPE.

I suggest you read the post I was replying to, and not the post you are imagining I replied to.

I specifically replied to a thread that suggested he should just "suck it up" and take it, despite his unwillingness. Specifically stating he should undergo a sexual activity that he does not wish to do, and has, numerous times, stated he will not do.

Now, I don't know what your definition of rape is, but doing something sexually that you don't want to do...well...

I agree that overpopulation is a problem. Maybe the problem facing the world today. After all, everything else becomes easier to fix when resources aren't strained and such.

But remember, just like homosexuals can have children without having sex to reproduce, heterosexuals can have sex without having children. No need to get all homophilic up in our grills.
Yeah, but the thing is: that has made gender meaningless. It has no more meaning than height, hair color, skin color, eye color, et cetera. Today, the choice of sex partner, including their gender, is like the choice between Porsche and Lotus, a hobby preference - nothing more, nothing less.

I suggest you read the post I was replying to, and not the post you are imagining I replied to.

I specifically replied to a thread that suggested he should just "suck it up" and take it, despite his unwillingness. Specifically stating he should undergo a sexual activity that he does not wish to do, and has, numerous times, stated he will not do.

Now, I don't know what your definition of rape is, but doing something sexually that you don't want to do...well...
i think that IS what i was responding to.

if he sucks it up and complies with her request its not rape.

If the guy's objection was to the use of a toy instead of an organ, that would make sense.

But I really think Barringtonia had it right from the start. The guy's objection to being pegged is that "carries a homosexual implication." Which is to say, he won't do it because he finds it submissive.

If sex for him is ONLY something that "he does to her" then no-wonder it's getting boring for him -- she's probably not interested any more.

i think that IS what i was responding to.

if he sucks it up and complies with her request its not rape.

so as long as he says "yes, I'll do it" it's not rape? So the trick is I shouldn't force you to have sex with me, I should just threaten to kill you if you don't agree?

You sure you're comfortable with the logical extention of your argument?

Is it fair to say, after all this disagreement, that this chap really needs to have an honest chat with his wife? Meaning, a chat where he doesn't make jokey suggestions he isn't prepared to follow thorough with. I think it would help him.

so as long as he says "yes, I'll do it" it's not rape? So the trick is I shouldn't force you to have sex with me, I should just threaten to kill you if you don't agree?

You sure you're comfortable with the logical extention of your argument?
oh are you going to ask about goat fucking again?

yes, as long as he is free to say no, its not rape.

nah... scrap the wife and get a whore....maybe she should get a male whore too.

Is it fair to say, after all this disagreement, that this chap really needs to have an honest chat with his wife?

Quite fair.

Meaning, a chat where he doesn't make jokey suggestions he isn't prepared to follow thorough with. I think it would help him.

And if she can talk without asking to peg him, that'd prolly help things too. :tongue:

Is it fair to say, after all this disagreement, that this chap really needs to have an honest chat with his wife? Meaning, a chat where he doesn't make jokey suggestions he isn't prepared to follow thorough with. I think it would help him.

who said he wasn't prepared to have anal sex with his wife? I'm unsure at any point he suggested he was prepared to let her have anal sex with him.

Okay, let me try putting it this way:

I understand the attitude behind the idea that he should let her boink him in the butt. But what I think you people really mean is "If he expects her to do something nice for him, he should be willing to do something nice for her in return." As NA has accurately pointed out, there is no earthly reason it has to be the same "something nice." If he is really not okay with her riding his ass, even if his reason for being not okay with it is stupid, he shouldn't "suck it up" and do it anyway. That's ridiculous. If his wife is really uncomfortable with the idea of him riding her ass, she also shouldn't "suck it up" and just demand something in return for putting up with it. If, however, he was still trying to get his wife to let him do that, and she was merely indifferent towards the idea, it would be perfectly reasonable of her to suggest, say, "Well, if I try this thing for you, which is not my favorite thing but which I don't mind, you should give me some really great head afterwards, which is not your favorite thing but which you don't mind."

oh are you going to ask about goat fucking again?

yes, as long as he is free to say no, its not rape.

and yet the poster clearly said that he should do it. Which means, according to the poster, he should not be free to say no. Regardless of his objection, regardless of his discomfort, regardless of his feelings, he should do it, without his wishes being respected.

And what do we call that?

so as long as he says "yes, I'll do it" it's not rape? So the trick is I shouldn't force you to have sex with me, I should just threaten to kill you if you don't agree?

You sure you're comfortable with the logical extention of your argument?

I think you've taken this a little out of context. There have been no threats of murder involved (well I didn't see any up until now), she just wants him to try something new, just as he wants her to try something new.

and yet the poster clearly said that he should do it. Which means, according to the poster, he should not be free to say no. Regardless of his objection, regardless of his discomfort, regardless of his feelings, he should do it, without his wishes being respected.

And what do we call that?


hyperbole

on your part.

Okay, let me try putting it this way:

I understand the attitude behind the idea that he should let her boink him in the butt. But what I think you people really mean is "If he expects her to do something nice for him, he should be willing to do something nice for her in return." As NA has accurately pointed out, there is no earthly reason it has to be the same "something nice." If he is really not okay with her riding his ass, even if his reason for being not okay with it is stupid, he shouldn't "suck it up" and do it anyway. That's ridiculous. If his wife is really uncomfortable with the idea of him riding her ass, she also shouldn't "suck it up" and just demand something in return for putting up with it. If, however, he was still trying to get his wife to let him do that, and she was merely indifferent towards the idea, it would be perfectly reasonable of her to suggest, say, "Well, if I try this thing for you, which is not my favorite thing but which I don't mind, you should give me some really great head afterwards, which is not your favorite thing but which you don't mind."

Well that actually makes quite good sense. Well done you. Brava.

Yeah, but the thing is: that has made gender meaningless. It has no more meaning than height, hair color, skin color, eye color, et cetera. Today, the choice of sex partner, including their gender, is like the choice between Porsche and Lotus, a hobby preference - nothing more, nothing less.

SEXUAL PREFERENCE!

SEXUAL PREFERENCE!

I usually show no emotion whatsoever on forums, but imagine a person shouting the above while some spittle flies out of his mouth in your direction.

Also, height, hair color, skin color, eye color, etc, are important as well. To be perfectly honest, I don't find every single person in the world attractive! There may be various factors, some of which you listed above.

And the choice between Porsche and Lotus isn't an easy one. Expensive either way too.

hyperbole

on your part.

yes, I'm sure your tone would be so VERY similar if someone suggested that she should just bend over and take it, and quit bitching.

and yet the poster clearly said that he should do it. Which means, according to the poster, he should not be free to say no. Regardless of his objection, regardless of his discomfort, regardless of his feelings, he should do it, without his wishes being respected.

And what do we call that?

But then, if we recall, I then said that rape is wrong (I even wrote it in big capital letters to demonstrate my point). At no point did I say that he shouldn't be free to say no, I said that he shouldn't be selfish and expect his wife to try something new if he wasn't prepared to do something new himself.

and yet the poster clearly said that he should do it. Which means, according to the poster, he should not be free to say no.

Are you sure English is your first language? I mean, really. Come now...

At no point did I say that he shouldn't be free to say no

He already said no. Multiple times. You said he should do it anyway.

yes, I'm sure your tone would be so VERY similar if someone suggested that she should just bend over and take it, and quit bitching.
you dont know what i would or would not feel.

as an adult i would not consider that if i DID bend over and take it that it was rape because someone on an internet forum said i should.

Are you sure English is your first language? I mean, really. Come now...

I know enough english to know that when he said no, that means no. And to advocate that he should undergo ANYTHING he has already refused to undergo, is to suggest his wishes should not be respected.

you dont know what i would or would not feel.

as an adult i would not consider that if i DID bend over and take it that it was rape because someone on an internet forum said i should.

Let's make it very simple, shall we?

He said he does not want to do it, and will not do it. He said no.

A poster said he should do it anyway.

Should do something he said he was not willing to do.

He has already made his unwillingness manifest, and when someone undergoes a sexual act that he is not willing to do, that's rape.

And since he already made clear his unwillingness, if he did "just take it", it would be when he was not willing to do it.

And what do we call that?

He already said no. Multiple times. You said he should do it anyway.

Oh Lord I am so misunderstood, on so many levels. I don't think I actually used those words, but if I did, I didn't expect anybody to take it so damned literally. And just because I don't think you have absorbed it, despite be repeating it over and over again...I DO NOT ADVOCATE RAPE.

Let's make it very simple, shall we?
He said he does not want to do it, and will not do it. He said no.
A poster said he should do it anyway.
Should do something he said he was not willing to do.
He has already made his unwillingness manifest, and when someone undergoes a sexual act that he is not willing to do, that's rape.
And since he already made clear his unwillingness, if he did "just take it", it would be when he was not willing to do it.
And what do we call that?

*raises hand*

Let's make it very simple, shall we?

He said he does not want to do it, and will not do it. He said no.

A poster said he should do it anyway.

Should do something he said he was not willing to do.

He has already made his unwillingness manifest, and when someone undergoes a sexual act that he is not willing to do, that's rape.

And since he already made clear his unwillingness, if he did "just take it", it would be when he was not willing to do it.

And what do we call that?
i call it urging him to reconsider.

supposing that its not an internet thing but the mans actual wife (which makes your position far less absurd) its still not rape. its not rape unless she tries to use the strapon when he is still against it.

A poster

Please stop referring to me as "a poster". I am not a picture of a boy band on a college dorm wall, thankyou very much.

Neo Art, why are you trying to equate this argumentative relationship the couple have with rape?

There's a problem there, and it's the problem of both of them. I said right from the start "he should try it" but as you have persuasively argued, he really shouldn't if it's just too repellent to him.

Us strangers advocating that he does this or that isn't advocating rape. We're giving advice as to what he should do. I didn't notice anyone saying she should rape him, and most of us agree that she should drop the subject because they really do need to talk about sex more openly, and a "recurrent argument" isn't going to achieve that.

So, what advice do YOU offer the fella?

My feeling is that he needs to start talking to his wife about what they're doing now. All the "spicing up" options are just going to lead back to "why won't you let me peg you?" so he should be trying to find out why his wife is dissatisfied with the sex they're currently having.

That's reading between the lines, but I think I've guessed it right. If she was having great sex, he wouldn't be complaining about "sex being routine." I get the strong feeling he's much more uptight than her, a boring and repetitive root, and she should probably find someone else to have sex with. Someone, like her, who's a bit more experimental, passionate ... and fun.

They need marriage counselling. Not the advice of bawdy strangers on the 'net.

speaking of advice....

my advice--that he should give it a try (slowing building up to the act within a loving relationship)--is given because HE asked.

if SHE had written in i would tell her to drop the idea and start talking about what OTHER kinky things they might both want to try out. unless she has a huge kink about pegging it shouldnt be particularly important to her--at least not as important as establishing that they do indeed have an equal reciprocal relationship. which is best done out of bed.

Please stop referring to me as "a poster". I am not a picture of a boy band on a college dorm wall, thankyou very much.

When lots of posters put roughly the same view, it's not always practical to separate them by name.

Oh, and you so ARE. With lipstick smooches on it. :p

Oh, and you so ARE. With lipstick smooches on it. :p

I'll respond to that in the next life.

I'll respond to that in the next life.

I'll be the drummer then. I've left it a bit late to be in a boy band, this time around. :)

I'll be the drummer then. I've left it a bit late to be in a boy band, this time around. :)

Fine. As long as I'm the good-looking one who everybody knows.

SEXUAL PREFERENCE!
SEXUAL PREFERENCE!
Also, height, hair color, skin color, eye color, etc, are important as well. To be perfectly honest, I don't find every single person in the world attractive! There may be various factors, some of which you listed above.
They are. But the point is, fundamentally (and I'm no longer sarcastic here) gender today is of the same importance than other of these factors. Some like blondes, some like brunettes. Some like men, some like women. Some like Whites, some like Asians, some like Blacks. Just that, and nothing more. We really should get rid of the prejudices.


And the choice between Porsche and Lotus isn't an easy one. Expensive either way too.
Agreed. But it's a personal choice, to which many people will have different answers, some will be long in doubt, some will try to get both. Sexual orientation choice is no different.

What do I think about "gay pride" then? Well, like there are both Porsche conventions and Lotus conventions, so gays have the right to parade as much as they like - and if straights don't like that - they have full right to have their straight pride parade, which surely can beat the gay one in size. Coexistence and peaceful competition beat the heck out of prejudices and conflicts.

my advice--that he should give it a try (slowing building up to the act within a loving relationship)--is given because HE asked.

if SHE had written in i would tell her to drop the idea and start talking about what OTHER kinky things they might both want to try out. unless she has a huge kink about pegging it shouldnt be particularly important to her--at least not as important as establishing that they do indeed have an equal reciprocal relationship. which is best done out of bed.

That's kind of like asking me if there's anyone who needs killing in my class for annoying me, and when I say, to what I think is a joke, "Yes, about half of them," showing up with a gun and getting pissed when I say, "NO! I wasn't serious, you can't kill ANY of them!"

People ARE allowed to change their minds, or to admit they were not serious.

he didnt change his mind eh? he never ever meant to suggest that he was willing to receive. she is the one who decided to bring THAT little bit of business to the table.

but if he wants his wife to try new things in bed.....

speaking of advice....

my advice--that he should give it a try (slowing building up to the act within a loving relationship)--is given because HE asked.

"Anal?" wouldn't usually be taken as "how about you buy a dildo and give me anal?"
There's more going on, which the guy didn't write in to the columnist.

After six months of marriage—I'm a straight male—the sex had become routine but enjoyable. To remedy this, my wife and I discussed new things we might like to try. We were both being shy, so I said the first thing that came to mind: "Anal?" My wife got quiet and the conversation ended.

That's a blatant lie. I simply can't believe that the conversation went like that.

if SHE had written in i would tell her to drop the idea and start talking about what OTHER kinky things they might both want to try out. unless she has a huge kink about pegging it shouldnt be particularly important to her--at least not as important as establishing that they do indeed have an equal reciprocal relationship. which is best done out of bed.

As he describes it, all such conversations lead back to the same thing. So, yes, but perhaps first they should talk about what they're doing already. The "routine" sex, and whether either of them is actually enjoying it.

"Anal?" wouldn't usually be taken as "how about you buy a dildo and give me anal?"
There's more going on, which the guy didn't write in to the columnist.



That's a blatant lie. I simply can't believe that the conversation went like that.



As he describes it, all such conversations lead back to the same thing. So, yes, but perhaps first they should talk about what they're doing already. The "routine" sex, and whether either of them is actually enjoying it.
NOW they do.

presumably because she is pissed at his unwillingness to give it a try (i can think of other reasons but its all probably bogus anyway). if HE Isnt willing to go along with her idea, why should SHE go along with his?

but you see that i was saying that my advice to HER would be to drop it, eh? she needs to get over this unwillingness of his and move on to other fun sex things. (unless she is using it as a way to never ever have to try anything new again)

but she didnt write in, he did. so my advice to HIM is to rethink this whole "its too gay" thing and see if its not something he can enjoy after all.

he didnt change his mind eh? he never ever meant to suggest that he was willing to receive. she is the one who decided to bring THAT little bit of business to the table.

but if he wants his wife to try new things in bed.....
Well, if you recognize that "he never ever meant" to receive, and he's said no, then you should recognize she should drop it -- same as she should have said, "No," if that's what SHE meant instead of insisting on this.

Honestly, if every time she wanted to have sex he insisted "only if you blow me" and she doesn't want to fellate him, we'd think he was a cad. Well, now she's being a cad.

They are. But the point is, fundamentally (and I'm no longer sarcastic here) gender today is of the same importance than other of these factors. Some like blondes, some like brunettes. Some like men, some like women. Some like Whites, some like Asians, some like Blacks. Just that, and nothing more. We really should get rid of the prejudices.
Yes. You seem to be (at least in other posts) saying that these things hardly matter at all though and a person can flip flop around between these things like it makes no difference at all. If I've liked brunettes all my life and find asians to be horribly unnattractive, I am not going to one day on a whim, start dating a blond Asian. Just like I wouldn't suddenly start dating a man. These things matter to people, whether you think they have little or no importance today. Gender is as important as it always was, at least dealing with sexual desires..

But yes, we should get rid of prejudices.
What do I think about "gay pride" then? Well, like there are both Porsche conventions and Lotus conventions, so gays have the right to parade as much as they like - and if straights don't like that - they have full right to have their straight pride parade, which surely can beat the gay one in size. Coexistence and peaceful competition beat the heck out of prejudices and conflicts.
Woot.

Honestly though, I don't like parades.

Boring bunch of loud people pacing about and blocking traffic half the time.

...but you see that i was saying that my advice to HER would be to drop it, eh? she needs to get over this unwillingness of his and move on to other fun sex things. (unless she is using it as a way to never ever have to try anything new again)

Yes, I got that. Her side of the story is no doubt very different and the advice of all of us would probably change significantly after hearing it.

but she didnt write in, he did. so my advice to HIM is to rethink this whole "its too gay" thing and see if its not something he can enjoy after all.

As ever, it's hard to disagree with you. Dan Savage says more or less the same thing at the end of his reply ... there are other ways of letting his wife play with his bum, which he might enjoy and won't confront his revulsion quite so much.

Yes, I got that. Her side of the story is no doubt very different and the advice of all of us would probably change significantly after hearing it.



As ever, it's hard to disagree with you. Dan Savage says more or less the same thing at the end of his reply ... there are other ways of letting his wife play with his bum, which he might enjoy and won't confront his revulsion quite so much.
i do wonder what the real story is.

did he offend her by freaking out?

did she have reason to think he might like the idea?

is she really a pegging fiend who was waiting for him to bring up the idea or is she trying to make sure that he will never bring up kinky sex again?

i do wonder what the real story is.

did he offend her by freaking out?

did she have reason to think he might like the idea?

is she really a pegging fiend who was waiting for him to bring up the idea or is she trying to make sure that he will never bring up kinky sex again?

Ultimately, it seems that it's an issue in a marriage gone sour, I'd suspect there's issues of giving and taking beyond the literal subject written in.

It is pathetic and selfish. He's deciding he doesn't like something before he's even tried it. He's like a little kid who absolutely knows he's going to hate brussel sprouts before one has even touched his lips.

It is neither pathetic nor selfish, he has decided he doesn't want to do it and that should be the end of it. It is her acting like the child because she is saying I am not going to do something unless you do it, a bit like when you hear children say "If he doesn't have to go then I'm not going".

But as it seems that this has been dealt with I will leave it and I don't really care to read through 16 pages of posts to catch up with the discussion.

I tend to automatically take her side, for two reasons:

She's not the one who wrote in to an advice columnist.
Women who are into kinky stuff appeal more to me than men who are afraid of seeming gay.


But I will say this: if "take it if you want to give it" is such a fair principle, why does he have to "take it" first? Did she consider striking the deal the other way around?