OK, DU women - am I the only one who gets creeped out by...

[FormerRepublican]

...guys who think we're supposed to fork "it" over, like their entitled? I read a couple of the marrital rape threads, and I'm just totally and completely grossed out, both by the idea that someone could think they own my body, and that men would defend that idea.

For me personally, a guy with that attitude is a total and complete turn off and my first inclination would be to tell him to hit the road - hard!

What's with the idea that a guy has a right to DEMAND that a woman fork "it" over? It reminds me of the dark ages when men would blame women for rape because "everyone" knew a man couldn't control those urges. Lord, we're regressing back into the days of women as chattal...

Edit for my spelling and typos - doh!

[benburch]

1. My gods, who would defend THAT?

Horrible.

[Warpy]

16. Lots of stupid adolescent males do

because most of their knowledge of women comes from porn written by other men.

They also think they're entitled to sex if they pay for dinner.

They also think they're entitled to sex if a woman passes out drunk nearby.

I guess it takes a few years and a few hundred knees to the groin before the awful truth dawns on them: they have no right to anyone's body but their own.

[benburch]

40. I never thought that when I was a teen.

And I looked at a lot of porn growing up, too!

But I think teen boys got that impression from other teen boys LONG before there was any porn to look at. I know for a fact, because of conversations I have had with people that grew up in that era, that guys in the late 40s and early 50s behaved the same way, and this was before even Playboy Magazine existed.

I simply do not believe we can blame porn for this. Instead we need to blame the culture of teenage boys that gets passed from generation to generation.

Why did I not get infected with it? I was a nerd and a loner. I was the one nerd who played football, but that didn't make me part of the team when we were off the field...

[Warpy]

66. Well, the operative word was "lots of," and that's something

that has appeared on surveys of attitudes to various components of sexuality that have been done in high schools all over the country. The results were disheartening and I only quoted part of them.

You're part of a minority, but that's the minority that keeps us hoping for the best when we raise sons.

[MountainLaurel]

130. State legislators in a few states

Within the past couple years, trying to quash bills that would make marital rape a crime.

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2005/05/spousal-rape-bill-back-again-raping.html

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/02/10/phyllis-schlafly-punishing-spousal-rape-like-rape-is-malicious/

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3928/is_200507/ai_n14775978

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/09.html

http://www.thesakeofargument.com/archives/2005_02.html

[lumberjack_jeff]

156. Men...

... but only those made of staw. :eyes:

[Nikki Stone1]

2. Creeped out? Yes. Surprised? No.

nt

[joemurphy]

3. Hey! Great pick up line: "Fork it over!" That's a sure-fire winner!

[FormerRepublican]

5. And what you'd win is a big punch in the nose that would knock you flat.

Them's fightin' words.

[Jigarotta]

4. I've stayed out of those threads...

but that sounds pathetic, but instead of being enraged I feel like laughing in their stupid faces.

It's probably only a couple people just yanking chains and looking for the expected reactions. Can't believe too many would Really believe that here, but who knows.

[PetraPooh]

6. A woman defends the idea: There is a choice to be made,

either hand it over OR accept it when he steps out of the marriage for sex. I was on the receiving end of this as a woman married to a man who would have plenty of sex till the night after our marriage. It seemed very unfair and frustrating when he would then demand that I not step out for sex. I didn't till the last six months of an eleven year marriage, but having had sex only five times in eleven years with three of those time producing pregnancies; sorry, I have to side with the concept that if you want your partner to stay home for sex then you have to give it up at least once a week; like it or not, by all means it would be better to like it. BTW, there were no physical reasons why he could not comply and I was reasonably slender and attractive through out the marriage. Also he never had a "reason" to explain his lack of having sex. I think it was game and religiously based Madonna/whore syndrome, but he still hasn't said.

[FormerRepublican]

17. In that case, I'd pick the 3rd choice - divorce.

Irreconcilable differences.

I won't be a party to sexual blackmail, regardless of which side of the situation I'm on.

[PetraPooh]

22. Exactly my point. If she didn't want to have sex with her husband

she should let him off the hook somehow. This did end up being the choice of my ex-husband and to this day I don't think he has yet to have sex with anyone. It isn't fair to one partner for the other partner to withhold sex for no apparent reason or if the reason is to control the other. When we get married, man or woman, we EXPECT that our porno assisted masterbation or our one night stands are over. I don't know anyone who enters into marriage with the expectation that sex will become LESS available and at a higher cost.

[FormerRepublican]

27. Is marriage only about sex, then?

That's what these arguments have the feel of to me. That love is not involved, and it's all about finding someone you can use for sex. How can anyone feel anything positive in that kind of environment?

WRT "she should let him off the hook somehow", women have historically been in powerless situations in marriage that contribute to their staying in situtations that are less than healthy. Marriage is not a union of one person - it is formed by the desires and will of both parties. Why is the responsibility only on her to "do something" about his sexuality?

BTW, there are far more ways than one to find sexual satisfaction in marriage, and were I in that situation and the marriage were otherwise good and positive, I would employ some alternatives. I wouldn't have to resort to adultery, either. I wouldn't necessarily choose to pressure my mate to meet my needs when they clearly are MY needs, and not those of my partner.

If the marriage was NOT otherwise good and positive, it's a trip to divorce court that's warranted, IMO.

[PetraPooh]

33. WOW, that's quite a misrepresentation of my views.

You are the one asking about sex as an obligation. I say, yes, it is and going both ways, not just for men. Never did I say that it was the only thing in marriage. If anything YOU said that when you said that a person should divorce rather than cooperate with their partners sexual needs. Please do not paint me with your brush. If you think LOVE should be part of the marriage, the only important part, then explain to me how a loving spouse abandons his/her partner in sex is at all LOVING?

[FormerRepublican]

44. Because if the partner who is saying no has psychological issues...

...that are contributing to it, and it's not about how they feel about you, then how can a person who loves them condemn them for it? The why is as important as the what. That's why I said that if the marriage was otherwise good and caring, other steps can be taken to preserve it. In the meantime, steps can be taken to address the underlying issues.

IMO, marriage is NOT an entitlement to sex unless both parties consent. IMO sex is NOT an obligation, it is a choice that is freely given between two people who love and care about each other.

Why would you want to have sex with someone because they feel obligated to?

[PetraPooh]

49. No, but I don't want to have a sexless life just because my spouse

NEVER feels like it. Love and sex are not the same, but there should be give and take, just like every aspect of marriage including money, child rearing, home vs. work time, play time, church and religious choices, ETC. Why should the refusing partner have ALL of the rights when it comes to sex?

[FormerRepublican]

58. And that's where it comes down to irreconcilable differences.

A spouse can't meet all our needs, no matter how much we might want them to. A spouse also has rights of their own that might come in direct conflict with our needs.

If you sit down and talk to your spouse and there's no way to come up with a solution or compromise, and if the issue is important enough to you that it negates everything else in the relationship, then there is no alternative. You either live with your needs chronically unmet, or you divorce and move on. That a decision that only the people involved can make.

That's the reality for everything in relationships, not just sex. From what you describe, you and your former spouse where not compatible in a critical area. It undermined the relationship until no options were left except divorce.

BTW, your spouse might be compatible with another woman who shares his lack of interest in intimacy, and they might be happily married for the rest of their lives.

The same for you in another relationship where your needs for itimacy are more compatible with your spouse.

But that's fundamentally about compatibility, not sex.

There could be other things going on in the relationship as well that would indicate sex was being used to control and abuse the spouse, but that's another issue...

In many cases, sex issues are symptoms of marital problems, but not the ACTUAL problem. Ya get me?

Regardless, it doesn't negate the right of each spouse to consent or not.

[PetraPooh]

63. Gee, I'm so confused, I thought you said sex shouldn't be the

basis of marriage, so how should it be the basis of divorce. IF there are other issues, then certainly get a divorce. But at least for me I truly loved my husband, we saw eye to eye on virtually everything EXCEPT he refused to have sex. Now he divorced me, I wouldn't have divorced him. I was perfectly happy going about doing my own thing, considering he had had eleven years to change his mind and I wasn't about to "rape" him. BUT I still feel it was very wrong of him to put me in a position of being constantly sexually frustrated and then cry foul when I found an alternative outlet; or inlet as it may be.

[FormerRepublican]

78. I didn't say sex should be the basis of divorce, I said incompatibility...

...should be the basis for divorce.

I can't speak to your specific relationship because I wasn't there. I wouldn't even want to try. I do know that regardless of whatever other issues were going on in the marriage, infidelity is pretty hard to overcome because it raises serious issues of trust. We're also hardwired by evolution to demand exclusivity as a means to ensure the continuance of our genes. Once the infidelity occurred, maintaining the marriage became very difficult, and all the other problems would escalate as a result.

In those circumstances, I think you were both well served by divorcing and moving on to more healthy relationships. I hope that your life is better for you now. In no way was I trying to imply there was anything wrong with choosing to leave the relationship so your needs could be met.

But with regard to consent and obligation, my body is my own and I take responsibility for it, including it's sexual needs and/or lack thereof. I don't feel that other people are obligated to resolve those needs for me if they choose not to, whether I'm married to them or not.

By the same token, I expect others to respect my rights and not assault me just because we're married and they feel like it.

In general, unless psychological issues are involved (and I mentioned that in a previous post), a good relationship shares intimacy. If the intimacy is not there, then something is fundamentally wrong with the relationship. This can either be worked out, or not. But it doesn't negate the right to choose what you will or won't do with your own body.

[PetraPooh]

82. Sorry, can't respond to this, you have too many personal

assumptions. . .like "hardwired by evolution." NOT true, or we wouldn't have so many divorces, so much pre- and extra-marital sex, and geee! polygamy in so many societies. Hardwired by christianity, okay, but evolution? BS. The rest isn't worth commenting on.

[FormerRepublican]

98. I didn't say that evolution of sexuality wasn't complicated.

;)

We are hard wired to DEMAND exclusivity, but we're not hard wired to monogamy. Which creates the conflict you describe. It also adds significant challenge to making a relationship work. We expect from our partner what we're not hard wired to give back in return. To explore this, how would you have felt if your partner had engaged in infidelity when you did? Would you still have felt justified, or would you have felt betrayed?

In general, relationships usually don't survive infidelity. The ones that do require a LOT of work, and they're never quite the same.

[PetraPooh]

119. I simply don't see that hard wiring you speak of, it is a religious choice

for our society and the societies of the western world as a whole, but not a world wide "evolution." Since evolution is a scientific term relating to mutations based on NEED to survive, not religious choice, I simply do not perceive that you are dealing in fact. Fact is that unless a society is intentionally ending the lives and development of women, there are generally more females born than males. . .which strongly implies that polygamy should be the rule of our evolution unless somehow you think scientifically there is some advantage to so many single women not being mated with at all. Furthermore if it was in our nature at all to be monogamous or exclusive, we wouldn't have so many that participate in casual sex with the advance knowledge that it is/will be casual.

I also somewhat resent the implication evolution of monogamy is too complex for us to understand. It isn't too complex, it is wrong.

[FormerRepublican]

122. Actually, women are as hard wired for infidelity and polyandry as men are.

It's a stereotype that men are the only ones who are hard wired for this.

The drive to demand fidelity of our partner comes for two different reasons. For a male, it's to limit the number of other males that can impregnant the female. For the woman, it's to limit resources given to other females and their children. Thus, a survial strategy is served by the demand for partner fidelity for both men and women.

The drive toward polyandry is again driven by the need to ensure the most genes are carried on to the next generation. Studies of primates, and indeed human populations, show that women invariably secretly indulge in infidelity just as men do. Men are driven to infidelity to spread their genes as widely as possible by impregnating as many women as they can. Women are driven to infidelity to enable them to secure a relationship with a good provider for herself and her children, while at the same time ensuring the best male genes are given to her children, since the two needs can be mutually exclusive and of necessity provided by two men (or one, if she's lucky).

The number of females born in excess of males is insufficient to induce a drive toward polyandry and polygamy. A much higher divergence in sex ratios is required for that to be the exclusive reason.

Another reason why polygamy occurs is that females select based on resources and good genes. Often the males who are able to do this are already mated, but if the male has sufficient means to provide for more than one woman in abundance, then it still satisfies certain female evolutionary drives. Men don't have a mitigating drive that minimizes their evolutionary demand for mate fidelity, thus their tendency to not form polyandry relationships - and their far more universally negative reaction to infidelity.

[PetraPooh]

125. Polygamy, monogamy, I was not using in terms of gender;

However, the EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE in fact supports the concept that men are evolutionarily more likely to be polygamous through species requirements, than women to be polyandry. Infidelity is only an issue in relationships required by respective social pressures and constructs and is therefore not an evolutionary, scientific one.

[FormerRepublican]

131. That's incorrect.

Evolutionary interests are served by controlling a partner's sexuality while preserving one's own sexual discretion. In this way, one's own genes are allowed to pass to the next generation, while the genes of a sexual competitor are not permitted to pass.

For a man, this means keeping a woman from sleeping with other men who might impregnate her instead of him.

For a woman, it means keeping a man's resources for herself and her children while denying them to other women. This keeps her children alive first, above all others. It also binds the male to her while her children are dependent on her, ensuring that resources will continue to be given to her for as long as her children are vulnerable. It also reduces the chances that a male will abandon her while she's pregnant.

Note that these are very basic drives which can be overcome by higher thought, which they often are.

[PetraPooh]

132. Wow, I don't need a man to keep my children alive. That was a few

evolutionary cycles ago.

[FormerRepublican]

134. So is fight or flight. Do you still get scared in a dark alley at night?

[PetraPooh]

136. Fight or Flight? What are you referring to? Just because

I can handle myself and my children by myself without a man? How is that fighting or flighting? And no, but my female neighbors often call on me to assist them when "walking in a dark alley" because I am soooooo capable of caring for and defending others.

[FormerRepublican]

137. Fight or flight is an evolutionary instinct for self preservation.

No, I don't think a woman NEEDS a man, although they can be very nice to have around.

Are you sure you're a woman? Sometimes you sound SOOOO like a man. I don't know ANY women (and I live in freaking UTAH!) who advocate Polygamy like you do. It makes me wonder about your credentials...

[PetraPooh]

139. I am a woman, one that has EVOLVED.

My divorce was not because I had extra-marital affairs, I actually got his permission for those. It was because I wanted to be polyandrous or polygamous. Does that explain it? I just don't see the point in loneliness and I too am in a highly LDS community where polygamy is no doubt occurring. However, I am single and alone and likely to stay that way because I am so self sufficient as to NEED no one. However, given the opportunity to re-acquaint myself with "gamy" of any sort, I would choose polygamy. I make a great housewife and would enjoy being such for many rather than one. Many relying on each other just seems to be the better way. Used to be extended families were the "many" but today, with us all so spread out and isolated from each other's real, full lives. . . .polygamy is a reasonable choice.

Oh, before you ask, I can't join the LDS polygamists because I am a staunch atheist and no longer a republican. . .a real problem for the LDS community as far as joining them. Otherwise the LDS'ers that literally surround me, love me and wish I would convert.

[FormerRepublican]

142. We still have residual evolutionary traits even when we don't need them.

It's a result of the process that created us. And no one, absolutely no one, has evolved past fight or flight. It's part of basic human biochemistry.

WRT polygamy, if that's what you choose, more power to you. I have other needs and desires, as do most of the women I talk to, but whatever floats your boat... As long as only consenting adults are involved...

BTW, one female married to many males is polyandry. Mormons don't practice polygamy OR polyandry. Some offshoots of Mormonism practice polygamy, but not polyandry, and they are not the LDS church.

[PetraPooh]

148. I have evolved past fight or flight, I settle into anxiety then solution.

As for polygamy v polyandry; in today's world one can be housewife to many in a polygamous situation since so many women are professionals and full time employed.

As for LDS v LDS offshoot, that's semantics. The polygamous LDSers believe they are the TRUE LDS and the reformists believe they are. . .religion, go figure, everyone thinks they have the only true way. That's why I can't play in religion.

At no time do I suggest you and I should choose the same path, I don't know where you get that concept. I think it is just a subtle way on your part to attempt to slam me, but I forgive you your need to feel superior.

[FormerRepublican]

150. Your anxiety is CAUSED by fight or flight.

Here - read up on it a bit:

"The fight or flight response, also called the "acute stress response", was first described by Walter Cannon in 1929. The theory states that animals react to threats with a general discharge of the sympathetic nervous system. The response was later recognized as the first stage of a general adaptation syndrome that regulates stress responses among vertebrates and other organisms. In layman's terms, an animal has two options when faced with danger. They can either face the threat ("fight"), or they can avoid the threat ("flight").

The onset of a stress response is associated with specific physiological actions in the sympathetic nervous system, both directly and indirectly through the release of epinephrine and to a lesser extent norepinephrine from the medulla of the adrenal glands. The release is triggered by acetylcholine released from preganglionic sympathetic nerves. These catecholamine hormones facilitate immediate physical reactions by triggering increases in heart rate and breathing, constricting blood vessels in many parts of the body—but not in muscles (vasodilation), brain, lungs and heart (increasing blood supply to organs involved in the fight)—and tightening muscles. An abundance of catecholamines at neuroreceptor sites facilitates reliance on spontaneous or intuitive behaviors often related to combat or escape.

Normally, when a person is in a serene, unstimulated state, the "firing" of neurons in the locus ceruleus is minimal. A novel stimulus (which could include a perception of danger or an environmental stressor signal such as elevated sound levels or over-illumination), once perceived, is relayed from the sensory cortex of the brain through the thalamus to the brain stem. That route of signaling increases the rate of noradrenergic activity in the locus ceruleus, and the person becomes alert and attentive to the environment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response

WRT polygamy, as I said, whatever floats your boat...

[PetraPooh]

153. No, its caused by stress; flight or fight is a response to stress,

the stress itself isn't flight or fight. To handle stress with "calm" is simply repression, another solution to stress. Anxiety is another solution, that in my case leads to problem solving. No fight, no flight, just thinking, lots and lots of intense analysis that I deem anxiety; no raised blood pressure, no hyper activity, no feeling of danger. Problem, needs solution, how to get the most reasonable winning position without losing my integrity. No fight, no flight. Perhaps I use the word anxiety incorrectly, but it is the closest word I could think of.

[FormerRepublican]

155. A biochemical reaction can't be controlled by after the fact thought.

No one has evolved past fight or flight. No one.

Fight or flight is an INVOLUNTARY response to stress. Not something that a person chooses to do.

[PetraPooh]

161. Then I have evolved past it. I don't feel fight or flight even

when faced with violence. It interferes in the ability to make rational decisions and lengthens the time it takes to put those decisions into actions. Now I am not saying I have never fought, I have on occasion, but only after thinking if it was the right choice, not as a reaction. I must be an opposum, they don't fight or flight, they hold perfectly still. Hmmm, that might be it. I do tend to freeze while I analyze, then I act quickly and usually efficiently.

Also the idea one can't be trained out of the fight or flight response would probably be well argued by someone with martial arts (the whole art, not just the fighting aspect) training.

[FormerRepublican]

163. Freezing is evolutionary behavior and part of the fight or flight response

Training in martial arts doesn't prevent a person from reacting to a stressful situation. If it were, the military would be shoving soldiers through martial arts training to keep them from getting PTSD, which is a disfunction in the fight or flight response.

[PetraPooh]

53. Based on your opinion, should I assume then,

that if one partner refuses to spend any money except for food and necessities; the other partner should just roll over?
That if one partner refuses to participate or allow the family to participate in church or social activities; the other partner should just roll over?
That if one partner refuses to participate in parenting; the other partner should just roll over?

This is not what marriage is about. It is a partnership INCLUDING sex, not EXCLUDING sex. Love is undefineable at best, but partnership demands compromise on MANY issues including sex.

[FormerRepublican]

62. When does a partner gain control of MY body, and gain the right to say..

...what I can or can't do with it?

The issues you're describing illustrate fundamental problems in the relationship UNRELATED to the symptom, which is not wanting to share money, social activities, and parenting.

Marriage is about compromise and negotiation, NOT dictatorship by one spouse to the other.

Does a partner have a right to DEMAND that the other hand over all their money for the family pool, DEMAND they attend family functions even if they don't want to (they're being mistreated by in-laws, for example), or share parenting when they're working 3 jobs to support the family?

You imply that there are RIGHTS to DEMAND a partner act according to your own wishes. Is that what you'd want your partner to do to you - DEMAND that you do xyz? Or would you want to sit down and discuss and negotiate what each of you will and won't do? With the right of each party to object to those things they find abhorent, distasteful, or just plain annoying?

[PetraPooh]

68. Wow, I didn't see anything about their being specific acts being

required, either in my posts or in the article you posted. Sharing is the part of marriage that we are discussing and if one is to quit sharing sex and one's body, seems to me that one should release one's partner to share with another that part that is being unsatisfied. If I were to find my husband an unacceptable debating partner, I would sure feel I have the right to come online and join DU, for example, without being divorced. Why do you hold sex in such high esteem that it outweighs LOVE and PARTNERSHIP?

[FormerRepublican]

108. Infidelity spells doom for a relationship. Very few marriages can...

..survive infidelity, regardless of what else might be going on in them.

There's a big difference in the trust issues involved in debating someone other than your spouse, and becoming intimate. It's like the difference between a father who kisses his daughter on the head, and a father who slips into bed with her for incest.

The issue involved is trust, not sex. Like it or not, a partner will feel betrayed and lose trust in their spouse if their spouse is unfaithful.

[PetraPooh]

120. I would say this has more to do with social pressure,

than trust. If a person is upfront and honest about infidelity, or conversely it is agreed in advance to NOT discuss it at all; marriages seem quite resilient till "helpful" friends, family, and neighbors overwhelm the situations with their opinions. In societies where polygamy is practices, infidelity is NOT a cause for doom and gloom, just fact. Again, religion not reality seems to flavor your social prejudices.

[FormerRepublican]

124. Statistics show that most marriages in which infidelity is a factor do...

...not survive long term. Religion is insufficient to explain this, since religious views vary widely.

Polygamy is not universally adored even by those who practice it. Trust me, I know. My family were among the Utah pioneers who practiced it, and I'm decended from a few. In some cases it works, but in many cases it's pretty dysfunctional.

And I'd posit that the power differential between men and women in those societies are a big reason why polygamy is still practiced in them. Invariably, when women attain status, polygamy is abandoned.

[PetraPooh]

127. Statistics don't exclude social, familial, and religious pressures.

Marriage is "not univerally adored even by those who practice it. . . . . . . . " Your point????

[FormerRepublican]

133. OK, and where did religion come from? A vacuum?

It was the same evolutionary drives that shaped and formed religion...

Naturally, religion would reflect those evolutionary drives by demanding marital fidelity, etc.

[PetraPooh]

140. Fear, Hope, and Churches that wanted money in their coffers.

[FormerRepublican]

143. ???

You do understand that evolution came before religion, right?

[PetraPooh]

149. Yes, but your question regarded religion, not evolution.

[FormerRepublican]

151. Sigh. The point I was making is that religion itself is a reflection of..

...our evolutionary drives. Given that men, in general, controlled religious ideologies in past societies, it's only logical that religions would reflect male evolutionary drives.

[PetraPooh]

158. No, it isn't. Its a reflection of men trying to control women.

Religion is a reflection of men trying to control women. That's all. I find it amusing that you, who started this thread about a woman's right to refuse sex with her husband, is now saying that man's superiority as presented by religious teachings is somehow scientifically connected to evolution. You have lost all credibility with me. The fact that there is NO evolutionary reason left for women to be subservient to men is why we have "come a long way baby," since the middle of the 19th century it has all been social and religious reasons, not evolutionary. I am now done. Thank you for the lively debate.

[FormerRepublican]

159. You misunderstand what I said. I was not defending religion.

I was merely pointing out that religious dogma was developed by men who were subject to evolutionary drives. Nor was I suggesting in any way that men are better than women, or that women should be subservient.

I'm not sure how you interpreted that from what I said...

:shrug:

[IntiRaymi]

123. I agree with everything you are saying here

But, on the other hand, it seems too easy for a woman to accuse her husband of rape.
Now, please be careful with what I am saying, and I admit that I have not read all the details of the case.

**I do not advocate the idea that marriage gives either a man, or a woman, the right to have sex with the partner, in an unquestioned manner. **

The nature of criminal cases is that you are innocent till proven guilty. If someone decides that they want to sink you with a slanderous accusation, it is this guarantee that ensures that the sinking will not happen, at least not without a due process.
When a woman accuses her husband of rape, when she was asleep, it becomes very difficult to ascertain what the facts were, since (on the face of it, superficially) it starts out as one's word versus another's.
This man, who stands accused of raping his wife while she was asleep, has a hell of task ahead of him in the court of public opinion. She has a hell of a task ahead of herself in the court of her peers. The only one that will have a judicial effect is, of course, the latter.

[FormerRepublican]

126. I agree with due process. And yes, any accusing party must prove their...

...case, not just make an accusation. In event they can't prove their case, then the solution is to get out of the marriage and get a restraining order. Or, in the case of a supposed rapist falsely accused, to get a divorce and marry someone more compatible.

You said:

"**I do not advocate the idea that marriage gives either a man, or a woman, the right to have sex with the partner, in an unquestioned manner. **"

We agree.

[PetraPooh]

129. In this case however, the jury suggests that the deciding factor

was the fact that the man had porn on his computer. To me this would say the opposite. If I was having sex with my partner I would not need porn, BUT if I was being refused sex, the porn would assist my masterbation. So I don't see that the woman proved anything except her husband had porn on his computer, which was more likely in an effort to survive her refusal rather than to encourage a rape.

[FormerRepublican]

135. That's ridiculous. A lot of men like porn who have sex all the time.

Male sexuality is visually cued. It's why they like porn, x-rated movies, etc. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have sex with their spouse.

[PetraPooh]

138. The point is that porn on puter does NOT = rape in most cases,

but for some reason here it was. You said that one should be able to prove rape, and I'm saying I don't think she did if the only evidence was porn on his puter.

[FormerRepublican]

145. Porn does not equal rape, but the type of porn can.

For example, if I find kiddie porn on some guy's computer, then in all likelihood he leans toward pedophilia. In a similar way, if a man has porn depicting rape or some such, it's a good indicator that it's what he's into.

[PetraPooh]

152. Not a true link either.

Kiddie porn doesn't indicate pedophilia. The law would like you to believe that, but if that is so, then women, who are known to have very high rates of fantacizing about being raped or "taken," would embrace the actual act, and they don't. I personally fantacize about being taken, but have never allowed anyone to do so though some have tried; they were sorely (literally) surprised. I think you simply believe what you are told to believe without thinking it through. I know that there are so many men that seem to now like only fully shaved womens genitailia; does that mean they are all potential pedophiles since pre-teen is the naturally occuring hair-free pubic area? No. though I do use that argument to convince my daughter (over 21 yo) NOT to shave her crotch because some man asks her to.

However, men with kiddie porn are nonetheless breaking the law, because somehow that porn was created and it had to be illegally created. I don't think it makes them pedophiles though. Its just that men's fantasies are being made into film reality as it were. Maybe women's too, but I don't watch porn, so I wouldn't know. Anyway, even if this man had rape fantasy porn with adult aged actors/actresses, it would not indicate he wanted to rape in reality anymore than my fantasies indicate I want to be raped in reality.

[FormerRepublican]

154. And you know that was the only evidence? Aren't you making a big...

...assumption there?

And you might keep in mind that having certain types of porn is itself an illegal act. Having kiddie porn can get you jailed.

Have you reviewed the porn in question so you know what exactly it is they objected to?

[Warren DeMontague]

65. Sex is *a* part of most healthy marriages.

I'm not talking about "I want to do it every night and she only wants to do it every week"-- if someone drops all physical intimacy from a relationship after getting married, how -to you- is that "healthy and positive"? And I think you're stretching the point a little thin to assert that anyone who has any expectations of a married sex life is ONLY selfishly thinking of "THEIR needs".

No, marriage is not ONLY about sex, but most people don't get married because they're expecting a life of celibacy, either.. You know, when threads like this come up, I just have to wonder about all these people who are in these kinds of marriages- maybe it's a result of flogging kids with these inane ideas about how Jesus wants them to be abstinent until they're married, and so you end up with millions of people getting married for HORRIBLY wrong reasons, and, here's the kicker- totally unable to communicate on any kind of level with each other. Or you have folks like the guy the previous poster married, who it clearly sounds like had some deep psycho-sexual issues, probably brought about by religion.


Anyway- Ideally, a marriage ought to include at least a basic level of communication. I would no more tell my wife to "give it up" than I would steal her wallet- aside from the fact that I'm not that kind of person, that's not the kind of relationship we have.. but honestly, if all of a sudden one of us was to completely stop being interested in ever having sex with the other- with no explanation? uh, yeah.. that would be an indication that something was probably wrong in the relationship- to both of us.

FWIW, I concur completely with the points in your OP. No one is automatically obliged to have sex with anyone else, married or not. If two partners' expectations in that or other areas are too divergent, it's possible the marriage can't be saved.

And rape is rape, wedding ring or not.

[FormerRepublican]

90. I think you and I fundamentally agree.

There are circumstances where a partner might have psychological issues that could interfere with intimacy. For a woman, it might be prior rape or abuse that could inhibit her ability to be intimate with her spouse. For a man, he might be so worried about his ability to perform that he avoids intimacy altogether. These are two examples of how a lack of intimacy might NOT be an indicator that the marriage as a whole is in trouble. In these cases, communication becomes critical and working toward some kind of solution is in order. Not divorce.

I think where I disagree on this issue is the idea that "withholding" sex is always a hostile act. Sometimes the motivation is hostile toward the spouse, sometimes not. It's what's behind it that matters, and whether or not some solution can be negotiated. Ya get me?

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Well, sure. I mean, clearly something's going on.

I wouldn't define it necessarily as a hostile act, but it certainly could be a warning flag. And for most people- not all, but probably most- it would constitute a problem for the marriage, too.

I think the key to all the situations you outline is communication- because if that breaks down, sex or no sex, you're not going to have a good marriage.

[FormerRepublican]

110. I agree. And it's the communication that always seems to break down first

Ironic, isn't it?

Without communication, the problems just escalate until they're insurmountable.

[malaise]

96. Correct -the more I read these posts

"...so you end up with millions of people getting married for HORRIBLY wrong reasons, and, here's the kicker- totally unable to communicate on any kind of level with each other. Or you have folks like the guy the previous poster married, who it clearly sounds like had some deep psycho-sexual issues, probably brought about by religion..."
---------------------------------
the more I realize that I am one lucky woman. Marriage is mostly about friendship and trust; about sharing and compromise. Communication is the key to making a marriage work. If either party sees it as a power game, it's over.

[Iniquitous Bunny]

118. Sensible post.

:thumbsup:

[Katherine Brengle]

HAHAHAHAHA

EVERYONE gets married KNOWING that over time, they will have less sex with their spouse.

What a joke.

[PetraPooh]

59. I notice that you say, less sex with spouse, not less sex; so are you

promoting extra marital sex instead? Hmmmm, seems that is what I suggested allowing for the partner that wants more sex than the refusing partner.

[Katherine Brengle]

61. I said no such thing --

nor do I advocate adultery.

Marriage is about commitment, friendship, and companionship. Sex is a bonus, not the root of all things.

I would never NEVER advocate extra marital sex--it is a betrayal of trust, and unacceptable behavior, imo.

[PetraPooh]

70. So then you are saying that when one gets married,

sex is only a bonus????? And if I end up getting none of it, tough petuties for me? Wow, you live in a different world than I am willing to live in.

[Katherine Brengle]

73. I am saying

that sex is PART of a marriage, and certainly NOT the most important part.

It is also something that should be considered a gift from your lover, not a requirement, not born out of coercion, not demanded.

I think that your focus is unhealthily on the sexual aspect of a relationship, and not taking into account the fact that many other factors determine the health of a marital relationship.

[PetraPooh]

77. Fair enough, but if enough Bdays and holidays pass without

receiving a gift from my partner, I feel I have the right to buy one for myself, right? So then we return to where I began. If one is going to chronically refuse to share themselves with their partner, then they should free them of the obligation of "faithfulness."

[Katherine Brengle]

81. That is not a marriage--

if two people cannot be faithful to one another, and are unhappy, they shouldn't be married.

[PetraPooh]

83. So faithful implies implicitly that sex is being had by both with

each other, right? NOT having sex, chronically and extensively, is a form of unfaithfulness in my mind. BUT still not worth divorcing over if all other areas are cooperative and compromising to the benefit of each.

[Katherine Brengle]

88. Seeking sex outside of marriage is, imo, wrong. Period.

I know others view it differently, and as long as I am not married to them, I really don't care.

I think is wrong to expect sex from another person--clearly you don't, and you and yours are entitled to live that way if you choose.

Lay off, I am never going to agree with you.

[PetraPooh]

94. EXACTLY! but expecting it within the marriage should be

considered reasonable, then.

[Katherine Brengle]

164. I don't think so.

This is the last time I am going to explain this:

When you have a healthy romantic relationship with another person, you will WANT to have sex with them, at least occasionally, and if you are physically capable of doing so, you will choose to do so because it gives you joy.

If you do not want to have sex, there is absolutely no excuse for someone forcing you to, and this includes the use of violence, coercion, and demands.

If you NEVER want to have sex with your spouse, and you are physically capable of doing so, it is very likely that there is a much larger problem in your marriage and the lack of sexual desire is a symptom, not the problem itself. In this case, it is worthwhile, if one spouse is interested in sexual intimacy and the other is not (consistently, without change or fluctuation), to seek counseling to see if the problem causing the rift can be fixed.

But it comes down to this--no one, NO ONE, NO ONE has the right to expect another person to submit to sexual relations simply because they want sex.

In the past, marriage conferred ownership. It no longer confers ownership.

I have a right to turn my husband down if he wants sex and I do not. He also has this right. Both of us have exercised this right in the past, and I am sure we will again (although probably not soon, lol, as he is returning from an 8 month deployment this Friday ;)).

I respect his autonomy, and he respects mine. We have a wonderful, passionate, connected relationship--but it doesn't always involve sex.

I expect his respect, but I do not expect unfettered access to his body. And I grant him the expectation of my respect, but not the expectation of unfettered access to my body.

[malaise]

99. I agree with you 100%

th eproblem I have is why in this day and age would people not know their partners sexual needs or lack thereof before they are married.

[BlackVelvet04]

104. Marriage without a sexual relationship isn't really a marriage....

IMO. It can be a friendship, or companionship, or roommates but not a real marriage. Marriage involves and requires sexual intimacy. If a person doesn't want to have sex they shouldn't get married unless both partners feel the same way. With marriage comes the consent to engage in sex and each couple must determine what is mutually satisfying. When a spouse denies a partner a sexual relationship for all practical purposes the marriage is over especially if that spouse refuses to get psychological counselling. Even in a marriage where a spouse is unable to have intercourse there are ways of being sexually intimate and marriage demands that spouses provide that for each other.

[FormerRepublican]

111. Here's where I have an issue with this:

You said: "With marriage comes the consent to engage in sex"

That's where the argument that rape within marriage is not possible comes from. Consent must be given with each act. It can't be assumed as blanket consent, even in marriage.

Yes, marriage involves sexual intimacy, and if one or the other isn't interested in that something is seriously wrong with the marriage. If there is no compromise in this, then the solution is divorce, not marital rape. Or adultery, for that matter.

They're married. But they both still retain the right to consent or not...

And I agree. If they're not interested in intimacy, they probably should be friends, or companions, or whatever, and not married - unless they both agree to the terms of the marriage beforehand, and don't change their minds after the fact.

[BlackVelvet04]

144. I'm not condoning rape.

I didn't even come close to condoning rape. BUT when a person marries there is an implied consent to a sexual relationship unless the agreement is otherwise. Refusing sex to a spouse on a consistent basis is grounds for divorce. It's cruel and as far as I'm concerned breaks the bonds of marriage.

I think I used the word consent in the sense of an agreement for a sexual relationship, not as consent for any given act of intercourse.

[FormerRepublican]

146. We agree in that context.

Yes, if either one never, ever wants to have sex with their spouse, and the spouse does not agree, then they should divorce.

WRT whether or not it's cruel - that depends on what's behind it. If it's willful, then it's cruel. If it's due to some psychological problem that the person has no control over - well, that's something else again. That's the equivalent of a spouse with cancer who can't be intimate with their mate because of their illness.

[Katherine Brengle]

157. I disagree with this --

I DO think it is the norm, but I do not consider it a requirement. There are certainly a larger percentage of elderly married folks who would disagree with you, as well as those maybe not so old where one spouse is incapable if having intercourse.

I believe that people can be lifelong companions in a fulfilling marriage without having sex.

I'm not saying sexual intimacy isn't important for most of us--of course it is--but it isn't something anyone has a right to expect of us, even a spouse. We give love to a spouse because we love them--not because it is expected.

[BlackVelvet04]

167. Unless agreed upon ahead of time, a person has

every right to expect sex from a spouse. As I said earlier, sex is what separates marriage from other relationships. We agree to marry because we love a person - to marry someone and not expect to have sex UNLESS agreed upon ahead of time is cruel.

If a person has a psychological problem with sex they need to get help or get out of the marriage if the spouse is not content in having a sexless marriage.

Again the argument is changing in your post from expectation to what might happen.....I'm talking about the expectation.

Of course older people might be content to marry without sex being a part of the relationship and of course sometimes a partner can become physically unable to have intercourse but that doesn't mean there can't be sexual intimacy.

I think the law backs up my assertion that one has a right to expect sex from one's spouse. Religion certainly does.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Wow. Not any marriage I've ever been in.

Although I will concede that having kids certainly makes the logistics more complicated.

Guess some people have just been marryin' the wrong folks.

[Katherine Brengle]

71. I guess it depends...

on how much sex one was having before marriage, lol.

And of course, for awhile, especially for those who marry young (like myself, for instance), things are probably going to be just fabulous in that department.

But I would argue that most people do not expect their sex lives to be a constant--they fluctuate, and at some point, for most people, dwindle a bit with age.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. My wife and I were together for a long time before we got married

So the change in marital status didn't really change things all that much.

And I'm certainly not of the 'quantity over quality' camp. During my single years, in between long term relationships I spent that time having plenty of what we old folks used to call casual sex. While there's a time and a place for everything, and I'm no stranger to the lust chakra, I do believe that the deep emotional, psychic-tantric connenction is the core of what is, for me at least, *good sex*.

(Which is another reason why the notion of telling your spouse to 'fork it over' is just ludicrous, not to mention offensive. Who wants to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you?)

[Katherine Brengle]

91. Amen!

On all points, just awesome.

Sexual intimacy is a wonderful thing, and that is true regardless of how often it happens.

And sex just for the sake of sex is not the same as sexual intimacy--it's masturbation that uses another person's body, and that is just disgusting.

You and your wife sound like a groovy couple :).

[Warren DeMontague]

101. Thanks. :) I think if both people are in for the mutual masturbation

then that's okay, too. Like I said, there's nothing, in my mind, inherently *wrong* with casual sex, or purely lust-based sex, or whatever- it just should be mutual..

But expecting sex like you expect the garbage to be picked up from to the curb every week- I mean, I always hope people who get married have bothered to take their communication up at least a few notches above the most basic level. It astounds me.

It's vaguely like the threads about Alito's ruling that women should be forced to talk to their husbands before getting an abortion. I find that ruling deeply offensive, it embodies, to me, just a whole slew of ridiculous, reactionary attitudes the guy seems to hold. The concept that such an area is anywhere for the law to get involved in... just, ick. (Of course, I lean pretty socially libertarian on when and how the law should meddle in the affairs of consenting adults)

But that said, I cannot personally imagine being in a marriage where my wife wouldn't want to talk about something like that with me. I'm not saying she should HAVE to- but marriage shouldn't be about what one HAS to do, it should be about what one WANTS to do, IMHO. Before we got married, when we would talk about it, my wife and I would laugh about the "institution" of marriage. Like, an institution is something you get locked away in. I prefer to think of it as a voluntary assosciation combined with a deep committment. Peace.

[MelissaB]

102. Best line of the day (at least for me)

"And sex just for the sake of sex is not the same as sexual intimacy--it's masturbation that uses another person's body, and that is just disgusting."

I've never thought about it that way.

[Katherine Brengle]

160. Makes sense to me...

I mean, sexual intimacy is supposed to be about connecting with another person and a mutual experience of pleasure, right?

If one person is not aroused, not interested in having sex, or not even AWAKE, how then can such intimacy exist?

:hi:

[BattyDem]

26. "hand it over OR accept it when he steps out of the marriage for sex"

So if the man is in the mood, but the woman isn't, he has the "right" to go out and have sex with someone else? I'm not talking about a chronic case of "I have a headache" - I'm talking about a simple case of not being in the mood from time to time. If it is a recurring issue - if there's no sex or intimacy in a marriage, or if one party views sex as something that must be "handed over" in order to get something - then that marriage has problems that go far beyond sex. JMHO

It sounds like your husband had some problems or hangups that had nothing to do with you directly - you were just the victim of it. I hope things are better for you now. :-)

[PetraPooh]

34. What you are talking about vs. the article is talking about differ.

Obviously we are all too absorbed sometimes to have sex. Seems this article and certainly my response refer to CHRONIC refusal to have sex.

[BattyDem]

36. I know that I'm talking about something different than the article ..

but I wasn't talking about the article, I was responding to your post. But ... after reading your exchanges with "FormerRepublican" I realize that I probably misinterpreted what you were saying. Sorry about that. :)

[PetraPooh]

37. No problem, thank you for reconsidering my post.

[Katherine Brengle]

54. Bullshit

"...either hand it over OR accept it when he steps out of the marriage for sex."

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.

A marriage is not solely about sex, and anyone who thinks it is ought not get married.

No one, not a husband, not a wife, not a stranger, has a right to expect sex from another person.

[PetraPooh]

56. Expecting compromise and cooperation in all marital matters IS

reasonable.

[Katherine Brengle]

60. Expecting sex on demand is not...

"compromise and cooperation" -- it is the result of a ridiculous sense of entitlement to control the actions of another person.

[PetraPooh]

72. At no point do I read that this man, nor I, say that sex on demand

was the issue. But the chronic lack of sex WAS the issue.

[Katherine Brengle]

76. Then he could divorce her if he wanted too --

not RAPE her in her fucking sleep.

I don't see a gray area there, regardless of what the sexual problem was.

[PetraPooh]

80. Ahh, but now you say marriage should be based on sex, or

conversely divorce should be based on the lack thereof. And I thought you were promoting NOT making sex the decision making end all of marriage.

[Katherine Brengle]

89. Infidelity is inexusable, as far as I am concerned.

If a man or woman cannot accept the amount of sexual intimacy offered by their partner, then maybe they shouldn't be with that person?

If it is so important to them that they would go outside of the marriage for sex, then there are probably bigger problems in the marriage than the lack of sex--not to mention that anyone who would consider infidelity in order to meet a "need" for more sex definitely has other problems than a high sex drive--not the least of which is the inability to love and respect another human being.

[PetraPooh]

97. You must be religious, I'm guessing, because you seem to

think that a spouse should be willing to accept forced celibacy. This is JUST as disrespectful to a spouse as forced sex. I'm sorry you can't see that, and I'm glad I'm not your spouse, no doubt.

[Katherine Brengle]

165. HA! Religious!!!

I am about as far from religious as a person can be without reaching the other side again, lol.

I didn't say that people shouldn't be able to LEAVE marriages that they are unsatisfied with. I said that no one has a right to expect sex from me, not even my husband, and that I believe the same if true for everyone else, male and female.

If you aren't happy in a marriage, you have the right to leave it, or attempt to fix it--you do not have the right to be unfaithful to your spouse or rape your spouse.

[The Straight Story]

115. I think the general thrust (heh) from what I have read so far is:

People come together and have a lot of sex. Get married, a lot sex for first year or so, then it drops off to almost nothing. Now both agreed when they married not to have sexual relations with someone else. Now one partner's desire drops way off while the other's is about the same. Which can present some problems of course.

It may be of interest to note (and I am sure there are some studies on this) that let's say they split up again and each gets a new partner, they cycle would probably start all over again. This I can attest to personally as well as several of my friends and co-workers (of both sexes). One then must reason why the sex dropped off with one person but the one who stopped having interest would jump right back into mucho sex with someone else.

Back to the main topic though - people I think often see it as an implied contract: You keep me happy and I will keep you happy (not just in sex). Someone is not getting emotional attention they need, they might get that from a friend (or a potential new lover), did not get a gift for a special occassion, well someone else may have got them one. But when it comes to sex seeking out comfort from someone else is a no-no. You can do just about anything else with someone else and it does not matter - go to movies to the park, read books on porch, whatever. But there is that one thing that you basically promise no one else can do other than your spouse - sex.

I think that is why it is frustrating for so many people of both sexes. They have a need (and it can be more than physical of course) and the only person they can have that need fulfilled by tells them no - their very own spouse and best friend. Sex is THAT important in a relationship because if you break that bond (by going to someone else) things are pretty much over, and since you cannot and only have one supplier, then your out of luck. And no one really wants someone to have sex with them out of pity, you want to be wanted and desired.

Forcing it does not work, but expecting your partner to share that one thing with you is normal - no one else can.

[BlackVelvet04]

105. Of course you have a right to expect sex from your

spouse. That's part of what separates a spouse from a good friend. Don't be ridiculous.

[FormerRepublican]

112. Even if they say "no"?

Where does my right to my body end, and the right of my spouse to my body begin?

If you're not sexually compatible, you shouldn't be together.

[BlackVelvet04]

141. I'm not talking about forcing anybody, I'm talking about the expectation.

If a person doesn't like sex they shouldn't get married unless the partner feels the same way.

[FormerRepublican]

147. We agree on that.

[WindRavenX]

7. yeah it's sick

And it's apparently not as uncommon as you think :(

[Minnesota Libra]

8. This is what God made iron skillets for. LOL nt

[DemonGoddess]

12. heheh that's a good one

or BASEBALL bats, gelding knives....

Nope, they creep me out too. I think for a man to expect and demand unstinting loyalty from his wife, he should return the same to HER, and not threaten outside sex because she doesn't FEEL like it when he does.

[Minnesota Libra]

15. EXACTLY!! nt

[meow2u3]

48. What do you think hedgeclippers are made for, beside trimming hedges?

:evilgrin:

[Jigarotta]

18. 'boing'! lol, good one.

Whats the word for vaginal muscle control that can lock that sucker in while you gouge his eyes out. It starts with a K I think.

[FormerRepublican]

20. Kegel exercises help for that.

[Jigarotta]

25. thanks!

it was driving me crazy trying to think of that word! I was googling 'kleagle', lol.

[napi21]

9. Well, you won't believe this, but

when I was in a Catholic HS, MANY YEARS AGO, we were taught that a woman wasn't permitted to ever say "NO" to her husband! Of course, along with that was the teaching that sex was a desire instilled by God to promote procreation.

I have no idea if they still teach stuff like that or not.

You're post just made me think of that, and it's been well over 40 years ago!

[neoblues]

100. So, Saying No would mean you're NOT "Pro-Life"...

Religion is just a mazing.

[napi21]

166. That might have been part of it. They never said. I think it was

much more "Women OBEY their husbands."

I think it's gone now, but in the marriage vows, there used to be a line "Love honor and OBEY". It was rught before "Till death do us part".

[Betsy Ross]

10. Trolls maybe? n/t

[HockeyMom]

11. Yet they want no birth control????

Only "Natural Family Planning" with CONTROLLED abstinence?

[sce56]

13. Hey that's ok according to the Religous Right! Isn't that a republican

outlook on the way we should go back and take away the vote from women and blacks, mexicans! Repeal the Civil Rights Act, cancel Roe V Wade etc,etc!

Hey the way I see it if he wants something and she does not then it is time to see the divorce attorney after all their are plenty of fish in the sea opps err well thier used to be but now that global warming is changing that better hurry up before they are all gone!


Same old s**t different era
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3613/is_200509/ai_n15639433

When is a scandal merely voyeurism?

The year was 1873, the beginning of the American Gilded Age. The nation was exhausted by the Civil War. Robber barons were stealing public lands, importing cheap workers from abroad to build (and die on) the railroads, committing bank and securities fraud, and hiring thugs to beat up the newly organizing labor unions. The nation's economic structure was shifting from a very rough equality to an hourglass, with most of the wealth up top and most of the people on the bottom.

In response to all this economic dislocation and misery, at least one reformer knew exactly how to restore America's moral greatness. At Anthony Comstock's urgings, Congress made it a federal crime to send "obscene, lewd, or lascivious'' material (i.e., pamphlets about contraception or sexually transmitted disease, condoms, "French" playing cards) through the U.S. mail.

Comstockery is alive and well in today's United States. When citizens distract themselves from economic disruption by focusing not on common matters of public policy but on personal matters of sexual purity, social historians call it a "moral panic" - and, from the Starr report, which almost cost us a president, to the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, the U.S. has had a runaway panic on its hands for at least a decade. Unfortunately, American journalism is making it worse - in part by covering precisely the wrong stories about sex and politics.

[sheelz]

14. I was certainly creeped out by what he said.

It's a sick mindset.

[oldcoot]

19. I think that I would stab that guy with a fork

After all,I do not always "hear" things right. I would simply assume that he wanted me to stab him with a fork.

[frustrated_lefty]

21. It is a complicated subject.

Here's the simple answer. If you're female and in a relation where you feel you're being treated that way, you can actually file for divorce.

Stop entering or staying in relationships with assholes. Why is that so difficult?

[AnnInLa]

23. Goodness....look at all the Newbies!

Welcome!

[BlueIris]

24. I've started using those threads to expand my Ignore list.

The people justifying and/or apologizing for rapists aren't worth the cognitive effort it takes to get offended by them. I alert, Ignore and move on.

[Cleita]

30. Me too. I only had to start using it this year, but it's getting longer.

eom

[Cleita]

28. I'm getting grossed out by a lot of what I am reading here

from the minds of so-called liberal DUers. I know now why this country is in trouble because it's these attitudes that the reich wing tap into to get people to vote for them. Now we know most conservatives are xenophobic about women, race and ethnicity, but when I see the same ideas coming from liberals, I am frankly astonished and very sad.

[Katherine Brengle]

79. Same here...

I also find it disturbing that there are DUers who seem to think that sex os the one and only basis of a marriage.

So much for love, mutual respect, and companionship, eh?

[MrSlayer]

29. I'm not a woman but I find it creepy too.

My wife isn't my fucktoy, she's my partner and friend as well as my lover. I might pout and complain a bit if I'm feeling "anxious" but I would never even consider simply taking her against her will. First off, it's just wrong and secondly she'd probably go "Bobbit" on me the next chance she got. She simply wouldn't put up with that shit. Beside that, sex is far more enjoyable when it's a mutual give and take. It's no fun with an unwilling person unless you are some kind of sicko.

[Minnesota Libra]

31. It's funny you should mention Mrs Bobbit,.......................

.....I threatened to do that exact thing to my ex one time. I simply went on to assure him the cops would never find it in some field because by that time I would put it down the garbage disposal. I don't know whether he believed me but he was smart enough never to call my bluff on the matter.:bounce: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[PetraPooh]

38. Except Bobbit did that because she wanted more and better sex,

not because anyone tried to rape her. So you are supporting the concept that violence from unsatisfied spouses is not only okay but GREAT.

[Minnesota Libra]

41. No I am not - quite the opposite - Mrs Bobbit was forced........

....into sex by her husband more than once. It needs to stop and if a woman has to defend herself then do it good.:wtf:

[PetraPooh]

46. Do more research, she bobbed him because he didn't stack up

to her sexual desires. Trigger happy if I recall correctly. She wanted MORE and BETTER sex, not less.

From Wikepedia . . . . In statements to police, she explained that she had cut off the penis because her husband was "selfish" and "wouldn't give her an orgasm."

[Minnesota Libra]

64. If what you are saying is the "official story" then...............

.....I'll go back to my iron skillet idea. Other than a truly horrific headache there wouldn't be much evidence left behind with that. :rofl:

[PetraPooh]

75. I approve of self defense, even an iron skillet, but

violence to achieve something from another, I don't. By the way, please note that even the man convicted did NOT tie up his wife. I don't know how he "forced" her to have sex with him, but no violence is mentioned and the "tying up" part of the charge was unfounded.

[BattyDem]

32. You sound like a great guy ...

your wife is a lucky woman. :toast:

[DanCa]

35. On behalf of my gender

I want to appologize for threads like that. Just please don't judge all men by our worst examples.
Hmm of course I said men, and not thirteen year old boys pretending to be men.

[upi402]

39. LOL @ "fork it over"

Uhhh, gentlemen... that thar love words may be why you're not getting any. (just a thought)

[MuseRider]

42. I keep one of these around

Bloodless Castrators.
Free Shipping!
For Castrating and Castration of Livestock.


But then that is just me. ;)

[poverlay]

45. OOooohhh, I like that. Kind of gives me the shivers. I think it needs

something though. Maybe just drop the bloodless part?

[MuseRider]

47. I was trying to be kind.

:P

[poverlay]

43. Being married to a beautiful, sexy woman and having a beautiful

daughter about to hit puberty~ please forward any addresses of such completely worthless asspickles so that I may destroy them in the most violent, painful, and brutal way possible.

If they're going to play the greater physical strength equals superiority card, I'm going to introduce their anus to the most horrible thing I can find.
Maybe a razor wire wrapped baseball bat.

I apologize for the gruesomeness of this post, but I simply can not and will not abide rape... of anyone, ever. It makes me go all exorcist and such.

[Katherine Brengle]

87. Rock on, brother!

[Rosemary2205]

50. Men don't like being treated like this either.

I have a sister in law like this. Her idea is that dear brother is just expected to be in the mood at her beck and call. Her total disrespect for him as a person is painful to him and frustrating to those of us who care about him.

There's guys out there who say they would love to be some woman's sex slave but truth be told, being treated as nothing but a piece of meat is degrading for anyone in that situation.

[stickdog]

57. Yes. Sorry, gals, but it works both ways --

although most men prefer being a love slave than never getting any.

[Katherine Brengle]

92. It certainly goes both ways--hell yeah!

I think the focus has been on the male bc the original story worked that way, but like I said somewhere else here today--no one, regardless of gender, has a right to expect sex from another person.

[Katherine Brengle]

51. It's our fault, you know --

OKay, that was just to get attention, but...

We live in a society that trains boys/men to feel absolutely entitled to sex, money, and power. We train them to find violence, especially against women, acceptable and effective.

We, as a society, raise girls to be subservient. (Individual parents may not, but society does.)

Add the two together, and there you have it.

[stickdog]

52. Oh, come on. It's only fair. If women can demand spooning, then why

can't men demand forking? ;-)

(It's just a bad pun, not a rape endorsement.)

[PetraPooh]

55. ROFL, thanks for lightening my perspective a bit.

[poverlay]

67. Funny stuff. Where can I find more of that cartoon with the guy on the

phone you have? It's hilarious and I'd love to read more..

Thanks in advance...

[stickdog]

103. Get Your War On!

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html

53 pages worth.

One of my favorites, from 2001:

[Katherine Brengle]

93. I loathe spooning, lol...

[greenbriar]

74. I am with ya sister

I hate the fact that men think they are entitled to it

like we are just meat.

it is really a TURN OFF

[hyphenate]

84. I think that any man who tries to lord

over any woman is a scumbag and should be dumped as quickly as it is humanly possible, and a restraining order issued against him. And if such a scumbag doesn't adhere to such an order, he should be forewarned that if he comes near that woman again, she has the right to shoot him, to kill or maim, however she needs to. Sorry--that kind of a guy not only creeps me out, it makes me very angry to see their type is still existing in our world. IMHO, perhaps this is a good enough reason never to have children!!! (A little genetic engineering--wipe out that gene!!)

[Iniquitous Bunny]

85. Yes, it does creep me out.

However, if two married people are extremely sexually incompatible, they would probably be better to end their marriage. Sexuality is not an entitlement, but a mutually shared experience. For someone who prefers an active sex life (daily, several times a week for instance) who is married to someone who could care less, well, how could that work so they both feel happy? I just don't see how it could. Still, it's not an entitlement. Just two people who'd be better off with someone else probably.

[Retired AF Dem]

95. I would never ever think about forcing myself apon my wife

I could count on one hand the times we have had sex in the past 22 years. I guess we are more friends than anything else. I guess I can live with that.

[liberalpress]

113. Our sexlife has dropped off a bit, too..

but.. there are ways to share intimacy with out sex as well

[Iniquitous Bunny]

114. Anyone who forces themselves on another person should be in jail.

Period. I have no empathy for that, but I do have empathy in other respects. If you and your spouse are happy (or at least content) with your marriage, that's wonderful. For some people, it might be a dealbreaker in the marriage and I don't think it makes one a terrible human being. I think, like many things, views on money, politics, family size/planning, etc., it's something that the people involved must come to a consensus about. If there are radical changes or differences, it will cause problems. I happened to notice a lot of people on this thread said that it's "not a big deal" and for them it may not be a big deal. I'm just pointing out that for some people, it may be and I don't think they should be vilified.

[walldude]

107. Well I certainly wouldn't defend a rapist or a man who wants to

control his wife. I will tell you this though. My first wife and I, before we were married had sex 2 or 3 times a week. After she got the ring it dropped to twice a month, then to once a month, then to whenever she "wanted to deal with it". I never raped her and I never cheated. Mind you, one of the things she used to tell me was that when we got married our sex life wouldn't change. :eyes: We ended up getting divorced and while sex wasn't the only reason it was part of it. I learned my lesson, and made sure before I got married again that not only did we have many things in common but we had the same sex drive. I'm in my 40's and she's in her 50's and we have sex more now than ever in our lives. Seems sad to me that so many people are so uptight about sex. It is the most fun, joyous thing 2 people in love can do and if people spent more time doing it we'd spend less time fighting about it.....

[sweetheart]

109. am i the only person who gets creeped out by facile stereo's

who make judgements based on dissonant bias's,
perhaps even with many examples even,
but not a comprehensive set of the highest,
values that drive the other of us god given.
Ignorant hormones looking for a duracell,
powering their success, love economic zen,
the guy has not a thing to do with getting even,
its about the state of mind of relationship hell.

Who fucking cares, man dog or woman,
wanting to shag, reproduce, sweaty hormones not evil,
imprisoning women for choosing their own medication,
sounds and aweful lot like slavery, republican falling anvil.
While we fight our own for a smaller prise,
the enemy steals our power, no big suprise.

[Justice Is Comin]

116. All I know is

I would have made a good prostitute. lol.

[radio4progressives]

117. In total Agreement.. It's Misogyny Running Amok ...

I haven't been a member for longer than a year and half, and i have never ever seen the volume of racists, sexists and just plain bigotted postings one after another - and i had suspected serious level of infiltration by bigots and sexists but then i see well known members defending racism and sexism - so, i'm at a loss.

White Supremacy rules, and white supremacy is also misogynistic by definition because white supremacy/white dominance is a patriarchal psychological construct.

[omega minimo]

121. Just say FORK YOU!!

:evilgrin:

[MountainLaurel]

128. Regressed? We never left those days.

:cry:

[MoonRiver]

162. I guess I've been married so long to a really good guy that I don't relate

I sincerely hope that any woman, on DU or elsewhere, who's involved in such a relationship gets out of it asap.