6 ms·

>In the case of married couples, the spouse has a moral obligation to satisfy the other sexually within moral and reasonable limits (i.e., sexual abuse or objec

>In the case of married couples, the spouse has a moral obligation to satisfy the other sexually within moral and reasonable limits (i.e., sexual abuse or objectification of the other is never admissible). I can't agree with those statements. No one, not your spouse, not your significant other and not anyone else is obliged to provide sexual satisfaction to you or anyone else. What's more, while consent is never optional, pleasing one's partner should be a joy, and if your partner desires objectification or even what you (note that what you think and believe doesn't apply to everyone else) term "sexual abuse," that's between consenting adults. Your judgement as to what is "moral" is an individual judgement that applies to you. There are more things (as well as kinks and fetishes) in earth and heaven than are dreamt of in your philosophy. And just so it's crystal clear, consent is never optional and no one, regardless of relationship status is obligated to provide sexual satisfaction to anyone.

dTal 6y ago
You have interpreted the parent exceedingly uncharitably. If one partner in a monogamous relationship suddenly announces that from that day forth there shall be no more sex, the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset. Most people aren't signed up to the idea of never having sex again. Consent is never optional, but neither should it be unreasonably withheld in a monogamous relationship in which sex is a key component. Rights and responsibilities always pair.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >You have interpreted the parent exceedingly uncharitably. Perhaps I have. However, I don't see how much more "charitably" I can interpret what they wrote. Or do you think that I'm wrong in my assertion? >If one partner in a monogamous relationship suddenly announces that from that day forth there shall be no more sex, the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset. I don't disagree with that statement at all. But I stand by my assertion that no one is obligated to sexually satisfy anyone else. If my spouse/SO decided that she wanted no more sex with me, sure I'd be upset. And as my feelings are my own, I'm entitled to be upset. However she, as a sentient being, has agency. As such, she (not me) gets to decide what happens with her body. Should a situation similar to your example occur, that should be a big red flag that something is wrong in your relationship. And if that's the case, going on about how your spouse is obliged to pleasure you certainly isn't going to improve things. >Consent is never optional, but neither should it be unreasonably withheld in a monogamous relationship in which sex is a key component. How do you handle the logic problem set up by your statement? If consent to sexual activity is not optional, how is someone obliged to provide such sexual activity if they don't wish to consent? >Rights and responsibilities always pair. Neither you nor I have the right to demand sexual contact with someone who does not consent. Full stop. It doesn't matter what your relationship with that person might be. And providing you (or anyone else) with sexual contact isn't anyone's responsibility, again regardless of what sort of relationship you might have with them. And that's the issue that I have with both your and the parent poster's statements. You said it yourself: Consent is not optional. If you truly believe that, how can you even entertain the idea that someone should be obligated, or have the responsibility to provide sexual satisfaction to anyone if they choose not to do so? I don't disagree that it's customary for those in a romantic/sexual relationship to engage in sexual activity. But no one is obligated or required to do so. And if you don't think that's true, consider this[0]. Because coercing someone into non-consensual sexual activity is called rape. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape
  - volkk 6y ago
    > I don't disagree with that statement at all. But I stand by my assertion that no one is obligated to sexually satisfy anyone else. i would argue that no one is obligated to do anything at all thanks to free will. culturally, societally, or otherwise, well--that's a different story
    - rapferreira 6y ago
      >i would argue that no one is obligated to do anything at all thanks to free will. Ah, sure they are. By the nature of events which preceded you and produced both your DNA and all entirely external circumstances, you are obligated to carry out your free agency in exactly the way you do.
    - loco5niner 6y ago
      Yes, but free will gives you the right to enter into agreements/contracts, which if you later refuse to honor, you are then forsaking an obligation.
  - dTal 6y ago
    It doesn't sound as if you recognize the concept of an obligation at all. Yes, we all have agency. Locking someone in a room without their consent is illegal. Taking someone's money without their consent is illegal as well. But I am nevertheless obliged to remain at work until 5:30, and my boss is obliged to pay me. When we enter into relationships of any type with other people, we willingly sacrifice our agency in myriad ways. Sometimes you have to meet people halfway on things. And sex isn't some super special thing that sits untouchably above all the rest of social interaction - it's just one more thing that, invariably and in many ways, you will have to compromise on. >going on about how your spouse is obliged to pleasure you certainly isn't going to improve things. Going on about consent isn't either.
    - Thorentis 6y ago
      Yeah, the parent seems to think that expecting sex after entering a monogamous relationship is almost rape. People are so concerned with infringing on other people's "rights" and obtaining conscent for everything under the sun, that they just can't understand the idea of obligations or responsibilities anymore. Marriage is a huge responsibility. Entering into it means you agree to the responsibilities it carries. Each person should be well aware of these responsibilities before entering into one. If your partner is in the mood for sex but you aren't on a regular basis, maybe a little bit of self sacrifice is needed. I'm sure the other person has helped them out doing their chores when they weren't feeling like it, or going out of their way for them in some way. Marriage is all about each person trying to give more to it than the other. I don't know why sex I suddenly a taboo topic when it comes to rights and responsibilities.
- falseprofit 6y ago
  Their interpretation was fair. >the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset. Obviously. No one here is trying to police people's emotions. If someone doesn't want sex, then they have every right to "withhold" it from anyone, without being deemed "unreasonable".
rapferreira 6y ago
Society will praise your virtuous stance for its anti-rape sentiments, but your views are equally or perhaps more arbitrary than his Judeo-Christian view. Note that saying a spouse has a "moral obligation" is different than saying the other spouse has the right to demand and force the fulfillment of the obligation. I mean, it makes sense too. When my girl wants good D, I'm (morally) obliged to give it to her. That's part of the premise of a sexual relationship. I'm not going to deprive her of something that she relies on me for- after all, by virtue of our establishment of monogamous mutual exclusivity, she has to come to me for the fulfillment of that primal desire. She could go get the D from any guy she wants. I have good D, and she knows she can rely on me not to deprive her (and I mean truly deprive, not just playing hard-to-get-i-know-you-want-this deprive). The same goes for her. There is a metaphorical refusal to take no for an answer that comes with a healthy sexual monogamous relationship.
GuB-42 6y ago
A relationship is like a moral contract. Traditionally, the contract is that you should sexually satisfy your partner in exchange for their fidelity. Of course, in civilized countries, you are now free to choose another agreement, including "fuck whoever you want" to slave contracts if that's your kink. None of them are legally binding since you are free to do what you want with your body, including "cheating". There are a few remnant with regards to marriage. For example in France, both cheating and not satisfying your partner are cause for divorce. It is mostly symbolic though, "winning" the case doesn't give you much rights.

dTal 6y ago

You have interpreted the parent exceedingly uncharitably. If one partner in a monogamous relationship suddenly announces that from that day forth there shall be no more sex, the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset. Most people aren't signed up to the idea of never having sex again. Consent is never optional, but neither should it be unreasonably withheld in a monogamous relationship in which sex is a key component. Rights and responsibilities always pair.

nobody9999 6y ago
>You have interpreted the parent exceedingly uncharitably. Perhaps I have. However, I don't see how much more "charitably" I can interpret what they wrote. Or do you think that I'm wrong in my assertion? >If one partner in a monogamous relationship suddenly announces that from that day forth there shall be no more sex, the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset. I don't disagree with that statement at all. But I stand by my assertion that no one is obligated to sexually satisfy anyone else. If my spouse/SO decided that she wanted no more sex with me, sure I'd be upset. And as my feelings are my own, I'm entitled to be upset. However she, as a sentient being, has agency. As such, she (not me) gets to decide what happens with her body. Should a situation similar to your example occur, that should be a big red flag that something is wrong in your relationship. And if that's the case, going on about how your spouse is obliged to pleasure you certainly isn't going to improve things. >Consent is never optional, but neither should it be unreasonably withheld in a monogamous relationship in which sex is a key component. How do you handle the logic problem set up by your statement? If consent to sexual activity is not optional, how is someone obliged to provide such sexual activity if they don't wish to consent? >Rights and responsibilities always pair. Neither you nor I have the right to demand sexual contact with someone who does not consent. Full stop. It doesn't matter what your relationship with that person might be. And providing you (or anyone else) with sexual contact isn't anyone's responsibility, again regardless of what sort of relationship you might have with them. And that's the issue that I have with both your and the parent poster's statements. You said it yourself: Consent is not optional. If you truly believe that, how can you even entertain the idea that someone should be obligated, or have the responsibility to provide sexual satisfaction to anyone if they choose not to do so? I don't disagree that it's customary for those in a romantic/sexual relationship to engage in sexual activity. But no one is obligated or required to do so. And if you don't think that's true, consider this[0]. Because coercing someone into non-consensual sexual activity is called rape. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape
- volkk 6y ago
  > I don't disagree with that statement at all. But I stand by my assertion that no one is obligated to sexually satisfy anyone else. i would argue that no one is obligated to do anything at all thanks to free will. culturally, societally, or otherwise, well--that's a different story
  - rapferreira 6y ago
    >i would argue that no one is obligated to do anything at all thanks to free will. Ah, sure they are. By the nature of events which preceded you and produced both your DNA and all entirely external circumstances, you are obligated to carry out your free agency in exactly the way you do.
  - loco5niner 6y ago
    Yes, but free will gives you the right to enter into agreements/contracts, which if you later refuse to honor, you are then forsaking an obligation.
- dTal 6y ago
  It doesn't sound as if you recognize the concept of an obligation at all. Yes, we all have agency. Locking someone in a room without their consent is illegal. Taking someone's money without their consent is illegal as well. But I am nevertheless obliged to remain at work until 5:30, and my boss is obliged to pay me. When we enter into relationships of any type with other people, we willingly sacrifice our agency in myriad ways. Sometimes you have to meet people halfway on things. And sex isn't some super special thing that sits untouchably above all the rest of social interaction - it's just one more thing that, invariably and in many ways, you will have to compromise on. >going on about how your spouse is obliged to pleasure you certainly isn't going to improve things. Going on about consent isn't either.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    Yeah, the parent seems to think that expecting sex after entering a monogamous relationship is almost rape. People are so concerned with infringing on other people's "rights" and obtaining conscent for everything under the sun, that they just can't understand the idea of obligations or responsibilities anymore. Marriage is a huge responsibility. Entering into it means you agree to the responsibilities it carries. Each person should be well aware of these responsibilities before entering into one. If your partner is in the mood for sex but you aren't on a regular basis, maybe a little bit of self sacrifice is needed. I'm sure the other person has helped them out doing their chores when they weren't feeling like it, or going out of their way for them in some way. Marriage is all about each person trying to give more to it than the other. I don't know why sex I suddenly a taboo topic when it comes to rights and responsibilities.
falseprofit 6y ago
Their interpretation was fair. >the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset. Obviously. No one here is trying to police people's emotions. If someone doesn't want sex, then they have every right to "withhold" it from anyone, without being deemed "unreasonable".

rapferreira 6y ago

Society will praise your virtuous stance for its anti-rape sentiments, but your views are equally or perhaps more arbitrary than his Judeo-Christian view. Note that saying a spouse has a "moral obligation" is different than saying the other spouse has the right to demand and force the fulfillment of the obligation. I mean, it makes sense too. When my girl wants good D, I'm (morally) obliged to give it to her. That's part of the premise of a sexual relationship. I'm not going to deprive her of something that she relies on me for- after all, by virtue of our establishment of monogamous mutual exclusivity, she has to come to me for the fulfillment of that primal desire. She could go get the D from any guy she wants. I have good D, and she knows she can rely on me not to deprive her (and I mean truly deprive, not just playing hard-to-get-i-know-you-want-this deprive). The same goes for her. There is a metaphorical refusal to take no for an answer that comes with a healthy sexual monogamous relationship.

GuB-42 6y ago

A relationship is like a moral contract. Traditionally, the contract is that you should sexually satisfy your partner in exchange for their fidelity. Of course, in civilized countries, you are now free to choose another agreement, including "fuck whoever you want" to slave contracts if that's your kink. None of them are legally binding since you are free to do what you want with your body, including "cheating". There are a few remnant with regards to marriage. For example in France, both cheating and not satisfying your partner are cause for divorce. It is mostly symbolic though, "winning" the case doesn't give you much rights.