# Sex is in a relationship is a RIGHT, not a privilege



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Edit: thought I should clarify this in the OP. I not suggesting forcing your partner to have sex with you at any time. I AM suggesting leaving if your partners continually doesn't have sex with you for extended periods because they "don't feel like it". such an individual is selfish and doesn't deserve a partner. 

Edit 2:
obvious exceptions include (but are not limited to)
- physical injury
- severe mental illness

when you enter into a monogamous relationship, you agree to satisfy your partner's sexual needs and desires. obviously, this is within reason (like, if you're sick or just worked 5 hours of overtime, you're not obligated to fuck anyone), but you do not have the right to abstain from sex for weeks at a time simply because you "don't feel like it". your partner has needs to and it is *your* responsibility to satisfy them.

I'm tired of all this selfish shit of "you don't have to have sex with anyone if you don't want to".
fine, if you don't want to have sex *leave the relationship so the other person can find someone who does*. if you're unwilling to meet your partner halfway and satisfy his/her needs, you are selfish at best, controlling at worst and don't deserve to be in a relationship.

if in such a relationship, make sure you are holding up your end of the bargain too, as this could be a reason for them not wanting to have sex with you (for instance, if you suck in bed, have not been spending quality time with them or are neglecting them emotionally, no shit they aren't gonna want ot have sex with you)


----------



## imaginaryrobot (Jun 11, 2013)

Or the person who is feeling unsatisfied can leave the relationship to find someone that is fulfilling his/her needs... 

Why are you putting it on the other person who is likely happy in the relationship to break it off?


----------



## WolfStar (Aug 18, 2009)

People can make any kind of relationship they like. With or without sex. That's really all that needs to be said.


----------



## Night & Day (Jul 17, 2010)

Since I don't have a right to abstain from sex after a couple of weeks and my partner wants sex now but I clearly don't want to...what would that be?...ah yes, rape.


----------



## tofutti (Oct 4, 2013)

OP is condoning rape. Perhaps OP's sexual frustration stems from previous experience. Perhaps if OP was a more respectful/compassionate partner, he would get laid more. I'm going to do some loose supposition and say that OP's bitterness culminates from his own poor attitude towards his sexual partners. Just saying.


----------



## dragthewaters (Feb 9, 2013)

Oh, get over yourselves. The OP is not condoning rape. He's saying that people have no right to be in a relationship if they're going to abstain from the sexual component of it, unless it is previously agreed upon to be an asexual relationship.


----------



## tofutti (Oct 4, 2013)

Just my two cents. Obviously the OP was posting to get a debate going, which he successfully did.


----------



## Night & Day (Jul 17, 2010)

thismustbetheplace said:


> Oh, get over yourselves. The OP is not condoning rape. He's saying that people have no right to be in a relationship if they're going to abstain from the sexual component of it, unless it is previously agreed upon to be an asexual relationship.


In contrast, people have no right to force others against their will.


----------



## dragthewaters (Feb 9, 2013)

Fine Shrine said:


> In contrast, people have no right to force others against their will.


It's not about forcing people against their will. It's about that if the abstaining person is not willing to put in the sexual component of a relationship, then they should not be in a relationship in the first place. They should seek out a friendship instead.


----------



## tofutti (Oct 4, 2013)

The attitude of being sexually entitled to another person's body is a very dangerous one and can lead to some very ugly situations. This is the sentiment being expressed by the OP when he says that his partner does not have the right to abstain from sex... I'd encourage the OP to do some careful reconsideration of what he's saying.

In regards to thismustbetheplace's valid reading of the OP's post... of "He's saying that people have no right to be in a relationship if they're going to abstain from the sexual component of it, unless it is previously agreed upon to be an asexual relationship", I'm going to say that it is the OP's duty as a partner in a monogamous relationship to openly communicate and work towards a point where they are both happy. Failing that, the OP can leave the relationship if he is not satisfied and has exhausted all means to rescue it. No one is forcing the OP to stay in a sexless relationship that he is unhappy in. We are just expressing that being sexually entitled to someone else's body is not OK.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> when you enter into a monogamous relationship, you agree to satisfy your partner's sexual needs and desires. obviously, this is within reason (like, if you're sick or just worked 5 hours of overtime, you're not obligated to fuck anyone), but you do not have the right to abstain from sex for weeks at a time simply because you "don't feel like it". your partner has needs to and it is *your* responsibility to satisfy them.
> 
> I'm tired of all this selfish shit of "you don't have to have sex with anyone if you don't want to".
> fine, if you don't want to have sex *leave the relationship so the other person can find someone who does*. if you're unwilling to meet your partner halfway and satisfy his/her needs, you are selfish at best, controlling at worst and don't deserve to be in a relationship.


Nobody owes you sex. Non-sexual relationships are not automatically inferior. Of my relationships, about half were non-sexual by mutual choice, and I am still on good terms with all of those exes. They never felt deprived or bitter about the arrangement. The idea that you are entitled to sex is a personal issue that you are projecting onto others who may not relate at all. It is a subjective preference.

A person who doesn't feel like having sex has every right to abstain, for as long as desired, for any reason. It is strange that you consider it selfish to have a choice about whether one feels like having sex, but that you do not recognize the selfishness of demanding that someone have sex against his/her will. Which is really more controlling? 

If your rules were the norm, what would happen to romantic asexuals? What about virgins who want to stay that way until marriage? What about people who give up sex for spiritual reasons, or people who are physically incapable of it? What about people who have been so traumatized by having to deal with arrogant, pushy partners who won't take "no" for an answer that they are no longer comfortable with sex? Should such people just give up on seeking romantic companionship? Should they languish without any affection at all, simply because there are some pompous control freaks out there who think sex is a right, to be taken regardless of the partner's feelings and needs? 

I am glad I am not in a relationship with such a person. I pity anyone who accidentally ends up with someone who thinks that way about sex.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

tofutti said:


> The attitude of being sexually entitled to another person's body is a very dangerous one and can lead to some very ugly situations. This is the sentiment being expressed by the OP when he says that his partner does not have the right to abstain from sex... I'd encourage the OP to do some careful reconsideration of what he's saying.
> 
> In regards to thismustbetheplace's valid reading of the OP's post... of "He's saying that people have no right to be in a relationship if they're going to abstain from the sexual component of it, unless it is previously agreed upon to be an asexual relationship", I'm going to say that it is the OP's duty as a partner in a monogamous relationship to openly communicate and work towards a point where they are both happy. Failing that, the OP can leave the relationship if he is not satisfied and has exhausted all means to rescue it. No one is forcing the OP to stay in a sexless relationship that he is unhappy in. We are just expressing that being sexually entitled to someone else's body is not OK.


This is exactly what I was trying to express. Thank you.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

snail said:


> Nobody owes you sex. *Non-sexual relationships are not automatically inferior.* Of my relationships, about half were non-sexual by mutual choice, and I am still on good terms with all of those exes.


they are very much inferior. I find the idea revolting (unless you're asexual, but true asexuals are rare).




> They never felt deprived or bitter about the arrangement. The idea that you are entitled to sex is a personal issue that you are projecting onto others who may not relate at all. It is a subjective preference.
> A person who doesn't feel like having sex has every right to abstain, for as long as desired, for any reason. It is strange that you consider it selfish to have a choice about whether one feels like having sex, but that you do not recognize the selfishness of demanding that someone have sex against his/her will. Which is really more controlling?


depends
overall I'd say the person not fulfilling the other person abstaining from sex, because they brought the problem about. 
unless otherwise stated, your responsibility to fulfill your partner's sexual needs (within reason) is implied upon agreeing to a relationship. in other words, if you plan on abstaining from sex on a regular basis, you need to tell them that ahead of time and work it into the agreement (I like the idea of having a written agreement beforehand regardless of if they do or not so that both parties are on the same page as to what their expectations are)

obviously, I'm talking about _extended_ periods of abstaining from sex. there is nothing wrong with saying "I had a long day, not tonight" every once in awhile. 



> If your rules were the norm, what would happen to romantic asexuals?


they are irrelevant to this conversation



> What about virgins who want to stay that way until marriage?


that is something that needs to be agreed upon before the start of the relationship.



> What about people who give up sex for spiritual reasons


they're idiots



> or people who are physically incapable of it? What about people who have been so traumatized by having to deal with arrogant, pushy partners who won't take "no" for an answer that they are no longer comfortable with sex?


these are outliers. most people do not fit any of these categories



> Should such people just give up on seeking romantic companionship?


from people who have sexual needs, yes. 
from individuals in outlying groups who do not want or need sex, no

PS: on a side note, the other partner is probably at fault too. for instance, if your partner doesn't want to have sex cuz you suck in bed, it is your responsibility to improve and fulfill your end of the bargain (fulfilling their needs).


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

tofutti said:


> In regards to thismustbetheplace's valid reading of the OP's post... of "He's saying that people have no right to be in a relationship if they're going to abstain from the sexual component of it, unless it is previously agreed upon to be an asexual relationship", I'm going to say that it is the OP's duty as a partner in a monogamous relationship to openly communicate and work towards a point where they are both happy. Failing that, the OP can leave the relationship if he is not satisfied and has exhausted all means to rescue it. No one is forcing the OP to stay in a sexless relationship that he is unhappy in. We are just expressing that being sexually entitled to someone else's body is not OK.


nothing here I disagree with. communication is absolutely essential and mutual working towards each others' needs was kinda the point in a way (I don't just spring expectations on people out of the blue. that would be narcissistic as fuck).

not to worry, I make all my expectations _very_ clear on such matters (though obviously I present them more casually. Fi/Te 1-fixer lectures aren't sexy lol) and ask what their expectations are as well (for instance, maybe they have a suit fetish and need me to dress in a suit before fucking them. if it's something they need in order to be turned on, I'd be more than happy to do it for them). negotiations are made until an arrangement in which both parties are satisfied with made. 

it's not like I'm going to rape them if they refuse sex, but if they continue to do so after several warnings, I'm out. there are plenty of guys out there who would fuck me on a regular basis, so I'll find them.

PS: knowing about instinctual variants is important here. this is one reason I would never get into a serious relationship with an Sx last type.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> when you enter into a monogamous relationship, you agree to satisfy your partner's sexual needs and desires. obviously, this is within reason (like, if you're sick or just worked 5 hours of overtime, you're not obligated to fuck anyone), but you do not have the right to abstain from sex for weeks at a time simply because you "don't feel like it". your partner has needs to and it is *your* responsibility to satisfy them.


Personally, I would not not NOT want to have sex with a lover who was only doing it from a sense of responsibility to satisfy my needs and desires. I mean, *ugh ick no*._ 

*Mutual *_desire and satisfaction is part of what makes sex enjoyable for me. I would be seriously turned off if my lover was just doing it out of a sense of responsibility to get me off. I mean, to me that's ... it's actually kind of horrible for me to consider.

That's just me, of course.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Aquarian said:


> Personally, I would not not NOT want to have sex with a lover who was only doing it from a sense of responsibility to satisfy my needs and desires. I mean, *ugh ick no*._
> *Mutual *_desire and satisfaction is part of what makes sex enjoyable for me. I would be seriously turned off if my lover was just doing it out of a sense of responsibility to get me off. I mean, to me that's ... it's actually kind of horrible for me to consider.
> That's just me, of course.


I'm the same way (which may seem surprising given the OP), but there are easier things to do if you don't feel like full on sex. for instance, if I were too tired for sex, I'd still give my man a short blow job and maybe stick my fingers up his ass if he was into that.


----------



## BrownSugar (Sep 10, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> when you enter into a monogamous relationship, you agree to satisfy your partner's sexual needs and desires. obviously, this is within reason (like, if you're sick or just worked 5 hours of overtime, you're not obligated to fuck anyone), but you do not have the right to abstain from sex for weeks at a time simply because you "don't feel like it". your partner has needs to and it is *your* responsibility to satisfy them.
> 
> I'm tired of all this selfish shit of "you don't have to have sex with anyone if you don't want to".
> fine, if you don't want to have sex *leave the relationship so the other person can find someone who does*. if you're unwilling to meet your partner halfway and satisfy his/her needs, you are selfish at best, controlling at worst and don't deserve to be in a relationship.


I agree with most of this but I find that if everything started out fine (sexually) and then one person doesn't want to have sex it isn't necessarily because the sexless person is selfish. It could be that he/she is not satisfied with what is happening OUTSIDE of the bedroom and emotionally detached. For many people if there is no longer a mental connection then you aren't gonna get them to perform sexually , I don't care how HOT the guy/girl is. Or, it could be a physical problem that the sexless person doesn't realize. If you have honestly eliminated those two things possibilities, then yeah, all those those things you said.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> they are very much inferior. I find the idea revolting (unless you're asexual, but true asexuals are rare).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you trolling, or do you actually believe this? It is hard for me to imagine someone who actually thinks that anyone who dates him automatically owes him sex, and that it has to be exactly the way he likes it in order to count. 

What if your partner doesn't want to have sex with you because you have character flaws that are unrelated to your sexual performance, such as the fact that you take sex for granted and treat it as something expected rather than appreciating it as an expression of mutual love and desire to be shared only in moments when it is felt authentically by both partners? What if the idea of emotionally disconnected sex is such a turn-off to your partner that he would rather deprive himself of it than be degraded that way, but what if your partner still loves you enough to want to remain in a romantic relationship and work on any issues despite this? Would you reject him because he won't settle for going through the empty motions just to please you?


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

I think that you do have a point,
But it's rendered invalid by the entitlement of the post,
Or at least the person demanding the sex from the other partner,
Not everyone has the same sex drive,
And not everyone has the same needs from a relationship,
So just as much as the more sexual partner has a right to ASK for sex,
The less sexual one has a right to ask that they accommodate their need not to have AS much sex.

Compromise is best for situations like these,
And if it's a continual problem,
They should go separate ways and find people more able to satisfy BOTH their sexual needs.

Currently the post seems very one sided and doesn't get the perspective of the less sexual partner,
And it seems like they're given the blame,
When in actuality it's both partners who need to work at achieving a good balance.

In my personal experience(As the more sexual partner),
I've had to make compromises to accommodate my less sexual partners needs,
As much as they did so for me.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

BrownSugar said:


> I agree with most of this but I find that if everything started out fine (sexually) and then one person doesn't want to have sex it isn't necessarily because the sexless person is selfish. It could be that he/she is not satisfied with what is happening OUTSIDE of the bedroom and emotionally detached. For many people if you don't take care of their is no mental connection then you aren't gonna get them to sexually , I don't care how HOT the guy/girl is. Or, it could be a physical problem that the sexless person doesn't realize. If you have honestly eliminated those two things possibilities, then yeah, all those those things you said.


I implied this, I will make it more explicit in the OP


----------



## BrownSugar (Sep 10, 2013)

tofutti said:


> The attitude of being sexually entitled to another person's body is a very dangerous one and can lead to some very ugly situations.


I like this..


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm the same way (which may seem surprising given the OP), but there are easier things to do if you don't feel like full on sex. for instance, if I were too tired for sex, I'd still give my man a short blow job and maybe stick my fingers up his ass if he was into that.


I guess for me it's more about what turns me on. For example, I wouldn't want my lover to bring me to orgasm if she wasn't going to let me return the favor. I'd be more likely to be willing to do that for her and not have it reciprocated, but she's the same way as I am so ... yeah. The couple of times it's been one sided have felt really off to me. 

Although this reminds me, one time a couple of years ago she was so tired one night that she fell asleep with her fingers on me and it took me a little while to figure out she was not trying some cool new technique because her fingers were twitching on and off in her sleep in what could have been a tease and I was thinking, "hmm, that's pretty interesting" ... and then I realized she actually was asleep. It was pretty funny. But I digress.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Mzansi said:


> In my personal experience(As the more sexual partner),
> I've had to make compromises to accommodate my less sexual partners needs,
> As much as they did so for me.


You know, I think this is a good point - why shouldn't adaptation go both ways?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

snail said:


> Are you trolling, or do you actually believe this? It is hard for me to imagine someone who actually thinks that anyone who dates him automatically owes him sex, and that it has to be exactly the way he likes it in order to count.


nope, I actually believe this. I think it's actually a fairly common view, but most people won't come out and say it's how they really feel.
and again, it's not "you're dating me so I'm gonna make you have sex with me!" rather "you are refusing to satisfy my needs for stretches of time, so goodbye, you don't deserve me" 




> What if your partner doesn't want to have sex with you because you have character flaws that are unrelated to your sexual performance, such as the fact that you take sex for granted and treat it as something expected rather than appreciating it as an expression of mutual love and desire to be shared only in moments when it is felt authentically by both partners?


of course mutual love and desire is important, but sex is also a base/instinctual need that needs to be slaked on a regular basis (which will vary depending on the individual)
if this were the case, I would find out about it and either work on improving myself (if I felt they were correct) or break up because things were clearly not going to work out. 



> What if the idea of emotionally disconnected sex is such a turn-off to your partner that he would rather deprive himself of it than be degraded that way, but what if your partner still loves you enough to want to remain in a romantic relationship and work on any issues despite this? Would you reject him because he won't settle for going through the empty motions just to please you?


bottom line is, sex on a regular basis is required. I'm not staying in a relationship where I don't get sex. if he's willing to work on it (naturally, this would be mutual), wonderful. however, if 
a) he is not turned on by me
or
b) we want drastically different frequencies of sex (for instance, if I want it 5 times a week and he wants it twice a month)
it's time to break up anyway, cuz our preferences and needs are not compatible


----------



## imaginaryrobot (Jun 11, 2013)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but I almost feel as though you should take your own advice.

You have expressed that you require sex very regularly and that anybody in a relationship with you would need to have a similar sex drive for the relationship to actually work out (or be willing to compromise). It sounds to me that you are very focused on one part of the relationship (sex), and are quite ignoring what most people are trying to find (genuine love). Leaving someone due to them not engaging in sex as often as you'd like does in fact sound like a lack of love for them on your part. You are ignoring their needs (abstinence from sex, for whatever reason) by doing this (and saying their needs are not as important as yours).

I'm not saying that what you need out of a relationship is wrong, just that you need to state this before getting into a relationship with someone else. Many of the people you encounter are looking for love and place less emphasis on sex. By entering a monogamous relationship, you are agreeing to meet the other person's needs, which largely includes emotional needs. So while you say that those who plan on abstaining from sex should stay away from starting a relationship with someone that expects sex, you should also only be looking to start relationships with people who share your views on the matter. Don't be disappointed when you encounter this sexual frustration when you haven't expressed this at the very beginning. Don't go looking for "romantic" relationships when really you're looking for a (I'm going to use "bargain" here for the lack of a better term) relationship with someone.

I guess I'm not getting what all the fuss is about. If you aren't happy with your partner, there isn't anything wrong with you leaving the relationship. Are people making you feel like you're wrong for doing it?


----------



## Dewymorning (Nov 24, 2012)

I think that it is important that in the relationship the couple comes to some kind of agreement around sex, recognising both members parties needs and desires.

If they can't come to some kind of agreement, then maybe they need to reconsider the relationship.

It can become easy for sex, either by demanding or withholding it, to become a weapon in a relationship, and that is a very dangerous path to go down.


----------



## tofutti (Oct 4, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> it's not like I'm going to rape them if they refuse sex, but if they continue to do so after several warnings, I'm out. there are plenty of guys out there who would fuck me on a regular basis, so I'll find them.


The word "warning" implies that you are pressuring your partners to be intimate with you by threatening to leave if they don't live up to your sexual standards. The word "warning" also implies that by refusing to have sex with you, your partner is committing a transgression, and then will be punished however you see fit. It appears to be a relationship with a very unequal power balance, where one is pressured into being intimate for fear that their partner will leave them. A pretty dubious sentiment, IMO.

Perhaps this isn't actually what you mean, but this is how I read it...


----------



## tofutti (Oct 4, 2013)

Perhaps we are interpreting "monogamous relationship" as two different entities. I see a monogamous relationship being centred around two people who care for each other, physically, emotionally, intimately. From what the OP has expressed, perhaps he sees a monogamous relationship as something that is based entirely around sexual satisfaction, and that these relationships can quickly be traded for other ones if it suits him. Maybe the OP is confusing "monogamous" with "casual sex", which is an entirely different ball-game.

If the OP approaches relationships with a specific sexual quota which needs to be fulfilled, with little other attention to other factors, he might be better off pursuing casual sex relationships.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

lol @Swordsman of Mana, I read the title I was like WTF, but I agree broadly with your opinion. I think its unfair to be in a relationship with someone and not want to have sex, BUT, I think it's pretty lame to enter a relationship with someone and then insist on being the one who sets the terms of sex, especially if you've a high sex drive. It should be determined by mutual agreement, and I think if you can't have a relationship where sex is something that can be easily discussed and agreed upon, that's a bad basis for a relationship.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> nope, I actually believe this. I think it's actually a fairly common view, but most people won't come out and say it's how they really feel.
> and again, it's not "you're dating me so I'm gonna make you have sex with me!" rather "you are refusing to satisfy my needs for stretches of time, so goodbye, you don't deserve me"


 Ah, ok. I know what you're saying here but I don't completely agree. If you have extraordinarily high sexual requirements, the onus is on you to find a partner who can stimulate them, not to try to adjust somebody else's needs and requirements. In that sense I think we agree but we're phrasing things in a different way.

Trust me tho, sex with someone who isn't really interested in it but is doing it because you want to do it isn't worth doing at all. You are best off finding a partner who has an equal sexual balance to you rather than trying to adjust the sexual balances of people who you come into contact with.

On a personal level, I have a high sex drive I think, but I'm not interested in applying any kind of emotional pressure to someone to try and sleep with me, I've done that and it's awful, totally unbecoming behaviour. Things need to be discussed and peoples boundaries respected. If you have completely clashing physical boundaries with someone, then don't enter a relationship with them, it's going to be awful.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

I suppose this is one reason finding a sexually compatible partner is so high on the list of most people's priorities. For me, sex often has never been a huge requirement; and it's not that I don't have a drive, or experience primary sexual attraction, just that my needs are different, where having it, say, every day (or even several times every week), would be a bit much. 

Then there's the issue with experiencing orgasms and ejaculating as a side-effect of my medication, which would force us to find another way around. Traditional masturbating techniques don't bring me pleasure, and I end up exhausted and uncomfortable just trying these days. 

When the mood does strike, though, nothing is held back. A relationship with someone who is Grey-A would definitely be possible, provided boundaries were discussed.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Someone in here got it ass backwards :mellow:


----------



## shakti (Oct 10, 2012)

snail said:


> Nobody owes you sex. Non-sexual relationships are not automatically inferior. Of my relationships, about half were non-sexual by mutual choice, and I am still on good terms with all of those exes. They never felt deprived or bitter about the arrangement. The idea that you are entitled to sex is a personal issue that you are projecting onto others who may not relate at all. It is a subjective preference.
> 
> A person who doesn't feel like having sex has every right to abstain, for as long as desired, for any reason. It is strange that you consider it selfish to have a choice about whether one feels like having sex, but that you do not recognize the selfishness of demanding that someone have sex against his/her will. Which is really more controlling?
> 
> ...


 Great post! Me and my bf only make love when it feels spiritually right. Right now we are in a mostly celibate phase and it suits us perfectly..the closeness and intimacy we feel is simply incredible. But I suppose the OP would just view us as "idiots"...shame, because there is so much more to a true relationship than sex, particularly if you engage in spiritual sex and/or transcend physical sex altogether  I would never be in the kind of relationship the OP wrote about, sounds sooo boring...like a chore or business exchange


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Just to add a little nugget:

Withholding sex for a long period of time still counts as "unreasonable behaviour" in divorce proceedings - in many countries. And for a good reason.

And before anyone gets their knickers in a twist: No, I don't think anyone owns someone else's body, or should force/bully them into sex. What I do believe however is that such a relationship (different sex drives) is doomed, and that it's time to move on.

Exception: If the "terms" have been agreed upon in advance, and both parties are asexual, or they agreed to fulfil their needs outside the relationship (open relationship/marriage), that's entirely different. I also don't think that we need to discuss longer periods of illness - an understanding, loving relationship will find ways to deal with circumstances like that somehow.

If the relationship started out with a good sex life however, and then one party shuts up shop, there _is_ a problem. It is humiliating to be _constantly_ pushed back (that's something a lot of people seem to forget: An attitude of "just suck it up" is extremely hurtful and selfish).

It really should lead to renegotiating the relationship. Either it's time to move on, or it's time to consider other options (that's individual). 
It's certainly NOT time however to make the party who still wants sex feel guilty about it - that's emotional cruelty, as much as it is emotional cruelty to make someone feel guilty about not being in the mood_ on occasion_.

Sex is part of a fulfilling relationship (again, exceptions like asexuality etc aside). If you do it twice a day, twice a week or twice a month doesn't matter as long as both are happy with it. If you suddenly deviate from what's normal for your relationship however, it's time to talk...


----------



## Sai (Sep 3, 2012)

some people abstain from sex to manipulate their partner.

When a girl i am with doesnt want sex for more than a week, i know something is wrong and probably she is interested in another person. Been there before.

Funny they come back months later because it seems sex with the other guy wasnt that good or passionate xD


----------



## Random Person (Apr 30, 2013)

Out of curiosity, what's the point of this thread? So far, the responses have been roughly as ought to be expected. That is to say, less than well-considered. This is something that, to my mind, is best skipped altogether.

More to the point, given the broadest interpretation and some implicit assumptions, you're pretty much correct, obvious need to lay things out with extreme clarity notwithstanding. Your main mistake: blaming the partner entirely. You have a high sex drive. Okay. So, when you start dating a guy just spell it out in no vague terms that you'll want a lot of sex, regularly. And if they don't share your desire that's just too effing bad, can't be helped. Just move on.

One needs to choose partners with a comparable sex drive. I'm not sure, really, what's the point of even attempting a relationship when there's a significant difference in an area like this. But given the situation that I'd assume provoked this post, don't you think you're the stupid one? I mean, *you're* the one whose needs/desires/expectations/whatever are being frustrated. Your partner is perfectly content. Oh, and if they insist on staying in a relationship with you, despite constantly frustrating your needs and knowing that then it stands to reason to think they're a selfish asshole. Why would you even want to stay in a relationship like this in the first place?

Long story short: state what you want loud and clear, and pick partners who are able and willing to satisfy you. Discard the rest. Nothing more to it.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Fine Shrine said:


> In contrast, people have no right to force others against their will.


What part of this is condoning 'forcing' anything. He's simply saying that if the relationship was created between two people and it was not specified that sex will not be involved, it should be assumed. If those needs are not met, why wouldn't it be grounds for breaking it off? Sexual incompatibility is quite a problem.



Random Person said:


> Out of curiosity, what's the point of this thread? So far, the responses have been roughly as ought to be expected. That is to say, less than well-considered. This is something that, to my mind, is best skipped altogether.
> 
> More to the point, given the broadest interpretation and some implicit assumptions, you're pretty much correct, obvious need to lay things out with extreme clarity notwithstanding. Your main mistake: blaming the partner entirely. You have a high sex drive. Okay. So, when you start dating a guy just spell it out in no vague terms that you'll want a lot of sex, regularly. And if they don't share your desire that's just too effing bad, can't be helped. Just move on.
> 
> ...



The problem I am seeing with this situation is in the society I'm in, talking about sex at all in the beginning of the relationship gets the guy labeled as a horn-dog. I see your point that it'd be NICE to be capable of having such a conversation to weed people out, but most people just don't see it that way. They'll interpret it as, "You just want me for sex!" and run away.


----------



## carlaviii (Jul 25, 2012)

I'm glad I missed all of this, because it hits close to home for me. I've been married for 15 years, and one of the (several) reasons it's ending is the six-plus years of no sex whatsoever. When it first started, I was actually relieved because the sex had gotten so bad. But over time the forced abstinence just got more and more miserable. 

It's difficult to explain how deep the rejection runs when the man you married won't even try. 

Sure, he has the right to whatever level of sexuality fits him. _But so do I_. That's why I've been keeping FWBs on the side. And it's part of why I want him out of my life.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

carlaviii said:


> I'm glad I missed all of this, because it hits close to home for me. I've been married for 15 years, and one of the (several) reasons it's ending is the six-plus years of no sex whatsoever. When it first started, I was actually relieved because the sex had gotten so bad. But over time the forced abstinence just got more and more miserable.
> 
> It's difficult to explain how deep the rejection runs when the man you married won't even try.
> 
> Sure, he has the right to whatever level of sexuality fits him. _But so do I_. That's why I've been keeping FWBs on the side. And it's part of why I want him out of my life.


A bit cold at the end--I'm sure you've got your reasons--but it's right. You cannot have a relationship with someone, a sexual relationship, where sex is held hostage or used as leverage by one party. If sex is not communicated as a mutual need between everyone involved, then it's an arrangement doomed from the beginning.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

I think this is one of those things that each couple has to deal with individually. There are no "rules". If one partner is unsatisfied sexually then one of the two will need to give in. Then it becomes a matter of wether the sacrifice is worth the reward that comes in other aspects of the relationship like the emotional connection or whatever.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)




----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Penguin said:


> isnt that what you're doing but just from a different perspective?


If you read, I already know, so what is your point ?


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Bago said:


> I am currently seeing somebody, and I have actually openly talked to this person about my past, and as he did too. I have not changed my profile since we are not entirely committed yet. He has raised this dumb question about the physical intimacies already and I think he knows what it takes.. and why... and I do too. So, at least I TRUST him, and he is helping me build that trust with him too which makes a lot of difference to everything, I do need him to stay strong with me, and I would try and stay strong and focused with him. He has already thrown some gauntlets down and set the conditions of this, and I am considering this, and ask myself how I feel about it. I am not entirely ruling it out. So yes, we are doing okay, and I am getting used to it, and we are even moving our goals towards what we want, which I think counts for so much more than most guys I have met before too. His track record and my track record are similar and quite matching too ? So yes, in that regards, I know where he is coming from and why. So I would rather keep that private and intimate between us, thank you.


So here you are, in a relationship that isn't even an entirely committed one yet and in which all these issues are already emerging, and yet here you are spending your time and energy on this thread *judging *others, like this:



Bago said:


> Q: Why do others cannot stand up and live their lives rather than to use somebody and be in same sex relationships cos they are avoiding their own sense of naturalness


Speaking as a lesbian in a 3+ year committed relationship with my mate in this life (we're engaged to be legally married), I suggest that you get a clue about the rather severe limits of your own comprehension of healthy human relationships.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Antipode said:


> :shocked: So yours was meant to be insulting? I figured, but I couldn't quite understand what you were referring to because I thought you were making a comment as if I had read the entire thread; thus, my understanding over the matter was limited.
> 
> But oh well. Don't take anything I ever say on this forum as insulting--I just post to kill time and jest (more at the way humanity works).


Not insulting. I was just quite disappointed at what I perceived to be a lack of thoughtfulness from someone who I had just seen over in the INFJ forum representing yourself as what I consider to be thoughtful. 

As for the topic: The Sex and Relationships forum can be incredibly hetero-centeric (specifically, meaning heterosexual people kind of take over and write as if male-female relationships define relationships overall ... also there's the more virulent stuff, but even that is notable to me) and I feel like parts of this thread are really displaying that problem.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Bago said:


> When he learnt respect for other people's privacies and own his own sh!t and not stomp on theirs and their bedroom areas ???
> I mean, he could be a heterosexual but hiding behind a gay mask, actually bullying other heterosexual and their sexual affairs, and their sex lives? I find that odd, don't you think ?


He's not bullying heterosexuals. He's making a broad statement without referring to any specific orientation. _You're_ the one reading orientation into this.



> Unless he is NOT gay.... cos how else and why would he even feel like remotely that he has THAT right to challenge others ? Does it make sense to you ? It doesn't make sense to me...


Because he's a person, and people don't fit into such neat little boxes based on orientation, real, faked, or imagined? That makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> Not insulting. I was just quite disappointed at what I perceived to be a lack of thoughtfulness from someone who I had just seen over in the INFJ forum representing yourself as what I consider to be thoughtful.
> 
> As for the topic: The Sex and Relationships forum can be incredibly hetero-centeric (specifically, meaning heterosexual people kind of take over and write as if male-female relationships define relationships overall ... also there's the more virulent stuff, but even that is notable to me) and I feel like parts of this thread are really displaying that problem.


Well, again, I wasn't entirely sure what you were getting at with what you replied to me with. If I'm assuming correctly, you were stating that it was wrong of me not to include homosexuality in my original post in regards to the divide between men and woman.

If that is the case, then I will have to say: I could spend pages upon pages having to please each and every single person with their differences. Obviously no one in this world thinks in absolutes anymore. When someone says, "INFJs do..." they don't mean every INFJ, and when someone says, "Men and woman do this..." they don't mean every single man and woman. It's just implied that people should naturally know it's easier to use these terms instead of spending an extra paragraph saying, "That's not to say..." unless it is really warranted. 

I once read a thread about races in commercials, and this woman was angry at this uplifting Dove Ad about woman and beauty, and she shot it down because it didn't portray her racial identity, while it showed a couple others. Um, there are over 300 difference races, and then cultures within those--no one has the time to please everyone, which is what I meant about not being politically correct.

That's a stance I probably wont change on. I don't mind clearing things up by providing information and my opinion on such a topic as homosexuality, but I'm not going to spend forever on my first post that not many people will read making sure I cover all my steps so everyone is pleased. Hell, someone could get mad at me for not talking about sexual relations between a man and their dog. List goes on.

Yet, if that's NOT what you were referring to, then please forgive my above paragraphs and feel free to explain.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Eh, I'm not going to do hetero-centrism 101 training here. You had an opportunity to learn from my previous comment, and you chose not to. You chose instead to defend yourself at some length. I'm not interested in more dialogue on this. I can say I was quite wrong in my read of you to begin with, and shouldn't have allowed what I mistakenly thought I saw in the other thread to affect my response. Don't know that I would have bothered responding to you directly had I not had the wrong sense of you to begin with.

Speaking of the actual truth of your approach, this says a lot about about where you're coming from when it comes to gay people. Thanks for sharing it so openly:



Antipode said:


> Hell, someone could get mad at me for not talking about sexual relations between a man and their dog. List goes on.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Aquarian said:


> So here you are, in a relationship that isn't even an entirely committed one yet and in which all these issues are already emerging, and yet here you are spending your time and energy on this thread *judging *others, like this:
> 
> Speaking as a lesbian in a 3+ year committed relationship with my mate in this life (we're engaged to be legally married), I suggest that you get a clue about the rather severe limits of your own comprehension of healthy human relationships.


What issues ? We are taking things slow, cos he seems to be using his own past to put forward to me, and I mentioned that we need to take things back to basic, cos I want this thing to be long term, and he has agreed to try.. and we are okay. He also "demanded" originally that I follow this stupid US dating rules. 3 dates and you are out etc. I rejected this. I do not want to be part of his serial dating daisy chain...I asked him honestly to be open with me and give me his heart and he has started to do so, so I hope to protect that. I am the same with him too. So we are both entering something quite open mindedly and honest ? At our age, we are not being stupid like we could've done in our 20s. 

I knew something was not quite right, and I wondered why.... So you are also a homosexuals too ? I see ! 
I have nothing else to comment. This section of the forum just gets better.... 

I am an INFP, and I am actually also dating another INFP too, if I am honest with you here. We are both single but currently seeing each other. He has already been a bit brainwashed by what you call this "american dating" style, and it messed up his mind. We are both Asian, and I asked him to come back down and be himself with me. He realised how he is seen by others and how he comes across too. Maybe it is that self awareness thing ? I also know that as a female, I know our biological bodies require different requirements at different times of our lives, and I hope that he can be there to support me when I need him to be etc. So far, he has my trust, and we are both working towards one another. We both want kids. We both do not necessarily want to raise our kids in the US. I know he doesn't. He too want to follow some form of filial duties and he does follow Confuscianism too to a high extent. He does not use sex to use people basically and he knows about different energies etc. 

Yes, sure you are entitled to judge me as I am judging the OP too. Isn't the internet wonderful in this regard too ? But he hit a baseline, which is rape. I thought that some guys know how traumatic it can be for ladies to be forced to have sex. What the OP shows me is that he does lack humilities too. Is everything and anything needs to be "blatant" ? Cos he cannot actually understand and see people or to accept them either... Maybe that is his own weakness. Honesty is also best policy as well. If you cannot live without fear, then there is indeed something wrong with your life in a majorly way. Maybe it is "okay" in your book to advocate rape to women, but it certainly is not okay in my book. Call me whatever names you like. his post also smack of patronisim. I wondered whether this IS the case cos he is gay ? Either he is gay or being willfully ignorant. So as a gay man, he has not had sex with females, but he is telling other females to have forceful sex with guys so that there is more harmony and calm? Does he even have any relationship skills or understand the dynamics of relationships ? Do you think that he is one of these people who reads off the internet and thinks this is real life? What tosh !


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Bago said:


> I knew something was not quite right, and I wondered why.... So you are also a homosexuals too ? I see !
> I have nothing else to comment. This section of the forum just gets better....


If you had "nothing else to comment," why did you go on and on for two huge blocky paragraphs after that statement?

And: Reading your posts here, I can pretty much guarantee you that my lesbian, same gender, ooooh wait,_ "homosexuals" _relationship is far and away better and healthier than any relationship you have ever had and probably than you will ever have.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> He's not bullying heterosexuals. He's making a broad statement without referring to any specific orientation. _You're_ the one reading orientation into this.
> 
> Because he's a person, and people don't fit into such neat little boxes based on orientation, real, faked, or imagined? That makes perfect sense to me.


Ok, let me see if I get this correct... 

So you are saying that a GAY man... wrote a thread in a section whereby it was full of heterosexual couples, and singletons... and that he advocated "SEX" on demand as applicable and be like "on tap" just like he wants his sex on tap when orientation is actually up for grabs and debate ? 

This thread gets better.....

So basically he WAS talking about himself, and not others and he WAS complaining about his own sex life, but without labelling himself and putting himself to say "I am frustrated by the number of encounters that I have had ...." 

You know, as an INFP who always go on about morality and perspective, this is literal classic... situational comedy materials.  
No more comment from me. I'm wasting my time for sure. 

[Added] I do not know what kind of mbti type you are, but if you read, my original intent was to challenge him on what he wrote and his behaviour, cos most reacted as if he is speaking for others of which he has no right to do so. I already stated to series that this thread alone has a mirade of differences between the literal written tone, and that contextual real life topical issue. It is obvious that the OP wrote about something that he had no idea about.. and hence a lot of backlash came forth towards him. I was challenging him to see if he will retract but it does not seem that he has or will ! Most people will step out to clear the air and OWN up to the responsibility of their own actions but he has not. That is the point here. If I saw this as any other perspective, then sure... shouldn't others also follow and be on topic too ? If he is not trolling then I do not know what he is doing ! 

Most people will indeed step in and take ownership of their own part.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Bago said:


> No more comment from me. I'm wasting my time for sure.


And there was much rejoicing!


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> Eh, I'm not going to do hetero-centrism 101 training here. You had an opportunity to learn from my previous comment, and you chose not to. You chose instead to defend yourself at some length. I'm not interested in more dialogue on this. I can say I was quite wrong in my read of you to begin with, and shouldn't have allowed what I mistakenly thought I saw in the other thread to affect my response. Don't know that I would have bothered responding to you directly had I not had the wrong sense of you to begin with.
> 
> Speaking of the actual truth of your approach, this says a lot about about where you're coming from when it comes to gay people. Thanks for sharing it so openly:


Well truthfully, the way I think of homosexuals is the exact way I think of everything else in this world: a bell-shape curve. Heterosexual relations is the middle of the curve, where the "common" resides, and then homosexuality would most likely lie around the 68%, if we were talking about a "Normal Distribution" in regards to statistics. Bestiality would probably drop around the .03%, again if we are talking about a "Normal Distribution." If you think I'm wrong, and homosexuality is more common than heterosexuality, then please provide me with the data and I will be more than willing to adjust my opinion and calculations. 

To me, the "most common" and "least common" doesn't make any act more or less acceptable, it just merely makes it a percentage. I'm not the one making the Hasty Generalization Fallacy, unless you are to say one is more acceptable than the other. I honestly don't have the power to make a judgement call regarding that--at least not online where people assume opinions mean forced acceptance--I was merely defending my reasoning behind not talking about homosexuals in my original post. It was not an attack to not mention them, it was merely me talking about the middle of the curve.

If you are offended, then I apologize, especially if my wording came off as offensive; however, my stance will not warrant apologies.

Yet, if I had to express my opinion, I think you simply want to find anything to be angry about. In which case, I can't stop you. To me, nothing I've said is of offensive, but I do acknowledge anything can be perceived in that fashion.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Aquarian said:


> If you had "nothing else to comment," why did you go on and on for two huge blocky paragraphs after that statement?
> 
> And: Reading your posts here, I can pretty much guarantee you that my lesbian, same gender, ooooh wait,_ "homosexuals" _relationship is far and away better and healthier than any relationship you have ever had and probably than you will ever have.


I have nothing else to comment to YOU ! Not nothing else to comment on this thread ! 

I am dating a great INFP'er and hands off, and he is mine ! 
Get lost. I am not gay even though I can defend myself if need be, or if I need to BE a tiger mom, then I will !  

Yes, your manipulation skills is not that up to scratch yet M'Dear... ! Maybe you are straight but doesn't know how to do exploding emotional sex....  But wanting to be catty but... you did raise to the challenge... 

At last I am honest with myself and honor my gender and my DNA.... I can be a tomboy, surrrre... but I am not gay, but thank you for your offer, and no thank you , I do not want to take you up on it. 

In fact, I think I will share this piece with this guy I am seeing cos he sure will laugh at this. He has to fight off not just guys but also girls too to win me over. I am sure that will rub his ego up quite a bit ! 

Yes, it is freaky that people approaches you and are actually absolutely obtuse in knowing whether you want that kind of relationship with them or not. I was already shocked to find a bisexual approached me in online dating.. and if I must act like a Tomboy to defend myself then I will ! I do not have to be nice to people who are hurting and possibly harm me... 

To me, I can see why homosexuality is "the norm" in the US, I definitely do not blame you... but you are also not living up to your potential M'Dear ! Being a woman is great ! To be worshipped and loved by a man of your own choice, it is endearing and the best mindblowing emotional intimacy that one can ask for...


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Bago said:


> ...


Whoa. Far less sanity here than I thought and the bar wasn't so high to begin with.

_Edited to add:_

Yet more evidence re: above statement



Bago said:


> ...


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Bago said:


> Ok, let me see if I get this correct...
> 
> So you are saying that a GAY man... wrote a thread in a section whereby it was full of heterosexual couples, and singletons... and that he advocated "SEX" on demand as applicable and be like "on tap" just like he wants his sex on tap when orientation is actually up for grabs and debate ?
> 
> ...


..........................................................................

*throws hands up in the air* Fuck it. Your ability to completely misread everything (or warp it to whatever you want to see) astounds me. Following your reasoning is a maddening effort. You aren't rational, and conversing with you is painful. You want to bow out? Go ahead.



Bago said:


> I have nothing else to comment to YOU ! Not nothing else to comment on this thread !
> 
> I am dating a great INFP'er and hands off, and he is mine !
> Get lost. I am not gay even though I can defend myself if need be, or if I need to BE a tiger mom, then I will !
> ...


You are an asshole, and I don't care if I get infracted for saying so. Good god.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> ...
> 
> You are an asshole, and I don't care if I get infracted for saying so. Good god.


LOL... she was touting me and baiting me and stating that I am a lesbian, that to me is an insult, and I do not care if I too get banned for defending myself and pushed her away cos she was being mean and catty to begin with. That may be turning into a ladies' fight ... Sure I am sure that she knows what it takes or else she won't bait me either. I defended myself there, and how she reads that is down to her, but she should know when she too overstep that line. I do not have to RESPECT her when she does RESPECT me and assume that I am gay (!) 

I've already had racisms on here, and now this gender-curious positions ?? This prejudice ? Well !!! 

I do not care if she means it or not, I DREW my line, and I stomped that specifically.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Maybe we could stop with the thinly veiled homophobic remarks already? Geez...

Back on topic: I made my own opinion about this very clear somewhere at the beginning of this thread: It really boils down to communicating your needs and expectations clearly. And if they don't match at all, you split up (or you better don't get too deeply involved in the first place). End of. Nobody has to be a martyr, you're not getting any brownie points for it.

It is not about forcing yourself, or your partner, to do anything you really don't want. These relationships won't ever work out, and I guess that's what the OP also stated, if in a slightly provoking way. 

Having a loving relationship means caring for each other's needs. That sometimes means meeting halfway. It's not so much about entitlement (I don't agree with that opinion for instance), it's about genuinely wanting to make it work. Give and take. Occasionally doing it when you're maybe not insanely horny (but your partner is), occasionally not doing it despite being horny (but your partner isn't).

What I personally still don't get though is how some people cannot see that it is as emotionally cruel to constantly tell your partner "I don't feel like it" as it is cruel to bully or guilt-trip them into having sex. Constant rejection is humiliating. It just seems more acceptable to a lot of people. And then they start blethering about "but love is so much more than sex". Which is true, but sex is part of a relationship (again, exceptions like asexuality etc aside). And if you're withholding it after agreeing to it at the start, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. For whatever reason.

"Consummation of marriage" is an odd construct anyway and every so often under discussion. Wilful refusal of sex is still a reason for divorce and annulment of marriage though, and can count as "unreasonable behaviour". So I guess some people would argue sex is somewhat of a right (not saying I share that view in extremis, but it is certainly food for thought).


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

I haven't had time to read this thread yet, but at a cursory glance, I see there may end up being some homophobic remarks. Those are actually against rule 12, along with racism, and other bigoted types of remarks:



> 12. No Discriminatory Remarks
> Discriminatory remarks are unacceptable. This includes racism, sexism, offensive remarks about (or against) religion* or gender identity, physical attributes (size, height, etc.), and homophobic remarks. I'd like to take this a step further and coin a new term called typism. We will not tolerate broad generalizations and/or individual attacks that are meant to degrade by type. Joking is acceptable but should a member take offense they should ask that line of joking to stop. If it does not cease at that point, corrective actions will be taken.


So if you want this thread kept open, and if you want to avoid an infraction - refrain from making remarks of this nature.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Bago said:


> LOL... she was touting me and baiting me and stating that I am a lesbian, that to me is an insult, and I do not care if I too get banned for defending myself and pushed her away cos she was being mean and catty to begin with. That may be turning into a ladies' fight ... Sure I am sure that she knows what it takes or else she won't bait me either. I defended myself there, and how she reads that is down to her, but she should know when she too overstep that line. I do not have to RESPECT her when she does RESPECT me and assume that I am gay (!)


Really? Quote to me where she said you were a lesbian. I don't see such a statement anywhere; most likely, you just misread AGAIN. 



> I've already had racisms on here, and now this gender-curious positions ?? This prejudice ? Well !!!


Prejudice? Oh, you mean like this?



> I have nothing else to comment to YOU ! Not nothing else to comment on this thread !
> 
> I am dating a great INFP'er and hands off, and he is mine !
> Get lost. I am not gay even though I can defend myself if need be, or if I need to BE a tiger mom, then I will !
> ...


You have no moral high ground here.



> I do not care if she means it or not, I DREW my line, and I stomped that specifically.


I've already addressed this.



FallingSlowly said:


> Maybe we could stop with the thinly veiled homophobic remarks already? Geez...


I wouldn't call her remarks thinly-veiled by a long shot. >.>


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> It is not about forcing yourself, or your partner, to do anything you really don't want. These relationships won't ever work out, and I guess that's what the OP also stated, if in a slightly provoking way.
> 
> Having a loving relationship means caring for each others' needs. That sometimes means meeting halfway. It's not so much about entitlement (I don't agree with that opinion for instance), it's about genuinely wanting to make it work. Give and take. Occasionally doing it when you're maybe not insanely horny (but your partner is), occasionally not doing it despite being horny (but your partner isn't).
> 
> What I personally still don't get though is how some people cannot see that it is as emotionally cruel to constantly tell your partner "I don't feel like it" as it is cruel to bully or guilt-trip them into having sex. Constant rejection is humiliating. It just seems more acceptable to a lot of people. And then they start blethering about "but love is so much more than sex". Which is true, but sex is part of a relationship (again, exceptions like asexuality etc aside). And if you're withholding it after agreeing to it at the start, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. For whatever reason.


It seems to me that the core of this whole discussion may simply be about healthy relationships versus relationships that have misuse of sex as a tool for power and control. Meaning, I don't necessarily see sex as the core topic here. IMO if sex is being used as a tool for harm (manipulation, breaking someone, using someone etc) in an unhealthy relationship, that's a terrible thing no matter _how _it's being used as a tool (withholding or forcing).

I wonder how much disagreement there actually is here in this thread if the topic were to be shifted in this direction. It seems to me that instead of fighting over which side seems to be getting the better or worse of it, it might be possible for most people in this thread to agree that using sex as a tool for harm in a relationship is simply *not okay* - whatever that specific use may be.

Maybe?


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> It seems to me that the core of this whole discussion may simply be about healthy relationships versus relationships that have misuse of sex as a tool for power and control. Meaning, I don't necessarily see sex as the core topic here. IMO if sex is being used as a tool for harm (manipulation, breaking someone, using someone etc) in an unhealthy relationship, that's a terrible thing no matter _how _it's being used as a tool (withholding or forcing).
> 
> I wonder how much disagreement there actually is here in this thread if the topic were to be shifted in this direction. It seems to me that instead of fighting over which side seems to be getting the better or worse of it, it might be possible for most people in this thread to agree that using sex as a tool for harm in a relationship is simply *not okay* - whatever that specific use may be.
> 
> Maybe?


In my opinion, surely.

Sanest post for a while. Doesn't surprise me it comes from someone who is actually in a longterm relationship


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> Really? Quote to me where she said you were a lesbian. I don't see such a statement anywhere; most likely, you just misread AGAIN.
> 
> Prejudice? Oh, you mean like this?
> 
> ...


I will take back the line I wrote that there was a "statement", there was no "statement" but I read into her intention of her post, and what the motivation was behind her words. It was not nice nor accepting. She knows that. 

The comment about the racism thing occurred in another thread elsewhere, and that was me saying what I had experienced here online in this section of this forum, cos people put in a lot of to make assumptions of you also. I did not kick up a fuss then on that racism thing, I never do. As for this instance, when someone is pushing me about my gender... and comparing themselves to you. Is she respecting me as a person ? No, she is not. So why should I respect her ? 

She knows that I am a heterosexual person and is currently seeing a guy. Why would anyone who already know what you are doing, actually try and persuade you and tell you that you should actually be in a homosexual relationship like herself and top that ? Is she not trying to convince me to be a lesbian? Have you even ever thought about it from that angle too ? So this is why I had to stand up for myself and I DRAW that line, whether she is kidding or not. People who normally is empathetic, actually on the same wavelength as you won't be obtuse and be rude to you to that kind of level. Exactly what does she expect to see ? "Yes, maybe I will try your homosexual relationship too one day to find out and maybe you are right ??? " Why should I say such kind of thing ??? 

It is that implied meaning when someone writes something so obtuse to tout you for an emotive response deliberately and she knows it as well, that is the point. 

She attacked me knowing that I am not gay, then what is left to attack her when she knows that she is gay but is trying to fight me to fit her mould ? Anyway, this is not your fight and it has nothing to do with you even if you feel that you are stepping in to help, cos you are not helping. You do not see what and why.... 

I have a right to defend myself. End of !!


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

DemonD said:


> I disagree with the premise of it being a _right_.
> 
> That said, leaving someone because they don't provide adequate sexual relief is legit reasoning.


I wish more people were as concise as you.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Torai said:


> Ain't that kinda prude-shaming? Some women have low libidos and I completely respect that. Nothing's wrong with them for having such. I wouldn't want them to be married to selfish men, just men who have matching libidos.


I mean sexually selfish. It's better for them that way. The guy gets on, gets off, they don't have to deal with much.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I mean sexually selfish. It's better for them that way. The guy gets on, gets off, they don't have to deal with much.


I could never understand those guys...

I mean, half of the fun is making it a little game and seeing how your partner reacts, isn't it?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Bago said:


> She knows that I am a heterosexual person and is currently seeing a guy. Why would anyone who already know what you are doing, actually try and persuade you and tell you that you should actually be in a homosexual relationship like herself and top that ? Is she not trying to convince me to be a lesbian? Have you even ever thought about it from that angle too ? So this is why I had to stand up for myself and I DRAW that line, whether she is kidding or not. People who normally is empathetic, actually on the same wavelength as you won't be obtuse and be rude to you to that kind of level. Exactly what does she expect to see ? "Yes, maybe I will try your homosexual relationship too one day to find out and maybe you are right ??? "
> 
> It is that implied meaning when someone writes something so obtuse to tout you for an emotive response deliberately and she knows it as well, that is the point.


You can't show me. That says enough for me.



> She attacked me knowing that I am not gay, then what is left to attack her when she knows that she is gay but is trying to fight me to fit her mould ? Anyway, this is not your fight and it has nothing to do with you even if you feel that you are stepping in to help, cos you are not helping. You do not see what and why....


Oh, I am sure Aquarian doesn't need my help. She's a big girl. I stepped in because I was appalled by the crap spewing from your mouth. 



> I have a right to defend myself. End of !!


You _don't_ have a right to act in such a childish manner and expect to be given a free pass on your behavior.

_@_Swordsman of Mana This is becoming something of an endless and completely unproductive line of discussion, so if you'd prefer me to just drop it and leave your thread to its topic, I'm fine with that.

Edit:



Swordsman of Mana said:


> .


Mention's not working. There.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Hmm I couldn't concentrate enough on reading the whole thread (fast read the first and last pages lol), so I'm not sure what is happening, but here goes my opinion. 

I think that I can understand what OP means, although something feels wrong. IMO, sex can be a very important need, just as emotional need or other needs. People who says that sex is not that important might not realize what it actually means for many, which is actually more than just a physical release.
Yet talking about sex as if it is something that must be given sounds a bit weird. It's as if I start to demand emotional satisfaction from my partner as a right, whether it is genuine or not. Physical and emotional affection and intimacy are something that IMO should be genuine and willing from both sides, and it just feels weird to imagine that anyone must give it to the other just for the sake of the other and not being genuine (at least that would have a negative impact for me, and I'd never want it like that).

Although on the other hand, of course that no one should stay in a relationship in which they are not happy with. Again, sex is more than just a physical release so that while it might not mean much to some, physical passion and intimacy can mean a lot to others. We can't expect someone that feels unhappy about their emotional needs to stay in an unhappy relationship, just as we can't expect someone that feels unhappy about their physical intimacy needs to stay in an unhappy relationship.
Although unless someone purposely withholds sex or emotional connection or whatever to punish/manipulate the other, I wouldn't be so fast to assume that it is selfish. There are many reasons that can make one less sexual or emotional, so that it's not fair to simply blame the other side for their coldness.

In the end, it's a lot about compatibility between both sides, that the couple are either lucky to be compatible enough with each other or try to work things out. It doesn't matter if we are talking about physical, emotional or whatever needs, all sorts of needs can be as valid, and it's up to both sides to decide what's best or how they are going to work things out.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Fine Shrine said:


> In contrast, people have no right to force others against their will.


He didn't say "If your partner refuses sex for extended periods, fuck them against their will". No, he said that they should not be in a relationship if they are not willing to have sex to meet their partners needs and that THE PARTNER SHOULD FIND SOMEONE ELSE.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> You can't show me. That says enough for me.


I do not need to show you anything, and nor do I need to justify myself to you either. I see it fitting if I need to say something or not. You do not own me. Simple. I already stated this. You can either get into the chaos or you can leave. Or you can report me. It was I who saw the original thread as a certain perception and then you changed this perception and made it clear. Maybe you were trying to be diplomatic, I do not know, and if that is the case then... I cannot say that I saw it through YOUR eyes for sure ! 



> Oh, I am sure Aquarian doesn't need my help. She's a big girl. I stepped in because I was appalled by the crap spewing from your mouth.


You mean just like her crap too ? 



> You _don't_ have a right to act in such a childish manner and expect to be given a free pass on your behavior.


Sorry, so you condone that rape argument put forward by the OP, or are you saying that many of the ladies here got the wrong end of the stick due to what the OP wrote ? I am the one who acted childishly? I see myself as the one who blatantly stated what was not said between the line. The OP had no right to write what he did, end of. It sounds ugly. Why ? Cos the subject which he is advocating IS ugly.. no matter how many words you try and use to hide it. Cos he opened a whole can of worm, and that itself is disturbing to the masses and creates more disharmony and possible further impact too. 

I do not expect a free pass. I already stated, "Yes, I sound awful and SO what" ? To me, I see it as justified. If you noticed, MANY people, not just myself quoted THAT exact line... which caused a lot of uproar.. and I am proud to say that I stand by that angle too ! 

Sex is NOT a "right" as it is a "privilege" !!!!!!!! Everybody is treating the OP as an individual in a social forum. So why would anybody sprout this kind of thing publically ? You tell me. 

When I stooped to his level, he actually laughed. That was a test and joke on my part of his morality. It is very opportunistic for someone to be obtuse first, then let others get hurt or emotionally wound up, he does not take responsibility and in turn, for others to play to his ego and downplay his words, and then to go and kiss his ass. I do not think so. 

Others can jump onto the thread and play that diplomatic if they so wish. I'm out !


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Bago said:


> I do not need to show you anything, and nor do I need to justify myself to you either. I see it fitting if I need to say something or not. You do not own me. Simple. I already stated this. You can either get into the chaos or you can leave. Or you can report me. It was I who saw the original thread as a certain perception and then you changed this perception and made it clear. Maybe you were trying to be diplomatic, I do not know, and if that is the case then... I cannot say that I saw it through YOUR eyes for sure !
> 
> 
> You mean just like her crap too ?
> ...


In this post, you continue to misread. I'm done here. This is pointless.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Promethea said:


> I haven't had time to read this thread yet, but at a cursory glance, I see there may end up being some homophobic remarks. Those are actually against rule 12, along with racism, and other bigoted types of remarks:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you want this thread kept open, and if you want to avoid an infraction - refrain from making remarks of this nature.


I don't see it in the rules, but something needs to be done regarding ageism too. There's no need to discriminate a person based on their age. Everyone has a right to an opinion here.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> In this post, you continue to misread. I'm done here. This is pointless.


I am not misreading. I am telling you to back off.

Don't put words into my mouth, thank you. I appreciate it if you respect that simple thing.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Bago said:


> What issues ? We are taking things slow, cos he seems to be using his own past to put forward to me, and I mentioned that we need to take things back to basic, cos I want this thing to be long term, and he has agreed to try.. and we are okay. He also "demanded" originally that I follow this stupid US dating rules. 3 dates and you are out etc. I rejected this. I do not want to be part of his serial dating daisy chain...I asked him honestly to be open with me and give me his heart and he has started to do so, so I hope to protect that. I am the same with him too. So we are both entering something quite open mindedly and honest ? At our age, we are not being stupid like we could've done in our 20s.
> 
> I knew something was not quite right, and I wondered why.... So you are also a homosexuals too ? I see !
> I have nothing else to comment. This section of the forum just gets better....
> ...


I was in love with an ISTJ I thought I might want to marry some day, spent hours of every day for like a year and a half bonding with him, thinking that this is the way it's supposed to be, we can be best friends and build emotional intimacy and see each other in our underwear but hold off on the fucking, and this will last forever!!!!111

Uh...nope...and let me tell you, losing my ISTJ was no easier than if we had fucked fifty times(in fact it was worse, bc our relationship wasn't built on sex, the only man who I was more devastated about than ISTJ was my ESFJ ex who I was with for six years and lived with)... After a certain level of intimacy and time, withholding sex won't protect your heart, or guarentee marriage.

Good luck with your INFP, but don't get too cocky with your no sex creed.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

So according to the OP I'm selfish because I didn't allow my ex to have sex with me while he was trying to force me to do something I wasn't mentally ready for.

Thanks for making me feel so much better about my own personal guilt.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

AyaSullivan said:


> So according to the OP I'm selfish because I didn't allow my ex to have sex with me while he was trying to force me to do something I wasn't mentally ready for.
> 
> Thanks for making me feel so much better about my own personal guilt.


I am sorry to hear that, but these are things that should be talked about before entering an exclusive relationship, and either way, why would you stay with someone who kept trying to force you into something?


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

signs that you aren't thinking rationally - people just stop caring what you say.


----------



## Ecoas (Jul 28, 2013)

The concept is absurd, a relationship is a privilege to begin with, so no aspect of it can be a right.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

Ecoas said:


> The concept is absurd, a relationship is a privilege to begin with, so no aspect of it can be a right.



the gist of the thread was summarized pretty well


sex may not be a right, but breaking up with someone because they never want to have sex is a legitimate reason.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> I am sorry to hear that, but these are things that should be talked about before entering an exclusive relationship, and either way, why would you stay with someone who kept trying to force you into something?


I broke up with him, but that hurt him. Everything I denied him hurt him. I actually liked him, but he didn't want to wait.


----------



## Ecoas (Jul 28, 2013)

Legitimate in what sense?

I don't know how you could have an illegitimate reason to break up with someone. The whole thing is non-contractual and only lasts as long as both partners agree on it.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

Ecoas said:


> Legitimate in what sense?
> 
> I don't know how you could have an illegitimate reason to break up with someone. The whole thing is non-contractual and only lasts as long as both partners agree on it.



ok


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Ecoas said:


> Legitimate in what sense?
> 
> I don't know how you could have an illegitimate reason to break up with someone. The whole thing is non-contractual and only lasts as long as both partners agree on it.


.. with the exception of marriages/civil partnerships. They are legally binding contracts, and whilst you can of course separate, some reasons can lead to divorce quicker than others, and can also very much affect who is considered "at fault" - which can have a lot of implications (from financial to custody ones). The already mentioned unreasonable behaviour is one of them.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> Aquarian said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that the core of this whole discussion may simply be about healthy relationships versus relationships that have misuse of sex as a tool for power and control. Meaning, I don't necessarily see sex as the core topic here. IMO if sex is being used as a tool for harm (manipulation, breaking someone, using someone etc) in an unhealthy relationship, that's a terrible thing no matter _how _it's being used as a tool (withholding or forcing).
> ...


Glad that makes sense to you! I'd add in my case the background I bring is not only a long term relationship (this is actually the shortest of my long relationships at 3+ years), but one that is deep, resonant and healthy. For me, finding my mate in this life and learning (sometimes the hard way) how to move well together has made a huge difference in my understanding of relationship dynamics.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Bago said:


> Is she not trying to convince me to be a lesbian?


Just to be clear: I was not and am not trying to convince you to be a lesbian. Your rather paranoid homophobia is showing IMO.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> Just to be clear: I was not and am not trying to convince you to be a lesbian.


I was rather under the impression that it was the other way round, and every homosexual on this thread was considered a closet heterosexual


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Ecoas said:


> Legitimate in what sense?
> 
> I don't know how you could have an illegitimate reason to break up with someone. The whole thing is non-contractual and only lasts as long as both partners agree on it.


Technically what you say is true, but what if someone told you they want to be with you, lead you on, borrow money with a sob story, ask you to give them head, then dump you the next day. Do you or don't you feel in that situation you have been wronged in some way?

In a similar manner, adult people in committed relationships will probably feel emotionally and romantically rejected if their partner consistently refuses sex.

I mean, come on.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

I think most of perc has reached a healthy understanding in this thread.

well done team.


----------



## MissyMaroon (Feb 24, 2010)

Penguin said:


> I haven't had sex in a while, but I DO enjoy it.
> 
> I'm actually happy NOT having sex until I find someone who it will be meaningful with, so to your point, yes you can be happy while not having sex with anyone who you find physically attractive. Is it easy? no...not really, but the older I get the more meaning sex has. As a teenager-21 sex was just an activity that I enjoyed but that's not really the case anymore.
> 
> hopefully I find someone I really like though because I do miss it a lot, but I'd say I'm happy enough, even though I've been kind of down lately like...overall long term happiness, yeah I'm good.


I think what you miss is passion and/or intimacy.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> _@_Swordsman of Mana This is becoming something of an endless and completely unproductive line of discussion, so if you'd prefer me to just drop it and leave your thread to its topic, I'm fine with that.
> Edit:
> Mention's not working. There.


agreed


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I was in love with an ISTJ I thought I might want to marry some day, spent hours of every day for like a year and a half bonding with him, thinking that this is the way it's supposed to be, we can be best friends and build emotional intimacy and see each other in our underwear but hold off on the fucking, and this will last forever!!!!111
> 
> Uh...nope...and let me tell you, losing my ISTJ was no easier than if we had fucked fifty times(in fact it was worse, bc our relationship wasn't built on sex, the only man who I was more devastated about than ISTJ was my ESFJ ex who I was with for six years and lived with)... After a certain level of intimacy and time, withholding sex won't protect your heart, or guarentee marriage.
> 
> Good luck with your INFP, but don't get too cocky with your no sex creed.


On a side-note: as an INFP, I can't imagine anyone suggesting that sex is not important to that type. It's rather fucking high on our hierarchy or needs.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Penguin said:


> I think most of perc has reached a healthy understanding in this thread.
> 
> well done team.


But... rape!


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I was in love with an ISTJ I thought I might want to marry some day, spent hours of every day for like a year and a half bonding with him, thinking that this is the way it's supposed to be, we can be best friends and build emotional intimacy and see each other in our underwear but hold off on the fucking, and this will last forever!!!!111
> 
> Uh...nope...and let me tell you, losing my ISTJ was no easier than if we had fucked fifty times(in fact it was worse, bc our relationship wasn't built on sex, the only man who I was more devastated about than ISTJ was my ESFJ ex who I was with for six years and lived with)... After a certain level of intimacy and time, withholding sex won't protect your heart, or guarentee marriage.
> 
> Good luck with your INFP, but don't get too cocky with your no sex creed.


Lol... what ?? Are you actually cursing me ? :/ ??? You know when people say that "others won't ever know the real you cos it's the internet", you really summed it up here. 

Ok, before other people judge. Nobody said that sex is off the cards our ways. You are criticising my private life now. 

We are doing things our ways and not their ways basically. Maybe there is something right about his "3 date rule" thing, cos I felt an incredible physical attraction to him the other night and he gave me a cup of cold water ! I was joking with him and I asked for it. He is teasing me and I know it too.  We know it. We know how to turn things on and how to turn things off.  But the thing is, I am sure that my age and my biological side is helping me with this, and he is also patient with me, which is also something that I hold dearly to. He is like me, if you curse my family, I would boot your ass into oblivion. He is similar, but otherwise amicable with others. 

We already had our uncertainty moment for one another, and we did not confused ourselves with seeing other people AT the same time which enable us to misjudge the situation too. It was me who was truthful and told him to stop this serial dating thing cos he is not even reflecting and focusing on one woman.. and he isn't knowingly knowing the girl for himself. He did chase another girl incredibly hard and he has told me about that only to realise that it was pretty much one sided ? He said that they were not compatible and it was true. I also dated someone who was a little bit younger than me and when I was realistic about wanting kids, he bowed out and ran into the arm so of another woman. That was so hurtful he had no idea. I did not reflect on these aspects at all until he pushed me for answers and then I really questioned myself, my goals and my motivation. 

But this guy also wanted kids too. It was like we were both seeking the wrong thing from the wrong person and not the same age. Now we are the same age, similar working background, similar upbringing, and also similar goal is posed in front of me, which I did not think was even possible to achieve is now happening. I cannot ask for more than this. Really. I am very grateful for this opportunity now. I want to see him for him, and I want him to see me for me.  

In another word, I am dating the "Asian way".... I've already asked my mother a little bit on this and she approved too. It's not a game for me Fourtine, and I am not letting my libido lead first. It is everything. 

Your life is your life, thanks for sharing. If I put my Asian hat on, I would think that you were cursing my karma even though this is a good thing for me, and we are both HAPPY. Happy right now and sharing understanding and taking things at OUR pace.. To me, we are building things for the long term and I know he knows it too. Why can't people be happy for others than dissecting their karmas and match it with their own ? I would never be so bold to say that we are "committed" unless we are very steady cos that is just embarrassing. Even though a lot of people use different terms, different ways, meaning different things. As long as I understand him is what matters ultimately to me. 

I have never ever dated the "US way". It was quite simple and understated maybe in a more British manner, or an Asian way. If you need to give it a name. If people are seeing each other, they are already dating, and speculating on each other. There is no "he is not into me" (with his sexuality and libido) viewpoint.. never.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> But... rape!



i thought that was the point....rape is awesome right?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Bago said:


> Lol... what ?? Are you actually cursing me ? :/ ??? You know when people say that "others won't ever know the real you cos it's the internet", you really summed it up here.
> 
> Ok, before other people judge. Nobody said that sex is off the cards our ways. You are criticising my private life now.
> 
> ...



Hmm that is interesting. The ISTJ I mention is part Asian. 
ANYWAY.

What I am criticizing is your constant judgment of other people for being sexual. It is all fine and dandy you seem to think for telling other people how to live their.lives, or "sexual aggression" is not the way to go, but for the record, lady, I completely understand the difference between sex and love, and not having sex does not necessarily mean your heart won't get broken.

Cursing your karma???? Hardly. I am correcting your ridiculous assumptions about other people and their sex lives. Meanwhile, you are in a non committed relationship yourself and aren't having sex. Stop acting like you have all the answers. You don't.

I wished you luck.

Talking to you about relationships between men and women is always a real pleasure, ISFJ.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Aquarian said:


> Just to be clear: I was not and am not trying to convince you to be a lesbian. Your rather paranoid homophobia is showing IMO.


I took your words at face value, and for those people who normally understand others, they just do not compare themselves with others and tout for that kind of response, they just don't. Especially since you do not even know me. My "paranoid homophobia" is showing ? How about I detest how your hatred was turning this towards me? For what? Especially when I have told you my situation why is there a need for you to continue to criticise ? Your choice of words are indeed enlightening, "hetero-centric".... It definitely highlights what you think in your mind for sure. Cos a lot of people are heterosexual and if you have a problem with that and how those posts were answered, then why don't you report to the mods and not continue and wrote your rude posts as you did ? Respect is earned, not expected Dear.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Hmm that is interesting. The ISTJ I mention is part Asian.
> ANYWAY.
> 
> What I am criticizing is your constant judgment of other people for being sexual. It is all fine and dandy you seem to think for telling other people how to live their.lives, or "sexual aggression" is not the way to go, but for the record, lady, I completely understand the difference between sex and love, and not having sex does not necessarily mean your heart won't get broken.


My judgments of other people for being sexual ? I cannot believe my eyes on how many individuals COMPLAIN about their darn sex lives, and they should get over it ! Either do something or not at all and don't complain. Stick with your own decisions and not asks random strangers on the internet when REALLY you need to please your partner and not those who is actually posting on the internet whose opinion does not even count in the grand scheme of things. Are the internet people going to sleep with you ? NO. End of. 

If you notice here in this section of the forum, a lot of people complain, but nobody took actions in their own hands and shake the bull by the horn and what is wrong with these people continually putting and wasting time on here and being extra demoralised in doing so, cos they believe those random sprouting information that those exact words from the person that they fancy ? I find that odd. To me, as a person reading those kind of things, it means that they lack relationship skills and actual communication skills. It is so simple. 

If you are talking about what we talked about on the other threads and so forth, yes, those things are related in those specific areas, and I was trying to highlight what true sexual aggression can make a person become and so forth. If you have an issue, state it there instead. 



> Cursing your karma???? Hardly. I am correcting your ridiculous assumptions about other people and their sex lives. Meanwhile, you are in a non committed relationship yourself and aren't having sex. Stop acting like you have all the answers. You don't.
> 
> I wished you luck.
> 
> Talking to you about relationships between men and women is always a real pleasure, ISFJ.


You just criticised MY love life, and why should I not get mad at you? I did not talk for ALL INFPs, and I have no hell of a clue why you think that others are saying "NO SEX"... I do not know whether because you are an ISxx person that you did not understand the flow of the discussion and when it was about the subject at hand, or when it was about a discussion of someone's life. Most people is aware of what is discussed and what context that was in etc. You made assumption on my love life and that is why I am kicking off at you to be blunt. I was laughing at your judgment and audacity once again. 

You seem to have a real problem with implicit implied meaning, and explicit meaning etc. Seriously. 


[added] For the record, and I shall be direct. Stay out of my love life, even when I have told you what I have here. I do not wish for you to dampen my reputation by spreading rumours and gossips, THANK YOU !!! For the record, I care about the feelings of this guy I am seeing and he cares for me, and I don't give a darn what you did in your relationship with YOUR ex, and with your life and circumstances that has absolutely no relation whatsoever to MY life. Don't compare, thanks !


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

You know, I have to question the judgment of someone who claims to be knowledgable in relationships between people and thinks that elements can be isolated to preserve the integrity of that relationship. There's no health nor longevity to relationships where sex is absent or used as a weapon or a burden. You'll either have a short-lived relationship or the end if one. A couple that is not fucking is a breeding ground for problems. Personally, we're I to be in a scenario where Im either denied or neglected, I'll make it pretty clear that Im on my way out if she's not willing to find some common ground or does it in a begrudging way, as to soothe my mood about it or to try and bury the issue, why would I stay? Why would anyone?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Bago said:


> My judgments of other people for being sexual ? I cannot believe my eyes on how many individuals COMPLAIN about their darn sex lives, and they should get over it ! Either do something or not at all and don't complain. Stick with your own decisions and not asks random strangers on the internet when REALLY you need to please your partner and not those who is actually posting on the internet whose opinion does not even count in the grand scheme of things. Are the internet people going to sleep with you ? NO. End of.
> 
> If you notice here in this section of the forum, a lot of people complain, but nobody took actions in their own hands and shake the bull by the horn and what is wrong with these people continually putting and wasting time on here and being extra moralised in doing so, cos they believe those random sprouting information that those exact words from the person that they fancy ? I find that odd. To me, as a person reading those kind of things, it means that they lack relationship skills and actual communication skills. It is so simple.
> 
> ...


Your misunderstanding of MBTI is mind boggling. How you arrived at INFP I will never know....you see everything through an Si lens and lecture everyone Fe style on how they should behave and conform to this one rigid, normal way. Then,when someone gives it back to you, you tell them to mind their own business about your private life. You have "ISFJ is always right" syndrome, and seem intent on evangelizing the world to the superiority of Asian dating, where people have similar goals and background (this is a very stock SJ way to choose a mate) and are never gay, never date someone ten years younger, feel that they must dress appropriately like an adult for every occasion, and are shamed by Halloween costumes. You are most def an F though bc you too easily become butthurt to be a T. I was even willing to think you were an INFP with a strong ISTJ shadow, but you are just ISFJ.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Your misunderstanding of MBTI is mind boggling. How you arrived at INFP I will never know....you see everything through an Si lens and lecture everyone Fe style on how they should behave and conform to this one rigid, normal way. Then,when someone gives it back to you, you tell them to mind their own business about your private life. You have "ISFJ is always right" syndrome, and seem intent on evangelizing the world to the superiority of Asian dating, where people have similar goals and background (this is a very stock SJ way to choose a mate) and are never gay, never date someone ten years younger, feel that they must dress appropriately like an adult for every occasion, and are shamed by Halloween costumes. You are most def an F though bc you too easily become butthurt to be a T. I was even willing to think you were an INFP with a strong ISTJ shadow, but you are just ISFJ.


Maybe it is you that does not want to believe in real people living real lives and that you actually like to pigeon hole others too ? There is a surprise. 

That is where you have fallen over in your own social skills. I work in international environments and I often use this "differentiating differences" to highlight and to "get an understanding" of the other person first and highlight differences in order for them to quantify themselves and to make them understand how different I am to them and we know where are boundaries are and so forth. It is yourself that actually cannot see beyond your own selfish nose and actually think that everyone SHOULD follow suit to your own style etc. You do not even see ME as an individual person, never mind respecting my life for what it is. That is where your own downfall seems to be. What I do in my private life has got nothing to do with this forum, nor yourself either. 

Most people know if they themselves is a spade or an ace, and they do not BS through to others. Yet so many people here do. I am not saying that I am "right", I am merely judging them against moral standards, and why complaint and yet do not do anything? Which I think is the most typical thing which anyone do in their own lives. I do not see that as fairly wrong imho. 

I am British Asian, and I can challenge others if they say some damn rude things even on a supposed "debating" way or not. I gave a lot of diplomacy already when curtsies are given, but when someone push over that social boundary line and border into your own private affairs, sorry to say, all gloves are off. You seemed shocked and actually....give me this sense that you had "never encountered this" ??.. It may explain why so many others do not seem to have that "self awareness" of where they are in life. 

I have moral values even if you don't, and I do not try and use people for sex, or to use them temporarily even when I do not plan on actually being with them for the long term. To say that you do not know what you want is actually quite BS imho. Cos people make choices in life. Maybe we want not to stick with their choices, but most do, and they make their lives better themselves. There is a lot of complaints and excuses, and for what purpose does that achieve but to sooth one's ego ?? 

I am not evangelizing at all. Maybe you like to sexualise every single person that you meet and you like to rub their egos etc... But I like to agree to disagree that we are different people, and I have no qualms about sticking up for MY values, even when you tried to bulldozed over me before and tried to push ME into a pigeon-hole and I fought back. I HATE THAT YOU SEXUALISE ME ! Darn it. You seemed to be one of those people who brags about their sex lives etc. I don't give a poo what you do in your own time to be honest. I truly don't. Don't speak on MY behalf and blackened MY life, just cos your life is different. Thanks ! I do not know what gives you a "freedom of speech " right to every single person's love life, as if you were some kind of sex god. Maybe in your dream or other, but DON'T push YOUR SEXUAL ANTICS onto me, thank you !!!! I do NOT have to respect you when you do this, and is being pushy and you don't even notice that you are doing this yourself ! 

[Added] Halloween costume thread, huh ? So you been stalking me there too ? How enlightening of you to do that.... Yes, I found it disrespectful to sit in a room with grown adults and my boss who I am supposed to look up to and respect, to then sit in costumes and pretend in a serious manner that we were having a team meeting. Even though he does not find it awkard, he pushed the button of his employee beyond humiliation.... I lost a lot of respect for him, yes. Dignity, reputation and humanity matters to some people's eyes, even if you don't. 

[Added] For the record I have avoided you and your threads. If you stalk and follow me again and be obtuse directly to me and my private life, I would not hesitate to report you to the mods. Thanks !


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> But... rape!


Rape: It's what's for dinner.

But no, really. The only thing truly yielded from this thread was lulz and chaos, and I'm perfectly fine with that.



Bago said:


> I took your words at face value, and for those people who normally understand others, they just do not compare themselves with others and tout for that kind of response, they just don't. Especially since you do not even know me. My "paranoid homophobia" is showing ? How about I detest how your hatred was turning this towards me? For what? Especially when I have told you my situation why is there a need for you to continue to criticise ? Your choice of words are indeed enlightening, "hetero-centric".... It definitely highlights what you think in your mind for sure. Cos a lot of people are heterosexual and if you have a problem with that and how those posts were answered, then why don't you report to the mods and not continue and wrote your rude posts as you did ? Respect is earned, not expected Dear.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Bago said:


> Maybe it is you that does not want to believe in real people living real lives and that you actually like to pigeon hole others too ? There is a surprise.
> 
> That is where you have fallen over in your own social skills. I work in international environments and I often use this "differentiating differences" to highlight and to "get an understanding" of the other person first and highlight differences in order for them to quantify themselves and to make them understand how different I am to them and we know where are boundaries are and so forth. It is yourself that actually cannot see beyond your own selfish nose and actually think that everyone SHOULD follow suit to your own style etc. You do not even see ME as an individual person, never mind respecting my life for what it is. That is where your own downfall seems to be. What I do in my private life has got nothing to do with this forum, nor yourself either.
> 
> ...


Jung did go on and on about the lunacy and eccentricity of the Si dom, and yes your living through the Ne inferior (perhaps over used In your job) is certainly having a field day on this forum. You just walk around ranting and lecturing about stuff that isn't even going on. I don't have morals? Ok Sparky.

Can I quote you screaming I HATE THAT YOU SEXUALISE ME. I am going to piss myself with laughter. What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

android654 said:


> I have got to get in on this gay-agenda thing. If I knew you guys got swag bags I would've totally given guys a shot..


Dont worry. It's not too late. Though the competition is _fierce, _try-outs start in the summer, in a truck-stop bathroom near you. Don't take it lightly though. You'll have to _come hard _if you want a spot on the roster.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

Caged Within said:


> Dont worry. It's not too late. Though the competition is _fierce, _try-outs start in the summer, in a truck-stop bathroom near you. Don't take it lightly though. You'll have to _come hard _if you want a spot on the roster.


ewwwwwww cmon


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

Penguin said:


> ewwwwwww cmon


What? You didn't finish your sentence. _Come_ on what?


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

The way you phrase can be misinterpreted. The way I see it: If I enter into a relationship, sex is like a basic need to be satisfied. If we are not having sex or it is really bad and she won't improve after discussing it, then it's totally a valid reason to leave. But you should make your expectations about sex clear and not assume the other person knows that it is a fundamental need for you in a relationship.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

Caged Within said:


> What? You didn't finish your sentence. _Come_ on what?


was hoping you'd catch that hahahaha but really I'm straight and I've ne...nope I've had sex in a bathroom but not a gas station one have some class!


----------



## Caged Within (Aug 9, 2013)

Penguin said:


> was hoping you'd catch that hahahaha but really I'm straight and I've ne...nope I've had sex in a bathroom but not a gas station one have some class!


Give me some slack, sir. This government shutdown is hitting some of us harder than others.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Bago said:


> When I wrote that, I was referring to those who wrote about the "asexuality" and "pansexuality", "bisexuality" people, who seems to be gender confused. Meaning, that they were in that transitional stage of life, wanting to be in a relationship but yet does not know what it takes to be in one, so they kind of experiment in that context of half-heartedness.


Ah, I see, you're clarifying that you were running a different kind of heterosexism than the kind that's specifically aimed at lesbians and gay men. I wonder if this biphobia etc is also against PerC rules. @Promethea, if it's aimed at people who identify as bisexual, asexual and pansexual where does that fall?. I don't know a lot about what asexual and pansexual people face in terms of slurs, but I'm reasonably certain that the "It's a phase because you're confused/there's something messed up in you" is a pretty common slur against bisexual people.

The rest behind the spoiler because this is freaking long:


* *






> Now that you know what I was thinking when I wrote that. Can you tell me, WHY do you assume I meant YOU specifically, and why jump up on your goat and rant about it ? My rant has been "I want harmony" cos this kind of BS'ing is really grating my goat. I can see one person misleading another, and then another, and then creates this kind of sub-culture, and then youngsters follow suits.... I find that hardly responsible behaviour. To me, it is quite funny that you see this as a hit to homosexuality, and you PRAISE your sexuality as if there needs to be done in this context.
> 
> Originally, the OP did NOT write about a homosexual relationship in his opening post. That is just classic comedy. Cos to me, it read that he was ranting at women, from a guy's perspective, why and how dare he ? For the other ladies to keep it cool, calm and collected to "challenge" him is quite an understatement. He sure know how to emotionally manipulate women.


When I read the OP, I didn't see any reference to women (or men for that matter). Sounds to me like you assumed that because he is a guy, and all guys are supposed to heterosexual in your mind, you just assumed he was talking about women.



> THEN he states that he WAS gay... why does he need to state that ?


I can't speak for him, but I'd hazard a guess that he possibly did so to push against the incorrect default assumption that a man speaking about relationships must be speaking about male-female relationships. But again, I don't know.

It does seem to me that your responses offer pretty good reason why someone would have to clarify their sexual orientation, since you seemed to automatically assume heterosexuality when there was no reason to. That seems to answer your question.



> Does that mean that he meant his thread to be originally about "homosexual" relationships and that "sex on demand" is what he advocate everybody to be having ?


^ ^ Oh no, you're not homophobic at all. (that's sarcasm by the way)



> Basically most of the females here have more or less actually sided with that argument of "it is a privilege", but yet you did not, and I wondered why you did that. Instead, you interrupted and sided with the other opposite argument. Then you claimed yourself to be a homosexual and that this thread was originally ALL about homosexuality. Isn't that quite classic? So here you are, the 2nd homosexual on this thread to put words into the mouth of the original poster and put another spin into the context of this thread. Why can he not tell us what this is about and not for you to speak on his behalf and claim what you think this is about ? That is why I wrote the above. To explicit state "This is getting better" (cos there is further more confusion and intents from others who isn't saying what they are saying etc). Then if they are acting obtuse deliberately, then why should I also not then act obtuse deliberately too ?


Actually, if you read my comments you will see that I didn't side with the argument you claim I did. I've posted a few substantive comments here on the topic and none of them sides where you claim it to. In fact, I didn't address that part at all. The actual data on my take on the substance: 



Aquarian said:


> Personally, I would not not NOT want to have sex with a lover who was only doing it from a sense of responsibility to satisfy my needs and desires. I mean, ugh ick no.
> 
> Mutual desire and satisfaction is part of what makes sex enjoyable for me. I would be seriously turned off if my lover was just doing it out of a sense of responsibility to get me off. I mean, to me that's ... it's actually kind of horrible for me to consider.
> 
> That's just me, of course.





Aquarian said:


> Mzansi said:
> 
> 
> > In my personal experience(As the more sexual partner),
> ...





Aquarian said:


> It seems to me that the core of this whole discussion may simply be about healthy relationships versus relationships that have misuse of sex as a tool for power and control. Meaning, I don't necessarily see sex as the core topic here. IMO if sex is being used as a tool for harm (manipulation, breaking someone, using someone etc) in an unhealthy relationship, that's a terrible thing no matter how it's being used as a tool (withholding or forcing).
> 
> I wonder how much disagreement there actually is here in this thread if the topic were to be shifted in this direction. It seems to me that instead of fighting over which side seems to be getting the better or worse of it, it might be possible for most people in this thread to agree that using sex as a tool for harm in a relationship is simply not okay - whatever that specific use may be.
> 
> Maybe?


Back to Bago:



> Then you claimed yourself to be a homosexual and that this thread was originally ALL about homosexuality. Isn't that quite classic? So here you are, the 2nd homosexual on this thread to put words into the mouth of the original poster and put another spin into the context of this thread.


This thread, to my eyes, was originally *ALL about committed relationships between human beings of whatever genders*. From what I can tell, you incorrectly read the OP as only being about male-female relationships because of your homophobic bias. Then it sounds like you got upset at the OP because hey, this discussion isn't only about or for heterosexuals and he didn't think to tell people like you to check your homophobic biases at the door when reading the thread.



> You can judge me how you like, but you have no real truth of my relationships in my private life, and I have been quite adamant that I do not go into that here on this forum that much. I know it myself. You can judge me on y posts sure. I can also judge you on your posts as to why you seem to be so arrogant actually to also speak on behalf of this other guy who seemed to intently on emotionally manipulating other females, and yet, you too side with him and support his style of argument, and person. That is quite brave of you. I judge your character on that. I really do.


It's true that all I have to go on is your posts.

It's not true that I side with the OP on the topic. See data above for what my actual stance is on the topic.



> People in happiness do not need to brag about it dear. They live it.  Maybe that is the difference between you and I. Whereas I would like to keep my private life to be shared with my most closest people around me, and my immediate family, you need that external validation and you need to fight others to gain your own relationship status and that you need affirmation of "homosexual relationships". I find that odd. Don't you ?


I disagree that people in happiness don't talk about it. That to me is you imposing your standards on others as if your standards apply to eveyone as a matter of course - possibly a Fi-dom thing, to give you the benefit of the doubt. 

As for me: I found my actual mate in this life after 4 decades on this planet, we've walked through some serious fire together (not because we're lesbians, but because we're human beings in this world) and have come out the other side together, and I am grateful beyond any words to have such love and joy in my life. 

And I will talk about it. And live it too. That's me. I am not you. Your standards are yours specifically, not made to be imposed on everyone else as if you run reality. You don't. There's too much diversity in this world for you to define the standard of how everyone should be/act/think.



> Why do you also not see it this way? That as an INFP, I am quite sick and tired of these kind of threads whereby it actually spew verbal diarrhea ? This is a hateful thread. They are not discussing reasons and needs, in an amicable way. They are not loving threads. Where is the love in this thread? It was hatred through and through, and that is why I wanted to step in and challenge that hatred and want to know why a man, can actually say this kind of thing publically and arouse tension between genders and so forth ?


I don't see it the way you do, Bago, because I'm not you. I don't know why you keep mentioning that you're INFP. My mate is also INFP, I have some (from the outside) information about how INFP cognitive functions operate.

If based on your references to your own type, I look at your participation here through the congitive function lens ... what I see from you in this thread is you engaged in persistent ongoing dug-in arrogant Fi-dom rant sessions that in no way promote the harmony you claim to desire. However, I don't think you're doing what you're doing because you're INFP. I think you're just like this for other reasons.

You might want to consider this: if you want harmonious, non-hateful commuication, walk your talk instead of heated word-heavy ranting as you have been doing here in this thread (from well before I interacted with you).



> You can judge me as much as you like. I too would judge you as well, why you are intervening on a thread which another gay man actually was sprouting hatred towards heterosexual women, if that is what it originally was about. Cos he never clarified this.


Again, I didn't see anything in the OP that was about heterosexual women specifically, let alone hatred of same. 



> It scares people, people are upset, and nobody bats an eyelid to intervene. If he claimed that he is gay, then why make a thread not directly and explicitly about himself, than he did so in that "generic" manner ? You tell me.


You assume heterosexual as the default. That's your "generic" and it's your problem that you make such huge distinctions and place such homophobic expectations on a gay person writing about relationships. 

The OP, as far as I could tell, was about relationships between humans across the board. 



> What is his motive and agenda? It really was manipulative. Yet you fail to see that ! Surprising, but not too surprising, cos you hardly would feel sympathies for your fellow women.


^ ^ Back to your homophobia here.



> The other thing is, if he is talking of gay relationships, then why act and write in a manner to expect other heterosexual relationships to be the same way ! He hardly have experiences then in a heterosexual relationship, so why tout for that response ? He can never emotionally relate to it, and understand how it feels for women... He's not even a woman ! Yet, he can bait this cruel and vicious way? That stinks.


I do think that there would be value in discussing whether and how hetero relationships differ from and are similar to other relationships when it comes to the topic of the OP. I think such discussion needs to occur outside of the kind of homophobia you bring to the table, though.



> Have you read in the beginning of the thread about others experimenting on others etc and then ended up with their partners of the opposite sex? Read please. Read the thread and the context. Thanks !


I'd be happy to read actual data you quote that comes from whatever you are referring to here. I'm not interested in doing the work of finding said data for you. I do notice that you tend to misunderstand and twist a fair amount of what you read, so I'm not going to take a vague statement like this at face value and go seeking for whatever you're referring to. 



> LOL... omg. You baited me and entered into a personal area of mine, which I did not appreciate, and what did you expect to happen? That I would kiss your ass ? Why wouldn't I defend myself and push back on you when you do this? Tell me, please. You tout for a personal fight and you bordered and asked me why I was single, and etc.


I do believe are the one who posted the "Why are you single" question first, to the OP, after making some blatantly biased incorrect assumptions about sexual orientation and motive:



Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm single.
> 
> I am under no obligation to rationalize inalienable rights. they require no rationalization





Bago said:


> Why are you single? Ooooh ! Is this a "rant rant rant cos I cannot get the GIRL" kind of thread? That makes more sense...actually, it does.
> 
> I thought you said that you were "gay" ?? Which one is it then ?? What have you decided to be today ? Would you like to be a potatoe ? This is selling like hot cakes in the UK at the moment...





Aquarian said:


> Bago said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you single?
> ...


BTW, I don't see you being harmonious at all in your interaction above. You're being pretty mean, actually. So much for desiring harmonious dialogue. 

Again with the importance of (and lack of) you walking your talk about harmony. If you want it, model it in your own actions/participation.



> LOL.. what the heck has this got to do with your paranoid mind? You compared YOUR relationship with MINE ! I told you to get lost. Which part of this do you not understand ? You made it out that "Oh, I am a lesbian... and mine is muuuuch better than yours". What the hell !?!!? Who has the hatred here ?? To be honest, if I truly put my Asian hat on, I would think that you are being nasty and implied that I should be a lesbian when I even told you that I am not. Cos nobody compares themselves to others when they know who they are and who they are not. So you expect me to be in a lesbian in order to find happiness in a relationship, is that what you are also insinuating? Cos I found that ridiculous. You have no idea how you appear to others. Seriously.


^ ^ Again with the homophobia. 



> Really ? And you think that you are also a more "healthy" individual cos you have actually a heterosexual relationship, and you cannot even relate to me and what I wrote and why, and also you cannot even relate emotionally to what was written by the other ladies on rape etc, and why it is a privilege and not a right. Oh I see. Pardon me for getting that wrong. Seriously.


Actually, I have been raped. By a woman. In an abusive relationship. By a woman who believed it was her right to coerce me into sex even when I said no very clearly. 

The dynamics of coercion/rape/power aren't confined to heterosexual contexts. 

I have also been in a 13 year relationship with my male "high school sweetheart." So I also have experience there (in that case, he was never ever sexually violent in any way).

I have also worked as a volunteer in shelters for abused women and on anti-rape/domestic violence crisis hotlines.


> I do apologise. For being a woman and knowing when she is being threatened about her own gender. Really. I really can appreciate why you wrote what you did now as a lesbian. You got a point there.


Unclearly written but I suspect more homophobia and related wrong assumptions there.



> "Your experience" ? You told us you are gay ! So why comment on other people's relationships which you have absolutely NO clue about ! Why kick off at theirs ? If you missed it again, then I will write it again. I will say this again, it is very arrogant of you to write and comment on other people's relationships in comparison to your own, and critique what "healthy" means. You have no clue why others are happy in their relationships and what they need, and why etc... *How can you? You are not them*.


A very good question. Perhaps ask yourself this question as well, in light of the heated incorrect judgements of others (most certainly not just me) you have persistently made in this thread.



> Answer me this Q: Why does a gay man, write and rant off at heterosexual relationships which he had no experience in assuming that he had always been gay ? He trolled people good and proper. Also, don't assume a heterosexual relationship to be the same as a homosexual one, cos it is NOT the same !!


Again, I didn't see the OP as being about heterosexual relationships specifically. I saw it as being about human relationships. And again, a discussion of the different dynamics would be useful, but not from the springboard of your homophobic framework. Also, such a discussion would need to take complexity into account for real.




Back to the topic of this thread: 

I thing that this comment gets at the heart of it quite well, and I missed it the first time around:



Dewymorning said:


> I think that it is important that in the relationship the couple comes to some kind of agreement around sex, recognising both members parties needs and desires.
> 
> If they can't come to some kind of agreement, then maybe they need to reconsider the relationship.
> 
> It can become easy for sex, either by demanding or withholding it, to become a weapon in a relationship, and that is a very dangerous path to go down.


^ ^ This right here is where I stand. On a personal level, sex is actually sacred to me. Not only does its use as a weapon (of any sort) do harm, but given my perspective, I would perceive sex-as-weapon as deep desecration. 

And I know it happens. In explicit ways, in subtle ways, it happens. And if it does, _however_ it happens, that is IMO valid grounds to end a relationship. I think that the sexual flow is too beautiful to be used for power/control in any way.

_Edited to add_: And I wonder, is there anyone in this thread that actually disagrees with this (not about the sacred part, but about use of sex as a weapon of any sort being grounds for ending the relationship)?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Penguin said:


> ewwwwwww cmon


I for one found the truck stop reference perfect.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

I've already mentioned that I don't think it is a right. But it is a case of a need being effectively blocked.

What if we switch out that need for another need.

Let's take two people, say...Alex and Bailey.

Alex loves exercise. Alex needs exercise to feel good.

But Bailey, really doesn't. Bailey wants to do other things, with Alex. 

So Alex can't really get away to exercise that much. Maybe once a week for some light exercising, but Alex can't do anymore than that without starting to feel bad for Bailey.

This is really affecting Alex negatively, Alex _needs_ more exercise to maintain a healthy mind!

Should Alex really be together with Bailey?

The example is a bit far fetched I know, but you get the idea. And before you go "COMPROMISE!"; there is a limit to how much you can compromise about something. Sometimes there just isn't a good ground for both parties.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

DemonD said:


> I've already mentioned that I don't think it is a right. But it is a case of a need being effectively blocked.
> 
> What if we switch out that need for another need.
> 
> ...



That isn't that best analogy. I've been in that situation, and exercise is a me-centric exercise. All I had to do was break away for an hour a day and I got taken care of. I cannot, however, supplement sex with a solo activity it defeats having a relationship if a big component idiot is up to me to fulfill for myself by myself.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

android654 said:


> That isn't that best analogy. I've been in that situation, and exercise is a me-centric exercise. All I had to do was break away for an hour a day and I got taken care of. I cannot, however, supplement sex with a solo activity it defeats having a relationship if a big component idiot is up to me to fulfill for myself by myself.


Agreed, it was not the best comparison.

But the basis is if person A, who is together with person B, needs X which is blocked by person B which leads to negative repercussions for person A. Should A really be with B?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

DemonD said:


> Agreed, it was not the best comparison.
> 
> But the basis is if person A, who is together with person B, needs X which is blocked by person B which leads to negative repercussions for person A. Should A really be with B?


That would depend on the complexity of the relationship in question.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

I put reliably often sex and monogomy on equal footing as rights. As in, either neither is a right, or both are.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

Where does this right come from? Did God give it to you? XD

(I am sorry, but I just cannot take this seriously)


----------



## Morpheus83 (Oct 17, 2008)

Protagoras said:


> Where does this right come from? Did God give it to you? XD
> 
> (I am sorry, but I just cannot take this seriously)


It's inscribed on a stone tablet I found in my backyard! :tongue:


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

(Sorry, too lazy to read through all the comments right now...)Sex is tricky... I agree with the OP; if you are not satisfied in a relationship you have the right to leave, whether what is missing is sex, ambition, morals, respect, what have you.

What never ceases to amaze me though is how many times men and women get turned on/turned off by very different actions and how we often tend to use sex very differently. I can say that my husband and I would get lucky much more often if we listened to each other better. 


For example, I get 100% turned off when I have to ask him to do the same thing for the one billionth time (like pick up his dirty clothes from the bathroom floor) or when he doesn't recognize the incredible amount of time that I put into taking care of our children while balancing my career. Unfortunately, my reaction could be misinterpreted as rather passive-aggressive - unless he actually listened to what I say. A perfect example was a few years back when he was totally addicted to video games and wouldn't get to bed until past. 11PM. That is way too late for me to engage in sex - sorry, I just don't function like that. He knew that the sex train left the station at 10PM, yet he chose to play video games and whine about not having enough sex... Oh, I forgot, whining about not getting enough sex probably doesn't get you more sex... just a little tip. ;-)


I am sure that he would have similar thoughts to share (that I likely don't listen to...)



It also seems that men often bond through sex while women bond through foreplay. In the latter case, sex is the final confirmation of an already established bond while the foreplay is often not sexual, but can be more down the lines of a caring act, like a deep and personal dialogue, sharing a special experience, or picking up the damn dirty clothes from the freakin' bathroom floor!


----------



## CindyLou (Jun 21, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Edit: thought I should clarify this in the OP. I not suggesting forcing your partner to have sex with you at any time. I AM suggesting leaving if your partners continually doesn't have sex with you for extended periods because they "don't feel like it". such an individual is selfish and doesn't deserve a partner.
> 
> Edit 2:
> obvious exceptions include (but are not limited to)
> ...


I agree except for I would only give exemptions for physical injury.


----------



## BrownSugar (Sep 10, 2013)

Nekomata said:


> my boyfriend....considers sex to be a right as well. As someone who never has liked sex though, and feels no pleasure from it whatsoever....Me and my boyfriend understand VERY well that I dislike the act and get nothing form it, it's been a constant object of fighting from it, one of them at least, so much that I just want to leave, leave and never come back. So much sex that I constantly complain over, so much forced sex where he's pinning me down, sweat dripping down on me and making me feel.... well. Of course he wont let me break up with him. Oh no, he's gotten over that I wouldn't ever want sex with him, and is complain with the arrangement he made up between us. And of course if I stop talking to him it's emotional abuse and all that....
> .


 Do I understand you correctly that you NO LONGER allow him to RAPE you? Is that the arrangement now?


----------



## Female INFJ (Feb 27, 2010)

imaginaryrobot said:


> Or the person who is feeling unsatisfied can leave the relationship to find someone that is fulfilling his/her needs...
> 
> Why are you putting it on the other person who is likely happy in the relationship to break it off?


Genius! I got into many arguments with ENFP's over this. From the experiences I had it was always about what "someone else" has to do - or what "someone else" did to them. I always told them to "do it yourself" and I don't want to hear about it again.

(Usually it is a repetitive rant because people assume I have nothing to do...longer story)

I was about to write what you wrote but I saw the pretty tree avatar picture and read your post!


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Nekomata said:


> Hmm. Well, I suppose my boyfriend would see thing's from the OP's perspective, as he considers sex to be a right as well. As someone who never has liked sex though, and feels no pleasure from it whatsoever, I disagree. Me and my boyfriend understand VERY well that I dislike the act and get nothing form it, it's been a constant object of fighting from it, one of them at least, so much that I just want to leave, leave and never come back. So much sex that I constantly complain over, so much forced sex where he's pinning me down, sweat dripping down on me and making me feel.... well. Of course he wont let me break up with him. Oh no, he's gotten over that I wouldn't ever want sex with him, and is complain with the arrangement he made up between us. And of course if I stop talking to him it's emotional abuse and all that....
> 
> So yeah, I guess if sex is a right, this is a pretty fucking awesome situation I'm in now, enjoyed by both parties.


You are in a severely abusive relationship, I hope you know that. What you just described makes me feel like my ESFJ ex was normal and healthy in comparison. Your bf rapes you? He won't LET you break up with him? 

If you are not married and don't have children, just find a place to stay and file a restraining order. That is, unless you are a masochist and secretly enjoying this.

You qualify as a battered woman. I have seen you post before. Why won't you leave. It will only get worse.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

* *






fourtines said:


> You are in a severely abusive relationship, I hope you know that. What you just described makes me feel like my ESFJ ex was normal and healthy in comparison. Your bf rapes you? He won't LET you break up with him?
> 
> If you are not married and don't have children, just find a place to stay and file a restraining order. *That is, unless you are a masochist and secretly enjoying this.*
> 
> You qualify as a battered woman. I have seen you post before. *Why won't you leave.* It will only get worse.





 @fourtines, while I understand that you're trying to help:

Speaking as someone who has been in a (different in specifics) abusive relationship and also many years ago volunteered on a crisis hotline and in a shelter ... I personally don't feel like it's useful to berate/insult and "why won't you leave" someone who's in this situation. Unless and until you are in the person's shoes, you don't know what they're dealing with and the way I see it, you have no real right to decide what is and isn't an acceptable reason for someone to stay or leave. 

And you know, if someone had said something like what you wrote above to me when I was in the midst of my abusive relationship, it would have served as fuel for me to deepen my self-doubt and beat myself up emotionally - both acts that would have taken away from my strength and self-knowledge rather than supported those things. Suggesting I'm a masochist? Suggesting that if I'm not married or don't have kids there's something wrong with me for staying? Really would have made it worse for me had anyone done that to me. Because then if I didn't leave immediately, well, I would then have started telling myself I was asking for it and deserve what I got and had no right even to think of it as abuse etc etc ETC. (not true, but I would have done that anyway at the time)

I do agree that @Nekomata's relationship sounds quite abusive. It's possible that she and I are different and she needed and wanted to hear what you said - but if not, I would suggest finding out if she really wants our input in the first place, then if so seeking to support her in ways that are truly useful for her, whatever those may be.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Aquarian said:


> @_fourtines_, while I understand that you're trying to help:
> 
> Speaking as someone who has been in a (different in specifics) abusive relationship and also many years ago volunteered on a crisis hotline and in a shelter ... I personally don't feel like it's useful to berate/insult and "why won't you leave" someone who's in this situation. Unless and until you are in the person's shoes, you don't know what they're dealing with and the way I see it, you have no real right to decide what is and isn't an acceptable reason for someone to stay or leave.
> 
> ...



As someone who was in an abusive relationship, I don't understand why I can't ask her if she thinks she might be a masochist. I think people need to understand themselves emotionally and sexually to figure out why they are where they are. Sometimes I think I don't even fit the supposed prototype for an abused woman, because I fight back, am argumentative, acknowledge the sexual and emotional high I get from drama or fear of loss, as well as my need to be dominated by my partner. It is like I find it sexy up to a certain point. However when my ex got too mean I became so angry I even lost sexual interest. If people asked me why I stayed, I didn't collapse, I could tell them why.

My mother was beaten by her second husband and left him even after having three kids with him.

My exes mom was beaten by his dad and never left, and admitted later to my ex as a grown man that she is a sexual submissive.

So ...iiiiii...I sometimes think battered women should have a little more self awareness in asking themselves "why."

There are different kinds of abuse. I do not comprehend women who let it get to a certain point with out doing something. My ISTP friend left her husband with two children, and he fucking stalked her, cut phone lines at her cousin's house, but she stood her ground, she would not go back.

Im not sure tippy toeing around the "why" is always the best response, but maybe in this case you are correct. Maybe I have more self esteem and don't understand her position.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

@fourtines, I am not a masochist and I wasn't married and didn't have kids and I stayed. I knew my reasons and they were a combination of things I could talk about with others, and things I could not. 

Maybe my caution is misplaced in this case. I can only speak for myself and @Nekomata may have a totally different response. I'm just very _very_ glad I didn't come into contact with you or someone who would say what you did when I was in the situation I was in. And it wasn't lack of self-esteem in my case, I would source it more to something like Fe-aux. I see that both you and Nekomata are Fi-doms, so again maybe my caution is misplaced. But whoa, I'm really _really _glad no one said stuff like that to me when I was in my situation.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

thismustbetheplace said:


> Oh, get over yourselves. The OP is not condoning rape. He's saying that people have no right to be in a relationship if they're going to abstain from the sexual component of it, unless it is previously agreed upon to be an asexual relationship.


This exactly. All healthy relationships contain sex for people who aren't asexual. Don't want to participate in that, especially if it's to control or manipulate, and lose your right to be in that relationship.


It seems pretty obvious to simplify the whole thing to "It's your right to break up with someone for not having sex with you." Same meaning with none of the possibility for people thinking he's advocating or justifying rape.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Aquarian said:


> @_fourtines_, I am not a masochist and I wasn't married and didn't have kids and I stayed. I knew my reasons and they were a combination of things I could talk about with others, and things I could not.
> 
> Maybe my caution is misplaced in this case. I can only speak for myself and @_Nekomata_ may have a totally different response. I'm just very _very_ glad I didn't come into contact with you or someone who would say what you did when I was in the situation I was in. And it wasn't lack of self-esteem in my case, I would source it more to something like Fe-aux. I see that both you and Nekomata are Fi-doms, so again maybe my caution is misplaced. But whoa, I'm really _really _glad no one said stuff like that to me when I was in my situation.


Really? I don't understand. Like I had this INFJ friend who was in an abusive relationship and they had no kids, but she was financially dependent upon him, an American living in Canada...plus she loved him. She openly talked about her need to give, and to serve him, and sometimes went on in an emotional way about having sex on the bathroom floor. She was financially trapped, but also addicted to him and he filled her aux Fe desire to be a giving martyr. She finally did leave him and moved back to California where her mom lives.

If it wasn't self esteem in your case, why would you be so bothered by the question. Makes no sense to me. I was a wreck with out my ex at first, It was one of the hardest things I have ever done, but I am thankful for the people who kept asking me why.

Also, I took responsibility for my ex. For years after I left him I felt responsible for him and was finally able to let it go when he married some one. Like, welp, his crazy aint my problem anymore.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

I'm not sure if anyone's brought this up, but aside from things like physical injury that prevents sexual relations, there are Asexual relationships (two people who don't want or need sex but wanted to get married) as "Asexual" is an official gender. Also there are rare cases where one or both of those involved are homosexual, but for some reason they both agreed to marriage, so they are married but don't have sex - is that weird? Anyway, it has happened. I've also heard of opposite transgender couples getting married, but I think they do have sex.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Really? *I don't understand....*
> 
> If it wasn't self esteem in your case, why would you be so bothered by the question. *Makes no sense to me.*


There is a *lot* of reality that would be outside your experience and perspectives, that's just the nature of not being a universal human who understand everything perfectly (as we all are). 

And I'm getting that "I don't want to deal with he Fi-dom closed-ness" feeling I get. so I'll just leave it at - yes, I see you don't understand and that where I'm coming from makes no sense to you because there is a lot of human diversity and reality outside of where you're coming from.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Aquarian said:


> There is a *lot* of reality that would be outside your experience and perspectives, that's just the nature of not being a universal human who understand everything perfectly (as we all are).
> 
> And I'm getting that "I don't want to deal with he Fi-dom closed-ness" feeling I get. so I'll just leave it at - yes, I see you don't understand and that where I'm coming from makes no sense to you because there is a lot of human diversity and reality outside of where you're coming from.



That's hilarious seeing as that you are the one who commented on my post, trying to shush me, like my own experience is invalid, and trying to repress the victim up there, saying further victimizing things like maybe she does not want to be alerted to the fact that she is in an abusive relationship and might (but not necessarily) be staying for internal reasons that would behoove her to closely examine IF she would like to stop being raped and controlled. I mean, I even left open the possibility that a part of her really doesn't want it to stop.

She is 23 years old and posted on a public forum that her boyfriend rapes her, perhaps this is a cry for help and I did the right thing, and just maybe you are wrong to be like oh no we should mind our own business and enable the situation.

Maybe we are both wrong, but this is a public fucking forum and she ultimately is the one to decide. It's not like I messaged her directly.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Nekomata said:


> Hmm. Well, I suppose my boyfriend would see thing's from the OP's perspective, as he considers sex to be a right as well. As someone who never has liked sex though, and feels no pleasure from it whatsoever, I disagree. Me and my boyfriend understand VERY well that I dislike the act and get nothing form it, it's been a constant object of fighting from it, one of them at least, so much that I just want to leave, leave and never come back. So much sex that I constantly complain over, so much forced sex where he's pinning me down, sweat dripping down on me and making me feel.... well. Of course he wont let me break up with him. Oh no, he's gotten over that I wouldn't ever want sex with him, and is complain with the arrangement he made up between us. And of course if I stop talking to him it's emotional abuse and all that....
> So yeah, I guess if sex is a right, this is a pretty fucking awesome situation I'm in now, enjoyed by both parties.


I'm going to give you some blunt advice: break up


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

phony said:


> ?


Sex drives can be satisfied through masturbation, so this is not contradictory.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> Sex drives can be satisfied through masturbation, so this is not contradictory.


Masturbation is a stop-gap measure at best, not a reasonable solution.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

android654 said:


> Masturbation is a stop-gap measure at best, not a reasonable solution.


I know a few people who actually prefer masturbating... Mostly females. Because guys can't compete with vibrating penises that are 40% bigger than the average penis lol


----------



## phony (Nov 28, 2012)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> Sex drives can be satisfied through masturbation, so this is not contradictory.


True but no, he just doesn't want to admit that he was wrong the first time round


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> I know a few people who actually prefer masturbating... Mostly females. Because guys can't compete with vibrating penises that are 40% bigger than the average penis lol


I can't imagine how that works.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

android654 said:


> I can't imagine how that works.


How so? Do you mean like not being in sexual contact with another human because it is an instinct? Idk either. I used to think I was asexual because I was indifferent towards sex, but now it's kind of a deal breaker if she indicates she has no interest in it, ever. I'd be fine if it were something just a few times a month, but there would have to be SOME sex every now and then... No sex ever would suck even if fapping were 10000000 times more pleasurable.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> How so? Do you mean like not being in sexual contact with another human because it is an instinct? Idk either. I used to think I was asexual because I was indifferent towards sex, but now it's kind of a deal breaker if she indicates she has no interest in it, ever. I'd be fine if it were something just a few times a month, but there would have to be SOME sex every now and then... No sex ever would suck even if fapping were 10000000 times more pleasurable.


Yeah, it isn't a sustainable method. Masturbation is akin snaking. You could potentially survive on snaking alone, but your health and the quality of food significantly depletes in terms of quality with each session.

Of course it's a deal-breaker, and it should be. It should be pointed out, that while there's a "concentration" or asexuals on PErc, actual asexuality is a big-time rarity. The vast majority of people there will always be a need for some kind of sexual contact. Maintaining that yourself isn't reasonable to expect or even employ of anyone. So in a relationship, where someone thinks it's cool or ok to just tell their partner to rub one out rather than expect some kind of sex with their partner, it's terms for evaluation of the relationship's viability.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Nekomata said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm. Well, I suppose my boyfriend would see thing's from the OP's perspective, as he considers sex to be a right as well. As someone who never has liked sex though, and feels no pleasure from it whatsoever, I disagree. Me and my boyfriend understand VERY well that I dislike the act and get nothing form it, it's been a constant object of fighting from it, one of them at least, so much that I just want to leave, leave and never come back. So much sex that I constantly complain over, so much forced sex where he's pinning me down, sweat dripping down on me and making me feel.... well. Of course *he wont let me break up with him*. Oh no, he's gotten over that I wouldn't ever want sex with him, and is complain with the arrangement he made up between us. And of course *if I stop talking to him it's emotional abuse *and all that....
> ...


I'm sure that you mean to be helpful but you don't really appreciate her situation at all. Her bf is basically torturing in the relationship through rape and terrorizing her emotionally, when she tries to leave him.

What part of

"Of course *he wont let me break up with him*."
"And of course *if I stop talking to him it's emotional abuse *and all that...."

did you misunderstand?
@Nekomata, have you spoken to the Assaulted Womens' hotline in your are, talking to an abuse counsellor or considered going to a women's shelter? Do you have any friends, family that you can temporarily stay with?

Don't allow anyone either IRL or on this thread to judge you; just stay strong, continue to believe in yourself and realize that there is a way out of this madness. Don't ever lose hope or give up. I don't think that it is possible to do this on your own; it is imperative that you enlist some outside help of some sort; it can make all the difference.


----------



## carlaviii (Jul 25, 2012)

android654 said:


> I can't imagine how that works.


You get so accustomed to an experience where you always get the right touch at the right moment that the variables of doing it with a human who can't read your mind ruin the experience for you. 

Ask me how I... no, actually, don't. NoFap can help with getting out of that rut, though.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

carlaviii said:


> You get so accustomed to an experience where you always get the right touch at the right moment that the variables of doing it with a human who can't read your mind ruin the experience for you.
> 
> Ask me how I... no, actually, don't. NoFap can help with getting out of that rut, though.


I agree that it might be preferable to bad sex, but if given the option, no one in their right mind would trade sex for masturbation.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

I was just thinking... why did some people on this thread tell the OP _he _should be the one to leave the relationship? What is the difference between someone leaving their partner because he isn't satisfied sexually and someone leaving because they can't satisfy their partner? Why is it his responsibility to leave?


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I was just thinking... why did some people on this thread tell the OP _he _should be the one to leave the relationship? What is the difference between someone leaving their partner because he isn't satisfied sexually and someone leaving because they can't satisfy their partner? Why is it his responsibility to leave?


Because he's the dissatisfied one.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> I know a few people who actually prefer masturbating... Mostly females. Because guys can't compete with vibrating penises that are 40% bigger than the average penis lol


I prefer sex, the closeness, the intimacy, the other touching, the scent of my partner, the feeling of being penetrated by a human rather than awkwardly with my fingers or a piece of rubber, I really like penetration...however, I do prefer masturbation to having sex with a man I am not attracted to or with a man who will hurt me emotionally. But I prefer sex STRONGLY with a man I am attracted to.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

DemonD said:


> Because he's the dissatisfied one.


The other partner would be dissatisfied too in a relationship where something that he can't give is expected of him.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> The other partner would be dissatisfied too in a relationship where something that he can't give is expected of him.


That's not expressed in this hypothetical. All that's expressed is a need for sex and a lack thereof.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

android654 said:


> That's not expressed in this hypothetical. All that's expressed is a need for sex and a lack thereof.


What else do you need expressed? Unless you mean that there is a lack of communication and the other person isn't aware of the expectations of the sexually active person.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

android654 said:


> That's not expressed in this hypothetical. All that's expressed is a need for sex and a lack thereof.


Sure it is - it's right there in "someone leaving because they can't satisfy their partner."

@Nekomata - I've been in an abusive relationship. I got out and it was the best thing I ever did. You should get out, and you can. There are people who want to help you, and there are other people whose job it is to help you. Call for help to someone who can protect you. National Sexual Assault Hotline - 1.800.656.HOPE | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network 
You deserve better.

It is not your fault in any way, but it is your problem. Nobody can leave him for you. You have to get out any way you can and stay out. You don't owe him an explanation or even a word.


----------



## Shpiersh (Sep 28, 2013)

You know what's also a right? Buying yourself a blow-up doll. If your partner doesn't want it, beat your meat into your little toy. Another point: sex is NOT a need. Your not gonna end up in the ER if you abstain. Your partner doesn't NEED to satisfy you, therefore it's not her obligation. :dry:


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Shpiersh said:


> You know what's also a right? Buying yourself a blow-up doll. If your partner doesn't want it, beat your meat into your little toy. Another point: sex is NOT a need. Your not gonna end up in the ER if you abstain. Your partner doesn't NEED to satisfy you, therefore it's not her obligation. :dry:


By that logic, warmth and shelter is not a need.


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Shpiersh said:


> You know what's also a right? Buying yourself a blow-up doll. If your partner doesn't want it, beat your meat into your little toy. Another point: sex is NOT a need. Your not gonna end up in the ER if you abstain. Your partner doesn't NEED to satisfy you, therefore it's not her obligation.


It _is_ her obligation however to communicate clearly at the beginning of the relationship that she's not really into sex (or if it becomes apparent she wants it significantly less than her partner). It really boils down to longterm compatibility. If sex drives are vastly different - fair enough. No whining though if it doesn't work out then.

And I'd personally say: Sex, and bonding through sex, is a need for many people. If it wasn't, we'd be extinct by now.


----------



## Malkovich (Feb 18, 2010)

The fact that there are people out there who actually want and ask their partner who doesn't want to have sex to do it anyway because it's the "fair price" for being in a relationship with them is so profoundly disturbing to me.

Like, your partner's reasons for not wanting sex, and their willingness or unwillingness to do something they don't want to do to indulge your needs aside, what kind of person even _wants _to be fucking someone who'd rather not be fucking them?, someone who's, like, laying there waiting for it to end because it's the price they apparently have to pay for love and companionship and all the other things they enjoy in the relationship? It's just so disgusting, who would want to do that to someone, let alone someone they supposedly care about or even claim to love.


----------



## Carry Cola (Oct 10, 2013)

That this thread has been made is an abomination.

Here's what you do rather than tell your partner "you must have sex with me because it is my right seeing as we are in a monogamous relationship":

-communicate


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

Malkovich said:


> Like, your partner's reasons for not wanting sex, and their willingness or unwillingness to do something they don't want to do to indulge your needs aside, *what kind of person even wants to be fucking someone who'd rather not be fucking them?, someone who's, like, laying there waiting for it to end because it's the price they apparently have to pay for love and companionship and all the other things they enjoy in the relationship? It's just so disgusting, who would want to do that to someone, let alone someone they supposedly care about or even claim to love*.


Yeah - as I wrote earlier in the thread, I myself personally I can't imagine wanting that. It turns my stomach. My lover's desire is an important turn-on for me, and someone not wanting to be having sex would turn me off big time. 

I wonder if there's anyone here who could speak from that other subjectivity - meaning, is there anyone here who _doesn't_ require desire from a partner as part of necessary turn-on for sex?


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

What I personally don't get:

Is talking to each other somehow out of fashion these days? 

Is there so little trust and honesty in some relationships that people are unable to communicate their needs openly? And if that's the case: _Why on earth are you together? _

Which somehow brings this thread full-circle: Sexual compatibility _is_ important for a relationship. So if you're not compatible in whatever way, either try to work it out and compromise (both!), or do yourself the favour and end it.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

FallingSlowly said:


> What I personally don't get:
> 
> Is talking to each other somehow out of fashion these days?
> 
> ...


Well, in my age group I can tell you that a lot of people are oblivious to their feelings, their wants and desires, and most importantly their person. Take out those three things from two people and tie them together and what you've got is a relationship with two complete strangers. He doesn't know how to talk to her even if he thinks he does. She doesn't know who he is even though she may fool herself into thinking she's got a rough idea. Tell me: you take that into account and present a problem like lack of communication or failure of sexual reciprocity and make them work it out. How? How do you get those people to solve those problems? Short answer is: you don't. It was doomed from the beginning. And that is the main social epidemic of this generation: oblivion.

Walking out the door should always be on the table.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> Is there so little trust and honesty in some relationships that people are unable to communicate their needs openly? And if that's the case: _Why on earth are you together?_


I've been thinking about trust a lot as I've read this thread. When things were at their very worst with me and my mate, trust was an issue for me. Neither of us are into having control over others, but we can both be fiercely self-protective if we feel like someone is trying to control us. There was a point when sex got sucked into that mess in some pretty tangled ways. 

I guess I'm trying to say is this: yes, trust and open communication is crucial. But in my experience, sometimes things can get tangled up and there's a difference between such tangles and incompatibility. Telling the difference between self-protective coping mechanisms and what's really going on is important in our case. Understanding sex as part of the larger context of a relationship is important also.

[HR][/HR]
The other thing I've been thinking about with this thread is this:

What is "sex"? Is it an bounded act? Bounded by what?

I ask this not in a hypothetical way, but because my own perspective of sex has recently shifted in a way that's much more organic to me than anything I experienced previously. 

For me, sex is a thread running through our relationship, and sexual play on one day could be foreplay for full on sex two days later, and that full on sex could be the first round in a many-more-orgasms-than-I-can-do-in-one-day sexual wave that takes several days to be completely done. Meaning: In this mode, sex is waves of ebb and flow over time rather than a bounded act that starts at X time and ends at Y time. I don't know if I'm describing this usefully here, but for me it's actually a pretty awesome way to understand and experience sexual connection in a committed relationship. And interestingly enough, trust is a big part of it.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Shpiersh said:


> You know what's also a right? Buying yourself a blow-up doll. If your partner doesn't want it, beat your meat into your little toy. Another point: sex is NOT a need. Your not gonna end up in the ER if you abstain. Your partner doesn't NEED to satisfy you, therefore it's not her obligation. :dry:


According to the widely accepted psychology theorem, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, sex is a necessity. I may not need dark to stay alive, but I need dark to be healthy. Same with sex.


----------



## lifeisanillusion (Feb 21, 2011)

Reading this thread and so far I am grateful for the partner I have. We haven't been together long, bout three months, but I expressed my issues with having sex to her. Yes it was extremely scary and a huge risk for me, I wasn't sure how she would react. My last partner was extremely selfish and didn't seem to care about my needs. But this woman was different, and the sex is getting better all the time. Not saying I am a god in bed, but it is so much more rewarding than with my last relationship. She is an awesome woman and I am grateful she has come into my life. So yes, communication is key. But if your partner isn't healthy, or selfish, etc it won't matter how much you communicate. If they don't seem to respond in a favorable manner or with respect, than do yourself a favor and leave the relationship. Find someone who will.


----------



## Shpiersh (Sep 28, 2013)

DemonD said:


> By that logic, warmth and shelter is not a need.


Warmth and shelter not a need? Without warmth, the person may catch hypothermia. Without shelter, the individual will be exposed to the outside world, leaving them without protection from animal/human predators and the potentially harsh weather conditions. Both of these are life threatening risks. What's the worst that could happen when someone doesn't have sex? He or she gets a little irritable and whiny? You can't compare sex to something like warmth and shelter just like that! Don't get me wrong, though. Of course sex is a need for the human population itself; if it wasn't there, none of us would be here right now. What I was talking about (and I probably should have mentioned it in my little rant) is not a whole population, but just one person. A person does have the right to have his or her own shelter with warmth and food, obviously. But to have someone claim that sex is a right and not a privilege just kinda rubs me the wrong way. It's a privilege because you have to earn the respect and trust of the person if you ever hope for the relationship to work out. I apologize for any kind of confusion or if I offended you. When I saw the title of this thread, I just wanted to jump right at it ^_^ .


----------



## Shpiersh (Sep 28, 2013)

FallingSlowly said:


> It _is_ her obligation however to communicate clearly at the beginning of the relationship that she's not really into sex (or if it becomes apparent she wants it significantly less than her partner). It really boils down to longterm compatibility. If sex drives are vastly different - fair enough. No whining though if it doesn't work out then.
> 
> And I'd personally say: Sex, and bonding through sex, is a need for many people. If it wasn't, we'd be extinct by now.


Of course! I agree with you. The human race wouldn't be here today if there was no sex. I just failed to mention who I was referring to, y'know... not the population, but just one person who's whining about not getting some. And you are right about bonding through sex, but it's not the only way to bond. If you were to list the top 5 things in a relationship that would make it last, would you say that sex is one of them? (I don't know if this would be the right question to ask, since a lot of people would probably say yes xD) If I were to make a list, though, one of the points I would include is, like you mentioned, communication. As you stated before, without clear communication, the relationship itself is doomed to failure. The other four I would include in my top 5 list would be respect, trust, love, and honesty. Sex is fine and all, but when you have someone just outright claiming that it's a right and not a privilege to be earned by trust, it just kind of rubs me the wrong way (this may or may not have caused me to go off on a rant on this thread lol).


----------



## Shpiersh (Sep 28, 2013)

William I am said:


> According to the widely accepted psychology theorem, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, sex is a necessity. I may not need dark to stay alive, but I need dark to be healthy. Same with sex.


So if someone were to remain a virgin for all of their life, would that be detrimental to their health? Don't get me wrong, though. Intercourse can benefit the person physically, and it is a great way to form bond with your partner, but I wouldn't call it a necessity. You say you would need dark to stay healthy. Let's use another example for just a minute. You see a lot of people drinking coffee on a daily basis. Many of them would probably limit their consumption to one mug a day, and that's just fine. It doesn't necessarily hurt the person; in fact, some research has shown that it can help prevent diseases such as Parkinson's disease, liver cancer, and type 2 diabetes. Even with all of it's benefits, though, one who might choose to abstain from drinking coffee wouldn't be in any worse shape than another who drinks it on a daily basis. Same can be said about sex. I just may have forgotten to mention all of this in my little *ahem* rant roud:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

When I think of a romantic relationship, I of course see some form of sexual activity as part of that but I would never impose my needs on anyone else, to their detriment.

The only real "rights" in any relationsip, are friendship, caring, decency, consideration and fairness; anything else is a delusion. And sexual differences between people may be connected to many things, such as differences in sex drive, fatigue, illness, etc but frequently, sexual problems in a relationship signify a profound lack of trust and communication between then individuals involved. 

There is a question on OkC that asks respondents what they would find most intolerable in a relationship. I of course, selected lack of communication as my deal breaker but a guy, I had been corresponding with at that time, chose lack of sex, as his deal breaker. I expressed bafflement over how anyone could want to have sex if the communication between partners had severely deteriorated. He, OTOH, didn't see that as much of a problem as the lack of sex signalling the end of a relationship. He was also distant, insensitive and mildly emotionally abusive to me and he was on horrible terms with every single one of his exes.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Shpiersh said:


> So if someone were to remain a virgin for all of their life, would that be detrimental to their health? Don't get me wrong, though. Intercourse can benefit the person physically, and it is a great way to form bond with your partner, but I wouldn't call it a necessity. You say you would need dark to stay healthy. Let's use another example for just a minute. You see a lot of people drinking coffee on a daily basis. Many of them would probably limit their consumption to one mug a day, and that's just fine. It doesn't necessarily hurt the person; in fact, some research has shown that it can help prevent diseases such as Parkinson's disease, liver cancer, and type 2 diabetes. Even with all of it's benefits, though, one who might choose to abstain from drinking coffee wouldn't be in any worse shape than another who drinks it on a daily basis. Same can be said about sex. I just may have forgotten to mention all of this in my little *ahem* rant roud:


Well, if the person not drinking coffee is missing out on the reduced risk of diseases, then yes, the person not drinking coffee is going to be worse off than the people drinking a cup a day.

Sex has a lot of health benefits, most of them in the area of eliminating stress. So I'd say that someone staying a virgin their whole life is probably hurting themself to some degree. Maybe not if they have no desire for sex, but if they have a sex drive, constantly denying it is denying themselves something beneficial.


----------



## TheGirlWithTheCurls (Feb 2, 2012)

android654 said:


> 1) How would it be ridiculous to become upset with a partner who isn't satisfying you in a relationship? What's the point of a relationship if there's no communicability of acts or reciprocity?
> 
> 2) Leaving when not being satisfied is exactly what the OP stated.


It just sounded like a stupid thing to say in my opinion, because what they said is that the person who isn't 'giving them sex' should have to leave the relationship, because really it should be the other way around. Why should the other person have to be the one to break it off when they're not the one with the issue? That really doesn't seem right to me. I'm sorry if I'm not wording this right I have a bit of trouble putting my thoughts into words.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

android654 said:


> Well, in my age group I can tell you that a lot of people are oblivious to their feelings, their wants and desires, and most importantly their person. Take out those three things from two people and tie them together and what you've got is a relationship with two complete strangers. He doesn't know how to talk to her even if he thinks he does. She doesn't know who he is even though she may fool herself into thinking she's got a rough idea. Tell me: you take that into account and present a problem like lack of communication or failure of sexual reciprocity and make them work it out. How? How do you get those people to solve those problems? Short answer is: you don't. It was doomed from the beginning. And that is the main social epidemic of this generation: oblivion.
> 
> Walking out the door should always be on the table.


Sounds very much like the reasons why I refused to start romantic relationships during University studies, when the sense of commitment and emotional investment felt lacking in peers outside physical desires alone (belonging, touch, connection etc without the emotions, akin to entitlements or conditional FWB rather than 'in a relationship'.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

TheGirlWithTheCurls said:


> It just sounded like a stupid thing to say in my opinion, because what they said is that the person who isn't 'giving them sex' should have to leave the relationship, because really it should be the other way around. Why should the other person have to be the one to break it off when they're not the one with the issue? That really doesn't seem right to me. I'm sorry if I'm not wording this right I have a bit of trouble putting my thoughts into words.


I just said this a couple of pages ago but, why is wanting sex an "issue"? Why is he made to look as if the partner wanting sex has the "problem" and should be the one to leave the relationship? The person who does not want the sex is also dissatisfied in the relationship, something that he can't give is expected of him. Why should the other partner be the one to leave? I'm not advocating it should be the other way round either but that both them should be in equal standing.


----------



## illow (Dec 23, 2012)

Its not a right....I left my village thinking that the city life would satisfy my silly energy to words women....what i mean by that is i ve come across countless girls in the so called civilized world, and these guys are more propertising of themselves than i could ever be of them...I ve read in the defense of women and it was quite interesting to see how the stereotypes i carried from my village are plausibly applied and regurgitated by authoritative figures in the upper class. Its unlikely that i d give a fuck about someone who repeatedly avoided sex simply because its a duty, part of the un-separable bond we share....our only physical evidence to the present state and operation of our love....regardless...i would recommend it...but its not a right....right? its a manifestation of the the raw, uncontrollable, and private spectrum that we need not analyse cause its disturbing complicated....noooo...it is far more simpler.....we choose to have sex...or withdraw it...and if my partner decided that shes has a right over my body, rather than an appreciation for it i would make me quite upset...Its mine. 

Anywho....further escaping reality and blabering about the fact that God has granted us a "right" over each other may work for some of us(certainly worked in my village, our divorce rates are quite low too), but it would be idiotic to assume that this privilege is worth any more time to discuss between the couples unless ofcourse this interfere with their interpersonal relations, and hapiness and well being....there are things...subtle lil things to land yourself in bed with your partner....complaining isnt one of them.


----------



## Ecoas (Jul 28, 2013)

This is true naturally. But within that contract there is most certainly not a clause indicating that sex is a right within that marriage. As for who is at fault in the case, I could see that it might be unreasonable behavior, honestly, I didn't even think of marrige in this context. It didn't seem like what he was referring to.


----------



## Ecoas (Jul 28, 2013)

fourtines said:


> Technically what you say is true, but what if someone told you they want to be with you, lead you on, borrow money with a sob story, ask you to give them head, then dump you the next day. Do you or don't you feel in that situation you have been wronged in some way?
> 
> In a similar manner, adult people in committed relationships will probably feel emotionally and romantically rejected if their partner consistently refuses sex.
> 
> I mean, come on.


Which is why I asked legitimate in what sense. Violation of rights is very different from general mean treatment. The real point i'm trying to get at is that any love you ever get is a privilege, not a right.


----------



## Felidire (Jan 12, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> you do not have the right to abstain from sex for weeks at a time simply because you "don't feel like it". your partner has needs to and it is your responsibility to satisfy them.


 I've every right to do whatever the flying fuck I feel like, whenever I feel like doing it, and if those feels involved abstaining from sex 6 months then so be it! XD

Thankfully I'm not selfish, and I'm more than happy to put out 100% of the time, whatever the time, provided that I love the person; while having no sexual demands in return because I view my libido purely as a desire. A "want", not a "need" - so I'd be more than content with pleasuring myself.

If I find that I'm pleasuring myself 99% of the time to sate my own desires, then there's something seriously wrong in that relationship and it probably wouldn't last so no big deal.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> fine, if you don't want to have sex leave the relationship so the other person can find someone who does.


Who's to say the other person is willing to let go? If you're not that into them, then odds are they'd be madly into you.



Shpiersh said:


> William I am said:
> 
> 
> > According to the widely accepted psychology theorem, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, sex is a necessity. I may not need dark to stay alive, but I need dark to be healthy. Same with sex.
> ...


Why would psychologists try to endorse such a farcical and ludicrous theory? Lmao!


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

I think this whole discussion needs to look at the difference between the right to do something and the right to do something with no expectation of negative consequences.


----------



## Ecoas (Jul 28, 2013)

William I am said:


> Well, if the person not drinking coffee is missing out on the reduced risk of diseases, then yes, the person not drinking coffee is going to be worse off than the people drinking a cup a day.
> 
> Sex has a lot of health benefits, most of them in the area of eliminating stress. So I'd say that someone staying a virgin their whole life is probably hurting themself to some degree. Maybe not if they have no desire for sex, but if they have a sex drive, constantly denying it is denying themselves something beneficial.


I would have to argue that just because something is a need does not make it a right. Rights are what you have without any help from any human, alone in a state of nature. More poetically, they are what you have when you have nothing. Further, protection of a right implies the justification of force. People need social acceptance for instance, but would it be right to force people to like other people? I certainly don't think so, because that would then violate the liberty rights of others. 

The implications of making an artificial(for lack of a better word) right is even more dire for sex. Making sex a right is essentially a justification of rape. This may not be what anyone intended to do or meant by it, but a right is not a term to be thrown around lightly.


----------



## WindowLicker (Aug 3, 2010)

What about when your partner expects sex without meeting your needs, like hunger or that they want it 15 minutes before they go to work?


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Ecoas said:


> I would have to argue that just because something is a need does not make it a right. Rights are what you have without any help from any human, alone in a state of nature. More poetically, they are what you have when you have nothing. Further, protection of a right implies the justification of force. People need social acceptance for instance, but would it be right to force people to like other people? I certainly don't think so, because that would then violate the liberty rights of others.
> 
> The implications of making an artificial(for lack of a better word) right is even more dire for sex. Making sex a right is essentially a justification of rape. This may not be what anyone intended to do or meant by it, but a right is not a term to be thrown around lightly.


It's a right to have a complete relationship, and that includes sex. Nobody's saying they have a right to rape. Stop using a strawman argument; that's poor logic.

Moreover, if someone obstructs your rights, the only time you can use force to reclaim it is in the event that your right to life or freedom (not being kidnapped) is threatened.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

WindowLicker said:


> What about when your partner expects sex without meeting your needs, like hunger or that they want it 15 minutes before they go to work?


I can honestly see the difference between an English mother and a Latino mother culturally. Men's expectations of sex do come from their MOM. Like it or not, your bf or husbands MOM gave him his sense of entitlement or not. People always talk about the patriarchy but they downplay what mothers of sons do to perpetuate it.

This is not about physical sex drive, but if your partner expects his needs to be satisfied regardless of your own.


----------



## WindowLicker (Aug 3, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I can honestly see the difference between an English mother and a Latino mother culturally. Men's expectations of sex do come from their MOM. Like it or not, your bf or husbands MOM gave him his sense of entitlement or not. People always talk about the patriarchy but they downplay what mothers of sons do to perpetuate it.
> 
> This is not about physical sex drive, but if your partner expects his needs to be satisfied regardless of your own.


What is the difference between the two?


----------



## Ecoas (Jul 28, 2013)

William I am said:


> It's a right to have a complete relationship, and that includes sex. Nobody's saying they have a right to rape. Stop using a strawman argument; that's poor logic.
> 
> Moreover, if someone obstructs your rights, the only time you can use force to reclaim it is in the event that your right to life or freedom (not being kidnapped) is threatened.


No that's just it, the only rights ARE life and freedom. If you are entitled to anything else, it means you have the right to take it by force, thus infringing upon rights to life or freedom.

A right isn't just any good thing. There are lots of good things we are not entitled to.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Ecoas said:


> No that's just it, the only rights ARE life and freedom. If you are entitled to anything else, it means you have the right to take it by force, thus infringing upon rights to life or freedom.
> 
> A right isn't just any good thing. There are lots of good things we are not entitled to.


I'm pretty sure that the WHO or UN disagree with you on that, and I do too. 
We have a lot of rights, including the right to ask for what we want or feel we need.

Human contact and affection and intimacy are human needs. Everyone who is in a relationship that isn't predetermined to be lacking some particular need has the right to expect to be given that intimacy and affection so long as the relationship lasts.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Speaking as a Demisexual who is in a relationship with an Asexual, I find the OP's premise faulty.

I think that if anyone is in a relationship and has been clear about what needs they expect their partner to meet, and their partner will not meet them, then they have the right to leave the relationship. However, some people need their partners to accept their lack of sexual needs in order to be in a romantic relationship, so this isn't just about sex. For me romantic relationships are about my sensual and emotional needs. Sex is just icing if it happens.


----------



## Halcyon (Jun 21, 2013)




----------



## Jwing24 (Aug 2, 2010)

WolfStar said:


> People can make any kind of relationship they like. With or without sex. That's really all that needs to be said.


This pretty much.


----------



## carlaviii (Jul 25, 2012)

I think the point we've been trying to get at is that sex in a relationship needs to be of a quality and frequency that's agreeable to all parties involved. 

Whether it's three times a day or only once a year, dispassionate quickies or romantic productions that take all night... is up to the couple to determine. 

And a lack of mutually satisfying sex is valid grounds for ending a relationship.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Sex to me is the same as every other aspect of a healthy relationship.

*Communication *-

I initiate *communication* because I am ready, willing and able to do so. She initiates *communication* because she is ready, willing, and able to do so.
To choose not to *communicate* is an error. It is not an error on the part of the other party. It represents a brokenness in the *uncommunicative* person. Imagine how nonsensical(yet hopeful and wonderful) it is for the healthy and *communicative* party to have to then ALSO *communicate* that there is a lack of *communication*. To go above and beyond the call of duty and express repeatedly the desire for the other party to *communicate *in good faith.

*Sex *-

I initiate *sex *because I am ready, willing and able to do so. She initiates *sex *because she is ready, willing, and able to do so.
To choose not to (have and initiate)*sex *is an error. It is not an error on the part of the other party. It represents a brokenness in the *unsexual* person. Imagine how nonsensical(yet hopeful and wonderful) it is for the healthy and *sexual *party to have to then ALSO *communicate* that there is a lack of *sex*. To go above and beyond the call of duty and express repeatedly the desire for the other party to (have and initiate)*sex *in good faith.


----------



## IAmOrangeToday (Sep 30, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Edit: thought I should clarify this in the OP. I not suggesting forcing your partner to have sex with you at any time. I AM suggesting leaving if your partners continually doesn't have sex with you for extended periods because they "don't feel like it". such an individual is selfish and doesn't deserve a partner.
> 
> Edit 2:
> obvious exceptions include (but are not limited to)
> ...


I think I can understand where you're coming from, but in my eyes you make one basic faulty assumption.

That is that a person's most important needs are the sexual ones.

People have many needs in relationships, and many of them aren't sexual. Not even everyone enjoys sex.

Needs not being met certainly constitutes a grounds to end it. But couples that don't have sex can still be fulfilling many of eachother's needs.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

IAmOrangeToday said:


> I think I can understand where you're coming from, but in my eyes you make one basic faulty assumption.
> That is that a person's most important needs are the sexual ones.


I'm afraid you're the one whom has made the faulty assumption here: that because I feel sex is necessary, I think it is the most important need. 

let me put it another way
as a person, I need food and water. water is more important because I need it consume it more frequently to survive, but without food, I will still die. therefore, even if water is present, it is unwise for me stay in a region that does not have enough food.

you cannot leave needs to an either/or scenario because they're not things you can afford to compromise severely (sure, you can compromise on a lower frequency, such is the nature of relationships, but this can only go so far)

obviously, this isn't a perfect example because you're not going to die without sex, but it's still a base need. 



> People have many needs in relationships, and many of them aren't sexual. Not even everyone enjoys sex.


if they don't enjoy sex, they shouldn't be with someone who does. 



> Needs not being met certainly constitutes a grounds to end it. But couples that don't have sex can still be fulfilling many of each other's needs.


yes, but the key word here is _needs_, ie, _all_ of them must be fulfilled.


----------



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm afraid you're the one whom has made the faulty assumption here: that because I feel sex is necessary, I think it is the most important need.
> 
> let me put it another way
> as a person, I need food and water. water is more important because I need it consume it more frequently to survive, but without food, I will still die. therefore, even if water is present, it is unwise for me stay in a region that does not have enough food.
> ...


Do you at least agree that this is a matter of communication? That sex and its availability should be discussed before entering too deep into a relationship?

Also, are you saying that need = right?

It sounds like you're saying that one partner has an automatically assumed _duty_ to provide sexual relief for the other one?


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

This thread makes me think of issue of power. Some women might lead a man into a relationship but once they get what they want, be it some kind of commitment like marriage or maybe to have a child with the person or whatever, then decide to refuse sex or whatever else they initially did to make their partner interested in them. Man, becoming stuck in the relationship due to social or legal obligations and commitment, now feels duped.

The opposite would be a girl who was promised certain things by a man who just wanted to get sex, and then never getting a call back or having him honor his promise. Both cases the person feels powerless and used.

People who interpret the OP's post in other ways, can do so as well, and I don't think what I'm suggesting is THE way to understand it, but that's what first occurred to me. Because otherwise, a person is free to leave a relationship if they're not getting what they need, and this applies both to women and men. 

But if a woman has a man spend money on her and make promises and all that but once gets her in bed or she marries him then withdraw all that, and given all the time and emotional investment into it, she might feel quite angry and feel she was played. And same with men who feel played in other situations.

My recommendation to both men and women is that not trust your partner or make commitments or go to bed or whatever, too soon. Do things step by step, based on how the other person behaves, once they've gotten something from you. Look at how they relate to other people, friends, and family. Ask around, perhaps from the ex-girlfriends or ex-boyfriends. Because once the deed is done, be it sleeping together or making a commitment or spending big money on someone or having become emotionally invested in them, then you can not demand rights, any different from the legal ones provided to you by your country's legal system. Anything else, including saying the person MUST sleep with you, would be considered criminal, whether fair or not to you personally.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

how in the fk is this thread still alive, we finished it like 10-15 pages ago.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

conscius said:


> Some women might lead a man into a relationship but once they get what they want, be it some kind of commitment like marriage or maybe to have a child with the person or whatever, then decide to refuse sex or whatever else they initially did to make their partner interested in them. Man, becoming stuck in the relationship due to social or legal obligations and commitment, now feels duped.





Penguin said:


> how in the fk is this thread still alive, we finished it like 10-15 pages ago.


*Bait-and-switch*.

This thread never touched on the times where everything is hunky-dory at the beginning, issues/expectations are explicitly communicated, and then years down the road when you're in deep (like married with kids, mortgage, and intertwined goals), shit changes--drastically. You communicate your frustration with an open-mind to make changes on your end, if necessary, and nothing comes of it. Rinse, repeat.

I get it--I'm a parent too; things are stressful. I don't always feel up to it or feel sexy and hot either. But, I'm thinking, "I love you and I think you're sexy (despite your negative body image)...and well, I want to take you down to Chinatown!" You know what I mean? Is that so bad? It's not like I'm asking her to weed the back yard...

You know what sucks? *You stop caring after a while*--it sucks to get rejected by the person you love repeatedly and always having to be the one to initiate intimacy--whether it's creating the mood or flirting throughout the day. And don't say that my expectations or conduct in the relationship were out of whack--I was married for 15+ years and I knew when things were needed on my end as well as appropriate timing and realistic expectations.

I wonder if the uproar in this thread would have shifted drastically if we substituted "sex" with "emotional intimacy." Both are reasonable expectations in a relationship; both are extremely damaging to the relationship if withheld by either partner.


----------



## Penguin (Sep 25, 2012)

MindBomb said:


> *Bait-and-switch*.
> 
> This thread never touched on the times where everything is hunky-dory at the beginning, issues/expectations are explicitly communicated, and then years down the road when you're in deep (like married with kids, mortgage, and intertwined goals), shit changes--drastically. You communicate your frustration with an open-mind to make changes on your end, if necessary, and nothing comes of it. Rinse, repeat.
> 
> ...


this is a very good point, and what terrifies me when it comes to commitment. I'll post more in a few mins.


----------



## Caraannabigail (Sep 25, 2013)

All I read was the OP, but even though I thought I would disagree with this, I'm surprised that I agree.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

Ecoas said:


> I would have to argue that just because something is a need does not make it a right. Rights are what you have without any help from any human, alone in a state of nature. More poetically, they are what you have when you have nothing. Further, protection of a right implies the justification of force. People need social acceptance for instance, but would it be right to force people to like other people? I certainly don't think so, because that would then violate the liberty rights of others.
> 
> The implications of making an artificial(for lack of a better word) right is even more dire for sex. Making sex a right is essentially a justification of rape. This may not be what anyone intended to do or meant by it, but a right is not a term to be thrown around lightly.


Most people with common sense wouldn't say what the OP did. Most people would protect their home and house, and their own relationship as well. That is, you have called your chips and thrown in time, emotions, and investments as well, and efforts, to build up a relationship, such that, sometimes life does throw you a curve ball, and in those time of needs, who is there for you the best is indeed whether they do love you or not. To say that many can just "get" something for nothing, and without care or emotions invested in another, but "demands" like a baby, is quite arrogant, righteous, and quite disgusting in a way. Cos it is indeed selfish. Even if the other person loves you, or say that they do, but they don't really cos they do not take actions to demonstrate this as well. 

The loving relationships are those who been there for one another, motivate one another, even when life gets tough, and bring them back round, or both make decisions which allow both partners to survive, and be happier etc. Some of the guys on this thread make it sound as if the sex thing is everything in a relationship and nothing more. Maybe they have not realised what it is like to not be in a relationship and see that side of life to make themselves appreciate what they do have ? Making sure that your partner is indeed happy also is an important thing. Sex is one a single component that makes a whole fulfilling relationship. 

It is indeed one of those humbling things which many learns. I was talking to another ENTJ husband of my friend and he too, saw it in a very macho way, but he does not realises how much of an effort his wife puts up to create the emotional intimacies, cos I think she is an INFP... He asked me those questions on women and I was SO surprised that he did not know ! Or felt it. I did not want to state it to rock their boat and their relationship to the core. But it is one of those things that, some people are in relationships cos they know why. Some others just happens to land into relationships and thank God, but doesn't know why it is working. 

Maybe through time, one learns to be humble, and appreciate what they do have and have not got etc. 
I am also quite lucky to have found a guy who knows what it takes and is at least giving me preferences on some of the decisions etc, to make me feel safer in his presence etc. Cos we have both worked very hard to be where we are, and we want that time to build up our intimacies as well etc. 

Sometimes ladies do need prompting as well to remind herself that even after babies, she is still a wonderful desirable woman. She is not just a baby machine. I do not think for a moment that many men understands and appreciates this as well, rather than to complain about not getting sex, how many men will actually reassure the woman, help her in some of the chores, and allow her to have time to relax and want to feel emotional and want sex ? Not many will do that for their partner, cos they felt that she is in the wrong to begin with and automatically start blame-shifting. This is something that guys are great at, but how many will work against this natural instinct and take control and charge like a man, and make their own household changes ? Not many do this ! Even though he now has a kid, and is actually a grown mature man, with a child, he won't protect his own kingdom, and he still thinks like a boy. At what point, does a Boy becomes a Man ? When does he even realises that sex in a relationship is also down to his own actions too and that he neglected a lot of things by breezing through life rather than to continually invest in things ??


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Good communication is the foundation of any good friendship/relationship. In a romantic relationship, if good communication is already present; then it follows that good sex ought to come with it. *If there are sexual or any other issues/needs not being met; it is always the result of poor communication between the parties*. IMO, a discussion about "rights" is an inferior substitute, for good communication and understanding within the relationship.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

Bago said:


> Sometimes ladies do need prompting as well to remind herself that even after babies, she is still a wonderful desirable woman. She is not just a baby machine. I do not think for a moment that many men understands and appreciates this as well, rather than to complain about not getting sex, how many men will actually reassure the woman, help her in some of the chores, and allow her to have time to relax and want to feel emotional and want sex ? Not many will do that for their partner, cos they felt that she is in the wrong to begin with and automatically start blame-shifting. This is something that guys are great at, but how many will work against this natural instinct and take control and charge like a man, and make their own household changes ? Not many do this ! Even though he now has a kid, and is actually a grown mature man, with a child, he won't protect his own kingdom, and he still thinks like a boy. At what point, does a Boy becomes a Man ? When does he even realises that sex in a relationship is also down to his own actions too and that he neglected a lot of things by breezing through life rather than to continually invest in things ??


Did you read my post on this?

Blame-shifting goes both ways. Why is it assumed that the man is immature and neglectful?

Including my experiences, I know of four of my closest friends who have had (still have) issues with a lack of physical intimacy. They all are attentive fathers, good breadwinners, do their share of household chores, and are honest, decent husbands. None are expecting the world from their spouses, unless you consider 1-2 times per month outlandish.

This is not to say that the men and their actions do not contribute to the problem; however, all have been willing to have an open discussion with their wives to help rectify the problem(s). It is a recurring problem, despite these communications. For some reason, physical intimacy tends to be placed at a lower priority than other aspects of the relationship--and men are just seen as "wanting sex." You know, men like to be wanted too.

Again, would it be kind to say that women are just being little, whiny girls because they want to have emotion-laden talks all the time? All they do is nag and complain? No, it wouldn't. Emotional intimacy is also part and parcel of a healthy relationship...*just like physical intimacy*.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Edit: thought I should clarify this in the OP. I not suggesting forcing your partner to have sex with you at any time. I AM suggesting leaving if your partners continually doesn't have sex with you for extended periods because they "don't feel like it". such an individual is selfish and doesn't deserve a partner.


Can't read all the post by now but *you are right*, so right that if you take a look at the catholic church catecism, it is treated this way. You can ask for a marriage to be declared invalid (but one can't never invalidate a marriage) it's technical and yes, it involves not having sex and not cooperating to have children, why? because marriage is for those reasons. In my country even the civil laws treat the marriage the same way and you can walk away in peace if your partner uses any kind of negatives to avoid sex and children because then, it's clear the relationship is based on selfish reasons.

In my case and from my point of view, any long term relationship applies for the same treatment, not needing to be married.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

If you don't want sex, don't be in a relationship.
Or be in a relationship with somebody who also doesn't want sex.

It's just like any other aspect of a relationship. Find someone compatible and who can satisfy your needs, and whose needs you are willing to satisfy.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> If you don't want sex, don't be in a relationship.
> Or be in a relationship with somebody who also doesn't want sex.
> 
> It's just like any other aspect of a relationship. Find someone compatible and who can satisfy your needs, and whose needs you are willing to satisfy.


This makes sense. The only thing it misses, though, is that in long term relationships things can change with the ebbs and flows of life and it can sometimes be hard to predict those changes in advance.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

imaginaryrobot said:


> Why are you putting it on the other person who is likely happy in the relationship to break it off?


I think any blame games are stupid. Just part ways if things can't be worked out. That simple. I would even be like, fine, I am a terrible person. Can I leave now?


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Edit: thought I should clarify this in the OP. I not suggesting forcing your partner to have sex with you at any time. I AM suggesting leaving if your partners continually doesn't have sex with you for extended periods because they "don't feel like it". such an individual is selfish and doesn't deserve a partner.
> 
> Edit 2:
> obvious exceptions include (but are not limited to)
> ...


This might sound too anti-foundationalist/cultural relativistic but I don't think people have _innate_ human rights. Something might be a nice thing to do; that doesn't mean the gesture is required or cosmically writ large somewhere. The whole idea of decency is entwined with a culture or individual and basically arbitrary, or at least fostered through evolution and not any kind of hard and fast law. People can stomp around and claim rights or thump their bibles but they're basically making shit up at that point.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

bricolage said:


> *This might sound too anti-foundationalist/cultural relativistic but I don't think people have innate human rights.* Something might be a nice thing to do; that doesn't mean the gesture is required or cosmically writ large somewhere. The whole idea of decency is entwined with a culture or individual and basically arbitrary, or at least fostered through evolution and not any kind of hard and fast law. People can stomp around and claim rights or thump their bibles but they're basically making shit up at that point.


you're right. it is
it doesn't matter if you live in Elizabethan England, modern America or the Mayan Empire, you have the right to express yourself, love who you want, think what you want and be treated like a decent human being.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> you have the right to express yourself, love who you want, think what you want and be treated like a decent human being.


I know an enneagram 7 would say that but I don't believe that's correct. We are situated in a rather indifferent universe and those "rights" could be snatched away in a fascist regime or any other aberrant cultural climate. This isn't an argument for nihilism, which unsubtle minds might construe it as. Instead, I am saying the notion of decency is culturally contingent. It's absurd to postulate someone _needs_ to have sex with you; even if they didn't and were sentenced to death, that wouldn't mean the punishment existed outside of human enterprise, which is tantamount to cultural relativism.


----------



## Vivid Melody (Apr 25, 2011)

I do believe it is a right too I just don't believe in abusing the right. So I guess I believe it's both a right and a privilege if that makes sense (probably not)? Sorry if that's already been said. I haven't read the whole thread.


----------



## DemonAbyss10 (Oct 28, 2010)

Yep, I couldn't help myself. I came walking in expecting there to be plenty, and I wasn't let down. Sadly I have ran out of popcorn and iced tea.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Holy shit, are we spoiled. Sex is a _need_??

I don't think so. If you are living in a world where you don't have to worry about real needs (like water, shelter, etc.) then congratulations. You are in the top percentage of the planet. 

Yeah, I know sex is an important part of a _relationship _for some people but we need to stop comparing it to air or other such nonsense. Nobody has to have sex if they don't want to. If I choose to stop having sex today and to never do it again that is bloody well my business. My partner has the same right to choose, and he would have the right to talk to me about it or leave me if he wanted. He doesn't have the right to force me. 

As for the marriage thing, I find this genuinely upsetting. Not because I think people should be celibate, but because vows don't seem to mean anything anymore (to some people). I have seen _many_ forums online where a man is voicing his frustration that his wife can't/won't have sex with him and most people's first reaction is to get a divorce. She isn't fulfilling her end of the bargain. Never mind maybe finding out _why_ she can't do it or doesn't enjoy it. Screw all that for better or for worse stuff, right? 

Sigh. This is turning into a rant, but it's a sore spot for me. I know somebody who was in a situation where she was injured and could not perform sexually as she once did. I made the mistake of looking for people's opinions on the internet and was disgusted by many people's lack of compassion. I honestly don't believe getting married entitles you to sex. It entitles you to spend your life with somebody supporting one another, which may (and usually does) involve taking care of each other sexually. It's not a chore, and shouldn't be treated like a commodity. This will only breed resentment and its a vicious cycle from there on out. 

Yeah, like I said. Sore spot. I need to stop reading negative forums on weighty topics! I'll stop now.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

People really need to read the whole thread instead of just reacting to the OP.

Unfollowing thread....

In a nutshell, the OP was saying that someone withholding sex as a tool for manipulation/control was not legitimate and was a reason to end a relationship.


----------



## DemonAbyss10 (Oct 28, 2010)

William I am said:


> People really need to read the whole thread instead of just reacting to the OP.
> 
> Unfollowing thread....
> 
> In a nutshell, the OP was saying that someone withholding sex as a tool for manipulation/control was not legitimate and was a reason to end a relationship.


Pretty much exactly how I interpreted it.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

I just don't think anyone has the "right" to another's body, irrespective of the tacit rules of relationships.


----------



## Dashing (Sep 19, 2011)

You know, if my partner didn't want to have sex with me I'd end it (after a prolonged period ofcourse.). It's that simple. Though referring to sex as a right is a bit weird, it creates the precedent of a contract. How will you enforce it? 

If you feel it is your 'right' to touch another person's body, then yeah... Maybe you should tell them that upfront.

If someone uses sex as a tool, then they themselves are tools and should be avoided.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

William I am said:


> People really need to read the whole thread instead of just reacting to the OP.
> 
> Unfollowing thread....
> 
> In a nutshell, the OP was saying that someone withholding sex as a tool for manipulation/control was not legitimate and was a reason to end a relationship.


I know what he was saying, I got carried away reading responses and remembering my last experience with a similar topic. Granted, I should've reined it in. 

Regardless, I firmly believe sex is a privilege. NEVER a right. Nobody is owed sex. We don't need it in a legitimate way that we do other base needs. Manipulation sucks but nobody should have sex if they don't want to. Especially not if.it has just been weeks (life can be tough, shit happens) or in the case of physical or mental disability. Depression is a widespread problem and don't think sex drive isn't one of the first things that kills. 

But yeah, if he was talking purely manipulation... Different story. Still not a right. 

We are all getting a liiiiittle too entitled, in my opinion.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> I know what he was saying, I got carried away reading responses and remembering my last experience with a similar topic. Granted, I should've reined it in.
> 
> Regardless, I firmly believe sex is a privilege. NEVER a right. Nobody is owed sex. We don't need it in a legitimate way that we do other base needs. Manipulation sucks but nobody should have sex if they don't want to. Especially not if.it has just been weeks (life can be tough, shit happens) or in the case of physical or mental disability. Depression is a widespread problem and don't think sex drive isn't one of the first things that kills.
> 
> ...


Right on. And shit... sex is just like everything else in life. Sometimes, if you want it to get done, you've got to do it yourself. It's called a hand people... use it. Jerk, jerk, jerk. Ladies, I'm talkin' to you, too. Don't think I'm just talking about men. Use dat hay-und!


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

@BlackDog - Maslow's hierarchy of needs disagrees that sex is not a need for thriving. So do I.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

William I am said:


> @BlackDog - Maslow's hierarchy of needs disagrees that sex is not a need for thriving. So do I.


I am not saying everyone should br celibate. I just think people get too entitled about stuff in or society. 

What do single people do who have not had sex in a month? Stamp their feet and demand somebody step up to the plate?

The average number of partners most people have in their life is waaaaay lower than what you see on television. Lots of single people i real life go months or years not having sex (just masturbating) and I think they pull through.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

William I am said:


> @_BlackDog_ - Maslow's hierarchy of needs disagrees that sex is not a need for thriving. So do I.


People who don't have sex don't thrive? Well, shit. That's a new one on me.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

William I am said:


> People really need to read the whole thread instead of just reacting to the OP.
> 
> Unfollowing thread....
> 
> In a nutshell, the OP was saying that someone withholding sex *as a tool for manipulation/control was not legitimate *and was a reason to end a relationship.


I didn't pick that up from the OP; I'm not saying that that's not the case but that wasn't made clear, IMO.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> I am not saying everyone should br celibate. I just think people get too entitled about stuff in or society.
> 
> What do single people do who have not had sex in a month? Stamp their feet and demand somebody step up to the plate?
> 
> The average number of partners most people have in their life is waaaaay lower than what you see on television. Lots of single people i real life go months or years not having sex (just masturbating) and I think they pull through.


Come on. That's not even close to what the OP is stating. It's always been about the confines of a relationship, where a person stops sexual contact without consideration for their partner. Don't make it into a talk about something that it's not.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

android654 said:


> Come on. That's not even close to what the OP is stating. It's always been about the confines of a relationship, where a person stops sexual contact without consideration for their partner. Don't make it into a talk about something that it's not.


I wasn't responding directly to the OP just there. Even so, I want back and reread the OP. I just take issue with the stance that my partners sexual needs are my responsibility. Like if I don't feel like having sex I should do it anyways not to be selfish? The title really says it all. Is sex a RIGHT. Are you entitled to it?I also don't like this idea that it is the responsibility of the person withholding sex to end the relationship in order to be selfless. I agree that if a couples sex life is causing a huge problem in the relationship it should br addressed. Just like anything else. But it is not a contractual obligation.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Anyways, I am not trying to put words in anybodys mouth or make this about anything it is not. 

I just don't think sex is a right anymore than anything else in a relationship. If you are unhappy you have the right to leave. The unhappiness could be from lack.of sex, affection, or anything else. Maybe he is not getting help with the housework? Who knows. 

I just can't imagine ever being angry at someone for not having sex with me often enough. THAT seems selfish.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> Anyways, I am not trying to put words in anybodys mouth or make this about anything it is not.
> 
> I just don't think sex is a right anymore than anything else in a relationship. If you are unhappy you have the right to leave. The unhappiness could be from lack.of sex, affection, or anything else. Maybe he is not getting help with the housework? Who knows.
> 
> I just can't imagine ever being angry at someone for not having sex with me often enough. THAT seems selfish.


It's a totally reasonable gripe for a person to have. Being in a relationship with someone and then have that person completely stop doing something they know is essential to their partner or actively blocks them off is sabotaging the relationship. That can be sex, spending time together, listening to their problems, consideration, etc. Entering a relationship doesn't mean you're stuck and have to put up with another person's behavior indefinitely, lack of sex/consideration/quality time is always grounds for ending a relationship.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

android654 said:


> It's a totally reasonable gripe for a person to have. Being in a relationship with someone and then have that person completely stop doing something they know is essential to their partner or actively blocks them off is sabotaging the relationship. That can be sex, spending time together, listening to their problems, consideration, etc. Entering a relationship doesn't mean you're stuck and have to put up with another person's behavior indefinitely, lack of sex/consideration/quality time is always grounds for ending a relationship.


I agree. If you are not happy, you have the right to leave. For absolutely any reason at all. No matter how major or trivial. My point again is that sex is not a RIGHT. You do not physically need it to survive. You are not entitled to it. You are entitled to seek it, and to leave if you want, but sex is not something that anybody owes to anybody else. If my bf didn't love me I would leave him. He does not owe me love.I would also like to clarify what I meant by my final comment. I can't imagine being angry about lack of sex because it is no longer very important to me. I enjoy it, but it is a bonus. I had a near death experience this year and a long recovery and it sure put things in perspective. Sex drops incredibly quickly down the list of priorities in a situation like that... Not very relevant, but I wanted to explain why sex is not very important for me PERSONALLY. Otherwise some of my comments could be misconstrued.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Jung did go on and on about the lunacy and eccentricity of the Si dom, and yes your living through the Ne inferior (perhaps over used In your job) is certainly having a field day on this forum. You just walk around ranting and lecturing about stuff that isn't even going on. I don't have morals? Ok Sparky.
> 
> Can I quote you screaming I HATE THAT YOU SEXUALISE ME. I am going to piss myself with laughter. What the fuck are you talking about?


I am so late for this, but I wonder if she found her scalp after getting her hair pulled and dragged across the floor. Damn. You went in.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I am so late for this, but I wonder if she found her scalp after getting her hair pulled and dragged across the floor. Damn. You went in.


I hate that you sexulise me.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I hate that you sexulise me.


With a tude like that, darlin'; I just may have to switch sides. 









Whoever infracted it knew it was god damn hilarious.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

From reading the OP about rights and shit.
A realationship is just a label.
A right is just a decree from a society giving someone a privilege.

If you really mean that, just move to a culture that allow you to do that.
Or start a political party or revolution demanding said privilege.

I get that since you made the comment you must be sexually frustrated.
Why don't you just get a hooker to relieve you or something.
It is a big burden expecting another person to satisfy your every craving.
Imagine if you where to do that with food.

It is a right to have your gastonomical desires satisfied in a relationship.
Now it just sounds insane...
And if you went to a resturant you would in essence be gastronomically cheating.

Now that makes you ponder the whole idea about monogamy in a new way, don't it?
Like arn't this whole issue just a fear about being left with childrearing alone,
or having to raise someone elses kid.
So we act out that fear and take monopoly on each others sexual pleasure.

Of couse in such a messed up arrangement it makes sense that one might feel entitled to sex.
After all the only reason that you can't get satisfaction elsewhere is that the other party
feel they own your sexual plesure by the fact of the relationship.
Often you either have to suffer neglect, feel entitled and demand your fill or you just have to cheat.

I can't make the moral choice for you, but I feel it is important that we don't play pretend here.
Our socialized relationship behaviour is making a lot of people sexually unfullfilled.
I fucking wished this didn't affect me, but it does a lot.
So much so that I'm fucking upset right now.
I'm not in a realtionship, but my trained attitudes towards this topic is making me unhappy as we speak.
Society don't care about the individual, billions of individuals happines is sacrificed every day for
stability, progress and other collective ideas.
In a way I hate society, even though I fully depend on it.
I'm in a really dark place right now and can't say much positive for my fellow man.
All I see is the shadow of things.
Well anyway, I have to go, I might go to a brothel to went some frustration.
Yeah I practice what I preach.
If you object... 
HAHA like I could even care if some idealistic person goes ballistic cause I'm being selfish as fuck.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Just wanted to mention.
Didn't go to the brothel, cause I realized that I'm not actually sexually frustrated.
My issue seem to lie somewhere else.
There is no reason to try to fix inner issues with sex.
Just as there is no reason to fix inner issues with food.
If you catch my drift.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

FlightsOfFancy said:


>


What. The. Fuck. 

What am I looking at and why does it have me locked in like a crow looking at a pocket watch?


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I hate that you sexulise me.


seriously died laughing at that the first time around.


----------



## dragthewaters (Feb 9, 2013)

Tangentially related to this thread as an example of what the OP was getting at:

My fiance and I have been watching all the seasons of The Sopranos, and while I like Carmela as a character, I can't believe she gets pissed off whenever she thinks Tony is cheating on her when she barely ever has sex with him or even shows affection to him such as kissing. They always show scenes of them sitting in bed together talking and then the two of them go to sleep on opposite sides of the bed, backs turned to each other, without so much as a kiss goodnight. They finally had sex midway through Season 2 and the scene seemed to indicate that this was the first time they had sex since the show's timescale began.

This also goes for Tony though, I don't think he would have a right to be pissed off if Carmela ditched him because he emotionally neglects her. The show seems to imply that the lack of sexual intimacy between them was done on Carmela's prerogative though.


----------



## dragthewaters (Feb 9, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> Holy shit, are we spoiled. Sex is a _need_??
> 
> I don't think so. If you are living in a world where you don't have to worry about real needs (like water, shelter, etc.) then congratulations. You are in the top percentage of the planet.


Sex is a need. It's on Maslow's heirarchy, for one thing. Obviously it's not necessary for physical survival but I think that some degree of intimacy is necessary for healthy emotional survival (unless you're asexual, and even then I'm sure asexuals enjoy non-sexual affection).



BlackDog said:


> If I choose to stop having sex today and to never do it again that is bloody well my business. My partner has the same right to choose, and he would have the right to talk to me about it or leave me if he wanted. He doesn't have the right to force me.


Yeah, that's...pretty much exactly what the OP was saying. So what's your objection?



BlackDog said:


> I know somebody who was in a situation where she was injured and could not perform sexually as she once did. I made the mistake of looking for people's opinions on the internet and was disgusted by many people's lack of compassion. I honestly don't believe getting married entitles you to sex. It entitles you to spend your life with somebody supporting one another, which may (and usually does) involve taking care of each other sexually.


Having an injury or disability counts as an exception and the OP said it did in their original post. We're talking about people who are perfectly able to have sex but choose not to as a manipulation tactic, because they're too lazy to put in the effort, because they're secretly not into that person anymore, because their sex drive has lowered, and so forth.

Sex is a vital part of marriage. The whole reason why marriage was established in the first place was to guarantee paternity of children. Even apart from that, there's a reason why the term "sexless marriage" exists -- because it's not normal to not have sex in a marriage, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as injury, illness, or age.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

thismustbetheplace said:


> Sex is a need. It's on Maslow's heirarchy, for one thing. Obviously it's not necessary for physical survival but I think that some degree of intimacy is necessary for healthy emotional survival (unless you're asexual, and even then I'm sure asexuals enjoy non-sexual affection).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I already explained my initial reaction to this post but I'll simplify. 

The OP didn't say withholding sex as manipulation. He said withholding it because one person "doesn't feel like it". 

Secondly, everyone knows about Maslow but that doesn't make his word law. Sex as a "need" is pretty loose. It should be "some people's need in order to be completely fulfilled". Some people can get by without it all right. I am separating sex and affection by the way. 

Anyways, I take offense to saying sex is a right. That makes no sense. That suggests that somebody OWES you their body. Nobody owes anybody their own body. It is a privilege and an honor to be the only person who provides their partner with sexual attention. I agree that if sex is that important to you and you are not getting it, even after discussing it seriously, you can go ahead and leave. But calling it a right and treating it as an entitlement completely changes the dynamic. 

My BF are not monogamous because we are jealous. We both genuinely do not want to sleep with anybody else. It is a personal choice and neither one of us would dream of asking the other to have sex if we were not in the mood. How awful would that be?

So yeah. I take issue with the "right" thing.


----------



## HellCat (Jan 17, 2013)

Emotional Intimacy is a need? People say no to sex sometimes? What is this sorcery! 

Esfp confused. hides in corner, hugging knees and rocking.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I forgot to add for everyone quoting Abraham Maslow:

I am fairly certain he was not referring to recreational sex when he declared it a need. He was talking about procreation and how it is a NEED for the human species to survive. 

At least thats how I was taught it in psychology. So unless you plan on conceiving, gettin' busy is not a basic (bottom of the pyramid) NEED. Sorry.


----------



## Bago (Aug 30, 2011)

LeoCat said:


> Emotional Intimacy is a need? People say no to sex sometimes? What is this sorcery!
> 
> Esfp confused. hides in corner, hugging knees and rocking.


It is a crazy thread, and yeh, I had to do that crazy chick thing to scare the people away but it gets more scary. Sh!t. Sometimes you know when you entered the internet and you wish you never read something cos some people out there are pretty scary ? This is one of those threads... I am still not certain if the people wrote what they did mean it or not etc. It f"cking scary sh1t. 

I'll rock you!  
Can't cry, let's laugh. 

Sh!tstick.


----------



## HellCat (Jan 17, 2013)

Bago said:


> It is a crazy thread, and yeh, I had to do that crazy chick thing to scare the people away but it gets more scary. Sh!t. Sometimes you know when you entered the internet and you wish you never read something cos some people out there are pretty scary ? This is one of those threads... I am still not certain if the people wrote what they did mean it or not etc. It f"cking scary sh1t.
> 
> I'll rock you!
> Can't cry, let's laugh.
> ...


I need some chocolate chip cookies, milk and a quilt too.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

LeoCat said:


> I need some chocolate chip cookies, milk and a quilt too.


----------



## Morpheus83 (Oct 17, 2008)

fourtines said:


> I hate that you sexulise me.


Remember to say it with feeling: I HATE THAT YOU SEXUALISE ME!!! :tongue:


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Morpheus83 said:


> Remember to say it with feeling: I HATE THAT YOU SEXUALISE ME!!! :tongue:


I didn't mean to. :crying:


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> With a tude like that, darlin'; I just may have to switch sides.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If men actually moved like that. *head explodes


----------



## NothingOffendsMe (Oct 22, 2013)

I just want to say that I agree with the OP 100% and have thought similar. I do believe an individual has a duty to satisfy their partners sexual needs. 

When I hear about women denying their partner because they are not in the mood I think "Really?" "Is it really that much work for you to lie on your back for a couple mins while some bozo does his thing?" *IMO if you are holding something back from someone that is so EASILY attainable for you to give, then that is the pinnacle of selfishness. 

*I also believe that someones desire for sexual intercourse is far more important than someones desire not to have intercourse. 

Example:

"Help me" vs. "I don't feel like helping you"


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> When I hear about women denying their partner because they are not in the mood I think "Really?" *"Is it really that much work for you to lie on your back for a couple mins while some bozo does his thing?"* IMO if you are holding something back from someone that is so EASILY attainable for you to give, then that is the pinnacle of selfishness.


Ewwww! is that how heterosexuals are doing it these days?

I see I may get my toaster oven after all...


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

Aquarian said:


> Ewwww! is that how heterosexuals are doing it these days?
> 
> I see I may get my toaster oven after all...


I assure you we (or at least I) don't - there's still hope for some of us, with or without toaster oven campaigns


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

> When I hear about women denying their partner because they are not in the mood I think "Really?" "Is it really that much work for you to lie on your back for a couple mins while some bozo does his thing?"


Why should a woman or a man or anyone have sex if they don't want to?


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

FallingSlowly said:


> I assure you we (or at least I) don't - there's still hope for some of us, with or without toaster oven campaigns


Loss of toaster oven possibilities notwithstanding, I'm heartened to know that there is still hope for some of you. No one should have to suffer just for being straight!


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Aquarian said:


> Loss of toaster oven possibilities notwithstanding, I'm heartened to know that there is still hope for some of you. No one should have to suffer just for being straight!


Hahaha!

I know, some people are gross. Imagine what type of person legitimately wants their partner to lie there stiff as a board as they use them for that. 

And they say romance is dead...


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I'll make one exception to my horror at this concept:

If your partner does not have hands, maybe you should help a guy out. 

(or girl).


----------



## NothingOffendsMe (Oct 22, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Why should a woman or a man or anyone have sex if they don't want to?


I guess they don't have to. But in that case, they probably have no business being in a relationship in the first place.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> I guess they don't have to. But in that case, they probably have no business being in a relationship in the first place.


I don't get this attitude. What, when you get into a relationship you've unwittingly signed an invisible contract that you have to consent to sex whenever the other person feels like it? No.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> I guess they don't have to. But in that case, they probably have no business being in a relationship in the first place.


Is sex the only aspect that defines a relationship in your eyes?

Life experience has taught me nothing but the opposite.


----------



## NothingOffendsMe (Oct 22, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> Is sex the only aspect that defines a relationship in your eyes?
> 
> Life experience has taught me nothing but the opposite.


Its what separates it from friendship. Yes.




isingthebodyelectric said:


> I don't get this attitude. What, when you get into a relationship you've unwittingly signed an invisible contract that you have to consent to sex whenever the other person feels like it? No.


At least once married, I've always assumed it was a given that there will be sexual intercourse. No, not whenever the other person feels like it. But consistent refusal of one partner not to participate is selfish IMO.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> At least once married, I've always assumed it was a given that there will be sexual intercourse. No, not whenever the other person feels like it. But consistent refusal of one partner not to participate is selfish IMO.


It's never a given to expect sex. It's selfish to expect someone to 'lay there and let someone do their thing'. That's a pretty shady area.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> Its what separates it from friendship. Yes.


It's not the only thing that separates it from friendship. Or at least, it shouldn't be. 

A relationship is about mutual support and a level of emotional intimacy one does not typically share in a platonic relationship. Most people likely do not show affection in friendships in the way they would with their significant other (ie. hand holding, kissing, cuddling, massages, etc.) Nor are they perhaps as brutally honest or vulnerable ("Honey, come here. I think something stung me on the butt, can you take a look?")

If sex is all that is differentiating your romantic relationship from your platonic relationships, I think you've got some things to work on (besides the sex). 

Besides... are we talking decreased sex life, as in weeks without it at a time, or no sex at all, _ever?


_
EDIT: That still does not make it a right. I just think that's an important distinction.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> "Is it really that much work for you to lie on your back for a couple mins while some bozo does his thing?"


----------



## NothingOffendsMe (Oct 22, 2013)

Points well taken. However, I still find it selfish. Why should ones desire NOT to engage in sexual intercourse always come before ones desire TO have intercourse?

If you deny someone intercourse, You get to be happy not having intercourse while the other person remains unhappy. To keep doing this would be selfish and unfair IMO. Why not some nights you take on the burden of unhappiness while your partner gets to have their way? We're not talking about getting a root canal here. Will making love to your own partner really cause you that much distress?

I thought the key to relationship was compromise. It shouldn't all be about what you want (such as the desire not to have sex). Sometimes you need to do what the other person wants. Its only fair. Anything less is inconsiderate and selfish.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

> Why not some nights you take on the burden of unhappiness while your partner gets to have their way?


Again I ask, why should someone do something they don't want to do? 

It's not a black or white issue clearly but I would hope that two people before they marry or get into a relationship would discuss their sexual needs. 

However I think what you're saying is totally out of line and bordering on coercion. Like saying, 'If you don't lay there and let me have my way, you're selfish'. Making those threats and saying those things is coercing someone to do something they don't wanna do. 

Are you serious or trolling? I hope it's the latter. I really do.


----------



## Lainey (Oct 23, 2013)

It is not right to make anyone feel obligated to havesex. If someone isn’t happy with theirsex life it is their own responsibility to try to improve things with thepartner, and if things don’t work out maybe they should leave the relationshipif sex is the most important thing. 
 Everyone deserves tobe loved by someone else no matter their sexual preferences.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Lainey said:


> It is not right to make anyone feel obligated to havesex. If someone isn’t happy with theirsex life it is their own responsibility to try to improve things with thepartner, and if things don’t work out maybe they should leave the relationshipif sex is the most important thing.
> Everyone deserves tobe loved by someone else no matter their sexual preferences.


That is one of the most sensible things I've heard today.


----------



## Lainey (Oct 23, 2013)

To have sex with someone who wasnt into it would be kind of weird anyway. I dont know maybe thats the difference between men and women


----------



## NothingOffendsMe (Oct 22, 2013)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> Again I ask, why should someone do something they don't want to do?


IMO this transcends sexual intercourse and applies to anything in a relationship, friendship, or just any interpersonal interaction. 

I think that is a horrible attitude to have regarding anything. What if a friend wants you to go to a baseball game but you think its boring. A good person would go to the game anyway if it makes the other person happy. In return, that person may do something they don't really want to do to please you. 

But to have no consideration for other people's wants needs and to only care about what you yourself want is not a good thing.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> IMO this transcends sexual intercourse and applies to anything in a relationship, friendship, or just any interpersonal interaction.
> 
> I think that is a horrible attitude to have regarding anything. What if a friend wants you to go to a baseball game but you think its boring. A good person would go to the game anyway if it makes the other person happy. In return, that person may do something they don't really want to do to please you.
> 
> But to have no consideration for other people's wants needs and to only care about what you yourself want is not a good thing.


Compromise is always good. We're getting a little away from the OP title now though, which says that sex is someone's right. In other words, you are entitled to it. That's what made me upset. 

Anyway, what's the point? There was a time once when I wasn't in the mood but decided to try it anyway because my SO obviously wanted to. We got about five minutes in and he was like "You... aren't into this, are you?" and I had to tell him that I honestly wasn't feeling it that night, and he stopped immediately. If the other person is not enjoying it why not just masturbate?

Since then we've sometimes gone weeks without doing that, if I was not in the mood. Because lets face it, if I am not into it I am just not into it. He doesn't demand it from me and he actually _won't_ do it if I am not benefiting as well. It's meant to be enjoyable and bonding for both parties involved. 

Otherwise, what's the point?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> I just want to say that I agree with the OP 100% and have thought similar. I do believe an individual has a duty to satisfy their partners sexual needs.
> 
> When I hear about women denying their partner because they are not in the mood I think "Really?" "Is it really that much work for you to lie on your back for a couple mins while some bozo does his thing?" *IMO if you are holding something back from someone that is so EASILY attainable for you to give, then that is the pinnacle of selfishness.
> 
> ...


I've been in the brunt of a sexless relationship, and I wouldn't even think that. Sex isn't something to be dispensed, it's something done together. You're not supposed to "lie there and take it", it's so much more than that. It's not a "right" to engage in the act, but if at least one party is dissatisfied with the sex in the relationship, then there needs to be some sort of communication with respects to that issue.

That being said, it's a horrible thing to stay in a relationship where that happens and one or both parties are dissatisfied with it. I implore people to try and cut it off as soon as they can if there's no sex and communication isn't happened. The longer you wait, the more it hurts, and the more you internalize the poor self-esteem that comes with it.

I admit I'd actually be fine without sex, as long as I could be intimate, kiss, and just cuddle together. As long as there's some sort of desire, getting off isn't important to me. I'd even be fine dating someone who was chaste until marriage.

It was the fact that she wasn't, pretty openly lusted after other men/women, and rarely ever said something in a similar manner to me, that put the nail in the coffin. Plus, it was hard enough getting time with her, much less time to be emotionally connected. Like, we'd get time alone once every week or two, and it was hardly spent being intimate in any sort of way.


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> Nor are they perhaps as brutally honest or vulnerable ("*Honey, come here. I think something stung me on the butt, can you take a look?*")


Awwww.


----------



## NothingOffendsMe (Oct 22, 2013)

Well, I've never been in a relationship or made sex before. But if I ever am and I hear those 2 most dreaded words in the English language:

"Not tonight"

I'm getting in my car and heading to the red light district.

LOL. :crazy:


----------



## FallingSlowly (Jul 1, 2013)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> Well, I've never been in a relationship or made sex before. But if I ever am and I hear those 2 most dreaded words in the English language:
> 
> "Not tonight"
> 
> ...


Be prepared to spend a bit of money then :tongue:


----------



## Aquarian (Jun 17, 2012)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> *Well, I've never been in a relationship or made sex before. *But if I ever am


Wow. Just wow. Such hardcore expectations and opinions and _no lived experience at all_ with actual relationships or sex?

*shaking my head*


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> Well, I've never been in a relationship or made sex before. But if I ever am and I hear those 2 most dreaded words in the English language:
> 
> "Not tonight"
> 
> ...








Don't be mad at the comparison, you made it too easy.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

NothingOffendsMe said:


> Well, I've never been in a relationship or made sex before. But if I ever am and I hear those 2 most dreaded words in the English language:
> 
> "Not tonight"
> 
> ...


So you've never had sex.... Yet you seem to be typing, which leads me to believe you might be alive and functioning. How can one go so long without a basic need?

Also, I recommend you inform any potential partners of your opinion on this as soon as possible. Its really only fair they know what kind of verbal contract they're signing.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> So you've never had sex.... Yet you seem to be typing, which leads me to believe you might be alive and functioning. How can one go so long without a basic need?
> 
> Also, I recommend you inform any potential partners of your opinion on this as soon as possible. Its really only fair they know what kind of verbal contract they're signing.


I think a hand would cover some of that surviving. Perhaps two.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> It's never a given to expect sex. It's selfish to expect someone to 'lay there and let someone do their thing'. That's a pretty shady area.


Is it a given to expect no sex? You claim a right to your body, but do you also claim a right to the body of your partner? Would you feel slighted if you denied your partner sex, and they went and found it with someone else?


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

marked174 said:


> Is it a given to expect no sex? You claim a right to your body, but do you also claim a right to the body of your partner? Would you feel slighted if you denied your partner sex, and they went and found it with someone else?


It's a given to expect none automatically. No one should ever automatically expect something. Also, to the last part, there's no excuse for cheating. Don't be with someone if you want to cheat - just break up with them.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

isingthebodyelectric said:


> It's a given to expect none automatically. No one should ever automatically expect something. Also, to the last part, there's no excuse for cheating. Don't be with someone if you want to cheat - just break up with them.


"So, not only will I not have sex with you, but I also expect you not to have sex with anyone else." How is this justified in any way? If it were me in that situation, I would leave. But I can't help but ask, why in the world would you put someone you claim to love in a position like that?


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

marked174 said:


> "So, not only will I not have sex with you, but I also expect you not to have sex with anyone else." How is this justified in any way? If it were me in that situation, I would leave. But I can't help but ask, why in the world would you put someone you claim to love in a position like that?


..I wouldn't personally so I'm not sure why you're acting like I said I would deny my boyfriend sex? I wouldn't. But if someone does deny their partner sex, there is clearly a problem which needs sorting. 

Don't just jump into bed with someone else automatically and throw your relationship down the pan, it may be easily fixed. Sounds to me a lot of people these days are willing to easily give up their relationships if they don't get something now. It's childish to stamp your feet because you're not getting sex imo. Communicate with the other person, break up mutually _then _move on but cheat on someone? That's just a lazy, pathetic thing to do imo.

I'm entirely thankful to have a boyfriend who is considerate of my feelings instead of sulking because he doesn't get some. He'd never pressure me into doing anything. I don't forsee a time I would deny him anything (unless he's been naughty lol) but I know if I were ill or something that he'd understand it's not the right time. That's called maturity and respect.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

marked174 said:


> "So, not only will I not have sex with you, but I also expect you not to have sex with anyone else." How is this justified in any way? If it were me in that situation, I would leave. But I can't help but ask, why in the world would you put someone you claim to love in a position like that?


Why is everyone here acting as thought they would wither away and perish if denied sex for a couple of weeks? 

It might do our society some good if we don't get what we want (or feel entitled to) via instant gratification once in a while. If sex is miore important than your relationship the relationship is dead already anyways, in my opinion.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> Why is everyone here acting as thought they would wither away and perish if denied sex for a couple of weeks?
> 
> It might do our society some good if we don't get what we want (or feel entitled to) via instant gratification once in a while. If sex is miore important than your relationship the relationship is dead already anyways, in my opinion.


Because many times when you've been married for a long period of time, the denial of physical intimacy can last for months at a time, not just a couple of weeks. And most men prioritize their relationships with their wives and families such that leaving their marriage is not an appropriate option. So, they suck it up, understanding that sex is not even close to the most important thing in their relationships. But, damn, is it frustrating and disheartening to be rejected by someone you love repeatedly, despite honest communication about the relationship. Yeah, it may get better for a little while, but then it devolves into the same old cycle--rinse, repeat.

It's important to note that I recognize that this issue, like all issues in a relationship, is a two-way-street. That is, that men (and their behavior) are not off the hook in helping to create the problem as well as the solution. What is mildly disconcerting, however, is the tone that (A) physical intimacy is not all that important and devalued, compared to other aspects of the relationship; (B) men just want to satisfy their physical needs without regard to their partner's feelings; and (C) women have little to no responsibility in fostering a healthy sex life in the relationship.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Late to join this topic because I've been inactive in PerC until recently.

But... wtf?

So it's not selfish to demand sex from your partner even though they have valid (e.g. not cheating) reasons not to want as much sex as you? Meeting halfway means both parties make sacrifices. If that's not possible then I agree, it's a mutual loss and the relationship should probably end.


----------



## ElectricHead (Jun 3, 2011)

I've read the first three pages and have gathered that everyone (except for the one's who mentioned the weird comparison to rape, WTF?) is in a basic agreement in that this is all based on a mutually subjective desire between those who are involved in any given circumstance. So it's really just common sense. Of course communication is key. 

If married, each couple should know their sexual values long before marriage anyway.

If one later decides to have sex less because they just don't feel like it, or an increasing lack of interest in sex in general, I think the OP is right, at least on the surface of things, or in the perspective of the one being forced to wait around for sex. However, I am not so blunt to say it's selfish of the one not in the mood on most occasions, as it would require both of them to spark a new interest in making love to one another. Only when one refuses to communicate or act on what they've communicated, is when it becomes a real problem. Get to the root of the matter as to why there is no sex anymore. The sex shouldn't be the root, as in sex is why you love each other. Not for a married couple anyway. That would be ridiculous. Good luck to those that are fine with it though. 

It's a right for those that think it's a right, and a privilege for those that share that mentality. Then just work it out from there as the relationship evolves. Common sense.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

MindBomb said:


> Because many times when you've been married for a long period of time, the denial of physical intimacy can last for months at a time, not just a couple of weeks. And most men prioritize their relationships with their wives and families such that leaving their marriage is not an appropriate option. So, they suck it up, understanding that sex is not even close to the most important thing in their relationships. But, damn, is it frustrating and disheartening to be rejected by someone you love repeatedly, despite honest communication about the relationship. Yeah, it may get better for a little while, but then it devolves into the same old cycle--rinse, repeat.
> 
> It's important to note that I recognize that this issue, like all issues in a relationship, is a two-way-street. That is, that men (and their behavior) are not off the hook in helping to create the problem as well as the solution. What is mildly disconcerting, however, is the tone that (A) physical intimacy is not all that important and devalued, compared to other aspects of the relationship; (B) men just want to satisfy their physical needs without regard to their partner's feelings; and (C) women have little to no responsibility in fostering a healthy sex life in the relationship.


I agree that its sad when two peoples sex drives are not compatible. Usually people can make it work anyway, but obviously not everyone. I also do not condone withholding sex as punishment... 

I am mostly irritated by some in this thread who are young or in some cases have not even.had sex yet but are already fostering a sense of entitlement to their future (so far imaginary) partner's body. I do not want to be dramatic but to a certain degree this does have the potential to breed "rape culture".

I know you are not condoning rape and you seem reasonable, but if we bring up young people allowing them to think they are entitled to sex, we have a problem. Studies in rape statistics show that most men do not even realize they are raping (or borderline raping) their girlfriends or wives. Its not always a physical, violent affair. 

Anyway... That was a bit of a tangent.


----------



## MindBomb (Jul 7, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> I agree that its sad when two peoples sex drives are not compatible. Usually people can make it work anyway, but obviously not everyone. I also do not condone withholding sex as punishment...


Yeah, but we were compatible on that front in the beginning and then off/on after about 3-4 years in the marriage. Many times it has been body image issues, even though she had a conventionally attractive figure. And stress from raising a family and working, etc. It's just a bummer to get rejected in your own marriage. That's all.



BlackDog said:


> I am mostly irritated by some in this thread who are young or in some cases have not even.had sex yet but are already fostering a sense of entitlement to their future (so far imaginary) partner's body. I do not want to be dramatic but to a certain degree this does have the potential to breed "rape culture".
> 
> I know you are not condoning rape and you seem reasonable, but if we bring up young people allowing them to think they are entitled to sex, we have a problem. Studies in rape statistics show that most men do not even realize they are raping (or borderline raping) their girlfriends or wives. Its not always a physical, violent affair.


Okay. But early on, the OP clarified his post that most definitely eliminated this from the discussion. In my reading of the thread, I have not really seen posts advocating complete access to their partner's body whenever he/she wanted. The word "Right" was not really what the OP wanted to communicate--although it makes for a controversial, provocative stance that drove people to the thread which I think he did mean to do.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

whys it gotta be all about sex and relationship!? haha


----------



## birdsintrees (Aug 20, 2012)

Reading the first few pages of this thread I can't help but notice how a setting is created where I supposedly 'agreed' to have regular sex with my partner when entering this relationship. Now regardless of anything I think the real matter here should be that every -individual- is entitled to their sexuality. Within a relationship or outside of it. In happy circumstances you end up with a partner with a matching libido or close enough but it is a real possibility that you end up in a relationship with someone that doesn't match your sex drive. Sex is an important part of a relationship but not the defining one. It would be very hard to continue a relationship when sex turns into a tool to manipulate the other or when it is just no longer enjoyable. That doesn't mean that two people can't be happy together in a relationship with mismatching libidos.. it just means that the one with the higher sex drive will need to find other outlets for that energy in agreement with the other partner.

Saying someone has the 'right' to have sex with you because you are inside a relationships puts you on very thin ice and can open the door for very unwanted consequences.


----------



## Hei (Jul 8, 2014)

@Swordsman of Mana

SEX EVERY DAY XD

Wow, I think this is the first time I completely agree with you


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Night & Day said:


> Since I don't have a right to abstain from sex after a couple of weeks and my partner wants sex now but I clearly don't want to...what would that be?...ah yes, rape.


Absolutely mind boggling.

It is not rape.

It is irrelevant whether you liked it or not, you consented to the act.


----------



## frozenmusic (Aug 12, 2014)

I think it's ridiculous to say that one of the 2 should leave the relationship because the other has issues with sex. There are other things more important than sex in a relationship, and the mature thing to do is try to work out the situation. And I'm quite sensitive about this, because I am currently going through this. I've been with my boyfriend for over 5 years now. I've been having a severe depression episode for the last 2 years. At first, I tried my best to not let it affect our sex life, because I didn't think it was fair to him to not have sex because of my depression. Problem was... because of my depression, I was never in the mood and I could never get in the mood, so sex became quite painful for me. It got worse and worse, to the point where I actually started crying in the middle of intercourse because it was just too much. And I just stopped after that, because I became very afraid of the pain. Every time he tried to approach me, I knew I wasn't ready and I just didn't do it. We didn't have sex for a whole year, because I was just unable to do it. Thankfully, he understood and he was very supportive and encouraging. In the last months, I've started to come out of my depression (still struggling, but it's definitely better) and we actually started having sex again. It's still a little painful, but at least it's bearable. It will obviously take a while to get back to our old sex frequency, but it's a huge step for me anyway.

The point of my embarrassing confession is this: if you are in a relationship and you actually care about the other person, you need to respect each other. If one of you has difficulties being intimate, there's always a reason. Rather than leaving and being a selfish twat about it, you should try to understand their reasons, be supportive and try to help them overcome whatever is keeping them from having a normal level of intimacy. A real, serious relationship involves a lot more than sex.

P.S: I am obviously not talking about those who just reject sex for no reason, or just to play control games with their partner. Women who use sex as a control mechanism, for instance, are morons. If you're with someone like this, I don't think sex is your biggest issue.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

@BlackDog -- I view marriage as a contract, and part of that contract is support with love, affection, etcetera.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> @_BlackDog_ -- I view marriage as a contract, and part of that contract is support with love, affection, etcetera.


I think most people view it that way. I realize I am the minoriy when it comes to attitude regarding rrlationships. I don't like the idea of owing my partner anything, nor he me. Any affection and support I provide is becausr I love him, not because of an obligation. If he feels he owes me affection or support, itdoesn't feel very genuine to me. So by extension, I do not want to owe him sex and I don't want to be owed. When that happens it should be because it is a mutually desired expression.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> I think most people view it that way. I realize I am the minoriy when it comes to attitude regarding rrlationships. I don't like the idea of owing my partner anything, nor he me. Any affection and support I provide is becausr I love him, not because of an obligation. If he feels he owes me affection or support, itdoesn't feel very genuine to me. So by extension, I do not want to owe him sex and I don't want to be owed. When that happens it should be because it is a mutually desired expression.


Duty and honoring my word are actually more important to me than love.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> Duty and honoring my word are actually more important to me than love.


You want your husband's affection out of duty? 

My word is important to me, too. But I wouldn't marry someone I was not madly in love with. Which may never happen, I don't know. I am fine not being married though.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> You want your husband's affection out of duty?
> 
> My word is important to me, too. But I wouldn't marry someone I was not madly in love with. Which may never happen, I don't know. I am fine not being married though.


In my opinion, love is fleeting, ephemeral and temporary. I want someone who is bonded to me.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> In my opinion, love is fleeting, ephemeral and temporary. I want someone who is bonded to me.


Bonded in what way?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> Bonded in what way?


Obligation, honor, duty and friendship.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> Obligation, honor, duty and friendship.


Well fair enough. There is no one-size-fits-all relationship or related value system. 

But alas, Koalaroo, it seems we are romantically incompatible. I suppose t'was better to know sooner rather than later.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

BlackDog said:


> Well fair enough. There is no one-size-fits-all relationship or related value system.
> 
> But alas, Koalaroo, it seems we are romantically incompatible. I suppose t'was better to know sooner rather than later.


I just think love is overrated as a way to create more permanent social bonds.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> Duty and honoring my word are actually more important to me than love.


I saw this quote recently, and was looking for a reason to post it. Love should not have a superior officer. There is no duty. Duty is done because it has to be. That is its only virtue. 

*"To be humble to superiors is duty; to equals, is courtesy; to inferiors, is nobleness; and to all, safety: it being a virtue that, for all her lowliness, commandeth those souls it stoops to."*


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

koalaroo:13312610 said:


> BlackDog said:
> 
> 
> > Well fair enough. There is no one-size-fits-all relationship or related value system.
> ...


I guess I just don't see why I would want to be married if I wasn't in love. I don't need much support, financial or otherwise, and I enjoy being alone. If the marriage were one of duty I think I'd resent it. 

I am not saying we need to be madly in love, tearing eachothers clothes off every chance we get and thinking about each other all the time until one of us dies. But there are different kinds of love, and as long as there was love and it was strong, I think I would be happy.


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

I think it depends on how serious the relationship is. If you're married, then it's unfair to deny your partner sex. That doesn't mean they get to force themselves on you if you don't have sex with them, but it does mean that if you're refusing them sex for long periods of time, you at least owe them an explanation.
If you're just casually dating or you haven't been exclusive for very long, I think it's reasonable if you want to know your partner better and develop other aspects of the relationship before you introduce sex into the picture. But communication is key. If you are part of the wait for marriage crowd, that's probably something you should let them know, because chances are, they aren't. I usually tell guys I'm getting serious with that I want to be in love before I have sex and that I want to feel comfortable in the other aspects of the relationship first. They're usually cool with that.


----------



## Nyanpichu (Jun 5, 2014)

well when you really think about sex in a relationship if your not having sex for months on end it probably stems from having an extremely unhealthy relationship so sex occasionally is really what separates a friendship from a relationship imo sexless relationships can have a really negative effect on peoples emotional health so if you're in a relationship with no sex just think about the other person you may just think their a horny starved dog but sex is more than just an entitlement its more than just physical it creates a very emotional and spiritual bond between two people. This video probably explains it better than me 






P.S I think too many people on this forum and in general are letting their pride get in the way of what really matters


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 24, 2011)

Swede said:


> I agree theoretically, but the problem is that people, their situations and their relationships change. That's life. In a LTR, chances are that the need for sex will fluctuate - true for both genders. For example, some people need more sex when they are stressed. Some people need less sex when they are stressed. The vast majority of people will go through periods of stress in their lives and not necessarily at the same time as their partner.And since I am posting, I might as well throw another thought in. I found one of the early posts in this thread very interesting; @_series0_1 was talking about his female partners using sex as 'leverage'/'punishment' when he was encouraging/helping them to become healthier (as in eating less, working out more, losing 15lbs, etc). The thing is, withdrawing sexually doesn't necessarily have to be a punishment from the women's side, but it can simply be that they felt unattractive or not good enough. A lot of people get turned down when they think their partner thinks that they are fat. My guess is that the attractiveness issue is more common among women than among men, but I'm not sure.And I can also bet that for many, feeling pressure in regards to sex from their partner often result in the opposite reaction - you want less sex.


We can't always sync our sexual desires with our partners, so that's when masturbation comes in. 
I don't think I ever mentioned anything about it necessarily being the female partner doing the withholding and that's definitely not what I meant as the situation mentioned is about an agreed-on challenge with sex as reward and no sex as punishment. People have drinking games all the time, doesn't necessarily means the participants are alcoholics. Also, the OP is about people who deliberately withhold sex despite still having the desire to, not about sex drive incompatibility, which is a completely different issue altogether. 

That's when communication comes in, a little reassurance from the partner can help. A partner must have found enough attractive features in a person to date them in the first place and continue doing so if the relationship started out of full willingness from both parties so a change in appearance shouldn't be a serious issue, unless the person changed very dramatically that they turned into a completely different person. So if a partner changed that much and they're no longer the person that their partner was attracted to, either the partner can choose to get used to it or split from them. 

I think anyone can have low self-esteem, but men have it for different reasons as social expectations are different for each gender, but men don't confide their feelings as much so a fair comparison can't be made. In fact it's so under-represented that it may possibly be worst than expected. I used to know a man who is always pretending to be confident (however it just comes across as obnoxious and arrogant because the confidence was faked) but in reality he feels that his love life is jinxed, and his low self-esteem got so bad that he started to resort to putting me down to make himself feel better. But on the outside you will never realise how emotionally unhealthy he is.


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Nyanpichu said:


> well when you really think about sex in a relationship if your not having sex for months on end it probably stems from having an extremely unhealthy relationship so sex occasionally is really what separates a friendship from a relationship imo sexless relationships can have a really negative effect on peoples emotional health so if you're in a relationship with no sex just think about the other person you may just think their a horny starved dog but sex is more than just an entitlement its more than just physical it creates a very emotional and spiritual bond between two people. This video probably explains it better than me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is that what you really think of asexuals and people with low drives?


----------



## wyldstyle (Feb 21, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Edit: thought I should clarify this in the OP. I not suggesting forcing your partner to have sex with you at any time. I AM suggesting leaving if your partners continually doesn't have sex with you for extended periods because they "don't feel like it". such an individual is selfish and doesn't deserve a partner.
> 
> Edit 2:
> obvious exceptions include (but are not limited to)
> ...



I certainly hope that a couple's relationship is stronger than the 'bonds of sexual exclusivity'.

If I love you, I am committed to you, I do not give up on you. I will work to make things work. True intimacy goes past the act of sex.


----------



## ForestPaix (Aug 30, 2014)

I disagree: a relationship between to people who love each other, in a romantic way, doesn't have to involve sex.
Love is so much more than sex.


----------



## Nyanpichu (Jun 5, 2014)

what did i just say about asexuals? Who did i just offend? O.O im sorry D: dont hurt me


----------



## Aya the Abysswalker (Mar 23, 2012)

Nyanpichu said:


> what did i just say about asexuals? Who did i just offend? O.O im sorry D: dont hurt me


You said that having no sex for months is the sign of an unhealthy relationship. How does that works for asexuals and people with low sex drives?


----------



## Nyanpichu (Jun 5, 2014)

honestly i wouldn't know i cant speak for asexuals or people with low sex drives because well I'm neither asexual or have a low sex drive. That would be like me trying to argue feminism i cant do it because i simply dont have the experiences of being a woman. heck I'm not a doctor either so I can't say a sexless relationship is "unhealthy". my opinion is that in an asexual or low sex drive relationship people should know what their getting into as long as its explained beforehand. in the asexual case i wouldn't consider it "unhealthy" because that's just the way your made you can't change that and hopefully your partner understands. In the case of the person with the low sex drive i would consider it "unhealthy" if their just not having sex for months on end because they just don't wan't to i know that may sound insensitive but for the person with a high or average libido they would feel unloved and unwanted which can lead to other things like depression, frustration,stress for the other person. So while the low libido person feels fine their partner is hurting :c. Relationships should be give and take I'm not saying you have to have sex with the person everyday but just understand that if a low libido person is starving an average or high libido person out of sex just because they don't wan't to have sex the low libido person isn't understanding of the other persons feelings. The real "unhealthiness" lies within the avg-high libido person who is starved of sex. I guess it would be healthy for two low libido people but this should really be handled on a case by case basis. Although I wouldn't expect a low libido person to understand what its like for a person with an average or high libido just as much as I wouldn't expect a straight man to know what it's like to be gay 


P.S don't hurt me


----------

