[–]Vault9116 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (73 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, see, that's why it's an attempt at a compromise. And if partner b is going to be so unreasonable as to expect the same terms from partner a as a demands from b, then partner a can choose that a sexless relationship is unacceptable and get a divorce.

There's no guarantee that the compromise or discussion will work. It's an attempt at a repair. And if a compromise can't be reached, or the situation is untenable, then one or both parties can choose to dissolve the relationship.

But no, partner a doesn't get to decide for partner b how the relationship will work. Even if it's partner b's low sex drive that is the issue. They have to mutually agree on the same compromise or else nothing should happen (because then it'd be cheating).

Is this really such a hard concept? That relationships are decided by the parties involved to make their own compromises and no one party gets to tell the other how to behave? And if s compromise can't be reached then the relationship is over?

[–]lokidemon731 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Well I'm not married, so it's much easier for me to just walk away than if I had taken vows. I understand marriage makes things more difficult and complicated but I also think it makes cheating a little worse. Rereading your comment though, you weren't advocating cheating, you were advocating opening up the marriage, which is different.

Isn't your spouse withholding sex also selfish? I mean PIV isn't the only type of intimacy a couple can share. By denying you sex isn't your spouse cheating you.

You are using terms like "withholding" and "denying", what about situations where one spouse cannot get into sex at all? They aren't purposefully withholding it, they just have libido issues for whatever reason. Sure, they can please their partner through oral and such but if it's obvious their not into it, it's not much better than masturbation, imo. In fact, I find it worse, it makes me feel undesirable and a little guilty. I also wouldn't call rejecting your partner's sexual advances cheating. Cheating is a whole world of hurt that includes feeling rejected, but is not limited to it.

At the end of the day, is it selfish? Yes, it is. But is it mature and adult to be selfish and hurtful to your spouse because they have been selfish and hurtful to you? No.

[–]redpillhead-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And what is 10 minutes of your time to make the person you love feel great.

Maybe the fact that it's only 10 minutes would be why the partner doesn't want to have sex with them.

But sarcasm aside, some guys (and girls) take a fuckton of time to get off. And if you're not in the mood to have sex, why would you be any more in the mood for any other type of sexual activity? Or do you imagine that giving blow jobs or hand jobs doesn't take much work? Because they usually take more work than actually having sex. Not always, but usually.

And believe me, giving a guy a blowjob when you're not really into it is a pain in the butt on the giving end. Especially if it takes a while. And especially you didn't want to do anything sexual in the first place. So why should the partner be "forced" to put on a happy face for the SO to enjoy a sex act that the person didn't feel like doing in the first place when the SO could've just gone and fapped instead to scratch that same need?

And unless your SO is paying you for the sex acts, you can't really compare it to a job. I don't like my job on some days, but I do like money, so it's a fair trade.

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

And what is 10 minutes of your time to make the person you love feel great.

Maybe the fact that it's only 10 minutes would be why the partner doesn't want to have sex with them.

But sarcasm aside, some guys (and girls) take a fuckton of time to get off. And if you're not in the mood to have sex, why would you be any more in the mood for any other type of sexual activity? Or do you imagine that giving blow jobs or hand jobs doesn't take much work? Because they usually take more work than actually having sex. Not always, but usually.

And believe me, giving a guy a blowjob when you're not really into it is a pain in the butt on the giving end. Especially if it takes a while. And especially you didn't want to do anything sexual in the first place. So why should the partner be "forced" to put on a happy face for the SO to enjoy a sex act that the person didn't feel like doing in the first place when the SO could've just gone and fapped instead to scratch that same need?

And unless your SO is paying you for the sex acts, you can't really compare it to a job. I don't like my job on some days, but I do like money, so it's a fair trade.

[–]redpillhead-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

And unless your SO is paying you for the sex acts, you can't really compare it to a job. I don't like my job on some days, but I do like money, so it's a fair trade.

Okay you like money from your job. I'm sure people like the comfort and love they receive from their SO's, why is that not a fair trade?

But sarcasm aside, some guys (and girls) take a fuckton of time to get off. And if you're not in the mood to have sex, why would you be any more in the mood for any other type of sexual activity? Or do you imagine that giving blow jobs or hand jobs doesn't take much work? Because they usually take more work than actually having sex. Not always, but usually.

Okay if the person takes a long time then you two can agree on a time limit. But to just say oh I don't feel like so go jack off isn't fair. Masturbating does not fulfil the same need of sex. Sex for a guy, believe it or not, is not always about climaxing. Sure if it is a one night stand there probably isn't a lot of intimacy there. But in a committed relationship the closeness I feel during the act is way more gratifying then climaxing.

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

comfort and love they receive from their SO's, why is that not a fair trade?

Because demanding your SO put a happy face on while requiring them to perform sex acts they don't feel like doing isn't a comforting or loving activity on either spouse's part? But I guess that's a foreign concept for you. Demanding an activity your spouse doesn't want to do isn't comforting or loving. And your spouse giving in to your nagging to just get it over with isn't comforting or loving. I would even argue that that would make the sex act cheap and empty (and you might as well have gone and masturbated instead for all the closeness or intimacy you would feel. Not to mention the resentment against further sexual experiences with you.)

Okay if the person takes a long time then you two can agree on a time limit.

lol, so then you can complain that your SO is such a frigid bitch/bastard for just teasing you and not getting you off even though it's not that hard to do. Uh...huh...

Not to mention, the simple fact that you're demanding the sex act makes it not gratifying for the one partner. Why is it crueler to tell your SO "not tonight dear, maybe tomorrow" as opposed to your SO saying "sex, now. My genitals demand your attention because I have needs!"

I know in my relationship, I've attempted to get my boyfriend in the mood but he couldn't get into it because of stress or whatever. Did I then demand that he use his mouth or fingers instead? No. I cuddled with him on the couch and we watched a movie. Thus closeness, intimacy and comfort acquired without forcing him to feel obligated to perform a sex act he didn't want to.

And, if, as you say, it's more about the closeness, then why would you want to open the relationship? So you can feel close to the people you're sleeping with that aren't your spouse? Or is it so you can have empty, meaningless sex when you could just go masturbate with a fleshlight or something instead?

But really, since you're having a difficult time grasping that relationships are based on compromise and that if one party's needs aren't met on a consistent basis that the two should discuss their options, I don't see what use it is to debate this any further.

[–]redpillhead1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is my opinion, a strong opinion, but still just an opinion. I am not forcing you to follow my standards. If you disagree, that's fine. I don't pretend that my way is the only way. I know the kind of person I want to be married to, and that person will have a similar viewpoint about intimacy. So since me and the person I marry will be in agreement for what we expect in the relationship, it will not be a demand or something I nag about, but something we both have decided we want to do. So please stop attributing negative personality traits to me because we happen to disagree about this.

Also I would appreciate it if you were less rude when you replied to me. Please do not attack me personally. Every question I asked you was framed as respectfully as possible. I would appreciate the same in return.

[–]lokidemon731 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BigMike314 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BigMike314 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault911 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault9110 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]_whistlerRed Pill Man4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azure_phantomBlue Pill8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]polyhooly9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_whistlerRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

the fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of child custody agreements are settled without court ruling. Less than 2% of child custody issues are decided by the court.

If this is the case, then I would think the 98% of custody agreements that are settled without a ruling wouldn't have much to do with whether family law is biased or not. If there's no legal ruling, the bias of law doesn't play into it. Then the 2% becomes 100% of the sample, and you'd need to look at those percentages to determine the outcomes.

Edit

On average, men will see a 10% increase in their financial resources*.

The source you cite here doesn't sit well with me. For one thing, there's a lot of quibbling between researchers going on in this article. Also I'm not clear on 'quality of life,' seems like an ambiguous term. I can't definitively dismiss this, obviously, but I'd be happier if there were some other sources regarding this issue.

[–]twentyfoursevensex4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]twentyfoursevensex0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault916 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Is it unfair for the person with the higher libido to have an expectation of a good sex life if that is what they had before the wedding?

I would argue it is. If the partner who now has a low libido used to have a high libido, there seems to be a change that needs to be addressed - is that partner now more stressed, had a change to medication, working longer hours, etc? Those things would (hopefully) cause a shift in expectations and reality. It could also be a reflection of other issues in the relationship that should be addressed, and if the "solution" is to have sex, you haven't fixed anything.

Furthermore, I don't know how increases in frequency of sex are going to equal a good sex life. If it's just obligatory sex, I can't imagine it being that thrilling for either partner. Seems to me a better sex life would be having enthusiastic sex when both partners are into it.

I think once people get married feel like their work is done and they don't feel they need to work to keep the other person happy.

Agreed; a lot of people stop putting in the effort to "date" the other and let the romance go. But I don't think that translates to "have sex when you don't want to" to make the other person happy. If it would make one partner happy to not have sex, and one happy to have sex, why would having sex win out?

[–]redpillhead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

would argue it is. If the partner who now has a low libido used to have a high libido, there seems to be a change that needs to be addressed - is that partner now more stressed, had a change to medication, working longer hours, etc? Those things would (hopefully) cause a shift in expectations and reality. It could also be a reflection of other issues in the relationship that should be addressed, and if the "solution" is to have sex, you haven't fixed anything.

On medical issue I agree with you. If someone is off because of medication or other illness than I think it is important to first make sure your partner is in good health. In this case sex should be the furthest thing from your mind. However I strongly disagree in the work issue. Why is ok to neglect your spouse for work? In the end your job won't be there to take care of you as you go into the sunset? I think the most important thing that needs to be cultivate in a marriage, is the marriage. Not the kids, not the job, but the marriage. For me marriage is forever so if this is something w are committing to for life it should be our main priority.

Furthermore, I don't know how increases in frequency of sex are going to equal a good sex life. If it's just obligatory sex, I can't imagine it being that thrilling for either partner. Seems to me a better sex life would be having enthusiastic sex when both partners are into it.

It shouldn't be obligatory. The other person should be happy to be intimate with their spouse. ( if they are credible.) If you don't I think that person is a bad spouse, doesn't matter if it is a man, or a women.

Agreed; a lot of people stop putting in the effort to "date" the other and let the romance go. But I don't think that translates to "have sex when you don't want to" to make the other person happy. If it would make one partner happy to not have sex, and one happy to have sex, why would having sex win out?

Because in monogamous relationships that intimacy can only be shared with that one person. So it is the other persons duty to fulfil the needs of their partner. Marriage is not just the rewards of having a house, and a wedding etc. It is also responsibilities. I know that doesn't sound beautiful or kind but it is the truth. Both spouses are responsible for the needs of the other whether it is emotional or physical.

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

However I strongly disagree in the work issue. Why is ok to neglect your spouse for work? In the end your job won't be there to take care of you as you go into the sunset? I think the most important thing that needs to be cultivate in a marriage, is the marriage. Not the kids, not the job, but the marriage. For me marriage is forever so if this is something w are committing to for life it should be our main priority.

I would agree with this to a point. If someone is having stressful weeks at work due to circumstances outside their control (let's say there's a big deadline, and something goes wrong), I think it is reasonable for the partner who isn't stressed to realize that sex might have to take the backseat for a while. I'm not advocating for a permanent reduction in sex because of work, but I know personally, there are days that when I get home at 8PM after spending hours in court that I have absolutely no inclination to do anything sexual.

It shouldn't be obligatory. The other person should be happy to be intimate with their spouse. ( if they are credible.) If you don't I think that person is a bad spouse, doesn't matter if it is a man, or a women.

This is what I really don't think I understand. If someone isn't in the mood to have sex and the other partner wants sex, how could that sex be good? I mean, I get assisting your spouse with masturbating or such, but if that person is flat out not in the mood, I really can't see how they'll enjoy sex, and I think sex would become a chore. And that, to me, is that LAST thing I want in a relationship. There's a reason there's stories women tell about how they plan their to-do list while having sex.

Because in monogamous relationships that intimacy can only be shared with that one person. So it is the other persons duty to fulfil the needs of their partner. Marriage is not just the rewards of having a house, and a wedding etc. It is also responsibilities. I know that doesn't sound beautiful or kind but it is the truth. Both spouses are responsible for the needs of the other whether it is emotional or physical.

I get that marriage is about more than just the "fun" aspects and has responsibilities. Someone has to pay the bills, mow the lawn. But I'm just baffled at how sex shouldn't be something that the partners do when they both want it. Personally, I don't know if I can agree that one person is responsible for the needs of another - that seems to be the basis of a codependent relationship, which cannot be healthy.

[–]redpillhead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I appreciate the respectful discussion. I just think this is something we won't be able to agree on. This is my personal opinion about the type of relationship I want.

I'm not a robot and a understand there are times when sex isn't an option. But generally speaking a job isn't so stressful where you can't be there for your spouse. If your job is always that stressful then maybe you should reconsider what your doing. I think nothing should come before the marriage. I know we are talking about sex in this thread but I think it revolves around all aspects of the marriage.

I don't know if I can agree that one person is responsible for the needs of another - that seems to be the basis of a codependent relationship, which cannot be healthy.

I think once you become married you are one. There is no longer two separate entities but you have become one being. I know my views on marriage might seem weird or antiquated but this is just my opinion. If other people find happiness with other ways of living then I am happy for them.

Again I appreciate the cordial conversation but I doubt anyone is going to change their mind so I think it is best to end this discussion by agreeing to disagree. Thanks again.

[–]LeaneGenova2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault918 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault914 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you. I think if a woman has a credible man she should WANT to do those things because it makes him happy. I also think that if the roles were reversed the man should happily aid his wife as well.

Personal example, my ex really liked flowers and nature. I do not. She wanted to go to a huge flower garden and look at all the lights and decorations that were going to be displayed. The illumination was also during winter so it was very cold. The only thing I dislike more than nature is the cold. This is not something I would ever ever want to do on my own. But at that time, she was a credible woman to me. So even though I dislike the cold and being in nature I gladly went. I had an enjoyable evening, because even though I wasn't in the mood for nature, I was always in the mood to make her happy.

Also everyone throws around the word entitlement. She is not some random women on the street. I think most people who get married do so with the expectation of a fulfilling sex life. Why is it so criminal for people to have expectations for their spouses?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kineticillation 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I will never touch my husband without him wanting me to. I will brush his hair, kiss him passionately, I'll cook for him, I'll undress and try to seduce him. I'll warm him up to the idea the best I can. But if he's not in the mood, I'm not going to go, "Dude, marital contract. We are supposed to provide each other with each other's needs--and one of my needs is sex."

I don't want grudging sex, or sad sex, or just-do-what-you-must-but-make-it-quick sex. That's all just... really sad. If he doesn't want sex, we can just hang out. Maybe have sex next week, it's cool. He works 50 hours a week, sometimes he gets the flu, blows out his shoulder, or is just having a really needy day where he just wants to be held.

Just... no. I believe in marital rape. I believe if I tied him up, held him down, blew him so he was hard and then rode him... that that would be rape. That's just not cool.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kineticillation 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackheadHamster[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree with #1. It is not my place to decide for another couple what works for them. If they have a system that they both are happy with, who am I to judge or begrudge them.

2 although it is not exactly the same issue I do believe it is tangentially related. I do not agree that a woman has no right to deny her man sex. I think if a man is not being credible he has no right to expect sex from his wife because he is not upholding his end of the contract.

CrackheadHamster · 2013-11-16T14:20:58+00:00

Redpillers who say Marital Rape doesn't exist usually make some claim that a wife is obligated to fulfill her husband's sexual needs, But when that...

However, I do believe that if a man is credible, then barring a medical issue or illness, a wife should not turn down her husband. She legally has the right to do so, but I think it is a very selfish thing to do.

Edit : Sorry I just reread OP's Post and realized that I missed something.

Marital Rape is a term feminists use to describe when a woman obliges to her husband's needs despite not being in the mood herself.

If this is the feminist definition of Marital Rape then no I don't think it exist. Sometimes I don't feel like working, does that mean my boss is raping me because I am giving into his needs when I don't want to. This is ridiculous and waters down the truly horrible nature of rape.

[–]CrackheadHamster[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_whistlerRed Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's silly for us to decide what agreements exist in other people's relationships

An intimate relationship is, in part, an agreement to associate with another person on an intimate level. Either party can end this agreement at any time. Within this larger agreement, there are smaller agreements that are both directly stated and implied. If these smaller agreements become disagreements, the larger agreement of the relationship can also be ended.

So...fine. Let's just leave everybody alone to handle their business, then. Feminist thought will be readily available to educate those who seek it out, as will Red Pill thought, as will every other sort of thought that can be applied to this social sphere. And if you think someone is being mistreated in a relationship...well, it's silly to think they aren't agreeing to be treated in this way, because they haven't broken off the agreement.

I kind of thought one of the major points of Blue Pill thought (as a reaction to Red Pill thought, I'm not speaking of what we RP'ers would call a native Blue Pill mindset) was to decide what agreements should exist in other people's (Red Pill) relationships. Am I incorrect?

[–]CrackheadHamster[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gem_Dude8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your argument doesn't really make much sense as it suggests that the only options are: emotionally abuse your partner or get raped.

There's also the middle ground: not consenting to sex because you don't feel like it and your partner respecting your wishes. This isn't abuse because there is no "withholding" of sex, which implies intent for nefarious purposes where these things are granted conditional on the behavior of your partner, and it is simply an issue of consent.

If a partner is unhappy with the amount of sex they're getting from the marriage, then they can either try to discuss it, work out a compromise, go to a marriage counsellor, etc, or they can file for a divorce where they can seek out relationships where they get what they need.

It's obviously ridiculous to suggest that a wife refusing sex is abuse and I think it's comments like this which lead the general public to view TRP as supporting things like marital rape.

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

spouse IS obligated to fulfill partners sexual needs

It seems a bit illogical to make sex into an obligation in a relationship. Shouldn't it be something that both partners enjoy?

In fact refusing to have sex with your partner is considered a form of domestic violence by many organisations who say that 'withholding sex and affection' is a form of emotional abuse and the sign of an abusive relationship.

I agree. However, there is a threshold question to this issue. Refusing sex once is not abuse. Refusing sex because your partner didn't do what you want is abusive. However, within the same site you linked, it also states that it's abuse to "[assume] that you have to have sex with him because you are "his woman", which is what I believe OP was generally referring to.

When men demand to have sex with their wives they are rapists, when they refuse to have sex with their wives they are abusers and women who do either are 'empowered'.

I've honestly never heard this before. The word "demand" does seem odd in this context, as though it's something that they have an entitlement to in the relationship.

[–]pig_ham_meat2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pig_ham_meat1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackheadHamster[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CrackheadHamster[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillhead0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault913 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault912 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault914 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault912 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vault91-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

in laymans terms he absolutely can rape his wife, in legal terms i think it should be treated differently, so yes, yes you were right.

let me ask you this. a man and a woman are married for 5 years and have an active sex life. one day she calls the police and says my husband raped me last night. there is physical evidence of SEX, but she has no bruises, theres no "crime scene" where things are smashed or disturbed and theres no apparent history of violence, like calls for domestic disputes etc. on what evidence should a charge of rape be brought? solely her statement that she didnt consent? there are privileges in marriage, such as the right not to be compelled to tesify in court against a spouse, specifically because of the intimate nature of the relationship. its on the basis of something ike that that i think absolutely men can be prosecuted for battery of a wife, but id be hesitant to charge or convict with rape without an extremely high bar of evidence

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

marital rape is about the legal concept of "consent" not whether or not its possible for a man to force his wife to have sex against her will. of course a man who punches his wife in the face while she is screaming "no no no" and then has sex with her is "raping " her in laymans terms. the issue is whether marriage itself negates the "consent" issues involved in say, date rape. marital rape wasnt a crime in almost all f the west until i believe the 1970s.

rape is a separate crime from assault and battery. i agree that men do not have the right to commit criminal assault and battery on their wives, i dont think that they can legally "rape" their wives, because while marriage doesnt imply consent to every instance of sexual intercourse that could possibly take place, it certainly implies a generic consent to sex with him that should render the situation different in the eyes of the law. the standard of evidence should be VERY high.

[–]CrackheadHamster[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]redpillschoolRed Pill-12 points-11 points-10 points 12 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackheadHamster[S] 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[+]redpillschoolRed Pill-14 points-13 points-12 points 12 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackheadHamster[S] 29 points30 points31 points 12 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[+]redpillschoolRed Pill-15 points-14 points-13 points 12 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points30 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The reason people think you don't believe in marital rape is that every time the issue comes up you write some obscure declaration. Here for example you compare the marriage contract with joining the military. You might think that comparisons like that explain something but they don't. They just make it seem like you glorify the days when men could rape their wives without repercussions.

You clearly have some problem with the issue of "marital rape" or you wouldn't be discussing it at all. If you'd simply say "I don't think anyone should ever be forced to have sex" that would be the end of the discussion. But you don't do that. You start explaining how once upon a time "marital rape" didn't exist, how marriage is a contract, you compare marital rape to dying in combat and so on.

So, it's your own fault that this discussion never ends.

[+]redpillschoolRed Pill-16 points-15 points-14 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DetectiveMousse 20 points20 points20 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackheadHamster[S] 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[+]redpillschoolRed Pill-15 points-14 points-13 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackheadHamster[S] 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]redpillschoolRed Pill-16 points-15 points-14 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrackheadHamster[S] 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool-8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon731 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool-8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon73113 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redpillschool-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lokidemon7315 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The reason I'm not engaging is because I have answered the question definitively and have no compulsion to validate such an absurd question by defending myself every time somebody feels like asking it.

The thing is though, no one posed the question to you specifically. You came on this thread and engaged and then got mad when people talked about what the thread is clearly about. You could have easily avoided all this by not commenting on the thread entirely.

If I asked, loki, can you prove you didn't rape and kill a teenage girl in 1996, is your silence on the matter proof that you in fact did rape and kill a girl?

No one is asking you to prove anything, just answer a question. If someone asked me "did you rape and kill a teenage girl in 1996?" I would say no, of course not, I have never and would never do such a thing and anyway, I was four. Why would I be silent when it's just as easy for me to say no?

Look at alphabet mods responses if you want clarity

I've seen the one screenshot where you finally gave a clear answer, which is why I never asked for your opinion on the matter. I was simply explaining that CrackHeadHamster never said "you support rape". He/she just asked you your thoughts. Your response that you already answered the question was fine, but to go on and say that he/she accused you of being a rapist was wrong.

[–]DetectiveMousse8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peggy_Olson15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Here you are pretty much saying that the current legal definition of rape includes forced sex that takes place within a marriage, so in this way, "marital rape" does exist. You then go on to say that if the current legal definition of rape were changed to not include any forced sex that takes place within a marriage, it would not be "marital rape," but "contracted consent."

You were obviously very careful to dance around the subject without ever stating outright that you believe husbands should legally be allowed to force sex on their wives, but it really doesn't even matter. Everyone who reads that is going to come to the same conclusion, which is that you think husbands should be able to rape their wives, and that it should be legal and we just won't call it "rape" anymore. It is completely and utterly pointless for you to write out these painfully obvious statements about how the law works otherwise. Your detractors know exactly why you're bringing it up and what you're implying, and - more importantly - your fans over at the red pill do too. They know you are saying that if they choose to get married, the red pill's philosophy tells them that while they can't legally rape their wives given the current laws, they should be able to, and it shouldn't be illegal - and they LIKE that idea, as do you. There is absolutely no way that holding that belief could not be construed as pro-marital rape.

You can play your little "I never technically said that" semantics game all you want, but you are not fooling ANYONE - not the people who dislike you, and certainly not the people who follow your advice. You KNOW that this is what you believe, and you know that everyone else knows it too. No amount of denial on your part is going to change that. You can say whatever you want in response, but it won't change a single thing. The fact that you become more and more emotional further down the thread (eventually saying to the person who disagreed with you "I don't give a fuck, you lost your right to speak here") is definitely a very clear indicator that you do NOT like being challenged on this subject. Why is that? I'd bet that we could both guess the answer.

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You were obviously very careful to dance around the subject without ever stating outright that you believe husbands should legally be allowed to force sex on their wives, but it really doesn't even matter. Everyone who reads that is going to come to the same conclusion, which is that you think husbands should be able to rape their wives, and that it should be legal and we just won't call it "rape" anymore.

I've had discussion with him at length about this issue. And his position is not what you say it is. His position is that he believes that withholding sex is grounds for divorce. That is the extent of it. I've had several conversations on this sub where people misrepresent his positions and I can understand where he is coming from not wanting to constantly clarify them. Especially when he has people following him around reddit injecting these falsities into conversations where they're irrelevant. I'm not saying that this is the case here, but that probably plays a part in why he doesn't feel the need to constantly defend himself against this sort of thing. You admit that he has never stated outright that he believes that husbands should legally be allowed to force sex on their wives, and then go on to say that that doesn't matter because that's what he means anyway. Frankly, I would probably get annoyed with the claims after a while too, especially if I've stated my beliefs to be the opposite of what people accuse me of, but those conveniently go ignored.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Foodforthought/comments/1mht71/inside_red_pill_the_weird_new_cult_for_men_who/cc9op8f?context=3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Foodforthought/comments/1mht71/inside_red_pill_the_weird_new_cult_for_men_who/cc9o34h?context=3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Foodforthought/comments/1mht71/inside_red_pill_the_weird_new_cult_for_men_who/cc9nsnr?context=3

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1m8n7i/whered_trp_and_rape_post_go/cc9nqmr?context=3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Foodforthought/comments/1mht71/inside_red_pill_the_weird_new_cult_for_men_who/cc9mw0u?context=3

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1m8n7i/whered_trp_and_rape_post_go/cc9mt3s?context=3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Foodforthought/comments/1mht71/inside_red_pill_the_weird_new_cult_for_men_who/cc9lzh5?context=3

Read each one of those carefully. He repeatedly says he is against rape. Thinks rape is wrong. Would not enter into a contract in which consent was part of said contract. Doesn't think such a contract would be enforceable. It was a thought experiment.

[–]soulcakeduck11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

His position is that he believes that withholding sex is grounds for divorce.

It may be grounds for a divorce, but he also thinks it would be permissible to have sex against his partner's immediate will. There's no contradiction there. He says,

It would be bad people skills to make your wife have sex with you when she wasn't in the mood ... having sex against the immediate will of the other party would still be considered consensual because of the nature of consent having been signed away earlier

Can you explain what those words mean if they are not what was said above?--that in the hypothetical, "husbands should be able to [have sex against the immediate will of] their wives, and that it should be legal and we just won't call it "rape" anymore."?

We also run into the same problem in the above-linked excerpt:

They say, but if it were legal. I respond, then it's not rape, it's contracted consent.

Wouldn't you agree?: this is not merely arguing that it would be grounds for a divorce, but arguing that it would not be rape. Right?

You,

You admit that he has never stated outright that he believes that husbands should legally be allowed to force sex on their wives

He has said explicitly that their inability to do this is a major factor in the devaluation of modern marriage. Doesn't that mean that for anyone who thinks the devaluation of modern marriage is a bad thing, husbands ought to have been legally allowed to have sex against the immediate will of their partner"?

RPS,

Obviously in today's legal atmosphere, spousal rape does exist in the legal sense, which is one of the core reasons we feel that marriage in itself has lost meaning.

You,

Read each one of those carefully. He repeatedly says he is against rape. Thinks rape is wrong. . . . Doesn't think such a contract would be enforceable.

Well that seems to be demonstrably false. He does think this hypothetical contract is enforceable, in each of those links you provided.

First,

The law's definition of consent is a good to know so you can determine whether or not the sex you are about to have is with consent. If the legal standard of consent has been reached by both parties, then it is not immoral to have sex. . . .

If two people signed a crazy contract though, I cannot deem it immoral to have sex if they outlined the terms of their consent in such a way that immediate will was over-ridden beforehand via contract.

Second,

If the law permits people to get married, and recognized perpetual consent clauses, then I think people should have the right to enter a contract that they knowingly want to.

Third,

If I make a contract that says "you and me will have sex at the whim of the other no matter what for the next year" and we both sign it, then in this thought experiment, this is consent.

Third,

If the law enabled perpetual consent, there would be no lack of consent,

Fourth,

Therefore we will refer to alimony as divorce-rape, circumcision as baby-rape, and conscription as life-rape.

If we accept that not all exertion of will over somebody else's autonomy is wrong, or that one can consent to waive certain rights to autonomy in certain conditions to certain people (even if the agreement includes a lapse of time), then we must revisit these definitions.

The explicit argument throughout is that such a hypothetical contract would (somehow) be hypothetically enforceable, even comparable to other, existing contracts. These are not descriptions of untenable contracts.

[–]alphabetmod-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If I ask you, "Hypothetically, if someone broke the rules of PPD and started hurling insults, would you delete those comments?" and you answered "yes" your answer is describing your personal position on the issue.

If I answered yes to this question then that would be my belief about the REAL purple pill debate. What RPS is doing is totally different.

If you asked me "In a hypothetical world where Purplepilldebate would allow two debaters to enter into a mod approved contract in which they would be allowed to insult each other without repercussions, would you delete those insults?" - And then I answered no, I would not delete those insults, that does not mean that I condone people insulting one another in the REAL Purplepilldebate. All it means is that in this hypothetical world where people were allowed to enter into such a contract, if the contract was allowed by the mods, regardless of my personal opinion on the matter, I would not delete insulting comments, as that would go against the contract.

Again, those are not his beliefs. He has stated his beliefs. Even gone so far as to say that even in a society where a marriage contract like the one we're talking about WOULD hypothetically be allowed, he would consider that immoral and would not participate in such a practice.

You are mistaken to believe that hypothetical thought experiments, alone, mean we're no longer talking about our own beliefs.

I have outlined above how I am not mistaken. I've shown you how you are mistaken.

[–]soulcakeduck1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

that does not mean that I condone people insulting one another in the REAL Purplepilldebate. All it means is that in this hypothetical world where people were allowed to enter into such a contract, if the contract was allowed by the mods, regardless of my personal opinion on the matter, I would not delete insulting comments, as that would go against the contract.

Right. So that STILL describes your belief. In this case, YOUR BELIEF is that such a contract should trump your personal preferences or the subreddit's usual rules about personal insults.

That's exactly analogous here. RPS describes HIS BELIEF that a perpetual consent contract should trump someone's immediate will to not-have sex.

How on earth do you conclude this is not a description of YOUR BELIEFS? Isn't it true that a different person than you, like say, me, might answer this hypothetical differently based on nothing other than THEIR beliefs? If MY belief is that the subreddit rules (which are there to ensure the quality of content for everyone who views the sub) trumps the personal contract of two users, then I would answer by deleting those hypothetical insults.

So we reached different conclusions. Explain why for me? What are these different conclusions a reflection of, if not OUR different beliefs?--my belief that rules trump agreement, and yours that agreement trumps rules?

Again, I expect a hypothetical rock to fall when dropped. That description reflects certain realities (the reality of gravity, the reality of my expectation of or belief in gravity). It's inseparable from reality. I don't understand what you think the point of such experiments are, if not to probe our personal beliefs/understanding of reality. That is the only reason they exist.

[–]soulcakeduck1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmod1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That doesn't mean they [thought experiments] have to [describe your beliefs].

Two things.

(1) You now admit that hypothetical thought experiments can describe our personal beliefs. So it is insufficient for you to insist that RPS is merely using a hypothetical thought experiment: that does not prove (as you intended) that he was not describing his own personal beliefs. You have no longer proven your case; your argument collapses unless you're amending it further.

(2) Yes, it does.

Explain what else it could possibly be? When you say "if the rules/realities were different here is what I think I would do," how is that anything other than a sincere expression of what you think you would do if the rules/realities were different?

Using your PPD contracted-insults example, if the contract existed, you would (or so you sincerely believe) behave the way you said you would when you discussed the thought experiment. That is seriously the only reason this device exists. You do sincerely believe the contract trumps the rules (if you state as much, in the hypothetical).

You can't just assert otherwise with no argument. Please tell me what else any of this could possibly mean, if it is not exactly as I described? What did this experiment reflect, if not your beliefs? Is it possible for someone with different beliefs to disagree? Because of their beliefs? Why or how?

Thought experiments are a direct description of your belief... until/unless you state otherwise. They're the only way to directly describe your beliefs for any situation other than the immediate moment's reality.

You're still free to create a thought experiment and say things like "a hypothetical person might react in this way..." But the reason that no longer describes your beliefs is not because it is a thought experiment. You can do that without any hypothetical scenario needed, too. But never matter, because that clearly has not been the case in any of the instances discussed here.

Put another way: these thought experiments all took the form, "If X, then I would do/say/believe Y." This is exactly equivalent to the form "I believe if X, then I would do/say/believe Y."

[–]alphabetmod-4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Separately, I think this is the keystone of your misunderstanding:

He repeatedly says he is against rape.

His own claims are not infallible, and moreover, he's not talking about the same thing. The entire point being discussed is that he has a different definition of rape, so those words you keep mentioning do not prove what you claim they do.

We can think of it this way. For TBP, rape includes both "set A" and "set B" but for RPS, it only includes A (B is not included). When TBP claims RPS is promoting or apologizing for rape, they mean B. For RPS to come in, using his own definition, and promise he is against "rape" (A) does not contradict TBP's claim.

In actual terms, for TBP rape includes all sex against the immediate will of those involved. That's not true for RPS who repeatedly argues that in a hypothetical, perpetual-consent contract, sex against someone's immediate will could not be rape.

[–]alphabetmod0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But that's not his ACTUAL definition. This is where things are getting lost in translation. In a hypothetical thought experiment my definition of rape could be anything.

This is where the TBP and RPS definition vary. For TBP, in a hypothetical world with perpetual consent contracts, it is still rape to have sex against the immediate will of your partner. For RPS, it is not rape, it is not morally wrong, it is fine, it is merely bad people skills.

That's part of his "actual position" btw. The thought experiment was used to describe his actual position. He does not say, "someone might argue that in this case... blah blah blah." He tells us what he believes of that hypothetical thought experiment.

Hypothetically, if I drop something I expect it to fall. That doesn't mean gravity only exists in thought experiments. I'm describing reality, in this thought experiment.

[–]soulcakeduck9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stair_Car1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alphabetmodamused modstery-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Martial Rape: Why the confusion?

Comments

2 although it is not exactly the same issue I do believe it is tangentially related. I do not agree that a woman has no right to deny her man sex. I think if a man is not being credible he has no right to expect sex from his wife because he is not upholding his end of the contract.

Title	Martial Rape: Why the confusion?
Author	CrackheadHamster
Upvotes	5
Comments	148
Date	November 16, 2013 2:20 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1qrdfj/martial_rape_why_the_confusion/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/martial-rape-why-the-confusion.286606 https://theredarchive.com/post/286606