When does a woman owe you sex chart
24 Jul 2014, 4:42 pm
tarantella64 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
I don't think of marriage as a place to DEMAND sex. I thinking DEMANDING sex and saying marriage partners owe it to themselves and each other not to withhold intimacy are completely different things.
It's a moral issue, not a legal one. Once sex becomes a weapon, either giving it or withholding it, the relationship has failed. I prefer that my wife be a willing partner, so I don't press the issue if it just isn't going to happen. But I know that I COULD ask my wife for sex at almost any time and she'd be ok with it even if she's not in the mood. There's just something, I dunno, icky about someone who won't or can't reciprocate. Withholding sex in marriage for an extended time is just a mean thing to do.
If you want to play it safe as a married man, I'd say never approach your mate for sex unless she initiates it. Doesn't mean you can't try, but men tend to be better at getting in the mood for sex-on-demand than women are. Depending on how well you tolerate dry spells, it's probably most often better to just wait. The ability to have sex any or every time you want it regardless of the mood is going to depend heavily on how healthy the relationship is.
It's a moral issue, not a legal one. Once sex becomes a weapon, either giving it or withholding it, the relationship has failed. I prefer that my wife be a willing partner, so I don't press the issue if it just isn't going to happen. But I know that I COULD ask my wife for sex at almost any time and she'd be ok with it even if she's not in the mood. There's just something, I dunno, icky about someone who won't or can't reciprocate. Withholding sex in marriage for an extended time is just a mean thing to do.
If you want to play it safe as a married man, I'd say never approach your mate for sex unless she initiates it. Doesn't mean you can't try, but men tend to be better at getting in the mood for sex-on-demand than women are. Depending on how well you tolerate dry spells, it's probably most often better to just wait. The ability to have sex any or every time you want it regardless of the mood is going to depend heavily on how healthy the relationship is.
I'm not down with this whole notion of "withholding", which implies I've got something that belongs to you, and am not letting you have it (generic pronouns).
If I'm having sex, it's because I actively want to have sex with that person. If I'm not having sex, I'm not "withholding" it. There isn't anything that belongs to the other person that I'm playing keep-away with. I just don't want to have sex. Similarly, when my various boyfriends haven't been up for it whenever, they haven't been "withholding" it from me. They just didn't want sex.
If you're involved with someone who plays passive-aggressive head games, actually wanting sex but not having it with you in order to manipulate you -- well, that's f****d up. Because of the manipulation part. And that, not the no-sexytimes, is why you should go.
Thanks for this post. The "withholding" thing bothered me too.
24 Jul 2014, 4:44 pm
1401b wrote:
Marcia wrote:
1024 wrote:
Nobody legally owes you sex, but it is more or less implied in marriage, the same way as monogamy is implied.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
And that is why for centuries men had the right to have sex with their wife, even if she refused, because she was deemed to have given her consent, once and for all, when they got married.
I am a 46 year old woman, living in Scotland, and I was old enough to be married when the law here eventually acknowledged that for a husband to have non-consensual sex with his wife was actually rape. Before that, it was technically impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband.
BS.
Most men don't like hurting the things they like.
(god, I can't even spell the and they right)
Here ya go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape
Still happens a lot, actually. I hear the most insane stories from some women about their husbands, esp. the religious ones. My kid's violin teacher used to pull all nighters during what she figured were her fertile times because her husband insisted he should get more kids, and she'd had horrible postpartum depression with the last two, and she knew that if she lay down and fell asleep, she'd wake up with him on top of her. It took her a while to get educated enough to be able to get independent with four kids.
24 Jul 2014, 6:22 pm
1401b wrote:
Marcia wrote:
1024 wrote:
Nobody legally owes you sex, but it is more or less implied in marriage, the same way as monogamy is implied.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
And that is why for centuries men had the right to have sex with their wife, even if she refused, because she was deemed to have given her consent, once and for all, when they got married.
I am a 46 year old woman, living in Scotland, and I was old enough to be married when the law here eventually acknowledged that for a husband to have non-consensual sex with his wife was actually rape. Before that, it was technically impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband.
BS.
Most men don't like hurting the things they like.
(god, I can't even spell the and they right)
1401b: She is saying there was no law preventing a man from having sex with his wife whenever he wanted until recently. This meant their was no way a woman COULD say no; a de-facto legalization of rape in marriage. This more recent change in law is true now in many places, but not everywhere.
If you think some men do not hurt their wives or other women they "like", even kill them, then you are really out of touch with the real world, and, clearly, do not know what it is like to be a woman.
PS: I do not hate men or women or other creatures for what they are. But I do hate some ideas.
_________________
Fiat justitia, ruat caelum.
24 Jul 2014, 6:50 pm
emtyeye wrote:
1401b wrote:
Marcia wrote:
1024 wrote:
Nobody legally owes you sex, but it is more or less implied in marriage, the same way as monogamy is implied.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
And that is why for centuries men had the right to have sex with their wife, even if she refused, because she was deemed to have given her consent, once and for all, when they got married.
I am a 46 year old woman, living in Scotland, and I was old enough to be married when the law here eventually acknowledged that for a husband to have non-consensual sex with his wife was actually rape. Before that, it was technically impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband.
BS.
Most men don't like hurting the things they like.
(god, I can't even spell the and they right)
1401b: She is saying there was no law preventing a man from having sex with his wife whenever he wanted until recently. This meant their was no way a woman COULD say no; a de-facto legalization of rape in marriage. This more recent change in law is true now in many places, but not everywhere.
If you think some men do not hurt their wives or other women they "like", even kill them, then you are really out of touch with the real world, and, clearly, do not know what it is like to be a woman.
PS: I do not hate men or women or other creatures for what they are. But I do hate some ideas.
Agreed.
24 Jul 2014, 7:09 pm
emtyeye wrote:
1401b wrote:
Marcia wrote:
1024 wrote:
Nobody legally owes you sex, but it is more or less implied in marriage, the same way as monogamy is implied.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
And that is why for centuries men had the right to have sex with their wife, even if she refused, because she was deemed to have given her consent, once and for all, when they got married.
I am a 46 year old woman, living in Scotland, and I was old enough to be married when the law here eventually acknowledged that for a husband to have non-consensual sex with his wife was actually rape. Before that, it was technically impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband.
BS.
Most men don't like hurting the things they like.
(god, I can't even spell the and they right)
1401b: She is saying there was no law preventing a man from having sex with his wife whenever he wanted until recently. This meant their was no way a woman COULD say no; a de-facto legalization of rape in marriage. This more recent change in law is true now in many places, but not everywhere.
If you think some men do not hurt their wives or other women they "like", even kill them, then you are really out of touch with the real world, and, clearly, do not know what it is like to be a woman.
PS: I do not hate men or women or other creatures for what they are. But I do hate some ideas.
Edit: Maybe you made a grammar mistake, I think that you probably meant say "If you don't think that some men hurt their wives ? ", they way you have worded that sentence sounds like you're saying that there that there are no men who don't hurt their wives, which in the positive form means that all of them do. It's acceptable to say that some men hurt women and that some men are rapists (which I think is what you were meaning to say) but you can't generalise to say that all men do it (which is what that sentence sounds like as the way it's written now).
Last edited by Jono on 24 Jul 2014, 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
24 Jul 2014, 7:18 pm
Jono wrote:
emtyeye wrote:
1401b wrote:
Marcia wrote:
1024 wrote:
Nobody legally owes you sex, but it is more or less implied in marriage, the same way as monogamy is implied.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
And that is why for centuries men had the right to have sex with their wife, even if she refused, because she was deemed to have given her consent, once and for all, when they got married.
I am a 46 year old woman, living in Scotland, and I was old enough to be married when the law here eventually acknowledged that for a husband to have non-consensual sex with his wife was actually rape. Before that, it was technically impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband.
BS.
Most men don't like hurting the things they like.
(god, I can't even spell the and they right)
1401b: She is saying there was no law preventing a man from having sex with his wife whenever he wanted until recently. This meant their was no way a woman COULD say no; a de-facto legalization of rape in marriage. This more recent change in law is true now in many places, but not everywhere.
If you think some men do not hurt their wives or other women they "like", even kill them, then you are really out of touch with the real world, and, clearly, do not know what it is like to be a woman.
PS: I do not hate men or women or other creatures for what they are. But I do hate some ideas.
WTF. Are you saying that all men hurt their wives or kill them? What do you mean that it's not true that some men don't do these things? I'm a male and I take offence to that because I don't do it.
I hope you're being sarcastic here. Or are you serious in what you say?
24 Jul 2014, 7:36 pm
Marcia wrote:
Jono wrote:
emtyeye wrote:
1401b wrote:
Marcia wrote:
1024 wrote:
Nobody legally owes you sex, but it is more or less implied in marriage, the same way as monogamy is implied.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
?..
And they should serve as a warning to every woman who is considering tying her life to a man with whom she may easily not be interested in sex a few years later.
And that is why for centuries men had the right to have sex with their wife, even if she refused, because she was deemed to have given her consent, once and for all, when they got married.
I am a 46 year old woman, living in Scotland, and I was old enough to be married when the law here eventually acknowledged that for a husband to have non-consensual sex with his wife was actually rape. Before that, it was technically impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband.
BS.
Most men don't like hurting the things they like.
(god, I can't even spell the and they right)
1401b: She is saying there was no law preventing a man from having sex with his wife whenever he wanted until recently. This meant their was no way a woman COULD say no; a de-facto legalization of rape in marriage. This more recent change in law is true now in many places, but not everywhere.
If you think some men do not hurt their wives or other women they "like", even kill them, then you are really out of touch with the real world, and, clearly, do not know what it is like to be a woman.
PS: I do not hate men or women or other creatures for what they are. But I do hate some ideas.
WTF. Are you saying that all men hurt their wives or kill them? What do you mean that it's not true that some men don't do these things? I'm a male and I take offence to that because I don't do it.
I hope you're being sarcastic here. Or are you serious in what you say?
No, I wasn't being sarcastic, I misunderstood what she was saying because of her grammar. See my edit of my post above. Her sentence should of been "If you don't think some men hurt their wives...", not "If you think some men don't hurt their wives?" which is what she wrote because that is technically the negative form of "all men hurt their wives". So just be careful of that because I don't think that's what she meant to say and it's how I initially interpreted it.
24 Jul 2014, 7:50 pm
I'm sure most guys on here that rarely or never get laid have figured out by now that women don't owe them sex(otherwise they'd obviously get sex occasionally).
The ones who are guilty of this probably already get laid fairly often since getting sex is the norm to them. For example, I've heard before that sexually-active boxers are sometimes told not to have sex in the days leading up to a major-fight since it makes them ready to knock somebody out. 
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
24 Jul 2014, 8:10 pm
Marcia wrote:
tarantella64 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
I don't think of marriage as a place to DEMAND sex. I thinking DEMANDING sex and saying marriage partners owe it to themselves and each other not to withhold intimacy are completely different things.
It's a moral issue, not a legal one. Once sex becomes a weapon, either giving it or withholding it, the relationship has failed. I prefer that my wife be a willing partner, so I don't press the issue if it just isn't going to happen. But I know that I COULD ask my wife for sex at almost any time and she'd be ok with it even if she's not in the mood. There's just something, I dunno, icky about someone who won't or can't reciprocate. Withholding sex in marriage for an extended time is just a mean thing to do.
If you want to play it safe as a married man, I'd say never approach your mate for sex unless she initiates it. Doesn't mean you can't try, but men tend to be better at getting in the mood for sex-on-demand than women are. Depending on how well you tolerate dry spells, it's probably most often better to just wait. The ability to have sex any or every time you want it regardless of the mood is going to depend heavily on how healthy the relationship is.
It's a moral issue, not a legal one. Once sex becomes a weapon, either giving it or withholding it, the relationship has failed. I prefer that my wife be a willing partner, so I don't press the issue if it just isn't going to happen. But I know that I COULD ask my wife for sex at almost any time and she'd be ok with it even if she's not in the mood. There's just something, I dunno, icky about someone who won't or can't reciprocate. Withholding sex in marriage for an extended time is just a mean thing to do.
If you want to play it safe as a married man, I'd say never approach your mate for sex unless she initiates it. Doesn't mean you can't try, but men tend to be better at getting in the mood for sex-on-demand than women are. Depending on how well you tolerate dry spells, it's probably most often better to just wait. The ability to have sex any or every time you want it regardless of the mood is going to depend heavily on how healthy the relationship is.
I'm not down with this whole notion of "withholding", which implies I've got something that belongs to you, and am not letting you have it (generic pronouns).
If I'm having sex, it's because I actively want to have sex with that person. If I'm not having sex, I'm not "withholding" it. There isn't anything that belongs to the other person that I'm playing keep-away with. I just don't want to have sex. Similarly, when my various boyfriends haven't been up for it whenever, they haven't been "withholding" it from me. They just didn't want sex.
If you're involved with someone who plays passive-aggressive head games, actually wanting sex but not having it with you in order to manipulate you -- well, that's f****d up. Because of the manipulation part. And that, not the no-sexytimes, is why you should go.
Thanks for this post. The "withholding" thing bothered me too.
It's not just passive-aggressive head games, either. I just meant using sex as rewards/punishment.
How sex enters into a marriage context is obviously going to be different for everyone. But I really believe that the best marriage relationships dispense with terms of "mine" and "yours" in favor of "ours." If one person has an issue in the relationship, then we both have an issue in the relationship. That can, and often does, include intimacy. Either partner can have an apathetic attitude towards sex at any time, as in "I don't really want to have sex right now, but I'll do it if he/she really wants it that bad." Perhaps a better way to think of it is "I'm not in the mood, but my partner is and we haven't had sex in 6 weeks. I love him/her and don't mind throwing the old guy/gal a bone this time. It's not hurting me either way." We stop looking at our bodies or sex as mine/yours, but ours. As long as it works both ways, it's all good. One partner may not necessarily be in the mood for sex and doesn't really care one way or the other, but the partner who IS in the mood at any given time at least respects the other enough not to make unreasonable demands.
By "withholding," I mean a more or less deliberate failure to recognize a person's need for intimacy. You aren't formally or legally obligated necessarily to have sex with your mate. But it can be reasonable to expect a certain level and amount of intimacy within the relationship. That's just something couples have to agree on before getting married. If sex is THAT important to one, it WILL eventually affect the other partner. As long as sex is either equally important to both or one partner really doesn't care, it's not going to cause any problems. If a wife says, "We haven't had sex in over 6 weeks and I'm feeling alone in this relationship. Please make love to me!" and all the husband does is hand her a vibrator, there will be some conflict in the relationship. If a man says, "I need intimacy" and the woman says "you've got two hands, use one of them" there will be problems.
I think in marriage you need a sense of belonging to each other rather than existing solely for yourself and your own agenda. Sex need not be a big issue, but for some people it can be. For a marriage to work, you're going to want to be either matched evenly along those priorities or differing priorities need to be complimentary. My wife and I tend to compliment each other rather than being perfectly evenly matched, and because of that we've never had the problems of compromising on things that are important to us individually, to include sex. Not every relationship works out that way, but we've avoided that whole "You owe me" attitude in pretty much all aspects of our relationship.
So maybe nobody owes anybody sex even in marriage. But being a giving person even in matters of physical intimacy is still a way to be nice to the person you committed yourself to and who is committed to you and your needs as well. To sum up the whole "withholding" thing, just don't be mean.
24 Jul 2014, 10:01 pm
Using sex as reward/punishment is a mind game and, unless you're in a consensual kinky-shit relationship, pretty f****d up.
As for the whole "our body" thing...mm nope. There are several things that are mine and don't belong to anyone else:
- my body
- my mind
- my time
- my money
- my talents
- my work.
I may decide to share them with someone else, but that doesn't mean I'm obliged to make it a permanent condition. And, having been in a marriage to someone who lied in pretty important ways on the way in, I'm very grateful I didn't go all romantic and stayed quite practical about what's mine. If I hadn't, my kid wouldn't have a house today, and likely wouldn't have college plans, either. A chunk of my retirement would also be gone.
If someone else is not enthusiastic about having sex with me, but is doing it as a favor? Egh, no. Just no. I don't need a whole other person as a sex toy. (I'm actually somewhat surprised by how hard that idea creeps me out.)
This whole business with "but you'll break up the marriage" as a goad...likewise, no. My not wanting something my spouse wants isn't 'me breaking up the marriage', it's him wanting something that's not in the marriage just then. And which may or may not come back. If he wants it regularly and bad enough to leave, well, so be it. If he's willing to walk out on kids to go get it, I won't have much respect for him, but so it goes. After ten years of being the responsible party here as a single mom, I really have little sympathy for the whole 'my needs!' thing once kids come along.
Someone not having sex with you because they don't want sex -- that's not being mean.
24 Jul 2014, 11:12 pm
TheGoggles wrote:
How about don't marry someone who is incompatible with you in a fundamental way?
The problem is that people change in lots of ways over time. If you're going to get married, this is something you should recognize. One of the ways people change is that they want more or less sex at different times of their lives, for lots of different reasons. So will you.
The relationships that last longest are the ones in which people fundamentally like and respect each other. Humping's great, but it's not the key thing. Same with shared interests -- people drift from them. And kids and illness will basically f**k everything sideways. I find it's true even with exes -- the guys I really just liked and respected? We're still close friends, decades on, important in each others' lives.
25 Jul 2014, 1:41 am
Misslizard wrote:
Not all men think this way,but some think that if they buy dinner you owe them something in return.If you are not into them they come back with names like dick tease,frigid.dyke,ice princess,user,etc...
Of couser there are some women that will go out with a man to get something,gold diggers,neither sex is perfect.
Of couser there are some women that will go out with a man to get something,gold diggers,neither sex is perfect.
What the hell? Why are you even accepting dinner from men if you aren't engaging with them? In the same way, women shouldn't reciprocate or accept anything from men that they have no attraction for, why are you accepting dinner from them if you have no intention of engaging with them? I can understand if it's a blind date but other than that, shouldn't happen..
Maybe if women didn't flirt or absorb attention with no intention of engaging, this kind of behavior wouldn't happen.
25 Jul 2014, 2:08 am
AlexanderDantes wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Not all men think this way,but some think that if they buy dinner you owe them something in return.If you are not into them they come back with names like dick tease,frigid.dyke,ice princess,user,etc...
Of couser there are some women that will go out with a man to get something,gold diggers,neither sex is perfect.
Of couser there are some women that will go out with a man to get something,gold diggers,neither sex is perfect.
What the hell? Why are you even accepting dinner from men if you aren't engaging with them? In the same way, women shouldn't reciprocate or accept anything from men that they have no attraction for, why are you accepting dinner from them if you have no intention of engaging with them? I can understand if it's a blind date but other than that, shouldn't happen..
Maybe if women didn't flirt or absorb attention with no intention of engaging, this kind of behavior wouldn't happen.
It's not a quid pro quo, AlexanderDantes. There's no "pay for dinner, get attention/sex" formula. If you don't want to buy someone dinner, don't. But don't go in expecting something in return. It's a gift, not a purchase.
This conversation's gone around on other threads, but if a guy asks me out and makes more than I do, and he offers to pay, then sure, I'll let him pay. If we make about the same, I'll split the bill, and if I know he's stony broke I'll just cover it. I'm there at the restaurant to enjoy his company over dinner, not to make promises.
25 Jul 2014, 2:20 am
AlexanderDantes wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Not all men think this way,but some think that if they buy dinner you owe them something in return.If you are not into them they come back with names like dick tease,frigid.dyke,ice princess,user,etc...
Of couser there are some women that will go out with a man to get something,gold diggers,neither sex is perfect.
Of couser there are some women that will go out with a man to get something,gold diggers,neither sex is perfect.
What the hell? Why are you even accepting dinner from men if you aren't engaging with them? In the same way, women shouldn't reciprocate or accept anything from men that they have no attraction for, why are you accepting dinner from them if you have no intention of engaging with them? I can understand if it's a blind date but other than that, shouldn't happen..
Maybe if women didn't flirt or absorb attention with no intention of engaging, this kind of behavior wouldn't happen.
Having dinner with someone is engaging with them. Just because you choose to spend time with someone, sharing time, conversation and a meal together doesn't mean that you will or should choose to do anything else with that person.
To think otherwise is to see women as little more than a lump of flesh which can be bought and sold.
