When does a woman owe you sex chart

Page 8 of 9 [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Marcia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,218

27 Jul 2014, 7:58 am

NobodyKnows 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 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.


It would have been more honest if you had added some historical context: Up until the postwar period, children were the only Social Security (pension system) that most people in the developed world had. Most men worked too many hours to have much time for recreational sex. Even my grandfather - a wealthy person in one of the world's wealthiest countries - left for work before sunrise, came home for dinner, and then went back to work until late at night. He did that six days a week, and had to go to work briefly on Sundays, too. He didn't have time for much sex.

When the circomstances changed, so did the laws (as you acknowledge).

The idea that the developed world was swarming with privileged men who used their wives as recreational sex slaves is convenient for some politicians, but historically dishonest.

Furthermore, sex (and childbearing) were as necessary then as a five-day work week is today. Most women that I meet still see unnecessary work as my duty. That's a real sense of entitlement. I could be working three days a week or less and living much better.


Uh-huh?

Very briefly - the historical context (and in some parts of the world, current context) is that women had fewer rights and opportunities than men - legally, economically, politically etc. Legal details vary from country to country - but women were lesser than men, and were treated as their property. Change has been slow, but over the past 150 years or so, women have gradually gained an independence and autonomy in various aspects of their lives - in the public and private spheres.

The legal changes in relation to marital rape took place within the past 3 decades, mostly in the 1990s as far I can recall, so we're not going back to "the olden days" here.

Men must have had very good aim in the past that you describe. You say they didn't have time for sex, but they still managed to have plenty of children.

Doesn't matter whether the sex was recreational or procreative, the fact remains that, within marriage, it could legally be non-consensual and not be rape.

"The idea that the developed world was swarming with privileged men who used their wives as recreational sex slaves is convenient for some politicians, but historically dishonest." I suspect that this idea is yours, and yours alone.



Venger
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,606

27 Jul 2014, 8:33 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
Why do topics like this and "nice guys" garner more replies on here than actual relationship advice?


Cause people that have had a number of relationships are usually the ones who feel "entitled" when not currently in one(i.e. they think of it as the norm), but then they also like to run their mouth about the subject and pretend it's the other way around.(hence all the replies you speak of)



NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 567

27 Jul 2014, 10:54 am

Marcia wrote:
Uh-huh?

Very briefly - the historical context (and in some parts of the world, current context) is that women had fewer rights and opportunities than men - legally, economically, politically etc.


You're using a very narrow definition of "opportunity." One opportunity that men didn't have is the opportunity to stay home in relative safety and have someone else provide for them. You're asking men to be sympathetic to the few women who would have chosen liberty over security, but you show no sympathy for the majority of men consistently do the opposite when they have the choice. Lots of men choose corporate jobs over starting their own businesses because job-security is more important to them than power. They would have been disenfranchised in greater numbers by the old system.

Quote:
Legal details vary from country to country - but women were lesser than men, and were treated as their property. Change has been slow, but over the past 150 years or so, women have gradually gained an independence and autonomy in various aspects of their lives - in the public and private spheres.


And yet we still have breech of promise suits in the US. Women can still claim alimony. If a crazy woman gets pregnant with a used condom that her boyfriend left in a trash can, she can own him for the next 18 years. He can be thrown in prison if a family court judge thinks that he could earn more money.

Quote:
The legal changes in relation to marital rape took place within the past 3 decades, mostly in the 1990s as far I can recall


Women in Scotland have had equal voting rights since 1928. You can't palm all of the blame off onto men.

Quote:
Men must have had very good aim in the past that you describe. You say they didn't have time for sex, but they still managed to have plenty of children.


What are you saying? That women were required to have sex 30-60 times in their whole lives? A typical American boy spends 13 years in public schools under creepy female teachers who see him as nothing more than a future wage-slave and emotional garbage dump, and have no qualms about grooming children to serve their own urges.



Marcia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,218

27 Jul 2014, 11:09 am

NobodyKnows wrote:
Marcia wrote:
Uh-huh?

Very briefly - the historical context (and in some parts of the world, current context) is that women had fewer rights and opportunities than men - legally, economically, politically etc.


You're using a very narrow definition of "opportunity." One opportunity that men didn't have is the opportunity to stay home in relative safety and have someone else provide for them. You're asking men to be sympathetic to the few women who would have chosen liberty over security, but you show no sympathy for the majority of men consistently do the opposite when they have the choice. Lots of men choose corporate jobs over starting their own businesses because job-security is more important to them than power. They would have been disenfranchised in greater numbers by the old system.

Quote:
Legal details vary from country to country - but women were lesser than men, and were treated as their property. Change has been slow, but over the past 150 years or so, women have gradually gained an independence and autonomy in various aspects of their lives - in the public and private spheres.


And yet we still have breech of promise suits in the US. Women can still claim alimony. If a crazy woman gets pregnant with a used condom that her boyfriend left in a trash can, she can own him for the next 18 years. He can be thrown in prison if a family court judge thinks that he could earn more money.

Quote:
The legal changes in relation to marital rape took place within the past 3 decades, mostly in the 1990s as far I can recall


Women in Scotland have had equal voting rights since 1928. You can't palm all of the blame off onto men.

Quote:
Men must have had very good aim in the past that you describe. You say they didn't have time for sex, but they still managed to have plenty of children.


What are you saying? That women were required to have sex 30-60 times in their whole lives? A typical American boy spends 13 years in public schools under creepy female teachers who see him as nothing more than a future wage-slave and emotional garbage dump, and have no qualms about grooming children to serve their own urges.


Yeah, I kept my response brief because there were less than subtle indications in your first post that you would respond like this.

So much of what you say makes so little sense that I'm not going to attempt to engage with you any further on this topic.



SabbraCadabra
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,913
Location: Michigan

27 Jul 2014, 11:36 am

I think the lady who wrote the article missed the point completely. I don't think it was implied that she owed him sex, he was just trying to initiate a divorce in possibly the most immature way possible.

Although, yes, could possibly be fake, and if it's real, who knows if his intent was for it to reach the Internet. I could picture making up the chart for his own private use, the same way people make "pros and cons" lists to try to make a difficult decision. Maybe he sent it to her under the influence of alcohol, or maybe he had just had enough.

Jono wrote:
Yes, and with respect to the context in which that reddit post was made - being unhappy about being in a sexless marriage is completely and utterly different from feeling entitled to sex. While your wife doesn't owe you sex, it's also the case that there's probably something wrong with your relationship if she's never interested in sex. Oh, and women also get unhappy about being in sexless marriages, not only men.


^ This post, thank you. Yes.

Sex is not giving or taking or owing or "brownie points", it is sharing, and this relationship is obviously in serious peril, whether or not she was willing to admit it to herself or anyone else.


_________________
he had a lot to say, he had a lot of nothing to say
we'll miss him


crackedpleasures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,936
Location: currently Belgium, longing for the Middle East

27 Jul 2014, 2:53 pm

Upon seeing the title of this topic, I got a bit angry ; but the initial post removed that feeling immediately. I'm a straight man, but I hate any form of discrimination or stereotyping. Gender stereotyping is terrible. Men and women don't owe each other a thing, they give each other love (and sex, if applicable) spontaneously when feelings are involved. There is no obligation in it, you only give or receive love, and only make love, if it's spontaneous. That is also part of why it can be very beautiful.

I would not want a woman to owe me a thing. Not even if she'd be my girlfriend or wife. I would want her to be spontaneous. If she decides to give herself to me, it has to be her own decision, not something she does out of feeling obliged. I would never want a woman to force herself to please me ; and if a future girlfriend decides to give herself to me, I'll feel truly privileged because I know it will be her own spontaneous decision. An expression of love. The moment it'd be an obligatory thing, there is no love involved anymore.

Men and women don't owe each other a thing. If a couple make love, it is because of mutual feelings of love existing, and totally voluntarely. And then it can be very beautiful. The moment it'd be obligatory, it would take away all beauty involved.

In religions there are some rules about sex yes. In Islam, Christianity and Judaism (you see they share some points of view :)) it is expected you wait having sex until marriage. Blood stains on the bed's blanket are often shown to family as proof that "it" happened on the first night as husband and wife and never happened before. Sex before marriage is forbidden, but sex after marriage is obligatory since pleasing your partner is a duty.
See how much the three abrahamic religions are having in common? :) And in all religious books, there's a lot of sex talk if you come to think of it (the rules describing how to act prior to sex and after sex, the purification rituals attached to menstruation, the allowed sexual positions and the disallowed ones, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah that were destroyed due to stuff including hyperactive sexual experiences of the locals, ... Coming to think of it, the religious books have quite a lot of sexual passages in it :))

But in theory sex is forbidden until marriage in all three monotheistic religions, but the moment you're married it becomes one of the obligations towards your partner.


_________________
Do what Thou wilt shal be the whole of the Law.
Love is the Law, Love under Will. And...
every man and every woman is a star
(excerpt from The Book of the Law - Aleister Crowley)

"Od lo avda tikvateinu" (excerpt from the Israeli hymn)


crackedpleasures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,936
Location: currently Belgium, longing for the Middle East

27 Jul 2014, 2:55 pm

Oh yes, using the back door is forbidden in all three religions too. Another rule they all have in common. The moment you're married you're allowed to have sex whenever you want, but oh hell awaits the moment you experiment with certain positions not included nor approved by the holy books! :twisted:


_________________
Do what Thou wilt shal be the whole of the Law.
Love is the Law, Love under Will. And...
every man and every woman is a star
(excerpt from The Book of the Law - Aleister Crowley)

"Od lo avda tikvateinu" (excerpt from the Israeli hymn)


autismthinker21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 552
Location: illinois

27 Jul 2014, 2:56 pm

Marcia wrote:
NobodyKnows 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 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.


It would have been more honest if you had added some historical context: Up until the postwar period, children were the only Social Security (pension system) that most people in the developed world had. Most men worked too many hours to have much time for recreational sex. Even my grandfather - a wealthy person in one of the world's wealthiest countries - left for work before sunrise, came home for dinner, and then went back to work until late at night. He did that six days a week, and had to go to work briefly on Sundays, too. He didn't have time for much sex.

When the circomstances changed, so did the laws (as you acknowledge).

The idea that the developed world was swarming with privileged men who used their wives as recreational sex slaves is convenient for some politicians, but historically dishonest.

Furthermore, sex (and childbearing) were as necessary then as a five-day work week is today. Most women that I meet still see unnecessary work as my duty. That's a real sense of entitlement. I could be working three days a week or less and living much better.


Uh-huh?

Very briefly - the historical context (and in some parts of the world, current context) is that women had fewer rights and opportunities than men - legally, economically, politically etc. Legal details vary from country to country - but women were lesser than men, and were treated as their property. Change has been slow, but over the past 150 years or so, women have gradually gained an independence and autonomy in various aspects of their lives - in the public and private spheres.

The legal changes in relation to marital rape took place within the past 3 decades, mostly in the 1990s as far I can recall, so we're not going back to "the olden days" here.

Men must have had very good aim in the past that you describe. You say they didn't have time for sex, but they still managed to have plenty of children.

Doesn't matter whether the sex was recreational or procreative, the fact remains that, within marriage, it could legally be non-consensual and not be rape.

"The idea that the developed world was swarming with privileged men who used their wives as recreational sex slaves is convenient for some politicians, but historically dishonest." I suspect that this idea is yours, and yours alone.



oh really a sex slave into another governmental operation and other deals? hmm that's very conclusional and accurate. and the mind of women's actions conclude to that? marriage is for bonding trust and being there for one another in health and death. souls contract and the flesh is only in spirit. i bet jesus didn't think this way. i wonder what he thought during his time on this planet!! !!


_________________
In order to be free, you must take your chances of letting your tortured self to be forgiven.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,785
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

27 Jul 2014, 5:37 pm

crackedpleasures wrote:
Upon seeing the title of this topic, I got a bit angry ; but the initial post removed that feeling immediately. I'm a straight man, but I hate any form of discrimination or stereotyping. Gender stereotyping is terrible. Men and women don't owe each other a thing, they give each other love (and sex, if applicable) spontaneously when feelings are involved. There is no obligation in it, you only give or receive love, and only make love, if it's spontaneous. That is also part of why it can be very beautiful.

I would not want a woman to owe me a thing. Not even if she'd be my girlfriend or wife. I would want her to be spontaneous. If she decides to give herself to me, it has to be her own decision, not something she does out of feeling obliged. I would never want a woman to force herself to please me ; and if a future girlfriend decides to give herself to me, I'll feel truly privileged because I know it will be her own spontaneous decision. An expression of love. The moment it'd be an obligatory thing, there is no love involved anymore.

Men and women don't owe each other a thing. If a couple make love, it is because of mutual feelings of love existing, and totally voluntarely. And then it can be very beautiful. The moment it'd be obligatory, it would take away all beauty involved.

In religions there are some rules about sex yes. In Islam, Christianity and Judaism (you see they share some points of view :)) it is expected you wait having sex until marriage. Blood stains on the bed's blanket are often shown to family as proof that "it" happened on the first night as husband and wife and never happened before. Sex before marriage is forbidden, but sex after marriage is obligatory since pleasing your partner is a duty.
See how much the three abrahamic religions are having in common? :) And in all religious books, there's a lot of sex talk if you come to think of it (the rules describing how to act prior to sex and after sex, the purification rituals attached to menstruation, the allowed sexual positions and the disallowed ones, the story of Sodom & Gomorrah that were destroyed due to stuff including hyperactive sexual experiences of the locals, ... Coming to think of it, the religious books have quite a lot of sexual passages in it :))

But in theory sex is forbidden until marriage in all three monotheistic religions, but the moment you're married it becomes one of the obligations towards your partner.

Sex isn't strictly forbidden until marriage as per Bible. It's only in certain situations...all of which the woman pretty much has to cry rape and she escapes punishment.

A woman who is engaged would get the death penalty along with her lover. However, nothing forbids the would-be husband from coming to some quiet arrangement that would spare them both. In a world of arranged marriages, there's no guarantee the husband has a romantic interest in the wife, so he could forgive her if he really didn't care. On the wedding night, if she's found not to be a virgin, that could also be kept quiet. It just meant that the husband forfeits his right to a divorce. The husband could also have sex with her before marriage...but, likewise, he gives up his right to a divorce.

OT laws are largely legal protections that give relief for injustice. A lot of it spells out what you're allowed to do, not necessarily what you should do. Even Jesus pointed out that divorce was instituted because God knew the wickedness of man's heart. One man/one woman for life was always the Biblical standard. I suspect that divorce isn't the only law substantiated by sinful human nature. If sex before marriage was a big deal in the OT, it's important to understand why it was a big deal and assess how relevant that is in the present day.

Hint: In the OT it was considered a life and death issue. By the time of Jesus and the apostles, this was no longer the case, although sexual purity became an issue of morality and so continues as such today.



hale_bopp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,774
Location: None

29 Jul 2014, 5:56 am

Same applies to men. They don't owe you s**t for being "hot" when it comes to a dinner bill.
I can't stand women who use their sexuality to get ahead. Just as much as I can't stand men who think they are owed sex/relationships for being "nice".

*hides*



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,463
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

29 Jul 2014, 9:53 am

SabbraCadabra wrote:
I think the lady who wrote the article missed the point completely. I don't think it was implied that she owed him sex, he was just trying to initiate a divorce in possibly the most immature way possible.

Although, yes, could possibly be fake, and if it's real, who knows if his intent was for it to reach the Internet. I could picture making up the chart for his own private use, the same way people make "pros and cons" lists to try to make a difficult decision. Maybe he sent it to her under the influence of alcohol, or maybe he had just had enough.

Jono wrote:
Yes, and with respect to the context in which that reddit post was made - being unhappy about being in a sexless marriage is completely and utterly different from feeling entitled to sex. While your wife doesn't owe you sex, it's also the case that there's probably something wrong with your relationship if she's never interested in sex. Oh, and women also get unhappy about being in sexless marriages, not only men.


^ This post, thank you. Yes.

Sex is not giving or taking or owing or "brownie points", it is sharing, and this relationship is obviously in serious peril, whether or not she was willing to admit it to herself or anyone else.


Thanks for that. I couldn't find this post yesterday, when I wanted to reply to it for some reason.



tarantella64
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,901

29 Jul 2014, 11:24 am

hale_bopp wrote:
Same applies to men. They don't owe you sh** for being "hot" when it comes to a dinner bill.
I can't stand women who use their sexuality to get ahead. Just as much as I can't stand men who think they are owed sex/relationships for being "nice".

*hides*


Why hide? I mean it's true, though it never occurred to me that a guy should give me a damn thing for my looks, full stop. I also can't recall instances of women attacking men physically for going dutch, though who knows, maybe it's happened.



WantToHaveALife
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,588
Location: California, United States

29 Jul 2014, 12:48 pm

I am not entitled or owed anything from women



1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 119
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,844

29 Jul 2014, 5:12 pm

1024 wrote:
Yuzu wrote:
According to this article In Norway, Gender Equality Does Not Extend to the Bedroom, Norway is still one of 12 members of the European Union that do not explicitly criminalize rape within marriage,
That's surprising for a Scandinavian country.

If I understand correctly, this doesn't mean that rape in marriage is not a crime. It means that there is no explicit provision that marital rape is a crime; but there is no exception either that would say it's not crime. According to Wikipedia it's a crime in all of Europe.

Btw marital rape not being a crime is not necessarily gender unequality, at least in theory. In the laws of some religions, including Judaism and Christianity, both spouses owe sex to each other. (I don't give any importance to religious law, I just cited it as a curiosity.)

This is exactly what I meant by "Bullshit."
Including the bit about biblical law.
Nicely put, I was too annoyed to write coherently at the time.
I get so sick of all this man-hating slander that we're a bunch of evil rapists conspiring to do horrendous violence to helpless, pathetic, lil angelic "victims." And yes, this propagates that lie.
Normal animal (and human) behavior is to care for and even sacrifice for those they love.


_________________
(14.01.b) Been there; Done that; and wow am I embarrassed.
Our Project- https://sites.google.com/site/StabilizingAutism

What's wrong with Humans?
https://sites.google.com/site/Stabilizi ... troduction


1401b
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Age: 119
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,844

29 Jul 2014, 5:37 pm

Marcia wrote:
NobodyKnows wrote:
Marcia wrote:
Uh-huh?

Very briefly - the historical context (and in some parts of the world, current context) is that women had fewer rights and opportunities than men - legally, economically, politically etc.


You're using a very narrow definition of "opportunity." One opportunity that men didn't have is the opportunity to stay home in relative safety and have someone else provide for them. You're asking men to be sympathetic to the few women who would have chosen liberty over security, but you show no sympathy for the majority of men consistently do the opposite when they have the choice. Lots of men choose corporate jobs over starting their own businesses because job-security is more important to them than power. They would have been disenfranchised in greater numbers by the old system.

Quote:
Legal details vary from country to country - but women were lesser than men, and were treated as their property. Change has been slow, but over the past 150 years or so, women have gradually gained an independence and autonomy in various aspects of their lives - in the public and private spheres.


And yet we still have breech of promise suits in the US. Women can still claim alimony. If a crazy woman gets pregnant with a used condom that her boyfriend left in a trash can, she can own him for the next 18 years. He can be thrown in prison if a family court judge thinks that he could earn more money.

Quote:
The legal changes in relation to marital rape took place within the past 3 decades, mostly in the 1990s as far I can recall


Women in Scotland have had equal voting rights since 1928. You can't palm all of the blame off onto men.

Quote:
Men must have had very good aim in the past that you describe. You say they didn't have time for sex, but they still managed to have plenty of children.


What are you saying? That women were required to have sex 30-60 times in their whole lives? A typical American boy spends 13 years in public schools under creepy female teachers who see him as nothing more than a future wage-slave and emotional garbage dump, and have no qualms about grooming children to serve their own urges.


Yeah, I kept my response brief because there were less than subtle indications in your first post that you would respond like this.

So much of what you say makes so little sense that I'm not going to attempt to engage with you any further on this topic.


Superb responses NobodyKnows. These kinds of unfairness and blame is a big part of what's so damaging about all the gender slander towards men.
The most frustrating part is dealing with people that operate their minds on nothing more than the most simplistic sound bytes.
I've met thousands of men and have never met ANY man that though a woman owed him sex, you girls are reading too much meaning into what a guy says.


_________________
(14.01.b) Been there; Done that; and wow am I embarrassed.
Our Project- https://sites.google.com/site/StabilizingAutism

What's wrong with Humans?
https://sites.google.com/site/Stabilizi ... troduction