Beam's Blog of Writing and Other Things.

That's still a pretty broad definition, particularly the "guy they love will leave them" bit.

It was intended to be

I mean, it's not entirely unreasonable for a guy to leave a girl (or vice-versa) because their sexual appetites don't match up, and I don't think that telling the girl (or guy) that, if she's unwilling to have sex, you don't want a relationship with her constitutes "rape".

I disagree. in my mind thats emotionally compelling someone otherwise unwilling and makes you guilty. also an asshole.

Did you typo it or something? Because what you posted is nonsensical in parts....

its just copy and pasted, I dont see whats nonsensical anyway, as long as you understand the "it" Lancer mentions is shinji

"Oh<---signifies pause in speaking sorry, kid. I guess I let my hand do the talking."
He didn't kill the boy since it (shinji) was unconscious.
But it (shinji) would not have been unconscious if Tohsaka Rin looked paler and her clothes were more disordered. He would have consciously tried to blow the boy's head off if that were the case.
Actually, Lancer does not care how a captive is treated.
But he will not tolerate having his spoils snatched by someone else.
Spoils for him are enemies he has to kill and women he favors.

Originally Posted by Tobias

I disagree. in my mind thats emotionally compelling someone otherwise unwilling and makes you guilty. also an asshole.

An asshole, perhaps, but not a rapist. Emotionally compelling people to do something they don't want to do is something everyone does on occasion.

Also, like I said, what if there is a genuine disconnect there? A sexual relationship isn't as simple as "we fuck only when both of us genuinely want it right now". There are times when one person would rather not, but they do it anyway because their partner wants to. It's up to them to make the decision about whether or not they want to do that. And, if they're unwilling to do so, then I don't see why that cannot justify ending the relationship, just like any other incompatibility could be grounds for doing so.

The problem with your argument is that you're essentially saying "if you're not happy with your sex life, you have to just grin and bear it (or end the relationship without giving them any real justification or any chance to change their behaviour), because pointing this out to your partner and trying to come to a resolution is rape". That seems utterly ludicrous to me.

Whilst I see the point you're trying to make, your definition is far too broad and paternalistic. It implies that people are incapable of making decisions when under any kind of emotional pressure and, further, that it is even possible to avoid emotional pressure in some instances. OK, so your definition would deal with some real assholes, but it would also criminalise people just trying to resolve differences in their sexual appetites without simply going so far as to break up.

I mean, how often do marriage counsellors end up getting into issues with the couple's sex life? Under your definition, anyone turning around and saying "well, I don't think we have sex enough" would be guilty of rape if that caused their partner to feel in any way "pressured" into doing so. It's just totally unworkable.

An asshole, perhaps, but not a rapist. Emotionally compelling people to do something they don't want to do is something everyone does on occasion.

yes, thats true. Well, true that that a great many people do it, usually not ascribing any particular moral wrong to it. I consider the problem to be rather epidemic.

Also, like I said, what if there is a genuine disconnect there? A sexual relationship isn't as simple as "we fuck only when both of us genuinely want it right now"

to be quite frank, if you want to have sex and your partner doesn't, that's really your damn problem. Now, thats different then trying to make your partner want to have sex. mood music, fine dinners, gifts, drinks, massages, whatever you limke in order to prodce an actual desire to be intimate. but creating a situation where your partner is having an otherwise unwanted sex act because they are afraid, and what that fear is, is immoral. and fear of something along the lines of "this relationship will end" counts.

It implies that people are incapable of making decisions when under any kind of emotional pressure

No, I am saying under duress people, and its not actually just woman either, will make a decision they would not have made under duress.

but it would also criminalise people just trying to resolve differences in their sexual appetites without simply going so far as to break up.

this goes back to what I was saying either. enticing someone into sex by making them want it or fine. an ultimatum along the lines of, we are through if we dont have sex more is being forcible.

also as a general note if sexual gratification is the end al be all make or break point for a relationship, its questionable how healthy it was to begin with

I mean, how often do marriage counsellors end up getting into issues with the couple's sex life? Under your definition, anyone turning around and saying "well, I don't think we have sex enough" would be guilty of rape if that caused their partner to feel in any way "pressured" into doing so. It's just totally unworkable.

Like I noted, the problem is quite systematic, mostly as a result of different people having markedly different views on the importance of intimacy. speaking of marriage counseling, I may be entering my practice in the next 18 months or so, and it is a problem I will likely address. Well, maybe, I have a job opening at the VA, so plausibly t might not come up much.

Originally Posted by Tobias

to be quite frank, if you want to have sex and your partner doesn't, that's really your damn problem. Now, thats different then trying to make your partner want to have sex. mood music, fine dinners, gifts, drinks, massages, whatever you limke in order to prodce an actual desire to be intimate. but creating a situation where your partner is having an otherwise unwanted sex act because they are afraid, and what that fear is, is immoral. and fear of something along the lines of "this relationship will end" counts.

The problem is that sex is part of the relationship. It is entirely reasonable to not want to continue a relationship if your partner is not willing to have sex with you.

No, I am saying under duress people, and its not actually just woman either, will make a decision they would not have made under duress.

Sure, but you're defining "duress" far too widely.

this goes back to what I was saying either. enticing someone into sex by making them want it or fine. an ultimatum along the lines of, we are through if we dont have sex more is being forcible.

And what if you genuinely think that way? Are you not allowed to tell them why you're breaking up with them?

also as a general note if sexual gratification is the end al be all make or break point for a relationship, its questionable how healthy it was to begin with

Not really, it's part of the relationship. If a couple aren't sexually compatible, the relationship may not work. Further, it is entirely reasonable for the couple to make compromises, which means having sex when one of them doesn't really want it, rather than the couple feeling unsatisfied.

Like I noted, the problem is quite systematic, mostly as a result of different people having markedly different views on the importance of intimacy. speaking of marriage counseling, I may be entering my practice in the next 18 months or so, and it is a problem I will likely address. Well, maybe, I have a job opening at the VA, so plausibly t might not come up much.

Well, what if a couple come to you with issues with their sex life? Will you tell them that they're not allowed to discuss it because trying to come to a compromise would be rape?

The problem is that sex is part of the relationship. It is entirely reasonable to not want to continue a relationship if your partner is not willing to have sex with you.

one can only make their own choices about what makes a relationship worth having. Using that as an ultimatum would be wrong however.

Sure, but you're defining "duress" far too widely.

agree to disagree

And what if you genuinely think that way? Are you not allowed to tell them why you're breaking up with them?

no, but you would be very wrong to say if we dont start having sex (or possibly if we dont start having sex more) we are breaking up.

though again, if your making the decision to end a relationship based on sex it probably wasn't that healthy a one anyways.

Not really, it's part of the relationship. If a couple aren't sexually compatible, the relationship may not work. Further, it is entirely reasonable for the couple to make compromises, which means having sex when one of them doesn't really want it, rather than the couple feeling unsatisfied.

If you can't make your partner want it, that falls pretty squarely into the category of your own problem. That is again, notably outside mainstream thought processes. it rather amuses me for once to be on the other end of one of those whats normal vs whats right conversations with you though. Its somewhat easy to settle outside the lawful norm in this area though, there has always been a stigma against reforming rights with regards to sex, in just about every country. Hell, I think there may still be a state or two right here in the old US of A that considers it legally impossible to rape your spouse.

Well, what if a couple come to you with issues with their sex life? Will you tell them that they're not allowed to discuss it because trying to come to a compromise would be rape?

I am going to be charitable and assume that is a misunderstanding as opposed to a deliberate strawman. I have already noted that its perfectly fine to try and entice someone into something mutually pleasurable, however, I would very happily tell someone that if they said, "you need to have sex with me like it or not or we are through" or something along those lines, that they are very wrong to do so.

Originally Posted by Tobias

one can only make their own choices about what makes a relationship worth having. Using that as an ultimatum would be wrong however.

Why?

Surely it's better to be honest and let your partner make the decision than it is to just walk away from a relationship you could potentially salvage, or to cheat on them out of sexual frustration.

After all, a relationship is putting restrictions on the sexual activity of both partners, and having sex outside the relationship would usually be seen as a reason to break up. I don't see why a relationship should be as simple as "we have sex as much as the person with the lowest sexual appetite, and you're not allowed to put any kind of pressure on me for more, and nor are you allowed to go and fuck someone else". Why should the person wanting sex be the one who has to make all the sacrifices?

Obviously, there is a limit to that, but if you're in a relationship with someone, it's not like having sex with them when you're not quite in the mood is going to be a horribly traumatic experience. It's up to you how to react to their desire for more sex, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable for someone to explain how they feel in that respect.

no, but you would be very wrong to say if we dont start having sex (or possibly if we dont start having sex more) we are breaking up.

Again, why?

Sex is part of the relationship, I don't see why it's any more wrong to make statements like that than it is to give any other ultimatum. You're not forcing them to have sex with you, you're merely telling them how you feel.

There are, of course, limitations on that (if it gets to the point of outright bullying, then that's definitely wrong), but I don't think that merely making such an ultimatum is wrong, and it is certainly not rape.

though again, if your making the decision to end a relationship based on sex it probably wasn't that healthy a one anyways.

Why?

Sex might not be the entiretly of the relationship, but it is a part of it. If your sex life is not satisfactory

If you can't make your partner want it, that falls pretty squarely into the category of your own problem.

Sure, but that does not mean you are not entitled to try to persuade them, as you are claiming. And, yes, that does include attempting to bargain with them or make a deal with them.

Obviously, just threatening to end the relationship outright isn't particularly nice, but if that's how you feel it's better to tell them than it is to do what most people end up doing, which is to cheat.

That is again, notably outside mainstream thought processes. it rather amuses me for once to be on the other end of one of those whats normal vs whats right conversations with you though.

Well, yes, because I'm not arguing based on "what's normal" here, I'm arguing based on what makes sense. Your definition of rape is far too broad, and will just criminalise ordinary people who neither intend to do any harm nor are actually doing any harm. Further, calling something so minor "rape" also trivialises rape itself.

Its somewhat easy to settle outside the lawful norm in this area though, there has always been a stigma against reforming rights with regards to sex, in just about every country.

Well, indeed, but I think you're being far too paternalistic here. People in those situations are quite capable of looking after theirselves and, further, to criminalise such behaviour would make it almost impossible to actually get to having sex without breaking the law. Because almost anything can be seen as "emotional pressure", and avoiding putting emotional pressure on someone is almost impossible to achieve.

Hell, I think there may still be a state or two right here in the old US of A that considers it legally impossible to rape your spouse.

Well, yes, quite possibly. And, that is dumb. Just because they consented once, it does not mean they always consent.

However, there is a big difference between forcing someone into sex and trying to persuade them into it, and your definition of "force" is far too broad to be realistic.

I am going to be charitable and assume that is a misunderstanding as opposed to a deliberate strawman.

Well, it's what you seem to be saying. In your view, you can't actually negotiate over your sex life at all, because any attempt to do so would be seen as putting pressure on your partner and, thus, as rape. Not everyone has the same sexual appetite, and the best solution to differing sexual appetites in a relationship is not (necessarily) to pick the lowest one and tell the person with the higher sex drive to go off with a pack of tissues every night. It's up to the couple to sort that out, not the law or the government.

I have already noted that its perfectly fine to try and entice someone into something mutually pleasurable

The problem is that it's not always going to be as simple as that. Obviously, sex should be mutually pleasurable for both parties, and if it's not then your relationship has serious issues, but not everyone has the same sex drive. There will be times when one partner isn't that interested, and vice-versa, and finding a way around that is important.

I do agree that turning around to someone and saying "if we don't have sex right now, I'm leaving you" is pretty assholish (although I would still not call it rape, it's just too ill-defined), but making a generic statement like "I want more sex or else I'm leaving you" is not. It's just stating how you feel.

however, I would very happily tell someone that if they said, "you need to have sex with me like it or not or we are through" or something along those lines, that they are very wrong to do so.

Well, what would you suggest they do in that circumstance?

*glances over post*

* sees the same stuff he has already answered*

at this point we has both clearly stated our positions and at this point would just be repeating ourselves it seems.

Well, you certainly haven't answered my last question....