It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by InTheLight
Very true. Sex at the exclusion of everything else really isn't even a relationship. is it? (Well I guess it is a sexual relationship, but) There has to be much more to it as well.
Here's the premise,
In marriage or a full blown monogamous relationship, do you have the right to sex?
I'm not saying do you have the right to beat or rape your spouse. I'm saying do you have the right to expect sex and terminate the relationship if the other person just isn't willing.
I would argue that yes you do. I think sex in a long term relationship is assumed. So the " burden of proof" would be on the with holder to say up front if they thought they might want to stop having sex. They would be the one in breach of contract.
Why would want to have sex with your spouse who doesnt want to?
that's really what the whole "right to have sex" thing boils down to isnt it?
You make a move, husband or wife says "not tonight/now honey" and you just go ahead anyway.
If this is ever an issue for either party you probably should not be married.
reply to post by benrl
Because I make enough- usually- to support one household. I don't make enough to support two. And I don't agree that children are better off with split parents. I have seen many many families with multiple households. While everyone likes to say they are better off I have to say I don't agree. The repercussions are sometimes long in coming, but they are there. Unless there is actual abuse involved, the children are better off if the parents pull up their big boy pants and keep it together.edit on 3/28/2014 by Montana because: (no reason given)