In Marriage do you have a Right to Sex?

There usually is much more than meets the eye when it comes to sexual dysfunction within a relationship and if one focuses solely on the sexual aspect, then the relationship is indeed doomed.

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.

Montana
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.

Yeah, like give a girl a turn on (foreplay, romance, get up and feed the baby at 3 a.m.).

reply to post by Montana



My personal perspective on all relationship issues is that it is never one or the others fault...it takes two to tangle! When a couple gets past the blame game, they usually can work most issues out together. No one listens when they are in defense/offense mode. They certainly can't get in a lovey dovey mood!

I am not trying to save you, I am just offering an alternative personal perspective in response, to your posts. I can accept that I may have mispercieved your thread's intention. My apologies and I will stop here and allow others to share more.

Edit add: as you can see I am a dufus...since I was mixing you up with the OP. needless to say...just ignore me. I am going to get some more coffee.

ArtemisE

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.

No. Sex is always a want & not a need in any relationship, married or not. It not only puts off a desperate vibe, If you "need" sex to sustain your marriage, you're investing in the wrong approach. It should never be allowed to become a necessary compromise between you and whoever you're committed to longterm because your attractiveness isn't "longterm". Learn to deal with eachother. If you want that, I've got a particular someone I talk to who you can hang out with who operates on a different formula, maybe you two can reel them in and toss them back out.

On a personal note as a guy, I find the gesture dull and boring. Being 24, I find visuals and closeness satiated me far more than having to perform maintenance anyone. Look man, if you "expect sex", do not expect marriage. If I needed it, I'd spend the next 3 years putting use to my workout routine and become a player, knowing how some people take you upon face value, that's prey that doesn't know they are. Disgusting huh? Seen it & i'm around it.

*If your partner is willing, sure whatever. But if that's a top priority (what you're expecting), or that you "need" it, you're playing the wrong game pal. Chess or Checkers, what's it going to be?

thisguyrighthere
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.

But if you are getting to the point where you do not want to ever have sex with your partner, then you have some issues with your relationship that need to be worked out because if one partner is willing and the other never is ... things aren't going to work for you.

Sex is an integral part of the relationship for almost all couples. And there is nothing wrong with expecting it for either partner.

It's one thing to be occasionally unwilling, and it's another for one partner to be rendered incapable. It's an entirely different ball of wax when one partner doesn't want to play at all.

reply to post by ArtemisE


I thought this was common knowledge.

Yes, in most places, you are legally obligated to have marital relations (within reason); failure to meet your responsibilities may be grounds for divorce.

Not only that, but, in some places, you can sue your spouse for not preforming sexually (it falls under a right of consortium law, in the states, I think.)

No, you cannot divorce someone if they do not want to divorce you, simply because you want to - said spouse must be found negligent or in breach of contract.

The whole idea behind this is that marriage is a contract for mutual benefits; and there are tons of benefits like tax deduction, spousal rights to inheritance of assets, sex, care, affection, comfort, etc.

reply to post by ArtemisE


Sex isn't a right! It's a privilege.

You don't need sex for survival. The only "survival" aspect of sex is reproduction. To carry on your name or genes or however you want to look at it.

reply to post by ArtemisE


According to the Bible... Yes, you do. According to Liberalism, Feminism, Post-Modernism, and all other Godless isms... no, you don't.

reply to post by mblahnikluver


So obviously as long as they have food
clothing and shelter your spouse should be happy. Yea right. Crazy talk

If you want a RIGHT to sex.....go to vegas and pay for it...

Im not the greatest at relationships, infact at the moment Im with someone who is treating me not so great, yet im fighting as best I can to bring things under control......

However that being said........at no point do you have a right to anything in a relationship.....

We dont own people, we cant and shouldnt control them.....

We have to remember its far more rewarding and far deeper when someone doesnt HAVE to do anything , but chooses to because they love us, and want to see us happy....

Montana
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)

Very much agree with this providing the children are still witnessing kindness and not complete dysfunction, it doesnt have to be perfect.

reply to post by CynConcepts


Of course I agree with everything you said. Tho I don't need saved lol. All I asked is if your partner wishes to no longer have sex and you would. Does that give you the moral high ground if you choose to end it.

I specifically said it wasn't ok to force your partner or to assault them. The people who decided it was rape obviously didn't read anything but the headline. I also think there are obviously a lot of people who don't have a sexual relationship with there partner, who are horrified both by the thought of " grinning and bare it" or being divorced because they are no longer active with there partner. Obviously only caring about there own insecurities and caring nothing about the effect not being desired would play on there partners mental state.

In marriage you have a right to nothing. If you're lucky you'll get a tax break but you get screwed in other areas. Without marriage you still have a right to nothing and you get benefits in some areas. It doesn't matter anymore. Marriage does not matter. I don't care what anyone believes. Marriage has not been protected. So anyone or anything can get married. Its all out drama getting out of marriage or possibly being in one. There is absolutely positively never ever a reason to ever get married.

So if a husband works awway from home 3 out of 4 weeks then claims he's too tired, under too much stress, or isn't in the mood that 1 week home, the wife can divorce him?reply to post by Montana

reply to post by ArtemisE



Just regular sex.....maybe, but anal, S&M, etc, just get divorced as fewer than you think would agree to potentially dangerous sex unless pre stated like prenuptial agreements.......

reply to post by ArtemisE


Sex is the whole reason for marriage. If you were not going to have sex there would be no need for any marriage to take place. "I'll be friends with you exclusively" is not a marriage nor the definition thereof. Marriage is specifically FOR sex and procreation and sex is the right of BOTH the man and the woman in a marriage.

That said, you cannot have sex all the time, and there are times sex is inappropriate. But there is a reasonable expectation for both parties to have a reasonable amount of sex during a marriage. Average people have sex twice a week, and of course there are some weeks that the average cannot be had... once a month. But an average amount of sex or whatever is comfortable for both parties is expected.

If someone stops having sex for medical reasons then it is the job of the other party to have patience as medical issues do cease - love and care of the other party is what keeps people together through times like this and it is part of the contract when you state in sickness and in health therefore, a medical issue should not break a couple apart once together either.

However, with the reasonable expectation there is a point where one of the two parties can say I cannot handle the way this is going.... and something should be done to rectify the situation if it is not conducive to the well being of both parties. But every effort should be make to work through the difficulty, and some very open and honest discussions should ensue. Many couples will speak to their doctor or other such things if there is a real problem.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

no giving the husband the security in knowing that his paternity rights are established and not being abused is the purpose of marriage along with the wife's security in being provided for and protected is the reason for it
but once one of them feels that the family size has passed into the burdensome category sex just might become something not so much wanted! especially if one of the two is being neglectful in what they feel is their duties!

reply to post by dawnstar


You cannot have the paternity issues without the sex now can you? Nor does the woman and her offspring need to be provided for and protected without the offspring... which goes back to sex.

In this day and age older people do not tone down the sex for fear of having more offspring either. Sex is a gift both bring to the table; sex creates a chemical bond that would not otherwise be there.

You loose the sexual aspect, you also loose that chemical bond to each other. Mother nature in her finest, gave us something through sex that otherwise we would not have... children is not the only purpose of it.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


it's more than a spiritual bond
but well
I kind of think that it was those two factors that I mentioned that drove the evolution of marriage
after all there are still many men that will are happy playing the field aren't there
what was the motivation that drove men to settle for just one women? could it be that they didn't want other's playing the field with her? and well doesn't that protect his rights to paternity? as long as men respected the sacredness of marriage (which at the beginning didn't prevent the man having concubines or other wifes) they could be reasonably assured that their sons and daughters were theirs!