Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by CCitizen, Feb 6, 2022.
Not 'conservative' in the sense you mean, no. Just solid people.
You can have intimacy without sex. That's how marriages where sex isn't possible (or is no longer required) survive in a healthy form.
I guess some marriages can survive lack of sex, some can not. I am not sure percentage of divorce in these circumstances are known.
Most Progressive men subscribe to Progressive ideology only for the purpose of finding a sexual partner. Obviously, these men would leave their wives or girlfriends as soon as their needs are not being fulfilled.
True, but that is not all marriages, just some marriages. Context and situation, every marriage needs to be assessed as a unique relationship. Not dumped into 'types'.
My only observation was that it was possible. What individual couples choose to do in response to any changes in the sexual component of the relationship, is not really the point. Whenever you see an older couple holding hands, you're seeing a couple who've chosen NOT to crumble at the diminishment of the role of sex (whether or not they still 'do it', the majority of people over 70 are not going to be at it like rabbits), but for whom intimacy is still strong.
Bob should get the hell out.
I believe that's an over-exaggeration when you are talking about husband and wife. If a husband puts it in his woman without permission when he just had consensual sex with her the night before, I hardly believe that should be called a "sexual assault" or "rape". Of course it would not be a nice thing to do, but it goes nowhere near what a rape is.
Of course, the way society is going I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if in another decade or two there are husbands who are convicted of rape for having intercourse with their wives, even though the wife just had consensual sex with him the night before, and even though the wife got naked in bed with her husband the night of the "rape". (and even though the wife did not resist very hard or was not even absolutely beyond clear that she didn't want it)
Marriage is a little bit different from just casual relationships. The woman expressed her very implied consent at the time of the wedding, in the presence of witnesses. If she wants to revoke her consent (like if her husband is chronically abusive), then she can get a legal divorce or separation. (Many states have the option of legal separation now)
To go after a man for "raping" his wife (except in very extreme situations that involve obvious physical assault) is infringing upon the sanctity of the marriage. These sort of things should be worked out between husband and wife, and things should have to get much more extreme before outside authorities are brought in to intervene. This is more something for a marriage counselor rather than the police.
In the old days, before no fault divorces became a thing, a wife refusing to have intercourse with her husband was one of the approved grounds for divorce. (This didn't mean she refused on specific occasions, but rather for repeated long durations of time)
In fact, in many localities it was also approved grounds for the wife to initiate divorce if the husband had "impotency" (erectile dysfunction) issues. So the law was equally fair to both genders.
How about doing it to try to help keep your marriage intact? Is that not a noble enough reason?
In 2022, the only rule is that both parties are free to initiate divorce for any reason.
No man has a right to demand sex from his wife. But if the wife refuses to have sex with her husband, chances of divorce are very very high.
Paradoxically, about 10% of r/deadbedrooms posters are wives who want more sex.
In American legal practice, consent given under duress is generally regarded as consent. For example, 90% of convictions are obtained by guilty plea. In almost all cases, guilty plea is given under duress. Are these convictions valid.
Of course they are. Firstly because statute law and legal precedent says they're valid. Secondly because the individuals concerned still have a choice i.e. they don't have to plead guilty and can take their chance at trial. Same as if if your given a choice between Thai takeaway and a plate of steamed broccoli for dinner. It doesn't mean your were 'forced' to choose the Thai. It just means you probably hate broccoli i.e. the Thai is, in your opinion the best option available at that time.
Its called life and everyone has to deal with it except of course for certain spoiled millennials and/or entitled 'Karens' of the world who seem to believe anything but the immediate gratification of their desires or wishes is somehow unjust.
Males, are less likely, to provide ongoing, long-term care to a disabled or differently-abled partner in a relationship, but they do exist*.
I, personally, know of two women that left their long-term relationships (one engaged, one living together with no plans to get married) that left their partners when tragedy struck. In one instance, the guy was a co-worker/friend. It's unclear if he attempted suicide or his vehicle malfunctioned but he hit a tree and ended up with rods in both legs, had to learn to walk again and lost an eye and part of a pre-dominant arm. His partner was not willing to see him after his first day in ICU and broke off their engagement.
A former employee was angry at her husband for having an affair and that he transmitted a sexually transmitted disease he got from a hooker. Instead of outright leaving him, she opted to also have unprotected sex until she contracted a sexually transmitted disease and willfully passed it onto him before exiting the family home and marriage.
Beyond that, everyone I've known on a personal level (versus as a police officer) stuck by their spouses with women more likely to do so.
I also think it's important to add in the fact that our society is extremely judgmental and unsupportive of people that are considered to be "outside the norm". For instance, females are conditioned from a very early age to take care of other people's feelings before (or even instead) of their own. Even when a spouse cheats, the woman is blamed for "not keeping him happy.".
Males are often given more space, compassion, understanding and reprieves than females as well. A male that abuses his partner and/or children are generally tolerated (and not divorced or disavowed by family, friends, neighbors, co-workers or the general public). I know several men that left their long-term spouses or partners *solely* because she did not birth him a son.
Keep in mind, until about 30-40 years ago (give or take), it was not even legal for a woman to divorce her husband regardless of what he did and because of the disparities in how females are raised (to care for their husband and children) women were often just "stuck" with whatever their husband wanted to do.
If you do a search on terminal sexually transmitted diseases (specially HIV and/or AIDS, Hepatitis, etc.), and the foundational rejection of the use of condoms and proper education in the use of them, you will find that a large percentage of women that have contracted these diseases contracted them **within** their marriages.
Dr. Jocelyn Elders was fired solely because of the backlash of saying that we needed to teach teenagers the proper use of condoms. The reality is hormonal teems are going to have unprotected sex and nobody, in the history of the world, has EVER been harmed by too much knowledge. Pretending that teens won't explore themselves and each other is extremely short-sighted and irresponsible on society's part. And, this is NOT just an issue for teenagers. "Ms. Kitty" the actress that played "Amanda Blake" in "Gunsmoke" contracted AIDS from an unfaithful spouse and she's not the only one.
So, when we are looking at the inner workings of other people's intimate relationships, it's not fair or realistic to overlay our expectations onto them. If two consenting adults are willing to accept "for better or worse" with whomever they've chosen to share their life, it isn't anyone else's business or place to judge them. This is the exact same foundation of why people need to stop trying to control what and how "love" looks according to their standards. If two people love one another, want to commit to one another and build their lives with a family, it's nobody's business if they are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or any variation outside heterosexual. The same goes for interracial relationships in any combination and, if our society's "official" statement is "all people are equal" it makes absolutely no sense that anyone of any combination of races/ethnicities is said to "dilute the white race." It simply can't be both ways.
And, on this note, I'd like to inform you that I will no longer read or respond to your threads/comments. You seem to have a habit of just dropping in with your very myopic and often judgmental posts with no interests in considering what anyone has to add to the discussion. You clearly don't want discussions, input or to hear anything that doesn't align with whatever viewpoint you start with. That type of approach is probably better served via a blog than an interactive discussion forum. Therefore, since there is no way to "reach you" and actually engage, I need to stop playing this particular game with you. As always, I wish you the very best. Peace.
* Shout out to @Lee S for being one of them!
Forced application of hands on another is appropriate in physical care of the vulnerable (children, the sick, the elderly), but in other care contexts permission is always sought. I work in healthcare, and am thus acutely aware of the importance of consent, because so many things done are beyond the ordinary non-invasive forms of contact like handshakes and hugs.
Of course there is a different standard of acceptance within families .. where hugs and the like happen as a matter of course and without need for 'consent', but a hug between familiars is a very different kind of intimacy to sexual intimacy.
How about being noble enough to treasure your partner for their character, instead of their packaging?
Separate names with a comma.