Fairness? Or selfish?

@Anoldguy I feel bad for you, but can anything be done? Counseling? Sexual therapy? Special couples massage or something to rekindle something? Has it been discussed? If she refuses because it is just gone for her, are you allowed to pursue other sexual releases? It really is unfair, as Susie first stated, that your wife determine that YOUR sexual life is over. Her saying 'no I won't, and no you can't' isn't the sign of someone who really still loves you, IMO.

Best of luck !

@drz: The discussion was about if a charge of rape SHOULD be allowed in a marriage, as suzy reiterated after your last post to me.

"does the marital relationship inherently disallow the concept of rape.

It most certainly should!

Not beat them up black and blue, but "no" should not mean no."

None the less, I'm more than willing to participate in the conversation you've begun, though I must say, from what I've read on here, I'm quite surprised talking about the chances of a rape conviction and various judicial systems is not considered getting "too far off topic," which is apparently an issue on this site.

In any case, I'm no legal expert, but it appears the US system is quite similar to the British system (not surprisingly), with one exception.* A complaint of illegal action is investigated by the police and District Attorney (DA). The DA chooses whether or not to pursue the charges based on various factors, which often are at odds with one another. The likelyhood of winning the case is one consideration, but even if it's unlikely to win, the DA may pursue the charges for political reasons (the Duke Lacross team fiasco), because it's politically correct, they don't want to be held responsible if the person commits the same crime again (in some jurisdictions they NEVER drop a charge of domestic violence so no one can point the finger at the DA if the person assaults their partner again) and to give the victim a "voice." The later is the reason some very weak rape cases are tried; they want to give the victim his/her day in court. And as you pointed out, they also consider the value to the public in pursuing the case.

*(It took me awhile to get here, but this is the exception). If the DA decides to pursue the case, he brings it before a Grand Jury, whos job it is to determine if there is probable cause to take the case to trial. Only the prosecution (along with witnesses) presents at a grand jury trial; the defendant isn't heard. It's not about determining guilt or innonence, but if there's adequate evidence to press charges.

If the grand jury indicts the defendant, it goes to trial (or a plea bargain).

[edited for typos]

@Anoldguy I feel bad for you, but can anything be done? Counseling? Sexual therapy? Special couples massage or something to rekindle something? Has it been discussed? If she refuses because it is just gone for her, are you allowed to pursue other sexual releases? It really is unfair, as Susie first stated, that your wife determine that YOUR sexual life is over. Her saying 'no I won't, and no you can't' isn't the sign of someone who really still loves you, IMO.

Best of luck !

I expect as an adult I can do whatever I want. I do not want to go elsewhere. I've never had sex just to have sex. (Okay, when I was on liberty while serving in Vietnam is the exception.) I only wish to have sex with my wife. Believe me, she loves me and I love her - both unconditionally. We have neither stepped out on the other and I'm certain neither of us ever will. Even as I was getting ready to ask my 1st wife for a divorce I wasn't out looking for sex from someone else. BTW, she has never said "No, you can't." But, I've never said, "Do you mind if I do?" I appreciate the sentiment; but, don't feel badly for me. I don't.

@SwitchableSusie : While I have strong opinions, I'm generally able to see the validity of other views. I can't say that's the case with your view on this matter. I find it hard to accept anyone would actually believe the marital relationship should inherently disallow the concept of rape. I'm hardly the poster child for a misandrous, radical left wing feminist who goes around preaching about "rape culture," but some levelheadedness is needed here.

Even IF implied consent for sex exists in a marriage, one party's refusal to adhere to marital vows does not make rape OK.

I don't know you well enough to know if you're trolling, or seeing how far you can play "devil's advocate," but it's unfathomable to me that you actually believe what you're saying.

I agree with you about marriage being much better for the woman than the man. I agree this is a dangerous time for men to be accused of any sexually related transgression. I agree the woman should "take one for the team" sometimes, if she doesn't feel like having sex.

But saying "she should be required to have sex under any ordinary circumstance" sounds like something out of the 1600's.

Here are some options for men who's wives say no:

-acquiesce

-persuade

-cajole

-coerce (to a limited degree)

-compromise

-cheat

-seek therapy

-divorce.

But rape should NOT be on that list.

As an aside, I'm curious why more people haven't chimed in with an opinion, one way or the other on this. I can't imagine most people don't have strong feelings about it and in many cases, first hand experience.

Zika , talk about going off topic at this point you are on a one person crusade to nail DrZ to the cross . While everyone is entitled to their own opinion , you are taking it just a little too far . I think points were made and quite clearly too . But there is no justification for the tangeant you are on . NO ONE is saying to commit a CRIME nor that if one is commited it is justifiable.

Arnold guy , I thank you for your candid post and truly appreciate the love you have for your wife . There are so many reasons that could be why your wife no longer engages in sex. You love not faultering is admirable .

I can also see CJ 's point . To me if you truly love someone you not only want to see them happy, ( in every way ) but you actually get happiness and joy from it too. Some people need that sexual connection and bonding it can almost feel spiritual. Not just the actual sexual act but that intimacy you share with one another can be so important in a happy relationship. If the person I loved wanted and needed that from me I would try everything in my power to fix the situation in one way or another . Have a good long loving talk with her and expain exactly how you feel .

@Bridgette: I've no clue what you're talking about and it appears neither do you.

I'm not trying to nail drz to any cross...bizarre.

As for going off in tangents, "I" was the one who pointed out discussing the various judicial systems was off topic, but I answered the question drz asked me at the end of his post.

As for the issue of justifying a crime, I suggest you reread suzy's posts. Once you comprehend them, get back to me. Perhaps we can have an intelligent conversation.

Your post added nothing to this comversation.

A wife who is perfectly able but just doesn't feel like it and says "no' is a bitch plain and simple.

Contractually requiring sex is a fine concept and as someone said "you don't know how you will feel in 25 years. Well tough. You signed a contract. That's one of the risks of marriage, and don't tell me you didn't think you would feel that way when you signed it 25 years ago. TOO BAD. Hey, the man who gets married doesn't know in 10 years he will want a divorce either, yet he is the one to generally pay through the nose for it even if it's the wife who is the bitch.

If I had a husband who decided he just didn't want sex anymore, I'd throw him down, climb on top of him and make him fuck me. If I had to, I would use a caverject and inject his penis myself.

It's interesting (to me anyway) that the people who disagree with me are "looking for friendship, a relationship, someone to play with, etc in their profiles. They are all following the party line and being so very much a social justice warrior so they appear safe to a prospective partner, yet the likelihood of those relationships going sour are the same as any other. I on the other hand am in a stable relationship and am NOT LOOKING for anybody, which allows me to freely speak my mind.

Contractually requiring sex is a fine concept and as someone said "you don't know how you will feel in 25 years. Well tough. You signed a contract.

Then you might as well add other things to the contract. I will not gain any weight. I will never abuse alcohol, or drugs. I will never have a gambling problem. Basically I will never, ever change as long as we both shall live.

If I had a husband who decided he just didn't want sex anymore, I'd throw him down, climb on top of him and make him fuck me. If I had to, I would use a caverject and inject his penis myself.

And you could rightfully be charged with rape.

... the people who disagree with me are "looking for friendship, a relationship, someone to play with, etc in their profiles. They are all following the party line and being so very much a social justice warrior so they appear safe to a prospective partner, yet the likelihood of those relationships going sour are the same as any other. I on the other hand am in a stable relationship and am NOT LOOKING for anybody, which allows me to freely speak my mind.

Yes, you are right. I am just trying to make myself look good by saying I'm against rape and someones right to control what happens to their own body. I should really just be honest and add "and if our relationship ever gets to marriage, then I'll rape you whenever I feel like it."

Much of the SJW stuff is just crap, but if the bar is so low to join them, like being against rape, then sign me up! SJWs unite! LOL

Oh, and I'm gad you found someone who is so very compatible with you, even after a long marriage. I'm pretty sure that's what most of us want, but it's just not that easy.

If oral sex is a deal breaker, use your opt-out option.

If it's an annoyance, or a minor disappointment- Either come to an agreement, or just quietly live with it.

The ball is in your court.

Then you might as well add other things to the contract. I will not gain any weight. I will never abuse alcohol, or drugs. I will never have a gambling problem. Basically I will never, ever change as long as we both shall live.And you could rightfully be charged with rape.Yes, you are right. I am just trying to make myself look good by saying I'm against rape and someones right to control what happens to their own body. I should really just be honest and add "and if our relationship ever gets to marriage, then I'll rape you whenever I feel like it."

Much of the SJW stuff is just crap, but if the bar is so low to join them, like being against rape, then sign me up! SJWs unite! LOL

Oh, and I'm gad you found someone who is so very compatible with you, even after a long marriage. I'm pretty sure that's what most of us want, but it's just not that easy.

Let's not extrapolate to the ridiculous, although you could add whatever you like.

@zika - I have tried to keep this civil, but you seem to want to play games with words to make it appear I said something I haven't.

Actually, the area of discussion we were in was specifically if a spouse could be charged with rape, not the difficulty of proving rape in general.

The context of the conversation was whether or not a spouse could be charged with rape, as noted by Suzy's comments and citations. That is, does the marital relationship inherently disallow the concept of rape. The difficulty of obtaining a conviction has nothing to do with this question.

The discussion was about if a charge of rape SHOULD be allowed in a marriage, as suzy reiterated after your last post to me.

You are trying to find the flimsiest of reasons to argue with me just for its own sake. I repeatedly stated that there are difficulties in prosecuting rape cases including rape cases in marriage. to point out that such difficulties exist is not saying that rape in marriage is okay. Read and comprehend what I actually said and stop trying to make it appear to other members that I think rape within marriage is acceptable. A reasonable person can see that I neither stated or implied that it is.

Here it is again in a form that should be easy enough to understand. Just for you.

Rape within a marriage is NOT okay. For complaints where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute i.e. a conviction is likely, and it is in the public interest to prosecute, and a prosecution is in the victim's best interests, then the alleged offender could and should be charged accordingly and the case pursued.

So it should be clear enough to you now even though it was obviously clear enough all along to other members who read my posts.

@drz.: Not withstanding bridgette's post, I don't see that any part of this exchange has not been civil. I'm sorry if you've interpreted it otherwise.

You're correct, the "could" and "should" got switched in suzy's post, although it seemed you were backing her position, until the following exchange:

you said:

"I did not mean to suggest that rape within a marriage could only occur in the background of domestic violence and coercion."

I responded:

"I'm glad you clarified that. Your original comment implies otherwise."

You're going on about something which was cleared up several exchanges ago. Again, read the above line, which I'm not interested enough in looking up which post it came from, but it was not part of our recent exchange. YOU are resurecting an issue which no longer exists, as far as I'm concerned. You seem to have responded to bridgette's post, which borders on irrational, as I have not gone off on ANY tangent.

The bulk of my last post to you was comparing our judicial systems, which has nothing to do with the issue of marital rape.

I do however, feel suzy is advocating rape within marriage.

So, this should be cleared up now, right? I'm more than happy to discuss with you issues regarding prosecution of rape cases, marital or otherwise.

. . . .I do however, feel suzy is advocating rape within marriage. . . .

WRONG WRONG WRONG

I am advocating required sex between spouses NOT be called rape when parties are healthy and able.

"Not feeling like it" or denying the spouse should not be permitted.

It seems that in marriage, money is jointly owned, the house is jointly owned, the cars are jointly owned, and the BODIES should NOT be singly owned in a marriage either.

IT'S A MARRIAGE. You can't have all the other things owned by both parties and the bodies NOT be owned by both parties.

IT'S A MARRIAGE. You can't have all the other things owned by both parties and the bodies NOT be owned by both parties.

I know I shouldn't.... but...

Yes, actually, yes you can.

1) Those things are possessions. You can buy, sell or give them away. If I 'own' my wife's body, can I give it away to someone else because I'd like to watch her get fucked by another guy?

2) Even if your body is a 'possession', every possession owned BEFORE the marriage contract (car, house, etc) is SOLEY owned by that single person, it never becomes part of the marital assets. So, if a person OWNS their own body when they are single, then they continue to have 100% ownership even after they get married.

3) Owning someone --> slavery?

OK, so you are advocating for a change in terminology. Dont CALL it rape, but you are saying, that one spouse can require or force (with threat of violence, or violence as long as no bruising or serious damage) the other spouse (if healthy and able) to have sex with them, at any time, against their will.

Uh... that's rape.

"I do however, feel suzy is advocating rape within marriage"

. . . .

"WRONG WRONG WRONG

I am advocating required sex between spouses NOT be called rape when parties are healthy and able.

"Not feeling like it" or denying the spouse should not be permitted."

Ah, the definitional sulk. Most people consider forcing sex on someone without their consent to be rape. You don't want to call it rape, OK.

Your idea of a contract is fine. But what happens when one party breaks the contract? You go to court. No court would require "specific performance" of that condition. I listed numerous options, but assault (if you don't like the term rape) is not one of them.

"You can't have all the other things owned by both parties and the bodies NOT be owned by both parties."

So does this mean both parties need to agree if one wants a tat or piercing? Prevent the person from overeating or drinking?

"If I had a husband who decided he just didn't want sex anymore, I'd throw him down, climb on top of him and make him fuck me. If I had to, I would use a caverject and inject his penis myself."

^^This is where I have to think you're trolling. I can't imagine the New York Nursing Board would find that an appropriate attitude for a nurse.

Have some common sense here. Just because you may be entitled to something doesn't mean you have a right to take it at your will.

"It's interesting (to me anyway) that the people who disagree with me are "looking for friendship, a relationship, someone to play with, etc in their profiles. They are all following the party line and being so very much a social justice warrior so they appear safe to a prospective partner"

Sorry, that doesn't work with me. I don't have any of that on my profile and as a female, I'm not concerned about appearing safe to a prospective partner and in fact, have no intention of ever meeting anyone from this site IRL.

Having a minimal degree of morality and believing you shouldn't force yourself sexually on someone who doesn't want it, regardless of the nature of the relationship, is NOT about "following the party line."

And btw, you mention the people who disagree with you, yet I haven't seen one person agree with you on this extreme position you take.

Your idea of a contract is fine. But what happens when one party breaks the contract? You go to court. No court would require "specific performance" of that condition.

Just goes to show you don't think you can honor a contract or covenant without a court forcing you to. You just need your own personal integrity.

So does this mean both parties need to agree if one wants a tat or piercing? Prevent the person from overeating or drinking?

Quite possibly.

OK, maybe "ownership" was a bad choice of words.

You can substitute "USE of the body by both parties."

It's a marriage, what's the big deal about having sex with your spouse?????????????????? JUST DO IT.

IT'S A MARRIAGE. You can't have all the other things owned by both parties and the bodies NOT be owned by both parties.

Well of course you can. Bodies are not commodities that are open to sale or possession by others. It things were so, then it would be called chattel slavery. And even when chattel slavery was still legal, sexual use of a slave was not always permitted by law - though in all fairness, this aspect was often honored more in the breach than in the practice.

That aside, there are many forms that a marriage contract can take: joint ownership of all possessions, of possessions acquired after marriage only, exclusion of certain types of possessions after marriage and so on ad infinitum. In all of the many permutations on marriage in the West I have read about, I have however never encountered any including legal provisions for instances of required sexual relations.

It is one of these things that are taken for granted perhaps, being a reasonable expectation while married, but I doubt there is any way that anyone can determine or enforce that a spouse has an obligation to provide sex. If they don't wish to have sexual relations, well that is often grounds for annulment or divorce, but enforcing sexual relations against a spouses wishes doesn't really seem to be part of what is understood by a marriage contract. And resorting to violence to any sort of breach of the law or breach of a contract is still and always illegal in and of itself. Just because one partner in a business contract takes illegal advantage of the other partner, does not give the aggrieved partner the right to resort to violence, to hire Tony Soprano and his baseball bat in a manner of speaking. To get satisfaction in the accepted way, one goes to court to obtain justice. Government and government alone has the sole legal authority and sole monopoly on the use of force. Individuals don't.

@SwitchableSusie : Oh, how you don't know me. I'm a firm believer that a written contract is the weakest form of protection; integrity of the parties is what determines if the courts need to become involved.

But I find it ironic that one who believes it's ok to hold someone down and fuck them against their will is talking about integrity.

. . . . It is one of these things that are taken for granted perhaps, being a reasonable expectation while married, but I doubt there is any way that anyone can determine or enforce that a spouse has an obligation to provide sex. If they don't wish to have sexual relations, well that is often grounds for annulment or divorce, but enforcing sexual relations against a spouses wishes doesn't really seem to be part of what is understood by a marriage contract. . . .

Unfortunately it's easier to deny sex than to get a divorce.

If these women were dumped at the curb and treated like the husband and wife never met by the courts it would be a level playing field.

@zika said

"I'm glad you clarified that. Your original comment implies otherwise."

You're going on about something which was cleared up several exchanges ago. Again, read the above line, which I'm not interested enough in looking up which post it came from, but it was not part of our recent exchange. YOU are resurecting an issue which no longer exists, as far as I'm concerned. You seem to have responded to bridgette's post, which borders on irrational, as I have not gone off on ANY tangent.

Actually, I needed to repeat myself at least twice. My intention when mentioning the difficulties in bringing such cases was that it should merely be a short sidebar to the main topic.

As far as I'm concerned, it is now resolved.

Zika , you are saying that I dont make any sense ? It is obvious you want to argue with anyone that is not supporting your views or your opinions . I could have qouted many points that you made which were a clear attack on dr's comments in which you either misunderstood or tried to twist in order to stand on your soap box .

Furthermore just to clarify , I am my own woman , my own person , I dont jump on the popularity band wagon, if you read any of my posts it is very clear I am quite opinionated and need no help defending myself . I am not part of a ;to quote you , " Zity clique " .

One of the great things about Zity is that everyone can agree to disagree and move on . If you dont like what I am saying dont read it , block me do whatever it is that floats your boat . But dont pm me and hold your breath waiting for a response either . I'm done and moving on .

For the people who think I'm dumping on the women, you are right. If you think I am being unreasonable, you are wrong.

When my husband and I got out of our masters programs and got married, I was the one bringing in all the money. My nursing job paid the bills and gave my husband collateral to start his business. I was the Domme in more ways then one. No one has to tell me how lucky I am. I worked my ass off to get my husband and his business off the ground. I know I could have been the bitch dumped at the curb, so trust me, I have lived the hard times and it paid off. Now he works his ass off, I stay home (occasionally do some temping) and do as I please. Thanks to my husband, as my father describes it, I live the life of Reilly. Why in the world would I ever deny him sex??? Others should do the same. He has a right to it.

@dr.z: that's good. I thought it was resolved awile ago. You didnt actually need to repeat yourself, only clarify yourself.

@bridgette: trust me, I wan't interested enough to hold my breath.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between disagreeing/debating and arguing. Yes, I speak up when I disagree with someone about an issue I think is worthy of my time. That doesn't mean I don't respect that others have different views. And as a matter of logic, I don't argue with myself, so if I have an exchange with someone, they're as much a part of that as I am. Does that make sense?

Yes, I have soap boxes; when I'm on one, you'll know about it. This is not a soapbox.

The only attack I've seen in this thread is your attacks on me, though I don't find them of enough value to be concerned with them. You must be very thin skinned to think I was attacking drz. I disagreed with some of what he said, but I neither attacked him nor twisted anything.

you said:

"it is very clear I am quite opinionated"

^^^Indeed it is. And that's the difference between you and I. You're opinionated, I have strong opinions. There's an important distinction.

"If you dont like what I am saying dont read it , block me do whatever it is that floats your boat ."

You seem to have difficulty taking this approach for yourself.

I may choose to ignore what someone says, or I may choose to respond. You're upset over a conversation which didn't involve you, which is fine, but you've contributed nothing of value to this conversation.

@SwitchableSusie

It sounds like you and your husband have a wonderful relationship; that's heartwarming to hear, as it was to hear from Anoldguy. You've also posted about you and your husband both having strong libidos. Clearly you must be aware not everyone is in the same boat.

To avoid people getting upset that I'm "argueing" or "twisting words around," I'll put it in the form of a question.

What does your wonderful marital relationship have to do with how you can justify one partner forcing sex on an unwilling partner?

@SwitchableSusie

What does your wonderful marital relationship have to do with how you can justify one partner forcing sex on an unwilling partner?

If two people get married, they (stupidly) say they will honor and keep their spouse (or some similar words) till death do us part. Then they should do that.

THE HONOR AND KEEP (or whatever terms they use in the vows) INCLUDES SEX.

If you WON'T do that (I didn't say CAN'T if you are disabled or seriously ill), then don't get married. You are not allowed to change your mind on something so basic and fundamental as sex mid-stream.

Sex is only a portion of a marriage. Things may be reasonably just fine between the couple except for the area of sex. To just dump a relationship because one partner won't have sex with the other is just stupid. The person involved in that specific relationship should themselves think through and decide for themselves if their relationship has any worthy value beside in the area of sex.

When one partner says "No" the other is just not going to get anything. In reading some of the previous posts, there are some advocating that taking what one wants from their partner ie: taking their "rights" to have sex, was okay and very much acceptable. I don't thinks it's okay or acceptable, not counting what the laws say about doing that.

"It's interesting (to me anyway) that the people who disagree with me are "looking for friendship, a relationship, someone to play with, etc in their profiles. They are all following the party line and being so very much a social justice warrior so they appear safe to a prospective partner, yet the likelihood of those relationships going sour are the same as any other. I on the other hand am in a stable relationship and am NOT LOOKING for anybody, which allows me to freely speak my mind."

Susie, I generally agree with your posts; and, I believe some of your posts in this thread are being wrongly torn apart. But, I disagree with the sentiment that engaging in sex is a marital obligation forever. I also disagree with you on the point about looking for friendship, a relationship, or someone to play with here at Zity. I am simply enjoying a place where I can discuss some of what I like to do that falls outside the range of what is considered normal (vanilla) sex. I have also learned some things here that have enhanced my anal play by teaching me things I really didn't know. I am also in as stable a relationship as anyone I know.

@SwitchableSusie :

A Jewish friend of mine told me there's a Jewish law which states that if someone violates the Sabbath, they shall be put to death. In fact, no one has ever been put to death for violating the Sabbath. That draconian penalty is meant to illustrate how important it is to keep the Sabbath, but not meant to be imposed.

Sometimes people use hyperbole to make a point they feel strongly about. Clearly you feel strongly about sex in marriage.

When you say:

"If I had a husband who decided he just didn't want sex anymore, I'd throw him down, climb on top of him and make him fuck me. If I had to, I would use a caverject and inject his penis myself" or

"Not feeling like it" or denying the spouse should not be permitted,"

are you saying you literally believe that, or are you making such extreme statements to show how strongly you feel about the marital obligation to having sex?