[ardillamorris]

I get it - the act of staying away from your phone is taking up cognitive capacity. And if you're addicted, the constant reminder to check also takes cognitive capacity. Sex is no different - if you're single, or married and you want more sex than your significant other - believe me, sex will reduce your available cognitive capacity. The constant thought of how do I get more of it (single or married) I'm sure does more than your smartphone and probably the smartphone is just a tool to the idea of getting more sex.

[bobthechef]

Managing the appetites requires self-denial. In the case of married couples, the spouse has a moral obligation to satisfy the other sexually within moral and reasonable limits (i.e., sexual abuse or objectification of the other is never admissible).

Phone addiction is in this sense easier. It can also be managed through abstinence or even eliminated cold turkey if you wish because we have no intrinsic desire for phone use, but we do have an intrinsic desire for sex.

And yeah, the passions, when we are ruled by them instead of ruling over them, can darken our minds and enslave us. (In your example, the "daughters of lust" are apropos.) A man has as many masters as he has vices.

[nobody9999]

>In the case of married couples, the spouse has a moral obligation to satisfy the other sexually within moral and reasonable limits (i.e., sexual abuse or objectification of the other is never admissible).

I can't agree with those statements. No one, not your spouse, not your significant other and not anyone else is obliged to provide sexual satisfaction to you or anyone else.

What's more, while consent is never optional, pleasing one's partner should be a joy, and if your partner desires objectification or even what you (note that what you think and believe doesn't apply to everyone else) term "sexual abuse," that's between consenting adults.

Your judgement as to what is "moral" is an individual judgement that applies to you. There are more things (as well as kinks and fetishes) in earth and heaven than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

And just so it's crystal clear, consent is never optional and no one, regardless of relationship status is obligated to provide sexual satisfaction to anyone.

[dTal]

You have interpreted the parent exceedingly uncharitably. If one partner in a monogamous relationship suddenly announces that from that day forth there shall be no more sex, the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset. Most people aren't signed up to the idea of never having sex again.

Consent is never optional, but neither should it be unreasonably withheld in a monogamous relationship in which sex is a key component. Rights and responsibilities always pair.

[falseprofit]

Their interpretation was fair.

>the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset.

Obviously. No one here is trying to police people's emotions.

If someone doesn't want sex, then they have every right to "withhold" it from anyone, without being deemed "unreasonable".

[nobody9999]

>You have interpreted the parent exceedingly uncharitably.

Perhaps I have. However, I don't see how much more "charitably" I can interpret what they wrote. Or do you think that I'm wrong in my assertion?

>If one partner in a monogamous relationship suddenly announces that from that day forth there shall be no more sex, the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset.

I don't disagree with that statement at all. But I stand by my assertion that no one is obligated to sexually satisfy anyone else.

If my spouse/SO decided that she wanted no more sex with me, sure I'd be upset. And as my feelings are my own, I'm entitled to be upset.

However she, as a sentient being, has agency. As such, she (not me) gets to decide what happens with her body.

Should a situation similar to your example occur, that should be a big red flag that something is wrong in your relationship. And if that's the case, going on about how your spouse is obliged to pleasure you certainly isn't going to improve things.

>Consent is never optional, but neither should it be unreasonably withheld in a monogamous relationship in which sex is a key component.

How do you handle the logic problem set up by your statement?

If consent to sexual activity is not optional, how is someone obliged to provide such sexual activity if they don't wish to consent?

>Rights and responsibilities always pair.

Neither you nor I have the right to demand sexual contact with someone who does not consent. Full stop. It doesn't matter what your relationship with that person might be.

And providing you (or anyone else) with sexual contact isn't anyone's responsibility, again regardless of what sort of relationship you might have with them.

And that's the issue that I have with both your and the parent poster's statements.

You said it yourself: Consent is not optional. If you truly believe that, how can you even entertain the idea that someone should be obligated, or have the responsibility to provide sexual satisfaction to anyone if they choose not to do so?

I don't disagree that it's customary for those in a romantic/sexual relationship to engage in sexual activity. But no one is obligated or required to do so.

And if you don't think that's true, consider this[0]. Because coercing someone into non-consensual sexual activity is called rape.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

[Thorentis]

> However she, as a sentient being, has agency. As such, she (not me) gets to decide what happens with her body.

You're confusing the idea of removing the other person's free will and the obligations that being in a sexual monogamous relationship carry.

In a monogamous sexual relationship, if one person refuses to have sex much more frequently than the other, then that can very quickly destroy the relationship. Humans are sexual beings, and being in a monogamous relationship means you have only one outlet for that sexuality available to you.

Instead of sex, consider conversation. How long would a relationship last of one person started refusing to talk to the other person, at moments seemingly for no reason to the other person? How long would that last? If I said that being in a relationship obligates you to communicate with the other person, would you object on the basis of removing the other person's agency by placing such an obligatiom on them?

Sex should never be forced. But entering into any relationship carries with it rights and responsibilities. If you are refusing sex for no good reason, then it is a sign that you no longer wish to meet the obligations of a monogamous relationship. The two people can either break up, or try to work through things. But such an arrangement can't be endured forever.

[MauranKilom]

There is a fine difference between agreeing to do something as a personal sacrifice and being obliged to do so.

Yes, it is reasonable to expect some level of sacrifice. That it is given voluntarily is part of making a relationship work well. But just that being unwilling to make certain sacrifices would put a strain on the relationship does not in turn imply an absolute obligation to them.

> How long would a relationship last of one person started refusing to talk to the other person, at moments seemingly for no reason to the other person? How long would that last?

Having been privy to a (non-amorous) relationship in which exactly this happened, I can tell you that trying to obligate the non-communicative side to communication is exactly the wrong thing to do. That doesn't mean that the relationship is over, but it does mean that there is a grave problem. Solving that problem is the way forward, not insisting on some "moral obligation".

> If you are refusing sex for no good reason

I'm a bit confused what you consider "good reasons". Do I need a "good reason" for not wanting to dance? Or for not wanting to go to the pool? Is it necessary that I communicate my entire mental state in a way that makes the decision retraceable for you, or do you trust me when I say that I really don't feel like it? Or is it only physical incapability that counts?

[nobody9999]

>You're confusing the idea of removing the other person's free will and the obligations that being in a sexual monogamous relationship carry.

I don't believe that I am. I agree with just about everything you wrote. Where we diverge is that I do not agree that anyone, regardless of relationship status is obliged or required to engage in sexual activity to which they do not consent.

>In a monogamous sexual relationship, if one person refuses to have sex much more frequently than the other, then that can very quickly destroy the relationship. Humans are sexual beings, and being in a monogamous relationship means you have only one outlet for that sexuality available to you.

That is absolutely correct. That said, just because two people are in a monogamous sexual relationship, that does not mean consent for sexual activity isn't required.

If one partner is unwilling or unable to consent, whether at the frequency the other partner desires or at all, that's going cause stress in the relationship.

And if that continues, it's likely that the relationship will fail.

The question then is why doesn't this person wish to consent, given that they are in a romantic/sexual relationship?

In order to avoid that eventuality, the people involved need to communicate and work out how to maintain the relationship together.

If that's not possible, then the relationship should probably end, as you correctly point out.

My points are simple and two-fold:

1. Consent for sexual activity, regardless of the nature of a relationship is never optional;

2. No one is, or should be, obligated or required to engage in sexual activity if they don't wish to do so.

Sure, there are times when folks may not be feeling particularly frisky, but in a healthy relationship that shouldn't be a big deal.

What's more, in a healthy relationship, the partners desire each other. In fact, there are few things in this world that are hotter than being desired.

And if there is a genuine disconnect in the level of desire, that needs to be worked out through strong, open communication, honesty and the hard work that's required to maintain any relationship.

However, in an unhealthy relationship (there can be many reasons for those, as Tolstoy opined[0]), it may not be possible to work these things out. This may cause discomfort, hurt and pain for those involved. It may be possible to make such a relationship healthy, but expecting that someone who, for whatever reason, is unwilling to consent to sexual activity should engage in such activity because they are obliged to do so due to the nature of the relationship is being abusive.

To be clear: Yes, people in romantic/sexual relationships, including monogamous/exclusive relationships generally do engage in sexual activity. In fact, that's one of the wonderful things about such relationships and I'm all for it!

And when there is an issue surrounding sexual activity (or anything else for that matter), it's important to communicate clearly and honestly with each other and make the effort to work through such issue(s). I'm all for that too! IMHO, clear, honest communication is the most important thing to maintaining a healthy, happy relationship.

All that said, please review these points one more time:

1. Consent for sexual activity, regardless of the nature of a relationship is never optional;

2. No one is, or should be, obligated or required to engage in sexual activity if they don't wish to do so.

And explain to me how they are inappropriate in the context of any relationship, including exclusive, monogamous ones.

I'd be very interested to read your thoughts.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7142-all-happy-families-are...

[dTal]

It doesn't sound as if you recognize the concept of an obligation at all. Yes, we all have agency. Locking someone in a room without their consent is illegal. Taking someone's money without their consent is illegal as well. But I am nevertheless obliged to remain at work until 5:30, and my boss is obliged to pay me. When we enter into relationships of any type with other people, we willingly sacrifice our agency in myriad ways. Sometimes you have to meet people halfway on things. And sex isn't some super special thing that sits untouchably above all the rest of social interaction - it's just one more thing that, invariably and in many ways, you will have to compromise on.

>going on about how your spouse is obliged to pleasure you certainly isn't going to improve things.

Going on about consent isn't either.

[Thorentis]

Yeah, the parent seems to think that expecting sex after entering a monogamous relationship is almost rape. People are so concerned with infringing on other people's "rights" and obtaining conscent for everything under the sun, that they just can't understand the idea of obligations or responsibilities anymore.

Marriage is a huge responsibility. Entering into it means you agree to the responsibilities it carries. Each person should be well aware of these responsibilities before entering into one.

If your partner is in the mood for sex but you aren't on a regular basis, maybe a little bit of self sacrifice is needed. I'm sure the other person has helped them out doing their chores when they weren't feeling like it, or going out of their way for them in some way. Marriage is all about each person trying to give more to it than the other. I don't know why sex I suddenly a taboo topic when it comes to rights and responsibilities.

[nobody9999]

You misunderstand my point. I've explained myself several times and yet you still don't seem to get it.

I suppose that may be poor communication on my part. If so, you have my apologies.

However, I'm not going to continue repeating myself.

Good day, sir.

[volkk]

> I don't disagree with that statement at all. But I stand by my assertion that no one is obligated to sexually satisfy anyone else.

i would argue that no one is obligated to do anything at all thanks to free will. culturally, societally, or otherwise, well--that's a different story

[rapferreira]

>i would argue that no one is obligated to do anything at all thanks to free will.

Ah, sure they are.

By the nature of events which preceded you and produced both your DNA and all entirely external circumstances, you are obligated to carry out your free agency in exactly the way you do.

[loco5niner]

Yes, but free will gives you the right to enter into agreements/contracts, which if you later refuse to honor, you are then forsaking an obligation.

[GuB-42]

A relationship is like a moral contract. Traditionally, the contract is that you should sexually satisfy your partner in exchange for their fidelity.

Of course, in civilized countries, you are now free to choose another agreement, including "fuck whoever you want" to slave contracts if that's your kink. None of them are legally binding since you are free to do what you want with your body, including "cheating".

There are a few remnant with regards to marriage. For example in France, both cheating and not satisfying your partner are cause for divorce. It is mostly symbolic though, "winning" the case doesn't give you much rights.

[rapferreira]

Society will praise your virtuous stance for its anti-rape sentiments, but your views are equally or perhaps more arbitrary than his Judeo-Christian view. Note that saying a spouse has a "moral obligation" is different than saying the other spouse has the right to demand and force the fulfillment of the obligation.

I mean, it makes sense too. When my girl wants good D, I'm (morally) obliged to give it to her. That's part of the premise of a sexual relationship. I'm not going to deprive her of something that she relies on me for- after all, by virtue of our establishment of monogamous mutual exclusivity, she has to come to me for the fulfillment of that primal desire. She could go get the D from any guy she wants. I have good D, and she knows she can rely on me not to deprive her (and I mean truly deprive, not just playing hard-to-get-i-know-you-want-this deprive). The same goes for her. There is a metaphorical refusal to take no for an answer that comes with a healthy sexual monogamous relationship.

[bkeating]

Well said. We need more analogies like this.