[CipherThrowaway]

If I took this attitude then I'd be excluding myself from relationships that are a net positive in my life. Mismatched sex drive is genuinely not a big deal for me. Often we're both on the same page and that's great. But when we're not, it's not a huge deal for me to have sex I don't want just to keep the peace. In my view, it's no different to other forms of compromise and sacrifice in relationships. Furthermore I think this is common in relationships. To maintain a stable relationship, low libido partners often do have to "make an effort" and manage some of the pressure that comes from dating a higher libido partner.

IMO in an ideal world there would never be any pressure or obligation associated with any interaction. But in the real world, "okay" must have a wide enough margin to include situations that aren't ideal but are limited in terms of harm caused and moral responsibility of participants. It can't be that I am a rape victim for not wanting to hurt my partners feelings by sexually rejecting them. Some pressure is surely okay.

[Planktonne]

> not wanting to hurt my partners feelings

Is not the same as

> to avoid a fight

or

> to stop them from nagging me

There is a subtle but important difference between 'having sex for reasons other than immediate desire' and 'pressured into having sex'.

[CipherThrowaway]

IME this dividing line exists more in theory than practice. Maybe your partner feeling upset or rejected leads to a fight about something unrelated the next day. Or maybe it's easier to rebuff some nagging than to deal with an insecure partner who is good with boundaries but will still feel deeply bad about the rejection.

So-called "duty sex" has been recognized as a complex topic where consent is concerned. Surely this is a continuum rather than yes/no. I can't go around calling an ex-girlfriend a rapist because she nagged me for sex now and then.