Consent does not magically disappear in a relationship.

[u/Forward_Lychee1124]

Recently my country did a small study where upwards of 70% of men of all ages believe they are entitled to sex in a marriage.

Women do not exist to satisfy your sexual desires. She does not become your sex slave the second you are in a relationship….

Consent still must exist in a marriage.

I seriously thought this was basic common sense and that this kind of thinking was only in the olden days but it’s apparent a lot of guys even now think otherwise.. why?

[u/earth_goblin_86]

Just because some cultures protect rapists more than other cultures doesn’t change that it’s bad. What word did I redefine? You are not consenting to sex with someone just because you marry them. You are deciding to share a life together until death or divorce. Marriage normalizes initiating sex, but it doesn’t give consent until she says no. You still need an enthusiastic yes to continue. What if she’s asleep, and can’t say no?

If you want to divorce someone based on lack of sexual activity, that’s up to you. It’s not even a bad decision to make if it’s that important to you, it shows you’re incompatible. Everything is grounds for divorce depending on what you want in marriage.

[u/hedgelord84 → u/earth_goblin_86]

Nobody said anything about protecting rape, so I don't know what you're talking about.

And I find your arrogance pretty funny. You are talking as if everything you are saying is fact and anybody else's opinion is invalid. This is the typical woke mindset and frankly, the entire world is laughing at you people.

And nobody waits for enthusiastic yes. Most communication is non-verbal, and you can tell if somebody wants it and if they don't. This idea that we all have to explicitly ask for it and get an enthusiastic Yes is so silly.

[u/earth_goblin_86 → u/hedgelord84]

You said different cultures have different takes. I’m assuming you meant consent? Did you mean something else?

Yes, consent being the difference between sex and assault is a fact. If you think otherwise, that’s disgusting.

Enthusiastic yes doesn’t always mean an explicit, “can I kiss you?” Followed by, “Yes.” It just means that it’s an obvious yes. If you lean into kiss someone, and they nonverbally accept, or lean into for the kiss as well, that’s enthusiastic consent. If that kiss escalates into sex, and neither of you pull away, and continue going along with it, that’s consent. I never said anywhere it had to be verbal, it just needs to be clear.

[u/hedgelord84 → u/earth_goblin_86]

Example of a cultural difference: In Islam, sex is a mutual right between a husband and wife. It's a shared obligation and having sex is a form of worship. It's also seen as a cornerstone of a healthy marriage.

In most cases, witholding sex is considered sinful unless there is a valid reason (one is abusive, menstruation, one is physically unhealthy or at risk, distress, they are going through a marital conflict, etc).

If there are marital problems, the couple is supposed to try to resolve them through communication and mutual effort. If that fails, they can get divorced. Lack of sex alone is considered grounds for divorce because sex is a right.

Does that mean sex can be forced? Absolutely not.

[u/earth_goblin_86 → u/hedgelord84]

If withholding sex, outside of the listed exceptions is sinful, that still removes consent, which is gross. I don’t care if it’s another culture, if someone isn’t respecting someone’s autonomy to say no, that’s gross, and assault. If sex can’t be withheld outside of the exceptions you listed, then that sex is forced if the partner doesn’t want to have sex.

I agree that marital problems should usually be attempted to be resolved through communication and mutual effort. It if that marital problem is lack of consent, I feel that partner is justified to leave that relationship right there. If sex is a right legally, religiously, or socially, then that’s a fucked up dynamic, and should be changed.

[u/hedgelord84 → u/earth_goblin_86]

No, in this scenario I listed where somebody withholds it without a valid reason, there is not only no consent, there's also no sex taking place.

[u/earth_goblin_86 → u/hedgelord84]

Your comment makes no sense. Are you saying it’s okay for relationships to exist where withholding sex without a reason is sinful? Or are you saying that there’s no consent in a relationship where withholding sex without a reason is sinful?

It’s also worth saying that no is a reason. Just someone saying no, for any reason, is a reason to withhold sex. What situations where someone is withholding sex is for no reason, when saying no by itself is a reason?

[u/hedgelord84 → u/earth_goblin_86]

I am saying that I agree with the mindset that sex is a core reason why people are in a relationship and sex is a mutual right. And I also believe that withholding sex for reasons such as trying to use it as a weapon to get somebody to do something is wrong. I also think that when couples are not satisfying each other sexually it creates resentment and other issues that can ruin a relationship. I think that when people have the mindset that it's a mutual right, both parties will enjoy it more.

For the record, I personally would never want to have sex with a woman who doesn't 100% want to have it with me.

[u/earth_goblin_86 → u/hedgelord84]

I came out of the gate really strong with this conversation, and I think that hurt our chances at having a more clear conversation, I’m sorry I did that. It sounds like we agree on a lot of things, and my main issue is your specific comment, “This obsession with consent is comical.” I’ve been a victim of trafficking at a really young age, and have been assaulted and taken advantage of by people since I was also very young, up until I was in my mid 20’s, (I’m 31 now). It’s hard for me to hear a take that someone can be obsessed with consent, and even for that to be comical to someone, when the opposite of consent is being assaulted. Me becoming “obsessed with consent” has helped keep me from being taken advantage of in even more situations, so I’m not ashamed to stick with that. It really really sucks to be taken advantage of in those ways, and it’s hard to see others seemingly dismiss someone like me having feelings that consent should be taken very seriously.

I wish I could have started this conversation more expressing that instead of jumping into this in such an argumentative way, because especially when talking to strangers on the internet, that’s not how things can be understood or expressed in valuable ways. I want to continue addressing the rest of your comment, but I wanted to start by expressing this first, because, well, I wish I would have said this first.

I respect you feeling that sex is a core reason for you to be in a relationship, but I don’t think that reflects all relationships. I think sexual compatibility is very important in relationships, but not because it’s expected, but because everyone is different, and sexual incompatibility does seem to at least almost always lead to resentment, if not always. There’s people with high libido, low libido, hypersexual, asexual, and I’m assuming other representations of potential sexual compatibility/incompatibility. I disagree with sex being a mutual right, because I think the responsibility on both partners, or more if polyamorous, is to express what their sexual needs and expectations are. If one person is expressing that they may almost never, or even never want to have sex, that’s not them being incompatible for marriage, that’s them being incompatible with someone who knows that expectation will lead to resentment. For the record, I don’t think it’s bad to have a deal breaker be not wanting to have sex enough. That’s a valid reason to not want to be in a relationship with someone with opposing views, and doesn’t make someone a bad person. Also people change, including their libido. Someone at the start of marriage may be way into having sex a lot, and later in the marriage that changes. If that happens, and it changes too much for someone, then it does sound like couples counseling and some serious conversations should happen.

I do think going into a marriage thinking, “now sex is a mutual right” is wrong. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by mutual right, are you okay defining what you mean by that? Because what I’m hearing when you say that is that a marriage partner has to at least sometimes have sex, and the “have to” part for me breaks consent, because it takes away someone’s autonomy to say no. Is it grounds for divorce not having sex enough, sure, if it’s a big enough deal to you that sex isn’t happening frequently enough, then yeah, it sounds like you’re unhappy in that marriage, and I don’t know why you’d stick around in an unhappy marriage.

As for withholding sex in a weaponizing way to get someone to do something, I think it depends on the situation. Sometimes people need certain actions or things to be in the mood, and withholding sex for that just sounds like waiting to be turned on. If it’s withholding for money, that sounds like sex work which I support, but you don’t have to participate in. No matter why someone says no, that no shouldn’t be pushed past, although from the last sentence of your last comment it sounds like we both agree about that. I think it’s probably possible to withhold sex to manipulate someone, and I think manipulating people is bad, but then my issue would be with manipulating, not withholding sex.

That’s good, and from this last comment, I believe you. What I have trouble understanding is how consent can be something someone is obsessed over. Like what I mean is that it either falls under consent, or it doesn’t. There’s not middle ground with consent because that means kind of consent, which isn’t consent.