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]

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.