DM Article

heuchera

Person_one wrote: »

Bodily autonomy is a fundamental thing.

Why would someone maliciously deny their partner sexual contact? For most people (not all) it is a need, and if someone's needs aren't met things don't bode well for the relationship.

Guest101

Person_one wrote: »

Bodily autonomy is a fundamental thing.

Agreed. - so would you say that overrides all other things?

what about financial autonomy - some might say that's fundamental. The person who has 'earned' money should be free to spend as he or she wishes?

Surely if there are no more sexual or romantic feelings left, it's cruel ( and therefore abuse ) to string along the other party? Or to make them feel bad for wanting affection or sexual contact?

No one is saying anyone should be 'forced' to perform sexually. But it's part of being in a relationship?

giddypenguin

I will admit I've not read the entire article (hate giving the DM revenue by visiting their website) but I entirely see her point of view, I have a toddler and a three month old, at the end of the day I've been running around after an energetic toddler all day, and on the of chance he's given me a break, then I've had a baby suckling on my breast. By 10 o'clock I feel shattered not sexy. Thank God my husband understands that (like most things children related) this is a temporary thing - we make allowances for each other (me understanding his 'urges' and him my lack there of) and work through it - not go to a national newspaper.

But I firmly believe that if at any time, in any relationship, if one party doesn't want sex they shouldn't do it. That is not abuse. Intentionally removing sex to 'punish' or to cause upset is something entirely different.

Gloomendoom

Person_one wrote: »

Well, I am officially surprised. I agree that deliberately withholding affection, with intent to hurt and control, is abusive, but I'm disappointed to see these organisations seeming to endorse the idea that partners somehow 'owe' each other sex. We all have ultimate rights over our bodies, and nobody should ever feel guilty for saying no to sex if they don't want it, for whatever reason.

When we got married, I definitely remember my wife and I promising to honour each other with our bodies.

Should you not feel guilty for breaking a promise?

giddypenguin

Gloomendoom wrote: »

When we got married, I definitely remember my wife and I promising to honour each other with our bodies.

Should you not feel guilty for breaking a promise?

That is not the same promise as 'give it to you any time you ask'

Gloomendoom

giddypenguin wrote: »

That is not the same promise as 'give it to you any time you ask'

Nor is it the same promise as you're not getting any at all.

giddypenguin

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Nor is it the same promise as you're not getting any at all.

Marriage is a life long promise to stand by each other Coe what may, including a (probably temporary) decrease in libido. It is not a 'never' it's a 'not now'.

Person_one

Gloomendoom wrote: »

When we got married, I definitely remember my wife and I promising to honour each other with our bodies.

Should you not feel guilty for breaking a promise?

Is that only sex then?

There are loads of situations that leads to even very loving couples not having as much sex as they might have expected to have. Medical, social, psychological, logistical, etc. etc. Nobody has a god given right to get their end away on a regular basis.

Gloomendoom

Person_one wrote: »

Is that only sex then?

There are loads of situations that leads to even very loving couples not having as much sex as they might have expected to have. Medical, social, psychological, logistical, etc. etc. Nobody has a god given right to get their end away on a regular basis.

And nobody has a right to subject their spouse to emotional abuse.

Which what the lady in the DM article appears to be doing.

Georgiegirl256

Gloomendoom wrote: »

And nobody has a right to subject their spouse to emotional abuse.

Which what the lady in the DM article appears to be doing.

No she's not! It isn't like she's doing it on purpose. She's explained her situation and he is understanding about it. He may not be happy with it, but it appears that he loves her and his family enough to deal with it.

At the moment, she doesn't feel up to sex, so why should his needs come before hers.

I did think it was weird that she would use the words "makes my skin crawl", not really the best terminology tbh!

I knew before I clicked on this thread that it was going to be about that article!