Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you want to call someone "shitty," fine. But loaded terms like "rape" and "rapey" should not be used so recklessly.

It may be inappropriate, but I wouldn't call it "reckless." The coercion necessary to turn a demand for sex into rape is not a bright line but is a spectrum. Put a knife to her throat = rape. Threaten to cut someone else's throat = rape. Threaten to throw her out in the street with no clothes or money = probably rape. Threaten to fire her = closer to the line but still damaging and coercive. Threatening to keep requesting sex until she gives in is probably on the non-rape side of the line, but it's still coercive and damaging. And you can see that rape line from there. So, I don't think using a term like "rapey" is reckless.

No. If she doesn't want to have sex, nothing is preventing her from not having it. So don't.

Again, this narrative paints the woman as a delicate thing who can't be expected to stand up for herself in the face of unending "requests." You don't want to listen to the requests anymore? Stand up on your own two feet and walk out the door.

I am not a delicate thing. I fended off repeated unwanted advances. I refused to put my head in the sand and actively monitored my DH to uncover his lies. I did this despite the severe negative career and financial impact. And why the hell should *I* walk out? I didn't do anything wrong. When I had adequate, indisputable evidence, I told my husband the relationship was over and that *he* would have to leave. Then I had to fend off his repeated advances over the next two years of co-parenting.

My question is, what kind of culture normalizes this -- that it's OK for a guy to lie to get sex and it's OK for a guy to repeatedly harass a woman for sex despite repeatedly being told no. IMO, it's rape culture. No one would ever tolerate this behavior from a stranger at a frat party, why should I tolerate it from someone who was my husband? Why do you think it's OK for a guy to repeatedly behave like this and put the responsibility on me to say no a hundred times a hundred different ways? No means no. I should only have to say it once.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you want to call someone "shitty," fine. But loaded terms like "rape" and "rapey" should not be used so recklessly.

It may be inappropriate, but I wouldn't call it "reckless." The coercion necessary to turn a demand for sex into rape is not a bright line but is a spectrum. Put a knife to her throat = rape. Threaten to cut someone else's throat = rape. Threaten to throw her out in the street with no clothes or money = probably rape. Threaten to fire her = closer to the line but still damaging and coercive. Threatening to keep requesting sex until she gives in is probably on the non-rape side of the line, but it's still coercive and damaging. And you can see that rape line from there. So, I don't think using a term like "rapey" is reckless.

No. If she doesn't want to have sex, nothing is preventing her from not having it. So don't.

Again, this narrative paints the woman as a delicate thing who can't be expected to stand up for herself in the face of unending "requests." You don't want to listen to the requests anymore? Stand up on your own two feet and walk out the door.

I am not a delicate thing. I fended off repeated unwanted advances. I refused to put my head in the sand and actively monitored my DH to uncover his lies. I did this despite the severe negative career and financial impact. And why the hell should *I* walk out? I didn't do anything wrong. When I had adequate, indisputable evidence, I told my husband the relationship was over and that *he* would have to leave. Then I had to fend off his repeated advances over the next two years of co-parenting.

My question is, what kind of culture normalizes this -- that it's OK for a guy to lie to get sex and it's OK for a guy to repeatedly harass a woman for sex despite repeatedly being told no. IMO, it's rape culture. No one would ever tolerate this behavior from a stranger at a frat party, why should I tolerate it from someone who was my husband? Why do you think it's OK for a guy to repeatedly behave like this and put the responsibility on me to say no a hundred times a hundred different ways? No means no. I should only have to say it once.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you want to call someone "shitty," fine. But loaded terms like "rape" and "rapey" should not be used so recklessly.

It may be inappropriate, but I wouldn't call it "reckless." The coercion necessary to turn a demand for sex into rape is not a bright line but is a spectrum. Put a knife to her throat = rape. Threaten to cut someone else's throat = rape. Threaten to throw her out in the street with no clothes or money = probably rape. Threaten to fire her = closer to the line but still damaging and coercive. Threatening to keep requesting sex until she gives in is probably on the non-rape side of the line, but it's still coercive and damaging. And you can see that rape line from there. So, I don't think using a term like "rapey" is reckless.

No. If she doesn't want to have sex, nothing is preventing her from not having it. So don't.

Again, this narrative paints the woman as a delicate thing who can't be expected to stand up for herself in the face of unending "requests." You don't want to listen to the requests anymore? Stand up on your own two feet and walk out the door.

I am not a delicate thing. I fended off repeated unwanted advances. I refused to put my head in the sand and actively monitored my DH to uncover his lies. I did this despite the severe negative career and financial impact. And why the hell should *I* walk out? I didn't do anything wrong. When I had adequate, indisputable evidence, I told my husband the relationship was over and that *he* would have to leave. Then I had to fend off his repeated advances over the next two years of co-parenting.

My question is, what kind of culture normalizes this -- that it's OK for a guy to lie to get sex and it's OK for a guy to repeatedly harass a woman for sex despite repeatedly being told no. IMO, it's rape culture. No one would ever tolerate this behavior from a stranger at a frat party, why should I tolerate it from someone who was my husband? Why do you think it's OK for a guy to repeatedly behave like this and put the responsibility on me to say no a hundred times a hundred different ways? No means no. I should only have to say it once.

Do you really think our culture "normalizes" this? I don't know anyone who has dealt with this from their ex-husbands. Most exes, IME, don't behave this way. Most everyone would describe this as "not okay." The fact that it is happening does not necessarily make it "normal."

Anonymous wrote:So there are magic words now? "Enough" should work where a simple "no" did not? She's obligated to flee the situation?

The dude has an obligation to fucking stop when she says "no." I don't get why that's so tough to understand. And if he persists, maybe he hasn't committed a crime, but I'm not going to shed a tear for him if she sticks the wrong label (rape, coercion, pressure) on his actions.

Anonymous wrote:I am a feminist, and I just can't understand how lying to someone makes it coercive. People lie to get laid. They lie to get jobs too. Hell, people lie to find a spouse. We can't whitewash the world to make it a perfect place of 100% informed consent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If you want to call someone "shitty," fine. But loaded terms like "rape" and "rapey" should not be used so recklessly.

It may be inappropriate, but I wouldn't call it "reckless." The coercion necessary to turn a demand for sex into rape is not a bright line but is a spectrum. Put a knife to her throat = rape. Threaten to cut someone else's throat = rape. Threaten to throw her out in the street with no clothes or money = probably rape. Threaten to fire her = closer to the line but still damaging and coercive. Threatening to keep requesting sex until she gives in is probably on the non-rape side of the line, but it's still coercive and damaging. And you can see that rape line from there. So, I don't think using a term like "rapey" is reckless.

No. If she doesn't want to have sex, nothing is preventing her from not having it. So don't.

Again, this narrative paints the woman as a delicate thing who can't be expected to stand up for herself in the face of unending "requests." You don't want to listen to the requests anymore? Stand up on your own two feet and walk out the door.

I am not a delicate thing. I fended off repeated unwanted advances. I refused to put my head in the sand and actively monitored my DH to uncover his lies. I did this despite the severe negative career and financial impact. And why the hell should *I* walk out? I didn't do anything wrong. When I had adequate, indisputable evidence, I told my husband the relationship was over and that *he* would have to leave. Then I had to fend off his repeated advances over the next two years of co-parenting.

My question is, what kind of culture normalizes this -- that it's OK for a guy to lie to get sex and it's OK for a guy to repeatedly harass a woman for sex despite repeatedly being told no. IMO, it's rape culture. No one would ever tolerate this behavior from a stranger at a frat party, why should I tolerate it from someone who was my husband? Why do you think it's OK for a guy to repeatedly behave like this and put the responsibility on me to say no a hundred times a hundred different ways? No means no. I should only have to say it once.

Anonymous wrote:
I have to say that the bolded phrase resonated with me. I never turned my DH down for sex, which we had frequently and which I always thought was mutually pleasurable. Then I found out that DH had cheated on me. DH "confessed" and begged me to stay together. During the period of reconciliation, we continued to have sex, but I have to admit, it felt "rapey". Yes, I consented, but that consent was under heavy pressure from DH and the counselors.

Much of our "counseling" revolved around why I wouldn't have sex with DH anymore and how he could get back to having sex. (Because you cheated on me and you haven't gotten STD tested yet even though I asked you months ago. DUH. And, you've done nothing to build confidence that you won't do cheat again. DUH) Frankly, I was shocked how the entire counseling process revolved around whether or not we had sex, and not why DH cheated and lied to me so extensively for so long. At home, DH was constantly trying to initiate sex, sometimes pawing me in the middle of the night when I was asleep and waking me. It was clear I was expected to "get over it" and go back to having sex with DH because sex is expected in a marriage, and my needs for safety and honesty were immaterial.

Our notions of rape our changing. It used to be that "rape" only occurred between non-marital partners and only as a result of force; anything else was automatically considered sex with "consent" even though that consent may have been deduced from the fact that the victim wore short shorts or had dated the perpetrator. Now the definition of rape is evolving to take into account true consent, i.e. sober, informed, explicit verbal consent between any sexual partners married or not. Personally, I agree with that evolution.

I honestly view what happened to me as rape by fraud. DH got my consent to sex by fraud -- lying to me often over the course of years because he knew that I had said no to sex outside of monogamy. The sexual consent I gave was gained only by his manipulation and lies, and he knew that.

It's good to remember that the definition of rape has evolved from "sex by force from a stranger" to "sex without consent" only because real women stood up every day over many years and objected to the narrow definition of rape as it was then in the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have to say that the bolded phrase resonated with me. I never turned my DH down for sex, which we had frequently and which I always thought was mutually pleasurable. Then I found out that DH had cheated on me. DH "confessed" and begged me to stay together. During the period of reconciliation, we continued to have sex, but I have to admit, it felt "rapey". Yes, I consented, but that consent was under heavy pressure from DH and the counselors.

Much of our "counseling" revolved around why I wouldn't have sex with DH anymore and how he could get back to having sex. (Because you cheated on me and you haven't gotten STD tested yet even though I asked you months ago. DUH. And, you've done nothing to build confidence that you won't do cheat again. DUH) Frankly, I was shocked how the entire counseling process revolved around whether or not we had sex, and not why DH cheated and lied to me so extensively for so long. At home, DH was constantly trying to initiate sex, sometimes pawing me in the middle of the night when I was asleep and waking me. It was clear I was expected to "get over it" and go back to having sex with DH because sex is expected in a marriage, and my needs for safety and honesty were immaterial.

Our notions of rape our changing. It used to be that "rape" only occurred between non-marital partners and only as a result of force; anything else was automatically considered sex with "consent" even though that consent may have been deduced from the fact that the victim wore short shorts or had dated the perpetrator. Now the definition of rape is evolving to take into account true consent, i.e. sober, informed, explicit verbal consent between any sexual partners married or not. Personally, I agree with that evolution.

I honestly view what happened to me as rape by fraud. DH got my consent to sex by fraud -- lying to me often over the course of years because he knew that I had said no to sex outside of monogamy. The sexual consent I gave was gained only by his manipulation and lies, and he knew that.

It's good to remember that the definition of rape has evolved from "sex by force from a stranger" to "sex without consent" only because real women stood up every day over many years and objected to the narrow definition of rape as it was then in the law.

What you are describing is not rape.

What he was guilty of was adultery and fornication. These are generally no longer regarded as serious crimes, in part for the precise reason that the adulterers are consenting adults.

But hey you can lead the charge to make adultery a felony, if you want. Good luck with that!

Anonymous wrote:
It is totally 100% OK for a husband to ask a wife for sex as many times as he wants no matter how many times she says no. And it is totally within her power to say no as many times as she wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a feminist, and I just can't understand how lying to someone makes it coercive. People lie to get laid. They lie to get jobs too. Hell, people lie to find a spouse. We can't whitewash the world to make it a perfect place of 100% informed consent.

If we are going to put people in prison for failing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before they have sex, then a LOT of women are going to prison.

I would immediately file rape charges against a number of former girlfriends if this became the new rule in America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is totally 100% OK for a husband to ask a wife for sex as many times as he wants no matter how many times she says no. And it is totally within her power to say no as many times as she wants.

Who taught you how to be married? That's not o.k. If she says she doesn't want to have sex with you tonight and to leave her alone, and you ask her 10 more times that night, you clearly have no regard for what she wants. You are telling her that if she wants you to leave her alone, she has to have sex with you; and that if she doesn't have sex with you, then you will never shut up about it.

It's totally within your power to respect the wishes of your spouse, and that's what you should do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It is totally 100% OK for a husband to ask a wife for sex as many times as he wants no matter how many times she says no. And it is totally within her power to say no as many times as she wants.

Who taught you how to be married? That's not o.k. If she says she doesn't want to have sex with you tonight and to leave her alone, and you ask her 10 more times that night, you clearly have no regard for what she wants. You are telling her that if she wants you to leave her alone, she has to have sex with you; and that if she doesn't have sex with you, then you will never shut up about it.

Anonymous wrote:
It's totally within your power to respect the wishes of your spouse, and that's what you should do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a feminist, and I just can't understand how lying to someone makes it coercive. People lie to get laid. They lie to get jobs too. Hell, people lie to find a spouse. We can't whitewash the world to make it a perfect place of 100% informed consent.

If we are going to put people in prison for failing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before they have sex, then a LOT of women are going to prison.

I would immediately file rape charges against a number of former girlfriends if this became the new rule in America.

Once you enter into the contract of marriage it should be treated like any other contract. When defrauded there should be consequences and the person that broke the contract should pay damages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is op talking about? Most women I know get married precisely so they can stop have sex with their then-boyfriends.

You need to meet more women. I doubt that's at all common.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I divorced a heating husband who was getting plenty of sex at home and I cannot for the life of me get my bead around my not wanting to have sex again ever (again this is about desire no medical issue involved) and expecting my partner to just accept that despite their libido not being in decline. It seems selfish and cruel. This is how you treat someone you love and want to be with until you die?

It's more about 1 partner wanting 3 times a week and the other wanting 3 times a month, not totally no sex never.

Your H probably chested because it was not often enough, passionate enough, felt like duty sex... Or some equally lame excuse, even though he was getting it at home.

He cheated because he was a selfish asshole. But I am talking about the no sex ever people not the he/she wants it 3 times a week and I want it 3 times a month people.

But most partners complain about frequency and duty sex.... Not never getting it, those post too, but not most. It's the duty sex that is rapey, hey sorry your vagina is dry but can you blow me, or those that can't wait 6 weeks post parfumerie, or the dudes that say they can't concentrate at work if they go 3 weeks.

Maybe we should get congress to pass a bill that men dont work after the baby is born because they can't concentrate until their wife screws them.

I have to say that the bolded phrase resonated with me. I never turned my DH down for sex, which we had frequently and which I always thought was mutually pleasurable. Then I found out that DH had cheated on me. DH "confessed" and begged me to stay together. During the period of reconciliation, we continued to have sex, but I have to admit, it felt "rapey". Yes, I consented, but that consent was under heavy pressure from DH and the counselors.

Much of our "counseling" revolved around why I wouldn't have sex with DH anymore and how he could get back to having sex. (Because you cheated on me and you haven't gotten STD tested yet even though I asked you months ago. DUH. And, you've done nothing to build confidence that you won't do cheat again. DUH) Frankly, I was shocked how the entire counseling process revolved around whether or not we had sex, and not why DH cheated and lied to me so extensively for so long. At home, DH was constantly trying to initiate sex, sometimes pawing me in the middle of the night when I was asleep and waking me. It was clear I was expected to "get over it" and go back to having sex with DH because sex is expected in a marriage, and my needs for safety and honesty were immaterial.

Our notions of rape our changing. It used to be that "rape" only occurred between non-marital partners and only as a result of force; anything else was automatically considered sex with "consent" even though that consent may have been deduced from the fact that the victim wore short shorts or had dated the perpetrator. Now the definition of rape is evolving to take into account true consent, i.e. sober, informed, explicit verbal consent between any sexual partners married or not. Personally, I agree with that evolution.

I honestly view what happened to me as rape by fraud. DH got my consent to sex by fraud -- lying to me often over the course of years because he knew that I had said no to sex outside of monogamy. The sexual consent I gave was gained only by his manipulation and lies, and he knew that.

It's good to remember that the definition of rape has evolved from "sex by force from a stranger" to "sex without consent" only because real women stood up every day over many years and objected to the narrow definition of rape as it was then in the law.