Jump to content

Acceptance


IronHamster

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, vega57 said:

No one "forced" celibacy upon you.  As another poster pointed out, you chose to remain married both before and after you had kids. 

If it is not forced celibacy, then I am not "cheating" as some call it.  Thank you.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronHamster said:

If it is not forced celibacy, then I am not "cheating" as some call it.  Thank you.  

Oh no.  You are most definitely cheating! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Oh no.  You are most definitely cheating! 

How many parties can break a contract?  Once the contract is broken, it is broken.  She has body autonomy, but so to I.  

 

Sex is a lot like home improvement projects.   She has not wanted to help, and I am ok with that, but if a partner does not want to help they should not get all uppity because it is a big job and I am going to have a friend come and help.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IronHamster said:

How many parties can break a contract?  Once the contract is broken, it is broken.  She has body autonomy, but so to I.  

 

Sex is a lot like home improvement projects.   She has not wanted to help, and I am ok with that, but if a partner does not want to help they should not get all uppity because it is a big job and I am going to have a friend come and help.  

She didn't break a contract; you however, did. 

She promised you sex after marriage, which she DID do, otherwise, she wouldn't have had children (unless she had IVF...which I doubt) with you.  There was never an "agreement" as to HOW MUCH sex the two of you would have.  That's as much your fault. 

 

You're obviously NOT "o.k." with her not wanting (as much?) sex, otherwise you wouldn't have sought it elsewhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, vega57 said:

She didn't break a contract; you however, did. 

She promised you sex after marriage, which she DID do, otherwise, she wouldn't have had children (unless she had IVF...which I doubt) with you.  There was never an "agreement" as to HOW MUCH sex the two of you would have.  That's as much your fault. 

 

You're obviously NOT "o.k." with her not wanting (as much?) sex, otherwise you wouldn't have sought it elsewhere. 

Not true.  She has my approval to fuck or not fuck as she chooses, just like I have given myself.  We have equal rights, there.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronHamster said:

A sexless marriage is defined as a marriage with a frequency of ten or fewer couplings per year.  

You really need to start going up the quote chain before responding. The individual I was responding to was under the impression that your wife had never had sex with you, which is clearly not the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronHamster said:

Not true.  She has my approval to fuck or not fuck as she chooses, just like I have given myself.  We have equal rights, there.  

Having sex outside of a marriage is not a "right" that you have.  What you're doing is called 'Adultery'. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Having sex outside of a marriage is not a "right" that you have.  What you're doing is called 'Adultery'. 

If having sex outside a marriage is not a right, then having sex inside a marriage is a requirement.   

 

Maybe it is time to rewrite the vows.  Let us start out by putting in the vows that sex is not important and not required after the commitment.   Do that.  LOL.  Marriage will cease to exist.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronHamster said:

If having sex outside a marriage is not a right, then having sex inside a marriage is a requirement.   

 

Maybe it is time to rewrite the vows.  Let us start out by putting in the vows that sex is not important and not required after the commitment.   Do that.  LOL.  Marriage will cease to exist.  

Except that it sex is not a requirement of marriage, for reasons I've already covered at length. Shall I repeat them for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's painful how everyone is missing each other's points (deliberately?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Camicon said:

Except that it sex is not a requirement of marriage, for reasons I've already covered at length. Shall I repeat them for you?

 

You. Can. Get. A. Divorce. In. The. UK. For. Lack. Of. Sex. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

 

You. Can. Get. A. Divorce. In. The. UK. For. Lack. Of. Sex. 

Which. Still. Does. Not. Make. Sex. A. Requirement. Of. Marriage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever. I can't deal with another conversation with the logic-impaired. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IronHamster said:

 

 

Maybe it is time to rewrite the vows.  Let us start out by putting in the vows that sex is not important and not required after the commitment.   Do that.  LOL.  Marriage will cease to exist.  

The vows don't need to be rewritten because sex, as a "requirement" or even a "promise" isn't written into the vows in the first place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

Whatever. I can't deal with another conversation with the logic-impaired. 

Indeed. Constantly having to remind you that nobody is allowed to sign away their bodily sovereignty - and a marriage contract which required a person to have sex with their spouse would be doing exactly that - is a little annoying. It's almost like you're not even trying to understand me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Grinchmer said:

It's painful how everyone is missing each other's points (deliberately?)

I don't get what you mean. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I understand you perfectly. You're just wrong. 

You're welcome to provide any sort of evidence or logic to support your argument. Thus far it's simply been you shouting "YES IT IS BECAUSE YOU CAN GET DIVORCED FOR NOT HAVING SEX!".

 

You could, for example, provide a legal, enforceable marriage contract which stipulates that sex must be had between the signatory parties; or a court document wherein the court finds that a person is required to have sex with their spouse or face legal consequences besides divorce. I mean, if you're right, it shouldn't be particularly difficult to find tangible evidence.

 

Let me demonstrate, by presenting evidence in favour of my position. In the US, an enforceable contract can be condemned as illegal by the court. (https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unenforceable-contract/); such would be the case for a contract that is unenforceable due to it being illegal to enforce it (https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/illegal-contract/). You cannot legally force someone to have sex, so a contract that required someone to have sex would be found unenforceable and illegal.

 

This is equally applicable in the UK and Canada as it is in the USA, because we all use the same common law system, in case you were wondering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vega57 said:

The vows don't need to be rewritten because sex, as a "requirement" or even a "promise" isn't written into the vows in the first place. 

Yes it is.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Camicon said:

You really need to start going up the quote chain before responding. The individual I was responding to was under the impression that your wife had never had sex with you, which is clearly not the case.

On old AVEN it would automatically post the quote chain and you could delete the irrelevant ones, that way anyone reading your comment could have full context because they could see all three or four responses that led to you making that specific comment. It's sooooo annoying on new AVEN how it only quotes the other person's comment without the quote they were responding to as well, it's led to me making some super embarrassing errors in my interpretation of what that person is saying haha. Anyway, that was just my totally off topic observation.

 

Regarding the rest of the comments here:

 

I don't think anyone is going to come to an agreement on whether or not sex should be expected in a marriage because asexuals and sexuals generally have such different feelings on this, at a fundamental level, that it will be impossible to see each other's point of view! 

 

I personally wouldn't be able to have or want sex if it was *expected* of me. It turns out that what really turns me on is my partner not having any expectation of sex but being capable of wanting it just as much as I do, therefore able to enthusiastically have it multiple times a day but not missing it at all and not feeling like something is missing if we don't have it. Obviously that's a very, very specific requirement that most sexuals and ALL asexuals couldn't be comfortable with haha but fortunately I already met someone like that which is how I realized I wanted sex, so I don't need to worry about it too much. But what I'm getting at is that everyone (whether sexual or ace) has specific requirements when it comes to how much sex is expected or whether or not it's expected at all, and even how it's expected, and I can see it from both sides. What I think should be a legal requirement in all relationships (in the perfect world) is that both people be legally required to talk about this stuff openly and honestly, extensively, so they're certain they're both on the same page!

 

Obviously marriage isn't a contract in which you're signing your body over to the other person to use sexually whenever they want (unless you want that of course) ;) but at the same time for a sexual person marriage is the total OPPOSITE of a vow of celibacy, UNLESS both parties want or at least agree to that prior to marriage (which would obviously be extremely rare unless they're both asexuals). 

 

No, that doesn't (in my opinion) give someone the automatic right to develop and emotional bond with someone else and enjoy sexual intimacy with them outside of the marriage, but that's because I think EVERYTHING should be an agreement between both parties within the marriage. But that would include agreeing to the celibacy in the first place, as well as both people agreeing that one partner would seek sex elsewhere if it came to that.

 

So anyway yeah it's a complicated issue that people aren't going to be able to agree on here due to sexuals and asexuals having such intrinsic, fundamentally different feelings about sexual intimacy.

 

No one is signing away their body to be used for sex (in the Western world anyway) when they get married, but at the same time no one is signing an automatic vow of celibacy when they get married - they're doing the opposite of that techinically because otherwise it's just two friends signing a legal contract which is not what people are expecting when getting married. But I don't think there is much point in asexuals arguing that no one should be expected to have sex in marriage while the sexuals argue back that no one should be expected to have celibacy in marriage because you'll never be able to reach an agreement!! 

 

Okay, early morning ramble is now over. Time for coffee and work :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Camicon said:

You're welcome to provide any sort of evidence or logic to support your argument. Thus far it's simply been you shouting "YES IT IS BECAUSE YOU CAN GET DIVORCED FOR NOT HAVING SEX!".

 

You could, for example, provide a legal, enforceable marriage contract which stipulates that sex must be had between the signatory parties; or a court document wherein the court finds that a person is required to have sex with their spouse or face legal consequences besides divorce. I mean, if you're right, it shouldn't be particularly difficult to find tangible evidence.

 

Let me demonstrate, by presenting evidence in favour of my position. In the US, an enforceable contract can be condemned as illegal by the court. (https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unenforceable-contract/); such would be the case for a contract that is unenforceable due to it being illegal to enforce it (https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/illegal-contract/). You cannot legally force someone to have sex, so a contract that required someone to have sex would be found unenforceable and illegal.

 

This is equally applicable in the UK and Canada as it is in the USA, because we all use the same common law system, in case you were wondering.

That is irrelevant.  There are a lot of things in contracts that you cannot force a party to do, yet their dereliction is still cheating on the agreement.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IronHamster said:

That is irrelevant.  There are a lot of things in contracts that you cannot force a party to do, yet their dereliction is still cheating on the agreement.  

Do you enjoy picking arguments you can't win, or something? Because I can't think of any other reason you'd try to argue what I just referenced as "irrelevant".

 

You cannot legally force someone to have sex. A contract which would require someone to have sex against their will cannot be enforced, because that's illegal. A contract which cannot be enforced because it would be illegal to do so is a, wait for it... illegal contract.

 

For this reason a legal marriage contract cannot require someone to have sex; it would be illegal to enforce it. If a marriage contract cannot require someone to have sex, then not having sex cannot be a "dereliction" of the contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for other countries, but non-consummation was grounds for marriage annulment in Britain, however this law was amended to recognise that in some cases PIV sex (which is used to define consummation in law) is not possible 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Camicon said:

Do you enjoy picking arguments you can't win, or something? Because I can't think of any other reason you'd try to argue what I just referenced as "irrelevant".

 

You cannot legally force someone to have sex. A contract which would require someone to have sex against their will cannot be enforced, because that's illegal. A contract which cannot be enforced because it would be illegal to do so is a, wait for it... illegal contract.

 

For this reason a legal marriage contract cannot require someone to have sex; it would be illegal to enforce it. If a marriage contract cannot require someone to have sex, then not having sex cannot be a "dereliction" of the contract.

I can't force someone to build a house for me, but if they've signed a contract saying they'll build me a house, and don't do it, they've broken the contract. A contract's validity isn't predicated on being able to physically enforce the thing in the contract. What can be enforced is consequences for not doing so - in this case, the end of the marriage, whether the nonsexual wants that t to happen or not.

 

If you break your employment contract by never turning up, do you think your employer is legally entitled to come to your house, drag you into work, tie you to a chair and hold a gun to your head to make you type? Obviously not, but it's still a legally valid contract you've signed up to voluntarily, understanding that doing some work is your side of the bargain. 

 

FFS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I can't force someone to build a house for me, but if they've signed a contract saying they'll build me a house, and don't do it, they've broken the contract. A contract's validity isn't predicated on being able to physically enforce the thing in the contract. What can be enforced is consequences for not doing so - in this case, the end of the marriage, whether the nonsexual wants that t to happen or not.

 

If you break your employment contract by never turning up, do you think your employer is legally entitled to come to your house, drag you into work, tie you to a chair and hold a gun to your head to make you type? Obviously not, but it's still a legally valid contract you've signed up to voluntarily, understanding that doing some work is your side of the bargain. 

 

FFS. 

You're confusing termination of a contract with enforcement of a contract.

 

Divorce is a termination of the marriage contract. Not enforcement.

 

Were I to sign a contract saying that I would build you a house then you could pursue me for legal damages if I did not. The court could order me to build you a house, or pay to have your house built, and jail me if I did not. That is an enforceable contract.

 

If a company hires me and I never show up to work they can fire me but they can't sue me. The contract I signed said that I would do things for them and they would pay me in return. Not showing up to work simply releases them from their obligations towards me. If I were to break my employment contract another way, say by violating their sexual harassment policies, or selling company secret, etc. then they might be able to sue me because I have failed to uphold my legal obligations to them.

 

A contract which requires me to have sex with someone is unenforceable, because a court cannot compel me to have sex against my will, because that's illegal. A contract's validity is intrinsically tied to whether or not it is enforceable. A contract that is unenforceable, because the act that the court would be enforcing is illegal, is (unsurprisingly) an illegal "contract" (something of a misnomer, but whatever). And a court cannot enforce alternative consequences when the act they are supposed to be enforcing is illegal, because they are then punishing you for something that they aren't actually allowed to punish you for.

 

Do you understand now? Would you like some more examples? Or are you going to keep ignoring the evidence and logic I have provided in favour of your as of yet unsupported opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I can't force someone to build a house for me, but if they've signed a contract saying they'll build me a house, and don't do it, they've broken the contract. A contract's validity isn't predicated on being able to physically enforce the thing in the contract. What can be enforced is consequences for not doing so - in this case, the end of the marriage, whether the nonsexual wants that t to happen or not.

If you contract someone to build a house and they build you a DOLL HOUSE, you can't say they "broke" the contract, IF THE 'TERMS WEREN'T SPECIFIED BY *YOU* in the first place.  And yes, that burden would fall on *your* shoulders since you're the one who wants the house built in the first place. 

 

The OPs wife agreed to have sex with him after marriage.  She HAD sex with him after marriage, as stated by the OP himself.  No 'contract' was breached by his wife. 

The marriage vows also agree to "forsake all others".  The OP committed adultery, hence, HE was the one who broke the contract. 

 

ETA:  Sorry, Tele.  We cross-posted.  I'll take down my post if you want...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I properly give up now. 

Probably for the best. You weren't bringing anything substantive to argue anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...