Is it ok if your partner gets their sexual needs met elsewhere?

[Cobie]

55 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

You guys are aware that death certificates often state causes of death like:

 

1. Immediate cause (eg massive brain haemorrhage)

2. Thing that caused that (eg strain from lifting something heavy)

3. Underlying factors (eg heart disease which may have made caused circulatory problems)

 

..aren't you?

 

 

I haven’t followed this thread, but  ... This thread is called “Is it ok if your partner gets their sexual needs met elsewhere?” Elsewhere like in the morgue? 

[Telecaster68]

Plenty of stiffs there.... 

[Guest]

 The fact is, people have, and can, die as a result of having sex (whether they want the sex or not). Just as yes, someone can die as a result of stumbling into traffic, of being shot, or even of something as common as slipping in the shower. If there are cases where a specific action is known to lead to something that can rarely cause death (ie sexual intercourse is a known risk factor when someone has ovarian cysts, its one of the most common causes of rupture) then the statement that sex can't lead to death is factually inaccurate. That's the issue here. The cysts thing keeps being brought up, but there are many other examples (and much more direct ones) of someone dying as a result of sex usually due to internal bleeding if the penis was too big or the sex was too rough. A Nigerian man was facing the death penalty last year because his 49-year-old partner died of internal bleeding resulting from him tearing her open inside with his penis during consensual sex. The only English versions of the article I can find though are from sites like The Sun, which embellish the story with ridiculous tales of a penis enhancing love potion and other such nonsense, but this does happen relatively commonly with rape (yes, rape is sex) and with marriage to younger brides (14 and under) in countries where that is legal. The point I was making initially was that this statement:

 

On 2/14/2018 at 6:52 AM, James121 said:

Has anyone, asexual or other, had regular sex when they would prefer no sex and died as a result?

 

Again, answer is obviously no.

 

is factually incorrect. I initially pointed out the flaws in the reading (because it's not stating anywhere that consent is actually given.. so, could just as easily be referencing rape. I've already discussed that earlier though).

 

All I'm saying is, yes, people can die as a result of sex (whether 'prefer' to have the sex or not). So the answer is not 'obviously no'.

 

1 hour ago, James121 said:

Ooh examples required please. Any evidence?

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/criem/2015/646438/

 

Quote

 

After postcoital headaches, subarachnoid hemorrhage is the second most common cause of neurological complications of sexual intercourse and therefore patients admitted to an emergency department with headache after sexual intercourse should always be carefully evaluated by cerebral imaging.

....

 

The medical history revealed that the woman suffered from a seizure followed by unconsciousness while having sexual intercourse. The patient had never had a seizure before and had no prior history of headaches, migraine, head trauma, substance abuse, or intoxication. The patient had previously been in excellent health and with physical fitness appropriate to her age. Her only regular medication was an oral anticontraceptive.

On admission to the emergency department (ED) of a secondary care hospital, the clinical findings were as follows: unconsciousness with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 3 and unilaterally (left) light reactive pupil; no seizure was observed. The patient was breathing spontaneously through a nasal cannula, with a normal respiratory rate and 4l oxygen saturation. Blood pressure, heart rate, and temperature were normal. After immediate airway management, computed tomography (CT) of the head was performed. She was found to have an extensive subarachnoid hemorrhage (Fisher grade 4), with breach in the fourth ventricle; see Figure 1. Clinical examination and laboratory analysis did not reveal any further pathologic features. The patient was urgently transferred by helicopter to our tertiary hospital for neurosurgical intervention.

 

....

 

After careful consideration by all specialists involved and with the consent of the patient’s relatives, it was decided that further neurosurgery would not be performed, as the brain stem reflexes were extinct and the intracerebral pressure had remained at 80 mmHg for more than one hour despite maximal conservative therapy. The patient was transferred to the intensive care unit for organ saving therapy and died 48 hours after admission.

 

....

 

Our case features sexual intercourse as a trigger of an acute intracerebral hemorrhage in a young female. Several studies have shown that sexual intercourse may provoke intracerebral hemorrhage, especially subarachnoid hemorrhage [3, 4]. It has been reported that 14.5% of all subarachnoid hemorrhages are precipitated by sexual activity 

 

....

 

Although the published literature is sparse on the topic of sexual intercourse-related subarachnoid hemorrhage, several studies have found a male predominance [7, 9–11]. This is striking for two reasons: firstly it is known that the incidence of cerebral aneurysms is higher in females [12] and secondly as women may experience multiple and longer orgasms than men, it would be expected that wall tension in cerebral vessels would be elevated for longer than in males [9].

 

Patients with sexually triggered subarachnoid hemorrhage most often present with severe headache [3, 4]. Headaches are the most common symptoms and pathology of patients presenting with sexual intercourse-related problems to the emergency department [3], amounting to almost 50% of the total [14]. The explosive character of coital headache makes it difficult to differentiate from more severe disease [6]; therefore, subarachnoid hemorrhage and arterial dissection should always be excluded by radiological image study [6, 15, 16]. The pathophysiology of orgasmic headache is not yet completely understood [15, 16]; arterial vasospasm secondary to impaired myogenic cerebral autoregulation may play a role 

 

Unfortunately the patient featured in our case report died. Death due to sexual intercourse is rare [3, 4]. In two large autopsy studies with 5559 patients, the rate of death due to sexual intercourse was estimated to be about 0.6% 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361003/pdf/postmedj00094-0038.pdf

 

Quote

 

Case 1: A 22-year-old woman was engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband in a rear entry (knee-chest) position 8 days following the spontaneous vaginal delivery of their third child, when she collapsed suddenly and died, passing blood per vagina. Autopsy showed features of air embolism.

 

Case 2:  A 29-year-old woman died suddenly during sexual intercourse with her husband in the missionary position 5 days following the spontaneous vaginal delivery of their fourth child. Autopsy confirmed death due to air embolism. 

 

In three cases embolism occurred during sexual intercourse at 19 and 31 weeks gestation and in the early puerperium. One death followed oral sex during foreplay. Death during sexual intercourse is fortunately uncommon, most cases being attributable to arrhythmias complicating ischaemic heart disease and heightened sympathetic stimulation of the myocardium in middle-aged men.2 Maternal deaths due to air embolism during pregnancy or labour have been described following sexual intercourse, induced abortion, oral sex, manual extraction of the placenta, version and forceps delivery.

 

During the puerperium, air embolism is associated particularly with sexual activities in the kneechest position. This position elevates the uterus above the level of the right atrium to create a pressure gradient which may draw air into patent veins, while intercourse forces air under pressure into the uterine cavity.

 

Circulating amphetamine in the first case, in addition to prolonging sexual activity, may have acted as an additional factor in encouraging air embolism via involuting placental bed vessels by its action on heart rate, blood pressure, and uterine muscle tone.

 

Cases of fatal air embolism in the puerperium are rare. Most couples restart intercourse 5 or 6 weeks after delivery,'3 and mothers frequently seek advice about resumption of sexual activity There are moves to give more general guidelines about resuming intercourse than to persist in setting a postpartum sexual abstinence period of 6 weeks. However, we feel it would be wise to warn mothers, without causing undue alarm, that intercourse could be dangerous in the early days of the puerperium.

 

So there you have it. Yes, the sex led to things that caused the death (be that internal bleeding, cyst rupture, hemorrhage, or air embolism). But the original statement was ''Has anyone had regular sex they don't want and died as a result'?'' I am saying that because there are recorded  cases where people have died as a result of sex they do want, it stands to reason there were also people who didn't want it (though as James has insisted, despite is foggy wording, he means consensual sex they didn't want, not rape) who could potentially also have died from it in the course of human history. That's the point that's being made here. Yes, rarely (about 0.6% of the time apparently) people can die ''due to sexual intercourse''.

 

Case settled yet?

 

[binary suns]

2 hours ago, Homer said:

Yeah no... argh. The point I'm trying to make is that when Person would just have walked away from the crash if it hadn't been for the pre-existing condition, it's the pre-existing condition that caused the outcome. I can't think of any pre-existing conditions that make much of a difference when you get shot or when your plane crashes.

A+B=C

 

what happens when you remove eitherA or B? 

 

If A+B leading to C invalidates the claim that B led to C, it also invalidates the claim that A led to C. 

 

If a person with a knife in their stomach wasn’t going to kill them as they were on the way to the hospital, but the car crashed and tore their stomach wide open because of the knife. You claim the crash didn’t kill em. But if so, then the same is true of the knife. 

 

So so maybe you just want it to be said that the crash AND the knife were both necessary to kill the person?

 

 

But you can’t blame the knife while denying the crash’s  involvement. If the crash didn’t cause the death - by the same logic.... neither did the knife! 

[Homer]

4 minutes ago, float on said:

But you can’t blame the knife while denying the car’s involvement. 

Again, I'm not doing that. Sigh. Where do you get that from?

[GLRDT]

23 hours ago, James121 said:

But none of this, none, is what I was referring to when I said having unwanted sex doesn’t kill you.

 

The bottom line is this. If people are prepared to diminish and rubbish the affects that sexual rejection can have on someone, I reserve the right to adopt the same attitude back.

 

Yes we can all come up with extreme examples of violent rape to try and contradict my view but that isn’t going to wash. 

 

Having unwanted sex does not kill anyone.

Unwanted celibacy does not kill anyone.

Both have small or even huge psychological impacts on their victims.

 

Are at least able to find some common ground and agreement there?

 

I know I've already specifically agreed with some of your points earlier. So yes some of us can find some common ground.

[insertcreativenamehere]

I’ve been married for 24 years and just finally admitted to myself last year that I was ace. My husband claims to be a very sexual person (even though he has performance issues). We have compromised that he can used porn and for now it seems to be enough. I have a feeling the day will come when he says it no longer enough. I would not be ok with him sleeping with someone else. We already have trust issues because he was sneaking behind my back and lying about sexting with other women. 

[binary suns]

 

 

1. whether or not a person is okay with their partner cheating is a matter of personal preference, not morale obligation !

 

 

2. whether or not a sexual suffers through a sexless marriage is a matter of personal preferences, not the fault of their partner!

 

3. whether or not an asexual suffers through consensual sex is a matter of personal preferences, not the fault of their partner!

 

 

 

4. and the real kicker is. Neither of the prior change when you realize that there is a significant lack of awareness of the factual truth that it’s healthy to be an ace and it happens to people! And it’s healthy to say no to sex, and plenty of people for plenty of reasons do it! It just becomes the red herring that veils the fact the our culture tries to pressure people into marital obligations of all sorts.

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion:

 

 

Don’t like your marriage, then leave it. Fuck the society for moralizing basic personal health.  If something damages you, protect yourself and do something about it. 

 

 

If you aren’t leaving it, then figure out what’s keeping you. Let that be the light that guides you through the suffering. 

 

 

 

[Telecaster68]

I don't think anyone prefers to suffer. 

[James121]

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

After postcoital headaches, subarachnoid hemorrhage is the second most common cause of neurological complications of sexual intercourse and therefore patients admitted to an emergency department with headache after sexual intercourse should always be carefully evaluated by cerebral imaging

In relation to the first example you gave with the link.....you forgot to copy and paste the conclusion of the report. Here are the first few lines....

 

In conclusion, sexual intercourse might be a precipitating factor for subarachnoid hemorrhage with a potentially fatal outcome

 

im just about to read up on the other bits. Give me time.

[Sally]

9 hours ago, James121 said:

Agreed. Many people have gotten married in good faith, had children in good faith, put their finances in to a sharing pot with someone else who has then discovered that they no longer want any intimacy. Lots of people feel trapped.

Feeling trapped because someone doesn't want what you want but you don't want to divorce does NOT equate to actually being physically trapped, which is what I was talking about.  

[James121]

2 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Case 1: A 22-year-old woman was engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband in a rear entry (knee-chest) position 8 days following the spontaneous vaginal delivery of their third child, when she collapsed suddenly and died, passing blood per vagina. Autopsy showed features of air embolism.

 

Case 2:  A 29-year-old woman died suddenly during sexual intercourse with her husband in the missionary position 5 days following the spontaneous vaginal delivery of their fourth child. Autopsy confirmed death due to air embolism. 

Right, the examples above...

 

 I’ve read all the information. In both cases, this is sex with a woman who’s uterus has been ripped apart by child birth thus causes death by an air embolism. One was having sex with 8 days of popping out her 4th child and the other within 5 days of popping out her 3rd! I mean come on! But anyway

 

Anyway key points coming right up........

 

18 people died of the same air embolism between 1967 and 1993 according to the report. 18!

 

4 of 18 deaths occurred during intercourse which your argument hinges on. 1 of the 4 people had taken anphets according to the report which may have contributed to the death casting doubt over 1 case...

 

So what are the other 14 deaths? How did they occur? The report falls short of revealing what 14 out of 18 deaths were caused by. Based on on this information it actually seems safer to have sex then not to! 

 

So ficto, you are technically correct. Death has occurred due to air embolisms during intercourse. 

 

Now my question which was:

 

Has anyone, asexual or other, had regular sex when they would prefer no sex and died as a result?

 

again answer is obviously no

 

Where do these examples fit in with this question? They were all willing participants who had sex days after their insides had been smashed to bits by childbirth. Is having sex once when your insides are ripped up ‘regular’ or sex they would ‘prefer not to have’? 

 

You have proven a case for death during sex (despite the fact that it is extremely rare and in addition very very unique circumstances must be present) but you definitely have not proven that my answer to my own question is factually wrong. 

 

Where is there any evidence that someone has had sex, regularly, that they would have preferred not to have and dropped down dead (excluding people who are getting it on 72 hours after popping out their 4th child, excluding someone who has a pre existing medical condition such as a cyst)

 

One final point of note.

 

The following deaths are more likely to occur than death caused by air embolisms during sex....

 

1) Death by lightning strike

2) by shark attack

3) death by energy drink

4) death by falling out of bed

5) by fireworks

6) by falling coconuts 

[James121]

50 minutes ago, Sally said:

Feeling trapped because someone doesn't want what you want but you don't want to divorce does NOT equate to actually being physically trapped, which is what I was talking about.  

Who is physically trapped then?

[Sally]

9 minutes ago, James121 said:

Who is physically trapped then?

My comment was a response to someone (about 5 years ago, before this thread got obsessed with death causes) who claimed that a sexual was trapped in a relationship by an asexual who didn't disclose they didn't want sex.  

[Chimeric]

1 hour ago, Sally said:

My comment was a response to someone (about 5 years ago, before this thread got obsessed with death causes) who claimed that a sexual was trapped in a relationship by an asexual who didn't disclose they didn't want sex.  

You had quoted me earlier saying nobody is trapping anybody - I'd been saying that I think there's a potential for an asexual partner to feel trapped in a sexual relationship; put out or get out, as it were. 

[Philip027]

Quote

You had quoted me earlier saying nobody is trapping anybody - I'd been saying that I think there's a potential for an asexual partner to feel trapped in a sexual relationship; put out or get out, as it were. 

I think you're operating on a totally different definition of "trapped" than Sally is which is causing the miscommunication here.

 

She likely means it more literally, like "I will hurt/kill you if you don't stay"

 

What you're describing is more like coercion, rather than trapping.

[The Dryad]

It depends on your particular type of relationship, I've learned, but since you asked: NO, I would definitely not be okay with that sort of thing, I don't believe in open relationships, or cheating or polyamory or polygamy or whatever. So no.

 

But also I'm not the type of person to be in these types of relationships anyways, I've done some self digging and learned, not only have I never loved, but I've never liked anyone either; I'm a bit vain, and...a bit ashamed to say that I've only held interest in someone because we would compliment each other (in looks), that's so horrible! I shall go repent elsewhere... But I still stand by my opinion that sexual and asexuals aren't compatible, just like gay people aren't compatible with straight people! If you have different needs and wants, why not find someone who fully connects with and compliments you, there's always someone who needs exactly the same thing as you.

[Sally]

1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

I think you're operating on a totally different definition of "trapped" than Sally is which is causing the miscommunication here.

 

She likely means it more literally, like "I will hurt/kill you if you don't stay"

 

What you're describing is more like coercion, rather than trapping.

Actually I was thinking of being physically trapped, as in being physically caught/held.   So we have three different definitions of "trapped".  

[Cantrelate]

Well, I just got this question from my partner recently. I was totally unprepared for the disgust  the thougt created in me. I was literally sick to my stomach hearing the words ( as it is a kind of last resort solution for us now, I guess) we've lived as asexual/sexual partners for a long time. Have had lots of sex. But obviously not the right kind of sex. I can't seem to compromise anymore, because it gives me really bad guilt trips, not to be able to feel what my partner feels or to be able to fulfil the needs. I am truely monogamous, so sharing my partner with someone, giving someone else the part of our realtionship that makes us US, is not an option. I would rather we let eachother go. It freaks me out and I'm extremely gutted and confused about it. Anybody living in a successful open relationship?

[James121]

1 hour ago, Cantrelate said:

Well, I just got this question from my partner recently. I was totally unprepared for the disgust  the thougt created in me. I was literally sick to my stomach hearing the words ( as it is a kind of last resort solution for us now, I guess) we've lived as asexual/sexual partners for a long time. Have had lots of sex. But obviously not the right kind of sex. I can't seem to compromise anymore, because it gives me really bad guilt trips, not to be able to feel what my partner feels or to be able to fulfil the needs. I am truely monogamous, so sharing my partner with someone, giving someone else the part of our realtionship that makes us US, is not an option. I would rather we let eachother go. It freaks me out and I'm extremely gutted and confused about it. Anybody living in a successful open relationship?

So you and your husband do have sex but he now states it’s the wrong kind? That’s a low baller!

[Cantrelate]

Haha! Thank you for making my day! I really needed someone to say JUST that. Honestly, it absolutely saved my life

[James121]

2 hours ago, Cantrelate said:

Haha! Thank you for making my day! I really needed someone to say JUST that. Honestly, it absolutely saved my life

Well it is. If you’ve at least put the effort in to participation (which I’m guessing in itself is challenging) and now he has changed the goal posts, he is being particularly unreasonable.

[Chimeric]

14 hours ago, The Dryad said:

But I still stand by my opinion that sexual and asexuals aren't compatible,

As the sexual in a mixed a/sexual relationship, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. =)  I'm happier in this relationship than I have been in a very long time. 

 

Edit - I like to think my partner is just as happy as well, I guess I can't make assumptions. 

[GLRDT]

On 2/19/2018 at 5:06 AM, Philip027 said:

They're both contributors.  You can't pretend that the crash is not responsible though, because if it were not for the crash, the person would still be alive.

And there it is. Someone finally admitted that both people in this argument have a point. 

[GLRDT]

On 2/19/2018 at 6:50 AM, Philip027 said:

 

[GLRDT]

On 2/19/2018 at 9:39 AM, Homer said:

By the way...

 

...no, it doesn't. "Knowingly" merely implies that you're aware of the risk, not that you want that risky thing to happen. Huge difference.

 

 

Pretty much anyone actually dealing with cases like this would disagree with you, I'm afraid.

I could be totally wrong but it seems like the disconnect is coming from the fact that yes, a doctor would come to the conclusion that a car crash was a contribution to the cyst bursting and in the end the cyst bursting is why the person ultimately died. From a doctor's point of view, I understand why this is a valid way to think.

 

From a logical point of view if someone has a cyst just chilling and then something or someone causes it to burst, then both things were causes for the death. Death wouldn't have happened if those two things weren't both involved. 

 

So i personally feel Phillip, James, and you all make valid and intelligent points depending on the context and point of view. You all are just unable to see each other's points.

[GLRDT]

On 2/19/2018 at 2:27 PM, James121 said:

Ficto, I have major issues with that comparison as as I previously pointed out which I guess you either ignored or couldn’t rebutt.

 Being shot involves someone shooting a gun and the bullet entering the body causing death for a variety of reasons. 

Your example of the cyst is totally and utterly flawed and completely different.

There was a pre existing medical issue that caused the death not sex. You can rupture a cyst simply by standing up. Do you think anyone would be prepared to class that as “died from standing up”. Total and utter nonsense.

The use of the cyst example is a mere attempt to demonise the act of sex as something that can kill. It is not.

If the person with the cyst had no cyst and had sex that same day (like on your program) would have they have died. No no no they would not have. They died of a ruptured cyst. Sex was the trigger, not the cause. 

Let’s go to another extreme. The cyst ruptured when they bent down to tie their shoes. The coroner has to report that death was caused by tying shoe laces? 

 

To make my final point please feel free to answer this question...

 

A woman with a substantial ovarian cyst carefully walks up the road to catch the number 43 bus to London. At the halfway mark the cyst ruptures and she is killed.

Did this lady die of “walking carefully up the road” or did she die because her cyst ruptured?.

Im not sure I should get in on this argument but oh well. What about if someone shoots you with a gun and it hits your cyst and the cyst bursts? I would assume you'd then think the bullet would be involved in the death this time? Not solely the preexisting condition? If so, then why is the bullet any different than a car crash crushing the cyst? Didn't they both have to happen in order for the cyst to be dangerous and the death to occur?

 

I'm sorry to continue the derailing of the thread but I am genuinely curious how you'd view this example James121.

[binary suns]

On 2/19/2018 at 6:01 PM, Telecaster68 said:

I don't think anyone prefers to suffer. 

they want something. they're more willing to suffer for it. this is still preferences. they don't prefer the suffering itself, but their tolerance for "suffering" is higher when they prefer a thing. 

 

if someone suffers in a sexless marriage, there's something they're getting that they want, or some principle their adhering too. preferences. 

[binary suns]

feeling trapped, to me, means having some kind of catch-22 scenario, and that situation seeming unresolvable, and then emotionally burdensome. 

 

It does not help to have someone go and say "oh but you aren't actually trapped" because that's just completely tangent to the intended meaning. Of course I'm not literally trapped. I could end my life and end the misery. I could do X option and screw Y option, but I'm afraid to do that. I could do Y option and screw X option, but I'm afraid of that too. Or maybe either has consequences that I just don't want to face or desire to prevent. It is like the saying stuck between a rock and a hard place. There are two (or more) undesirable outcomes and you have to choose between them. 

 

One could even try to argue that there could be other solutions to the situation, but "feeling trapped" inherently implies a psychosomatic block where searching for options either does not occur to the person, or for some reason is just another "hard place" they can't or don't want to face. 

 

it is entirely an emotional, psychosomatic, and logical struggle... and it feels incredibly real, and with a tonne of emotional burden to face.

 

and emotions affect physiology... emotions exist in physiology... they can for sure have physical damage to your body. 

 

 

 

this situation is NOT coercion. and no, it ain't physical force or threat. It could involve dependency though, and especially codependency. 

[binary suns]

2 hours ago, GLRDT said:

And there it is. Someone finally admitted that both people in this argument have a point. 

I'm sorry that I did not appropriately elaborate that I do in fact believe this.