Jump to content

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


Paneeda

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Vega, could you try not exaggerating everything I say ad absurdum in order to have any counter argument at all? It's starting to get tedious.

 

I'm getting the feeling that if I said the sea is blue, there'd be a hardcore claiming  I was wrong, purely because it's me saying it.

I'm sorry Tele, but I don't see how I'm exaggerating what you're saying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

By Phillip's principles, you'd never have anything to do with your child unless they happened to be interested in the same things as you, and they should be grateful they had a roof over their head. Apparently if a child wants any attention from their parent, and the parent finds it boring, they should just get over it.

 

That's what I have a problem with.

 

 

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

I'm sorry Tele, but I don't see how I'm exaggerating what you're saying. 

Okay. I'll just stop responding to the exaggerated stuff then. I really can't be arsed with saying everything three times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

By Phillip's principles, you'd never have anything to do with your child unless they happened to be interested in the same things as you, and they should be grateful they had a roof over their head. Apparently if a child wants any attention from their parent, and the parent finds it boring, they should just get over it.

There really isn't anything else they can do other than fake enthusiasm and/or just suck it up, which comes with its own set of problems (and for me at least, it violates my own moral principles and I would find this outcome a lot worse, because it's dishonest)

 

Growing up, I sure thought it would have been nice if my mom was into everything that I was, but things didn't work out that way.  They usually don't work out that way, because people are just that damn different.  There was a rift that formed between us in my earlier years with this sort of thing as one of its building blocks, and it would not begin to mend itself until I learned to accept that it wasn't that she didn't care; we were just different people with different interests.  Kids have to learn this sooner or later in some way or another, because a lot of damaging behaviors result from the assumption that everyone shares the same interests (asexuals in particular are probably acutely aware of this just from their various dealings with sexuals).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the bit I find shocking: it violates your moral principles to humour a child so they feel happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is the bit I find shocking: it violates your moral principles to humour a child so they feel happy.

I wouldn't feel happy if I knew my parent wasn't actually interested. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

There's ways of going about making a kid "happy" that don't involve lying to them.  This is admittedly a sore subject for me, because I've been hurt before by these sorts of lies that were initially intended to "humour" me.  Once I discovered the lies, they just left me wondering who and what I could really trust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I wouldn't feel happy if I knew my parent wasn't actually interested.

But you're not all kids.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2018 at 12:22 PM, James121 said:

If you were capable of it, do you think your partner would rather choose sex with you you over ‘flings’?

i would say yes

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

Unless of course, there's a VOW not to...

If the vow to fuck your spouse holds no water, than the vow not to fuck others is just as full of holes.  

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

If the vow to fuck your spouse holds no water, than the vow not to fuck others is just as full of holes.  

What vow was there to "fuck your spouse"? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vega57 said:

What vow was there to "fuck your spouse"? 

"To have and to hold."  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh here we go. Lack of sex is a legal justification for divorce in most places, yet sex isn't presumed to be part of marriage...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand why fucking others is such a big deal anyway.  If my wife had used her toys instead of trying to store them until they expired, I would have had no reason to go out and find the most amazing woman and sexual partner I have ever had.  Thank you, @Idgaf96!!!

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

"To have and to hold."  

To have and to hold, as I've explained before, is called the Habendum clause.  It was/is used when conveying property.  And yes, the wife was considered to be property of her husband.  The definition of the clause has not changed in hundreds of years, so no one gets to arbitrarily change it to some sexual reference.  It has nothing to do with sex. 

 

So, once again, your wife didn't break any "vow". 

 

 

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

Oh here we go. Lack of sex is a legal justification for divorce in most places, yet sex isn't presumed to be part of marriage...

Sex is presumed. 

 

The frequency of sex and/or kind of sex is not...

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

To have and to hold, as I've explained before, is called the Habendum clause.  It was/is used when conveying property.  And yes, the wife was considered to be property of her husband.  The definition of the clause has not changed in hundreds of years, so no one gets to arbitrarily change it to some sexual reference.  It has nothing to do with sex. 

 

So, once again, your wife didn't break any "vow". 

 

 

Until the idea of body autonomy came along, I could do ANYTHING I WANTED with my property.  

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

Until the idea of body autonomy came along, I could do ANYTHING I WANTED with my property.  

However, your wife is not your property. 

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

However, your wife is not your property. 

You just said that, historically, she would have been my property.  This Christian phrase is much like the Jewish wedding contract that REQUIRES the spouse to put out on demand.  

 

We need to modernize because of body autonomy.  May I suggest that the vows should be a right of first refusal.  If the spouse refuses to supply a service, the other is free to receive their devices from the supplier of their choosing.   

 

Of course, there is masturbation, but that is a big job and I don't want to do that all by myself.  

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

Sex is presumed. 

 

The frequency of sex and/or kind of sex is not...

So when one partner says 'never', that'll be them unilaterally breaking the presumption then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Philip027 as aspies, we are factually atypical.

 

 

Neither you nor I would get anything out of people doing something for us just to appease. It’s insulting to us. If they don’t find something interesting, then they shouldn’t do it. 

 

 

But out brain is atypical. Most people do like the gesture. Most kids are upset if their parents don’t show up for their play/game. 

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

You just said that, historically, she would have been my property.  This Christian phrase is much like the Jewish wedding contract that REQUIRES the spouse to put out on demand.  

First of all, the habendum clause is not a "Christian" phrase.  It's a legal phrase.  The Jewish wedding contract REQUIRES that the HUSBAND "put out".  There is no such provision made for the wife to do so. 

 

Also, the Jewish husband is forbidden to have sex with her if he knows she won't enjoy it.  Jewish law also sees that sex to "excess" can have an adverse effect on the marriage.  Kind of like, the more you have it, the more you want it, and requires men to 'curb their appetite', so to speak.  A husband is not to marry for lust.  Sex has a purpose and the main purpose is for procreation. 

 

Quote

Of course, there is masturbation, but that is a big job and I don't want to do that all by myself.  

Not wanting to do that all by yourself does not entitle you to assign the task of your sexual relief to your wife...or anyone else, for that matter. 

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

Which is WHY I've chosen to remain unmarried!  :D

I do not care if asexuals get married or not, but I believe it is at best dishonest for an asexual to fake liking sex until they get married or reproduce, locking their partner in.  I know in the case of my asexual wife that deception is going to have a fucking huge payout.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

“fuck marriage”

 

redundant for 99% of people. 

 

Undesired outcome for the asexual. 

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

I do not care if asexuals get married or not, but I believe it is at best dishonest for an asexual to fake liking sex until they get married or reproduce, locking their partner in.  I know in the case of my asexual wife that deception is going to have a fucking huge payout.  

If you're getting your sexual needs met elsewhere, then what are you complaining about? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...