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

[IronHamster]

My holyfuckometer is pegged on this. It seems that the idea of can sex cause death means that preexisting conditions causing death are irrelevant.  Thus, if a child is playing with crayons and a gas line in the house ruptures causing an unsurvivable explosion plus conflagration she can say you can burn to death coloring with crayons.  

 

Drops mic.

[Philip027]

Quote

Ficto, I am not looking for an argument nor to offend any person.  

What you’ve written above is not dying from sex. This is dying from an ovarian cyst bursting during sex. They can of course burst at other times. It is the bursting of the cyst that causes the medical issue.  

See my above post.

 

If sex caused the bursting, then guess what, sex is responsible for death.

If a car accident caused the staggering blood loss that led to death, then guess what?  They died because of a fucking car accident.

 

This is really not that difficult.

 

Quote

My holyfuckometer is pegged on this. It seems that the idea of can sex cause death means that preexisting conditions causing death are irrelevant.  Thus, if a child is playing with crayons and a gas line in the house ruptures causing an unsurvivable explosion plus conflagration she can say you can burn to death coloring with crayons.  

 

Drops mic.

It must be nice to feel like you're that clever and remain blissfully unaware to the fact that pretty much no one else thinks so.

[Chimeric]

2 hours ago, Chimeric said:

sexual assault and rape not included; @James121 has made it clear he meant in the context of a consensual relationship

So... I feel the need to expand on this a little bit, because with some reflection it occurs to me that this may have been a really insensitive assumption for me to have made. I had been approaching it from the angle of "compromise" sex - as in, sex a partner will agree to having, whether or not they really want to - which I hadn't technically been qualifying under the header of "rape," it being consensual and all. 

 

But it kind of is, isn't it? Not legally, because consent has been given, but all of the other implications remain - that person is trapped (emotionally, if not physically), they're being made to have sex they don't really want to be having. What's more, their sexual partner is ostensibly doing this in an effort to communicate love and intimacy - the problem is it's happening in a language that the asexual partner patently does not speak.

 

I'm not asexual, so my "compromise" sex was a nuisance, at best (though the physical aches and pains of unaroused sex are still very real), and that was the lens I was viewing this through. The adamant response to James' original statements took me a little bit by surprise.

 

Before I start rambling, I just wanted to throw that out there. I feel like I'm "sexplaining" the ace viewpoint to the aces () - but I am here to learn, so please forgive me if I've trod on toes, and correct or guide me if I'm understanding things wrong.

[IronHamster]

3 hours ago, Philip027 said:

It must be nice to feel like you're that clever and remain blissfully unaware to the fact that pretty much no one else thinks so.

Some people come here because it was the only fucking place on earth that their bat shit crazy ideas have acceptance.   Hey, go ahead and believe what you want.  Be honest.  It gives me some solace to know there are asexuals that are actually honest.   

[James121]

6 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

 

C'mmon James, even if you and I were buddies on here I couldn't stand by this one. That's like saying when someone dies from being shot, it's the bleeding and damage to their organs that killed them, not the bullet. Stop stretching.

 

But to get back to the original point you were making, the answer is 'yes', it's very probable that people have died from consenting but unwanted sex, even if it's rare (see my previous comment for a more detailed explanation of this).

 

Well, unless you insist on saying that people also cannot die from being shot. If you're going to take this argument that far then I just don't know what else there is to say on the matter.

 

 

Ficto that is not the same at all. Not even near. The cyst is the issue that causes death not the sex.

If that same person avoids sex completely are you telling me that the cyst can never ever burst by say, being involved in a car crash? And if that car crash was at 25mph and would cause most people to have no injury whatsoever but this person died because the cyst ruptured, you would say they died in a car crash? Come on Ficto. 

Only you and a few others would describe that death as being involved in a car crash. Everyone else in the world would say that they had a minor crash that unfortunately caused a cyst to rupture.

In exactly the same way, if they died during sex, people (including medical professionals) would say they died because of a cyst that ruptured during intercourse. It wouldn’t be described as dying from sex. It’s called a pre existing medical issue. 

 

Now to get to your second point, I accept that. In which case perhaps we ought to go back to the start of the thread where people were rubbishing the idea that you can die from not having sex because using the exact same logic of psychological issues leading to the death, rejected people can suffer in an identical way. No one on here will accept that though because it doesn’t fit in.

 

Of course people can die from being shot. But the bullet wasn’t already inside them before they were shot was it? Unlike the cyst! Are you suggesting that if someone was shot in a position that they wouldn’t likely die but then they had sex which ruptured the already existing injury further and they bled out, sex has caused death? That’s no way accurate and simply ridiculous.

 

And Ficto, you are telling me we are not buddies? 😢

[Sally]

4 hours ago, Chimeric said:

But it kind of is, isn't it? Not legally, because consent has been given, but all of the other implications remain - that person is trapped (emotionally, if not physically), they're being made to have sex they don't really want to be having. What's more, their sexual partner is ostensibly doing this in an effort to communicate love and intimacy - the problem is it's happening in a language that the asexual partner patently does not speak.

 

No no no no no.  It isn't.  No one's"trapped", no one's "being made to have sex".    Geezus, stop it.   

[James121]

5 hours ago, Chimeric said:

So... I feel the need to expand on this a little bit, because with some reflection it occurs to me that this may have been a really insensitive assumption for me to have made. I had been approaching it from the angle of "compromise" sex - as in, sex a partner will agree to having, whether or not they really want to - which I hadn't technically been qualifying under the header of "rape," it being consensual and all. 

 

But it kind of is, isn't it? Not legally, because consent has been given, but all of the other implications remain - that person is trapped (emotionally, if not physically), they're being made to have sex they don't really want to be having. What's more, their sexual partner is ostensibly doing this in an effort to communicate love and intimacy - the problem is it's happening in a language that the asexual partner patently does not speak.

 

I'm not asexual, so my "compromise" sex was a nuisance, at best (though the physical aches and pains of unaroused sex are still very real), and that was the lens I was viewing this through. The adamant response to James' original statements took me a little bit by surprise.

 

Before I start rambling, I just wanted to throw that out there. I feel like I'm "sexplaining" the ace viewpoint to the aces () - but I am here to learn, so please forgive me if I've trod on toes, and correct or guide me if I'm understanding things wrong.

Compromised sex is not the same as rape  because it involves consenting parties. It would be just as fair to call a person who is made to go without sex by their spouse, a victim of false imprisonment as it would to call compromised sex, rape.

 

The big issue with compromised sex though is that the person having the sex with the partner who ‘compromised’, will often feel as though or be made to feel as though they are raping their partner or that they are doing something horrifically wrong.

[Philip027]

Quote

If that same person avoids sex completely are you telling me that the cyst can never ever burst by say, being involved in a car crash? And if that car crash was at 25mph and would cause most people to have no injury whatsoever but this person died because the cyst ruptured, you would say they died in a car crash?

Yes, that's exactly what it means.  Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

[James121]

Just now, Philip027 said:

Yes, that's exactly what it means.  Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Because it’s rubbish.

[Philip027]

I'm pretty sure your personal opinion on the matter doesn't change the fact of what is.

[IronHamster]

My holyfuckometer is pegged on this. It seems that the idea of can sex cause death means that preexisting conditions causing death are irrelevant.  Thus, if a child is playing with crayons and a gas line in the house ruptures causing an unsurvivable explosion plus conflagration she can say you can burn to death coloring with crayons.  

 

Drops mic.  Again.  

[Philip027]

Quote

Drops mic.  Again.

Your analogy wasn't clever, appropriate, or insightful 7 hours ago.  What makes you think it's any different now?

[James121]

1 minute ago, Philip027 said:

I'm pretty sure your personal opinion on the matter doesn't change the fact of what is.

An ovarian cyst that is ruptured during sex does not mean that sex kills. It means ovarian cysts can kill when ruptured.

 It’s a nice try but it’s nothing more than an attempt to scapegoat sex as a cause of death. Your personal opinion doesn’t change that fact at all.

 

If I knowingly have sex with someone who has an ovarian cyst and they die, could I be tried for murder or man slaughter? Nope! 

Why? Because the coroner would determine that the pre existing medical condition was the cause of death and not sex.

 

Nice try P (although still a poor effort).

[Philip027]

Quote

An ovarian cyst that is ruptured during sex does not mean that sex kills.

"Someone losing all their blood in a car accident does not mean that car accidents kill."

 

This is how ridiculous your argument sounds.  If you still don't get it by now, then I don't know how to help you.

[James121]

4 minutes ago, IronHamster said:

My holyfuckometer is pegged on this. It seems that the idea of can sex cause death means that preexisting conditions causing death are irrelevant.  Thus, if a child is playing with crayons and a gas line in the house ruptures causing an unsurvivable explosion plus conflagration she can say you can burn to death coloring with crayons.  

 

Drops mic.  Again.  

No it doesn’t work that way. It only works when you are trying to scapegoat sex as a cause of death. 

[James121]

Just now, Philip027 said:

"Someone losing all their blood in a car accident does not mean that car accidents kill."

 

This is how ridiculous your argument sounds.  If you still don't get it by now, then I don't know how to help you.

And I am the same with you P. The point has gone straight over your head but I’ll just have to accept that you aren’t capable grasping it.

[Homer]

1 minute ago, Philip027 said:

"Someone losing all their blood in a car accident does not mean that car accidents kill."

 

This is how ridiculous your argument sounds.  If you still don't get it by now, then I don't know how to help you.

In that case, "losing all your blood" had been caused by the car crash. It is a direct result of said crash. How is this even remotely similar to a pre-existing condition?

[Philip027]

Quote

If I knowingly have sex with someone who has an ovarian cyst and they die, could I be tried for murder or man slaughter? Nope! 

Why? Because the coroner would determine that the pre existing medical condition was the cause of death and not sex.

Oh, and another thing?

 

If you knowingly take part in something that can result in the death of another human being, and your only concern is whether or not the law can try you for murder, you're still kind of a douchebag regardless of the answer to that question.

 

Quote

In that case, "losing all your blood" had been caused by the car crash. It is a direct result of said crash. How is this even remotely similar to a pre-existing condition?

And in this case, the bursting of the cyst is caused by the car crash.  It is a direct result of said crash.  How is this NOT comparable?

 

What's being insinuated here is that frail people or people with medical conditions cannot possibly die from car accidents, because it'll always be their physical condition that's somehow to blame, not the crash.  That's obviously bogus and I'm sure you know that.

[James121]

Just now, Homer said:

In that case, "losing all your blood" had been caused by the car crash. It is a direct result of said crash. How is this even remotely similar to a pre-existing condition?

Your argument will be in vain Homer just like mine. We need to find a way to scapegoat sex as a cause of death here. 

My friend has a severe heart condition and he has been told he must never cause his heart rate to spike or he faces a likely heart attack. If he chooses to have really rigorous sex and ends up dying these people will blame sex as the cause of death. It’s a child like mindset even though if he runs up the road to the shop it would likely have the same result. 

If my friend were to die as a result of running up the shop I could understand my 4 year old daughter thinking that running to the shop kills you but most adults see beyond it. Most adults!

[James121]

19 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Oh, and another thing?

 

If you knowingly take part in something that can result in the death of another human being, and your only concern is whether or not the law can try you for murder, you're still kind of a douchebag regardless of the answer to that question.

 

And in this case, the bursting of the cyst is caused by the car crash.  It is a direct result of said crash.  How is this NOT comparable?

 

What's being insinuated here is that frail people or people with medical conditions cannot possibly die from car accidents, because it'll always be their physical condition that's somehow to blame, not the crash.  That's obviously bogus and I'm sure you know that.

I agree P. Definitely a douchebag as you put it but doesn’t change the facts I laid out. That’s just a statement that you make that bares no relevance to the question at hand. 

 

As for the car crash, let’s change the example then. 

10 million people go down the fastest water slide in the world. 9,999,999 loved it and walked away as well as they got on it.

 One person dies because they had a pre existing medical condition. An ovarian cyst, that ruptured when they hit the water at the bottom.

The water slide should be shut because it kills then? Ha this is a laughable argument. Lol

 

 

 

 

[Philip027]

If he didn't exert himself he wouldn't have died.  How can you still pretend that physical exertion had nothing to do with the guy dying in this hypothetical scenario, regardless of how he chooses to go about exerting himself?

 

You think because some dumb kid runs out into the street and gets his ass hit by a car, the cause of injury was "stupidity" and not "being hit by a car"?  Why can't it be both?

 

Quote

I agree P. Definitely a douchebag as you put it but doesn’t change the facts I laid out. That’s just a statement that you make that bares no relevance to the question at hand. 

Oh, I disagree with that.  You seem to be under the impression that things are always A-OK to do as long as you can't get in trouble with the law over it.

 

The fact that you might not be able to be tried in such a scenario (I honestly wouldn't know if that's true, I'm not going to pretend like I know the laws) does not change to the fact that in my eyes, in that situation, you willingly took part in something that you knew could kill a person and succeeded, and as far as I'm concerned you still committed the textbook definition of manslaughter at the very least, regardless of the opinions of the courts.

 

The law not being able to pin such an act on you does not mean the act didn't happen.

 

Quote

 

As for the car crash, let’s change the example then. 

10 million people go down athe fastest water slide in the world. 9,999,999 loved it and walked away as well as they got on it.

 One person dies because they had a pre existing medical condition. An ovarian cyst, that ruptured when they hit the water at the bottom.

The water slide should be shut because it kills then? Ha this is a laughable argument. Lol

 

You're right, it is a laughable argument, nor is it the sort of thing I ever said I would support.  Cars kill people all the damn time, but do you see me saying cars should be outlawed?

 

Usually there's waivers of responsibility involved, which more or less state "we are not responsible for anything untoward that happens to you if your dumb ass partakes of our services when you really shouldn't be".  This is why water parks and other such places of amusement where physical injury is a potential risk have to stick up all sorts of rules, warning signs, etc.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that in that one case, yes, the water slide killed that person.  If they hadn't gone on the slide, they wouldn't have died.  It's a pretty simple conclusion.  But sometimes, shit happens, just like car accidents.  These things aren't 100% safe.  That's why all the rules and regulations are there.

 

It certainly isn't comparable to someone willfully partaking in an act that can kill another human being, anyway.

[IronHamster]

37 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Your analogy wasn't clever, appropriate, or insightful 7 hours ago.  What makes you think it's any different now?

I never said it was different.  It was quite obviously verbatim.  Perhaps you missed that.  

 

I am not going to explain further, as the moderators like to pick on me, but, my point would be obvious to any reader that did not have his head up his ass without a flashlight.  

[James121]

1 minute ago, Philip027 said:

If he didn't exert himself he wouldn't have died.  How can you still pretend that physical exertion had nothing to do with the guy dying in this hypothetical scenario, regardless of how he chooses to go about exerting himself?

 

You think because some dumb kid runs out into the street and gets his ass hit by a car, the cause of injury was "stupidity" and not "being hit by a car"?  Why can't it be both?

 

Oh, I disagree with that.  You seem to be under the impression that things are always A-OK to do as long as you can't get in trouble with the law over it.

 

The fact that you might not be able to be tried in such a scenario (I honestly wouldn't know if that's true, I'm not going to pretend like I know the laws) does not change to the fact that in my eyes, in that situation, you willingly took part in something that you knew could kill a person and succeeded, and as far as I'm concerned you still committed the textbook definition of manslaughter at the very least, regardless of the opinions of the courts.

 

The law not being able to pin such an act on you does not mean the act didn't happen.

P, I haven’t said anything about being willing to have sex with someone when there is a risk of them dying as a result of the act. Not at all. I have also said nothing about be ok with doing things just because I can get away with by the law of the land. Another attempt to get me to bite and breach aven TOS?  

 

So....let’s go back to the ovarian cyst causing death during sex then (round and round we go). A person with an ovarian cyst willingly  participates in sexual intercourse. They do this knowing that this could cause problems and maybe even death if the cyst is ruptured. Must be suicide then by your logic then because sex kills when it ruptures a cyst and they did this knowingly.

 

I’m not saying that the running to the shop hasn’t contributed to the situation in this hypothetical scenario, I’m saying that running to the shop doesn’t kill you UNLESS you have a significant pre existing medical condition that causes it. 

 

Honestly, if you had a friend who died in the same way, would you be satisfied if the corner’s report read that your friend died as a result of that crazy old well known killer ‘running to the shop’. 

[Homer]

37 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

And in this case, the bursting of the cyst is caused by the car crash.  It is a direct result of said crash.  How is this NOT comparable?

It's not because there's a difference between cause (the cyst) and trigger (crash). In our case, the cyst is the root cause of this person dying.

 

16 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

I'm not going to pretend like I know the laws) does not change to the fact that in my eyes, in that situation, you willingly took part in something that you knew could kill a person and succeeded, and as far as I'm concerned you still committed the textbook definition of manslaughter at the very least, regardless of the opinions of the courts.

What if the other person agreed / gave their consent to having sex?

[James121]

1 minute ago, Homer said:

It's not because there's a difference between cause (the cyst) and trigger (crash). In our case, the cyst is the root cause of this person dying.

 

What if the other person agreed / gave their consent to having sex?

Boom!!! That’s the exact thing I was trying to explain. I thought I did an ok job and most would understand. I think most did.

 

Cause of death vs trigger of cause.

 

Thank you Homer!

[James121]

4 minutes ago, Homer said:

What if the other person agreed / gave their consent to having sex?

By the reckoning of P’s line of thinking it must be suicide! 

[Homer]

How is any of this related to the original question of this thread?

[James121]

24 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

You think because some dumb kid runs out into the street and gets his ass hit by a car, the cause of injury was "stupidity" and not "being hit by a car"?  Why can't it be both?

P, can you also not refer to kids as dumb. Sure they have underdeveloped brains and their frontal lobes aren’t capable of recognising the same dangers and consequences as an adult but it doesn’t make them dumb.

Am I right in thinking you don’t like kids? 

[James121]

2 minutes ago, Homer said:

How is any of this related to the original question of this thread?

It’s not. But very early on in the thread we had the classic old ‘not having sex doesn’t kill you’ argument being raised. It’s often raised as a means of removing any responsibility from the refusing spouse and their contribution to what will end up being a dysfunctional relationship. It’s a way of absolving ones self of any blame. 

The second that this is countered with an argument of ‘having sex when you didn’t want to doesn’t kill either’ all hell breaks loose.

One person states that the glass is half full, the other states the glass must therefore be half empty and world war 3 breaks out because they must be wrong.

[Philip027]

Quote

P, I haven’t said anything about being willing to have sex with someone when there is a risk of them dying as a result of the act. Not at all. I have also said nothing about be ok with doing things just because I can get away with by the law of the land. Another attempt to get me to bite and breach aven TOS?  

Uhh, yeah you did.

If I knowingly have sex with someone who has an ovarian cyst and they die, could I be tried for murder or man slaughter? Nope! 

 

You know (based on this very discussion) that it can kill someone, so your inferred reasoning here is that it isn't murder/manslaughter so long as the courts can't pin it on you.

 

Quote

So....let’s go back to the ovarian cyst causing death during sex then (round and round we go). A person with an ovarian cyst willingly  participates in sexual intercourse. They do this knowing that this could cause problems and maybe even death if the cyst is ruptured. Must be suicide then by your logic then because sex kills when it ruptures a cyst and they did this knowingly.

Correct.  That's a pretty shitty way to go about suicide though.  It's similar to throwing yourself under a moving car, leaving the driver to feel for the rest of their life like they killed someone.  But, I guess (speaking as someone who's been there before) by the time you're considering suicide, you probably aren't caring as much about the consequences of your actions on others.

 

Quote

I’m not saying that the running to the shop hasn’t contributed to the situation in this hypothetical scenario, I’m saying that running to the shop doesn’t kill you UNLESS you have a significant pre existing medical condition that causes it. 

Well yeah.  I'm not saying running to the shop was the ONLY reason the guy died either.  But it's still a cause of death.

 

Quote

Honestly, if you had a friend who died in the same way, would you be satisfied if the corner’s report read that your friend died as a result of that crazy old well known killer ‘running to the shop’. 

I'd say he was a fucking dumbass for not following his doctor's advice.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Doesn't matter at all to me what the report would say.

 

Quote

It's not because there's a difference between cause (the cyst) and trigger (crash). In our case, the cyst is the root cause of this person dying.

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.

 

Quote

What if the other person agreed / gave their consent to having sex?

That's pretty irrelevant if YOU know that it could kill the person.  If someone hands you a gun and says to shoot them, are you saying you'd oblige the request without a second thought?

 

But hey, assuming something like this happened, there are a couple of possible scenarios at play:

 

1) The person knows and doesn't care about the risk (or actually wants to die)

In which case, if your first thought is "hell yeah, sex!" and not getting the person some professional help, you're pretty messed up in the head yourself.  (I'd also still call it willfully killing if you ended up causing that person to die, even if the courts do not.)

 

2) The person doesn't know that something like this could kill them.

In which case, if you DO know, and you don't do/say anything about it, then yeah, it's still basically going along with killing as far as I'm concerned.

 

So, actually, not really much of a difference.

 

Quote

P, can you also not refer to kids as dumb. Sure they have underdeveloped brains and their frontal lobes aren’t capable of recognising the same dangers and consequences as an adult but it doesn’t make them dumb.

Am I right in thinking you don’t like kids?

The world has some dumb kids.  That's just fact.  To suggest otherwise is just being unrealistically idealistic, and I am more of a (unrepentant) realist than an idealist.
 

If it makes you feel any better, there is no shortage of dumb adults, either.