So, um. Got tired of lurking. Because sex is supposed to be consensual- aka both parties agree or have no issues with it- otherwise it's grounds for assault. Food is a much less sensitive topic than intercourse. Anyone can shove something they don't like down their throat- the worst that happens is annoyance. (Unless it's an ongoing problem, in which case, food was not the only factor.) Sex is much more sensitive and agreeing without really wanting to (giving in) can be demeaning and can bring unneeded tension. (At least in my opinion- I'm 14.) Like someone else brought up, some just aren't that sexual. EDIT: Ok, obviously I haven't done enough lurking- because I don't see the third page. -_-
I'm in a great place, thanks. But it just goes to show that it's not always as simple as yes or no. Perhaps there is no analogy you can use to explain what you mean/how you feel about sex.
I've read every post (or at least I think I have) so far and I honestly don't think any of us are in disagreement. A man who does not take "no" as "no" is a rapist - this is talking in the absolutes. Where the woman says no, and repeatedly says no, and then the man just ignores that and humps her. Yes, that's rape. But @cutecat22 's talking about persuasion. This is the word that @BayView and @Chinspinner don't seem to have tackled. They have stuck with the statement of "Why is the person who says 'no' always right?" and in general you 3 have started talking about "no" rather than "persuasion". The man who has to persuade his wife to have sex is not a rapist. If persuasion is needed consistently, there might well be other issues in the marriage or another approach to sex is necessary - such a couple should talk it out and resolve their problems, or seek advice, perhaps sex counselling. I do not think a prolonged sexless marriage, where one party wants it and the other consistently doesn't, is particularly healthy (gender in this regard is irrelevant). But the difference is - just because persuasion is needed doesn't mean the man doesn't take "no" for "no." In cutecat's earlier example of the frustrated wife who wipes off her PJs just to get the husband to stop nagging - she started out saying no, but by the end, it wasn't a no, was it? She said "Get on with it" and gets naked herself. In this instance, she said "yes" eventually. It's a reluctant "yes", but it is a "yes" nonetheless. Not rape. If this becomes a repeated pattern, then it is unhealthy as mentioned, but not rape. As a repeated pattern it could cause issues in both parties for their views of sex and how sex should be approached (husband might feel he can't get any unless he nags her - out of helplessness and desperation he nags her. Doesn't make it good or right but you see where he's coming from. Wife feels increasingly more reluctant because it's starting to feel like husband couldn't give a damn about how she feels, making sex even less attractive. Vicious cycle ensues) But rape it is not. The grey area that cutecat was talking about in the above example, I imagine, is when the wife may have eventually said yes, due to being persuaded, without actually realising how much she didn't want it. A grudging "yes" is difficult to clearly analyse. Just because you let it happen, does that mean it isn't rape? For example, think of trafficked victims in the sex industry - they don't fight their clients. They compliantly lies on the bed and even actively participates in the act. The men think they are willing participants - some, I suppose not all, but certainly some of these clients I can imagine would stop - would be horrified - if they knew the woman feels raped after having sex with them. These women feel raped because given the choice they wouldn't be doing this, but they certainly complied and the men were ignorant of their unwillingness. Is it still rape? So: a man who does not take "no" for "no" is a rapist. The man who persuades his wife, who eventually says "yes", is not a rapist. The man who tries to persuade his wife, who still firmly says no, but the man goes ahead and bangs her anyway, is a rapist. The issue isn't whether the man takes "no" in the first instance - I don't think trying to change someone's mind makes it coercion. But if you've changed the person's mind, then the answer is no longer "no". It has become a "yes". The grey area comes from the psychological limits of the person who relented and gave a reluctant "yes". For myself, if I reluctantly had sex with my husband, I would not call it rape, because I complied. He would not have actually forced me. Nagged me, perhaps. Annoyed me, certainly. None of that is actual force, however, and it's not manipulation. What I class as manipulation is when you confuse the person and convince them to comply because you've somehow made them think you're right and they're wrong despite how they still feel. For my husband to say, "You haven't had sex with me for a month. C'mon, that isn't fair!" (he's never said this, nor have we ever gone without for a whole month lol) - but if he did say this, that's not manipulation. That's a statement of fact (haven't had sex for a month) and an expression of how he feels (it's not fair). That's actually just human communication. For me, the knowledge that he would not have gone ahead if I'd stood my ground and said no, and the knowledge that he would stop even midway through if I said I wanted him to - for me, that makes it not rape, even if my "yes" was reluctant. Edited to add: when cutecat said "Why is the person saying 'no' always right?" I do not think she meant there's absolutely any occasion where force/rape is justified. No. But I think she is saying, why is the person deprived of sex always the villain? They have be deprived of something that they should have. If you consistently deprive your spouse of sex when they want it, you render them helpless. They're not allowed to look for it elsewhere - it'd be cheating and they'd be the bad person. But they can't get it from you. For me, it feels a little like bullying and a little nasty for the spouse to therefore consistently refuse without regard for the other person's desires. Anyway, I think this is the issue cutecat was touching on when she asked the question. Everyone's quick to side with the person who said "no" to sex, never thinking of the impact or reasons behind why the other person wanted sex and/or might be desperate enough to persuade - or if the situation gets too extreme - desperate enough to cheat on their spouse. Nothing justifies cheating, but the cheating is a symptom of something unhealthy in the relationship previously and the party who was refusing sex has a share of responsibility in this.
I agree with this. If sex is withheld in some passive-aggressive mind-fuckery, then I personally think cheating is entirely acceptable. Well, leaving is in the first instance, but there are often reasons that can't happen. But then I wouldn't get married in the first place.
Wouldn't get married to such a person - or you would simply never get married? If the latter, why not? (just curious)
Simply wouldn't. I don't see the point, it all seems a bit stupid. Especially those individuals who want marriage so they can be the centre of attention in a pretty dress for the day, but then I wouldn't be with that person at all. Never say never though, if it was very important to someone I loved...
Reverse roles 50 shades? I don´t get it? Is this suppose to be romance or crime story? Btw I absolutely hate 50 shades, and I haven´t even read it. Seems like ignorance but I got the idea from different sources and I need to read anything like that.
No. I think Mckk is right--we seem to be talking past each other, somehow. If someone is persuaded, that means they aren't saying 'no' anymore, so it's not rape. But again, I think if it's consistently happening, it's a sign of a problem in the relationship. Possibly you (and Mckk) are seeing my diagnosis of "it's not a healthy relationship" as some sort of moral condemnation, apparently of the partner wanting sex? I don't think that's the case. An unhealthy relationship means that one or both partners isn't getting what s/he needs from the relationship. In this case, neither partner is getting the sort of sex s/he wants, or at the frequency that s/he wants it. That's a problem for both of them. It's not about being fair, or right or wrong or any of the rest of that, it's just a problem.
Yep. It's a problem that can be sorted out, it can be talked about and sorted or the couple go their separate ways but it's not rape.
Fifty Shades of Grey is another kettle of fish completely. Those characters had a signed contract, they both knew what they were getting into and it has nothing to do with rape.
I think it would be easy to interpret the insistence of "no means no" to mean condemnation of the party wanting sex, but no, I don't think that's what you're saying. I agree with everything you've said and like the way you've put it, that it's simply a problem where neither party is getting what she/he needs/wants from the relationship. Anyway, the way this discussion went shows quite clearly why it's difficult to have these talks - it's easy to come off as misandrist and/or misogynistic because people rarely clarify or expand on what they actually mean. And on some other more heated forums, this could have deteriorated really fast into a flame war because it's such a sensitive topic.
well, not with rape, but abuse. Either way it is just a shitty fanfiction, written in a shitty language and has a shitty plot, but for some reason many people glamourise it because the hype has been good.
It's cus it's controversial - bondage erotica isn't all that mainstream so 50 Shades felt like the first of its kind. I've had a look at what bondage erotica in general looks like - only looked at maybe a handful of books, reading only the first few pages or first chapter. Trust me, 50 Shades in comparison was actually very well-written. The quality of 50 Shades was like your average chick lit really - it's by no means good writing but it wasn't bad. Just mediocre. Seriously, the opening of Divergent was worse.
Not read 50 shades, it just seems like a monumental waste of my time. I have read the opening of Divergent (and gave up on it very soon afterwards). I am honestly amazed that any publisher got past the first chapter, but if they did I am astonished any publisher (or reader) accepted the hideously contrived and unbelievable plot set-up. I mean the whole of society has been divided into Gryffindor, Slytherin, Hufflepuff because something something.
Abuse in your eyes but not the characters. (And millions of readers'. ) As I said, they knew what they were getting into. Bondage? I've dabbled, if you have not, then of course you can have an opinion but cannot speak with any authority. Same goes for the books, if you have not read them, don't force your beliefs and thoughts onto other people. It seems to be the fashionable thing these days to absolutely slate an author's work just going on what other people think, before you've even read it for yourself. IMHO, I think that's wrong.
I must say, I managed to read the entirety of the first book of 50 Shades. There were many moments when I nearly stopped cus the sex scenes were really dull (which is quite a failing when the genre is erotica!) and the author had some strange fetish with feet and long nails. Divergent, however, I couldn't get past the first paragraph! It was so damn dry. And it was trying so hard to be Hunger Games. I can't comment on the story cus I've never read it, nor do I want to, but from that first paragraph and the fact that everyone not a teenager calls the plot stupid, I trust I never will lol.
Oh 50 Shades was totally abuse. I read a blog on 50 things in 50 Shades that are evidence of an abusive relationship, and the writer cited examples from what actually happened in the books. Having read the first book, I know many of the examples really were from the book. It was scary what I read. I'd never defend 50 Shades and say the relationship wasn't abusive - just because the abuser and victim don't see it that way doesn't make it not true. I think people like to hate on 50 Shades simply because it got so popular. The amount of hate something gets seem to be in proportion to the amount of love/popularity it gets. Frozen is another example and it wasn't even bad. 50 Shades was a book about sex and anything that's sex-related is automatically shallow, right? And why should shallow things get praised? Esp when in a medium that is normally reserved for artistic expression? (never mind the millions of bestsellers that can be a far cry from anything actually artistic, or the fact that shallow movies about sex get regular praise and a large audience) Also, I think it's true that 50 Shades is pretty shallow - while it might be good entertainment nonetheless, it's quite true it doesn't deserve the amount of success and praise it's got. There are books aplenty that get ignored that are far better or more insightful. Somehow there's a level of injustice in this that people cannot stomach. Perhaps it's resentment that something else they loved didn't get the same recognition. Perhaps it's resentment because the haters would love the same level of success and haven't had any luck. It is, however, popular to hate on 50 Shades, as well as Twilight. Seems to be a common teenage thing... I think sometimes people just don't want others to think they're stupid for reading or - worse - enjoying such a thing
That's the thing with fashion and trends. I know you can't please all the people all the time but what's wrong with the haters moving on? Personally, I liked the books. Yeah, I can sit here and spend a whole hour picking plot holes and telling you the bits I didn't like but I'm not going to. At the end of the day, it's entertainment. I do think there's a lot of jealousy out there regarding the books and the author, in fact, I would go as far as to say I've never come across so much nastiness and backbiting as I have since I became an author myself. (I've also met some lovely people too but the bad ones are really bad! )
I don't know, disliking crap comes from several places: - A general bandwagon that people jump on to identify as intelligent. A feeling of injustice that a more worthy alternative was not successful. Both of which you mentioned above. But also (and this is certainly true for me):- A creeping fear that crap will take over and quality will become something rare and marginalized that takes significant effort to search out. Combined with a sense that things will default to crap because that is what audiences accept. Everything will gradually settle towards the lowest common denominator, and even those parts of something cheesy or popcorn that I might once have enjoyed will be replaced by nonsensical cliffhangers and gratuitous explosions.
But there's something in these books that is catching people's attention and affection. Something about them that makes them resonate with a lot of people. So if we can figure out what that something is (my personal theory is that it's related to characters, but I haven't actually read 50 Shades OR Twilight), then we can combine that quality with better writing and better whatever else and make books that lots of people want to read. It'll be a literary renaissance! Yay!!!
Like you I am at a slight disadvantage in this discussion having read neither (I tell a lie, I have read snippets of Twiglet).
