Never say no to sex? yes or no (self.RedPillWomen)

{RedPillWomen}

22 ups - 14 downs = 8 votes

ok, i know MMSL does NOT advocate that wives never say no, but to me withholding sex from your husband is like withholding food from him. i wouldnt stop feeding him because we had a fight or were having problems. what do other women think?

60 comments submitted at 13:49:52 on Jul 4, 2013 by danabanana9

  • [-]
  • veggie_girl
  • 1 Points
  • 05:58:43, 6 July

If you get married, you are essentially signing away your sexual consent in exchange for ?financial? and emotional security relationship stability. If neither party is ready to give up their autonomy then they shouldn't get married because breaking those technically voids the marriage contract. Saying no to a husband simply isn't an option unless you are physically incapable of sex (which might be the case after an argument, you're sick, or whatever). With a boyfriend all bets are off, you didn't say any vows, do what you want. (The only thing implied with most BF/GF relationships is monogamy) But also do what you have to do to keep him around if you like him...

Remember when "honey I have a headache" used to be something people joked about? That was back when the marriage commitment was taken more seriously and that was only ~10 years ago. Nowadays you don't even need an excuse to turn down your husband (or for him to turn you down), and it's disgusting that this has become acceptable in society after people have made marriage vows stating the opposite.

This is related to "spousal rape" and I debated this with someone in long-form and eventually won the debate, here:

The debate starts here (read my replies and the long ensuing chain where I eventually won): http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1ff012/primeexampleofpostmoderndiscourseandits/ca9tbuq

The meat of it starts here (if you don't have time to read a mountain of text skip to this): http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1ff012/primeexampleofpostmoderndiscourseandits/ca9yzq0

Quoting my [Summary here]:

>Spousal rape does not exist unless you are in a country where marriage does not imply sexual consent. Even in the U.S. prior to 1975 a marriage contract implied sexual consent. If a woman is to say "No sex tonight" to her husband, she was breaking the marriage contract, therefore the marriage was then void. At present, marriage contracts in Western Countries are completely vague and the terms are unclear. The contract does not imply consent, it doesn't really mean anything anymore other than shared tax returns and medical benefits. Therefore, spousal rape does exist in the U.S. because the original definition of marriage was changed from 1975 onwards. But, there are other countries in which the marriage contract does imply consent and therefore spousal rape there is not possible.

>E.G.: There are contracts between dominant/subs that are written much better than ambiguous marriage agreements. Here's an example: http://twitchy.faithweb.com/darkness/bdsm/contract.html

>The question is not whether or not spousal rape exists. The question is whether or not it is lawful to allow someone to sign a contract a that makes them permanently sexually available to another individual/group. By definition marriage assumes that the husband/wife agrees to make their body available to the husband/wife at all times without question, however again, that has changed in the U.S. and the terms are very much ambiguous unless specifically written out in addition to the default marriage agreement.

Something I should probably note is that the actual defintion of marriage did not change in the U.S.A in 1975. What changed was the courts interpretation of the marriage contract. It set a precedent for all future cases of spousal rape charges to be taken seriously in court despite the fact that the marriage contract still signs away autonomy to your mate. That's why marriage in the U.S. is very ambiguous. The court does not respect the marriage contract and it can pretty say whatever it wants about it at any time.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 7 Points
  • 13:06:00, 6 July

the loss of a mans ability to chastise his wife or demand sex, coupled with presumptive maternal custody effectively ended marriage irrespective of divorce laws. we can now see that historically the only thing that ever kept women in marriage were these rules, without them women abandon marriage at the drop of a hat, and dont be fooled, they have always divorced more often than men.

i will go a step farther than you to the delight of feminists far and wide, not only is there no such thing as spousal rape, there is no longer such a thing as RAPE at all as a separate legal category. all rapes are just assault and battery no more or less than a man being jumped and grounded and pounded

"rape" existed as a separate category when a female and her chastity had value to either her father for the marriage market or her husband for reassurance of paternity. it was basically the despoiling of another man's property. the reason we have so much trouble defining it today is specifically because there is no reason to define rape as separate from battery. why does it matter that it is a "sexual" battery"? how is it any different than being beaten to a pulp? how is it possible that a woman who has given access to her vagina to 50 (probably strange) men voluntarily (lol, sorry manosphere, but when i read the reports of modern womens numbers being below 50, especially if shes been to college, i have to laugh, trust me, every woman is lying to you) is suddenly traumatized like a virgin taken by cossacks by numer 51?

ill tell you how

here is what rape is today: being compelled by either guilt, pressure or force to have sex with a man a woman ISNT ATTRACTED TO. that's it

  • [-]
  • mynameisbatty
  • 14 Points
  • 14:03:23, 9 July

I'm wondering what must have happened to you to make you such an awful human being.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • -1 Points
  • 14:06:58, 9 July

i experienced the pleasure of coming to know women for what they really are

  • [-]
  • mynameisbatty
  • 5 Points
  • 14:09:15, 9 July

Hahahahaha.

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 0 Points
  • 14:19:24, 9 July

see, now you want to have sex with me--game works

  • [-]
  • veggie_girl
  • 2 Points
  • 17:13:17, 9 July

Hey. NAWALT (nearly all women are like that) but it also means some aren't.

Those of us who are incredulous bitches are probably naturally like that. But I think there is a good chunk of women who have just been beaten and battered by feminism. These same women that would rather just have a nice man take care of them aren't capable of finding one that they are attracted to because feminism has destroyed marriage and encouraged all of the alphas to form polygamous harems.

Feminism is fucking women in the ass with a cactus, and most of us don't even realize it.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 01:11:59, 30 October

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 1 Points
  • 01:34:32, 30 October

I know you are but what am i

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 11:52:55, 30 October

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • 0 Points
  • 14:04:35, 30 October

gay

  • [-]
  • msvanillarose
  • 3 Points
  • 14:20:26, 9 July

> "the loss of a mans ability to chastise his wife or demand sex, coupled with presumptive maternal custody effectively ended marriage irrespective of divorce laws."

"how is it possible that a woman who has given access to her vagina to 50 (probably strange) men voluntarily (lol, sorry manosphere, but when i read the reports of modern womens numbers being below 50, especially if shes been to college, i have to laugh, trust me, every woman is lying to you) is suddenly traumatized like a virgin taken by cossacks by numer 51?

So, you think it's fine for husbands to hit their wives (though not vice versa). And you're cool with women being raped.

Are a troll, laughing because people agree with your ridiculous and offensive comments? Are you even female?

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • -1 Points
  • 14:23:55, 9 July

again with offensvie

  • [-]
  • TempestTcup
  • 1 Points
  • 14:49:53, 9 July

Troll. Banned.

  • [-]
  • TempestTcup
  • 2 Points
  • 14:58:20, 9 July

msbitchface I mean.

  • [-]
  • hateCaptchas
  • 2 Points
  • 04:55:58, 11 July

> "rape" existed as a separate category when a female and her chastity had value to either her father for the marriage market or her husband for reassurance of paternity. it was basically the despoiling of another man's property. the reason we have so much trouble defining it today is specifically because there is no reason to define rape as separate from battery.

There is a difference between rape/sexual assault and battery.

Plain old vanilla assault (not sexually motivated) is reasonably hard to prove unless there are witnesses or, even better, someone recording it on a phone. Battery, however, constitutes intentionally harming by non-consentual touching. This tends to be quite a bit easier to prove if there are physical results from the battery (a black eye) or, again, witnesses/video. Rape, on the other hand, does not necessarily leave enough evidence about the intent of the person doing the touching nor the person who was touched. If the rapee has the presence of mind to go directly to a hospital and get a kit done, then, unless there were other injuries, they can find evidence of sexual activity (and even with whom) but not necessarily intention from either party.

>why does it matter that it is a "sexual" battery"? how is it any different than being beaten to a pulp? how is it possible that a woman who has given access to her vagina to 50 (probably strange) men voluntarily (lol, sorry manosphere, but when i read the reports of modern womens numbers being below 50, especially if shes been to college, i have to laugh, trust me, every woman is lying to you) is suddenly traumatized like a virgin taken by cossacks by numer 51?

Again, not all rapes involve being beated to a pulp. In my case, a weapon was used to ensure I wouldn't struggle. I had a very legitimate reason to be in abject fear for my life. But that 'fear' didn't leave any lasting marks.

>here is what rape is today: being compelled by either guilt, pressure or force to have sex with a man a woman ISNT ATTRACTED TO. that's it

Again, in my case it was a person (EX-bf) that I was breaking up with and had had prior sexual relations with. Attraction wasn't the problem - that he is a socio/psychopath was. I suppose it could be argued that the real crime was something along the lines of conspiracy to commit murder/attemped murder. The sex part is pretty hazy in my memory, to be honest, but the stark realization that I was totally isolated (ie. in the middle of nowhere and this was before cell phones), with a socio/psychopath who gleeful described how he'd butcher me, knowing that I couldn't stop him or out run him, and knowing that whoever found me wouldn't be able to easily recognize me, was pretty profoundly terrifying.

Maybe you wouldn't define that as rape... but it seems like it should be 'something.'

  • [-]
  • danabanana9
  • -4 Points
  • 14:21:36, 11 July

>There is a difference between rape/sexual assault and battery.

if you actually read what i wrote i was SPECIFICALLY saying, NO, there isnt a difference. NO, the crime of rape was never about the physical assault and battery (which already existed as categories of crime) but was about the destruction of a females value to the man who owned that value. you responded to my argument by simply repeating the fundamental 1st premises i specifically set out to refute as if they were arguments against what i was saying

ill try to ask anyone on earth AGAIN--what makes a sexual battery so unique from any other battery that it continues to require a SEPARATE WHOLE CATEGORY OF CRIME?

without the details of what your ex did to you (which i take with a grain of salt, like all female accounts of reality) there are already several crimes in the situation without there needing to be a specific separate crime of "rape", like false imprisonment, terroristic threats, assault etc unless there was more than one person involved its not a conspiracy.

even if there continued to be a separate crime of rape i would bar rape claims where a woman had previosly had consensual intercourse with the man and voluntarily went alone with that man

you know its funny, i used to think chaperones existed to protect women from sexually rapacious men, now i see clearly it was always to protect men from the claims of women

  • [-]
  • hateCaptchas
  • 10 Points
  • 16:09:04, 11 July

>if you actually read what i wrote i was SPECIFICALLY saying,

I did read what you wrote. I disagree with you.

Rape as as a specific crime dates back to Greek times where women were punished for being too promiscuous. Rape was a way to distinguish between someone who was offering herself to the public (prostitution - who could not be raped) and someone who was otherwise chaste (according to Greek standards). That's why Zeus was often used as a perpetrator of rape - the woman didn't want her reputation tarnished. Greeks considered women citizens (and only they could be raped) while slaves were considered property.

Another reason was because there were a lot of invasions and the maurading army often availed themselves of the women they could catch sexually. Furthermore it also applied to men/boys who were sexually used by different armies.

>ill try to ask anyone on earth AGAIN--what makes a sexual battery so unique from any other battery that it continues to require a SEPARATE WHOLE CATEGORY OF CRIME?

Again, I'll state that it is a bit less obvious to prove. If someone comes in bloodied and bruised and complaining of battery then the evidence is pretty easily to capture. To use your example, someone who's been jumped, grounded, and pounded likely has at least some bruises/abrasions. Someone coming in and saying s/he was sexually assaulted can, at best, be tested for sexual activity but nothing regarding intent of either party.

>without the details of what your ex did to you (which i take with a grain of salt, like all female accounts of reality) there are already several crimes in the situation without there needing to be a specific separate crime of "rape", like false imprisonment, terroristic threats, assault etc unless there was more than one person involved its not a conspiracy.

shrugs The exact details are not something I wish to share and I'm not here to explain my life to you or gain your stamp of approval. And, yes, there were a lot of other crimes committed.

>even if there continued to be a separate crime of rape i would bar rape claims where a woman had previosly had consensual intercourse with the man and voluntarily went alone with that man

~~This is simply absurd and not well thought out. Are you seriously suggesting that 20+ years later if I get in someone's car who I'd had sex with, he is entitled to nonconsenual sexual relations with me? If not, what do you want to call it?~~

As for voluntarily getting in the car with him - that was my big mistake. I've referenced on another thread that there is a difference between men who bluster and bluff (wasted noise), men who warn once or twice (alpha) and then take action. And men who are simply socio/psychopaths - they don't give you warning.

I never reported so the~~'poor~~ guy' never had any repercussions for his actions except permanently being removed from my life. At the time, I did figure that since I'd previously had sex with him it would be kind of silly to go to the cops. That was many many years ago though, and, in retrospect, there's simply no way to spin the situation to make it "fit" into a theory that I deserved any of it.

Also, that one incident didn't stop me from going on and living a normal life and getting into a good relationship so it's not that I sit around dwelling on it and living in fear that it could happen again.

>you know its funny, i used to think chaperones existed to protect women from sexually rapacious men, now i see clearly it was always to protect men from the claims of women

I don't think it's protecting women from rapacious men - I think it's to protect both people from doing something unwise - and I'm talking about elopement not so much sex. Also being one generation from a culture which partakes in chaparonage, part of the intent (in that culture) is for the family(ies) to also get to know the suitor/pursued since the elders tend to have opinions about who they'd like to see their child with.

Edited to stop being absurd in my replies. I left the original text there but later decided I was being a bit of a nut.

  • [-]
  • veggie_girl
  • 3 Points
  • 17:50:37, 6 July

Yes I would agree with that. Rape has no meaning nor definition today. The term itself has been "raped" into ambiguity, just as marriage has. But even sexual assault is losing its meaning as women are claiming it for things as benign as shoulder touching.