quote:Originally posted by Malruhn: Forgive me for discussing sex as a "matter of fact" topic and using the term "servicing".
I completely forgot that every interpersonal physical encounter must involve a total, three-day, near-religiously romantic interlude, ending with another two days of cuddling and after-glow.
[/sarcasm]
I was discussing a topic in a cold, dispassionate tone. Forgive if my dry tone didn't flow through the electrons effectively enough.
and on a previously redirected aside: if I had the opportunity to find another woman with a mother like my wife's... I'd jump at polygamy in a heartbeat... my mother-in-law is a sweety.
"Servicing" is not a cold, dispassionate, clinical term for sex. "Servicing" is a highly loaded word. The implication that sex is something that one partner won't enjoy, but will do anyway purely for the please of the other partner, is what people are objecting to. If you had truly wanted to be clinical and dispassionate actual clinical terms would have been appropriate. However since you were relying on gender stereotypes to make your point I'm sure you wanted very much to convey the implication that you did.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about divorce? Let's say you have a four person family, and two of them eventually hate each other but still love the other two. They want the other to leave and vice versa. These things are messy enough with only two involved.
What if it was only one person wanting to leave the group, would there be alimony? And who would pay who? How about child support and custody? Would any kids resulting from a group marriage be considered everyones child or just those of the biological parents?
I think I have a headache now.
-------------------- It sure is bright in the dark future. "He carries his anger around like a dead skunk." Ignorance is sad. Willfull ignorance is bad. Willfully spreading ignorance is evil. Posts: 95 | From: Washington | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, those are all issues that occur with monogamous marriages now: what if one partner wants to divorce and the other wants to stay married? What if a parent doesn't want to be a parent to a child?
These things happen every day. Yes, they are difficult to deal with, but that is a pretty lame excuse to outlaw something.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by EeyoreCorbie: What about divorce? Let's say you have a four person family, and two of them eventually hate each other but still love the other two. They want the other to leave and vice versa. These things are messy enough with only two involved.
What if it was only one person wanting to leave the group, would there be alimony? And who would pay who? How about child support and custody? Would any kids resulting from a group marriage be considered everyones child or just those of the biological parents?
I think I have a headache now.
How do corporate partnerships work? All members have some "share" within the organisation. All assets and liabilities are shared by members based on the shares owned by the members. Members who do some work for the organization get paid either in terms of real money, or in increased share in the organisation, or a mixture of both. When a partner wants to leave the organisation, s/he takes his share and walks away, or other members buy that members shares out.
Why can't we do the same for marraiges? Actually, the goverment should dissolve "marraige" as a legal concept, and instead allow people to form "civil partnerships" I know it sounds cold to talk of a marraige as a corporation. But, that's what marraige started as.
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleS: The implication that sex is something that one partner won't enjoy, but will do anyway purely for the please of the other partner, is what people are objecting to.
Doing something you don't really enjoy (at least, at the moment) purely for the pleasure of the other partner?
Last I heard, that was called "being in love" when applied to most activities. Why not sex?
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleS: The implication that sex is something that one partner won't enjoy, but will do anyway purely for the please of the other partner, is what people are objecting to.
Doing something you don't really enjoy (at least, at the moment) purely for the pleasure of the other partner?
Last I heard, that was called "being in love" when applied to most activities. Why not sex?
Pity sex?
I'd rather be rejected completely than have my partner just give it to me because he thought I wanted him to. Blech.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Why not "you know, I really don't feel up to the exertion level that vigorous sex would require, and/or I'm feeling tired enough that I don't think I could work up to climax, but I know you would like to and there's nothing wrong with my tongue, so c'mere" sex?
OTOH, maybe when your partner's pleasure is essential to your own, (the best definition of 'love' I know of) it doesn't count as being something you don't enjoy, so it wouldn't really be applicable.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, perhaps it is a spectrum more than it is binary, and compromise might be in order.
But, if one partner wants sex and the other partner does not, then the partner who does not should not feel badly about not wanting to. The partner who wants sex should exercise some "love," too.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Malruhn: Forgive me for discussing sex as a "matter of fact" topic and using the term "servicing".
I completely forgot that every interpersonal physical encounter must involve a total, three-day, near-religiously romantic interlude, ending with another two days of cuddling and after-glow.
Oops. I missed this post My objection is that the term "servicing" applied to ALL the sexual encounters that your friends are having. Having sex just for the sake of fulfilling an urge is just a notch above peeing. (Hell, I would enjoy peeing too if I held it in long enough). I can understand "servicing" once in a while. But, saying regular servicing once in 2 weeks is sex is like saying that a drive-thru through McDonalds is a meal. It is, sort of, and it's convinient and all, but you would get pretty sick if you were going through drive-thrus everyday.
For sex to be counted as sex, there has to be something shared between partners, something more than an agreement to fulfill each other's urges. Maybe not all the time, but atleast some of the time. What I was trying to say is that perhaps if your friends saw sex as something more than servicing then their wives would be more interested.
quote: I was discussing a topic in a cold, dispassionate tone. Forgive if my dry tone didn't
Perhaps, "intercourse" would have been a better term. I understand now what you were saying. I wrongly assumed that you said that your friends are having sex to fulfill the urge once in 2 weeks. All I was saying was there might be direct relationship between a person having sex solely to fulfill a urge vs the amount of sex the person gets
-------------------- Nico Sasha In between my father's fields;And the citadels of the rule; Lies a no-man's land which I must cross; To find my stolen jewel. Posts: 4912 | From: VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleS: The implication that sex is something that one partner won't enjoy, but will do anyway purely for the please of the other partner, is what people are objecting to.
Doing something you don't really enjoy (at least, at the moment) purely for the pleasure of the other partner?
Last I heard, that was called "being in love" when applied to most activities. Why not sex?
Do you think that that specifically is what Malruhn was talking about? If so, I wish he would have elaborated more. I got the impression he was saying that sex was something one partner would never enjoy, rather than not enjoy at that specific instance.
Either way, "servicing" is hardly a clinical term no matter what one is talking about. It is imprecise and will convey different things to different people. Many other words that are less loaded with emotion could have been used.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
