Equality, Tough Women, and Domestic Violence

[Grotto19]

So, it wouldn't be emotional abuse if a husband refused to have sex with his wife? Her problems are her problems?

(Aside from whether or not men are attracted to kind women or women attracted to kind men.)

But in terms of physical abuse I have to concur with your logic.

It is my opinion that it is not even emotional abuse. To say that one spouse must have sex with the other simply because they want it, that it is abuse not to, opens the door to absurdity. Because at that point abuse becomes any failure to accommodate other peoples desires. At that point it is only a short walk to say not taking out the trash was abuse, or failing to becoming a vegan after she decided to. As I said in my earlier post, abuse is to deliberately reduce someone’s condition. Sexual desire is a condition which emerges within the individual, it is their own personal problem, and it is not one which was imposed by another. Failure to help with that problem could be seen as unkind or uncaring, but is not an act of abuse. Abuse is more than being unkind, abuse is to inflict a harm, not the failure to relive one innate in the person. Removing someone else’s suffering is a manifestation of kindness and loving. If my wife’s back hurts I should give her a massage, but failure to do so isn’t abuse, it just makes me a jerk.

[Hog Rider]

Having power is not the same thing as abuse. Abuse is to inflict injury, that is to deliberately reduce (or attempt to reduce) someone to a condition to one worse than they were in, that is not at all the same as failure to gratify their desires. It is murder to lock a man in your cellar and starve him to death, however it is not a crime at all to walk past a starving homeless man and do nothing to help him.

So no withholding sex (even for power) is not domestic abuse. If the man’s condition is that he is horny, and she doesn’t help him with that she has not abused him, for she caused no injury, she simply refused to assist him with his own problem. That may not be a nice thing to do (particularly if it is a power play) but it isn’t doing him an injury.

Is it an abuse if the man, starved of sex, goes and finds it elsewhere? Is infidelity an abuse? Obviously 'his problem" is solved with infidelity; so perhaps you think this is a suitable solution?

Deliberate withholding of sexual favours, accompanied with teasing and broken promises, holding the subject in power and refusing affection is abusive. When a relationship exists in which both parties agree to that sex is reserved for each other in a loving exclusive relationship, then there is at least some expectation that each party meets the needs of the other. Persistent, use of this tool is not only abusive, but is ultimately harmful to the longevity of the relationship.

-- Updated October 4th, 2014, 9:19 am to add the following --

Having power is not the same thing as abuse. Abuse is to inflict injury, that is to deliberately reduce (or attempt to reduce) someone to a condition to one worse than they were in, that is not at all the same as failure to gratify their desires. It is murder to lock a man in your cellar and starve him to death, however it is not a crime at all to walk past a starving homeless man and do nothing to help him.

So no withholding sex (even for power) is not domestic abuse. If the man’s condition is that he is horny, and she doesn’t help him with that she has not abused him, for she caused no injury, she simply refused to assist him with his own problem. That may not be a nice thing to do (particularly if it is a power play) but it isn’t doing him an injury.

So, it wouldn't be emotional abuse if a husband refused to have sex with his wife? Her problems are her problems?

(Aside from whether or not men are attracted to kind women or women attracted to kind men.)

But in terms of physical abuse I have to concur with your logic.

Actually I do not think that emotional abuse is so far from physical. Emotional pain is every bit as bad as physical. IN fact- the thing that makes physical abuse so terrible, is not the direct temporary pain, the broken bones, or the bruising - the REAL pain of that abuse is wholly emotional.

Image that someone breaks your arm by accident, and compare it to the suffering of a person breaking your arm with the intention of hurting you and causing you pain. There is just no comparison.

-- Updated October 4th, 2014, 9:21 am to add the following --

So, it wouldn't be emotional abuse if a husband refused to have sex with his wife? Her problems are her problems?

(Aside from whether or not men are attracted to kind women or women attracted to kind men.)

But in terms of physical abuse I have to concur with your logic.

It is my opinion that it is not even emotional abuse. To say that one spouse must have sex with the other simply because they want it, that it is abuse not to, opens the door to absurdity..

I don't know what you experience is of relationships. But in your descriptions I simply cannot recognise a loving caring relationship.

[Supine]

Grotto, I hear what you are saying but I think people, even spouses, can act in passive-aggressive manners with the intent of hurting the other. And if not intending then at least being indifferent to having hurt the other.

Hog, I would agree with intentional harm and context of the violence being key roles in the level of trauma. I mean... football players get physically hurt, but the kid that gets pummeled by bullies in front of others is the one that really gets hurt.

Albeit, some non-intentional violent events like an automobile crash, or even a hit that paralyzes a football player for life, can result in great emotional or psychological trauma for years if not life.

But in general I think intent does matter especially when the one being harmed is fully cognizant of that intent.

[Grotto19]

Yes supine intent is a crucial component. You can hurt someone without doing it with neglect nor it being deliberate, and under those conditions it is not abuse. That is my point, well one of them anyway. Abuse is to deliberately harm another, or in cases of dependency also harmful neglect (failing to provide adequately for children or fully dependent adults).

Passive aggression is deliberate (sometimes) so it meets the first criteria which is where my main point from above comes in. Each individual’s emotional needs are their needs. Failing to give someone what they want is not the same as inflicting an injury. Now a husband deliberately berating his wife (thus reducing her from her base condition) that is abusive, because he didn’t fail to meet her needs, he actually acted to make her condition worse than it was, he inflicted injury. Likewise in the I suspect extremely rare case which Hog Rider mentioned where a spouse teases her man sexually, gets him all worked up and then denies him, that too I would call abuse, because she deliberately invoked the desire and then denied it, in short she manifested his distress.

The other forms of sexual withholding (not in the mood), it being a tool for manipulation, is not abuse. Men have used cash and being the provider as a tool for power for ages, and no one calls them abusive for it, in fact we usually admire them for being a good provider. Power should be manifested in a relationship as little as possible for it to be a healthy one. But we were not discussing the health of relationships we were discussing abuse.

-- Updated October 5th, 2014, 1:29 am to add the following --

Is it an abuse if the man, starved of sex, goes and finds it elsewhere? Is infidelity an abuse? Obviously 'his problem" is solved with infidelity; so perhaps you think this is a suitable solution?

As for infidelity as a solution to the denial of sex, that becomes convoluted by the particular situation. Societal, religious, and legal norms (at least in the U.S.) all hold that cheating on someone is inflicting harm on them, that the social contract of relationships provides an assured expectation of fidelity. However If one were to express his needs and she were to still decline I think it would be completely reasonable to request permission to seek that need elsewhere, and if that permission was also denied (as I am sure would often be the case) he would then have to decide if the relationship is worth continuing. Breaking up is not abuse, but choosing to stay in mutually agreed upon monogamous relationship and then cheating is.

This applies to any need which is not being met, what holds a relationship together is meeting enough of each other’s needs to satisfy each other. I doubt many people can claim that their relationship completely fills all of their needs, at least none that I know claim that. We weigh the good against the bad and then make our ruling.

So yes if the “need” for sex is felt by an individual to be great enough that the lack of it makes the relationship unviable he should let his spouse know that. From there they either adjust the nature of the relationship or split up.

[Hog Rider]

I think Grotto's view is faulty. To reduce abuse to the physical completely misunderstands the problem of abuse. Physical violence is nothing compared with mental abuse. In fact the real consequences of physical abuse are not physical at all, but mental. The suffering is less about a slap or a push. The suffering comes with the feelings of abandonment, feelings of smallness, oppression and fear and frustration. A beating is soon forgotten when the bruises fade, but the mental pressure remains. This is exactly the sort of suffering that can be inflicted without a single clout landing. Abuse is mental, and can be inflicted more easily with a tongue that it can be with a fist.

[Grotto19]

I think Grotto's view is faulty. To reduce abuse to the physical completely misunderstands the problem of abuse. Physical violence is nothing compared with mental abuse. In fact the real consequences of physical abuse are not physical at all, but mental. The suffering is less about a slap or a push. The suffering comes with the feelings of abandonment, feelings of smallness, oppression and fear and frustration. A beating is soon forgotten when the bruises fade, but the mental pressure remains. This is exactly the sort of suffering that can be inflicted without a single clout landing. Abuse is mental, and can be inflicted more easily with a tongue that it can be with a fist.

I did not reduce abuse to the physical. In fact I was quite clear about infidelity without permission being abuse, and about negative remarks being abusive. But more to your point about mental abuse. The point I have been making is that abuse is that to deliberately render someone into a worse condition than they were on their own is what abuse means. If your metal “pressure” comes from within you and not from your partner it is not abuse, it is however an unsympathetic partner. A women refusing to have sex (or a man) is not abuse, it may leave you feeling rejected, but that feeling came from within you not from the other person. Abuse is to reduce another to a condition worse than they were, it is not a failure to build them up or support them. There is a huge difference.

Failure to feed a starving man is cruel but you are not obligated to do it, in fact we ignore 10’s of thousands of starving people every day. However deliberately inflicting injury on another, be it an assault, an insult, or some other wrong is viewed both by society and usually the law as a crime, a wrongful act. You can fail to meet the needs of a staving man all you want because those are his personal needs, and you are not accountable for them, but if you stab the homeless man both the law and most philosophical ethics will view you as a criminal because you have reduced him to a condition worse than he was on his own. That is when the term abuse is appropriate. Anything less is simply a bad relationship. People can chose to stay in a bad relationship if they wish but it is hardly the same as an abusive one which deserves sanctions.

[Logic_ill]

Some men might believe that refusing sex is abusive, especially when it comes from a wife but I don´t think so. There are a few alternatives he has in dealing with "the problem". If none of them work. he has to decide whether he will leave her or not. If he stays, there is no sense in continuing to complain or harass his wife about something he knows will not change. The same thing goes for a woman whose husband refuses her sex...

[Hog Rider]

I think Grotto's view is faulty. To reduce abuse to the physical completely misunderstands the problem of abuse. Physical violence is nothing compared with mental abuse. In fact the real consequences of physical abuse are not physical at all, but mental. The suffering is less about a slap or a push. The suffering comes with the feelings of abandonment, feelings of smallness, oppression and fear and frustration. A beating is soon forgotten when the bruises fade, but the mental pressure remains. This is exactly the sort of suffering that can be inflicted without a single clout landing. Abuse is mental, and can be inflicted more easily with a tongue that it can be with a fist.

I did not reduce abuse to the physical. In fact I was quite clear about infidelity without permission being abuse, and about negative remarks being abusive. But more to your point about mental abuse. The point I have been making is that abuse is that to deliberately render someone into a worse condition than they were on their own is what abuse means. If your metal “pressure” comes from within you and not from your partner it is not abuse, it is however an unsympathetic partner. A women refusing to have sex (or a man) is not abuse, it may leave you feeling rejected, but that feeling came from within you not from the other person. Abuse is to reduce another to a condition worse than they were, it is not a failure to build them up or support them. There is a huge difference.

Failure to feed a starving man is cruel but you are not obligated to do it, in fact we ignore 10’s of thousands of starving people every day. However deliberately inflicting injury on another, be it an assault, an insult, or some other wrong is viewed both by society and usually the law as a crime, a wrongful act. You can fail to meet the needs of a staving man all you want because those are his personal needs, and you are not accountable for them, but if you stab the homeless man both the law and most philosophical ethics will view you as a criminal because you have reduced him to a condition worse than he was on his own. That is when the term abuse is appropriate. Anything less is simply a bad relationship. People can chose to stay in a bad relationship if they wish but it is hardly the same as an abusive one which deserves sanctions.

Your analogy is false. A healthy sexual relationship is a key raison d'etre of the marriage "contract". When a pertner uses sex as a bargaining tool, rations it, or denies it to the other it is a failure of the marriage and a failure to meet the obligations of the relationship. The analogy would be better if the starving man has his food withheld by a person charged with providing it. That would not only be wrong but abusive, especially when the person denied holds the denier in such high esteem that they can abuse the love a devotion that the denied provides. I think you either lack experience or lack imagination.

-- Updated October 6th, 2014, 12:17 pm to add the following --

Some men might believe that refusing sex is abusive, especially when it comes from a wife but I don´t think so. .

What you think is less important than what they feel. If they are in a one-sided relationship when the woman exercises power and denial of marital privilege, and the man feel abused, then that is enough. Hopefully for you , you will never be on the receiving end of such abuse. I have, and it took a ling time to extricate myself from the situation due to their being a child between us. There is no doubt that I suffered a rage of abuses, and sexual rationing was amongst them.

[Logic_ill]

You´re right, Hog Rider, I have never been on the other end of the abuse but I have been accused of being the "abuser". I think it had much to do with my loss of interest because of my perception of his loss of interest. I think that no one (not male or female) can expect to have their needs met, if they are not fulfilling the other person´s needs. I imagine how difficult it is for two people to combine in a way that they both feel fulfilled and/or satisfied in their needs but I suppose I had to grow a pair, in order for the other to understand me...

Couplehood or marriage is not all about giving into the sexual demands of the other, especially if you perceive that not only is that all a person wants from you but they want it from every other woman too...Who the hell is anyone to think that they could DEMAND anything from another and not give anything at all???? We all exist here in this realm and we all have our particular needs. Whenever those needs are not going the same way, the people involved will have to make a decision...

[Trey]

what I see is video evidence in criminal court, of him acting in self defense.

I watched the video. I read the self-defense law for New Jersey. Guilty as charged.

[Supine]

Couplehood or marriage is not all about giving into the sexual demands of the other, especially if you perceive that not only is that all a person wants from you but they want it from every other woman too...Who the hell is anyone to think that they could DEMAND anything from another and not give anything at all???? We all exist here on this realm and we all have our particular needs. Whenever those needs are not going the same way, the people involved will have to make a decision...

Sexual intercourse is not all there is to matrimony, however, it is one of the principal reasons contractual marriage came to exist. Both persons were given sexual rights to each others bodies.

[Grotto19]

Your analogy is false. A healthy sexual relationship is a key raison d'etre of the marriage "contract". When a pertner uses sex as a bargaining tool, rations it, or denies it to the other it is a failure of the marriage and a failure to meet the obligations of the relationship. The analogy would be better if the starving man has his food withheld by a person charged with providing it. That would not only be wrong but abusive, especially when the person denied holds the denier in such high esteem that they can abuse the love a devotion that the denied provides. I think you either lack experience or lack imagination.

So according to you a woman is “charged” with servicing her man on demand as an understood function of being married. How very 1600’s. How odd that isn’t included in the vows, nor any law, nor even public opinion as I understand it. In fact I do believe the only people who hold that position are men, and usually ones who don’t understand that meeting her needs will get his needs met.

More to the point however my same fundamental point which you keep deflecting into nonsense is that failure to meet wants is not abuse. Sex is not a need, you will never die from not having sex, you are not harmed by not having sex, and you are only frustrated by not getting what you want. Just because a child really badly wants a cookie does it mean I should give him one, nor is it abuse if I don’t. He does not need a cookie, he simply wants one. I might be a mean parent for not giving it to him until he finishes his homework but I am hardly an abusive one. There is a difference between a bad wife and an abusive one, a difference you refuse to acknowledge.

If you’re not getting what you want from a relationship you should leave it, not because “she was abusing you”, but because you weren’t getting what you wanted. Now if she smashes all your possessions, gets pregnant by your brother, screws all your friends, or hits you in the head with a pipe then you can cry abuse. Because all those things are creating actual harm to you (and each of those things has happened to people I know). It is reasonable to leave a relationship you’re not happy in, but someone failing to make you happy is not abuse, a relationship can be bad without being abusive, some relationships just aren’t going to work.

[Logic_ill]

Couplehood or marriage is not all about giving into the sexual demands of the other, especially if you perceive that not only is that all a person wants from you but they want it from every other woman too...Who the hell is anyone to think that they could DEMAND anything from another and not give anything at all???? We all exist here on this realm and we all have our particular needs. Whenever those needs are not going the same way, the people involved will have to make a decision...

Sexual intercourse is not all there is to matrimony, however, it is one of the principal reasons contractual marriage came to exist. Both persons were given sexual rights to each others bodies.

That may be true, Supine. However, many people do not get married, such as myself, and the demands are there anyway. Then there are those who do get married and measure that marriage according to the sex that they get, which is erroneous behavior because there are other reasons for contractual marraige such as supporting your children, remaining faithful to one another,to love and nurture one another, etc.

In modern times, the reasons for marriage have changed. If people are not getting along for whatever reasons, they will have to make decisions. They can try to make it work but there are no guarantees.

What if a female happens to fall into the hands of a man that only wants to have sex with her continuously? Male demands or even female demands for sex vary from one person to the next so that if the other partner does not match their libido, there will be problems...

-- Updated October 7th, 2014, 5:45 am to add the following --

By the way, I´ve never been on the accusing end in a sexual relationship but it´s because I never dreamed of making sexual demands on another. I have always wanted for the male to give me what he desires, not what I impose on him.

[Hog Rider]

You´re right, Hog Rider, I have never been on the other end of the abuse but I have been accused of being the "abuser". I think it had much to do with my loss of interest because of my perception of his loss of interest. I think that no one (not male or female) can expect to have their needs met, if they are not fulfilling the other person´s needs. I imagine how difficult it is for two people to combine in a way that they both feel fulfilled and/or satisfied in their needs but I suppose I had to grow a pair, in order for the other to understand me...

Couplehood or marriage is not all about giving into the sexual demands of the other, especially if you perceive that not only is that all a person wants from you but they want it from every other woman too...Who the hell is anyone to think that they could DEMAND anything from another and not give anything at all???? We all exist here in this realm and we all have our particular needs. Whenever those needs are not going the same way, the people involved will have to make a decision...

Having experienced this type of abuse, my partner used the idea that I wanted sex as me demanding or "pestering", but it was not just sex but all physical contact that any loving relationship thrives on. Her sex was used as a measured bargaining tool. Obviously the relationship was not going to last but I felt obligated due to our child to try to keep the thing going as long as I could.

-- Updated October 7th, 2014, 5:11 am to add the following --

Your analogy is false. A healthy sexual relationship is a key raison d'etre of the marriage "contract". When a pertner uses sex as a bargaining tool, rations it, or denies it to the other it is a failure of the marriage and a failure to meet the obligations of the relationship. The analogy would be better if the starving man has his food withheld by a person charged with providing it. That would not only be wrong but abusive, especially when the person denied holds the denier in such high esteem that they can abuse the love a devotion that the denied provides. I think you either lack experience or lack imagination.

So according to you a woman is “charged” with servicing her man on demand as an understood function of being married.k....

Obviously not, no that is not my position. This is your hopelessly caricatured exaggerated straw man designed in a poor attempt to win your failed argument. This is where I stopped reading. If you want me to take you seriously you need to respond to what I said and not what you want me to have said.

-- Updated October 7th, 2014, 5:20 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


Sexual intercourse is not all there is to matrimony, however, it is one of the principal reasons contractual marriage came to exist. Both persons were given sexual rights to each others bodies.

That may be true, Supine. However, many people do not get married, such as myself, and the demands are there anyway. Then there are those who do get married and measure that marriage according to the sex that they get, which is erroneous behavior because there are other reasons for contractual marraige such as supporting your children, remaining faithful to one another,to love and nurture one another, etc.

In modern times, the reasons for marriage have changed. If people are not getting along for whatever reasons, they will have to make decisions. They can try to make it work but there are no guarantees.

What if a female happens to fall into the hands of a man that only wants to have sex with her continuously? Male demands or even female demands for sex vary from one person to the next so that if the other partner does not match their libido, there will be problems...

-- Updated October 7th, 2014, 5:45 am to add the following --

By the way, I´ve never been on the accusing end in a sexual relationship but it´s because I never dreamed of making sexual demands on another. I have always wanted for the male to give me what he desires, not what I impose on him.

Sex in a marriage, and the faithful exclusivity of sex, is the one thing that distinguishes a marriage from other types of economic and social relationships. Sex is not all there is to it, but a poorly matched couple in love results in a poor marriage. What this suggests is that when two people get together and intend marriage the sex ought not be a surprise to either party on the wedding night. In fact far from being "pure" with each other it is vitally necessary for the partners to know each other sexually and to have agreed that they are compatible with each other.

This minimises the problem expressed above where a woman might "fall into the hands of a man that only wants to have sex with her continuously". It also helps in the choice of a long term and understanding relationship in other ways too.

[Logic_ill]

Hog Rider, I may not be as experienced as you are but I have never had problems with matching my libido to another, until I met one person. I thought my libido was high but it seems his was higher. Even though I had a high libido, I never made demands or imposed anything sexual on another. Having someone do that to me, may have contributed to my lack of interest.

These contrasting libidos were not that apparent until after a few years. The cause may have been the wear and tear of the relationship: the course of life and its responsibilities hitting us in the face, as well as false expectations. I think, in my case, it also had to do with lack of commitment or fidelity.

I will not sit here and write about what the normal expectations for sex in a relationship should be because that will vary according to the factors and each person. The problem is that if the sex drives do not match, for whatever reasons, and anyone is that unhappy about it, they either will have to try to make it work or break up. That will depend on how important is sex drive to each of the people involved..

-- Updated October 7th, 2014, 7:09 am to add the following --

Note: Imagine some woman who falls into the likes of a Ted Bundy or a Marquis de Sade??? There's no way she can entirely satisfy the man's needs and I suppose that's OK.