>You have interpreted the parent exceedingly uncharitably.
Perhaps I have. However, I don't see how much more "charitably" I can interpret what they wrote. Or do you think that I'm wrong in my assertion?
>If one partner in a monogamous relationship suddenly announces that from that day forth there shall be no more sex, the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset.
I don't disagree with that statement at all. But I stand by my assertion that no one is obligated to sexually satisfy anyone else.
If my spouse/SO decided that she wanted no more sex with me, sure I'd be upset. And as my feelings are my own, I'm entitled to be upset.
However she, as a sentient being, has agency. As such, she (not me) gets to decide what happens with her body.
Should a situation similar to your example occur, that should be a big red flag that something is wrong in your relationship. And if that's the case, going on about how your spouse is obliged to pleasure you certainly isn't going to improve things.
>Consent is never optional, but neither should it be unreasonably withheld in a monogamous relationship in which sex is a key component.
How do you handle the logic problem set up by your statement?
If consent to sexual activity is not optional, how is someone obliged to provide such sexual activity if they don't wish to consent?
>Rights and responsibilities always pair.
Neither you nor I have the right to demand sexual contact with someone who does not consent. Full stop. It doesn't matter what your relationship with that person might be.
And providing you (or anyone else) with sexual contact isn't anyone's responsibility, again regardless of what sort of relationship you might have with them.
And that's the issue that I have with both your and the parent poster's statements.
You said it yourself: Consent is not optional.
If you truly believe that, how can you even entertain the idea that someone should be obligated, or have the responsibility to provide sexual satisfaction to anyone if they choose not to do so?
I don't disagree that it's customary for those in a romantic/sexual relationship to engage in sexual activity. But no one is obligated or required to do so.
And if you don't think that's true, consider this[0]. Because coercing someone into non-consensual sexual activity is called rape.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape
Perhaps I have. However, I don't see how much more "charitably" I can interpret what they wrote. Or do you think that I'm wrong in my assertion?
>If one partner in a monogamous relationship suddenly announces that from that day forth there shall be no more sex, the other partner is certainly within their rights to be upset.
I don't disagree with that statement at all. But I stand by my assertion that no one is obligated to sexually satisfy anyone else.
If my spouse/SO decided that she wanted no more sex with me, sure I'd be upset. And as my feelings are my own, I'm entitled to be upset.
However she, as a sentient being, has agency. As such, she (not me) gets to decide what happens with her body.
Should a situation similar to your example occur, that should be a big red flag that something is wrong in your relationship. And if that's the case, going on about how your spouse is obliged to pleasure you certainly isn't going to improve things.
>Consent is never optional, but neither should it be unreasonably withheld in a monogamous relationship in which sex is a key component.
How do you handle the logic problem set up by your statement?
If consent to sexual activity is not optional, how is someone obliged to provide such sexual activity if they don't wish to consent?
>Rights and responsibilities always pair.
Neither you nor I have the right to demand sexual contact with someone who does not consent. Full stop. It doesn't matter what your relationship with that person might be.
And providing you (or anyone else) with sexual contact isn't anyone's responsibility, again regardless of what sort of relationship you might have with them.
And that's the issue that I have with both your and the parent poster's statements.
You said it yourself: Consent is not optional. If you truly believe that, how can you even entertain the idea that someone should be obligated, or have the responsibility to provide sexual satisfaction to anyone if they choose not to do so?
I don't disagree that it's customary for those in a romantic/sexual relationship to engage in sexual activity. But no one is obligated or required to do so.
And if you don't think that's true, consider this[0]. Because coercing someone into non-consensual sexual activity is called rape.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape