https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... or/503492/
Here is a quote:
“the form of nonconsensual sex that men are much more likely to experience in their lifetime ... 79.2% of victimized men reported female perpetrators.”
Given the broad definition of 'nonconsensual', I can see how this would be the case. It also seems like victims of sexual abuse are more likely to experience it over and over again, be it because of looks or more likely the type of people they are drawn to because of their role models when they were raised. A prisoner is probably more likely to be an abuse victim, and he's probably more likely to have dated a she-thug or some unstable woman on the outside than your average Joe.
Apparently it isn't all that uncommon, based on the report, for the guards that have sexual activity with male prisoners to be female guards. In this report, some of this is counted, though it was described as consensual.
Here is another quote,
What do you guys think about this? I'm against extramarital sex. If I were a prisoner and some female prison guard tried to force me to have sex, I'd consider that a crime. She's not my wife. And she's a prison guard, too, so she's probably stout and undesirable. But even if she were hot, I should rightly refuse, even if she were in a position of power. That situation would be immoral.As well, “a 2014 study of 284 men and boys in college and high school found that 43 percent reported being sexually coerced, with the majority of coercive incidents resulting in unwanted sexual intercourse. Of them, 95 percent reported only female perpetrators. The authors defined sexual coercion broadly, including verbal pressure such as nagging and begging, which, the authors acknowledge, increases prevalence dramatically.”
But let's think about this in the context of marriage. I wouldn't want to be nagged about anything. But if someone were making you your wife in a factory, and you could either tick a box that says 'will beg you for sex' or 'will not beg you for sex', which one are you going to tick? Even as a middle aged man whose aging, I'd tick the 'beg' box over the non-beg box. If I were single, I think I'd rather marry a woman who'd just keep kissing, stroking, or snuggling until she had her way with me and extracted more from me than I thought I could provide than one who wasn't interested.
I don't consider it criminal.I don't do sexual intercourse during periods or during the similar situations after childbirth. If we both committed to fast, it might be wrong to have sex. A man also realistically may have to meet deadlines at work and such to support the family, and we can all get super sleepy or sick. But otherwise, if I'm physically able, I'm down for it. And if I'm sleepy, I can sacrifice a bit of sleep. I also think as a husband I have a moral obligation to meet my wife's needs.
I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of a little persuasion being treated as if it were a sexual crime, even in reverse. A wife has a moral obligation to take care of her husband's sexual needs, too. There are some parameters, like those mentioned above. A husband begging for sex is unseemly. Calling a woman out for not being a good sexual partner might be appropriate if that is an issue. Warming up a woman who isn't initially interested in sex with a bit of kissing and hugging and affection until she changes her mind is a better 'strategy' than some of this other stuff. Showing a bit of affection throughout the day also makes sense. And you don't want a woman who just has sex out of obligation. You want one who is into it, and you can show a bit of affection, which is a normal thing anyway, to help build toward that. But a man who marries a woman who keeps giving 'hard nos' is in a bad situation.
We also have also seen this shift, legally, from a woman giving consent to a man for sex for life through marriage to marital rape being a crime. Now it goes further and they try to make it a crime for a man to persuade his wife to have sex. This paper treats women doing it to men as a negative thing, also, categorizing it with sexual violence.
There is also this idea that a sleeping person can't consent. That's a great principle in the case of the drunk girl that passes out at the frat house. But do us guys really want there to be a law that our own wives couldn't wake us up with some sort of sexual act? I don't think that appeals to my wife, but I'd really like for that to happen. Even if I were to tie me up and have her way with me when I told her I was in the mood (just in my imagination-- not her kind of thing) I wouldn't call the cops on her. If I were tired and she had to nag me to get some sex out of me, I'd accept responsibility for depriving her until she got to that point. It wouldn't be her committing some kind of crime. She's got some rights to expect some fulfillment from me as I do from her.
We've got all these voices out there telling women that if a man has reasonable expectations for sex even in marriage, and expresses them or calls her out for a lack of reasonable diligence, that he is committing some kind of crime. There aren't a lot of voices telling women they have a duty to satisfy their husbands. So there might be an advantage, in this regard, in marrying a foreign woman who hasn't been taught the newer broader ideas of 'rape' or sexual violence, who also hear from women in their family that they will need to take care of their husband's sexual needs. But they may not all hear that in every culture.
But it also makes sense, even for those marrying pure young virgins, before engagement to discuss this sort of thing. Christians could discuss marriage by reading I Corinthians 7, since marital duties are mentioned there along with teaching against divorce, so it won't seem like an intentional talk to feel out how committed she will be to fulfilling her sexual duties to her husband.
It also makes sense to talk about marital roles, expectations, how money will be managed, who will be in charge, how many children you plan to have, etc. You might find a deal breaker. You cannot assume you will be on the same page. You should not just assume, "She's Filippina" or "She's Mongolian" or whatever "so she's going to be like this as a wife." National culture doesn't determine all her thoughts and attitudes. If she really expects the man to be the boss and her answer to the questions is she has to follow her husband, then some of these other issues might be a little easier, at least if you can provide the leadership she is looking for. to be decent about it, you'd have to do this without leading her on, late enough in the relationship to make sense, and early enough not to destroy her emotionally if you are not a good match. In some cultures, you can do this very early on.
An advantage is that if you talk about this stuff, she's already thought it through and entered marriage with a set of 'ground rules' she knows she has to live up to. But keep in mind that females have selective memories. She may not remember committing to sex every night if you want it several years later, so you might want to repeat the conversation and mention it early in marriage. You could do it in a positive way, complementing her even after marriage for her sexual commitment and sexual diligence, her submission to you, or whatever it is, to reinforce the commitment in her mind in a positive way.
Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? Has the pendulum swung a bit too far on ideas of sexual violence and inappropriate sexual behavior? Are there any comments on the other ideas in the post?
