U of Michigan: withholding sex = sexual violence

  • Thread starter Thread starter fencersmother
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The world is going towards a downward spiral more and more each day.
That ‘article’ is beyond ridiculous. Now some clown can rape (No means no, even in a relationship) a girl and try to use this as his defense. :hypno:
 
This is a real problem. When sexual violence is defined in such a way that includes refusing to have sex, how long until disciplinary action or worse consequences are applied to people who “withhold sex” from their entitled, narcissistic relationship partner?
This is simply a logical extension from the line of thinking that asserts that sexual relations and orgasms are a right that anyone/everyone is entitled to, within any relationship without any commitment in whatever manner a person desires.
Young people really need to be aware of the dangers of commencing a physical relationship with anyone outside of holy matrimony. I think most of them have no clue.
 
mommamaree said:
Young people really need to be aware of the dangers of commencing a physical relationship with anyone outside of holy matrimony. I think most of them have no clue.
Click to expand...
Being married (civilly and/or religiously) doesn’t make a difference. Remember, spouses can be prosecuted for rape, too.

Meanwhile, I am going to inform my DH that withholding sex is sexual violence and see where that gets me, rofl!

(sometimes you really do have to just laugh at the ridiculous)
 
OK. So now *everyone *is a victim. If your partner pressures you to have sex, you’re a victim, and if a partner doesn’t respect the feelings behind the pressure you put on them to have sex, you are a victim. That’s a step in the right direction, since nothing solves marital problems so well as assigning lots of blame.

(Oh, they did not say “spouse.” They said “partner.” Do they mean withholding sex *outside *of marriage? Please tell me they don’t…)
 
EasterJoy said:
OK. So now *everyone *is a victim. If your partner pressures you to have sex, you’re a victim, and if a partner doesn’t respect the feelings behind the pressure you put on them to have sex, you are a victim. That’s a step in the right direction, since nothing solves marital problems so well as assigning lots of blame.

(Oh, they did not say “spouse.” They said “partner.” Do they mean withholding sex *outside *of marriage? Please tell me they don’t…)
Click to expand...
There is no longer any presumption of marriage for discussion of sexual relationships, and it was a university that published these definitions/guidelines. How many college students are married? (Excluding the ironic fact that I was a married college student.)
 
MJJean said:
Being married (civilly and/or religiously) doesn’t make a difference. Remember, spouses can be prosecuted for rape, too.

Meanwhile, I am going to inform my DH that withholding sex is sexual violence and see where that gets me, rofl!

(sometimes you really do have to just laugh at the ridiculous)
Click to expand...
My point was that anyone in a sexual relationship, even when not married, now has societal obligations imposed upon them, making it seem like they owe sex to their partner, while at the same time, can be charged with sexual assault for actually having sex with their partner. The best way to avoid this rattlesnake’s nest is to NEVER commence a physical relationship of any sort outside of marriage. It would already be a mortal sin, but either withholding or engaging in sexual contact opens one up to consequences, legal and otherwise.
 
Violence? Of course not.

But there is such a thing as a cruelly manipulative person, and withholding physical affections is one among many ways to manipulate someone. Especially someone who is particularly vulnerable, ie., folks who desire, but aren’t confident they deserve, physical affection.
 
Havard said:
Violence? Of course not.

But there is such a thing as a cruelly manipulative person, and withholding physical affections is one among many ways to manipulate someone. Especially someone who is particularly vulnerable, ie., folks who desire, but aren’t confident they deserve, physical affection.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think this is just a badly put way of trying to say just that. There are people who will use withholding sex in a cruel manner, perhaps to “punish” their partner or even make them feel unwanted or unattractive.
 
AnnArbor said:
If it was on their site, it appears to be gone now.
Click to expand...
You just have to know where to look:
hr.umich.edu/stopabuse/resources/definitions.html

Sexual violence Examples of sexual violence include: discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex; criticizing the partner sexually…withholding sex and affection…

That appears in an undifferentiated list with some behaviors that seem to be things that could be charged as criminal sex abuse.

According to the text, being in a “relationship” for the purposes of defining sexual abuse in Michigan law include: currently or formerly married, currently or formerly dating, currently or formerly living together, or having a child in common.

Obviously, this text was written in a sloppy manner. It can’t possibly be abuse to refuse sex to someone you used to be married to, used to live with, or used to live with, or to “discount the feelings regarding sex” of someone you’ve broken up with! They mean when these things are done “to gain or maintain power and control over another partner in an intimate relationship.”

For instance, under economic abuse, it says, “having own checking and savings account unknown to partner.” Well, if you’re not currently married and not living together, of course is not abusive to have money that the person you’re dating doesn’t know about.

The text ought to read: “Examples of sexual violence can include: …,” since many items on the list are not manipulative or abusive per se, but only when used in a manipulative way.
 
EasterJoy said:
You just have to know where to look:
hr.umich.edu/stopabuse/resources/definitions.html

Sexual violence Examples of sexual violence include: discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex; criticizing the partner sexually…withholding sex and affection…

That appears in an undifferentiated list with some behaviors that seem to be things that could be charged as criminal sex abuse.

According to the text, being in a “relationship” for the purposes of defining sexual abuse in Michigan law include: currently or formerly married, currently or formerly dating, currently or formerly living together, or having a child in common.

Obviously, this text was written in a sloppy manner. It can’t possibly be abuse to refuse sex to someone you used to be married to, used to live with, or used to live with, or to “discount the feelings regarding sex” of someone you’ve broken up with! They mean when these things are done “to gain or maintain power and control over another partner in an intimate relationship.”

For instance, under economic abuse, it says, “having own checking and savings account unknown to partner.” Well, if you’re not currently married and not living together, of course is not abusive to have money that the person you’re dating doesn’t know about.

The text ought to read: “Examples of sexual violence can include: …,” since many items on the list are not manipulative or abusive per se, but only when used in a manipulative way.
Click to expand...
I still say that refusing to engage in sexual relations could never possibly be sexual violence, under any circumstances. It would be saying that something that is “not A” can be called violent A simply because the second person wants A but the first person refuses A. That is complete nonsense, but it fairly typical for our culture these days. But I did notice that none of the definitions include ANY mention of a relationship that does not yet exist, which means that anyone who remains outside of relationship and never even commences a relationship would not be vulnerable to accusation of relationship wrongdoing.
 
Anyone here think that universities will some day go back to concentrating on actually teaching useful subjects? :rolleyes:
 
captainrick said:
Anyone here think that universities will some day go back to concentrating on actually teaching useful subjects? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
All that dead white heterosexual male stuff filled with non-wymyn linear thinking? What are you thinking!
 
Dating American-style has always had a huge potential for emotional and psychological abuse. It’s just the nature of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top