What is it about being religious that gives one the more privileged position in love?
Look, sex needs a yes from every partner (at least two total "yes" responses). You're describing a "yes" and a "no." Thus, no sex. In terms of the sex act, it literally doesn't matter why one partner says no.
EDIT: Asking why we privilege "no" over "yes" is . . . let's just say problematic.
In terms of the relationship, I agree with the other commentators that the relationship you've described doesn't seem like it is going anywhere, and thus, has no reason to continue.
In terms of utilitarian practicality, I'd say that prohibiting others from approaching within 96 feet of you is a far greater imposition on others than prohibiting others from having sex with you.
From a utilitarian point of view, it's not that having sex must always entail the consent of all participants, it's just that situations where no sex has worse consequences than nonconsensual sex (say, a person is given an ultimatum by sadistic pirates to rape a woman or have their village razed) are vanishingly rare and improbable.
You ask several questions of the form "why is X true?" without first addressing the more basic question "is X true?" I dispute your framing of the situation and agree with the other commenters (commentators?), especially TimS.
Even if you want to vigorously defend the point of view that David has a right to sexual satisfaction, it does not follow that David has a right to sexual satisfaction with Jane.
I would have switched the gender of the two partners, because otherwise that pattern-matches a stereotype which had better be kept separate from the issue you're discussing.
Why is it that nobody says that Jane shouldn't have started the relationship with David in the first place
They do say that as well. Some outright say that Jane is sinning by 'unevenly yoking' herself.
, since she has known all along that he thinks that sexual compatibility/activity is very important in a relationship?
All else being equal it is better for people to look after their own preferences than for others to mind read them and do it for them.
This couple dodged a bullet. Sexual incompatibility is just as bad as ideological incompatibility, and they've got both. They should both thank their lucky stars and move on.
I'm assuming you're American. In our crazy sex-negative culture the status quo is that sex doesn't matter when people "love" each other, which is complete bullshit. So whenever there's a sexual incompatibility issue the received wisdom is that the party who wants less sex is in the right. This is simply another case of society being mad.
So whenever there's a sexual incompatibility issue the received wisdom is that the party who wants less sex is in the right.
They are totally in the right. If they don't want sex with their partner then it is quite right for them to not have sex. And also quite right for them to expect to have to find a new partner (or come to a polyamorous arrangement). ie. Don't try to fight the 'right', just choose the BATNA.
Uh, seems like a wrong forum for this. Anyway, why don't they compromise by engaging in oral or even saddlebacking?
I think you are brave in raising an interesting point. The general consensus is that the negative freedom to deny sex is more important than the positive freedom to choose sex. Some things in society give more status to the positive freedom, and more status to other negative freedoms. A contrasting example to the one you have illustrated is a shop keeper serving people. The general concensus is that the right of a customer to choose a product is more important than the right of a shop keeper to deny that person service (say on the basis of the colour of their skin).
I don't think this guy should have been karma hammered into oblivion. He brought up a perfectly reasonable point about mutual satisfaction in a relationship.
I think he's mistaking a few things in his analysis, but the comments implying that he was advocating non consensual sex are way over the top in abuse.
David is an atheist. He is dating Jane, who is a devout Christian. They have a fairly good relationship, except in the sex department: David thinks that having regular sex is important in a relationship, whereas Jane would like to remain a virgin until marriage due to religious reasons. Before they became a couple, David assumed that not having sex was something that he could tolerate, since he liked Jane very much, and was really eager to be with her. However, as months go by, David has become increasingly frustrated with the lack of physical intimacy, and is beginning to consider breaking up with Jane, even though he is still very fond of her.
What would you advise David to do? Given my experience, I think the most common response would be to advise David to leave Jane. Some people might even say that David shouldn't have started the relationship with Jane in the first place, since he has known all along that she intends to remain a virgin until marriage. They say that, if he really loves her and respects her religious beliefs, he should not ask her to have sex before marriage. Instead, he should break up with her so that they may both go on to look for more suitable partners.
Why is it that nobody says that Jane shouldn't have started the relationship with David in the first place, since she has known all along that he thinks that sexual compatibility/activity is very important in a relationship? Why is that nobody says that if she really loves him and respects his values, she should not make him abstain, and should instead engage in sex with him? Why do her religious beliefs render her position more privileged?
Perhaps the response would be this: Well, the criticism is mostly directed at David because he is the one who went into the relationship with unrealistic views of what he can or cannot do. Besides, since Jane lay out the terms clearly before they became a couple, then she could hardly be faulted.
That is a reasonable response. But imagine if the situation were reversed: What if, while they were still discussing whether to commit to each other, David lay out the terms that Jane would be expected to have sex regularly with him? Even if she agreed, chances are that people would say that he should have respected her religious convictions. Those who criticise David might point out that perhaps Jane was very reluctant when agreeing to it, but thought that it was something on which she could compromise, and that David should not have put her in such a difficult position in the first place. Well, then, perhaps David was very reluctant when agreeing to not have sex as well, but thought that it was something on which he could compromise, and Jane should not have put him in such a difficult position in the first place.
The emotional harm done to Jane by making her engage in pre-marital sexual activity could be as severe as the emotional harm done to David by making him agree to abstain from pre-marital sexual activity, and yet few people acknowledge it, at least in my experience. Or maybe many people do acknowledge it, but nevertheless there are few of them who would admit it openly and defend David. Why is wanting sex worse than not wanting sex?
What is it about being religious that gives one the more privileged position in love?