There's an interesting exchange going on at Ask Philosophers about whether one can be morally obliged to have sex with one's partner. (Ignoring outlandish cases where aliens will otherwise blow up the world, etc.) Sally Haslanger argues not, appealing to one's inalienable right to one's own body. Alan Soble responds that we may also want to take into account the virtue of benevolence, considerations of "orgasmic (distributive) justice", and prudence / maintaining the relationship. Interesting stuff. It reminds me of some of the old comments here. (My initial intuitions are more in line with Haslanger's, but I don't know how justifiable they are at the end of the day. I mean, the idea of reluctant sexual relations seems simply awful. But if one is tossing up various possible options - all enjoyable - and it just happens that one would prefer reading even more than sex from a purely self-interested viewpoint, then in that case I can see that love of one's partner might reasonably motivate a good person to have sex instead. A less favoured option may still be viewed favourably, after all. But if the act were engaged in reluctantly, that would seem to change its very nature -- much for the worse!) Any thoughts?
Aside: one curious implication of utilitarianism seems to be that women ought to be a lot more promiscuous. Could this ground an especially strong 'demandingness objection' to the theory?