1 - Depends on the people.

2 - No. What's demeaning is when a woman who doesn't want to sell sex is forced to by her economic situation. The demeaning element doesn't come from the fact sex is involved, so much as the nature of her situation. One could discuss whether it's more or less demeaning to be forced to be a prostitute vs. being forced to sell blood, or to work in a boring office. But, in any event, the analogy you're trying to draw is entirely specious.

It's entirely different to want something that's not free, but to be able to pay for it. It's not demeaning, for example, to be forced to pay for milk at the supermarket. I can't think of an analogy the other way that quite makes sense, but I suppose it's demeaning to the cow to have to give up the milk. Fortunately, we demean cows with relative impunity.

It may or may not be demeaning to be forced to work as, say, (a) a secretary, and type other people's letters or (b) a maid, and clean other people's toilets. It's really the opposite of demeaning to hire a secretary and a maid to type your letters and clean your toilet.

3 - Because each person, whether or not in a relationship, has dominion over his or her own body. You don't "own" your partner's body for the purpose of having sex with it, any more than you own his or her kidneys for the purpose of donating one of them to be transplanted to some third person.

Not much of a luminary, but I have been known to become luminous.

1. In a "consensual" relationship, who consents more often, and to what? Does one partner generally consent to have sex with the other, or does one partner more often than not consent to the other's desire not to have sex or not to do certain activities?

There are many relationships that could be defined as consensual. It appears that your question limits the term consensual relationship to only those in which two people have a relationship that might involve sex. I say that the consent to have sex occurs sometime. possibly as little as a few seconds, before the first sexual encounter. Consent infers mutual as con means -with, together- and sent from sentire means feel. Consent means feel together or in modern English implies agreement. Consent, consensus and consensual all stem from the same roots. In some relationships people might have sex whenever either partner so wishes. In many relationships one or the other partner may or may not consent to each individual sex session. I imagine that most relationships fall in between those two examples. Based on other questions and comments of yours that i have read I get the feeling that your world vision is centered on your own particular experiences in what we consider western civilization. In our society it is now considered wrong to oblige a person, even a spouse, to perform or participate in an act against that person's desires. So if one partner is not willing to have sex at a certain moment then, yes, a desirous partner would and should, out of respect, consent to the other's desire to not have sex. Likewise out of love, esteem, friendship, whatever-an undesirous partner might and often does consent to a desirous partner's wish to have sex. You mentions "certain activities." It is unclear whether you mean sexual activities. What sexual activities are engaged in are also a question of consent. A successful sexual encounter depends partly on whether the activities in which a couple engage are mutually enjoyable. In a successful relationship there is often compromise and negotiation; I had sex in missionary position with you in that cabin ( full of chiggers) on the bearskin rug (That made me sneeze) in front of the fire (that almost suffocated me so now you can give me a blow job in the convertible with the top down

2. If it's demeaning for women to be placed in a situation where they have to sell sex, isn't it equally demeaning to place men in a position where they have to buy sex?

There are places in the world where women and children are forced into prostitution. Most of the world is not Canada, USA, western Europe and Australia. It is demeaning for anyone to be forced into prostitution as such a situation constitutes slavery. On a personal level I consider it demeaning for a man to go to a prostitute because in my own case it would mean that I couldn't get laid any other way. For some men that is not a problem. I do believe that making a consensual agreement for sex with a self employed government certified prostitute in Amsterdam's De Wallen or Hamburg's Reperbahn is quite a different question morally from paying a pimp for sex with a minor as can be done in Latin America, Asia and probably Africa. I would not lower myself to using the services of a prostitute even if she were self employed.

3. Why is it demeaning (and generally criminal) for one partner in a relationship to coerce the other to have sex, but not considered demeaning (and never criminal) for one partner to coerce the other into not having sex?

Again, this is not the case in many countries. In what we consider the developed world no one is ever coerced into not having sex unless it is a case of depriving an individual of basic freedoms such as the ability to go from one place to another. If one's partner says " I do not wish to have sex with you" that does not deny one the ability to have sex with someone else or with oneself.

Are you about to get on another anti marriage, anti monogamous relationship thing here?

WSO - you really do need to get out and explore how the rest of the world operates. If you really would prefer women who are so beaten down that they would kill their own girl-babies because their husbands told them to do so, then you will need to look elsewhere. Naturally, such women would never deny sex to their husbands and would even go out and find another wife for their husbands should said husband tell them to do so. As for divorce, do not worry, you can rid yourself of your wife simply by kicking her out the door. Yes, you would retain all your money and all of your children.

But what would that make you?

dlb said it best when he said he would not lower himself.
Apparently, you're not so particular.

And should you ask my husband of more than 30 years how long he's been married to his tigress, he'd enthusiastically say, I have heard him, "Not long enough!" I have to agree with him. In my view, he's the best man on the planet. So what if my big brawny tiger is showing a bit of wear - nibble marks on his ears and his fur is getting a bit gray- damn! he's still got it!

The point about marriage in the western world is that it takes courage to make that essential leap of faith. Either you have it or you do not.

A few things on the third point:

So far as I know, there's nothing explicit in the law in any jurisdiction I'm aware of, or in the marriage vows, that includes an agreement by either party to have sex with the other. All there is -- explicitly -- is an agreement not to have sex with anyone other than one's spouse. So refusing to have sex at all may not, in fact, be a "breach of the deal."

On the other hand, one might argue that that's an implicit term. It's not, at least in the US, a legally enforceable deal, because it involves what's called "meretricious consideration." On the other hand, I suppose it's akin to the "deal" between a prostitute and client, which also may not be explicit, and is not legally cognizable for exactly the same reason.

As a legal matter -- and more generally, as a moral and practical matter -- even explicit, legally enforceable contracts for personal services are not "specifically enforceable." At least not since indentured servitude and slavery went out the window. If you hire a secretary to work for your company, or a guy to put a roof on your house, you can't force him or her to type or to nail shingles. You can, of course, fire one or both of them if they don't. What happens in that situation depends on what the terms of your agreement were.

Or -- to take another situation -- say you're an experienced roofer. It's pretty hard for one roofer to put a roof on even a little house in a timely fashion all by himself. You might hire some apprentice to work with you, but that's difficult and you're not really interested in teaching. Instead, you and another experienced roofer get together as partners, and buy a truck, an inventory of shingles, an ad in the local paper, a flashy website and (for no obvious reason) a Golden Retriever. Unfortunately, your partner, for some reason -- maybe he's hitting the bottle, or has bad knees -- starts actually showing up at the worksite less and less often. Eventually, you've got to bring an end to the whole arrangement. Do you get to keep the truck, the inventory and (especially) the Golden Retriever? I guess that depends on what your agreement is. If you wrote one up, it'll say whatever you want it to. If you didn't, the law tells you what the "standard" terms of a business partnership are.

The law tells you what the "standard" terms of marriage are. If they are different from the deal that you and your spouse intend to agree to, write your own damn terms. Nobody's stopping you, unless your spouse doesn't agree to them ... in which case there is no deal or agreement, and you're not in much of a position to argue later that the standard terms you didn't modify weren't what you wanted them to be.

Well, think about it. You bitch and moan about the west so you must want those other societies' cultures. Plus there's the "oh I can't be bothered' attitude and the "I'll just buy what I want" view of sexual congress.

Stop being silly, you know what I said meant precisely what I said. Women don't become prostitutes because it is such a great job - they have to have sex with guys like you for example, so there has to be some reason why they bother. Other outcomes are a profound distrust and lack of respect for men in general, an inability to understand and handle real affection within a relationship, to mention a few. It is your "wave my money and jump for me baby" attitude, WSO.

No system is perfect and it is foolish to expect it. Thus far, however, the western cultures are the best as far as women are concerned.