Are they totally delusional?

Check out "Lysistrata" - classic ancient Greek comedy.

Not sure its going to be an effective stratgey. Do these women think that they are their husbands only source of sexual pleasure?

The article states: "studies found that local gang members were drawn to criminality by the desire for status, power, and sexual attractiveness, not economic necessity."

I highly doubt these guys are the monogamous type.

Some women are very, very naive. Although, I supppose if you choose to marry a gang banger you are a bit deluded right out of the gate... Sorry.

Right you are, Anonymous; referenced it in my first line.

Thanks, all, for your comments.

Hrm...

Take a group of men in violent sub-culture of a latin, machismo-infused region, and then deny them sex.

Yes, I'm sure they'll renounce violence right away, and obey their wives. Aren't men who aren't having sex on a regular basis less prone to violence, less angry, and more reasonable than their well-laid compatriots?

How on earth do people come up with this stuff?

Denying gang members sex will make them less violent?

Wives & girlfriends making demands on their machismo boyfiends/husbands on career choices will surely be widely recieved and well respected in both the Latin culture.

In what universe does this make sense?

"We don't want to wind up widows..."

But do you feel about being a divorce'?

How do you feel about your husband taking a mistress?

Somehow, I doubt that this particular culture of men are accustomed to hearing demands from their wives & girlfriends. I am rather skeptical that men motivated by "the desire for status, power, and sexual attractiveness" will react well to this kind of ultimatum.

Anyone want to start a pool on how long it'll be before domestic violence incidents spike?

I applaud the women for trying, but it does seem poorly thought out.

It is a nice idea but the net result will be that rape will increase. An angry gangbanger gets home and his woman won't put out? Do you think he'll just go and sleep on the couch? He'll rape her inside out until she thinks twice about ever denying him what his culture states (clearly, I might add) that he owns. Then he'll beat her. Then he'll leave her.

The truth is harsh, but that is what happens in patriarchal cultures with a heavy investment in machismo. If a man can't even control his own woman, he's no man, you know.

I guess Mrs. Bush must be satisfied with the job her husband is doing destroying America.

Having been to Ecuador, Peru, and Chile, and knowing what the situation is like in Colombia (i.e., fucked-up beyond belief), I truly doubt this stunt will work. Makes for an interesting story (and very apropos for "Broadsheet"), but, really: get serious. Though I would like to be a fly on the wall when a coked-up Colombian gangster comes home in the mood, and his novia says nada mas. Hopefully she'll survive without permanent damage.

Really though what is the problem? He's clearly doing a FANTASTIC job of wrecking the country.

Isn't the whole point that the men _won't_ get it? :-)

Let's see, now:

<<<...studies found that local gang members were drawn to criminality by the desire for status, power, and sexual attractiveness...>>>

So, if their wives are keeping their legs crossed, then the men will...

meekly comply?

This is a noble and well-intentioned idea. But, by definition, these men are already part of one of the most violent subsets of Colombian culture.

I applaud the effort, but I question the outcome, and I fear for those women.

Whether or not their "strike of crossed legs" aids the disarmament campaign or has any impact on the violent lifestyles of their partners, I applaud these women.

They're making their distaste for the current situation known, known even to us.

Imagine living daily with the thought that your husband could be made a corpse at any moment. Having to explain that to your children.

Or imagine living daily with thought that your husband could be out making corpses of other women's husbands .

Could you share a bed and your body with him? Bear his child?

Over time, how might that make you feel about yourself?

How might it affect what you see in that child in years to come?

Not knowing if divorce would be a real or easy option (like here in the US) in a largely Catholic culture, I see the strike as, really, quite brave.

Maybe symbollic, but brave.

Far more brave than clicking an article open on the internet and sitting in comfortable judgement of someone's way of addressing a desperate situation you've never imagined.

An alternate approach: f*ck these men repeatedly until they wear out. Use whatever method/device/meat product necessary. At least try it for a month and see if it makes any impact.

I contend that a lot of the violence in the world could be mitigated by keeping aggressive men (and a few women) in constant post-orgasmic languor. Think of all the hyper-islamic "suiciders" who might have second thoughts if those 72 'virgins' lured them away from that day's bombings. You can't go out to engage the enemy if you sleep through the alarm...

Ok, I'm only half-serious here, and this strategy is horribly chauvinistic. It is unrealistic on many levels. But the opposite is no solution either. Many aggressive males and cultures tend to commit stupid, self-destructive acts if they are sexually frustrated or insecure. If women are somehow enabling them, they need to address the situation in a meaningful way. At least this report from Columbia is bringing sex into the discussion about large-scale violence, which is a good step forward no matter what these particular results may be.

I should let this go, but reading Bill K.'s letter, I realized there's something hiding behind all of this, a belief these women might be holding on to, the kind of thing that has gotten women everywhere in trouble in their lives.

Imagine living daily with the thought that your husband could be made a corpse at any moment. Having to explain that to your children.

Or imagine living daily with thought that your husband could be out making corpses of other women's husbands .

Could you share a bed and your body with him? Bear his child?

It's an interesting thought, but let's go back further.

Imagine marrying a man, knowing he could be made a corpse at any moment, knowing that he might be called upon, daily, to make corpses out of other women's husbands.

Imagine dating a man, learning that he could be killed, that he might kill others, as part of his chosen profession.

Imagine learning these things, thinking these things, knowing these things, and still chosing to share your bed & your body, chosing to begin a marriage and a family with him.

Why would you do this? What could a woman possibly be thinking in making those choices? (Yes, yes, some women might be ignorant of their boyfriend's/husband's choice of work... at least, for a while)

Go ahead. Say it. Why would a woman chose to marry a man marred with violence, in a criminal profession, chose to raise children with him, and then become upset that his criminal profession puts him at risk from violence? Why are these women now attempting to "strike" to change their mens' ways? It's the ugliest of female cliche's.

They choose to marry a "bad boy" and raise children with him, thinking "I can change him!"

Like I said, one of the ugliest of cliche's...