Letters to the Editor
-
@phunkjnky
Don't fool yourself, masturbation is never a substitue for the real thing
here is the opposing viewpoint. interesting read:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/JC08Dh01.html
-
To each her own...
Juliebird reports "My husband reports similar surges seeing me snow-blow the driveway or handle power tools to complete home repairs."
My roommate says my spreadsheets make her hot for me. My coq au vin doesn't hurt, either.
In all seriousness, though, I think it couldn't hurt for both partners to occasionally dress up to welcome each other home with a drink and a foot rub.
-
I have never been so thankful
... to be in a relationship in which "housework" is simply not an issue. Apparently there are a whole lot of victims out there.
-
Don't fool yourself, masturbation is never a substitue for the real thing.....for an opposing viewpoint....
When I start hearing about ordinary men complaining that everywhere they go women are hitting on them and pestering them for sex then I will start taking the idea that men are unwilling to have sex with women seriously.
-
I slap her down, figuratively
Yes, it is, the problem is the female definition of parity: "everything/everyone is exactly the way the woman wants it to be", after all she is right about everything so the only possible basis for a man to object to everything being her way is sexism.
My fiancee is already trying to pull those power games on me. Thankfully, my age and experience and my vehemence against being treated like a tool by any woman (this one supposedly loves me..) means I don't let her get away with trying to pull those stunts. Maybe I'll start bugging her to change according to MY whims-- see how mush she likes that.
I do pity young men, who have no clue what they get into with women and never have (who teaches this stuff to young men?). Women DO seem to love to enslave their men. No wonder the women couch ALL gender relations in terms of master and servant when most men prefer to see it as TWO EQUALS.
-
It has nothing to do with subservience or reversal of gender roles. Bullshit.
It has EVERYTHING to do with gender as the following situation makes clear: If a man and woman both work equal amounts and the MAN is the one who is picky about the house being clean and orderly and the WOMAN doesn't care if it is a mess the WOMAN in a situation like this has NO PROBLEM saying to the man "if it matters to you you deal with it". Why is it different when the genders are reversed?
-
@kufir77
I realize you meant that article as an opposing viewpoint, but I can't take social trend from Japan too seriously. I mean, japan takes the cake when it comes to fads.
-
ALL gender relations in terms of master and servant when most men prefer to see it as TWO EQUALS.
Without some sort of "arbitrary" advantage such as socially assigned authority, high status roles, money etc., the average man can't compete with the average woman when it comes to sexual and emotional influence. When men and women are economically equal the woman is always in charge. Of course women describe this as meaning only that men can't "abuse" and "exploit" them. Short of hormone treatments that make women's sexual and romantic interest in men as strong and as impervious to distraction/destruction by obnoxious behavior as the sexual and romantic interest men have in women is I don't see this ever changing. Education may help people deal with it but it can't change the underlying facts.
-
Am I in a time machine? Is it 1970?
Because otherwise, I can't understand why this rather dumb argument is still being tossed around. Most women have been working outside the home for decades. That's not even taking into account all the labor saving devices we have in our homes, compared to yesteryear, or the fact that many upper-middle and even middle-middle class families have access to at least some outside help -- cleaning services, landscapers, etc.
And all of us (perhaps to our detriment) have unlimited access to fast food, and restaurant food, in such quantity and at such reasonable cost, that many of us very rarely eat at home (or when we do, we are basically just nuking frozen junk food).
The idea that such "housewifery" even exists in 2008 is pretty funny. Maybe the illusion of it is maintained by Martha Stewart (who in reality is a single 66 year old billionaire, with an army of servants), but the reality of it is long dead.
Anyhow, I guess the question was: when men do traditionally female household chores, do they get more sex? My guess is that the answer is going to be pretty individualized -- for example, was the female partner WITHOLDING an average amount of sex because of her rage at being stuck with a lot of unpleasant chores (like, say, Swiffering the Pergo flooring in the urban loft)? Or is this "extra sex", that she is rewarding her spouse with because he has relieved her of a tiresome burden, giving her the time and space to "re-energize"?
God knows, consideration and kindness have a miraculous effect on everyone -- even babies and grandmas -- so, yes, if you are extra-special nice to someone, they may well be extra-special nice back to you. But I personally would rank housework pretty low on that totem pole -- flowers or Godiva chocolate or dinner at a great restaurant would pull more weight with me.
I suspect that nobody, male or female, finds it a turn-on to watch a partner of the opposite sex scrub out a dirty toilet bowl. I may not enjoy doing it, but I don't enjoy WATCHING it either. When we hire low-paid illegal immigrants do to our Industrialized World scut-work, do we find it sexy? I don't think so -- we find it convenient. (It is especially pleasing and convenient when anything -- cleaning, food prep, child care -- happen "invisibly" while we are out at our soul-satisfying paying jobs.)
It seems to me that when I was a singleton, I still had to do stuff like clean out the cat box, scrub toilets and shop/put away/cook food...so those things just seem like the rhythm of life -- not sex-linked and not punishment in any way. I appreciate help from my spouse if I'm occasionally overwhelmed, but it's not related to my sexual desires and/or "willingness to put out".
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I feel this is the offensive part of the theory -- that men have all these sexual desires and needs, that women (having few or none of their own) simply decide to gratify or not, based on materialistic, self-serving standards. That's crap, and I'm sort of embarrassed that anybody still thinks this way.