Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
obviously if she is easy and continues to be for everyone else after sleeping with them it's a problem for long term committed relationship prospects. The whole deal with "commodification" "objectification" "sexualization" and other bullshit made up meaningless words is simply that for biological reasons men have different instinctive priorities regarding sex than women and rather than deal with that directly a whole world view has been invented to explain these differences sociologically and, conveniently, stigmatize the non-female point of view.
"So I assume that if a man wanted to stay married to a woman and never sleep with her none of the women here would think she had a right to get it elsewhere."
If the marriage vows included the typical fidelity parts, then no, she wouldn't have a right to "get it" elsewhere. She'd have every right to sit him down and begin re-negotiating the relationship, however. Opposite situation, he'd have the same right. Just looking elsewhere for sex is cowardly. If you can't talk to your spouse about something like that, you obviously need to divorce. And divorce, well, that's re-negotiating the relationship, yup.
It's hard to make a call on this without witnessing what's going on with these people. The LW doesn't include any examples of what he perceives as direct and explicit quid pro quo "I'll fuck you if you (whatever)" behavior. It's possible that his wife doesn't perceive the situation that way. There's definitely a problem, and the wife definitely is part of the problem, but that kind of forward thinking architecting the manipulation is often in my experience the product of the brain of the perceiver. It's a lot easier to manufacture that kind of strategy in the imagination after the fact than it is to create a cunning plan and carry it out over weeks/months/years. The wife may indeed perceive that the Celexa has taken away her power, or she may simply be responding in a natural way to having her vanity insulted. She's used to being desired. It's flattering to her. To no longer be desired (at least the way she's used to being desired) is probably insulting. People in general tend to want what they don't have, so now that the desire is no longer omnipresent, she may just miss it.
Either way, this needs to end. The LW is either someone who is paranoid and fearful and distrustful of his wife (or maybe everyone) and the wife would be better off without him, or the wife is a truly heinous creature and the LW would be better off without her. Or some combination of the two, but the point is: the LW perceives her as an adversary, and has perceived her that way for a very long time. They're enemy combatants, and that isn't going to change for the LW. They should disengage.
I wholeheartedly agree with this, and am female. Surprised?
I think that unless they have previously agreed otherwise before the marriage, men and women do have an obligation to have sex with each other. Not in a "Woman! Sex now!" sort of way, and definitely not out of a feeling of obligation, but people who have radically different ideas about how often they have sex do not belong in a marriage in the first place. It causes too much pain to the one who wants sex but isn't getting it.
Some spouses still love their husband/wife, but just lose interest in sex altogether. Okay, fine, but if that's the case then give your spouse full license to seek sex elsewhere. If you don't care about sex, then it shouldn't bother you if they're getting it from someone else. Sex is a basic human need for the vast majority of us, and denying it to someone while holding them to an agreement of fidelity is simply cruel.
(And yes, this is the "Dan Savage line" on sexless relationships. I think he's got it dead-on)
>>Please check your references to Neanderthals. You don't really know anything about Neanderthals and how they related to one another, do you? Using the word as a term of derision doesn't serve you well in your writing>>
yeah, we've all see the Geico TV ad where the cavemen get mad at being insulted. It was funny the first time I saw it a year ago.
>why is a man who is thinking about being unfaithful a "poor example" of a man and a human being>
because he promised fidelity when they married. And all of us, man and woman, are no better than our word and how we keep it. And even considering being unfaithful (not just thinking lustful thoughts about others--that's clearly abstract and not acted on)--consdiering making it a real act is considering reducing the value of your word to nothing.
Saying love and sex are two different things doesn't in any way negate my expectations of faithfulness since my husband and I promised it to each other.
as how can men control what women think or do? We don't and usually don't give a shit. If, when dating a woman, there is no sex within a reasonable time (Say no more than 30 days or more than 3-5 dates) then it is time for a man to move on to greener pastures. We prefer sex not "mystery" or some bullshit gamesmanship when you fucked some guys on your 1st date and now wish to act demure and chaste because you think a man might be marriage material. A bit of advice: most men evaluate you as a sexual experience before they even think of falling in "love" with you. That is a fact.
for the men responding here, that they've been so burned by some woman that they've turned into raving misogynists.
I also feel really sorry for the women who have to date them. Yikes!
My observation is that there are two kinds of relationships, those based on friendship (good), and those based on manipulation, bargaining and power plays (bad).
Meet a man/woman and find out if you can be friends FIRST. If so, and you find them physically attractive, that's the person you should marry.
People rush into marriage based on shallow physical attraction and then later feel ripped off when things don't work out. Men sometimes try to "bargain" a woman into sleeping with them based on their financial spreadsheet or other commodities, in exchange for her youthful body or attractiveness, and then feel pissed that the woman starts bargaining with them about sex.
i say those types deserve each other. Let them fight it out in divorce court.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
