A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Judaka wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:09 amSir-Sister-of-Suck
De-facto partners still have legal proceedings and entitlements after they split
The idea that being in a relationship with someone grants you any sort of right, does not actually hold true. That's just the level of stuff we see on repomen and judge judy for entertainment. Unless you have co-signed ownership of something, you have no right to your partners property. But this also doesn't have anything to do with divorce courts. What, you think that men have it worse in property cases as well?
I'm not an activist and I did just tell you to look up the claims for yourself but if you're not interested in understanding the issue that's fine.
I wasn't saying you were an activist, but this is a claim that I've seen primarily originating from MRAs, so naturally I have some skepticism about it. I'll look into it someday. Mostly, I'd like to find out if there's any justifiable reason why the courts seem swayed against men. I know they generally lose more money, but they also have more money which seems like a simple enough explanation to me. I don't know. I'd just want to make sure there isn't anything that's not being considered or factored in; That seems to me like the main thing which usually ends up being the case in claims of 'systemic discrimination'.
The problem isn't marriage but the legal proceedings that occur when partners split and in the case of a custody hearing if they have children and can't agree on an arrangement themselves.
It's not to say it isn't a problem, but I'm just questioning the consistency of some of these guys who complain about marriage all the time, and then end up getting married. Maybe in spite of marriage's flaws, they see enough benefit to ignore that stuff so go through with it, anyway.

But there's really no excuse for them to not at least sign a pre-nupt or something.
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Judaka »

I don't know where you live but in Australia, de-facto relationships absolutely entitle you to your partner's wealth just as marriage does. Here's some information about that since you're adamant about not googling anything.

https://www.wattsmccray.com.au/differen ... -eyes-law/

Property is absolutely a factor in divorce proceedings, hell my parents got divorced and sold the family home and split the proceeds, though they didn't have to go to court.

The problem is that at least in Australia either you go MGTOW or your deal with the legality of long-term relationships, marriage is once again, not really the problem here. it's pragmatic and smart to think about a contract when going into marriage but I can understand why that's not something you would want to think about or talk about when you're just getting married. Who knows when you are going to get divorced (if at all) and what the situation will be like, financially and in terms of your relationship or offspring.

People can still complain about the traffic without selling their cars, there's nothing wrong with wanting to fix a broken system regardless of whether they are engaged with it or not.
User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Kayla »

Judaka wrote: Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:03 am How on earth does that resolve the unfair bias in divorce proceedings? Any research you do on the subject will reveal there is an immense bias in the courts against men, I'm not going to give you links you can just find your own from whatever source you deem credible.
the only information i can find is that vast majority of the time, it is the mother that gets custody

but that has nothing to do with court bias - most men choose not to contest this
User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Kayla »

Judaka wrote: Sun Aug 12, 2018 2:54 am Meritocracy and individual focus are obviously better solutions than collectivist thought, I hope our society can come to terms with that soon.
you mean like the gender and color blind meritocracy we had before feminism and civil rights became a thing?
User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Kayla »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:08 pm Kayla, I agree that mixed sex groups behave nicely, but there are many occupations where either men or women dominate.
that is changing

there are female auto mechanics and male daycare workers now - even in the last ten years there was a noticeable change
I disagree that we are equal politically, though -- nor do I think we should be -- I just don’t believe you can separate out the psychological differences.
what do psychological differences have to do with anything here

women should be just as entitled to have their interests politically represented as men - and men often (not always) do a shitty job representing interests of women - i am not sure how the existence of psychological differences is a counter-argument here

(i am assuming that you understand that the psychological differences are a statistical tendency)
The paragraph of mine you have quoted shows that, in promoting women into powerful positions around the world, women are cheating (and men are following on). How can that be right?
strange how men did not complain when they were cheating by, say, not allowing women to vote

or forbidding sale of birth control (there are still men who want to do that)

or hiring only men regardless of merit
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Judaka »

the only information i can find is that vast majority of the time, it is the mother that gets custody

but that has nothing to do with court bias - most men choose not to contest this
Then you did not look very hard.

if the man did not choose to contest custody then there is no court case, plenty of divorces are settled outside of court. When an actual court case takes place over custody it means the father is contesting something. I don't really feel like writing an essay on the topic though and it's quite complicated. Some issues aren't black and white, like child support, where the financial situations between single fathers and mothers could explain or justify mothers being awarded child payments more often.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relatio ... ourts.html
you mean like the gender and color blind meritocracy we had before feminism and civil rights became a thing?
wot?
that is changing

there are female auto mechanics and male daycare workers now - even in the last ten years there was a noticeable change
The most egalitarian countries like in Scandinavia are reporting the greatest gender disparities between employment rates in fields such as the STEM (overwhelmingly male) and health care (overwhelmingly female). It appears that the only change is that gender-based domination of fields is only increasing with gender equality.
strange how men did not complain when they were cheating by, say, not allowing women to vote

or forbidding sale of birth control (there are still men who want to do that)

or hiring only men regardless of merit
This is such a stupid view of history...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/histo ... evision/2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_ri ... _Share.png

Before the 19th century, democracy exists but it's nothing like it is today and before that time, there's no democracy in the West for over a thousand years.. or was it longer? Overtime democracy overcame class differences, racial differences and biological sex, hence the wonderful world we live in today. To characterise that process as "men denying women's rights to vote because assholes" is pretty awful.

Some dominations of Christianity are against birth control but actually, it's a male conspiracy to hinder women, some men aren't looking after women as they should by being extremely conservative on sex. Not even going to comment on that last one lol.

The West, the most inclusive and tolerant civilisation to ever exist and all people can talk about is how sexist and divisive it is and has been!! Even when it's an absurd and ignorant interpretation of history lol.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Judaka wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:27 am I don't know where you live but in Australia, de-facto relationships absolutely entitle you to your partner's wealth just as marriage does. Here's some information about that since you're adamant about not googling anything.

https://www.wattsmccray.com.au/differen ... -eyes-law/
Oh. I hadn't considered that you lived somewhere else. My apologies.

America does have something known as 'common-law marriage,' but the reason why that isn't a problem is because for the few states which even have it, there is only a very concise criteria that ever makes the law applicable. It usually requires an actual ceremony to have taken place. Not just living with someone else.
Property is absolutely a factor in divorce proceedings, hell my parents got divorced and sold the family home and split the proceeds, though they didn't have to go to court.
What I was saying, is that here in america there is no property case if something distinctly belongs to someone. Outside of divorce, inside of normal relationships, I mean.
People can still complain about the traffic without selling their cars, there's nothing wrong with wanting to fix a broken system regardless of whether they are engaged with it or not.
Thing about that example, there's a much more practical argument to be had that we 'need' to use traffic lights. Driving is a pretty essential part of most people's lives. Marriage is not, it's something a man fully chooses to go into.

As I said, maybe they believe marriage has more pros than cons. Just doesn't seem like they ever talk about what those pros actually are.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Kayla wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:44 pm
Judaka wrote: Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:03 am How on earth does that resolve the unfair bias in divorce proceedings? Any research you do on the subject will reveal there is an immense bias in the courts against men, I'm not going to give you links you can just find your own from whatever source you deem credible.
but that has nothing to do with court bias - most men choose not to contest this
I wouldn't even care if there was a bias, if it has justifiable reasons for why that bias exists.
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck --- you said:
You would have made it harder for your wife to leave you, as though you were forcing her to stay with you?
Yes, I would like to have been able to force my wife to be more frightened of divorce. I know it sounds antediluvian, I know it sounds cruel, I know it sounds unfair … but the simple truth is that the easier you make divorce for women, the more divorce there will be -- petitioned by either party. It’s like single motherhood. It’s happening all over the world, even in Saudi Arabia. If we are honest with ourselves we recognise that there are many societal influences that force us to behave in certain ways -- just that the word ‘force’ has become taboo.

In a serious argument, the average husband’s ultimate threat is violence, so society rightly threatens him with sanctions. The average wife’s ultimate threat is divorce, and society also used to threaten her with sanctions. Now divorce parties are all the rage, and shame is attached no more. Society is egging women on to divorce, just like it is egging them on to be single mothers. From the children’s point-of-view this is a disaster.
I have to say, you have a rather unintuitive, nixon-esque approach to the way that you would go about handling some of the problems you see in institutional marriage. Rather than doing away with any of the things you take issue with, you wish to do things that would ultimately make them harder to deal with, under the imperative that you think you can improve the current state of marriage.
Yes, I do think marriage can be improved, so, yes, I do want to preserve all the good bits. What parts do you want to do away with?
I'm not sure where you lean on the political spectrum, but you could probably guess that I would rarely want more state-involvement in the laws that don't work. I'd probably just be encouraged to abolish those laws, altogether.
As for my politics, I call myself a Male champion, Sexist evangelist, Lover of women, and an Amateur sociobiologist. My website explains in more detail (https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/). I see the market and democracy being in opposition, and the market as being a necessary evil. While admittedly supplying us with an over-abundance of goods, Adam Smith’s invisible hand has two serious drawbacks: it makes our selfishness seem respectable, and it encourages us to seek out and profit from the selfishness of others. Through the market, we seek out each others private lusts, make them public, and satisfying them -- regardless of the public good. Pornography and the over-supply of food are two obvious examples. I too am suspicious of big government, but someone has to regulate the market.

Judaka --- I’m sorry, I don’t know what my ‘OP’ is. Is it something I can set up in this forum? I am also sorry my fanatical focus on sex differences upsets you. I know I go over the top, but I’m trying to make up for all those people who are fanatically covering up or eradicating the differences. When it comes to sexual activity there really are some stark differences, and we ignore them at our peril.

Greta --- I’m afraid I don’t know enough about American politics to comment with authority. My impression of the Republican party is that it is too LEFT wing! As for billionaires loving the sex war … I don’t think they are any more conscious of it than anybody else. Does it benefit them? Well, I think the sex war is at the core of our society -- supplying much of the human energy to keep the economy going -- so I guess billionaires benefit more than others to the extent that they own more of the economy than others. A lot, in other words. Immigration is another thing I don’t know enough about.

Kayla --- Yes, I agree that the fancy occupations are becoming more mixed, but we can reverse that in short order when we see how wrong quotas and other forms of affirmative action are. Here’s how I explained why forcing women into high status roles is wrong to my local councillor, here in the UK:

“I believe that many modern ills are down to the fact that men have lost control of women -- both in public and in private.  The spread around the world of quotas for women politicians horrifies me, as does the Conservative Party’s target for 50% women candidates.  It is all based on a contradiction:  (1) women make no difference, so they deserve 50% of the seats;  (2) women make a lot of difference, so there will be a lot of improvements once women get in power.  That is female logic gone wild, and it’s a lie.”

I believe men do a much better job of representing women than women do. Women operate subconsciously much of the time, and don’t know what they want. Many women profess they have no idea what their clothes and make-up do to men. They think they want toy-boys, but actually they seek a powerful man. They have little idea how to control bad behaviour, so, with women’s sentiments now ruling supreme, we reward things like divorce, single mothers, gambling, masturbation, drugs, over-eating -- all with not a whiff of male discipline in sight.

When you list bad things that men have done I just wonder what their wives were doing to them back home. Wives can be very strict on husbands, even when they appear to have very little formal power.

=====================


Everyone --- I agree with Judaka that this thread is too long. I am going to start a new thread “A Philosophy for Arguing with Wives”.
Judaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:24 pm

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Judaka »

OP is your original post, the first post in the thread. It's what most people will read before jumping to the most recent conversation.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:51 pmYes, I would like to have been able to force my wife to be more frightened of divorce. I know it sounds antediluvian, I know it sounds cruel, I know it sounds unfair … but the simple truth is that the easier you make divorce for women, the more divorce there will be -- petitioned by either party.
I think it's more than antediluvian - It brings to mind a certain type of cowardice. The fact that you want to make it harder for a woman who doesn't want to be with you, to leave you - by an establishment of law - is right off the bat, pretty gross. But the reason why I said it's 'cowardly,' is because you can already make it more difficult for her to leave you by asking her to sign a pre-nupt, or a special contract with stipulations - but that would require initiating an awkward conversation, and getting a full agreement on her end. It makes me think that you want the government to force the societal response you see fit by diminishing the freedom of women into this utopia you envision, and mostly out of some self-projection of your own self-interest to avoid such an awkward conversation.

Your views on marriage hold far less weight, because you did not actually put into place anything that would have fixed the 'problems' you see in marriage, via a free market solution like a special contract. Now, maybe you gained all of these views well after you got married so you didn't think to have your wife sign any contract to reduce the risk of divorce...But here's the thing, you can have a special contract or pre-nup signed well after you have already married someone. At any point in time, you could have implemented a free-market solution, at least to your own marriage. You did not do this, which frankly makes your position look very weak. It makes me think you only want the government to do this dirty work for you, so that your own hands appear clean in this.

If you want marriage to be more like an agreement in an escort service, you can already do that - just do it like a man. Leave it out for those of us who wouldn't want this. I'd like to imagine most men would rather have their wife leave them than have her live under a falsehood, because I guess I'm optimistic enough to think most people value truth in this universe. I at least try to.
Yes, I do think marriage can be improved, so, yes, I do want to preserve all the good bits. What parts do you want to do away with?
Well, like I said I personally believe the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Right now in America, it rears too close to the government trying to control society by encouraging it towards a certain behavior. And the government shouldn't exist to control our lives - it shouldn't even exist to protect our lives, it exists to protect our 'rights.'

The government isn't the arbiter of my morality, but you seem to want to double down on that position. I need to have a basic agreement with them on what liberties we have, but that's it. Past that point, it doesn't and shouldn't dictate a certain philosophy.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:14 pm SpheresOfBalance, you say that some people would consider you “slightly sexist”. You have my sympathies -- most people would call me extremely sexist. ‘Sexist’ is a derogatory term, almost exclusively used by women against men, where the woman accuses the man of being nasty to her on the basis of her sex. In other words, she’s saying that he’s pointing out what he thinks is a negative female trait, inherent to all women but not men, about which she can do nothing. As far as she’s concerned he is not just insulting her, but insulting all women at the same time.

Technically, if the trait (sex difference) is really true, then the man is not being sexist -- he is simply telling the truth. But, increasingly, as more and more societies officially deny sex differences exist, telling the truth is not an option: if a man distinguishes between the sexes in any way (except for sexual purposes) then he is being sexist and he is in the wrong.

I believe there are many large differences between the sexes, especially in our behaviour towards one another; I believe in pointing out these differences whenever acceptable; and I often believe in exaggerating them. You’d have thought I was asking for trouble, but rarely do I have a problem in social encounters -- almost everyone, if put on the spot, acknowledges differences -- it is just impossible to get anything published. In the public sphere, the whole world has gone into denial.

You comment:
I see that lesbians and gays are gender deficient, at various stages of being a hermaphrodite. Though I have nothing against them, they are innocents. Unfortunately birth defects happen.
This is why I use the term sex war -- the conflict is so important that it even shows sex differences in homosexuality (my own son is gay). Gay men side with the opposite sex whereas lesbians side with their own sex (they are often leading feminists) -- both treat heterosexual men as the enemy. That’s one of the reasons why I want to minimise homosexuality in men -- the more there are the weaker men become in the sex war.

You say you are, “all about equality across the board”, whereas I do not even believe in equal rights between men and women. It’s obvious, really, if there are any sex differences in behaviour, then each sex has its own probability of manifesting that behaviour. Women are more agreeable than men, so have a greater probability or ‘right’ than men of entering caring careers; men are more systemising than women, so have a greater probability or ‘right’ to enter STEM careers. Boys and girls have the opportunity of becoming respectively men and women -- they are not the same; they do not have equal opportunities; they do not have equal rights.

I don’t mind a woman being in charge occasionally, but when it becomes a trend, particularly a forced trend, then I draw the line. Quotas and women-only lists are anathema to me, and yet they have spread all over the world. That’s what happens when men give up control. I believe that men on the average make better leaders. You think the reverse (“in some respects they'll do a better job than us men”); you even think that “women can have a better scientific understanding than men”. I’m not sure where that comes from. We’ll just have to agree to differ on that. But hang on a moment, you are the one who said he believed in equality, and yet now you are judging women superior in a very significant way. That’s the female knot of logic I am talking about. You trickster!

As for sexual positions, the more the merrier I say. Thank you very much for your time. Sorry to go on at such length.
Your response (above) to my last message, indicated that you believed you saw contradiction. You have to understand that I really hate groupism. I see that it's impossible to create two groups, i.e., "men" and "women," and say anything that necessarily applies to all people within each group. Something that many would think is most assuredly a constant in each group, sometimes isn't. For instance, my wife has a step sister that was born with two vaginas. So as you can clearly see, even physically all men and women aren't created equal. Which has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that I believe in equality across the board. I meant equal opportunity. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Like I said, the human that is most qualified to do a job should get the job regardless of their race, color, creed, sexuality, religion, etc. Of course if there are specific dress/grooming standards, etc, then the applicant should be apprised of such and asked if they can meet those requirements. That's fair! So the proof is in the pudding, or in this case, the test results that reveal their qualifications.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Kayla wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:23 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:43 amI believe that on average men can take more physical and psychological punishment than women. That being tortured once caught behind enemy lines women would break quicker.
do u have any idea how many women regularly present a happy and functional face to the world in the face of very painful premenstrual cramps?
Yes, I'm a 60yo and has observed and talked with many women. But you can't compare menstrual cramps, or better yet, pushing something that's 10cm out of an orifice that is less than 1cm, (giving birth) to torture. Those two things are a far cry from torture, trust me, I'm a vet.

Edit1: Boy did I mess this one up, I finished a sentence, and rewrote the start of one that followed.
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck --- You are very perceptive. Yes, I spent a lot of time trying to get other people to discipline my wife on my behalf -- I even tried to get my brother to come all the way over from America to do it. And yes, for all our marriage I was a coward of the first degree. Nevertheless, in a mass society which has a media that spreads ideas all round the world in seconds, I think we need some assistance from a higher authority to keep us couples on the straight and narrow. I see the justice system as an extension of government, and I think the laws against murder, rape, domestic violence and verbal abuse are a good idea (sexual harassment goes too far). It’s just that we need laws against female-type misbehaviour in a marriage too: divorce, betrayal of agreements (your special contracts sound like a good idea), and the biggy, withdrawal of sex.

Women’s sex drive in a heterosexual relationship is far less than a man’s. If they are upset they can go without sex for months or even years (not every woman, of course -- just on the average). Sex used to be a requirement of marriage -- the punishment for frigidity was excommunication -- and it is the main reason men get married. It sounds like a big ask -- demanding that a wife yields to her husband, even when she does not feel like it -- but she does this to an amazing extent already. Fully forty percent of women do not have an orgasm in the course of regular sex, here in the UK. A prostitute can do it several times a night, if she wants to, so it can’t be that big of a demand for a loving wife.

I think the lack of orgasm is very sad, by the way, and I am very disappointed in mother nature, if that’s the way she intends it. In this instance, if it really is natural behaviour, we can change it by judicious training. Men must make sure a woman orgasms first -- in this way multiple female orgasms can be accommodated, if desired.

In other words, I believe in the restitution of conjugal rights, so unwisely taken away under the advice of the UK law commission in 1970. The feminists will cry ‘marital rape’, but that is a nonsense if the wife willingly cooperates out of love for her husband.

SpheresOfBalance --- The subject of group differences between the sexes is very touchy. As you say, there are often individual differences: some women will outperform the average man and some men will outperform the average woman. Nevertheless, particularly in the sexual sphere, the differences are dramatic. A recent paper in ‘Science Advances’ shows that women are at their most attractive at 18, and their attractiveness declines forever after. Men are at their least attractive at 18, and become more and more attractive up to the age of 50. This is a very stark difference indeed.

Your belief in equal opportunities is very common. Many right-thinking people think equality of outcome (equity?) is a nonsense, but nearly everybody (including Jordan Peterson) subscribes to equal opportunity -- especially between the sexes. I think that belief is a sham. To tell a young girl that she has the same probability as a young boy of succeeding in a programming career is a lie. Even with decades of boosting girls into STEM subjects, ending with diversity (positive discrimination) programmes in the workplace, women still only represent 20% of the workforce.

For a start, a girl is far less likely to maintain her interest in the subject: at ‘A’ level only 10% of programming students are female. After they are employed, their chances of promotion are less than a man’s. This is because they have to bear and then take care of children; partly as a result, they work shorter hours; and they seek promotion less aggressively than men.  In addition, in certain STEM fields, the female brain is, on the average, inferior to the male brain at performing the allotted tasks -- especially at higher levels. All these factors mean that, if you tell a young girl she has the same opportunity as a boy to succeed in a STEM career, you are lying. The only way to get equality is to damage the boys’ education so their performance degrades, and force managers to preferentially promote less qualified women. Both these policies are now in place, and both are working -- but at what cost? Are you sure that this is what you want?


my website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:50 pm Sir-Sister-of-Suck --- You are very perceptive. Yes, I spent a lot of time trying to get other people to discipline my wife on my behalf -- I even tried to get my brother to come all the way over from America to do it. And yes, for all our marriage I was a coward of the first degree. Nevertheless, in a mass society which has a media that spreads ideas all round the world in seconds, I think we need some assistance from a higher authority to keep us couples on the straight and narrow. I see the justice system as an extension of government, and I think the laws against murder, rape, domestic violence and verbal abuse are a good idea (sexual harassment goes too far).
To be honest, I'd have a bit more respect for that if you were at least consistent. It's made worse because you want to have your cake and eat it too; You're scared of actually confronting women, but your demands for them are oh so high. You cherry-pick the attributes of the 'archetypal male' based on what you find most comfortable to apply in your life. The thing about something like an abusive boyfriend, is they at least have some redeemable qualities about them, like they're generally hardcore bad-asses who aren't scared of women. You seem to possess the viewpoint of women that an abusive boyfriend would behind closed doors, put front and center - yet you lack the strength and mental capacity to fully implement that viewpoint.

I'm starting to feel kind of bad because I keep putting you down like this, but it's honestly one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen on here.
It’s just that we need laws against female-type misbehaviour in a marriage too: divorce, betrayal of agreements (your special contracts sound like a good idea), and the biggy, withdrawal of sex.
You don't want to give the government power to dictate something like that as 'misbehavior;' Frankly, it is just a disagreement between two people. Do it yourself with a contract if you want, but don't force it down everyone's throat because you wish to engineer our society. My government doesn't even allow itself to advocate for the laws that are already in place, normally, and there's a similar reason for that; Any attempt from a government to socially engineer its civilians ends in catastrophe, whether you agree with what they're attempting to 'teach' you doesn't even matter.

There are less disingenuous ways of going about this.
Women’s sex drive in a heterosexual relationship is far less than a man’s. If they are upset they can go without sex for months or even years (not every woman, of course -- just on the average). Sex used to be a requirement of marriage -- the punishment for frigidity was excommunication -- and it is the main reason men get married. It sounds like a big ask -- demanding that a wife yields to her husband, even when she does not feel like it -- but she does this to an amazing extent already. Fully forty percent of women do not have an orgasm in the course of regular sex, here in the UK. A prostitute can do it several times a night, if she wants to, so it can’t be that big of a demand for a loving wife.
...You see, when I talk about how unintuitive your thought process is, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Your solution goes right to a pretty anachronistic place where you don't seek to close the pleasure disparity in order to get more women to have sex with their husbands - you just want to make them do it. Forget about implementing sex toys, or anything else that would help that situation. In fact, people who do have such antiquated views are usually against using frisky apparatus, I've seen some take it a step further and even take a stance against oral sex (at least, they say they do) Not so sure where you land on these issues, but you can see why someone would think your views are so convoluted, especially when paired with people who think like you.

There's that, but there are also other logistics to consider; When a women has children, as I'd imagine they do in your ideal marriage - it's going to come with consequences and sacrifice. What do you think is going to happen when a 5 pound bag of flesh is squeezed out of the same orifice used for sex? Not even the worst of it. Frankly, I think we all know the type of situation you speak of typically arises from having kids. It's not to say you shouldn't have kids, but it might mean that you shouldn't have kids, if partner-partner intimacy is that important to you. You can't just take away autonomous freedom to have everything you want, exactly like you want it.

That's one variable, another is to find a woman who is more passionate about sex. Guess what, though? Those women tend to be the prideful ones you see at places like the slutwalk, women who you scorn; Usually, I find when a feminist tries to make the point that women are insulted more for being open about sex, it's not actually from the men who complain about not getting sex...But I have to say, this is pretty much the perfect caricature for what they have in mind; You want women to have sex with dudes more often, but you don't actually want to allow the behavior or circumstances which would lead to that. That's pretty juicy.
Post Reply