Free Northerner: “The concept of marital rape creates the trauma of marital rape.” And spouses who say “no” to sex are sinners.
Just because she says “I do,” it doesn’t preclude her from saying “no” ever again.
Free Northerner is a “Dark Enlightenment” blogger who describes himself as “a Christian and a reactionary monarchist from British North America” who,
after a period of red pill exploration … decided to embrace Christian masculinity. I am working to improve myself for God’s glory. My plan is to find a wife and raise a large family with traditional values.
If any woman ever decides to marry him – and I sincerely hope no one ever does — she should be aware that her Darkly Enlightened husband does not believe there is such a thing as marital rape.
In a recent post, Free Northerner set forth the essentially the same argument as his fellow reactionary Vox Day: that the marriage contract provides “sexual consent … for life,” and that those who argue for the existence of marital rape are thereby undermining the legitimacy of marriage itself. And then he adds some tweaks that make his terrible argument even more terrible than that of Mr. Day. But we’ll get to those in a moment.
First, his basic claim:
Marital non-consent is an impossibility: if there is non-consent, there is no marriage; if there is marriage, there can not be non-consent.
So if a wife doesn’t want sex and her husband forces it on her – whether she is screaming no and fighting her husband, or if she is so cowed she can’t say a word – her “no” simply doesn’t count, because of the one time she said “I do.”
Free Northerner, a man of many short paragraphs, attempts to give a Christian justification for his stance:
The basis of Christian marriage is laid out in Genesis and reiterated in the Gospels. The man and wife become one flesh.
Can a person commit a non-consensual act upon their own flesh?
The very idea is absurd.
Indeed, he argues that anyone who believes that there is such a thing as marital rape isn’t a real Christian:
Any statement that there can be non-consent in marriage is an attack on the fundamental basis of Christian marriage and the Christian family.
And, furthermore, that anyone who says “no” to their spouse is a sinner:
The Bible is very clear that you should not deny your spouse sex. Someone who does is sinning.
But, hey, he’s no monster. If your spouse says no, even if this is Very Wrong because the Bible Told Him So, Free Northerner does acknowledge that it might not be so terribly polite or practical to go ahead and rape have perfectly justifiable marital sex with them.
All that being said, this should not be taken as encouragement to take your spouse if the spouse is saying no. Your spouse may be sinning and consenting, but it would not be the loving thing to do and might be sinful in itself. As well, from a practical standpoint, the law does frown upon it.
Free Northerner then pulls a very Warren Farrell-esque move. You may recall that in discussing his incest research in the 1970s, Farrell, the intellectual grandfather of the Men’s Rights movement, suggested that much of the trauma of incest might come not from the incest itself but from society’s negative attitudes towards it.
Free Northerner makes the same argument, a bit more forcefully, with regard to marital rape, claiming that the real trauma of marital rape comes not from one spouse forcing sex on another but on the notion that this violation is a violation.
That is, the real trauma of marital rape is caused by the idea of marital rape.
Here’s how he puts it:
The trauma of rape does not primarily come from its physical aspects, but rather its psychological aspects. The trauma comes from the violation.
If this is so, it stands to reason if there is no sense of psychological violation, there is no trauma.
The creation of the concept of marital rape, creates the idea that a spouse can be violated in marriage where the idea didn’t exist previously. Undesired sex that would have been an unpleasant duty is made traumatic by removing the psychological aspect of duty from it and imputing a psychological aspect of violation to it.
I think it likely, the psychological trauma of marital rape only becomes a reality because of the belief that there can be such a concept as marital rape. Pushing the concept of marital rape increases the likelihood of trauma from marital rape; the very concept of marital rape creates the trauma of marital rape.
Anyone with any degree of real human empathy can see that this is pernicious bullshit.
And in fact, Free Northerner has it completely backwards: it’s the fact that people don’t take marital rape seriously that makes it worse.
Even though marital rape is now illegal in the United States, numerous surveys reveal that both men and women take it less seriously than stranger rape, and there are still many who, like Free Northerner, don’t believe that it is rape at all. As late as the mid-1990s, fully half of the male college students answering one survey on the topic said that it wasn’t possible for husbands to rape their wives.
Yet numerous studies suggest that marital rape can actually be more traumatizing than stranger rape, both emotionally and physically. Rape by an intimate partner represents a profound betrayal of trust; it may be part of a broader pattern of mental and physical abuse, and it is likely to be repeated. Most wives who are raped are raped more than once, with a third of them raped twenty or more times. And contrary to what many believe, survivors of marital rape are often subject to more extreme physical violence than survivors of stranger rape.
Despite all this, many wives remain trapped in violent marriages without any outside support. Many raped wives are financially dependent on their husband-rapists and find it difficult if not impossible to leave; meanwhile, they’re often pressured to stay by friends and relatives who don’t even consider what happened to them to have been rape. Thus their trauma is made worse by the cultural denial that marital rape is rape.
It’s not the idea of marital rape that causes trauma; it is the fact of it. It is marital rape apologists like Vox Day and Free Northerner who enable it in the first place – and make the trauma worse once it happens.
Posted on May 23, 2014, in advocacy of violence, all about the menz, alpha males, antifeminism, dark enlightenment, domestic violence, emotional abuse, empathy deficit, entitled babies, evil sexy ladies, evil wives, excusing abuse, mansplaining, marital rape, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, PUA, rape, rape culture, rapey, red pill and tagged antifeminism, dark enlightenment, manosphere, marital rape, misogyny, pick-up artists, pickup artists, PUA, red pill. Bookmark the permalink. 249 Comments.
Oh my fucking God. Oh, sweet merciful Jesus. Dear tapdancing Christ, what a horrible person. He needs to upgrade the Legos to the infamous caltrops of tabletop gaming – may 1d4s follow his steps everywhere. So much disgusting bullshit.
So sorry to any decent Christians for the blasphemy in my post.
What the ever-loving fuck?
“Pushing the concept of marital rape increases the likelihood of trauma from marital rape;”
Martial rape is real, but if wifey catches on to that, she may protest and realize I’m violating her. Stupid rape awareness! I want a sex slave who bakes pies and cleans the kitchen! Damn it, if I had it my way she souldn’t even know how to read!
(sarcasm off)
These guys are so disgusting, soooo disgusting.
Oh, for fuck’s hairy sake.
Bad enough this asshole has these opinions. Worse that he’s spreading them around, except that any women who might consider marrying him at least has a chance of reading what he’s written.
I am not a Christian but I do know a number of people who are, in my opinion, true Christians and NONE of them believes that this vicious act is in keeping with the teachings of Jesus. Those who see women and wives as things created by god for men to use and abuse in any way are NOT Christians. Rather, at most, they follow the more egregious teachings of the Old Testament. The teachings of Jesus were supposed to supplant them, according to what a couple of ministers I know say.
What Free Northerner is advocating is the evil abuse of women for the pleasure of their “owners,” since only slaves, here defined as wives, can have the right to say a meaningful NO taken from them.
An interesting question – Can a married Christian man say no to his wife if she is the one who wants sex and he does not? Can he cry rape if she persists in arousing him against his will? Where does he draw the line?
May no woman ever find herself the victim of this monster.
I see David has a friend over on Twitter calling him a scumbag because he didn’t point out (other than in the quoted passages) that Free Northerner says “but that doesn’t mean you should rape your wife.” Honestly, where do these people find you?
*sees title*
oh god this will be terrible.
oh ew ew ew ew ew.
Petition to send this guy to Pluto, where he can’t be around other humans.
aaaaaghhhhh I don’t want to live on this earth anymore.
I’d like a bible-citation on that.nvm I don’t wannan know. tho maybe it does say that. It says a lot of terrible things. But I think is that what this guy doesn’t get is that the bible was written by men not by God, and there can be terrible, rape supporting things in there because I have no doubt some of those men were terrible rapists/ rape apologists. Not to mention how many translations it’s been through -_-I can’t stand Christians who use the bible to support their terrible bigotted views.
Yeah, thanks asshat, cuz women have to have society tell us when to feel violated.
thisiswhyihatementhisiswhyihatementhisiswhyihatemen.Gah.
@Anarchonist
No need.
Andrew, he was one of the ones who jumped on me yesterday when the AVFMers were arguing with me, so either he’s anAVFM fan or a fan of JudgyBitch. He’s also, despite defending FN here, an atheist activist.
Marie, yeah I was hoping to do a lighter post today, then I ran across this asshole and felt obligated to write about it.
“I’m the conservativest conservative ever! (Are you paying attention to me yet?)”
Thanks for laying out why the “one flesh” argument is dehumanizing and oppressive to women.
Yeah, I’ve heard this before about rape in general. “You’re only traumatized because someone told you it was traumatic” is such gaslighting, agency-denying bullshit, I can’t even. Women don’t know what to think or feel without someone telling them, apparently.
As a married lady of ten years, I don’t get this mindset. I just…don’t. It makes me sad. I know it’s out there, and is even fairly common, but I can’t imagine being so monstrously self-centered that viciously injuring and humiliating one’s spouse is no big deal. It’s not even the rape itself that disturbs me as much as the dismissive attitude. “So what if the person closest to my heart is in horrible pain and fear and trauma? I got my rocks off! Hi-five, bros!”
I literally have zero words for this. Zero. So much for feminism taking over, with men like this still viewing women as property. Sickening.
On a side note: I do agree the *stigma* associated with rape does make the rape worse. Men like this making women feel guilty for being raped, make rape worse. Men who deny rape, make rape worse. So yes, the stigma around rape makes it worse.
@david
oh, no, sorry, I wasn’t trying to tell you what to put on your blog. I was just frustrated.
I’m surprised he didn’t pull this gem of a passage out:
“The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” 1 Corinthians 7:3-5
Then again, maybe he objects to the “husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife” part. I can’t imagine an MRA being happy to hear that. The “wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband” part is clearly legit though.
All I can say is at least the Bible promotes equal opportunity marital rape.
Sheesh, as much of a mixed bag as my Catholic upbringing was, 13 years of CCD can run circles around the biblical literacy of the average born-again.
The basis of Christian marriage is laid out in Genesis and reiterated in the Gospels. The man and wife become one flesh.
Can a person commit a non-consensual act upon their own flesh?
The very idea is absurd.
The Bible has prohibitions about injuring your own flesh. Hell, you’re not even supposed to get a tattoo because that’s deliberate scarification. There are several points in the Bible where the Genesis concept of a married couple being “one flesh” is cited as a reason for spouses to be gentle and caring with one another. If you consider your wife part of your flesh, it’s a sin to physically hurt her.
The Bible is very clear that you should not deny your spouse sex. Someone who does is sinning.
No it’s not. However, in Jewish tradition, some passages are interpreted to mean that husbands–NOT wives–have a responsibility to provide their spouses with sexual pleasure. According to this interpretation, a husband who doesn’t care whether his wife enjoys sex with him is sinning. Rape would be beyond the pale.
What I hear from guys like this is a combination of self-absorption and massive sexual insecurity. The idea of a woman actually wanting to have sex with them is so alien they can’t imagine it; their absolute best-case scenario is one where someone is contractually bound to sigh and stare at the ceiling for five minutes a week, and they’re terrified of losing that much.
@ladysunami
ugh. C’mon bible, can’t you do better than this!
Free Northerner isn’t the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, put it that way. He wrote a post a while back, outlining how he would spend $35 million to bring down the Democrats through dirty tricks and intimidation. Problem was it showcased how little he knows about politics, money and professional communications strategies.
The funniest bit was at the end, where he offered to pull off this strategy for anybody willing to pay him a nice fat fee – yet his ‘winning’ ideas were built on the idea that volunteers would sign up in droves to indulge in quasi-legal harassment: http://tinyurl.com/p27brwq
“The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” 1 Corinthians 7:3-5
It’s amazing how Biblical passages about spouses’ duties to each other (not that I agree that spouses have a duty to “yield”) magically acquire a series of ellipses when quoted by fundamentalists, and suddenly become only about things a wife is supposed to do for her husband. I’ve seen this passage quoted a lot by patriarchal fundies, and the husband always manages to keep authority over his body. Weird.
VOMIT! I just looked at the guy’s blog trying to find his fund raising post and he’s written to his readers asking for reassurance that it’s OK to ask out a girl who’s in Year 11 or 12. Then he admits he’s “nearly 30″. Yeah, good luck with that.
Reactionary, monarchist AND an advocate of marital rape?
How is this man not married yet?!
@robert.
ik. what a frickin catch.
Um, and what about the golden rule?
In any case,this passage
What does that even mean? Is that a fancy way of saying a racist who doesn’t believe in democracy? I think I already know the answer to that one.
And yet, you never hear these people say a wife should be able to rape her husband. I’m absolutely not advocating that. Just pointing out that if you are going to use the bible to advocate really fucked up shit, at least be consistent about it.
Shouldn’t they precede him?
Even less relevant aside: is that Elizabeth Taylor in the post picture?
Damn blockquote mammoth… I’ll try again:
In any case,this passage
does not imply that husbands can force their wives to sex and it’s not rape. The passage implies that it’s either the case that husbands can force their wives to have sex and it’s not rape or it’s the case that if a wife does not consent to have sex with her husband she is thereby instantly and magically divorced from him.
Logic; not the strong point of MRA:s.
The Bible also says to obey the law, dumbass. And not just because it’s “practical.”
I remember Libby Anne making the same point – Christian Patriarchy types tend to omit the husband part. If you haven’t read her blog, I highly reccomend it:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/
I hope this guy never finds a wife.
Interesting how he says “Christian masculinity”, not Christianity. That’s a tipoff that his conversion was motivated by easy access to a pool of compliant underage girls who’ve been trained from day 1 to submit to authority. Agape, how does it work?
Two words: paper cut.
I bet he’s on Christian Mingle. Is it bad that I have an urge to join just so I can troll him? I won’t, but I have the urge.
I always found it amusing that people leave out the rest of that Corinthians passage. Which is basically, “No one should be having sex with anyone. But you’re all a bunch of depraved sinners who are too weak to abstain, so I guess you should get married just so you don’t turn into complete animals.” Paul was kind of an asshole, is what I’m saying.
It also begs the question: How did this ever come to be seen as a bad thing in the first place? If women only object to being raped because someone told them to object…why did that person tell them to object? How did this mysterious instigator get the idea that it was objectionable?
He can go fuck a Hot Pocket! Blech!
My mom recently gave me the talk about how I am not getting any younger (I’ll be 26 next month), and that I should be searching for a husband before it’s too late. But really, this is selling marriage as a shitty deal.
@Anachronist:
Or, yeah, precede. But let’s not forget the all of those cute* miniatures with their horns and swords and pikes and spears! Since they’re made out of lead, even the wizard’s pointy hats are escalations of mere Legos…
But only in my fantasies, of course. I don’t actually wish lead poisoning on anyone.
*for a certain value of “cute”
“a Christian and a reactionary monarchist from British North America”
He really wants to be ruled by a monarch? Who gets to be the monarch? It sounds like he wants to be ruled by the British royal family, so… Queen Elizabeth II? She’s, y’know, a feeemale.
This guy has all these groovy beliefs (reactionary monarchist? he’s welcome to the Stuarts), scintillating grasp of logic, and Biblical exegesis…. and yet… he’s single? How can such things be?
OK, sarcasm off. This is vile.
Argh… and rape is no thing unless someone tells you it’s a thing. Because obviously someone who has been raped would never know otherwise.
Christ on a pushbike: small children who have no words to describe what happened to them still know it was something very wrong
David, I don’t know how you manage to wade through this stuff.
May invisible legos adhere to the inside of every sock he ever owns, and may everyone within a 1000 league radius know exactly what kind of person he is.
Damn….is this guy “Free Northerner” VILE, or what? Sad thing is, there probably are a fair number of guys out there who really do share this man’s awful beliefs.
Also, seconding Bluecat on this one. And may invisible Legos also show up every time he slips, falls, or trips on something.
@ Nequam & twincats:
Uggh. You’re right, sorry. In my defense, I really was appalled enough at this guy’s bullshit to not be thinking straight when I wrote that.
This picture is of me:
Yeah, he goes on to say how the best thing is to make oneself sex-less for the sake of the lord. Once upon a time, some Christians would interpret this as meaning that the best kind of Christian man is the one who chops his own balls off.
Fun fact: In Swedish, a republican is a person (often a socialist) who wants to abolish monarchy. In the states, it’s a right-winger. I’m the first kind of republican, but absolutely not the second kind. :-)
Seriously though, I can sort of, dimly, understand that over half the population here supports monarchy, since Swedes are born into that system and always told how great it is, and the media does very little criticism of this institution. But how someone who lives in a non-monarchy could come to the conclusion that monarchy is a great idea really baffles me.
Well, he was a former serial killer.
Actually, I think most “lead” figures are made out of other metals now, to prevent the risk of lead poisoning. I think they use pewter now.
But to add to the RPG themed curses, may he fail all of his charisma checks when trying to convince women to date him, and may all of his character sheets have Pepsi spilled on them.
There is no bottom to this barrel we’re scraping, is there?
I honestly think Paul’s reputation as an asshole is undeserved. When he was writing most of his epistles, he quite honestly expected the world to end tomorrow. Anything that would distract the believer from Christ, and especially anything with the potential for creating emotional, physical, or spiritual distresss, was undesirable because there could be no benefit from it. The world would end long before any sort of long-term benefit could be found in it.
By the time he wrote Romans, the latest of the undisputed epistles (I Thessalonians, Phillipeans, I and II Corinthians, Philemon, Galatians, and Romans), he was less certain that the world would end before breakfast, and so was counseling churches to think in a more long-term manner. Though he still probably believed celibacy was superior, because he inherited a lot of Grecian philosophy of the superiority of mind over body.
There might be benefit in the separation between the ceremonial “Head of Sate” and the legal “Head of Government”, especially when nationalism is bound up in party politics, and disagreement with the President is disagreement with America itself. But actual hereditary dictatorship by the aristocracy? Hell no.
(That said, we still get a few pro-monarchy twits here in Canada. Their political influence is somewhere between “diddly” and “squat”.)
Free Northerner needs a lego body-slam.
@Leftwingfox: Yeah, that’s what people always bring up in support of monarchy. But you can have an elected president which is more of a ceremonial figure as well. Granted, zie won’t inspire as much reverence as a king/queen, but that’s really for the better. It makes me sick how servile a lot of otherwise rational people become in the presence of the royals.
Everything around them is so fucked up. They’re the only ones in the country to whom freedom of religion doesn’t apply – the constitution says they have to be protestants (obviously there’s no way to check that they actually believe in God or anything, but they must at least say they do). The king can actually decide whether his kids are allowed to get married or not, and he wants them to marry properly posh people, so if they want to marry someone not properly posh they need near-infinite resources of stubbornness. And obviously no one in their family could be gay or anything. Being a gay politician is fine, but with royals it’s unthinkable. They spend enormous amounts of cash and it’s very poorly reported on, because apparently the royal family is the only post where we can just pour in tax money without knowing where it’s going more precisely. Defenders of monarchy always says it pays off because having a royal family is great advertisement for a country and somehow means more business here and a higher GNP than we would otherwise have – as far as I know, there is precisely zero evidence for this claim (Finland, for instance, has for most of the time had a similar GNP per capita, and it’s a fairly similar country in many respects but without the monarchy). Also, they’re the only ones in the country you’re supposed to refer to by title. We never use titles here otherwise, but just calls everyone by their first names. Except the royals. It was revealed some time ago that the king has been cheating big time on the queen, and for some time had Camilla Henemark, then singer in Army of Lovers, as his mistress. But they’re still somehow supposed to be family value rule models.
Fuck monarchy!
bodycrimes:
Ew. The first half of that was basically, “we have all the guns, so we should be using that to intimidate the opposition.”
As for the OP, what the hell do you say to that? Other than fuck off, an I hope he steps on all the Legos?
That’s the general gloss I’ve heard of the passage; it really only makes sense in the context of both Greek stoicism and the early church’s ideas about the apocalypse.
The second half of the passage is really just saying that if you want to be celibate you shouldn’t get married, and while there are criticisms you can make of that, it’s not a particularly terrible point.
I like it when people have radical contrarian ideas about marriage and family life before they are married or have kids.
Kind of wonder if he’s right though– I mean, maybe I find having my personal belongings stolen offensive and irritating mostly ’cause I was raised from birth in a culture that has quite a strong concept of personal property rights. If we just abolished the idea of individual personal property, most theft could cease to be a thing within a generation or two. :D
No? You don’t think that would work, and even if it DID you wouldn’t want to live in the resulting culture?
oh.
I’m not a Christian, but I once was. I did a fair share of Bible reading. I don’t get this kind of thinking at all. Does this dude not respect the writers of the Bible enough to understand that they sometimes wrote in metaphors? Even in the NT, Jesus is big on using parables. Clearly two people do not become one flesh. That’s impossible. Even a very long time ago, people knew that. They also knew how to use metaphor and simile. “Spilled his seed upon the ground” sounds classier than, “pulled out before he came”. “My beloved’s breasts are like newborn fawns” sounds nicer than, “My wife’s got perky tits”. They were writers considered good enough to turn stories handed down through spoken tradition into written word. Even if you think the whole thing is fiction, you could at least have some respect for the writers. If you believe that God himself hand picked and inspired those writers, then that shouldn’t be a difficult task.
But, no. This guy has decided that they wrote as badly as he does. What a self serving jackass.
Also, if married folks are one flesh, doesn’t that make married sex masturbation?
Isn’t that a nopey no in most fundamentalist churches?
The bible can be used to support anything. That is why I have trouble looking at as a good moral guide.
In terms of marital rape, I think it’s horrible. In my mind it would be the worst knd of rape. I am genuinely shocked that so many people don’t even believe it exists.
Oh look, another rapist who treats female rape victims as a monolith. Totally not horrific and creepy at all. /sarcasm
xD
IIRC gaming miniatures were legally classified as toys for the purpose of monitoring lead content, even though most gamers wouldn’t let a small child handle their minis without really close supervision.
These days, a great many gaming minis are plastic or resin. This does making transporting a Warhammer army slightly less cumbersome.
Dvärghundspossen
Somebody I knew said monarchy is cool because it is so blatantly undemocratic
This guy needs to go step on a Lego. Or two. Or six. Or ten thousand.
Random, but y’all know that caltrops are a vegetable too, right? The first time I saw them I was all, what is this awesome thing that I am being served?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_caltrop
They’re actually a type of water chestnut, but I think they look like tiny little winged demons.
On the OP, I can’t even get shocked by the marital rape apologists any more. They’re a bottomless pit of misogyny and sexual violence. If you think they may have reached the limit of their awfulness, nope, there’s more.
My husband just gets this deeply pained look on his face whenever he hears about dingbats like these. Then he says that he’s sorry he shares a religion with these people. (He’s going to be marching with his church to fight hunger on Monday.)
RE: emilygoddess
“You’re only traumatized because someone told you it was traumatic” is such gaslighting, agency-denying bullshit
Yup. And how convenient that it just so happens to encourage survivors and victims not to ever talk to each other or warn each other…
RE: Shaenon
As a married lady of ten years, I don’t get this mindset.
I think it works like this. There’s this presumption that if you marry someone, they will ALWAYS want to have sex, at any time, because LOVE or some shit. Ergo, you can’t rape your partner, because they always want it! (And if not, well, obviously they can’t REALLY not want it, because they married you!) It’s a very circular logic.
RE: cassandrakitty
I wonder if the caltrop weapon name came before or after the vegetable name?
The vegetables are too squishy to actually pierce skin, I’d think, but stepping on a bunch of them wouldn’t be much fun, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they had inspired the weapon.
BIOWARFARE: the early days!
Nequam – yup, that’s Elizabeth Taylor in the pic.
Maybe they purposefully bred caltrops to keep out invaders, in the long tradition of breeding domesticated species for patriotic purposes, as seen with the Danish protest pig.
Nope. I’m just noping away.
Gonna go plan my dream vacation, and as long as I’m dreaming, I want a unicorn/pony.
Bye, all!
@Talacarus, that’s pretty terrible, but I guess the person who said it thought zie was really cool.
A man who learns what engenders sufficient attraction in his woman will never have to worry about needing to “rape” her. Hint: guarantees are attraction killers. As Oscar Wilde wrote: “The very essence of romance is uncertainty.”
Unripened men and women often have these lists of expectations for another person never bothering to truly consider what they, themselves, will be *contributing* to the relationship. They want contracts and pre-nups. They are thinking about what they can get rather than what they can give. Love doesn’t work that way. It isn’t negotiated with a lawyer. It is drawn out from sacrifice for each other’s sake. It is elicited to protect innocence. It is found in unlikely ways overthrowing everything we anticipated.
These types of people want to fantasize about what they imagine relationships and marriage and family to be like with very little conceptualization of the reality of those institutions. The reality is: a woman who consistently does not want to have sex with her husband is a HUGE red flag. Something is already seriously wrong with the relationship. And it’ll be an uphill battle to remedy that.
@kate
eeuuggh.
WOw nice scare quotes jerk.
Even if she’s not attracted to him he shouldn’t rape her because men are fucking human beings and can control whether they rape people.
Do you even know what a red flag is? People can break up because of inconsistent sex drives, and there’s nothing with that, but the way you’re phrasing this is just fucking bad.
My mom has taken up that inspiring message, as well. Last year when I was still a few months away from 26, she told me “well, you’re almost 30″, say what?! That’s news to me.
@Kate
…
Fuck it, I need a smoke.
It’s amazing how much creepy Kate managed to squeeze into that one sentence, isn’t it?
After reading your post Kate I have numerous red flags popping up. I find what you wrote very troubling.