In a post ostensibly about the imminent arrival of female Viagra, our dear friend JudgyBitch weighs in on yet another subject about which she knows shit: the reasons that women who are not her might not want to have sex with their husbands:
Loss of libido in women, excepting rare medical conditions, in my opinion, is a direct result of not seeing men as emotionally complex beings. If you’re married, at some point, your husband probably stood in front of you and promised to love you forever. Rejecting him physically is a very wounding thing to do. It hurts. Sex is one of the most important, intimate ways married couples show that they love one another. Refusing to have sex with your husband is telling him, in a very painful way, that you don’t love him. That you don’t care for him or about him.
Huh. If I hadn’t seen her on video, thus confirming her status as an adult human female, I would have a hard time believing that it was an actual woman saying this and not some horny, creepy teenage boy in the process of trying to manipulate his girlfriend into “going all the way.”
Oh, but she’s got more:
I guess the only way to justify that is to think of men as emotionless. It doesn’t hurt men to be rejected because they don’t feel anything to begin with.
Really? The only way to justify saying “no” to your husband when you don’t want to have sex with him is if you convince yourself he’s emotionless? But women should just force themselves to say “yes” to sex when they don’t want to and simply endure what follows?
That’s the ugly little reality behind female viagara. Will it actually boost women’s libido? Who knows. What difference will it make, though, if women are going to continue to see men as less than completely human? That’s the real problem.
Does anyone know where to get irony meters at a reasonable price? Mine just leapt off the table, ran around the room screaming, and exploded.
Praise the Dark Lord, for his banhammer is mighty!
Of course because women enjoy living in poverty. Until, such a time that they can snag a rich husband (which is potentially never).
And I hate the argument that the jobs are less “risky”.
GRR
Argenti, ProPatria’s IP doesn’t match up with anyone, not that this matters all that much. I think it’s reasonably likely he’s Steele; as I think Casssandra pointed out, he uses one odd phrase — “in point of actual fact” — that Steele liked to use.
Amen
Oh wait, Steele WAS MRAL wasn’t he.
No wonder he was sounding so MRALly.
I’m starting to think he’s not so much the 90% as the 99%.
If you’re in a banning frame of mind please, pretty please, could you do something about Eurosabra? If you’re banning people for being creepy I think he pretty much takes the prize, cumulatively speaking.
Plus he’s trying harder and harder to come out with outrageous stuff – all that shunning and people not being allowed to remarry – plus the oh-so-reasonable sucking up to the late unlamented DMG – it’s got SteeleAl written all over it.
Seconding (umpteenthing, really) about Euroslimysob.
Yeah, 2012 troll of the year went to
SteeleMRAL, so one in the same. Too bad it isn’t conclusively him, I’d have liked a totally justified banhammer to drop on his ass.And it’s 5 am here, g’night internet.
Thank you for banning him, David.
My wife and I were earning about the same when we met. When our first child came along, I pulled ahead of her for a few years, for the easily explicable reason that she did the lion’s share of the childcare at first. Then we swapped roles, and she’s now out-earning me by a factor of about three to one.
So logically, shouldn’t I be the one with designs on her “financial resources”? Or does this process not work in reverse?
My beloved has no financial resources at all …
Only women can take advantage of men financially. Because women have no sex drive in that world.
And of course “having a sex drive” and “taking advantage of someone financially” never describe the same person!
Not in this flawless ‘pulled out of ass’ model!
I love when men tell me whether or not I have a sex drive. Because they would know so much better than I would.
I’ve raised two wonderful children with the wonderful man I’ve been married to for 35 years. You think I should have spent a whole miserable life burdened with the violent drunkard I made the mistake of marrying first with no chance of any reasonable life with anyone else.
What a horrible place the inside of your head must be to live in.
In a Christian patriarchal society, divorce would be illegal. People could separate, but would never have a chance to remarry again. They would also be shunned by society if they moved in with another person.
I so love when people think the solution is ignoring and repressing the problem. And the whole plan runs on bullying too. And with high probability would result in a society where honesty is a punished and appearances are all. Lovely.
Hey… where did my blockquote go? Oh no! The blockquote monster got me.
I also suspect that this Christian patriarchal society would place massive social pressure on women to get married in their early twenties at the latest, with all the recipe for disaster that that would entail.
My wife is very much in mildlymagnificent’s camp – she got married too soon, realized too late that her husband wasn’t a life partner (he seems to have been a perfectly nice guy, but had no ambition and drank too much – although thankfully without violent consequences), and got out of the marriage after eighteen months. Thankfully, there were no children, and she felt so guilty about ending the marriage that she also didn’t make any claim on his assets.
@ David M. Green:
“Men don’t but women do indeed have a financial incentive to walk away from their marriage and leave the former love of the lives in abject poverty.”
So you’re not going to address my point.
Where I live (Australia) child support payments are means tested and joint property is divided 50/50. Houses are usually sold and the proceeds divided. That’s negotiable depending on who is the primary career of children so that kids still have a familiar environment and don’t have to change schools. We don’t have alimony because it’s pretty much assumed that unless they have very young children, women work and can support themselves and partially support their children. Both may take a financial hit but there shouldn’t be anyone living in “abject poverty”. Of course this is the best case scenario and has to be adjusted to the needs of the particular family.
Does America not have a system like this?
Also, I see no sources for any of your statements. You just seem to be repeating MRA talking points in quite manipulative language.
Re: Oh, and being asked to pay your share is in no way equivalent to being raped.
______________
“Being forced to pay for a divorce he never wanted and to pay for children his ex wife intentionally denies him the right to see is indeed “FINANCIAL RAPE!” And because it is women who file for divorce in 85% or more of cases that makes the average woman a “Potential Financial Rapist.”
So women being able to leave marriages in which they aren’t happy is a bad thing? Do men not want the same right? Also, is there no way the courts can ensure visitation rights? Unless a non-custodial parent is abusive I was under the impression that courts could intervene if a non-custodial parent’s rights were not being respected.
Rape has a definition and it has nothing to do with the divvying up of property or paying your contribution in the raising of your children. It is defined by law and to start using it in this context is very disrespectful to the victims of that crime, regardless of their sex. Or are you one of that peculiar brand of MRA who doesn’t consider that men and boys can be raped?
RE: Also, I’ll let you in on a little secret. Women generally marry for love.
_________________
If this were true women would choose to marry men who make less that they do but instead seek out and choose to love men who are financially better off then themselves in order to exploit their intimate partners financial resources.
Is this some kind of joke? Please get to the punchline.
Most women work. Even though they earn less that their male counterparts and often have to work in low paying jobs because they can’t get a decent education, they can support themselves. They don’t need a man as a meal ticket. This is not the 1950s. Being a SAHM is impossible if families want to have a comfortable lifestyle and own their own homes. My father made absolutely certain that both of his daughters could earn their own living so that we didn’t have to marry if we didn’t want to or would be trapped in unhappy
marriages. That was over thirty years ago. And he wasn’t the only father who did so.
We marry whomsoever we choose. I married a penniless student. My sister married someone well to do, but she earned twice what he did. Women choose according to their own values and marry people they love. I’m sure there are women who marry for money but I’ve never met one. And if you’re interested, I’m still married to my penniless student, thirty years later, and we’re pretty comfortable but money was the last thing on my mind when we chose one-another. As far as I can see women who marry for love are the norm, not the exception.
My belief is that this particular talking point is raised so often because women now have the freedom to leave and that we care a lot harder to control.
On the other hand, the rampant epidemic of women choosing single motherhood, and taking financial advantage of men in a divorce, is a problem. In my own family’s case, my mother left my father; then my father attempted to “financially (won’t use that word)” to her because she made more money than him, but failed because of an incompetent male lawyer.
Holy shit, is this some brilliant new MRA debating tactic? Her, I’ll try:
“All cats are black. For example, my cat is white.”
Hmm, not sure if I’m getting it. Perhaps the idea is to get the opponent’s brain to shut down out of pure confusion, or to get them to drive their palm through their face and out the back of their head. Still makes about as much sense as anything else MRAs say though.
Oh, and next week I’m getting married to a woman who makes nearly twice as much money as me. So, y’know, fuck MRAs.
” next week I’m getting married to a woman who makes nearly twice as much money as me”
Congratulations! Good choice!