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.
Good choice!
Yeah well, gotta watch out for that financial rape. According to the stupidest fucking people on the planet, it happens all the time.
But won’t you be the financial rapist?
(And does this make me a financial rape apologist?)
If the very Catholic society of France four centuries ago had made divorce impossible, my beloved would never have been born, because he was the first child of his father’s second marriage. If the sheer brutality of the notion (and yes, the way this sort of thing always punishes women far more than men) weren’t enough, that would be enough to wish a constant rain of dog diarrhoea on Pattycake Truthiness’s head forever. Even if he is just Mr Al trolling for the lulz as usual.
But won’t you be the financial rapist?
No, y’see, because when we first met she was unemployed, and I pretty much paid for everything for about a month. Using MRA LOGICK (TM), that means I am now entitled to as much of her stuff as I want from now until the heat death of the universe, and to cry like a three-year-old trust fund baby if I don’t get it.
@Seranvali
Amazing take down. *applauds*
Now, I should go to bed as it is 4am.
How do I keep staying up so late…………
Also, regarding the poor men forced to pay for children that women trick them into having all the time:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/05/when-men-sabotage-birth-control.html
Remind me again how this is ‘compassionate’ patriarchy?
What I want to know – communication is why the writing being written is being written like this – expression – because the wonder it causes in me is quite a wonder to behold, because I wonder if wondering about it can somehow make me – questions – do the same thing with my own expressions of expressive communication.
@PPT
Your ‘ideal world’ sounds more like a dystopian horror story ever time you spit out new details.
PPT’s “kind and gentle” patriarchy: less physical abuse, more emotional abuse!
@Sir Bodsworth
XD So glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that. Somehow missed it when he typed it…
@Augochlorella
Get a cat. Cats are misandry.
@ProPatria
Citation needed. Though I won’t nitpick ‘unborn children’ since, you know…they’re not born yet and I prioritize the person alive over them.
“In other news, being a feminist does not prevent one from being a bigot in other ways. The shock! I thought feminism meant all women were angels!”
::cackles evilly:: From our feminist airships, we will rain fire over their lands. A fire that will destroy *everything*. And out of the ashes a new world will be born. A world in which all the lands are Feminist, and Dworkin is the supreme ruler of everything!
Remind me again how this is ‘compassionate’ patriarchy?
‘Compassionate shunning’ isn’t an oxymoron if you’re a sanctimonious right-wing shitbag.
@boring troll of boringness
Citation needed. God, I’m not one to complain about the good ole days of trolls, mainly because I wasn’t there, but this guy is as boring as fuck. Better trollz plz.
See, the thing is you can’t force people to stay married, and children need support. But I know mrms don’t give two craps about the children, even if they are *male* children, they just want (white, cis, straight men) to walk all over everybody and never have to do something that might inconvenience them such as taking care of a child.
@ProPatria
That’s not a good thing, bub. My dad (who’s christian, btw) is getting remarried this summer, and he and his fiance seem much happier than my dad and my mom in the last years of their marriage. I fail to see how forcing them not to get married would be a good thing.
@boring troll of boringness
Because they need jobs. My mom had to take a job that, while didn’t pay minimum wage, didn’t pay much and was part time, because she needed a job when she was unemployed. It was grading ISTEP* tests. It was late and night and she didn’t even feel like it was worthwhile and boring because she didn’t think standard testing worked well. She was looking for jobs. Good paying jobs that are actually things she’d want to do. They tend to be pretty hard to find. She has an education, btw. She just couldn’t find jobs there
*Indiana’s standard testing stuff.
@kittehs
::kneels::
@kiki
Congratulations! 😀
I really don’t get all this anti divorce stuff today. Marriage isn’t some permanent contract. Yes, it used to be. But it changed.
It seems like these people don’t understand how consequences work at all. Like the anti-divorce people say “You should have thought about this before you married.” as if divorce is some cheat out of a rightful punishment for being stupid(not being able to read the future or not preventing yourself and your partner from changing). It’s not some cheat, divorce is just as much of a consequence.
Ditto with abortion. Abortion is not some cop out, it is also a consequence of having sex.
By the way, by “consequence” I don’t mean to say that the person is stupid or something. There’s no way you can know if you’re partner will change(or even abuse), and sometimes during sex birth control doesn’t work, or it’s rape… I’m just saying divorce and abortion are valid choices that can(and should in many cases) be made. I mean “consequence” like a result, not a punishment.
It’s like saying that hospitals shouldn’t treat car wreck victims, because most were caused by someone not paying attention, and that them having severe injuries/death is a consequence they deserve. No one who supports their care is saying “Yeah not paying attention while driving is totally OK. Hell we don’t even need road rules.”
@Fibinachi Because communication – written – in a post material world – planet – is immaterial.
My favorite part was how David M Green wrote that the quicksand was “suckling” and ascribed pleasure to the process.
The guy wrote an erotic story about watching someone drown in quicksand, and he calls us sociopaths.
I do wish the dog had been a talking dog; that would have made it even better.
You know that feeling where you go to bed one night, then the next morning you pay attention to the world and it seems like something’s become a little unhinged in reality? Yeah… David M whatever… was he sent to test our patience? Is he proof of a malevolent god?
[Show][Hide]Just testing something before I waste time on a massive post in response to a guy who’s been banned and won’t be replying anyway.
Yeah, alright, so forget replying at the DaMaGed one.
@Propatria
Yes, this is true. Being a feminist doesn’t guarantee that you’ll be right about other things… this is one of the things I’ve learnt since feminism and skepticism intersected in my life. Being rational, reasonable, and otherwise brilliant about one, two, or even a million things will not stop you from descending into frothy, irrational dickweaselry when faced with a subject that scares you.
Why the hell not? If you don’t criticise them for things like this, what are the chances that they’ll ever change? Self reflection will only get you so far if you’re not seeing an accurate reflection of yourself.
Which is why I don’t ever want to live in a Christian patriarchal society. Well, that and the knowledge of history.
Sure, people shouldn’t marry if they don’t intend to stay together… but very, very, very few people marry when they’re not intending to stay together. People just drift, fall, or break apart sometimes. Sometimes they don’t realise that someone is a lot less pleasant than they seem to be on the surface, and they marry someone who treats them awfully, and they deserve to be able to free themselves from that. And if, upon meeting someone else, someone who really is as pleasant as they seem on the surface, they want to try to make the same commitment with this other person, they should be allowed to. Partly because people make mistakes and should not be punished for the rest of their lives for any but the absolute worst of them, but mostly because it’s none of our fucking business whether other people want to remarry.
Oh, and societies shunning people is pretty emotionally barbaric. I can understand shunning murderers, rapists, and politicians, but not people who want to have relationships after having already messed up one relationship.
Auggziliary’s quote “it used to be, but it changed” really explains it all. Just because something changed, doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be changed back. Some of us support responsible living and decision making; maybe we should try to form our own country somewhere, but where?
I am again not MRAL/Steele. I say this for his benefit, as I do not want my words being put in his mouth, in case he doesn’t agree with everything. I will continue to proclaim the movement of radical/moderate self-expressive Christian neodadaism.
“Auggziliary’s quote “it used to be, but it changed” really explains it all. Just because something changed, doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be changed back.”
Just because something changed doesn’t mean it can or should change back.
“Some of us support responsible living and decision making;”
What makes divorce “irresponsible”?
“maybe we should try to form our own country somewhere, but where?”
Do it. No really.
“radical/moderate self-expressive Christian neodadaism”
That’s a really long way of spelling “bullshit”.
Seconded. Not out of spite or anything – I’m British, so the only way it’ll effect me if America becomes a theocracy is when the religious wars start popping up in places like Utah, and my American friends start dying. But, y’know… if you want to make your own little corner of the world where you can have a Christian Nation… well go ahead, that’s fine, but do not force anyone else to live in your fantasy land because, seriously, check European history, post WWII, there’s an awful lot of pointless bloodshed because large and diverse countries were acting like small and insular countries, and civil war seems to be a common result of that… and civil wars are bad… just saying.
…Oh, dear godlessness…. why is it that my punctuation abilities just die as soon as the edit button is taken away from me!? :'(
Neodadaism?
http://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk