User talk:Landmartian/Sexual possessiveness in marriage

Uh huh

So... uh huh. God forbid somebody expect the person they are with to actually be committed, i guess. Unless you think the partners own desires for monogamy is unacceptable and they themselves should submit to the desires for open-relationship of the other when it's "muh freedom" . Also your sudden rant about the evils of Feminism. --Miekal 06:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My point is, in today's culture, only certain marital commitments are considered binding. A commitment not to cheat is considered binding; a commitment to provide for your partner's sexual needs isn't, because that would make you a slave. (One's having voluntarily agreed to fulfill such requirements is considered beside the point, since you can't sell yourself into slavery, and if you did, it would probably be the result of some sort of economic coercion or other duress, since according to the feminist view, male-female relationships are inherently exploitative, given the social and economic inequalities that are so rife in today's world.) So one can easily end up in a situation of being prohibited from seeking sex outside the relationship, while also having no way to get the partner to provide sex (since applying any kind of pressure would be considered coercive/rapey). The end result would be sexual frustration.

Feminists' solution to this is to either acquiesce to an unhappy marriage or dissolve the marriage, as they're not really big on relationship commitment, nor do they believe it's all that important that kids be raised by both biological parents. The guy who prefers to be in a sexually satisfying, long-term relationship would be out of luck, if all the available women adhered to American feminist-influenced cultural norms. Fortunately, not all of the available women do. Landmartian (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

... Have you ever actually talked to feminists, or women in general? You say a lot of things that give the implication, besides what you read on MRA forums, that you haven't. --Miekal 07:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Landmartian, this may shock you, but "feminism" is not this big unified bastion of anti-men conspirators that you've been imagining. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Feminism seems like a conspiracy to drive the sexes apart by whipping up feelings of resentment toward men. It's very similar to socialism, except that women rather than the working class are viewed as the victims of exploitative relationships. As with socialism, the proposed solution is to put the oppressed class in charge (which will make them, or more specifically the subset of them that comprises the ruling elite, the new oppressors). As political/ideological movements go, feminism is one of the more organized. Landmartian (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see why the "problem" raised by Landmartian is any more specific to "feminists" if the claim about "today's culture" and its views on sex and marriage are as sweeping and widespread as they're made out to be. Consider the problem of impotence, for instance (yes, viagra may alleviate some, but not all types), which would land the problem of "sexual frustration" due to her partner's "denial" of sex with the female half of the equation (in a male/female marriage, of course). Yet Landmartian immediately jumps to an example of a "sexually frustrated" husband being denied sex by his wife. Why is it, that when these topics are raised it's always assumed that it's the man's sexual appetite and/or abilities that outstrips the woman's? ScepticWombat (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, this was originally going to be a comment at Talk:Marital rape, so it was skewed toward addressing situations in which it's the guy who is sexually frustrated (since usually the ones who end up raping when they're denied sex are men). But I've read that it's more commonly women who are the higher-desire partner. Also, men's trying to get women to submit to unwanted sex is a hotter topic in the academic press because feminists are fascinated with "rape culture" and any other issue that relates to men forcing exploitative interactions on women. The issue of men's depriving women of sex is basically not on their list of concerns, since that would imply women need men for something. Landmartian (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems with many MRAs is that they're locked into the "we hunted the mammoth" paradigm where man is the provider and, in return, the woman "rewards" him with sexual favours. This is why the "friendzone" is seen as so toxic - in their eyes the woman is failing to live up to the implied bargain - she is receiving the gifts but not coming through with the sexual favours.

Another massive point here is that marriage is about far, far more than sex. If one half of a relationship feels that their needs are not being met - any needs - then there may well be problems. However the options go a little beyond "acquiesce to an unhappy marriage or dissolve the marriage" - most couples at some point in their lives find that they need to sort out the problems without dissolving the marriage - that by talking, sometimes seeking help, a route back to happiness can be found. But, if you're locked into this transactional model you're going to find that harder. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it usually betas who complain about the friendzone, while the red pill guys say that guys are more often to blame for friendzoning themselves? Thus, it's not so much that a woman failed to live up to the bargain, as it was that the guy didn't push the interaction far enough. According to their view, there are plenty of women willing to give guys the sex that they want, if the guys will just step up to the plate.

As much as the manosphere derides feminism, it's usually from a perspective of saying "Thank goodness we don't have to put up with this, because there are alternatives to women who think and act this way. We can find ways to get abundant sex from more desirable women." In contrast, a mindset of scarcity is usually what breeds resentment at getting some sort of raw deal.

To resolve issues like one partner wanting more sex than the other, one or both partners may have to yield to the other, if they can't get their sexualities in harmony by other means (e.g. spicing up their love life, introducing more romance into it, etc.) I don't know if this is a cultural thing, but it seems like American culture is more hostile to the idea that a self-respecting woman might opt to compromise on sexual frequency, or even give her guy as much sex as he wants, in order to benefit the relationship. The academic press churns out articles saying that a guy's getting a reluctant wife to have sex with him is a form of sexual assault; see e.g. Basile, Kathleen C. (September 1999). "Rape by Acquiescence: The Ways in Which Women “Give in” to Unwanted Sex With Their Husbands". Violence Against Women 5 (9): 1036–1058. doi:10.1177/1077801299005009004. Landmartian (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We can find ways to get abundant sex from more desirable women - and in there is another telling phrase - 'get sex from' as opposed to 'have sex with' or, even, 'make love to'. Sex is being treated as an end in itself and the quality defined by the desirability of the woman. In this world desirable woman can get more in return for the "quality" of the sex that they give - which kind of reduces them somewhat. It makes every woman a sex worker.

On the other hand, for we feminists, sex is an almost spiritual coming together, a sharing, a melding, and the "quality" comes from the compatibility. I know that you probably see me as some sort of "beta" but, believe me, when I was working as a roadie back in the eighties I could have all the desirable women I wanted and the sex was nowhere near as good as it is now with my wife and partner of twenty years. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A compatible personality is part of desirability. It improves the overall relationship quality, which tends to improve the quality of the sex. I wouldn't think feminists would make the greatest partners (for me anyway), if they've let feminism influence them to regard being accommodating as accepting oppression. But apparently not everyone wants or needs a really accommodating partner. Landmartian (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to pull this discussion back for a moment again, and bring up "Feminism seems like a conspiracy to drive the sexes apart by whipping up feelings of resentment toward men.". Landmartian, have you ever talked to a feminist? --Miekal 15:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was in a relationship with a feminist who was also a social justice Tumblrista. People often point to, say, right-wing or libertarian ideologies as attracting paranoid, delusional people or contributing to their paranoia and delusions. Feminism is the same way, though. Even when there's some truth to a movement's claims that a certain group in society is being victimized, there will be people who, for one reason or another, blame more of their problems than they really should on that victimization rather than taking personal responsibility, or who exaggerate the threats posed by their alleged oppressors to their well-being.

Insecure women tend to blame their partners for their feelings, sometimes without even realizing the blame is unjustified. Feminism seems to often be attractive to these women, because they can rely on their fellow feminists, and to some extent the larger feminist-influenced American culture, to accept their accusations of mistreatment at face value, and place the burden of proof on their male partner to show that he isn't at fault for the relationship problems. The average person figures it makes sense to take accusations at face value, when the accuser appears to have nothing to gain by making false accusations. The problem is, that assumes the accuser is able to think clearly, logically, calmly, and with enough self-insight to realize when their subconscious is deceiving them. Not everyone is. Feminists certainly don't want to be the ones to say "There are a lot of paranoid, delusional women making false accusations" because that would make it easier for men who are actually guilty of abuse to escape punishment (whether in the form of social condemnation or punishments administered by the civil and criminal courts).

Of course, what's considered abusive also varies from culture to culture. So, when in doubt, find a partner from a culture that doesn't consider your practices abusive. For some people, that would mean a culture that hasn't been as heavily influenced by feminism. The alpha/beta distinction seems like a false dichotomy, by the way, since it's all about being aggressive vs. conservative, and pretty much everyone is brave in some ways and cowardly in others. Landmartian (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)