Columns Dec 31, 2014 at 4:00 am

Routine Maintenance

Comments

113
It's true there's a straw man here that feminists can't discuss maintenance sex because they have some hysterical reaction and call it rape. But Biblical conjugal duty is a real thing that set the norms for thousands of years. Marital rape is a real thing and it was only in 1993 that the last two US states repealed their marital rape exemptions.

It's like you know if you're a white guy who wants to ask a black person to pick cotton for you (God knows why, work with me here) and you go right on a head and ask them without a hell of a good explanation. You might get a strong reaction. It comes from a big giant pile of history that poisons the whole subject.

If you think about how many rapists have gone unpunished because they were married to their victims for too long, you might start to have a hard time with this maintenance sex thing.

It's a credit to women today that feminism now can get past all that history and talk about maintenance sex without bringing up all the ugly baggage. The snark is uncalled for. Respect is more appropriate.
114
Hunter @95: "a metastudy of dozens of studies on this subject is near certain to be correct in its general conclusion."

LOL

Here's a good discussion of the problems with meta analysis.
http://m.ccjm.org/content/75/6/431.full

The article lists many issues. I'll just cite the easiest one to explain quickly -- publication bias:
>>Databases include only studies that have been published. [So database] searches are unlikely to yield a representative sample because studies that show a “positive” result...are more likely to be published.>>
115
@113. Nicely put. However, given that many many women seem to be loosing their experience of desire; this issue , I believe, needs more exploration.
Why are some women in LTR not experiencing desire and men seem to continue to do so? Even women who say they love their partners, find their partners attractive- yet loose desire for sex with them.
What's going on here?
116
Wiki also gives some of the pitfalls:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-anal…

>> The most severe fault in meta-analysis often occurs when the person or persons doing the meta-analysis have an...agenda ...Researchers favorable to the author's agenda are likely to have their studies cherry-picked while those not favorable will be ignored or labeled as "not credible".>>
117
Note that publication bias is a separate problem from cherry-picking.
118
@LavaGirl: Why are some women in LTR not experiencing desire and men seem to continue to do so?

Testosterone? No, no, that couldn't be it.
119
@BiDanFan: Because we feminists had no idea. We just thought it meant equality with regard to gender

In 1999, Sweden passed a law criminalising the buying but not the selling of sex. Feminists, who assert that sex for money is inherently nonconsensual (i.e. rape), have hailed this as a huge victory and are working (with success) to spread the law worldwide.

Help me out and explain how this advances "equality with regard to gender?"

I think this law is wrong in its assumption that women can't willingly decide to cash in on male libido, and in its specific targeting of men. If this is what feminism is about, you can have it, I'll stick with humanism.
120
On a roll, SeanDr. In The new York times article,think it was that paper, written by Daniel Bergman, about What Women Want- the comment thread was full of women lamenting how they had lost desire for their partners. They were keen for some pill to come along, to restart their desire button. It was/ is a real inquiry, SeanDr. Is it Testosterone that keeps men arounsed? Then.. What happens to women's desire?
121
Most boring comment thread ever- the peanut gallery discussing boring bullshit mixed with a few vague references and real comments on the letters answered this week. * yawn

Wish there was a fb group so you can do your (largely) off- topic discussions there instead.
122
@seandr: As a swedish person, and a feminist, I would like to inform you that Feminism is a broad collection of movements and ideas and it's not hard to find opposing opinions among feminists. Yes, there are some feminists who think this law is a good thing, there are also other feminists, like myself, who have many issues with it.

I think it robs women of their agency and I think it's appalling that every study conducted by the government on the effects of the law have refused to hear the opinions of the sex-workers the law is supposedly trying to protect.

That doesn't make me any less feminist than someone who thinks the law is great, nor them any less feminist than me.

Do you expect every person in a political party to agree with every other person in that party on every single issue? Because feminism as a whole is a lot less cohesive than a political party because feminism is the struggle towards a singular goal, equality. But there are as many opinions on what way to get there as there are feminists.
123
To me, "maintenance sex" is very different from forced or coerced sex, like the kind of sex described by AJC @27, Cat in fez @30, auntie grizelda @43, and ThatSouthernGirl @86.
"Maintenance sex" is sex that is given--even offered sometimes--easily, freely, and willingly by the partner who's not in the mood to have sex for the thrill-of-its-sake with the idea that the sex is being given to make the partner happy or to help keep the bonds of intimacy intact. The motivation for maintenance sex might not be for everyone involved to have an earth-shattering experience, but for the couple to stay connected until the next mutual earth-shattering desire and opportunity presents itself.

In that sense, it's sex with full consent, not coerced consent, and it's very far from marital rape.

Having sex without desire for sex, but with a desire for closeness and a desire to make your partner happy, out of love and the sense of long-term commitment requires intentional willingness.
124
@121. I don't see how it's really off topic. The first letter brought up the issue of Maintenance sex. The other two questions. Well.. You got something to add?
The first person, asked if she wAs really a feminist if , sometimes she engaged in maintenance sex.. The comment thread has moved around this qu.
Your comment is motivated by, what? Apart from it been rude. What's it setting off in you?
SeanDr. I haven't followed this situation in Sweden. It does sound a bit confusing. If Men or Women are ok to receive money for sex, I don't see the problem. Their choice.
125
Correction; @124. Apart from it being rude.
126
Ms Lava - I salute you @109. (Nuclear) Family Politics of any ideology make me incredibly nervous for just that reason. I'm often tempted to refuse on principle to vote for any politician who blathers on about supporting policies that will be Good For Families, but then I'd probably never vote.

As for Mr Anti, if memory serves he never called himself a woman in the recent thread. I think it was Ms Cute who responded to his initial declaration of the ONLY Road to Female Climax by assuming it to be a statement of what attracted "her" (phrased as "you", of course, in the post, and, to be fair to Ms Cute, her statement could apply to a same-sexer man's assuming that all opposite-sexer women have taste in men identical to his), Mr Anti never corrected the assumption, and others followed it. I checked his former posts because nothing in the thread made a positive presentation as female, and I often attempt to ascertain this point with various posters.
127
Dr Sean - Does Game preclude genuine compliments? I thought that being truthful could serve as an excellent tactical weapon.

Athens contained a high quality red herring. Well played.
128
@119: Because the law applies to both male and female prostitutes?
129
Venn. Well I came of age reading David Cooper's Death of The family. It made much sense to me. And trying to rear children well, have a good adult relationship, work, and have some solitude in that pressure cooker. It's hard. It was hard, for me.
Reading up on female desire, it would seem that maybe Testosterone is involved in female desire as well as male desire. Though, as far as I can tell, it isn't conclusive. Lifestyle , un acknowledged resentments in the relationship are thought to also be involved. Well, that's obvious.
There's even a name for this problem.
Female Sexual Arousal Disorder( FSAD). Also, as many as 40% of American women are suffering from this. What is going on?
130
Yes, Mr. Ven, when I used "you" to respond to AntiEverythihg's profession that all women are only sexually attracted to lumberjack cum pool boy cum cavemen, I was assuming unknown gender and orientation, and assuming that either Anti was attracted to that type him/herself or just assumed that someone attracted to men would be attracted to the lumberjack cum pool boy cum cavemen type.

Actually, it seemed to me most probable that Anti is a bitter and jealous straight man who is very far from the lumberjack cum pool boy cum cavemen "ideal" s/he describes.
132
seandr @118, good question. Probably lots of different answers. Some of the current research suggests that women in heterosexual relationships are more likely than men to lose desire over time. Baseline libido is not necessarily an issue.

As someone who has enjoyed both heterosexual and lesbian sex, I note that het sex can be easy. Kiss, squeeze, pokepokepoke, breakfast. (Nice for both, more satisfying for the one with the penis?) Because it *can* be easy sex it may tend to default to that.

But when I was in lesbian relationships sex was much more labour-intensive. In my longest lesbian relationship it took all of Sunday morning and into the early afternoon. For years. Happy anticipation because it’s Sunday. Tea in bed. Breakfast. Long bath together, including washing toys. Sex in two phases with a break in between (I do you then you do me). Obviously this was possible because we didn’t have kids, but if this is what at least some lesbians default to, then ... Maybe some women in het relationships become resentful over time?

Marilyn Frye on lesbian “sex”:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=H3Z51Sw…
133
@BiDanFan: The argument that a shitty law applies fairly to everyone doesn't make the law any less shitty.

Of course, 99.99% of clients are male, so the law in effect specifically targets men.
134
Hunter @131 I'm confused. Are you saying you're a Creationist? Or do you believe in Evolution?

If you believe in Evolution then surely you would concede that any traits the sexes possess that can be traced to our primitive beginnings would and should evolve.

But perhaps that's your problem with Feminists. That we are trying to accelerate that evolution?
135
@Friendstastegood: The fact that feminist views are all over the map is precisely why I feel uncomfortable calling myself a feminist, and why the humanist party will be getting my vote rather than the feminist party (to extend your analogy).

Christianity also encompasses a wide range of competing views. Some Christians are focused on helping the poor. Others are focused on persecuting people. The latter group is reason enough, in my opinion, to question the value of Christianity, or even to abandon it. It doesn't help that the persecutors appear to be running the show these days, not unlike the misguided feminists in Sweden.

Finally, if feminism is simply about equality among genders, why is it called "feminism"? That's rather like a referee who shows up to a football match wearing the jersey of one of the teams.
136
@134: Evolution means change over time due to spontaneous mutation; it does not mean that species change for the better, or are helped along due conscious effort, though that's how it's typically used (i.e. Obama's feelings about same-sex marriage "evolving" over time). The idea that species change in ever-increasing preferential way smacks of creationism or at the least intelligent design, not to mention a shared belief in what would be "preferential" for the species. Evo-psych is based on a more Darwinian concept of evolution than the kind where people deliberately change.
137
What a great column this week! One of the best yet. And so many intelligent, wise comments on how putting in sincere effort to keep the sex life going in a relationship. Too many great Slogger comments to cite, but I especially liked the idea that the default answer to "Sex?" in a relationship turns to "yes."

Second column in a week that is very apt to my current experience.

138
@14 / 16 / 18 - I actually don't think that is true at all. If you read the criticism it wasn't about frequency or that it was directed at straight women. It really was that women should NEVER have sex if they aren't in the mood. Or that feeling obligated to do so is tantamount to being coerced (i.e., rape). It is a reactionary and, frankly, dumb argument made by people who are obviously uncomfortable with sex. It is like saying that when I go over to my spouse's family on the Holidays, despite not really wanting to, that I am being coerced and therefore kidnapped. Willingly doing things you are not enthusiastic about in order to maintain a healthy relationship is not the same as being coerced.
139
Ugh, seandr, really? Because women are the oppressed group it was and is intended to support as a movement. Obviously. As a dude, it's clear you're uncomfortable with checking your privilege, but some of us are open to actual self reflection. Being a dude is a privilege, inherently, full stop. Feminism, sure, should help men, but its goal of equality ultimately has to create equal opportunity for women. Byproducts include ideals like paternity leave (giving a woman equal chance to return to work, for instance).
140
@119 SeanDr- Feminists, who assert that sex for money is inherently nonconsensual (i.e. rape), have hailed this as a huge victory and are working (with success) to spread the law worldwide.
While arguing from the outside, you can't see that your data point contradicts this statement. Possibly most feminists would stand in contradiction to this statement. And you've pissed them all off. Congrats.

@135 - Finally, if feminism is simply about equality among genders, why is it called "feminism"?
While I would like to see the word feminism go the way of desegregation into antiquity, abortion restrictions are currently being enacted in this country. Roe v Wade is still under attack. Jack is not treated the same as Jill by potential employers. I find this naivette disingenuous.
141
@Phil: and you've pissed them off

If this is the way feminists respond to critique, it's yet another reason I can't identify with them.
142
@130 NoCute- "Maintenance sex" is sex that is given--even offered sometimes--easily, freely, and willingly by the partner who's not in the mood to have sex for the thrill-of-its-sake with the idea that the sex is being given to make the partner happy or to help keep the bonds of intimacy intact.

I believe this is what Dan means too. But if my mate couldn't arouse me when he wanted sex and kept nagging for sex favors anyway, or asked for maintenance sex specifically, I think I'd want to find a different mate. If he's sexually unarousable I consider him nearly sexually unavailable; at most I'll ask to make out while I take care of myself, to preserve intimacy and closeness.

I also think Dan meant handies by non penetrative sex. I don't think that many guys would consent to suck dick or receive anal when not in the mood.

I place importance on being receptive to sexualized affection, or any affection, in LTRs. Even when tired or cranky, it's important to let your love touch you or try to please you. Equally it's important to tell them when they do well and how to change anything uncomfortable. And a habit of having sex is important. Just doing what you like is more important in unfamiliar hook up sex. This maintains my sex life well, at least. But I am not completely monogamous.

The more sex ending in mutual sexual satisfaction the better. If a form of 'maintenance sex' does that for some people that's cool.
143
@141 Ironic, as you've responded to extreme feminists by removing support and launching criticism at the entire movement. I'd call that equally overblown.
144
Autonomy and free-agency for women is not a zero sum game. In fact, the most advanced countries in the world are those in which women are afforded reproductive and economic freedom. Feminism in its purest form lifts all boats.

There are fringe elements in any movement. I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater until some very powerful forces on the right in this country concede that women should be able to choose when and if they become mothers. Until then we need women standing up for our rights. Call them whatever you like.
145
Philophile @140, thank you.

seandr @135, substituting ‘humanism’ for ‘feminism’ as access to abortion is increasingly restricted and while US parental leave policies suck is like substituting #allivesmatter for #blacklivesmatter in the wake of the failures to indict either Darren Wilson or Daniel Pantaleo, or to convict George Zimmerman.

For the record, my understanding of feminism goes a little further than ‘equality among genders.’ In 1894 Anatole France put a similar problem of equality thusly: ‘In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.’ Just as black lives matter and the living conditions and opportunities of poor people matter, women’s issues matter. Yes, when racism is no longer an issue, when the poor retain their dignity and when women and men both participate fully in all aspects of society we will all be better off. In the meantime, feminism has a place.

Not to say that feminism isn’t an awfully big tent these days. I'm not impressed with some of the folks camping out with me.
146
As a feminist, seandr, I agree with your position on sex work, and I hope to build a world where men don't feel pressured to take the provider role rather than the care-taker role.

It's fine with me if you call yourself a humanist; I hope as such you'll spend more of your energy on positive work to help improve women and men's lives, rather than attacking "feminism."

Why not attack "anti-sex-work feminism," or misandry itself? Or "gender-related political extremism" as Allen Gilliam put it @39?
147
Have to agree with SeanDR here.

The main thrust of the feminist movement is great, but the branding is TERRIBLE.

The word "feminism" specifically means "for women" - the word offers nothing for men, trans, intersex, or asexuals. It turns away allies. There's a reason why Rebecca Watson had to give a speech trying to defend the term.

An analogy was the U.S. "Black Power" movement in the 1960's. The term gave voice (and media attention) to some extremists, turned off potential white allies, and offered nothing to Asians, Latinos, or Native Americans. Rebranding that movement as "Civil Rights" was a lot more successful (though clearly there's a lot more to be done).

Similarly rebranding "feminism" as "humanism" or as the "gender rights movement" would make it clear that extremists are not welcome, would gain more male allies like SeanDR and Hunter, would be more open to dealing with the few areas where men are clearly discriminated against (such as draft registration), and extend the movement to trans- and intersex.
149
@147 A feminist is allowed to not like the name feminism because it's too feminine.

If I were a guy, I'd say I'm a feminist in practice, but I don't like the identity cause it sounds too much like 'feminine'. I don't believe I'd call feminists wrongheaded because I didn't like the name. Or apply the word feminism only to the extreme parts that I disagree with. That is another phenomenon.
150
@63: Hope you're having a better day than yesterday.

"I think that if more men identified as feminists, rather than seeing feminists as women who are somehow against them, we as an entire society could move forward."

Google "male tears." Lots of men do indeed see feminists as women who are somehow against them, and they have very good reasons for seeing that, because it is very often true. I imagine many black people see teabaggers as racist, for exactly the same reasons.
151
@Phil, @Alison: As a humanist, my support for reproductive rights is no less ardent than that of feminists.

I also support equal pay for equal work, although unlike feminists who focus exclusively on gender discrimination, I'm also concerned with, for example, men who are discriminated in the workplace for being short, or anyone who is unfairly paid by a exploitative or psychopathic boss.

In the Seattle city government, it was noted by feminists that female employees made less money on average than male employees. The city commissioned a study that concluded the discrepancy was the result of women choosing lower paying, less skilled jobs at a greater rate than men. Feminists have responded by advocating equal pay for unequal work, a policy that is now being considered by the city.

While I can get behind affirmative action to right past wrongs, or even a law that literally forced quotas of high-aptitude young women to enter high paying fields such as engineering in order to balance out the numbers, I can not get behind a self-contradicting definition of "equality".
152
Black Power was important. Just as feminism is important.

Without them, the re-branded movements wouldn't have (had) any traction.
153
@Seandr:
There is also the question why a lot of the work that is traditionally done by women is paid less than traditional men's work.

Nursing, for example, is physically very taxing with all the lifting involved, but is paid worse than a physically equivalently taxing, traditionally male job.
Why is that so?
Because traditionally female jobs are valued less, despite their importance for society.
154
Seandr @151: It's a fallacy to assume that feminists don't support equal pay for everyone. Again, it's not a zero sum game, and women who identify as feminist, at least the ones I know IRL (as opposed to the amorphous internet crowd you seem to be referring to) are able to support many things at once. All at the same time!

What I think has happened it that operatives in the conservative movement have become experts at changing our common language and in the process demonizing and perverting ideas they don't agree with. (Frank Luntz, Rush Limbaugh, et al)

Just a few examples:

Feminist now = Feminazi. Estate taxes now = death taxes. Late-term abortions now = partial-birth abortions. De-funding public schools now = school choice. Global warming now = climate change. The list goes on and on...

Language matters. Women's rights matter. I'm a feminist and I won't be shamed into using different language just because Rush Limbaugh has been successful at distorting the meaning of the word.
155
jackkay @148, there aren’t a lot of people here who could disagree with you.

Personally I have opted to outsource — at the suggestion of my beloved — though my preference would have been to keep all operations in-house.
156
@154: "What I think has happened it that operatives in the conservative movement have become experts at changing our common language and in the process demonizing and perverting ideas they don't agree with."

They're not the only people who do this. As an example:
"It's a fallacy to assume that feminists don't support equal pay for everyone."

Seandr pointed out a fact, and you claimed he was making an assumption, and called it a fallacy. That's not what the words "fallacy" or "assumption" mean.
157
@150 Do you think the feminists at pro choice rallies, or trying to mitigate the destruction from abstinence only education on college campuses, and who teach about sex for pleasure like Dan Savage are out to get you? The ones going on about condoms and consent and "it's ok not to wait for marriage" and women should be free to choose? Or only the female feminists? Or only the pretty female feminists? Personally I think that misandry on a feminist is ugly. Misogynistic anti-feminism is ugly too.

I do think that Dan is emphasizing that sexual frustration is dangerous for a relationship. I think he's a little light in acknowledging that sexual pressure is dangerous for a relationship too and has been a historic problem for women. Masturbating or outsourcing are options too. I do like that people are talking about options for partners with mismatched libidos.

@151 I decided I like you despite your flaws. You are witty. +2 points for I also support equal pay for equal work, although unlike feminists who focus exclusively on gender discrimination, I'm also concerned with, for example, men who are discriminated in the workplace for being short, or anyone who is unfairly paid by a exploitative or psychopathic boss. or criticizing feminism from the inside. -1 point for Feminists have responded by advocating equal pay for unequal work, a policy that is now being considered by the city. A good correction would be
"Some crazy feminists have responded by advocating equal pay for unequal work, a policy that is now being considered by the city."
At least it would be less irritating to this feminist. Maybe I'll try not to piss you off so much.
158
Eudaemonic - I've been a reader of Savage Love long enough to know that no matter how hard I try, engaging with you will be exhausting and ultimately pointless.

That said, in case there is any confusion, I wasn't responding to his bit about local Seattle politics of which I know nothing. I was responding to this:

"I also support equal pay for equal work, although unlike feminists who focus exclusively on gender discrimination, I'm also concerned with, for example, men who are discriminated in the workplace for being short, or anyone who is unfairly paid by a exploitative or psychopathic boss."

See the part where he says "focus exclusively on gender discrimination"?

His fallacious assumption is that Feminists only care about equality for females. And yes, I'm using those words correctly...
159
I love the illustrations each week with Savage Love and I look at them closely.
This week's is hilarious. The cow symbolizes the man or woman in a rut who needs it badly but is not getting anywhere. The farmer has had a full day and is exhausted. He's taken off his shows, plopped down in his rocking chair and has lit his pipe. He looks up and sees the bursting cow with her pail who needs to be milked. The farmer doesn't want to move a muscle, but the cat has eyed the cow and the cow has eyed the cat. The cat may not be capable of totally satisfying the cow, but she's got great desire and great passion, and that's worth something.
160
Oops, he's taken off his shoes.
161
@EricaP: One thing I've learned in Savage Love is that men tend to discount mistreatment of women by men, and women tend to discount mistreatment of men by women.

While there are plenty of people here who do an admirable job of taking the other gender's perspective (you being among them), every single one of us is unavoidably and understandably biased in favor of our own, some to the point of fanaticism. These biases show up time and again whether we're talking about relationship issues or situational ethics described in an SLLOTD, or public policy.

So, I think it's worthwhile to question a political framework that promotes this bias (and the harm that comes from it) in its very name and in much of its practice, for reasons both principled and pragmatic. Why not a framework that welcomes men as first class participants rather than "allies"?

You mentioned cherry picking earlier, so perhaps this example will resonate. Feminists often cite statistics showing pay inequity, and to the extent that this is the result of unfair bias (as opposed to differing life priorities and differing social consequences for making less money) that's a real problem. Feminists rarely if ever attempt to present the entire economic picture, however. Not a word about rates of homelessness, incarceration, college admissions, or transference of wealth through marriage, all of which favor women. Not a word about the excessively high suicide rates of fathers and husbands who've lost their job. Can you imagine a feminist proposal for providing more assistance to homeless or recently unemployed men in order to balance out women's disproportionate aversion to supporting men who can't provide? Neither can I.

Try logging into slog as "EricP" sometime and mentioning these things. You'll be dismissed as an MRA, a "mansplainer", a patriarch blinded by privilege, or whatever the latest jargon is for oversimplifying a complex subject and shutting men out of the conversation. Maybe you'll even get a stalker like @rowingdawn. (This is definitely less of a problem in Dan's comment section than in others.)

In any case, I'm doing my best to offer a well-reasoned and fair-minded critique, not an attack. If all you and the rest do is refrain from dismissing me as described above, you'll have made my day.
165
@migrationist: I worked two summers in a grueling 13-hour-per-day landscaping job with an all male crew for little more than minimum wage while my mother, a nurse, made 5 times as much per hour (plus benefits) as I did.

Was I the victim of gender discrimination? Or supply and demand?
167
@161 Seandr- I see I was being too charitable by reading your sentence as inclusive
...although unlike "feminists who focus exclusively on gender discrimination", I ...

You are still labeling extremism as "feminism" and refusing to call yourself a feminist while stating that you desire equal rights by gender. I'm starting to wonder about your IQ again. Or do you want to get rid of feminism? Call it something else? Kill all extremists? What is your point?

So, I think it's worthwhile to question a political framework that promotes this bias (and the harm that comes from it) in its very name and in much of its practice, for reasons both principled and pragmatic. Why not a framework that welcomes men as first class participants rather than "allies"?
I have good male feminist friends who are not allies or second class to me. I hear that you don't like the name, or refuse to consider the historical significance valid, but I hear no other point. Are you trying to make a point or just be irritating by announcing your dislike of feminism and refusal to identify as feminist.

You seem to be arguing weird shit like homelessness is central to equal rights by gender, on par with abortion access and other feminist issues. If you don't want to call yourself a feminist fine. But distance yourself the whole way and shut up about what you think feminism should be if you want nothing to do with it instead of warring. This criticism "feminists are stupid" when discussing extremism is annoying. Some feminists are humanitarian. And some morons don't take the feminist label. Just don't be a feminist. Stop telling this feminist what you think I care about and why it's evil. You're wrong.

@162 That's nice if it works for you. Sounds like a difficult situation. Brave to share it. It's good for me to see how different relationships can work.
168
@157: "Do you think the feminists at pro choice rallies, or trying to mitigate the destruction from abstinence only education on college campuses, and who teach about sex for pleasure like Dan Savage are out to get you?"

Good try. I think that the feminists who are keeping it legal to rape me are out to get me. That is because they are.

Your movement tolerates pro-rape activists. Your movement houses a large number of pro-rape activists. Pro-rape activists are in leadership positions in your movement.

@158: "His fallacious assumption is that Feminists only care about equality for females. And yes, I'm using those words correctly..."

Your movement tolerates and supports pro-rape activists, as long as the rape they're encouraging is of men. Your movement has done some good, and it won a campaign to keep it legal to rape me.

If you think it's a mistake for me to weight the last part more heavily than the first part, you're a bigot.
169
@161 And you're not so special. I got my own "philophile the mra mainsplainer" page. It didn't make me think that all feminists are crazy. I'm not saying that crazies don't exist in all walks of life...
170
@167: "You are still labeling extremism as "feminism" and refusing to call yourself a feminist while stating that you desire equal rights by gender. I'm starting to wonder about your IQ again."

Coming from you, that's pretty funny. It's like a Republican claiming that the only reason not to vote Republican is if you're anti-American. Just to help clarify: It's not that he's opposed to the things you falsely claim to believe, it's that he's opposed to the things you actually do believe, and the actions you take.

If you acted the way you say you act, and acted like you actually believed the things you say you believe, there wouldn't be this problem.
171
Another interesting irony: The effect a comment board full of "feminists are stupid and/or evil" must have on all the women reading.

I thought men wanted women to open our legs more easily... maybe not. Maybe this male anti-feminism is to make the dating scene seem scary to partnered women? What is the men's point?
172
AlisonC; Outsource? How can one outsource intimacy. Or you talking sex.
Sex though, can sometimes turn into intimacy. It's funny like that. Being naked with someone, having bits of oneself entered by bits of other's selves.
It's not like outsourcing the laundry.
Gotta be careful when playing with fire.
173
@168 I'm going to regret this, but, really? Your "proof" that feminists want you to be legally raped is the objection by some Israeli women's groups to a change in Israeli rape laws?

Did you read this paragraph from the article you linked to?

Hebrew University law professor Orit Kamir said that the current law against sodomy applies to women as well as men and forbids them from inserting an object into someone else’s body. The proposed amendment changes the law so that if a woman causes an organ or object to be inserted into her body, she will be charged with rape.

I can see it now: "I didn't rape her, she raped me! She caused me to insert my organ into her body!"

If you can't see the potential problems with that then: 1) you aren't thinking the issue all the way through, 2) you didn't finish reading the article, or 3) you think that the very real problem of men raping women is exaggerated and/or overblown.

Also, please don't call me names. I'm not a bigot. You don't know anything about me.
174
Biologist in the stix @147, migrationist @152: The civil rights movement was first. Black Power came later. No rebranding! They were different. Black Power was a reaction to the accommodationism of the Civil Rights Movement.

Wikipedia
— Civil rights movement: 1954–1968
— Civil Rights Act: 1964
— Black Power movement: 1966–1975

Wikipedia on heterogeneity of the Civil Rights Movement:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-A…–68)

‘A wave of inner city riots in black communities from 1964 through 1970 undercut support from the white community. The emergence of the Black Power movement, which lasted from about 1966 to 1975, challenged the established black leadership for its cooperative attitude and its nonviolence, and instead demanded political and economic self-sufficiency.

‘While most popular representations of the movement are centered on the leadership and philosophy of Martin Luther King Jr., many scholars note that the movement was far too diverse to be credited to one person, organization, or strategy.[4] Sociologist Doug McAdam has stated that, "in King's case, it would be inaccurate to say that he was the leader of the modern civil rights movement...but more importantly, there was no singular civil rights movement. The movement was, in fact, a coalition of thousands of local efforts nationwide, spanning several decades, hundreds of discrete groups, and all manner of strategies and tactics—legal, illegal, institutional, non-institutional, violent, non-violent. Without discounting King's importance, it would be sheer fiction to call him the leader of what was fundamentally an amorphous, fluid, dispersed movement."[5]’
175
Hunter, well. now I can get a bit more of a handle on where your intense energy is coming from.
176
Feminist is a great word. I spent some of last nite reading some sites. I assume peopled by younger women. I found it a little exhausting, sort of fried my brain a bit.
Yet, Women today, young Women today have a much different landscape than I had. If the arguments centred on structures a bit more and individuals a bit less, then maybe more people would find the common ground.
I'm amazed that this lessening in female desire, isn't front and centre as an issue. Why is this happening in such big numbers? Is it the contraceptions women take? The ease anti depressants are dished out?
177
@seandr:
Let me guess: your mother was a RN?
You should have compared your income as an unskilled labourer with a nurse's aide who only has limited training but does the majority of the heavy lifting.
178
seandr @161 As a social democrat I certainly support providing more assistance to homeless and unemployed men (and women).

[WIKI: Social democracy opposes the excesses of capitalism such as inequality, poverty, and oppression of various groups...Common social democratic policies include advocacy of universal social rights to attain universally accessible public services such as education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services, including child care and care for the elderly.]

Different movements have different priorities. I support gay rights, and love when prominent gay leaders like Dan speak out for abortion rights (as he did with the Jennifer Ann Whalen case in PA this fall), but I don't expect abortion rights to be the main focus of gay advocacy groups.

Similarly, I would hope feminists would support our efforts (as social democrats or humanists or Occupiers or what-have-you) to lower male rates of suicide, homelessness, incarceration, etc. and raise male rates of education, life satisfaction, employment, etc. But that doesn't have to become the top priority of a healthy feminist movement, which should rightly stay focused on issues like abortion, contraception, and women's under-representation in important fields like science, politics, and engineering.

>> I think it's worthwhile to question a political framework that promotes this bias (and the harm that comes from it) in its very name >>

Think of the movement for trans rights. Some people focus on providing help for trans youth who are at terrible risk. And other people seem to spend more time pestering Dan and others for not always using approved terminology. When you spend your time critiquing feminists, you look like the latter group. You can be more effective in improving male lives by speaking out against the prison-industrial complex, or advocating universal child-care policies, than by arguing about the term “feminism.”

Earlier today @151, you expressed outrage that feminists "responded [to a Seattle city study] by advocating equal pay for unequal work." Why not post a link or two to the debate, so those of us who don't live in Seattle can learn more about the issue? And could you clarify whether the feminists were advocating that only women have access to "equal pay for unequal work"? Or were they calling for a re-evaluation of the "lower paying, less skilled jobs" so that both men and women would be better paid if they chose those jobs?
179
And personally, I find that the NRA is the main political obstacle to lowering rates of male suicide; the Republicans are the main political obstacle to returning tax rates to the reasonable levels of the 1950s (when the top marginal rate was 90% or more), so that we could provide better social welfare programs for men and women; and the prison industrial complex is the main political obstacle to reforming rates of incarceration -- I don't think feminists pose a huge political obstacle to any of those efforts.
180
JibeHo @173, are you claiming that when a woman assaults a man by sitting on him and inserting his penis (or other body part) into her body without his consent, that she hasn't assaulted him?

The term "rape" has different legal meanings in different places, but I would hope we could all agree that in that case, the woman would certainly have sexually assaulted the man.

And I think you're misguided if you get outraged when people propose to expand the term "rape" to cover crimes of sexual assault by women.
181
MrE; are you really that thick? " This Movement" as you call it, is made up of very very disparate ideas. I don't agree with some Women's wild and woolly assertions. And I'm more than willing to say that. Yet, they and I are ok to label ourselves as Feminists.
You gotta use that part of your body between your ears, when taking on board others' proclamations. I don't get swept along by any thing.
If I agree with how a Feminist presents her/ his/ their case, I will say so. In ascertaining that, I use my independent mind. You should try it sometime.
182
MrE; Leadership Positions? Wtf are you talking about? There are NO Leadership positions. Funny guy.
183
@182, there are feminist organizations, like NOW, EMILY's List, Jezebel, Ms. Foundation, Girl Scouts, CARE, Pro Mujer, etc., and they have leaders. So, yes, there are leadership positions.
185
Erica,

I was primarily responding to Eudaemonic's ridiculous claim that feminists are pro female-on-male rape.

I realize now that I should have been more careful in my comment - I wasn't saying that men cannot be raped by women. I read the article Eudaemonic linked to and my understanding is that the way the Israeli law is written, if a man rapes a woman and she goes to the police, he can also go to the police and claim he was raped. The effect would be to further suppress the already seriously under reported crime of rape.

I'm not sure what the solution should be. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how a law would be written to specifically criminalize female-on-male rape. I do believe it should be prosecuted.

That said, the law would have to be carefully written, and I'm making assumptions here (I know - maybe not a good idea), but if women's groups have serious objections, perhaps it's with the current wording of the law.

The reality is that women (and men) get raped by men with alarming frequency. The mechanics of the human body - physical size/strength imbalances and the use of the penis as a penetrative instrument - combine to make this the predominant reality in the "field" of rape. We need to prosecute these crimes. According to RAINN, 98% of rapists never spend a day in jail. We should all be ashamed of that fact and work together to create a society where all forms of rape is a thing of the past...
186
Erica @183 - Which of the leaders of the groups you mention advocate rape?

That was Eudaemonic's point: "Pro-rape activists are in leadership positions in your movement."

You were quick to jump on Lava's question regarding leadership while letting Eudaemonic's ridiculous statement stand.

Since I don't read feminist blogs or publications I'm afraid I'm woefully out of touch with my leaders :) If you can name a pro-rape feminist leader I'll apologize in short order.
187
@149 Philophile: I don't think that feminists were "wrongheaded," in fact I wrote that the main thrust of the movement "is great," and I support 90% of what I've heard espoused. I just think that the name "feminism" is slowing progress and support; and that branding is important, as JibeHo @154 pointed out when mentioning the disturbing success of regressive movements. Similarly, would you support a group of "masculinists" arguing for equality in forcing young women as well as men to register for the draft, or would you be more likely to think that those masculinists are largely a group of extremist men (like the MRAs) even if you agreed with that one position?

@174 Thanks, Alison Cummins, for the kind correction; my memory is faulty, and I should have looked it up. I do stand by the opinion that the Black Power Movement was actually damaging to the cause they espoused, whereas "Civil Rights" clearly supported rights for everyone no matter what the need.
188
@JibeHo, I corrected LavaGirl's statement that the feminist movement has no leaders, but I did not claim any of those leaders advocate raping men. More relevant to Eudaemonic's point, I don't actually know if any of these leaders think that the definition of rape should include times when women force men to penetrate them. I haven't done any research on the matter, so I didn't speak to that issue.
189
Pro tip: Eudaemonic often has a reasonable point. It's just hard to find it under all the insults and nastiness.
190
@180 EricaP - Re definition of rape: I've stated my position on this elsewhere, but I object to lowering the status of the word rape to cover all sexual assault. Even worse, Dan published a bit about idiots using rape to mean regrettable consensual sex. As well as lack of consent or simple sexual assault, rape traditionally involves 1) forced penetration 2) possible pregnancy 3) possible STI transmission. These all have consequences which can be far more debilitating than simple unconsensual sexual contact; possible internal damage, debilitating (rarely fatal) consequences from abortion or birth, unplanned children, debilitating (rarely fatal) STIs like HEP C... The situation you describe is not as potentially damaging as the traditional unprotected-penis-violently-unconsensually-using-vagina-to-masturbate, but I think its close enough to call rape rather than just assault if it's unprotected, and unplanned children or STI transmission could result. Otherwise it's more comparable to getting groped, pure psychological damage from the sexual boundary violation, simple sexual assault. And I don't think Jezebel should be listed with reasonable feminist organizations. Seems like a fluffy ezine. Feminist.org is a better example.
191
@173: Really? You think the risk of false accusations is reason enough to keep rape legal?

I've heard that argument before, but only ever from bigots.
192
@176 Lava - I'm amazed that this lessening in female desire, isn't front and centre as an issue. Why is this happening in such big numbers? Is it the contraceptions women take? The ease anti depressants are dished out?
I'm unfamiliar, link please?

@187 I'd get behind a "masculinity" movement that wanted to abolish the draft. I see no women arguing that men should be forced to experience simulated pregnancy or menstruation or birth other objectionable feminine experiences.
193
@190: Stop trying to tell me that it's okay (or more okay) to rape me.

It isn't. Rape is never okay. Rape should never be legal. It is not possible to think there are people it's okay to rape and not be a bigot.

If you find yourself arguing how certain kinds of rape aren't really rape rape, you should know enough to stop. Any time you find yourself minimizing rape, you should realize you're on the wrong side.

"These all have consequences which can be far more debilitating than simple unconsensual sexual contact..."

All nonconsensual sex is rape. Full stop. People who aren't bigots do not try to create categories of nonconsensual sex that aren't rape.
194
Philo, I first heard of it thru Daniel Bergman's article, and the comments after. Like many, many comments. I think it was The NY Times. Re his book
" What Women Want." Last nite I googed lack of female desire- and a couple of articles came up. Seems to be a classified disorder, though questions remain re some drug companies being behind the push to see it as a " disorder ".
It's labelled " Female Sexual Arousal Disorder", FSAD.
Didn't notice any of the Feminist sites mentioning it at all.
There is some device though, sounds a bit nifty, to help women. Some sort of suction thing to put on the clit to get the blood flowing( though, you'd think a tongue/ mouth there might offer the same service).
As far as I could tell, with my limited reading- there is no clear indication of what generates female desire, biologically. Female hormones,maybe, certain time of the cycle, maybe. Testosterone, maybe. Lots of maybes.
I'm amazed it isn't a big issue for Women. Trying to find out why this is happening to so many women. I'm wondering if Contraceptives or anti- depressants may be involved.
195
Erica; If MrE has written some sense somewhere, I've yet to read it.
Of course Rape of anyone is wrong. Like, Dur.
These organisations may have people in positions of authority, but they don't speak for or represent me. So, I dismiss the notion that there are
Leadership Positions , that represent Feminism. There may be leadership positions that represent some women, who call themselves Feminists.
196
Biologist in the stix @187,

The civil rights movement began in order to counter Jim Crow laws (segregation required by law) and voter suppression (for instance, laws that stated that you didn’t need to be a literate property owner to vote if your grandfather had been legally eligible to vote, which essentially meant that only black people — whose grandfathers had been enslaved meaning that they were forbidden by law to both vote and to be literate, and who themselves were likely to be sharecroppers not owning property of their own — did you know that it was illegal to teach a slave to read and write? — were required to pass literacy tests.

Do you know Emmett Till? A northern 14-year-old boy sent to the south by his mother to spend the summer away from the bad influence of the city. On a dare he said ‘Hi, baby’ to a grocery store clerk. He didn’t understand the consequences. He was kidnapped and murdered by her husband and her brother-in-law. Nobody was found guilty. Compare Trayvon Martin.

Much of the organization was through churches, including women. Look at those old photos. The women’s hair is straightened with lye and hot combs. The men’s hair is either straightened or cropped short. They were working *very* hard to appear respectable on white people’s terms and not to appear too black.

Look at photos of Stokely Carmichael in 1961, when at the peak of the Civil Rights movement. His head was shaved so as not to appear too black. Now look at photos of him in 1966 and later. He’s wearing an afro. He asserted the right to unapologetically be who he was — Black. Not respectable on condition that he looked like an uptight white person.

Yes, the Civil Rights movement benefited everyone, for a while. Now voter suppression is back.

Next step — now that they have had all americans’ right to vote affirmed, some black people moved on to assert (among other things) the right to be black in public. The right to be black without apology. That wasn’t about everyone. It was specifically about black people and the experience of being black. It wasn’t the People Power movement. Black people have the right to do things just for themselves. They don’t have to do things that benefit themselves only on condition that they also benefit white people. They don’t have to please white people all the time. They don’t have to be ingratiating.

It’s similar to lesbian visibility building on the women’s movement. Men weren’t generally motivated to have wives who could support themselves, outshine them professionally, require them to do childcare and then leave them. Women were motivated to have access to all these things. That’s why it was the women’s movement, why it was feminism. Betty Freidan published The Feminine Mystique in 1963. In 1969, as president of NOW, she called lesbians the ‘lavender menace’ who would make the women’s movement less credible. 1970 saw a flowering of lesbian groups and they put lesbian rights on NOW's agenda — if women didn’t have the right to be lesbians, then straight women would not be truly free.

In 1963 women’s rights were about being straight, white, middle-class, educated and very respectable. A lot like the civil rights movement,

In 1970 lesbians were making a point of being out and proud. So were some black people.

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

NOT REBRANDING.

RELATED BUT NOT THE SAME.

NOT ALL FEMINISTS WERE LESBIANS. NOT ALL CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCATES WERE PROPONENTS OF BLACK POWER.

Lesbians don’t need to make themselves appealing to straight men. Black people don’t need to make themselves appealing to bigots. Black history is a thing — it doesn’t need to be folded into white history. It can be studied on its own, as can aboriginal history or latin-american history. And nobody needs to apologize.
197
(Similar comparisons might be made about change in my home province of Quebec. The « révolution tranquille » of 1960–1969 secularized the state, which had been deeply intertwined with the catholic church.

The separatist movement of 1970 to the present is about separating from Canada. For a while there were even kidnapping and murders in support of this aim and most quebecers today don’t particularly try to distance themselves from them.

We don’t call separatism “the quiet revolution” BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
198
Eudaemonic @193 “All nonconsensual sex is rape.”

No it isn’t. Some times it’s sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault. I believe than in some jurisdictions “rape” isn’t a legal category at all, which is what I favour because then you avoid pointless discussions about who gets to call their particular assault rape.
199
RE draft: it should absolutely apply to both men and women. I don’t see the issue here. Except in that we might be more reluctant to draft our children if we knew we were sending our daughters as well as our sons, but I don’t see that as a downside.
200
Bravo, AlisonC @196. Cool Post.
201
@Philophile (142): In response to my statement @ 123, in which I said: "Maintenance sex" is sex that is given--even offered sometimes--easily, freely, and willingly by the partner who's not in the mood to have sex for the thrill-of-its-sake with the idea that the sex is being given to make the partner happy or to help keep the bonds of intimacy intact. . . Having sex without desire for sex, but with a desire for closeness and a desire to make your partner happy, out of love and the sense of long-term commitment requires intentional willingness, you said:

"if my mate couldn't arouse me when he wanted sex and kept nagging for sex favors anyway, or asked for maintenance sex specifically, I think I'd want to find a different mate."

It seems you misread me. I was contrasting with the experiences of some other posters who described nagging and coercion.
I am capable of being aroused enough to be able to have sex comfortably, without being aroused enough to get off, and I believe in a certain amount of self-sacrifice for a loved partner
202
Do you guys still have the draft/ conscription? No way will that ever return to Australia. I mean, Indonesia, China- they could just walk right in and colonize us.
Chinese already seem to be buying up our land.
We survive by " it'll be right, mate", and having a lotta water at our door. Indonesia, of course, could Island hop.
In the words of Randy Newman,
" We'll save Australia.
Don't wanna hurt no Kangaroos.....
They got surfing Too!"
203
The best one-word description for an acceptable regimen of maintenance sex is to be "persuadable." I think I heard that term here. I forget who said it, and not going to look it up now, but it was a great term.

Somehow people slide from the idea that "nobody owes sex on demand to anyone, ever" to "Unless I am _already_ in the mood before you even ask, don't even think about anything beyond the meekest inquiry, or else you are a rapey douchebag." People seem to have forgotten that sex is (or should be) by default a pleasurable activity that you enjoy with your partner. If that's not true, you are with the wrong person. Sure you weren't thinking about it, but chances are good that 5 or 10 minutes of participation is enough to get you in the mood. If chances _aren't_ good -- if that routinely _isn't_ true for you and your partner -- some investigation as to why is definitely in order.

If you view sex as a chore, maintenance sex is going to be a chore, with all the soul-crushing resentment that implies, and the only maintenance it will be doing is nailing shut the coffin lid on the relationship. If you view sex by default as a pleasurable diversion, maintenance sex is simply going to be sex that you didn't think of before your partner did.
205
@191 You sure do sling the word bigot around a lot. I wonder why?

The law you objected to was under consideration in Israel. As far as I can tell (after a quick Google search), in most state in the US it is already a crime for a woman to rape a man. I'm not sure I understand your point, however I would be very interested if you could provide a link to one of the so-called feminist leaders you claim advocates rape.

I'm done responding to you. If you can't refrain from calling me names, you don't deserve any more of my time or effort.
206
Avast ; shit. I seriously did not know this was still going on in the U.S.
207
EricaP: City of Seattle gender pay gap study is here. A summary of the issue on slog is here. Select quote: "The central cause of the problem, however, does not appear to be within groups of employees doing the same work."

I was not expressing "outrage", just pointing out that the gender pay equity issue has shifted from "equal pay for equal work" to "just give women money, dammit."

I'm a social democrat as well, but as far as I'm aware, there are no efforts among social democrats to close the gender provider gap or the gender homelessness gap.
208
@Alison @92: Awww (smiles). But I'm glad you at least have your analytical mind (which I also appreciate), since I wish you well, and trying to give me hope is, well, not a cost-effective enterprise.

I appreciate the Anatole France quote: I'd heard it, but didn't know the full quote or where it was from.
209
@Alison. @EricaP, and anyone else interested in gender research: Here's a summary of a longitudinal study (and other related studies) that tracked the lives of 1600 high-IQ men and women starting from age 13 in the 1970s to the present day. It's an interesting demographic in that these are people with options, so we can see the different choices men and women make.

Women didn't make as much money as men on average, although there was lots of variability. The quotes that struck me most were the following:

The SMPY researchers attempted to figure out why their high-achieving men and women made the life choices they did by analyzing the values reported by each gender group. Among the male participants' top values were full-time work, making an impact and earning a high income. Female participants, on the other hand, valued part-time work, community and family involvement, as well as time for close relationships -- in a nutshell: "having it all."

Are women forced to define success more broadly because they have less opportunity in the workplace? A portion of the survey addressed this question. When participants were asked how much they'd be willing to work if they had their "ideal job," the results were telling: Thirty percent of women were unwilling to work more than 40 hours per week in their dream career, while only 7 percent of men felt the same way.

"People who are forced to do things they do not prefer are typically unsatisfied," he said. "If anything, men have fewer options than women -- that is, I suspect the social consequences of not being culturally successful are still larger for men, in terms of women's marriage preferences and in terms of how they are viewed by other men."
210
JibeHo. Welcome to the
" I won't bother much with that cat again, he's way too abusive" Club.
211
@135 seandr: Didn't you get the memo that you're not allowed to say you're not a feminist? Can't you take the advice given @99: "...please Hunter just call yourself a feminist and argue about feminism/equality from the inside so you don't come off as such a bigot."

Hope you have your asbestos underwear on--I was flamed several weeks ago for saying I wouldn't call myself a feminist for the same reasons you state. I'd much rather join you in being a "humanist" than to be associated with the "all sex is rape" crowd.

Oh, and I'm a heterosexual-cis-female if anyone is interested. My preferred pronouns are whatever the hell you want to use, and I don't care for either the patriarchy or the matriarchy telling me to toe the party line.
212
seandr @129,

And you know what? More men want to have it all too these days. I know a straight, two-doctor household where they both work part time clinically (although the woman has ambitions and now that their youngest is in school is also taking on admin responsibilities). They aren’t outliers. Many places are experiencing doctor shortages because the old model of practice was for a man to work 50+ hours a week, supporting a wife who looked after everything that wasn’t revenue-generating. The new model is for doctors to work part time (40 hours is part time in medicine), to have professional spouses, and to share care for their homes and families. (As well as having time and money to do interesting things.) The number of doctors that was sufficient under the old model is no longer meeting the needs of the population.

Of course the old model will always have its adherents but the new model is attractive to both men and women and men *are* choosing it. (Possibly less in the US, a more conservative culture?)

For people who have much less money life is a sort of desperate patchwork where custodial parents find themselves working multiple jobs and too many hours. But we’re talking about people with choices.
213
@migrationist: Yes, she was an RN, and she was paid about the same salary as my dad, who supervised a repair crew for the telephone company.

You compared apples and oranges, so I threw in a banana. If you know of any compelling economic analyses that suggest apples are paid more than oranges because of sexism as opposed to supply of workers, demand for the work, risk, or other naturally occuring economic forces, I'd love to see it.
214
SeanDr. Have it all. That's a weird way of saying, work your fucking arse off.
If one looks around, Men can be seen with their kids. I'm holidaying at my Mother' s house, on the Gold Coast, and yesterday, I saw two guys chatting away with each other, with their respective kids in prams. Of course, it's holiday time .
Still, these guys looked as comfortable as.
No way this would have been a sight to see 60 odd yrs ago.
So there's a shift going on, and has been since the 70s. Someone has to be with the children. They can't be outsourced 24/7. They get sick etc etc.
That some Men are involved more in this aspect of our community, is going to keep changing how work is done. Probably even change Men's and Women's ambitions.


215
@Alison: Well then there's hope. I think the USA's "winner take all, every person for him/herself" mentality only exacerbates gender gaps, and it certainly increases the pressure for anyone in the provider role. I've always thought women in British commonwealth countries have a more masculine feminity than their American counterparts, which has its appeal. Just last week I advised my son to marry a Canadian, Brit, or Aussie (once he grows up).

I haven't noticed the same trend towards less work among my male peers in Seattle, however, even those who can afford to retire.
216
Yes SeanDr. America - the land of Capitalist Individualism.
Still, you guys get great Music together. And of course, many other achievements.
We just like to get to the beach as often as possible..
217
I think part of the problem here is that the English languages words, "I don't want sex" and "I don't want sex" the exact same way, even though they mean two very different things. Either you do not currently have any active desire to have sex or you currently have an active preference to not have sex. Here's an actual example of that ambiguity in a neutral context that came up in my life recently:
A: Do you want breakfast?
B: No.
A: I made cinnamon rolls.
B: Oh, then I'd like one.

B didn't have an active desire for breakfast, but was fine (to interested) in having it when presented with it. Sometimes a person doesn't have any particular desire for sex, but is fine with having it. That sort of consent is, I believe, fine.

There's also a huge difference between sex that you don't especially feel like, but are okay with having because you love your partner and want your partner to have a good experience versus sex you don't especially feel like, but will have because you worry if you don't your partner will behave worse or otherwise make life harder for you. The latter is common in abusive relationships and is not okay.

But when people say "maintenance sex" some people are talking about neutral libido and some desire to do it and others are talking about negative libido, a desire not to do it, but a feeling like you ought to anyway as a chore or responsibility. I support one and oppose the other (and the other can easily become rape).

There's also the fact that people vary. Some people can start off neutral, but still expect to enjoy the experience. Many commenters posted about how they aren't really into it, but they still usually do enjoy it. Whereas some people will become less into, and that leads to bitterness, resentment, and feeling used as an object. That tends to kill the love in the relationship anyway, and I consider it better to break up than to have sex like that. If you have some idea of which sort of person you are in which situations (some people might always go one way, some another, some may vary based on circumstance) then you can decide what is right for you. I just think it's important to detangle exactly what we mean and what we do and do not want to encourage, because people who do want to push their partner into having sex when their partner actively doesn't want it do use these arguments made by good people supporting sex that both partners will feel good about, even if only one partner has arousal for to justify sex that makes one partner feel horrible.

Short version: if the sex is in the context of a relationship where you're happy, you feel safe, and you and your partner both feel good about it - great, even if you or your partner were not in the mood. But if you're unhappy or scared or doing it because you feel you have to, not great, and you should probably seek help and consider ending your relationship.
218
Well said, uncreative.
219
seandr @207: Social democrats want to provide more social services and better employment conditions and higher wages to the poor and middle class. That should help close the gendered provider gap (people will be able to raise children while working fewer hours -- relieves some of the burden on men to work long hours.) And the gendered homelessness gap should also be reduced when homelessness is reduced generally (because men will benefit in proportion to their larger numbers among the homeless.)

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.