Telegraph: Frenchman ordered to pay wife damages for lack of sex. (Imagine the outcry had that happened to a women, which - let's be honest - will be a far more common occurrence.)

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

limited Grounds upon Which a Woman Can Ask the Rabbis to “Order” Her Husband to Release Her and Pay Her the Marriage Contract; and the Limited Effect of Such Orders

The Talmud discusses a few situations in which it concludes that a husband “should divorce his wife and pay her ketubbah” (yozi ve-yiten ketubbah). The Talmud does not use the term kofin oto—he is “compelled” to divorce his wife—as it does in Mishnah Ketubbot 7:10. Because of the use of the two different phrases, the rabbis of the Israel rabbinic courts are conflicted as to whether such situations in which the terms yozi ve-yiten ketubbah are used are sufficient grounds for issuing a decision “compelling” a husband to divorce his wife; or even merely “ordering” him to do so. Many maintain that when the term yozi ve-yiten ketubbah is used, as opposed to kofin oto, the circumstances described cannot serve as grounds for “compelling” the husband to divorce his wife. At best, this can serve as grounds for “ordering” him to do so.

Like those using the term “compulsion,” the causes of action in the Talmud that use the term yozi ve-yiten ketubbah are limited. They include: the refusal of a husband to support his wife (BT, Ketubbot 47b, 48a); and the refusal of a husband to have sexual relations with his wife (mored) (BT, Ketubbot 63a)

http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/divorce-halakhic-perspective

This might be hard to understand without a Talmudic background. All Jewish marriage are created with a prenuptial contract (ketubbah) that stipulates damages and certain conditions for divorce, including the right for the women to compel the man to issue her a divorce for lack of consortium.

Remember, the purpose of traditional marriage is babies. Refusal of intercourse is refusal to make babies

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]crazybutnotsane1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I consider Jews to be more Red Pill than most cultures due to their history and texts.

Religious Jews generally get married young after a few dates and don't even touch until after the wedding ceremony. And they with few exceptions stay married for life. All sex occurs within the marriage. No plate spinning, no playing the game, no smv. The exceptions that allow divorce? Yeah, a nonexistent sex life as mentioned above, as well as an abusive husband. I personally know Lubovitch Jews who got divorced - which is otherwise practically nonexistent - because the husband was emotionally manipulative. Or that's how I interpreted it. TRP'ers might see it as more normal behavior...

On the other hand, reform or non-religious Jews are for the most part very socially liberal and egalitarian between the sexes.

I don't think you could have chosen a worse example than the Jewish population for those who would subscribe to TRP ideas.

[–]MorpheusGodOfDreamsCaught Red Handed0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]crazybutnotsane0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theozophSimply Red5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (123 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago* (121 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (104 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago* (101 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (100 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 10 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

you married someone who couldn't make it on their own...what did you honestly think would happen if ya'll divorced?! lol

About 20% of women earn more than their partner, and well over 60% earn less enough than their partners that they're entitled to his shit. More than a third are straight up housewives with no income of their own.

What this makes is a losing market situation for men. See, in the past, taking this risk was worth it. Because having a wife conferred advantages. You had a dependant, but they were obligated to you in return too. Now though? Its like you adopt a child. One who can opt out of parenthood on a whim.

All the options are poisoned.

Realistically, its impossible for a majority of males to marry a woman and have her earn teh same as him. There's hypergamy on top too, so they cant marry equally earning women without some other great quality to make up for it.

[–]belletaco0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]belletaco-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]DenswendThe Swiss Army Knife of Hate13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]freebumblebee11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CthroughYou0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]belletaco-3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]belletaco1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cartesian_DuelistPurple Pill7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]belletaco4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Edwizzy1022 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

you married someone who couldn't provide for themselves and you just want to chuck them when you are done? no sir.

Again, thank you for the insightful comment and glimpse into female thinking on this issue.

No one in the marriage should get any benefit after the marriage is over. The woman gets taken care of during the marriage. She leaves? Well, the taken care of stops. Her (ex) hubby shouldn't have to support her anymore, just like she doesn't have to provide him with sex anymore. Either give the man benefits post-marriage or take away the woman's benefits. Can't have it both ways (except women are getting it both ways currently and have no intention of changing the status quo).

You get benefits of riding with me while you're riding with me. You stop riding with me, you stop getting benefits. Simple.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cartesian_DuelistPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]give_me_shinieshere for the bants-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cartesian_DuelistPurple Pill-3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dejourPurple Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cartesian_DuelistPurple Pill4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VermiciousKnidzz 0 points0 points0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]give_me_shinieshere for the bants-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]give_me_shinieshere for the bants0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]give_me_shinieshere for the bants2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abacuz4Blue Pill Man-2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theozophSimply Red4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ianturpiesmoustache3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]treebogSJW Thought Policeman3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Women didnt react to it cause its only for men, and women dont care about equality.

Surprise! Super SJW huffpost wrote an article condemning the judges decision.

While people typically marry with the expectation that sexual activity will be a part of "'til death do us part," if even just for procreation, sex isn't necessarily a guarantee. It's not a contractual obligation. It's certainly not part of the vows people declare on their wedding day. So to be faulted for failing to have sex with your husband or wife seems not only antiquated, but also barbaric, especially when you consider sexuality throughout the lifespan.

And how much public outcry do you expect from an obscure ruling 4 years ago? In the past men have sued women over loss of consortium because she was cheating on him. It is all just stupid. You had to work really hard to find this ruling or you got it from MRA site or something.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProtoPillRed Before Red5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]treebogSJW Thought Policeman1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xemnas810 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ianturpiesmoustache3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ianturpiesmoustache2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

This article is old. If it happened to a woman, the outcry would've been tangible for years. It would've been a global symbol for the male-dominated legal system oppressing women.

Well, just doing a quick google search turned up articles on Jezebel and Gawker - two sites I don't read, but are often pointed to as being overtly feminist. No other article I can see (out of the 562,000-odd results) is anything but contemptuous of the ruling - not because of what it means for women, but because it's a ridiculous, pathetic ruling overall.

Can I just ask, though, if you think this is a good idea, what's the limit? If your partner is legally liable for your sexual satisfaction, where does that end, exactly? Sex 5 times a week, regardless of any given reason you might want or need to abstain? Can a man sue his wife for damages if she develops a physical/mental barrier to having as much sex as he'd like? Can a woman sue a husband for damages if he develops erectile dysfunction, or if his dick isn't big enough to satisfy her appropriately? Does this ruling extend to cohabitation?

It sets a dangerous precedent, basically.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Marrying and then willfully abandoning all obligation to tend to your partner emotionally, could be classed as neglect, alienation of affection and emotional distancing. Even cruel and inhuman treatment.

I don't claim to be a lawyer so I'll need help in finding the exact term, but its along those lines.

Basically, if you can prove this is whats happening, by a spouse that has no legitimate reason to do this, and for a spouse that you provide fulfill all your own obligations to, then you are owed damages. For all the time he or she wasted wherein you could've been out ~~working~~ dating if you weren't sacrificing for him/her.

No other article I can see (out of the 562,000-odd results) is anything but contemptuous of the ruling

of course its reported. how its being reacted to is the interesting part. nobody gives a shit. its a morning news story, not an international tragedy and rallying cry a female-equivalent ruling like this would be, if it could actually happen(hint; it couldn't).

[–]ianturpiesmoustache2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Marrying and then willfully abandoning all obligation to tend to your partner emotionally, could be classed as neglect, alienation of affection and emotional distancing. Even cruel and inhuman treatment.

But the ruling had nothing to do with emotional abandonment, it had to do with a guy who stopped having sex with his wife for health-related reasons. I'm not saying sex is not part of emotional fulfilment, but it's not the only part, or even the most important, to a lot of people.

Basically, if you can prove this is whats happening, by a spouse that has no legitimate reason to do this, and for a spouse that you provide fulfill all your own obligations to, then you are owed damages. For all the time he or she wasted wherein you could've been out working dating if you weren't sacrificing for him/her.

No, you're not owed damages. There's nothing legally stopping you from leaving this person - isn't it enough that you could've walked away at any point? Why does there need to be the option to sue them?

Can't you see it being exploited in any way? Like if you intentionally stopped having sex with your partner for a few months before divorcing them, and then claimed they're the one who stopped so you can extort cash?

And how do you prove it if one person denies it? "Oh, no, your honour, I fucked him at least 4 times a week! I know he says we didn't have sex in the last 2 years, but he's just being vindictive!". How exactly do you prove something like this sufficiently?

of course its reported. how its being reacted to is the interesting part. nobody gives a shit.

All of the articles reporting it gave a shit, and sided with the poor dude. The fact is this happened about 5 years ago, and I didn't even hear about it then.

if it could actually happen(hint; it couldn't) {happen to a woman}

But it very obviously could, based on this ruling. The judge didn't gender the ruling in any way.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ianturpiesmoustache1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You must be a woman, surely?

No

If not, why are you a feminist?

Because I believe that women and men don't have nearly as many biologically intrinstic differences as redpillers say, that market forces and culture explain almost all of the gender dynamics that people claim to need evopsych to explain, because I believe that men and women should be treated equally under the law, because I believe that the sexual marketplace should be totally deregulated, because I believe that people should have easy access to legal abortion and that people should practice marriage and relationships seperately from the institutions that currently define them, because I believe in LGBT rights, because I don't believe that anyone has a right to anyone else's sex and because I believe that expectations and entitlement are terrible.

And redpill at the same time...

I believe that men and women experience society differently and are given different incentives by it. I believe that men and women have different values on the market for various social reasons. I believe that men and women are playing different games on the market because of their different incentives and different values. I believe that strategizing to optimize one's individual market position is not only moral but an ethical imperative (assuming one doesn't use fraud to do it). I think that the optimum strategies (alpha fucks, women being chaste early on), suboptimum strategies (beta bucks,women slutting it up early on), and immoral strategies (lying about ones status, lying about plate spinning, lying about parentage, finding a provider) on that market are pretty much accurately described by red pill theory. I don't believe that anyone has a right to anyone else's time,money, or commitment and because I believe that expectations and entitlement are terrible.

this is so confusing.

It's really not. RP and feminism are actually the same thing.

I'm both because I believe that "In a free society, nobody is entitled to anything from another. If an association is not mutually beneficial, the parties to the transaction are free to leave."

I'm both because I believe that needy, desperate men who declare their love are super scary and unattractive.

I'm both because I believe that a man who follows a woman he barely knows to 'protect her' is a really dangerous beta white night person.

I'm both because I believe that the best way to smash through LMR is to back the fuck off, which RP calls "Going cold" and BP calls "Respecting her choices"

I'm both because I believe that women should be free to express themselves sexually and engage in whatever practices they want, like one night stands, threesomes, being someone's 24/7 sex slave, bondage, masturbation. Preferably they should express those things with me.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheWhispersOfSpiders0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Where I come from, your wedding vows mean something.

Everywhere else though; its only the man who's supposed to keep his part of the deal up. If he doesn't earn a lot or doesn't share what he earn, he's almost certain to be known as a deadbeat, and there are abundant legal ways to make him start coughing up.

If he isn't romantic or attentive or take her out on dates, the wife has all the power to ruin him on a whim(no fault divorce).

For a woman though, marriage is a vacation, Everything is like, 50% off forever(or more if you're lucky). And for the majority, you can opt out with no direct consequences imposed on you whatsoever. Subsidized just because you have a vagina. No real income(as stats show), achievements or anything necessary. Just dont be unfuckable.

So all obligations are optional, and there are no real consequences for not getting them done. If you are even the bare minimum of decent(like you get him sandwiches and do blowjobs), you are the dream girl for millions of men.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tintedlipbalmfemale-to-tamale woman2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anacrassismurex bath2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]anacrassismurex bath2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not, actually! I identify as nonbinary, not as agender. Agender people usually feel like they don't have any sort of gender identity, whereas I definitely have one, it's just not male or female. :)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by my gender being for attention. When I think about people's need for attention, I think about writing something and waiting for the comments to roll in, or about a friend taking some time to talk to me. That seems like a fundamental human need! Nobody likes to feel unnoticed or ignored or like no one would care if they were gone. But it doesn't seem like changing my gender identification is a good way to get that need met! Perhaps we mean different things by "attention". Can you elaborate on your reasoning?

I suppose that attention might be part of why I participate on this sub, but to be honest I have much better ways to get it, like updating my fanfic! I think I mostly just like arguing. :)

[–]anacrassismurex bath2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Men need women to being them sandwiches???

No, men WANT women who bring them sandwiches.

Bloody hell, are they 4?

Really ? Are you 4 because you like MEN to cuddle ?

And if a woman doesn't like giving blowjobs, she doesn't. Some men don't like giving oral sex.

Yup, and there shouldn't really be a person on either side who says anything other than "Well, that ain't going to be an attractive attribute in a long term partner, is it ?"

Those things aren't a bare minimum. It sounds like a 15 year old boy talking, not an adult, hence me laughing.

I think it's a fair description of the KIND of bare minimum that blokes would like to ask for.... In much the same way that KIND of bare minimum that females would like to ask for includes "non sexual affection and someone to talk to about my feelings".

In much the same way women would advise other women to walk away from the kind of deal that does NOT include that as part of the give and take of a relationship.... Men would advise men to walk away if women aren't meeting them halfway too.

Men crave "emotional closeness and cuddles" in a relationship and those things are not a woman's equivalent.

I'm not sure they are required by men in the same way a woman does.

Much in the same way a woman would find sandwiches and oral sex pleasant... but not essential. I think many men could look the same way upon non-physical intimacy and emotionally close conversations (as long as tehy were getting the sexual intimacy of course).

The point is.... Women's requirements are taken as "natural" requirements, and no-one bats an eyelid at a woman saying she has certain standards for the minimums in a relationship, and that men who fail to qualify soon get put to one side in favour of men who DO meet her minimums.

But if a MALE says that ........ Watch out !...... If you want a blowjob and a sandwich, suddenly you are a 4 year old ! And then a sentence later a 15-year old boy ! And women LAUGH at the idea that a man could want a blowjob and a sandwich.

JUST THE WAY YOU DID

And in the way that NOBODY laughs, and mocks, and accuses women of being 4 or of being 15 for talking honestly about what she would like a in a relationship.

You've practically just given me a case study in EXACTLY the effect I was describing. Women's requirements are treated as natural, and men are expected to meet them. Men's requirements are treated as childish, and women laugh at the thought they should be meeting them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Much in the same way a woman would find sandwiches and oral sex pleasant... but not essential. I think many men could look the same way upon non-physical intimacy and emotionally close conversations (as long as tehy were getting the sexual intimacy of course).

You're wrong there. The vast majority of women don't orgasm during sex through penetration, and therefore oral sex is not 'pleasant' but instead essential if she is to experience orgasm during sex. (If a man doesn't want to do it though, she can hardly demand it. His orgasm is seen as important, hers is not. Do you realize how many men refuse to give oral sex to women? Please don't lecture me on men not getting their needs met.)

But if a MALE says that ........ Watch out !...... If you want a blowjob and a sandwich, suddenly you are a 4 year old ! And then a sentence later a 15-year old boy ! And women LAUGH at the idea that a man could want a blowjob and a sandwich.

Nope, I said you must be 4 is you need mommy to make you a sandwich. I seriously don't think 4 year olds care about blow jobs. But teenage boys LOVE talking about women giving them sandwiches and blowjobs. Seriously, they do. I can't help but giggle when I see it here in PPD.

Men's requirements are treated as childish, and women laugh at the thought they should be meeting them.

Blowjobs weren't common in past eras. Men didn't require them. Men have the apparatus to make themselves sandwiches. They don't require it. However, sex is something neither men nor women can give themselves and you could say it's a requirement.

In much the same way that KIND of bare minimum that females would like to ask for includes "non sexual affection and someone to talk to about my feelings".

Men crave non-sexual affection. Any man denying this is denying his true nature. Have you seen how affectionate little boys are and how much they need affection? That need doesn't go away. You have a son - you must see how much he needs love. Any man who says he'd be happy if his wife was emotionally cold as ice but had sex with him is either a psychopath or a liar.

Men talk about their feelings with their wives. They talk about their shit day at work, how fed up they are with their boss, how much they want to leave their job, their fear when their friend/relative gets cancer, their frustrations etc. And they gossip - oh man, do they gossip! Which is all just normal human stuff. People like to talk about people.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

You're wrong there. The vast majority of women don't orgasm during sex through penetration, and therefore oral sex is not 'pleasant' but instead essential if she is to experience orgasm during sex.

Ah, I see. A man desiring oral sex makes him a 4 year old to be laughed at... But a woman requiring the same is ESSENTIAL and not to be laughed at.

At this point you are becoming a parody of an online feminist.

If a man doesn't want to do it though, she can hardly demand it.

Why not ? I don't see why not.

Women may not do so, but that's their problem. If I was in the situation you described I'd demand it. Stop waiting for society to give you a green light.

His orgasm is seen as important, hers is not.

By whom exactly ?

Do you realize how many men refuse to give oral sex to women?

Well, I am sure there are some. In my personal life I've only been aware of one couple where a partner refused to give oral sex (despite the other enthusiastically giving). In that relationship it was the female that refused.

But, again, you are really kinda reinforcing my point. You saw his request for a BJ to be laughably childish, to the point of derision.... But a female request for the same to be absolutely mandatory and a major failing if not provided.

If I'd have made this up as an example you would never have believed me.

Please don't lecture me on men not getting their needs met.

I'm not. I'm lecturing you on you deriding and laughing at men for having basic sexual needs and calling them 4 year olds for expressing them whilst SIMULTANEOUSLY expressing an identical need yourself and demanding that it is serious, mandatory and not to be dismissed.

Nope, I said you must be 4 is you need mommy to make you a sandwich. I seriously don't think 4 year olds care about blow jobs.

That's blatantly disingenious. My contention wasn't the age you used, but the open contempt and derision for male desires.

But teenage boys LOVE talking about women giving them sandwiches and blowjobs. Seriously, they do. I can't help but giggle when I see it here in PPD.

I'm telling you NOW. I am 39 and I like sandwiches and blowjobs TOO. And I'm pretty sure that if you spoke to any male between the ages of 14 and 94 and asked them if they would like a sandwich and a BJ they would also answer in the affirmative.

Blowjobs weren't common in past eras. Men didn't require them.

That's awesome. Because, ya see, I was having a conversation with this other woman saying oral sex for females was very important. I'll be sure to pass on the news they are not required as they were not common in last eras.

I'm sure she'll be glad to receive the news.

Men have the apparatus to make themselves sandwiches.

They also have the apparatus to masterbate. Generally, they prefer a woman involved in the process. I never said men can't do it for themselves, only that they honestly DO like it when women do it.

Much in the same way I've noticed women have the physical capability to mow a lawn, take garbage bags out and can kill spiders on their own.... But they all seem to like males doing those things for them. They get an extra frisson from that they just don't get when they kill their own spiders.

They don't require it. However, sex is something neither men nor women can give themselves and you could say it's a requirement.

We are talking here about how you responded dismissively and with derision to males talking about perfectly honest and reasonable things they would like women to bring to their relationships. Things that provide to a man that kind of feeling that they are loved and cared for by their woman in a way they want that woman to love and care for them.

That this is hilarious fun to be derided to you.... And that your reasonable requests in return are treated seriously by males and females alike... Demonstrate to me how little you really care to find out and give men what they want and need in a relationship compared to how much effort men try to put into providing women what they want and need in a relationship.

Your wants are mandatory and serious.... Our are derided and dismissed out of hand with comments about 4-15 year old boys.

Men crave non-sexual affection.

Not in the way women do. Your solipsism is showing.

Any man denying this is denying his true nature.

No, I don't think they are. I think for many men this is a pleasant thing to have, and it's TOTAL abscence may be felt, but it is not nearly the pressing need you think it is for us.

I think most males would happily trade in all non-sexual touching for an extra blowjob that week with alarming regularity.

Have you seen how affectionate little boys are and how much they need affection?

Yes. But men aren't little boys petticoats.

That need doesn't go away.

I think it reduces drastically. I have very little need for it, personally. Although I tend to do it quite a lot because the wife likes it.

You have a son - you must see how much he needs love.

Yes, and at his age that's provided by non-sexual touch.

For an adult male all, or almost all, of that need is fully supplied by frequent sexual touch. Most men with his fill of sexual touching, will not need no sexual touching as a compliment. We're not women.

Any man who says he'd be happy if his wife was emotionally cold as ice but had sex with him is either a psychopath or a liar.

Who said anything about being emotionally cold.

If we are having a LOTS AND LOTS of happy and enthusiastic sexual touching.... And I'm getting sandwiches... Then the non sexual touching is take it or leave it.

Men experience emotional closeness through sex. If a man is being well supplied there he feels the emotional connection he needs. Non sexual touching is a bolt on to that.

Men talk about their feelings with their wives. They talk about their shit day at work, how fed up they are with their boss, how much they want to leave their job, their fear when their friend/relative gets cancer, their frustrations etc.

Of course they do. I don't think they NEED that conversation as much as women do. But of course blokes like to do this from time to time (and much less than women want to do it).

And they gossip - oh man, do they gossip! Which is all just normal human stuff. People like to talk about people.

Yes. I'm not sure where this digression came from at the end.

Women like to do this far more than men do. In fact many husbands specifically make an effort to talk about this more than they desire to do because they know their wife is MUCH more interested in these conversations than they are.

Everyday men put a lot of time and energy into these conversations, because they know they are important for their wives, and wives love to talk about their day and their feeling... Right now the world is full of men whose eyes are glazing over, but who are manfully trying to keep their mind on the task because their wife likes to have those chats.

All I'm saying is.... In return for the 15-20-30 mins we are giving you, to allow you the things you need to feel happy in a relationship.... We'd like a blowjob and sandwich in return, thanks.

By all means, ask your hubby today "Do you want a 30m chat about our days.... Or a 5m chat followed by a BJ and a sandwich?"

The world is FULL of men who would go the BJ and sandwich route, and women are largely clueless about this as they'd like the conversation... And they can't see past their own solipsism to work out he'd prefer something else. That his needs are different to a woman's needs. Blokes are perfectly aware of the reverse.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, I see. A man desiring oral sex makes him a 4 year old to be laughed at... But a woman requiring the same is ESSENTIAL and not to be laughed at.

No. I said it can be essential for most women to be given oral sex in order to experience orgasm during sex. It is isn't true that most men need to be given oral sex in order to orgasm during sex.

Why are you back on the 4 year old thing again? Sex has nothing to do with a 4 year old. I was talking about the sandwich in relation to the 4 year old, who presumably, is too young to cut his own cheese and tomatoes etc.

But, again, you are really kinda reinforcing my point. You saw his request for a BJ to be laughably childish, to the point of derision.... But a female request for the same to be absolutely mandatory and a major failing if not provided.

You say "request" which has changed things around. We were talking about "essentials and demands". If a man says that bjs and sandwiches from a woman are essential, yes that is laughable.

I didn't say that female requests are mandatory in the least or a major failing if not provided. Each relationship works on its own terms.

Much in the same way I've noticed women have the physical capability to mow a lawn, take garbage bags out and can kill spiders on their own.... But they all seem to like males doing those things for them. They get an extra frisson from that they just don't get when they kill their own spiders.

Really? I love mowing the lawn. Sunshine, outdoors and satisfaction in knowing the job will stay done for another week at least. Not so with housework, which I loathe.

I don't kill spiders and insist upon taking them outside myself, if the other person/people in the house want to kill them. It's not logical to kill spiders.

I don't care who takes out the trash.

Demonstrate to me how little you really care to find out and give men what they want and need in a relationship compared to how much effort men try to put into providing women what they want and need in a relationship.

Most sex is about men reaching orgasm. Women take a back seat. And it's a huge reason why women are not as into sex as men are.

I think most males would happily trade in all non-sexual touching for an extra blowjob that week with alarming regularity.

Then why not just pay for it or get a FWB? Why wife someone? Makes zero sense.

Yes. But men aren't little boys petticoats.

Deep down, they are. Which just means they were born human and remain human. When a man's wife dies at age 28 from cancer, do you think he's crying because he's not going to get a bj tonight or because of his loss of her affection and having her in his life?

Deep down, women are children too (just not in the rp sense, but in the human sense)

I think it reduces drastically. I have very little need for it, personally. Although I tend to do it quite a lot because the wife likes it.

If she takes it all away tomorrow, wait and see how much you need it.

For an adult male all, or almost all, of that need is fully supplied by frequent sexual touch. Most men with his fill of sexual touching, will not need no sexual touching as a compliment. We're not women

It's like that for women too - mostly because in our busy world, that's all we have time for. Come home from work, eat, watch some TV, go to bed and have sex.

If the sex is cold and unemotional though - just a bit of a hump and it's over, men in a relationship won't be satisfied or feel loved. I guarantee it.

Who said anything about being emotionally cold.

Why does sex have to involve emotion? You said a man could be happy with bjs and no emotional closeness.

If we are having a LOTS AND LOTS of happy and enthusiastic sexual touching.... And I'm getting sandwiches... Then the non sexual touching is take it or leave it.

But what if the sex involves no happy and enthusiastic touching? She is just using you to masturbate with? She doesn't kiss you or put her hands on you except to anchor herself into a position where she can get an orgasm.

Again with the sandwiches. What if she makes you peanut butter sandwiches to shut you up and masturbates with your body. Happy now?

Women like to do this far more than men do. In fact many husbands specifically make an effort to talk about this more than they desire to do because they know their wife is MUCH more interested in these conversations than they are. Everyday men put a lot of time and energy into these conversations, because they know they are important for their wives, and wives love to talk about their day and their feeling... Right now the world is full of men whose eyes are glazing over, but who are manfully trying to keep their mind on the task because their wife likes to have those chats.

I haven't found this to be true. Every man I've known in general gossips - at the office, in the neighborhood etc. They like to talk about people and what they're doing. It's why I think men are bigger gossips than women.

All I'm saying is.... In return for the 15-20-30 mins we are giving you, to allow you the things you need to feel happy in a relationship.... We'd like a blowjob and sandwich in return, thanks.

But men want conversation and hugs and love. Not a fair exchange.

Again with the bjs and sandwiches. Why can't grown men make their own sandwiches? Or instead, why don't couples just cook for each other and make things for each other? And why don't they sexually please each other?

Sounds you want a master/slave relationship.

By all means, ask your hubby today "Do you want a 30m chat about our days.... Or a 5m chat followed by a BJ and a sandwich?"

He knows we'll have sex anyway - where's the thrill in that? And he knows I won't make a sandwich, because then I'll feel like his mother and I'll want to pat him on the head rather than have sex with him.

That his needs are different to a woman's needs. Blokes are perfectly aware of the reverse.

He knows I'd rather have sex than the 30 minute talk after work. But he needs time to wind down. How the hell is this going to work, Greasy?

I can't figure it out. Your words are like a foreign language to me.

I don't doubt things are as you say they are between yourself and your wife (and I bet she makes a mean sandwich) but they are not like that between me and my guy.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CthroughYou0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]energyvolley0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]energyvolley0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 10 years ago | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archwinger-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard-2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Baldr209-3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments