 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / January 2006Are Elderly Women Abandoning Their Men?
Read a thread on another board, that claims that as soon as elderly men in their 70's and 80's begin to get sick, the wife puts them in a nursing home and won't take care of them or stick by them for the end times. It seems they refuse take hubby back from the hospital or care facility, and begin to sell off his clothes and possessions. He is of course devastated as the woman he provided for. 'I've seen 80 year old, cancer stricken men, break down in tears because the women they provided for and loved for many years dumped them when they needed companionship the most. They just didn't want the toil and responsibility of tending to a sick, life-time mate. These women were merely ungrateful opportunistic parasites devoid of morals and a conscience. Go spend some time with some elderly men and chat them up. Ask them how many of these women stick around for the end times.' Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? >Read a thread on another board, that claims that as soon as elderly men >in their 70's and 80's begin to get sick, the wife puts them in a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? This is why God made Dogs. ><Richard@home.com> wrote in message >news:ahrbs1tgmdoglo7ik58195rob2eimstitf@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>facility, and begin to sell off his clothes and possessions. He is of >>course devastated as the woman he provided for. (snip) >>Richard asks: >>Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? If the old man is ailing and is 85 years old, he may have a wife who is 83. Women that age tend to be rather fragile themselves. One would have to ask how much *physical* care does that elderly man require? Does he need to be lifted, turned or otherwise helped to sit, walk, lay down or get up? Caring for the elderly can be physically demanding work that a frail and aged old lady simply can't do. It is entirely possible that when the old lady checks the old man into a nursing home it's because she herself is not physically able to care for him. The facility may also not permit a healthy, though frail spouse, to live within that facility alongside that ailing spouse. It depends on what kind of care home it is, what services they provide, and what the costs are. The same can be said about elderly men when their wives are ailing. If she's got alzheimers, he may not be able to chase her around all over the place. She requires 24-hour supervision. Can he stay awake and alert for all that time, day in and day out? And once she becomes so debilitated as to require significant physical assistence, then the old guy may be too weak to care for her, too. As for abandoning ones spouse to a nursing home and then never bothering to visit, it gives us a clue as to the state of their marriage. Either one, or both, may have stopped that loving feeling *decades* ago! It would, however, be interesting to look at some statistics. Do a google to see what you can find if this subject is that important to you. Heidi I have answered Alzheimer's questions for All Experts for several years now, and my experience is quite the opposite. Older women will run themselves right into the dirt trying to cope with caregiving before they finally throw in the towel. Quite often the wives are elderly, unwell and frail as well. They can't cope with heavy care like lifting, so if their larger husband needs help with dressing, bathing, getting in or out of bed, or has mobility problems, its a major problem. Even just basic housework to their prior standard may be beyond them, never mind increased demands. Many elderly women either can't drive, or have had to stop, so the logistics of shopping and other errands necessary to run a household become an issue. Many elderly men expect the same service levels from their spouses they may have had in younger days, not recognizing their wives may be struggling. They often don't want to pay for services they regard as their wife's job. To top it off, many older men are not the greatest patients on the planet. My own father was quite a miserable sod about getting old and sick, and took it out on people around him. He was uncooperative, didn't do what the doctor told him to do, was angry and cranky, stubborn etc. He was also used to being in charge, and was very self centered - he certainly wasn't overly sensitive to how his behaviour affected others, or how much work he was generating for anyone else. He also was in denial about his situation and resisted lifestyle changes that would have made caregiving easier (i.e. downsize, move somewhere more convenient for everyone etc.). Men in their 70's and 80's have generally been able to RETIRE from work. Their wives suddenly find themselves not only not able to relax, but facing more work than previously at a time in their lives when their ability to cope may be deteriorating. One last point - consider that by the time you get into your mid 80's, your odds of some form of dementia are about 50-50, so add that in as an overlay. Hubbie may be deteriorating mentally and thus becoming unstable or more difficult to deal with, wife may be also deteriorating mentally and just not be able to handle things on her own with her husband more dependent on her. M. >Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? I think soc.men'ers are inclined to believe anything that holds women up in a negative light - mainly because of their own personal issues. Cat > >Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? > > I think soc.men'ers are inclined to believe anything that holds women > up in a negative light - mainly because of their own personal issues. > > Cat Not ALL soc.men'ers Cat Having dealt with clients for decades, watching them age as I have. I can state that in my experience I have not seen this to be true. There have been cases where in an unhappy violent emotionally abusive relationship the man or the woman has sought to free themselves of the burden of caring for someone they no longer love. This is equally true in both genders. The VAST MAJORITY of couples however will only give up when it is no longer possible to provide care on their own. It is true that more women are burdened but that is only because they have a longer life expectancy. However I know many men who have been heroes to their sick frail wives and who would never have considered abandoning them, to the point where their own health was in jeopardy. As Mary said, people are different as they age, they become less tolerant, more demanding, more shrewish less able to live in the grey areas. Sadly she wrote from a gender perspective. I can say that no one gender has a lock on demands for care. I challenge anyone who knows they are failing to be constantly "chipper" [snip] I can say that no one gender has > a lock on demands for care. > I challenge anyone who knows they are failing to be constantly "chipper" However, one gender has a near lock on divorce. Eighty percent of divorce actions are filed by women. With the divorce rate pushing 60%, most men will suffer being cashed in by their wives at some opportune or convenient point. That is a statistical fact. Franklin > [snip] I can say that no one gender has >> a lock on demands for care. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Franklin No argument there, in fact I'd be willing to bet that if we saw the actual research the results would be the exact opposite. > > [snip] I can say that no one gender has > >> a lock on demands for care. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No argument there, in fact I'd be willing to bet that if we saw the actual > research the results would be the exact opposite. (Here we go again!) One of the big problems with angry little online enclaves like soc.men is that same misinformation gets recycled endlessly. I do not know why people in that newsgroup are not able to apprehend the obvious - but I have my suspicions. For the umpteenth time - the statistic which indicates WHO files for the divorce does NOT indicate WHO is at FAULT for the divorce. A scenario that points out the obvious: Husband chronically cheats on wife - wife files for divorce. (Numerous other scenarios can be created to explain the statistic.) Which, of course, never quite sinks into the brain of soc.men'ers. Blaming women for literally everything from spousal abuse to the decline of Western Civilization is the standard fair over there. It's one of the reasons that it has been named a k00k newsgroup. Bait and switch noted. Cat > > > [snip] I can say that no one gender has > > >> a lock on demands for care. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > For the umpteenth time - the statistic which indicates WHO files for > the divorce does NOT indicate WHO is at FAULT for the divorce. That is so true. And it would appear that women are more dissatisfied than men and file more often because of that. > A scenario that points out the obvious: Husband chronically cheats on > wife - wife files for divorce. (Numerous other scenarios can be created [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Bait and switch noted. Indeed. Hail and farewell, Ms. Cat > Cat >> > > [snip] I can say that no one gender has >> > >> a lock on demands for care. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >That is so true. And it would appear that women are more dissatisfied >than men and file more often because of that. Most of my elderly neighbor women think Viagra is disgusting and don't want sex with their husbands anymore. Are there any stats on this? The young cute mailman is another story.<g> You could say that Viagra has raised another problem!? :-) >>> > > [snip] I can say that no one gender has >>> > >> a lock on demands for care. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >The young cute mailman is another story.<g> >You could say that Viagra has raised another problem!? :-) LOL! I remember when Cheech Marin got caught by his wife screwing around he said in an interview that when he started using Viagra his wife wanted nothing to do with sex so he went elsewhere. >>>> > > [snip] I can say that no one gender has >>>> > >> a lock on demands for care. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >>The young cute mailman is another story.<g> On one level it provides a chuckle. But on a deeper level I find this terribly sad. I think what others have said is accurate: "If the sex is not good (or non-existant), then the relationship probably is not doing well either". My ex was a control freak and used sex as a weapon. I am sure that there are a multitude of reasons why couples don't have sex. And there are probably one or two reasons - and ONLY one or two - that are potentially legitimate. I remember what it was like with my ex - or more correctly what it was NOT like. My ex an I did not have sexual relations for almost the last 5 years of our sham of a marriage. I understand Cheech's actions completely. Making love is something that my wife and I enjoy very much. I cannot imagine not wanting to be this intimately close with her. And that feeling will still be there when we are much older. As my wife says, if you are happy at home then you have no reason to be looking elsewhere. Of course there will always be people that are just promiscuous and will stray no matter what, but I am not one of them. This kind of intimate bond is something that helps to cement a relationship. Renewing the bond is nurturing the relationship. Those who let the relationship wither and die do so at their own perril. To me, sex it part of the marital package. If you are not willing to accept that, then you have no business getting married, and doing so without telling your prospective mate is fraud and manipulation. >>You could say that Viagra has raised another problem!? :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >>> >>>The young cute mailman is another story.<g> > > > [snip] I can say that no one gender has > > >> a lock on demands for care. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > One of the big problems with angry little online enclaves like soc.men > is that same misinformation gets recycled endlessly. Sorry Cat, you're describing the feminist newsgroups. Projection is a bitch. > I do not know why > people in that newsgroup are not able to apprehend the obvious - but I > have my suspicions. Like they are devoted to the truth instead of feminist lies? > For the umpteenth time - the statistic which indicates WHO files for > the divorce does NOT indicate WHO is at FAULT for the divorce. Those statistics would surely show women at fault at a higher rate. > A scenario that points out the obvious: Husband chronically cheats on > wife - wife files for divorce. (Numerous other scenarios can be created > to explain the statistic.) Which, of course, never quite sinks into the > brain of soc.men'ers. Soc.men'ers brains repel feminist lies. Wives cheat at the same rate men do and men have better reasons to. > Blaming women for literally everything from spousal abuse to the > decline of Western Civilization is the standard fair over there. It's > one of the reasons that it has been named a k00k newsgroup. The proverbial "cat" is out of the bag. I suspected those so called "kookologists" were feminist counter insurgents and so they are. Your slimy feminist tricks won't stop this esteemed group of men at soc.men. The days of Amerika being ruled by feminists are coming to an end. > Bait and switch noted. Thanks for tipping us to your tactics. Smitty > Cat > > [snip] I can say that no one gender has > >> a lock on demands for care. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > most men will suffer being cashed in by their wives at some opportune or > > convenient point. That is a statistical fact. Sure, but that only shows that women are more DISSATISFIED with marriage than men which gives one pause...to question why. :-) This has nothing to do with leaving a person who is ill and everything to do with marital dissatisfaction. In fact, in the post before this one, I provided a study showing the women with brain disfunction are divorced much more often by men than men with brain disfunction. > > Franklin > > No argument there, in fact I'd be willing to bet that if we saw the actual > research the results would be the exact opposite. > >Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? > > I think soc.men'ers are inclined to believe anything that holds women > up in a negative light - mainly because of their own personal issues. > > Cat Ya think? >>Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? > > I think soc.men'ers are inclined to believe anything that holds women > up in a negative light - mainly because of their own personal issues. You are painting with an awfully wide brush there Cat...*some* soc.men posters (men AND women) are inclined to think the worst of women in general because of their own personal EXPERIENCES... I'll also point out the obvious...some soc.men posters (WOMEN and MEN) are inclined to think the worst of men...though, from what I can glean from their posts, mostly because they've been misled and confused by feminist rhetoric rather than as a result of real life experiences... ...Ken >>>Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >...Ken And some soc.men posters know you're all a bunch of vapid dumbasses solely valued for cattleprodding and prank phone calls. How's Laura, fatboy? Jade >>>>Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jade Snicker, snicker... ...Ken > >>Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You are painting with an awfully wide brush there Cat...*some* soc.men > posters (men AND women) Slight correction; men pretending to be women...at least three of those posting AS women in soc.men are, in fact, the same man. But do go on... > are inclined to think the worst of women in > general because of their own personal EXPERIENCES... Isn't it that obnoxious moron Andre L. who endlessly repeats that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all? > I'll also point out the obvious...some soc.men posters (WOMEN and MEN) > are inclined to think the worst of men...though, from what I can glean > from their posts, mostly because they've been misled and confused by > feminist rhetoric rather than as a result of real life experiences... > > ...Ken I have seen little or no evidence (except troll-work) that women are relentlessly attacking men in your newsgroup. I have seen plenty of posts to soc.women by your lunatic fringe and your internet cross-dressers attacking women - women, not just "feminists." Of course there may be NORMAL men over there in soc.men, but I've seen very little evidence of that. (I quit reading your newsgroup some time ago.) The lunatics seem to have the run of the place. Cat >>>>Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Slight correction; men pretending to be women...at least three of those > posting AS women in soc.men are, in fact, the same man. But do go on... Perhaps, I certainly can't speak for all of the "women" only those two whom I know personally... >>are inclined to think the worst of women in >>general because of their own personal EXPERIENCES... > Isn't it that obnoxious moron Andre L. who endlessly repeats that > anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all? No, that's Parg/Hyerdhal...one of those individuals of "undetermined" gender...though thoroughly demonstrated gender bias and misandry... >> I'll also point out the obvious...some soc.men posters (WOMEN and MEN) >>are inclined to think the worst of men...though, from what I can glean [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have seen little or no evidence (except troll-work) that women are > relentlessly attacking men in your newsgroup. You obviously don't read Parg/Hyerdhal or Heidi Grew or Jade ? > I have seen plenty of > posts to soc.women by your lunatic fringe and your internet > cross-dressers attacking women - women, not just "feminists." I don't post into soc.women except perhaps by accident or when I'm responding to a post that originated in soc.women...and I certainly don't attack *women*... I DO oppose radical feminism, and all, men or women, who support it, partially because it's a misandrist bigotry that has the sole purpose of advancing the cause of feminist women regardless of the consequences to anyone other than feminist women, but mostly because radical feminism doesn't seek to ONLY advocate for women but has chosen to advance the cause of feminist women by unjustly demonizing and abusing men... > Of course there may be NORMAL men over there in soc.men, but I've seen > very little evidence of that. I stopped reading soc.women some years ago because of the rabidly anti-male posts that formed the majority of the traffic...maybe you've cleaned up your act but since I haven't deliberately logged onto soc.women in probably 5 or 6 years I wouldn't know...but I'd be surprised... ...Ken > > >>Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Slight correction; men pretending to be women...at least three of those > posting AS women in soc.men are, in fact, the same man. But do go on... People reading this on alt.support.marriage, may be interested to know that Cat has accused me of being a man posting as a women. Since some of you may remember me from the time before I started posting to soc.men, I expect that you realize that I am in fact a woman. I suggest you adjust your views of Cat's credibility accordingly. Jayne >> > >>Has anyone else heard similar stories? How common is this? >> > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Jayne Either way you're a submissive bore. Jade > > Slight correction; men pretending to be women...at least three of those > > posting AS women in soc.men are, in fact, the same man. But do go on... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > soc.men, I expect that you realize that I am in fact a woman. I > suggest you adjust your views of Cat's credibility accordingly. That's a good point, though I wouldn't relate it to "credibility" as much as naiveté, narrow mindedness and stereotypical thinking. To assume that anyone who is prejudiced and hateful towards one sex must necessairily be of the other sex is foolish. > > > Slight correction; men pretending to be women...at least three of those > > > posting AS women in soc.men are, in fact, the same man. But do go on... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > assume that anyone who is prejudiced and hateful towards one sex must > necessairily be of the other sex is foolish. Yes, it's as foolish as assuming that being critical of feminism is the same as being prejudiced and hateful. Jayne > > > > Slight correction; men pretending to be women...at least three of those > > > > posting AS women in soc.men are, in fact, the same man. But do go on... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yes, it's as foolish as assuming that being critical of feminism is the > same as being prejudiced and hateful. Of course it is! Being critical of feminism is just, well, being critical of feminism. When I talked about being prejudiced and hateful I was talking about those who claim absurd things like: a woman refusing to have sex with a man is the same as a man raping a woman, and stuff like that... [...] > > > That's a good point, though I wouldn't relate it to "credibility" as > > > much as naiveté, narrow mindedness and stereotypical thinking. To [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > those who claim absurd things like: a woman refusing to have sex with a > man is the same as a man raping a woman, and stuff like that... What a coincidence that you should give that as an example. I recall saying something a bit like that, but what I said made sense. Jayne > [...] > > > > That's a good point, though I wouldn't relate it to "credibility" as [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > What a coincidence that you should give that as an example. I recall > saying something a bit like that, but what I said made sense. I am sure whatever you say makes sense to YOU! > > > When I talked about being prejudiced and hateful I was talking about > > > those who claim absurd things like: a woman refusing to have sex with a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I am sure whatever you say makes sense to YOU! I think this is the statement to which you are referring: <begin quote> For the record, I think that rape is wrong. I think it is unethical for sex acts to be coerced or exploitive. A more typically male violation of sexual ethics is to force sex. A more typically female violation of sexual ethics is to use sex to maniputate, for example, withholding sex to punish or hurt. I find it noteworthy that the typically male offense is treated as a serious crime, while the typically female offense is treated as good material for sit-coms. It seems that in this culture, female suffering is tragic, while male suffering is comic. I would like to see this disparity addressed. I think that wrongful withholding of sex and wrongful taking of sex ought to be treated equally seriously. <end quote> I think that this would make sense to most people, even if they disagreed with it. I also think that there is liittle grounds for characterizing this position as hateful and prejudiced. I want men's suffering to be taken as seriously as women's suffering. That's just the sort of thing that equality is supposed to be about. Jayne >> > > When I talked about being prejudiced and hateful I was talking about >> > > those who claim absurd things like: a woman refusing to have sex with [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I think that this would make sense to most people, even if they > disagreed with it. It depends on what you mean by "make sense". Your posts are almost always well written and easy to follow. So it makes sense in that one can follow your logic. So perhaps you would say I simply disagree. But there are times when I disagree with someone, and yet I can still see their side. I can understand why they might think the way they do. The "logic" you have described above makes no sense to me whatsoever. I simply cannot understand how you could possibly think the way you do about this issue (or several others actually). Zorra > > I think this is the statement to which you are referring: > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > possibly think the way you do about this issue (or several > others actually). Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a man's experiences. However, from what I have read and discussed with people, I believe that men's pain from facing long-term withholding of sex by their wives is comparable to women's pain from being raped. Jayne > > > I think this is the statement to which you are referring: > > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > people, I believe that men's pain from facing long-term withholding of > sex by their wives is comparable to women's pain from being raped. I think a more direct equivalence, certainly in terms of emotional damage, is between rape and paternity deception (Buss, 2000) but I agree with your broader point, Jayne. >> > > I think this is the statement to which you are referring: >> > > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > damage, is between rape and paternity deception (Buss, 2000) but I > agree with your broader point, Jayne. I would also add that I do not believe that Jayne is attempting to suggest that female manipulations of the sort she specifies are, or should be criminal matters. Rather, her point is that the emotional harms, and some physical harms, suffered by men is broadly comparable to what many women suffer. And, your point is an excellent one, in that, if there were real legal equality, a false claim of paternity would require a jail sentence for it's maker ( Note: I said *false*, provably so, not an erroneous one. Mind you, many " mistakes " made by women in this area, are nothing of the kind ). It would also be equality if the laws were changed such that any man paying child support for a child proven not his, would not only immediately be released from any *forced* payment obligations for that child ( If he chooses to continue, that would be his choice, and the law, like women demand for their rights, would have to stay out of it entirely ) and would have the state refund him every penny they forced him to pay. Paternity fraud is *FRAUD*. Fraud is a *crime*. Let it be treated as such. Even with defrauding women. Andre >I would also add that I do not believe that Jayne is attempting to... etc., >Andre "She" vouches for you - you vouche for "her" thus, in terms of credibility, you cancel each other out. Cat >I think a more direct equivalence, certainly in terms of emotional >damage, is between rape and paternity deception (Buss, 2000) but I >agree with your broader point, Jayne. Of course you do - you're a man. And so is (Mr.) "Jayne." Cat The pain men suffer in that situation is valid and should be taken seriously. But *comparable*? The women you've discussed rape with, was it *date rape*. Did they know the rapists? The women I've met who have been raped (five through a friend who was raped, her support group) did not know their rapists. The two women I know who claim to have been *date raped* talk more of a violation of their trust and their emotional state during the moment, more than a physical violation. (And, from that I think rape and *date rape* are two totally different things) *long-term withholding of sex by their wives* is emotional abuse and should be taken very seriously. However, in (what I think was) your original statement you did not spell it out in such a way. Still, long term emotional abuse by a spouse (or SO) is simply not comparable to rape. "ls" (lsends@excite.com) weasels: > The pain men suffer in that situation is valid and should be taken > seriously. But *comparable*? Of course not. Men's pain is *greater* from Paternity Fraud, as in rape cases, the State does NOT enforce transfers of money from the rapee to the raper. > The women you've discussed rape with, was it *date rape*. Did they > know the rapists? Did you know that of all major crimes, rape has the highest rate of provably false claims ? One USAF study found a provably false rate of over 50%. Thats a lot of innocent men railroaded... > The women I've met who have been raped (five through a friend who was > raped, her support group) did not know their rapists. The two women I > know who claim to have been *date raped* talk more of a violation of > their trust and their emotional state during the moment, more than a > physical violation. " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. " Further, using woman as a begging bowl is... disgusting. > (And, from that I think rape and *date rape* are two totally different > things) Indeed, the latter is fiction. If a woman is raped by a date, then its rape. Period. If she woke up the following morning, and was aghast at the choice she made the boozy night before, thats not rape, thats just poor judgement on HER part. > *long-term withholding of sex by their wives* is emotional abuse and > should be taken very seriously. However, As DR. Phil puts it, this word is the sign that the speaker is about to reverse their position, and that what came before it has now become moot. > in (what I think was) your > original statement you did not spell it out in such a way. > Still, long term emotional abuse by a spouse (or SO) is simply not > comparable to rape. Indeed. Its often worse. Andre > "ls" (lsends@excite.com) weasels: > > The pain men suffer in that situation is valid and should be taken [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thats a lot of innocent men railroaded... But we're not talking about false rape claims, we're talking about when it actually does happen. > > The women I've met who have been raped (five through a friend who was > > raped, her support group) did not know their rapists. The two women I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Further, using woman as a begging bowl is... disgusting. You hold no stock in personal experience because you simply have none to speak of? Do you get out much Andre? Do you ever actually talk with people or just spend all your time posting online and reading your books? > > (And, from that I think rape and *date rape* are two totally different > > things) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to reverse their position, and that what came before it has now become > moot. What position are you refering to and where exactly did I reverde it? > > in (what I think was) your > > original statement you did not spell it out in such a way. > > Still, long term emotional abuse by a spouse (or SO) is simply not > > comparable to rape. > > Indeed. Its often worse. But people (men and women) in emotionally (as well as physical) abusive relationships have the option of leaving. > Andre "ls" (lsends@excite.com) plays an old whore of a shaming ploy, as she has no real argument that can stand on it's own: >> "ls" (lsends@excite.com) weasels: >> > The pain men suffer in that situation is valid and should be taken [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > But we're not talking about false rape claims, we're talking about when > it actually does happen. Unless a court makes a finding of fact on that, any given claim is unproven. In any case, if one wishes to bring up rape, as it affects women, its reasonable to mention the other side of the coin. Thats, you know, like... *equality*. >> > The women I've met who have been raped (five through a friend who was >> > raped, her support group) did not know their rapists. The two women I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You hold no stock in personal experience because you simply have none > to speak of? Ad Hominem Fallacy. > Do you get out much Andre? Do you ever actually talk > with people or just spend all your time posting online and reading your > books? Thus spake the disdainer of statistical data. The triumph of Oprah class whining uber alles. Ptui. >> > (And, from that I think rape and *date rape* are two totally different >> > things) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What position are you refering to and where exactly did I reverde it? The part before " However ", and the part after it. Are you illiterate ? >> > in (what I think was) your >> > original statement you did not spell it out in such a way. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But people (men and women) in emotionally (as well as physical) abusive > relationships have the option of leaving. In men's cases, if they wish to give up their rights to property, money, present and future, and have their kid(s) left with an abuser, due to misandristic kourts. Andre > The pain men suffer in that situation is valid and should be taken > seriously. But *comparable*? They are comparable in that they are unethical acts which hurt others through misuse of sexuality. They are both forms of abuse. > The women you've discussed rape with, was it *date rape*. Did they > know the rapists? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (And, from that I think rape and *date rape* are two totally different > things) The broadening of the defintion of rape means that many situations get called rape these days. This limits our ability to make meaningful statements about it. > *long-term withholding of sex by their wives* is emotional abuse and > should be taken very seriously. However, in (what I think was) your > original statement you did not spell it out in such a way. Actually, that was precisely the point of my original statement. I was complaining about the way our culture protrays this emotional abuse of men as humorous while noting this is very different from the way it portrays the abuse (I gave the specific example of rape) of women. I claimed they ought to be treated equally seriously. If I had written merely "long-term emotional abuse ought to be taken as seriously as physical abuse" I suspect that I would have received much different reactions than I have. It seems unlikely that people would have accused me of being hateful or lacking empathy. However, I claimed that a form of long-term emotional abuse typically committed against men ought to be taken as seriously as a form of physical abuse typically committed against women. Somehow, adding the sex of the people involved drastically changed the nature of my assertion, at least in the eyes of many of my respondents. > Still, long term emotional abuse by a spouse (or SO) is simply not > comparable to rape. They are not identical, of course. However, they are similar in ways that are relevant for my point. Jayne [...] > If I had written merely "long-term emotional abuse ought to be taken as > seriously as physical abuse" I suspect that I would have received much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > against men ought to be taken as seriously as a form of physical abuse > typically committed against women. It's "noteworthy" that you consider rape as merely a physical abuse. It certainly is a physical violation of a person, but at its core it's the ultimate form of emotional abuse, far greater than being denied sex! > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > certainly is a physical violation of a person, but at its core it's the > ultimate form of emotional abuse, far greater than being denied sex! I just want to add something to avoid misunderstanding. People talk about physical vs emotional abuse as if they are always separate from each other. Though emotional abuse can happen on its own, physical abuse is ALWAYS (and not only in case of rape) a serious form of emotional abuse as well. > Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people > are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a > man's experiences. However, from what I have read and discussed with > people, I believe that men's pain from facing long-term withholding of > sex by their wives is comparable to women's pain from being raped. I think that at the basis of rape is the feeling of powerlessness. Someone is violating you in the most personal way possible, and there is *nothing* you can do to stop it. It robs you of your sense of safety and security, perhaps forever. A man may certainly *choose* not to leave, or cheat, or do anything else to alleviate his sexual drought, but he is not ever powerless to do so. Furthermore, I have not heard that a man who has suffered such a drought continues to suffer even after that drought is over. I would consider a man having sex withheld from him to be more equivalent to a woman having affection withheld from her. I have lived in this situation for many, many years now. And yes, it is very painful. But no -- if someone offered me the chance to trade my long term drought for one single rape, I wouldn't even consider it for a microsecond. Zorra >>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the chance to trade my long term drought for one single rape, > I wouldn't even consider it for a microsecond. I once asked how many men were willing to get raped *once* instead of being rejected multiple times or even regularly by their wives. None of those who equate rape and rejection answered! >>>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > being rejected multiple times or even regularly by their wives. None of > those who equate rape and rejection answered! Theres a core flaw in your " survey ". Rape, with women, involves an non consensual act of a sex act that the vasy majority of said women would otherwise engage in and enjoy. This is simply *not* true about the rape of a man, as very few men would engage in anal sex. We call those men " homosexuals ", and they number well under 10% of men. So, to equate a sex act where the ONLY non-standard component of it is the non-consensuality, with a sex act where ALL of it falls outside of the zone of the victim is to engage in a fallacy. IOW, your survey fails on that specific ground. Now, go ask those men about a non-consensual heterosexual act. Andre > > I once asked how many men were willing to get raped *once* instead of > > being rejected multiple times or even regularly by their wives. None of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Rape, with women, involves an non consensual act of a sex act that > the vasy majority of said women would otherwise engage in and enjoy. Nope, the flaw is yours. You like to eat, right? Now imagine being sick to your stomach with nausea (which is close to the way many women feel at the thought of having sex with someone they don't want to), pinned down, and hard boiled eggs shoved down your throat. Would you characterized it as simply a non consensual act of eating which you otherwise enjoy? In some ways the experience can be more damaging than being beaten up, because it may turn an enjoyable thing (if you like hard boiled eggs!) into something horrible, and deprive you of future pleasures. That is, in fact, what many victims of rape (especially the repeated ones) deal with -- deprivation from the pleasure of a very intimate activity. "Ellie" (ellie_first@hotmail.com) projects: >> > I once asked how many men were willing to get raped *once* instead of >> > being rejected multiple times or even regularly by their wives. None of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nope, the flaw is yours. <Projection> NO *proof* offered ? Fact free cowshit claim fails. > You like to eat, right? Now imagine being sick > to your stomach with nausea (which is close to the way many women feel > at the thought of having sex with someone they don't want to), pinned > down, and hard boiled eggs shoved down your throat. Would you > characterized it as simply a non consensual act of eating which you > otherwise enjoy? Please post proof that the majority of rapes of women meets all your Straw Women criteria... No proof offered ? Self serving pity seeking sexist ploy fails. > In some ways the experience can be more damaging than being beaten up, > because it may turn an enjoyable thing (if you like hard boiled eggs!) > into something horrible, and deprive you of future pleasures. <laughs> Yet, thats still less bad then taking a thing one would NEVER try, and inflicting it on an unwilling person. > That is, > in fact, what many victims of rape (especially the repeated ones) deal > with -- deprivation from the pleasure of a very intimate activity. So ? The victims of rape of an act that they would never have engaged in, have losses in their own lives, from BOTH those choices having been *forced* on them. But, misandrous bigots don't have empathy for anything but their own sex... Andre > "Ellie" (ellie_first@hotmail.com) projects: > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > No proof offered ? Self serving pity seeking sexist ploy fails. [rest of typical Andre blah blah snipped] lol...I was wondering how long it would take you to lose all capacity to come up with a logical argument and drop to the classic I-have-no-answer-so-I-just-go-with-my-nonsense-catch-phrase. You even surprised me with how fast you got there. Come on, not even ONE attempt at a reasonable comeback?! Declining fast, eh? >> "Ellie" (ellie_first@hotmail.com) projects: >>> >>>>> I once asked how many men were willing to get raped *once* instead of >>>>> being rejected multiple times or even regularly by their wives. None of >>>>> those who equate rape and rejection answered! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > surprised me with how fast you got there. Come on, not even ONE attempt > at a reasonable comeback?! Declining fast, eh? I'm glad you're amused by this, Ellie. I don't find it funny - I find it pathetic. "Ellie" (ellie_last@one-note.cowshitter) conceeds the argument: >> "Ellie" (ellie_first@hotmail.com) projects: >> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > [rest of typical Andre blah blah snipped] Your INABILITY to debate/refute what I wrote noted. Thank you for the White Flag Of feminist Victory ploy, which proved that truth. > lol...I was wondering how long it would take you to lose all capacity > to come up with a logical argument and drop to the classic > I-have-no-answer-so-I-just-go-with-my-nonsense-catch-phrase. <Massive Projection> > You even > surprised me with how fast you got there. Come on, not even ONE attempt > at a reasonable comeback?! Declining fast, eh? <Massive projection> No rebuttal offered ? My points stand. Thank you. Baby Feminists is SO *stoopid* ! Andre >But, misandrous bigots don't have empathy for anything but their own >sex... >Andre Which is absolutely true of you Andre. Cat >>> I once asked how many men were willing to get raped *once* instead of >>> being rejected multiple times or even regularly by their wives. None of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > in fact, what many victims of rape (especially the repeated ones) deal > with -- deprivation from the pleasure of a very intimate activity. What I would like to know is how anybody can be so stupid as to NOT get this! It's incredible (and rather pathetic, I might add). >>>>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >This is simply *not* true about the rape of a man, as very few >men would engage in anal sex. You meant being on the receiving end, right? >>>>>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>>>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > You meant being on the receiving end, right? No. Had I meant only that, *I would have specified only that*. Not many men wanting to take it up the a.s from another *guy*. Not more who want to put it up the a.s of another *guy*. Not a lot of women asking men to do them in the a.s in *prison*. Sheesh. " If you never mean what you say, you can never say what you mean. " Andre >>>>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >men would engage in anal sex. We call those men " homosexuals ", >and they number well under 10% of men. Oh, and technically, anal sex is sodomy, not a rape. >>>>>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>>>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Oh, and technically, anal sex is sodomy, not a rape. Try that defense in court. Let us know how you did... Sheesh. Andre >>>>>>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>>>>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >Try that defense in court. Let us know how you did... Sodomy is a criminal offense too. Especially when violence is involved. Didn't you know that? >>>>>>> Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>>>>> are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a >>>>>>> man's experiences. However, from what I have read and discussed with >>>>>>> people, I believe that men's pain from facing long-term withholding of >>>>>>> sex by their wives is comparable to women's pain from being raped. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Sodomy is a criminal offense too. Especially when violence is > involved. Didn't you know that? What DOES he know? (Maybe you can clue me in, K) >>>>>>>> Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>>>>>> are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >What DOES he know? (Maybe you can clue me in, K) Well, when someone acts like they know everything, it;s fun to point out that they're wrong. [bad kitty] Kitty (Conniekat@Kitty.kat) further tries to MS-direct: >>Kitty (Conniekat@Kitty.kat) makes a MS-take: >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Sodomy is a criminal offense too. Where ? Homosexuality has been decriminalised in pretty much every jurisdiction in the Anglosphere. Didn't you know that ? > Especially when violence is involved. That then makes a crime of " sexual assault ", which many rapes are prosecuted as. Didn't you know that ? > Didn't you know that? Apparently, I know far more than you do. HTH. Baby Feminists is SO *stoopid* ! Andre >>>>>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>>>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Oh, and technically, anal sex is sodomy, not a rape. Oh ! Does that mean that if someone pulls you into a dark alley and commits nonconsensual sodomy on you that they won't be charged with rape ? ...Ken > >>>>>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people > >>>>>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > ...Ken Yes. In most states in the US, vaginal rape is classified differently than oral sexual assault and anal sexual assault. Sheila >>>>>>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>>>>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Oh ! Does that mean that if someone pulls you into a dark alley and >commits nonconsensual sodomy on you that they won't be charged with rape ? That's correct, they won't be charged with rape, they'll be charged with sodomy. Punishment for sodomy is about the same as it is for rape. Both are considered sex crimes as well. Both: Rape with force or violence or threat of great bodily harm, and Sodomy by force, violence or threat of great bodily harm, are class A felonies in California. Just one notch below assault during robbery, and two notches below murder in the seriousness of the offense. According to California Penal code, section 286, you can get 8 years in a state penn for sodomy, and you still have to register as a sex offender. But no, you wouldn't get convicted for rape. >>>>>>>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>>>>>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > in a state penn for sodomy, and you still have to register as a sex > offender. But no, you wouldn't get convicted for rape. That's California...how about the other 49 states ? ...Ken >>>>>>>>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>>>>>>>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > That's California...how about the other 49 states ? Well, if anyone pulls *me* into a dark alley, like you asked, it'll be in California. You wanna know about other states you might wanna travel to, google their laws. >> That's California...how about the other 49 states ? > Well, if anyone pulls *me* into a dark alley, like you asked, it'll be > in California. Ah ! Kookie Kalifornia...now *that* explains a lot ;-) ...Ken > > Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people > > are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > her. I have lived in this situation for many, many years now. > And yes, it is very painful. I'm very sorry to hear that. Could you explain a little more about how it came about and why it continues? >> I would consider a man having sex withheld from him to be >> more equivalent to a woman having affection withheld from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm very sorry to hear that. Could you explain a little more about how > it came about and why it continues? It's been discussed at length in a.s.m, and I'm not up for another round right now. It continues, of course, partly because I allow it to. But I'm working on it. Zorra > > Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people > > are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and there is *nothing* you can do to stop it. It robs you of > your sense of safety and security, perhaps forever. A woman withholding sex from her husband to punish or manipulate him creates feelings of powerlessness, rejection and betrayal in him. She is using what ought to be an expression of their love as a weapon against him. > A man may certainly *choose* not to leave, or cheat, or do > anything else to alleviate his sexual drought, but he is not ever > powerless to do so. Furthermore, I have not heard that a > man who has suffered such a drought continues to suffer > even after that drought is over. The "sexual drought" is not the problem. It is the knowledge that his wife has deliberately withheld sex from him in order to hurt and/or control him. The knowledge that his wife repeatedly and over a long period of time has committed a deliberately hurtful act against him will obviously continue as long as his memory is intact. > I would consider a man having sex withheld from him to be > more equivalent to a woman having affection withheld from > her. I have lived in this situation for many, many years now. > And yes, it is very painful. But no -- if someone offered me > the chance to trade my long term drought for one single rape, > I wouldn't even consider it for a microsecond. Do you think that your pain should be taken seriously? Do you think that people ought to make jokes about it? Men being deprived of sex as a form of punishment or manipulation is a standard situation portrayed in comedies. The audience is expected to laugh. It is treated as normal and amusing. Whether or not the pain such men experience is equivalent to the pain felt by rape victims (a question that is difficult if not impossible to answer) it is real pain. It is not funny and women doing such things ought not to be given a message that it is normal and acceptable. Jayne > > > Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people > > > are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is using what ought to be an expression of their love as a weapon > against him. Jaynes, your bizarre calculus of how much pain is caused in different situations is not worth arguing with. (Though any man who suffers serious psychic damage by a woman refusing to have sex with him is obviously already in need of serious mental health care). The main point is that people have a legal and moral right to decide not to have sex. They do not have a legal and moral right to force others to have sex with them. The situations are simply not comparable. Just like -armed robbery is not comparable to a person saying "no" to someone asking them for money. >> I think that at the basis of rape is the feeling of powerlessness. >> Someone is violating you in the most personal way possible, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is using what ought to be an expression of their love as a weapon > against him. Which does not address the fact that you are not powerless to stop it. A man in this situation has many options other than staying there and taking it. >> A man may certainly *choose* not to leave, or cheat, or do >> anything else to alleviate his sexual drought, but he is not ever [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > period of time has committed a deliberately hurtful act against him > will obviously continue as long as his memory is intact. Yes, it's painful when people we love treat us badly. It happens to women as often as men. >> I would consider a man having sex withheld from him to be >> more equivalent to a woman having affection withheld from [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in comedies. The audience is expected to laugh. It is treated as > normal and amusing. Pain is the basis of much comedy. Think for a moment about the show Everybody Loves Raymond. Ray's dad is horrible to his mom. He puts her down, insults her in every possible manner. Laughing at pain can help us to deal with it. >Whether or not the pain such men experience is > equivalent to the pain felt by rape victims (a question that is > difficult if not impossible to answer) it is real pain. It is not > funny and women doing such things ought not to be given a message that > it is normal and acceptable. No one has said it's not a real pain. I would say that in many or most cases where a woman is withholding sex, it's because she is in pain of her own. Zorra > >> I think that at the basis of rape is the feeling of powerlessness. > >> Someone is violating you in the most personal way possible, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > powerless to stop it. A man in this situation has > many options other than staying there and taking it. What options does he have to make her stop withholding sex? He may have other ways to get sex, but there is nothing he can do to make her stop rejecting him. Jayne >> >> I think that at the basis of rape is the feeling of powerlessness. >> >> Someone is violating you in the most personal way possible, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > have other ways to get sex, but there is nothing he can do to make her > stop rejecting him. If he doesn't like the way she is treating him and can't get her to work with him to improve the marriage (some people find marriage counseling to be useful), then he should leave her and find somebody that treats him the way he wants to be treated. > Zorra whined and demanded that men do all the work, as usual: >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > have other ways to get sex, but there is nothing he can do to make her > stop rejecting him. Isn't it interesting that, no matter where the initial problem in a marriage starts, that Feminist misandrists like Zorra always demand that *men* do all the work/changing/etc. ? When does " equality " arrive ? Clearly women such as Zorra recoil in horror at being equally responsible and being equally dutybound to any effort on their parts. Such women prove that men's complaints are utterly correct. Andre >> >> I think that at the basis of rape is the feeling of powerlessness. >> >> Someone is violating you in the most personal way possible, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > have other ways to get sex, but there is nothing he can do to make her > stop rejecting him. That may or may not be true depending on why she's rejecting him. Regardless, it's irrelevant. He can get out and away from the situation. And, as I've said, women do not have a monopoly on rejecting their spouses. Zorra >>>I think that at the basis of rape is the feeling of powerlessness. >>>Someone is violating you in the most personal way possible, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > powerless to stop it. A man in this situation has > many options other than staying there and taking it. None good, most of which lead to divorce and feminist rhetoric aside, men are usually the losers in divorce, particularly if there are children involved...so the man is usually stuck between a rock and a hard place...which is why women find this so successful... ...Ken >> Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people > are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jayne Have you ever been raped? > >> Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people > > are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Have you ever been raped? Have you ever been a husband whose wife denied him sex to punish and control him? As Ellie pointed out, attempting to compare degrees of pain gets us nowhere. It is not possible nor is it especially relevant. What is relevant is that both of these are extremely painful things and it does not seem right to me that our culture takes the pain of women so much more seriously than then pain of men. Jayne > > >> Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people > > > are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > As Ellie pointed out, attempting to compare degrees of pain gets us > nowhere. It is not possible nor is it especially relevant. And yet this comparison is precisely what you are bqsing your argument on. > relevant is that both of these are extremely painful things and it does > not seem right to me that our culture takes the pain of women so much > more seriously than then pain of men. Not only not right, not even true. [...] > Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people > are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a > man's experiences. It's not necessary to compare them. > However, from what I have read and discussed with > people, I believe that men's pain from facing long-term withholding of > sex by their wives is comparable to women's pain from being raped. You have no way of knowing or comparing people's pain. Pain is subjective and irrelevant to this (IMV) ridiculous comparison. If someone slaps me in the face it's an assault, even if I don't feel any pain. When my beloved boyfriend dumped me for another girl in our class the pain was the most excruciating I had ever felt, but he didn't commit a crime. Of course by this example I don't mean to say that the pain of being rejected is comparable to rape. I am just saying that it doesn't matter how much each "hurts". They are not comparable by nature. Rape is a violation of basic human rights of a person (autonomy over their body). Interestingly enough refusing to have sex is *exercising* the same basic right. Violating peoples rights is of a different nature than not getting what we want from them, and that's why the former is a crime and the latter, painful as it may be, is not -- nor should be. This doesn't mean that spouses should deprive each other from the pleasure of sexual intimacy, the same way that they shouldn't deprive each other of any other expression of love and affection. If they do they most likely will suffer some consequences, and they should. But everyone has a *right* to say no to sex, unlike rape which no one has a right to. By the way someone said rape is "unwanted" sex. That's not true. A person may not want to have sex but consent to it willingly for various reasons. Rape is "unconsented" sex (meaning forcing someone to have sex against their will). > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Rape is a violation of basic human rights of a person (autonomy over > their body). If that is a basic human right, autonomy over our own bodies, when did it become one and how does it apply to men drafted into the armed forces, for example? >If that is a basic human right, autonomy over our own bodies, when did >it become one and how does it apply to men drafted into the armed >forces, for example? There is no draft. We have an all-volunteer military. The old military draft is the reverse side of a sexist society. Cat > >If that is a basic human right, autonomy over our own bodies, when did > >it become one and how does it apply to men drafted into the armed > >forces, for example? > > There is no draft. We have an all-volunteer military. The old military > draft is the reverse side of a sexist society. And that is guaranteed in the west now and in the future is it? Regarding a military draft: >And that is guaranteed in the west now and in the future is it? I think it would be political suicide for the Republicans to reinstitute the draft. First of all, half of all Americans absolutely hate this administration. A draft would mobilize the youth against the administration. As long as the youth fritter away their political potential getting drunk and posing for "girls gone wild" the Repugs are safe from widespread street demonstrations by angry youth and they can pretend that they represent the American people. I've already stated that if a draft is necessary, due to an invasion of OUR country - everyone over 21, both men and women, should be drafted. Cat > Regarding a military draft: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I've already stated that if a draft is necessary, due to an invasion of > OUR country - everyone over 21, both men and women, should be drafted. So that's a No then. > > Regarding a military draft: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So that's a No then. I think it highly unlikely there will be any kind of military draft. But if you vote for religious fanatics and neo-conservatives - you must suffer the consequences. Cat >>If that is a basic human right, autonomy over our own bodies, when did >>it become one and how does it apply to men drafted into the armed >>forces, for example? > > There is no draft. We have an all-volunteer military. The old military > draft is the reverse side of a sexist society. Actually, the US *DOES* still have a draft, the legislation is still on the books, it's just that the induction rate has been temporarily reduced to 0% but since that is a "regulation" within the authority of the executive branch (ie: the president) it COULD change tomorrow morning... ...Ken >Actually, the US *DOES* still have a draft, the legislation is still on >the books, it's just that the induction rate has been temporarily >reduced to 0% but since that is a "regulation" within the authority of >the executive branch (ie: the president) it COULD change tomorrow morning... >...Ken You can't use this as a point against women. Cat >>Actually, the US *DOES* still have a draft, the legislation is still on >>the books, it's just that the induction rate has been temporarily [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You can't use this as a point against women. I wasn't using it as a point against anyone...I was just pointing out that you were in error in stating that there is no draft... ...Ken > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > than not getting what we want from them, and that's why the former is a > crime and the latter, painful as it may be, is not -- nor should be. Let me postulate a scenario and ask you a question (seriously) arising from the postulate. Let us imagine that you had "cut off" your "beloved" boyfriend, because you didn't like something he was doing (say he belonged to some club/organization you didn't approve of for example) and, hurting under this refusal of sexual intimacy, he has sex with another woman/women and you found out about it. How do you think you would have felt...considering that he was only *exercising his basic right* to have sex ? I *do* have some experience in this area. A relative of mine was brutally raped (many years ago now). She also was "cut off" and eventually "dumped" by her husband for a younger women. I was/am her primary emotional support and have talked extensively with her about these experiences. In her opinion, being refused sexual intimacy buy her husband and finally being abandoned by him was the most devastating experience of her life...FAR more injurious and with far more lasting effects than her (relatively brutal) rape. Understand also, this is no shrinking violet, she is a courageous, assertive, highly intelligent women and emotionally mature women. When she says that her rape pales in comparison to the death (that's how she describes it) of her marriage to a man who she loved deeply, I believe her... The bottom line is I believe you are substantially under-estimating the degree of hurt that a refusal of sexual intimacy can cause and that in some cases this CAN rise to the level, maybe even exceed the level of hurt and damage inflicted by a rapist. ...Ken >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > would have felt...considering that he was only *exercising his basic > right* to have sex ? I'd feel horrible. His right to do what he did doesn't prevent me from getting hurt, any more than my right to not have sex prevents him from getting hurt. But our hurt feelings shouldn't be the basis of making either act a *crime*. In fact, I can tell you with near certainty that had the said boyfriend stolen my money instead of dumping me for another girl I would've been far less "hurt". So what do you propose? Should we decriminalize theft and criminalize dumping a SO because the latter probably "hurts" more? According to Jayne withholding sex and forcing sex should be treated as "equally seriously". That means either decriminalizing rape or criminalizing refusal of having sex. Which one do you suggest? > >> [...] > >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > "equally seriously". That means either decriminalizing rape or > criminalizing refusal of having sex. Which one do you suggest? Leaving aside the equivalence of rape and sexual manipulation for a moment, how do you feel about Jayne's broader point, viz: "I find it noteworthy that the typically male offence is treated as a serious crime, while the typically female offence is treated as good material for sit-coms. It seems that in this culture, female suffering is tragic, while male suffering is comic." Should 'equivalent' sexual offences (if we can establish that there are such things) be treated equally seriously by the law? (snip) >Rob wrote: > Leaving aside the equivalence of rape and sexual manipulation for a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Should 'equivalent' sexual offences (if we can establish that there are > such things) be treated equally seriously by the law? First of all, Jayne is comparing apples to oranges. A rapist cannot be treated the same as a person who refuses to have sex. That's like punishing perp and victim equally. He gets thrown in jail for raping a person, and she get thrown in jail for saying, "No." That's dumb! As for finding equivalent sexual offenses by gender, we have the following options: man rapes woman woman rapes man man rapes man woman rapes woman What needs to be determined is just exactly what is rape? Imo, it's a forced sex act. What exactly is a sexual act? There seems to be enormous confusion around this issue. I've heard all sorts of conflicting ideas as to what constitutes a sexual act. This ranges anywhere from merely touching someone's breast or genitals to an act that results in conception (it's not sex until something is conceived.) So, what is most often defined to be a sexual act? There are various opinions about that. And until that sex act is properly defined, we're left with confusing and somewhat unfair punishments being doled out. Heidi > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > perp and victim equally. He gets thrown in jail for raping a person, and > she get thrown in jail for saying, "No." That's dumb! Yes. What I find interesting is Jayne's use of her communication skills and mastery of English language to present a flawed concept in a way that *appears* somewhat credible, and satisfies some people's already existing prejudices. In the above paragraph "typically male offence" and "typically female offence" are used to give the reader the illusion that she is talking about similar things. Put the correct words (that she is actually referring to) in their place and it will read like this (I use '*' to show the correct replacements): "I find it noteworthy that *rape* is treated as a serious crime, while *refusing to have sex* is treated as good material for sit-coms." I think that even most of soc.men residents will at least pause before nodding and agreeing that it is indeed "noteworthy"! >>According to Jayne withholding sex and forcing sex should be treated as >>"equally seriously". That means either decriminalizing rape or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > material for sit-coms. It seems that in this culture, female suffering > is tragic, while male suffering is comic." I think it's hogwash. I don't know what she is talking about with comic vs tragic. Yes, sexuality is used in media for entertainment, advertisement, selling products, comedy, drama, and everything in between. There are comic scenes which are based on the stereotypical view of "man wanting sex woman not giving it", as well as "man is not faithful and drools after other women". To characterize the former as "male suffering" comparable to rape is beyond ridiculous. But my argument has not been, and is not, based on measuring "suffering". It's irrelevant and doesn't get anywhere, because neither I nor anyone else can decide how much something "hurts" one person or another. Both males and females can and do treat each other in hurtful ways which are not punishable offense (and should not be), as well as committing acts which are and should be treated as punishable offenses. I understand and am sympathetic to people whose spouses treat them poorly, and use the privileges of marriage (which should be shared and enjoyed) as tools of manipulation. It doesn't matter if it is sex, affection, cooperation, emotional support, financial resources, communication, companionship, or even conversation (I have a friend whose husband punishes her with long periods of silent treatments whenever she does something that he doesn't like). It's wrong and hurtful and I wish no one did it. Unfortunately it happens and is not the monopoly of women. Now, someone in this thread brought up a scenario in which a woman deliberately tricks her husband into believing a child is his in order to get support from him. This is an act that should be punishable by the law. I have advocated and supported some kind of mandatory paternal test on newborns (so that it's done by default and not require a man to ask for it). This will not only protect the right of the man but also the child. A woman who lies about paternity of her child not only deceives a man and brings great emotional and financial harm to him, but also harms the innocent child who can be hurt very seriously by later discovery of the identity of his father. > Should 'equivalent' sexual offences (if we can establish that there are > such things) be treated equally seriously by the law? I don't understand what you mean. Aren't sexual offenses treated equally by the law already? Of course there are cases where a criminal gets away, or an innocent person gets wrongfully convicted, but those are the failings of the system and not written in the law. Of course if you are going to label "not having sex", under ANY circumstances, as a "sexual offense", then you and Jayne should go find a remote island, call it an independent country, and write your own laws! > >>According to Jayne withholding sex and forcing sex should be treated as > >>"equally seriously". That means either decriminalizing rape or [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the innocent child who can be hurt very seriously by later discovery of > the identity of his father. I agree and I'm impressed by your enlightened viewpoint on this topic, its not one I meet very often. In fact I think paternity deception, and men's instinctive fear of it, is the cause of a lot more harm than you mention, though that is enough in itself. That said, why do you think paternity deception is not punishable in western law and why do you think the UK government is about to outlaw paternity tests except where the mother gives her express permission? > > Should 'equivalent' sexual offences (if we can establish that there are > > such things) be treated equally seriously by the law? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > offense", then you and Jayne should go find a remote island, call it an > independent country, and write your own laws! I'm pretty keen on that idea but I think Jayne, her family and my family might object. From what I've seen and heard I don't think I'd match up very well to her existing SO. Even if he/she/they were all in favour we could expect the Bush/Blair Alliance would soon invade to impose its standards upon us, so any such paradise would be pretty short lived. Thank god for the land of the free, eh? But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual offence and it isn't treated as a crime by western law at all, let alone being treated equally. That was what I meant. >>Now, someone in this thread brought up a scenario in which a woman >>deliberately tricks her husband into believing a child is his in order [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > western law and why do you think the UK government is about to outlaw > paternity tests except where the mother gives her express permission? I don't know! I think the rationale for it is "the interest of children". But I don't buy it, and don't think interest of children is being served by it. I certainly think that "deliberate" deception should be punishable by law. I have heard people say that if a man has been considered the father he should continue to treat the child as his own, etc. I don't believe any of this should be enforced by law. As much as I'd like to see a man treat a child as his own upon learning he's not his, I acknowledge that he may feel differently and certainly don't believe that he should be "forced" to view or treat the child as his own. Yes, it's very sad to see a child suffer and my heart breaks for any child who is caught in such an unfortunate situation. But I feel very deeply for the pain of the man and don't fault him for his (often conflicting) feelings. That's why I support routine paternal tests to avoid these situations. It's important to note that not all cases of mistaken paternity are deliberate deceptions. Sometimes the woman may have had sex with other men but genuinely believe that the child is her husband's. A paternity test will sort these cases out too -- and no, I don't feel sorry for the woman who gets caught that way! > >>Now, someone in this thread brought up a scenario in which a woman > >>deliberately tricks her husband into believing a child is his in order [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > husband's. A paternity test will sort these cases out too -- and no, I > don't feel sorry for the woman who gets caught that way! Hmmm. That mistaken woman sounds rather too much like a man who mistakes his date's comeon signals as consent. Nevertheless, as you say, mandatory paternity tests on all newborns is the right solution. So avoiding the possibility of paternity deception altogether. > But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual offence > and it isn't treated as a crime by western law at all, let alone being > treated equally. That was what I meant. Well, I don't know exactly what category paternity deception fits in, but don't consider it a "sexaul offense". >> But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual offence >> and it isn't treated as a crime by western law at all, let alone being >> treated equally. That was what I meant. > > Well, I don't know exactly what category paternity deception fits in, but > don't consider it a "sexaul offense". I agree with it not being a sexual offence - I'd put it into the "fraud" category. > >> But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual offence > >> and it isn't treated as a crime by western law at all, let alone being [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I agree with it not being a sexual offence - I'd put it into the "fraud" > category. Is parental certainty something that is ever likely to trouble you? >> >> But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual >> >> offence [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Is parental certainty something that is ever likely to trouble you? I don't understand your question. I do understand that deception - even about paternity - is fraudulent. > >> >> But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual > >> >> offence [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I don't understand your question. I do understand that deception - even > about paternity - is fraudulent. 'Even' about paternity? I fear we are not on the same planet on this issue. If you are never likely to suffer the effects of a crime are you in the best position to make an unqualified judgement about its categorisation? >> >> >> But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual >> >> >> offence [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > If you are never likely to suffer the effects of a crime are you in the > best position to make an unqualified judgement about its categorisation? That's like saying that only people who are likely to be the victims of armed robbery or murder are in the best position to make an unqualified judgment about its categorization. > >> >> >> But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual > >> >> >> offence [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > armed robbery or murder are in the best position to make an unqualified > judgment about its categorization. Unfortunately we could all be victims of armed robbery or murder. "Joy" (joydoesn'tlikespam@nospam.net) Makes a MS-take: >>> >> >> But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual >>> >> >> offence [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > armed robbery or murder are in the best position to make an unqualified > judgment about its categorization. Mo, its NOT, and only unthinking *retards* would claim such. For there is NO *birth-group* that is immune to armed robbery, while there IS a birth-group, WOMEN, who ARE immune to paternity fraud. Think before you make cowshit fact free claims. For *once*. Baby Feminists is SO *stoopid* ! And, they are man haters. Andre > > But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual offence > > and it isn't treated as a crime by western law at all, let alone being > > treated equally. That was what I meant. > > Well, I don't know exactly what category paternity deception fits in, > but don't consider it a "sexaul offense". In terms of psychological damage there are good grounds for considering these two behaviours as linked in the strength of emotional responses they invoke in their victims. Rape and paternity deception are both primary reproductive disruption strategies, the first perpetrated by men on women victims and the second perpetrated by women on men victims. The most important priority for women in their heterosexual interactions (as far as they relate to reproduction) is the maintenance of mate choice, which rape disrupts. The most important priority for men is paternal certainty, which paternity deception disrupts. Evolutionary psychology predicts that the sexes will develop strong emotions in the victim sex to discourage and prevent these disruptive strategies. Just as women react very emotionally to rape, men react very emotionally to paternity deception. But one is a very serious crime and the other isn't. Perhaps we need a new class of offence, but I don't think a taxonomical difficulty should obscure the psychological correlation between the two offences. >>>But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual offence >>>and it isn't treated as a crime by western law at all, let alone being [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > men on women victims and the second perpetrated by women on men > victims. Not even close! Strength of emotional response doesn't define or categorize a behavior. In an example in this thread someone said that they knew a woman who was far more devastated by her husband's abandoning her than being raped. That doesn't make dumping a spouse a "sexual offense". Rape is a violation of sovereignty and right over our bodies. Paternity deception is betrayal of trust. Regardless of their emotional impact these two are in no way in the same category. > The most important priority for women in their heterosexual > interactions (as far as they relate to reproduction) is the maintenance > of mate choice, which rape disrupts. I am a woman, and if I were unfortunate enough to get raped the last thing on my mind would be reproductive disruption! > >>>But back to the point, I regard paternity deception as a sexual offence > >>>and it isn't treated as a crime by western law at all, let alone being [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > bodies. Paternity deception is betrayal of trust. Regardless of their > emotional impact these two are in no way in the same category. A violation of sovereignty and right over our bodies? Like being drafted and then wounded in action for a man? Are these 'rights' only women have? The categorisation of crime is a complex matter and I'm not a specialist. I do contend, though, that paternity deception is a much more significant threat to social order than the current law recognises and I suspect that this is a factor in the categorisation of crimes. > > The most important priority for women in their heterosexual > > interactions (as far as they relate to reproduction) is the maintenance > > of mate choice, which rape disrupts. > > I am a woman, and if I were unfortunate enough to get raped the last > thing on my mind would be reproductive disruption! You would be experiencing many painful emotions, I'm sure, and evolutionary psychology tells us that the ultimate source of these emotions is the avoidance of reproductive disruption (e.g. Thornhill & Palmer, 2000 and Wilson et al, 1997). But, I agree, it may not seem like it to the victim at the time. Just as it wouldn't to a victim of paternity fraud. >>In an example in this thread someone said that >>they knew a woman who was far more devastated by her husband's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A violation of sovereignty and right over our bodies? Like being > drafted and then wounded in action for a man? I am not a fan of military draft and don't know the laws of UK (or even the US for that matter!), so I hope more knowledgeable people provide accurate information. I know that raising and supporting armies is constitutionally allowed -- and it's possible to change the laws and draft women too without it violating our individual rights. However, this has nothing to do with *individuals* violating other *individuals'* bodies, and you very well know that these are unrelated issues. > Are these 'rights' only > women have? Nope. Men, too, have the right not to be violated by other people. > The categorisation of crime is a complex matter and I'm not a > specialist. I do contend, though, that paternity deception is a much > more significant threat to social order than the current law recognises > and I suspect that this is a factor in the categorisation of crimes. OK. It still doesn't make it "sexual offense". > >>In an example in this thread someone said that > >>they knew a woman who was far more devastated by her husband's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > this has nothing to do with *individuals* violating other *individuals'* > bodies, and you very well know that these are unrelated issues. 'You very well know' the misuse of the word sovereignty, more like. I don't dispute that rape is a violation of a body or that paternity deception is a betrayal of trust. My point is that this is not all they are, or even the most of what they are. More fundamentally they are primary reproductive disruption strategies and as such have much in common with each other in the way they disrupt social order and cause severe emotional and psychological damage. If the categorisation of crime is intended to reflect any of these factors then this underlying cause is relevant. > > Are these 'rights' only > > women have? > > Nope. Men, too, have the right not to be violated by other people. That's unrealistic. Unless you add the rider (for men only of course) 'unless someone important says otherwise'. > > The categorisation of crime is a complex matter and I'm not a > > specialist. I do contend, though, that paternity deception is a much > > more significant threat to social order than the current law recognises > > and I suspect that this is a factor in the categorisation of crimes. > > OK. It still doesn't make it "sexual offense". It is the outcome of a sexual encounter and I think it would help promote an understanding of its seriousness if it was perceived as a sexual offence. But I'm open to suggestions for a better term. Fraud doesn't cut it as it doesn't reflect the fundamentally disruptive nature of the offence. >>> The categorisation of crime is a complex matter and I'm not a >>> specialist. I do contend, though, that paternity deception is a much [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is the outcome of a sexual encounter No, it's not. It's the outcome of a woman lying to her trusting husband. Sexual encounters happen all the time without such outcome. > and I think it would help > promote an understanding of its seriousness if it was perceived as a > sexual offence. I see. You want it to be "perceived" as something that it is not in order to make it appear more serious than it is? When did "fraud" become not serious?! > Fraud > doesn't cut it as it doesn't reflect the fundamentally disruptive > nature of the offence. Give me a break! You really want to talk about "fundamentally disruptive nature" of actions? Then let's stick "sexual offense" on every instance of sexual encounter between a man and woman who are not in a long term stable relationship and have no intention, desire, or means of taking responsibility for the possible "outcome" of their action. You are concerned about "threats to social order"? Then stick the label of "sexual offender" on all the men who complain about not being able to have sex without the responsibility for the possible resulted children, or women who bring children to the world without being able to provide a stable and nurturing environment for them. Every day men and women who only want to have some "fun" disrupt social order more than all the paternity fraud cases put together. Do you want to punish them all as sex offenders? > > Ellie wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No, it's not. It's the outcome of a woman lying to her trusting husband. > Sexual encounters happen all the time without such outcome. Lying is not enough to cause paternity deception, it needs a sexual encounter as well. And, sure, it isn't the outcome of all sexual encounters either. > > and I think it would help > > promote an understanding of its seriousness if it was perceived as a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > order to make it appear more serious than it is? When did "fraud" become > not serious?! Calling paternity deception fraud is like calling rape assault. Both can be serious, both include an element of the offence but neither cuts the mustard. Not even close. > > Fraud > > doesn't cut it as it doesn't reflect the fundamentally disruptive [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > paternity fraud cases put together. Do you want to punish them all as > sex offenders? It wasn't very long ago in the scheme of things that much of this would have been the case. But medicine, technology and capitalism have enabled the west to substantially reduce the threats to social order that the activities you list pose. These advances have done nothing to reduce the threats to social order of paternity deception, though. Quite the opposite in fact. But rather than prompt further indignant outbursts by trying to explain the full impact of paternity deception on men and the mechanisms that seem to prevent women from appreciating this, the simpler solution is the one you proposed up front: mandatory paternity testing at birth. Maybe we should just stick there. > > I see. You want it to be "perceived" as something that it is not in > > order to make it appear more serious than it is? When did "fraud" become [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can be serious, both include an element of the offence but neither cuts > the mustard. Not even close. Paternity fraud involves two elements. 1) a woman having sex with a man other than her husband (though this part is not necessary, she could choose to get pregnant by artificial means!). 2) Presenting the resulted child as her husband's in order to get financial and parental support. The first offense, as painful as it is, is not considered criminal or punishable by law in modern societies. The only *crime* is lying about the identity of the child, which is fraud. So although you are right that calling it "fraud" doesn't quite convey the pain of the man, it IS the only criminal aspect ot it. If you want to make it more than that you have to make adultery a crime punishable by law. I know that if my husband cheated on me I'd be devastated, but don't want to live in a society that would throw him in jail for it, do you? Rape may or may not involve assault. There are cases that a woman is forced to have sex by fear and threat of violence, without actual physical violence. The act of "forcing sex on someone" is accurately labeled "sexual offense" because by nature it is a sexual act. It is also criminal by itself, just like any other act that violates a person's lawful ownership and control over a property -- in this case their body. > > > Fraud > > > doesn't cut it as it doesn't reflect the fundamentally disruptive [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > enabled the west to substantially reduce the threats to social order > that the activities you list pose. You must have a very strange definition of "social order"! How do you define it? In modern societies one of the major social problems is children who are not wanted or supported by their biological parents. > These advances have done nothing to > reduce the threats to social order of paternity deception, though. > Quite the opposite in fact. Could you explain exactly what kind of threat to "social order" you are talking about? The fact that the individual men (and children, in my view) are harmed doesn't make it a threat to social order. Rape, too, isn't a threat to social order (unless it becomes so prevalent and out of hand to cause women afraid of functioning normally in society). Producing millions of children without parents who can and want to raise them in stable environment is indeed a major threat to social order. > > > I see. You want it to be "perceived" as something that it is not in > > > order to make it appear more serious than it is? When did "fraud" become [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that if my husband cheated on me I'd be devastated, but don't want to > live in a society that would throw him in jail for it, do you? This element of the thread started with the fact that modern society treats men differently to women as far as sexual ethics are concerned. This difference is embedded in the rights and laws of western culture. Breaking down an offence into separate parts in such a way as to comply with the existing structure and then using this to justify the imbalance is circular. From my perspective it is also missing the wood for the trees, I will try to explain why I think this is so at the bottom of this post. As to your devastation, each person is different but if you were the average (and very well researched) woman you would, in fact, not be devastated by your husband's sexual infidelity. This is in stark contrast to his reaction if the boot, so to speak, was on the other foot. You might be upset by his casual sexual fling but you'd be devastated if you feared losing his commitment to you, and his resources. This latter would be of less concern to him, boot and foot wise. (You'd be that much more devastated, too, by his emotional infidelity if the modern state didn't step in and assure you and your children's reasonable welfare should you not be able to.) > Rape may or may not involve assault. There are cases that a woman is > forced to have sex by fear and threat of violence, without actual [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > person's lawful ownership and control over a property -- in this case > their body. Again, quoting the existing structure and scope of rights and crimes to justify the existing situation is circular. It is these existing rights and laws that are skew-whiff. > > > > Fraud > > > > doesn't cut it as it doesn't reflect the fundamentally disruptive [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > raise them in stable environment is indeed a major threat to social > order. Genetic success is essential to society's success and to social order. Rape threatened genetic success in the past, paternity deception still threatens it now. There are many other more proximate threats from paternal uncertainty, too. Paternal uncertainty is a significant causal factor in domestic violence. Reinforcing paternal certainty acts to motivate men to subscribe to, co-operate with and contribute to society. Feral, disenchanted , fatherless youths are a significant threat to the immediate stability of any society. The safest and most socially beneficial environment for a child is to live with both biological parents, a condition made almost impossible without paternal certainty. There are many reasons to believe that one of the pillars our civilisation is built upon is an acceptable level of paternal certainty. The reason that rape is considered such a serious crime is not a declaration of rights about personal property or security. The stark truth is that these Rights you refer to are recent, impractical, poorly adhered to and can't be used themselves as defence of the status quo, and certainly not as between the sexes. The universal declaration of human rights does not say, for example: Article 3, Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person (unless they are an able bodied man and someone important says otherwise). Men suffer significantly more physical violation than women, much of which goes unaddressed. Has the US president tackled the endemic rape of men in his own government's care yet? For decades this right to bodily security has been ignored by the primary advocate of these Rights. Your posts suggest that you agree that the draft (or in my view any of the many other quality of life measures where women invariably out-benefit men) is inconsistent with the rights you believe this society is based upon. No, the reason we feel so strongly about rape, the reason we react so emotionally to it and the reason it is viewed as such a serious crime is nothing to do with any declaration of human rights or indeed any laws based upon them. The only connection between the two is that an acceptable declaration is generally drafted not to obviously disrupt the more profound ethic. An ethic buried in the deep magic of evolution. Rape (potentially) disrupts a woman's mate choice, an essential factor in her genetic success. Paternity deception (certainly) does the same to a man. Ultimately genetic success determines society's success so rape and paternity deception both deserve to be perceived in the round and need to be classified as appropriately serious crimes. With all the historic measures to enforce paternal certainty now defunct the only convincing argument I have heard for not criminalising paternity deception now is a practical one - that we might eliminate it by means of mandatory paternity testing at birth. If, combined with appropriate legal amendments, that reduces its incidence or anti-social impact to zero, which perhaps it might, then thanks to very recent biotechnology developments we can put its criminalisation on ice while we test whether this works. I recognise that all this doesn't fit well with present day Rights but then neither does much of what I see about me. > This element of the thread started with the fact that modern society > treats men differently to women as far as sexual ethics are concerned. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for the trees, I will try to explain why I think this is so at the > bottom of this post. [...] I am impressed! You have shown a great ability of using a mishmash of concepts from your own theories, to ancient and modern reality, to biological psychology, to anthropology... in order to mold a concept into a form which doesn't fit it! When needed to support your theories you talk about humans as if we are still cavemen and haven't evolved at all, and when that doesn't support your views you employ all the modern advancements at your disposal. You complain about me "breaking down an offense into separate parts" while you, yourself, claim that it has sexual elements in addition to deceptive elements (in order to attach it to sexual offense I presume). When you analyze my (supposedly well researched) reaction to infidelity by my husband, you dissect it to pieces, separate its elements, and reach for basic instincts for your theories. All this, while ignoring the realities of modern relationships which my husband and I have. And when it suites you, you draw the trump card of advancements in medicine and technology to reject the effects of irresponsible sex and parenthood in "social order", because it doesn't sit well with the conclusion that you want to reach! In order to bring paternity fraud closer to rape, you claim that the seriousness of rape has nothing to do with "recent" concepts of human rights and women's (newly established) sovereignty over their bodies, and has to do with (again, deep rooted instinctive) mate choice of some sort -- totally ignoring the fact that the concepts of control over our body and sexuality are fully internalized in modern societies. It takes only one generation to teach women that they are the master of their bodies! Furthermore, ever since we've had birth control, the tight connection between sex and reproduction has been broken, and no matter how deep and far in our past you reach to find reproductive reasons for our emotional reaction to rape, the reality is that women view rape as a violation of their persons and that's why they react the way they do. The most interesting part of your "twist-facts-reach-my-desired-conclusion is when you talk about social order. You claim that fatherless youth are a significant threat to social stability, as if the existence of so many such youth is the result of paternity fraud! It's quite the contrary. Fatherless youth, for most parts, are the result of men who don't want to father their children, not those who are deceived in believing a child is theirs. What is puzzling for me is why go through so much trouble and fabricate so many contradictory theories just to label fraud of paternity deception as something else, while it is a very serious and legitimate concern on its own merit and for what it really is! Anyway, I've enjoyed the conversation. As soc.men members logic go yours is a head and shoulder above others that I've seen, even if I don't understand why you insist to make paternity fraud sound like rape! But that's OK. I don't have to understand everything. > > This element of the thread started with the fact that modern society > > treats men differently to women as far as sexual ethics are concerned. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > don't understand why you insist to make paternity fraud sound like > rape! But that's OK. I don't have to understand everything. I didn't expect an overnight epiphany and I'm sure a lot of people will have that 'mishmash' feeling you experienced. I happen to think that the evidence in support of the position I've tried to explain is very strong but I recognise it may take a long while for it to become accepted by most people. In the meantime at least we can both agree that paternity testing at birth should be mandatory. > like it to the victim at the time. Just as it wouldn't to a victim of > paternity fraud. So you agree, it is fraud. > > like it to the victim at the time. Just as it wouldn't to a victim of > > paternity fraud. > > So you agree, it is fraud. No I don't. Paternity Fraud is something that sometimes follows the deception but the two acts are separate. Unfortunately a paternity test in the course of a child maintenance dispute seems to be the stimulus for many disclosures, the point when many men learn they are victims of both crimes. >> > like it to the victim at the time. Just as it wouldn't to a victim of >> > paternity fraud. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for many disclosures, the point when many men learn they are victims of > both crimes. You must be using some different definition of the word fraud than I am. I'm going by this legal definition: All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated. Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., by Henry Campbell Black, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979. According to this, lying about paternity would constitute fraud. I could also point out that the definition is completely independent of the gender of the poster nor does relative likelihood of being a victim of such fraud have any bearing on the definition at all. > >> > like it to the victim at the time. Just as it wouldn't to a victim of > >> > paternity fraud. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > of the poster nor does relative likelihood of being a victim of such fraud > have any bearing on the definition at all. Paternal deception might include fraud but it is more than that, just as rape is more than assault. Paternity fraud is often used these days to mean the act of gaining financial advantage. We need a term that expresses the full horror of the behaviour. If you are never going to be a victim I wouldn't expect you to appreciate this. > Paternal deception might include fraud but it is more than that, just > as rape is more than assault. Paternity fraud is often used these days > to mean the act of gaining financial advantage. > > We need a term that expresses the full horror of the behaviour. We need a term that *accurately* explains the offensive act. The "full horror of the behavior" is subjective, unmeasurable, and variable in every case. There is no single term that can express the feelings of all people who are subjected to such thing. > If you > are never going to be a victim I wouldn't expect you to appreciate this. A few years ago one of my coworkers' house was broken into while on vacation. The house was turned upside down and some valuables stolen. He used to say that everyone who'd hear about the incident responded in two ways 1)"thank god you weren't home and didn't get hurt", and 2)"did your insurance cover most of the damage?" He was furious about these reactions. He said that people call it "just" robbery and view the damage "just" material. They don't realize the horror when every corner of your private space is torn upside down and examined. That people immediately think it's just *stuff* and can be replaced. For a while he had become like a broken record repeating "you can't understand it until it happens to you". He was right of course. However, his intense emotional reaction doesn't change the nature of the crime, nor is it equally shared by everyone in the same situation. There are people who'd be able to simply say "it is just *stuff*", and those who'd see it as nothing short of a violent rape. How people "feel" about some act is not a good basis for defining that act. > > Paternal deception might include fraud but it is more than that, just > > as rape is more than assault. Paternity fraud is often used these days [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > every case. There is no single term that can express the feelings of > all people who are subjected to such thing. I hope my recent post explains why I disagree with this view. Message-ID: <1137455841.161064.251610@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >Paternal deception might include fraud but it is more than that, just >as rape is more than assault. Paternity fraud is often used these days >to mean the act of gaining financial advantage. As for a DNA test. >We need a term that expresses the full horror of the behaviour. If you >are never going to be a victim I wouldn't expect you to appreciate this. You're assuming that the woman in question KNOWS who the father is...that it is actually a purposeful attempt to mislead. In many cases it's likely the woman in question is choosing the man she HOPES is the father's child. In any case, when in doubt, ask for a paternity test. Cat >>Paternal deception might include fraud but it is more than that, just >>as rape is more than assault. Paternity fraud is often used these days [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it's likely the woman in question is choosing the man she HOPES is the > father's child. Which is inherently a lie. I can't say that *every* birth certificate in the US is a "legal" document...but MOST are and the one consistent thing about legal documents is that, when filling in information on one, you are REQUIRED to supply information of which you have a sureity...in other words, unless you have DNA test evidence, if your were screwing around during the time period when conception took place, you cannot truthful (and therefore cannot LEGALLY) indicate any particular man as being the father...to do otherwise...no matter HOW much you'd like to believe the hunkie millionaire is the dad...you ARE lying...and potentially committing fraud > In any case, when in doubt, ask for a paternity test. Good advice for both...hopefully it will be backed up with legal sanction for women who make malicious (or hopeful) accusations of paternity without sure knowledge... ...Ken > I am a woman, and if I were unfortunate enough to get raped the last > thing on my mind would be reproductive disruption! Interesting...how would you feel if you became pregnant because of that rape and were subsequently refused an abortion ? Do you think that "reproductive disruption" might become more important to you ? I think that you can say "the last thing on my mind would be reproductive disruption" because you (women) have been given the power to alleviate that situation so, of course, if you can terminate a pregnancy that has arisen from a rape, "reproductive disruption" is of little concern... Unfortunately MEN have NOT, in general, been given the (legal) means to alleviate a "reproductive disruption". In fact because we can be forced to support a child/children that is/are not our own (biologically) we might not have sufficient financial resources to afford our *own* biological children, thereby denying us our RIGHT to reproduce at all. Can you see where this might be of greater relative importance and concern to us than to women...so trying to say that because this is of little concern to you means that it should be of little concern to me doesn't wash... ...Ken [..] > Unfortunately MEN have NOT, in general, been given the (legal) means > to alleviate a "reproductive disruption". In fact because we can be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reproduce at all. Can you see where this might be of greater relative > importance and concern to us than to women... Regardless of whether I see your point as valid or not, I have already said that paternity fraud is a serious offense and should be punishable by law. However, "sexual offense" it is NOT -- and frankly, I don't understand the desire to label it something that it's not. A while ago a guy ran a stop sign on our street and hit another car with a pregnant woman driver. She had a miscarriage as a result of the accident. He certainly caused a "reproductive disruption", but did he commit a "sexual offense"? > so trying to say that > because this is of little concern to you means that it should be of > little concern to me doesn't wash... Where did I "try" to say that?! > > >> [...] > > >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > material for sit-coms. It seems that in this culture, female suffering > is tragic, while male suffering is comic." I don't know how Ellie feels. _I_ feel like Jayne's point is grotesque. There is no sense in which a decision _not_ to have sex with someone is an "offense." Any person has the right to decide for themselves whether they are willing to have sex with some other person. Only in some bizzaro world (perhaps this explains soc.men) could someone construe saying "no" as an offense. [...] > According to Jayne withholding sex and forcing sex should be treated as > "equally seriously". That means either decriminalizing rape or > criminalizing refusal of having sex. Which one do you suggest? My comment about taking them equally seriously followed this statement: "I find it noteworthy that the typically male offense is treated as a serious crime, while the typically female offense is treated as good material for sit-coms. It seems that in this culture, female suffering is tragic, while male suffering is comic." I was not referring to the legal treatment of these offenses but to our culture's general sex-dependent response to suffering. When a man in a movie is kicked in the groin, this is usually good for a laugh. When he is deprived of sex, the comic possibities are endless. The audience laughs as he becomes increasingly distraught and desperate. We just don't have a similar kind of humour based on the physical and emotional suffering of women. I want men's pain to be taken seriously, just like women's pain is taken seriously. Obviously, this does not mean that everything that causes pain must be made illegal. Jayne >> Let me postulate a scenario and ask you a question (seriously) >> arising from the postulate. Let us imagine that you had "cut off" your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> think you would have felt...considering that he was only *exercising >> his basic right* to have sex ? > I'd feel horrible. His right to do what he did doesn't prevent me from > getting hurt, any more than my right to not have sex prevents him from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > decriminalize theft and criminalize dumping a SO because the latter > probably "hurts" more? > According to Jayne withholding sex and forcing sex should be treated as > "equally seriously". That means either decriminalizing rape or > criminalizing refusal of having sex. Which one do you suggest? That's a difficult question. First off, OF COURSE rape should be a crime, but, on the rape issue; 1/ we should be very careful to separate the "rape" from the physicaL "assault", so that the punishment suites the crime, 2/ we should recognize that much of what is classified as "rape" today isn't *rape* as that term is understood by the vast majority of people and we should adjust our legal response accordingly... 3/ we should recognize and accept that, not with standing feminist rhetoric, false accusations of rape vastly out number false accusations of any other crime and while I don't want to legally abuse a *real* victim of rape, I emphatically don't want to see a reversal of the western legal principles "innocent until proven guilty", the "right to face one's accusers", "the concept that it's better for 10 guilty persons to go free that that one innocent person be unjustly convicted" or or any sort of "reverse onus" where an accused individual has to prove that they *didn't* commit the offense they are accused of...and, unfortunately, that's where we seem to be going with rape accusations and THAT scares the hell out of me... On the issue of refusal of sex, we should; 1/ accept that refusal of sexual intimacy amounts to emotional abuse and should treat this emotional abuse with the same degree of seriousness as that with which we treat emotional abuse of a woman by a husband/boyfriend, 2/ we should "de-legimatize" this sort of manipulation and make it as socially and legally unacceptable as any other form of coercion, and 3/ we should seek to protect and shield any individual who is being so abused, regardless of their gender... ...Ken (snip) >Ken wrote: > On the issue of refusal of sex, we should; > 1/ accept that refusal of sexual intimacy amounts to emotional abuse ...so a husband who refuses to have sex with his wife is emotionally abusing his wife. O.k... > and should treat this emotional abuse with the same degree of seriousness > as that with which we treat emotional abuse of a woman by a > husband/boyfriend, ...so a husband who uses money to manipulate, bribe and otherwise attempt to co-erce his wife into compliance is also emotionally abusing his wife. He tells her, "No pocket money unless you give me a blow-job." > 2/ we should "de-legimatize" this sort of manipulation and make it as > socially and legally unacceptable as any other form of coercion, So, refusing to provide sex is the same as refusing to provide money. Both constitute manipulation of another person which can cause emotional trauma. >and > 3/ we should seek to protect and shield any individual who is being so > abused, regardless of their gender... Ken, have you ever refused your children money to go see a movie? The child has his heart set on seeing the latest show. You believe it's not appropriate. So, you withhold that money. The child feels seriously disappointed and hurt. What you've done is manipulated the child by withholding money and forced that child into conforming to *your* wishes and *your* values. You withheld that money and the child feels hurt. According to what you've written above, this sort of activity should be legally unacceptable. What you committed is child abuse! You hurt that child's feelings! Heidi > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ...so a husband who refuses to have sex with his wife is emotionally abusing > his wife. O.k... If there's no legitimate reason (such as illness etc) it sure is... >>and should treat this emotional abuse with the same degree of seriousness >>as that with which we treat emotional abuse of a woman by a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > co-erce his wife into compliance is also emotionally abusing his wife. He > tells her, "No pocket money unless you give me a blow-job." Yes, IF (and it's a big if) the women cannot legitimately get money in any other way, ie: they live in a society where the husband can refuse to allow her to get a job, otherwise you are trying to compare apples and oranges because in our society there is absolutely NO legal or moral justification for a man or woman to seek sexual satisfaction outside of their marriage... >>2/ we should "de-legimatize" this sort of manipulation and make it as >>socially and legally unacceptable as any other form of coercion, > So, refusing to provide sex is the same as refusing to provide money. Both > constitute manipulation of another person which can cause emotional trauma. In some circumstances it is...if the man or woman cannot get what they need in some other "legitimate" way... >>and >>3/ we should seek to protect and shield any individual who is being so [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > unacceptable. What you committed is child abuse! You hurt that child's > feelings! Bullshit, your analogy isn't even close...and, unfortunately demonstrates that you really have very little understanding of what this whole thread is about. The adult relationship between a husband and wife is a vastly different thing that the relationship between a parent and a child... ...Ken > Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people > are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a > man's experiences. However, from what I have read and discussed with > people, I believe that men's pain from facing long-term withholding of > sex by their wives is comparable to women's pain from being raped. I doubt any man who's been raped in prison or molested by a trusted priest would agree with you on that one. I find it scary that you are encouraging such a view. And any man that listens to you is going to be that much farther from learning empathy that is a necessary ingredient to enjoying a reciprical, intimate sex life with his wife. jen "shinypenny" (shinypenny0001@yahoo.com) makes a MS-take: >> Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >> are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I doubt any man who's been raped in prison or molested by a trusted > priest would agree with you on that one. See my earlier post on sex acts one would otherwise enjoy, were they with a partner of choice, and sex acts one would never choose under any circumstances. Thus, you con-fuse apples with Buicks. > I find it scary that you are encouraging such a view. Fear is a device to avoid *thinking* about things. It is the way of the jungle creature. > And any man that > listens to you is going to be that much farther from learning empathy > that is a necessary ingredient to enjoying a reciprical, intimate sex > life with his wife. No proof offered ? PC knee jerk unthinking claim fails. Andre > See my earlier post on sex acts one would otherwise enjoy, were they > with a partner of choice, and sex acts one would never choose under > any circumstances. In molestation case it is about trusting the person who violates your body; that is equivalent IMO to date rape. And it's just as damaging for a homosexual to get molested than for a heterosexual. Likewise, a homosexual in prison can indeed be raped, and violently so. It is about consent and violation of one's body, not about what sex acts one might choose willingly and consentually under normal circumstances. > Thus, you con-fuse apples with Buicks. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No proof offered ? PC knee jerk unthinking claim fails. If a man's wife is constantly rejecting him, it may be because he is not empathetic to her. It can also work the other way, that the spouse doing the rejection is unempathetic to him. Good sex and good marriages require the ability to empathsize. To fully grasp that rape is about violating someone's body without their consent, requires a person to have evolved to a certain level of empathetic thinking. This is usually developed long before adulthood for most people; but clearly there are adults in this world who have had arrested emotional development. I wouldn't expect such adults to get it. jen >> See my earlier post on sex acts one would otherwise enjoy, were they >> with a partner of choice, and sex acts one would never choose under >> any circumstances. > > In molestation case it is about trusting the person who violates your > body; that is equivalent IMO to date rape. Wrong. There is no such thing as " date rape ". Either there was an actual rape, that is, taking of sex by force, or threat therof, or there is NO rape... at all. > And it's just as damaging > for a homosexual to get molested than for a heterosexual. Irrelevent. A heterosexual woman who is raped is only suffering a non consent to the sex act, she is NOT suffering from *also having a sex act of a type she would NOT choose to ever do being forced on her*. But, a man raped, say, in prison, suffers *both* aspects of rape. > Likewise, a homosexual in prison can indeed be raped, and violently so. No one said otherwise. Please play with your Straw Women on your own time. > It is about consent and violation of one's body, not about what sex > acts one might choose willingly and consentually under normal > circumstances. No proof offered ? Claim fails. >> Thus, you con-fuse apples with Buicks. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > not empathetic to her. It can also work the other way, that the spouse > doing the rejection is unempathetic to him. Then, let her get a divorce. > Good sex and good marriages require the ability to empathsize. Well, that proves that over 70% of divorcing wives *failed* at that, due to their choice to divorce for no serious reason. CF Braver. > To fully > grasp that rape is about violating someone's body without their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > had arrested emotional development. I wouldn't expect such adults to > get it. <violins playing> To fully grasp that a rape where the actual sex act is one that the victim would never choose for themselves, and that that IS a serious difference in the rape itself, and its after effects on the victim, also requires empathy, but in this case, an empathy towards MEN. I wouldn't expect WomenFirster bigots to get it. Andre > >> See my earlier post on sex acts one would otherwise enjoy, were they > >> with a partner of choice, and sex acts one would never choose under [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > actual rape, that is, taking of sex by force, or threat therof, > or there is NO rape... at all. As is often the case, you are confused about what words mean. "Date rqpe" mean rape by someone you are dating. It is a form of actual rape which involves (as you correctly assert) forcible intercourse. I don't know why you should think date rape means anything else. Doug Anderson (WomenFirster-bigot@moron.cow) projects his failures: >> >> See my earlier post on sex acts one would otherwise enjoy, were they >> >> with a partner of choice, and sex acts one would never choose under [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > As is often the case, you are confused about what words mean. <Projection> > "Date rqpe" mean rape by someone you are dating. It is a form of > actual rape which involves (as you correctly assert) forcible > intercourse. Yet, rarely do such cases involve actual force, or it's threat. If they did, the modifier " date " would be wholly unnecessary. This is more about women figuring out, the day/week after, that they were really smashed that night, and that guy *must* have taken advantage of them... Lets be clear about what actual rape IS: Sex by means of force or implied force. If you go out with someone, sleep with them for whatever reason, drunk, or not, and decide in the light of a new day that that was a bad choice, but there was no force, or threat of, involved, its NOT rape. Of any modified sort. Period. > I don't know why you should think date rape means anything else. Because the very term implies somehting else. Else it would simply be... *rape*. Duh ! Baby Feminists is SO *stoopid* ! Andre >>Unless one has been both a man and a woman (and not very many people >>are transexuals) it is difficult to compare a woman's experiences to a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that is a necessary ingredient to enjoying a reciprical, intimate sex > life with his wife. It doesn't matter one bit how empathic you are if your wife is deliberately using her sexuality to manipulate you...and, given the financially devastating nature of divorce and the likelihood that you will end up in virtual slavery to this women, you (as a man) don't have many (legal) options... ...Ken [...] > I find it scary that you are encouraging such a view. My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts him very much. To understand how much it hurts him, she can imagine what it would feel like if sex were used as weapon against her, for example, as in rape. Why does this scare you? > And any man that > listens to you is going to be that much farther from learning empathy > that is a necessary ingredient to enjoying a reciprical, intimate sex > life with his wife. Perhaps women who listened to me would learn some empathy for men. Perhaps women also have some responsibility in creating a reciprical, intimate sex life. Jayne > [...] >> I find it scary that you are encouraging such a view. > > My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a > wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts > him very much. It is NOT the same as a physical (and emotional) VIOLATION, and you know that perfectly well, Jayne. YOU are equating it someone being pinned down and Violated. Do you understand that concept? I guess it has never happened to you. Maybe if it had, you would understand it. > To understand how much it hurts him, she can imagine > what it would feel like if sex were used as weapon against her, for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jayne Are you afraid to answer this (see below), Jayne? Or can't you? >> [...] >>> I find it scary that you are encouraging such a view. >> >> My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a >> wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts >> him very much. It is NOT the same as a physical (and emotional) VIOLATION, and you know that perfectly well, Jayne. YOU are equating it someone being pinned down and Violated. Do you understand that concept??? I guess it has never happened to you. Maybe if it had, you would understand it. >> To understand how much it hurts him, she can imagine >> what it would feel like if sex were used as weapon against her, for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Jayne > My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a > wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts > him very much. Oh, I see our disconnect. I don't assume a woman withholds sex from her husband to punish or manipulate him. Perhaps it may feel that way to him, or he may erroneously jump to that conclusion when that isn't her intention at all. Wife may be tired from working and caring for young children. That's not about him. Wife may be struggling with leftover FOO issues that have left her with inhibitions. That's not about him. Wife may be suffering from a nonexistent sex drive (25% of men and women suffer from this at some point). That's not about him. Wife may be suffering from health problems. That's not about him. Empathy is all about putting yourself in someone else's shoes and listening without judgement. It's not about you - it's about them. It's about understanding that the wife's withholding actions may have absolutely nothing to do with the husband. Assuming it is manipulation on her part, when it is not, means the man has not learned empathy; he's personalizing it and making it about him, not her. He is approaching the issue as if his wife is the same person not a separate person with her own wants and needs and boundaries, as if her rejection is automatically a statement about him, not her. > To understand how much it hurts him, she can imagine > what it would feel like if sex were used as weapon against her, for > example, as in rape. Why does this scare you? While it definetly takes a lack of empathy to commit a rape, it doesn't take a lack of empathy to not be interested in sex. So you are comparing apples to oranges. Telling a woman who's struggling with issues such as I listed above that she's as unempathetic as a rapist does nothing to develop empathy between the two partners. It shuts down communication even farther, which only compounds matters instead of improving them. I think you are better off teaching the man that rape is *not* the equivalent of withholding sex, than teaching the woman that it is. A man that would believe that has an immature ability to empathize. And such a man would more likely be prone to overpersonalizing his wife's withholding and viewing it as manipulative and rejecting and all about *him,* when it may not be that at all. > Perhaps women who listened to me would learn some empathy for men. > Perhaps women also have some responsibility in creating a reciprical, > intimate sex life. I agree that both men and women would be served by learning to be more empathetic. I just disagree that this is the way to go about it. We'd all be better off if such men would be able to learn instead that just because a woman says no, doesn't mean it's all about him. jen > > My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a > > wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > him, or he may erroneously jump to that conclusion when that isn't her > intention at all. [...] I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my subsequent comments. Obviously there are other reasons why a person might not want to have sex. Those situations are irrelevant to what I was saying. You are just changing the subject. Jayne > > > My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a > > > wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my > subsequent comments. If that is what you were doing, you wouldn't repeatedly be bringing up sit-coms. > > > > My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a > > > > wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If that is what you were doing, you wouldn't repeatedly be bringing up > sit-coms. The situation of withholding for manipulation and punishment is portrayed as humourous in sit-coms. Oddly enough, I said just what I meant. Jayne > > > > > My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a > > > > > wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > portrayed as humourous in sit-coms. Oddly enough, I said just what I > meant. You can find examples of virtually everything being used as a source for humor in popular culture. Although certain subjects seem tasteless to me when used for humor, I prefer the world where arbiters dont' get to decide which forms of humor are appropriate and which are not. It is a common sit-com trope that the husband wants more sex than the wife, and that the wife is the gatekeeper. The scenario you describe is not a common trope. In any case _none_ of this justifies your attempt to saying no a similar status to rape. >>> My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a >>> wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jayne And you still haven't answered mine. > I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose > of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my > subsequent comments. Well, sure. But how do you prove that it is for manipulation/punishment, and not something else? > Obviously there are other reasons why a person > might not want to have sex. Those situations are irrelevant to what I > was saying. You are just changing the subject. So then should I take it that you agree with me otherwise, in cases that have nothing to do with manipulation/punishment? jen > > I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose > > of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my > > subsequent comments. > > Well, sure. But how do you prove that it is for > manipulation/punishment, and not something else? I doubt that one could. However, it is not necessary to prove it in order to create a culture in which this is considered as unacceptable rather than normal and amusing. What is needed is to talk about it as the abusive and painful thing it is. > > Obviously there are other reasons why a person > > might not want to have sex. Those situations are irrelevant to what I > > was saying. You are just changing the subject. > > So then should I take it that you agree with me otherwise, in cases > that have nothing to do with manipulation/punishment? I don't understand why people are even discussing the withholding of sex in general, when I have been talking about a specific subset of these situations. Of course comments that I make about refusing sex to punish or manipulate don't apply to every case of refusing sex. Refusing sex is, in itself, a morally neutral act. It can become good or evil depending on the circumstances and motivation. Jayne > > > I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose > > > of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > sex in general, when I have been talking about a specific subset of > these situations. I don't think you have. > Of course comments that I make about refusing sex to > punish or manipulate don't apply to every case of refusing sex. > Refusing sex is, in itself, a morally neutral act. It can become good > or evil depending on the circumstances and motivation. Regardless of whatever moral weight you assign to refusing sex, let me put a proposition to you: It should always be legal and appropriate for a man or woman to refuse sex for any reason he or she wants to. It should never be legal or appropriate for one person to force another to into sexual relations or a sexual act. I think this is a fairly simple proposition. That anyone would disagree with it seems bizarre, but apparently you do. Moreover you are determined to find a way to make refusing sex seem comparable to forcing another person to have sex, to which I can only say I'm glad you are in the minority on that one. [...] > > Of course comments that I make about refusing sex to > > punish or manipulate don't apply to every case of refusing sex. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It should always be legal and appropriate for a man or woman to refuse > sex for any reason he or she wants to. [...] While it might not be legally enforceable, it is certainly not appropriate to refuse sex in an emotionally abusive way. Using sexuality to hurt people is wrong. Jayne > [...] > > > Of course comments that I make about refusing sex to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > appropriate to refuse sex in an emotionally abusive way. Using > sexuality to hurt people is wrong. You confuse things. Emotional abuse is not acceptable. It isn't appropriate to serve someone dinner in an emotionally abusive way. Refusing sex is _always_ appropriate if the person refusing sex wishes not to have sex. (No explanation is required. It is sufficient that the person refusing sex wishes to refuse sex.) Forcing someone to have sex is _never_ appropriate. (No explanation helps.) Do you disagree with these statements? [...] > > > It should always be legal and appropriate for a man or woman to refuse > > > sex for any reason he or she wants to. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Emotional abuse is not acceptable. It isn't appropriate to serve > someone dinner in an emotionally abusive way. I agree. > Refusing sex is _always_ appropriate if the person refusing sex wishes > not to have sex. (No explanation is required. It is sufficient that > the person refusing sex wishes to refuse sex.) I disagree. Since a refusal to have sex can easily be interpretted as rejection, it is often necessary to give an explanation so as not to hurt the person being refused. > Forcing someone to have sex is _never_ appropriate. (No explanation > helps.) I agree. > Do you disagree with these statements? I disagreed with the middle one. Jayne > [...] >>> Of course comments that I make about refusing sex to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Jayne Rape is not about sexually hurting people. It IS about Power and Control, and Total Subjugation over the victim. I'm still waiting for you to try and defend that, Jayne. Or are you going to walk away from the challenge? [...] > > While it might not be legally enforceable, it is certainly not > > appropriate to refuse sex in an emotionally abusive way. Using [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and Total Subjugation over the victim. I'm still waiting for you to try > and defend that, Jayne. Or are you going to walk away from the challenge? My major challenge with your posts is to keep from losing my patience. Why on earth are you suggesting that I would want to defend rape? Jayne > [...] >>> While it might not be legally enforceable, it is certainly not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Jayne If you reexamine what you have been saying, in a sense you are, Jayne - you're putting it in the same category as "witholding sex", and IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT in the same category. > > [...] > >>> While it might not be legally enforceable, it is certainly not [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > you're putting it in the same category as "witholding sex", and IT MOST > CERTAINLY IS NOT in the same category. When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or manipulating another (the only situation that I have been discussing in this thread), it becomes an immoral, abusive act. It seems to me reasonable enough to put rape in the category of immoral, abusive acts. And, if a person refuses sex to manipulate another, then it is about power and control. That is just what manipulate means. This is most certainly not a defense of rape. It is a way to express how seriously I view emotional abuse through withholding sex. Jayne >> > [...] >> >>> While it might not be legally enforceable, it is certainly not [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > thread), it becomes an immoral, abusive act. It seems to me reasonable > enough to put rape in the category of immoral, abusive acts. But it is not *merely* immoral and abusive. It is also violent. > And, if > a person refuses sex to manipulate another, then it is about power and > control. That is just what manipulate means. But not violence. > This is most certainly not a defense of rape. It is a way to express > how seriously I view emotional abuse through withholding sex. > > Jayne [...] > > When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or manipulating > > another (the only situation that I have been discussing in this > > thread), it becomes an immoral, abusive act. It seems to me reasonable > > enough to put rape in the category of immoral, abusive acts. > > But it is not *merely* immoral and abusive. It is also violent. I never said that rape was identical to abusive withholding of sex. I said it was comparable and ought to be taken equally seriously. What do you think of this statement: Emotional abuse is comparable to physical abuse and ought to be taken equally seriously. Even if you disagreed, would you claim that a person who said it was hateful or depraved? Jayne > [...] > > > When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or manipulating [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I never said that rape was identical to abusive withholding of sex. I > said it was comparable and ought to be taken equally seriously. And maybe this is where you part company with reasonable people and with "Care and Feeding of Husbands." > What > do you think of this statement: > Emotional abuse is comparable to physical abuse and ought to be taken > equally seriously. Even if you disagreed, would you claim that a > person who said it was hateful or depraved? If they then used this assertion to claim that any action a party might take which would make his or her spouse feel bad was comparable to rape and ought to be taken equally seriously, I would say that person was behaving in a hateful way, yes. [...] > > I never said that rape was identical to abusive withholding of sex. I > > said it was comparable and ought to be taken equally seriously. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to rape and ought to be taken equally seriously, I would say that > person was behaving in a hateful way, yes. I never made such a claim. My position is that withholding sex can be, but is not always, an act of emotional abuse. Only when it is abuse, is it comparable to rape. Jayne > [...] > > > I never said that rape was identical to abusive withholding of sex. I [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > but is not always, an act of emotional abuse. Only when it is abuse, > is it comparable to rape. You made exactly such a claim. Your claim is that it is comparable to rape because of the _degree of pain it causes_. Of course the absurd logic that "rape is abusive therefore other abusive behavior is like rape" is also nonsensical. [...] > > I never made such a claim. My position is that withholding sex can be, > > but is not always, an act of emotional abuse. Only when it is abuse, > > is it comparable to rape. > > You made exactly such a claim. Your claim is that it is comparable to > rape because of the _degree of pain it causes_. My claim is that deliberately hurtful, i.e. abusive, whithholding of sex can cause a degree of pain comparable to that caused by rape. > Of course the absurd logic that "rape is abusive therefore other > abusive behavior is like rape" is also nonsensical. Action A is abusive. Action B is abusive. Therefore action A is like B in that they are both abusive. I really don't see where the logic of this breaks down. Jayne > [...] > > > I never made such a claim. My position is that withholding sex can be, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My claim is that deliberately hurtful, i.e. abusive, whithholding of > sex can cause a degree of pain comparable to that caused by rape. The real similarity you assert is a similar amount of pain. That is not related to motive, despite your attempt to make the link. Furthermore, I think it is an absurd comparison which infantilizes men, and undercuts the sutonomy of women. For someoen to feel that degree of pain from a sexual rejection, they must be in a psychologically unhealthy state to start with. So to attribute _that much_ pain to the actions of someone refusing sex (_whatever_ the motive is) is externalizing someone's psychological ill health. > > Of course the absurd logic that "rape is abusive therefore other > > abusive behavior is like rape" is also nonsensical. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I really don't see where the logic of this breaks down. Then you need to study some more of the common logical fallacies, and think harder about your opinions. "Taking a step on the floor is taking a step. Taking a step on someone's finger is taking a step. Therefore stepping on the floor is like stepping on someone's finger." Do you see no logic breakdown there? > My claim is that deliberately hurtful, i.e. abusive, whithholding of > sex can cause a degree of pain comparable to that caused by rape. How does one withholds sex in an "abusive" way?! How can one "deliberately" hurt someone by withholding sex? The extent of power that a woman has in this regard is to refuse to have sex. All of these emotional adjectives that you add to it only take meaning in the mind of the man, and if he chooses to view it that way. If you want to abuse the word "abuse" to this extent, then a husband who is a slob and doesn't do his share of housework "abuses" his wife. In fact, if you check out asm you'll see the great pain that some women feel from such "abusive behaviors". This reminds me of a friend with a preteen son. For the longest time when he did something wrong she sent him to his room as punishment. The boy, clever little one that he is, protested strongly and showed great sense of suffering because of it. The latest report is that the mom has discovered (by overhearing him on the phone with his friend) that he actually enjoys being sent to his room! It turns out that her "punishment" has seized to be painful for him ever since he has discovered the pleasure of reading. > Action A is abusive. Action B is abusive. Therefore action A is like > B in that they are both abusive. If by action A you mean refusing sex, it is not even close to abusive under any circumstances. [...] > > Action A is abusive. Action B is abusive. Therefore action A is like > > B in that they are both abusive. > > If by action A you mean refusing sex, it is not even close to abusive > under any circumstances. What would you call a situation in which a person said, "I refuse to have sex with you until you clean out the garage?" What about a person who said, "Since you forgot about my birthday, you can just forget about having sex?" Surely you are not claiming that these are acceptable? Jayne > [...] >> > Action A is abusive. Action B is abusive. Therefore action A is like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What would you call a situation in which a person said, "I refuse to > have sex with you until you clean out the garage?" Dumb. Worthy of treating as such. Good fodder for the maritial counseling industry. > What about a person > who said, "Since you forgot about my birthday, you can just forget > about having sex?" Unfortunate on all counts. But still, a symptom not the problem. > Surely you are not claiming that these are acceptable? I would tend not to want to have sex with someone who blew off something special to me, if my bday was special to me. > Jayne > What would you call a situation in which a person said, "I refuse to > have sex with you until you clean out the garage?" What about a person > who said, "Since you forgot about my birthday, you can just forget > about having sex?" > Surely you are not claiming that these are acceptable? > Jayne "Acceptable?" Rape is a brutal CRIME! It's not a mere matter of "acceptability!" Rape and the denile of sex are issues so unalike in quality that the idea of a comparison is ridiculous. No one here is arguing that the scenario you present represents "acceptable" behavior. You are defending a dead analogy. Cat > [...] > > > Action A is abusive. Action B is abusive. Therefore action A is like [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Surely you are not claiming that these are acceptable? Is this the best you can do for "abusive?" Are these situations which seem similar to rape to you!? The particular things you mention are not the things _my_ wife cares about. But if they were, you can be sure they are things I would take seriously since I'm interested in having her _want_ to have sex with me. In general, if there are things which make her unhappy with me I have a strong motivation to avoid those. And similarly I have motivation to do the things which make her happy with me. One part of that motivation is certainly that if she is unhappy with me, she is not likely to want to have sex with me. I fail to see the problem with your examples, nor do I see what is abusive about not having sex with someone who you don't want to have sex with. One of the many fundamental problems with your point of view is that by asserting denial of sex can be abusive, you are asserting that there is obligation to have sex when you don't want to. This is not good for the person having sex who doesn't want to, and it is also not good for the person having sex with someone who doesn't want to be having sex. > Is this the best you can do for "abusive?" Are these situations which > seem similar to rape to you!? How about the rape of men - in prison - by other men? ("Jayne" will not accept this because it does not blame women.) > I fail to see the problem with your examples, nor do I see what is > abusive about not having sex with someone who you don't want to have > sex with. It makes (only) sense a projection of this person's personal experience. > One of the many fundamental problems with your point of view is that > by asserting denial of sex can be abusive, you are asserting that > there is obligation to have sex when you don't want to. This is > not good for the person having sex who doesn't want to, and it is also > not good for the person having sex with someone who doesn't want to be > having sex. Not to mention that it speaks directly to the...ummm...quality...or lack thereof...of the sexual intercourse that this person expects. For what person would want to have sex with someone who is unwilling? That would be very poor sex indeed. It's a very curious idea of sexual union that this "woman" has. Cat > > Is this the best you can do for "abusive?" Are these situations which > > seem similar to rape to you!? > > How about the rape of men - in prison - by other men? ("Jayne" will not > accept this because it does not blame women.) [...] In response to a soc.men thread entitled "Every Woman Deserves to be Raped At Least Once in Her Life" on Sept 19, 2005, I wrote: <begin quote> I disapprove of making a statement like this because it leads to people not taking the men's rights movement seriously. It plays into the negative stereotypes of men promoted by the worst of feminism. I think that every woman needs to understand how wrong it is to sexually manipulate men. I do not think that rape is the only, or even the best, way to make this clear to women. The situation in which I am most tempted to say that women deserve to be raped is the sort of women who claim that all men are rapists. But I would not say it even then. Rape is a bad thing and saying that some people deserve to be raped is a problem. I suspect that this attitude is one factor in why prison rape is so prevalent. When people think that prisoners are criminals who deserve to be raped they don't take the actions necessary to put an end to it. <end quote> Jayne > In response to a soc.men thread entitled "Every Woman Deserves to be > Raped At Least Once in Her Life" on Sept 19, 2005, I wrote: > <begin quote> > I disapprove of making a statement like this because it leads to people > not taking the men's rights movement seriously. It plays into the > negative stereotypes of men promoted by the worst of feminism. Oh I see - the statement is not wrong because it is ipso facto monstrously evil - but it might make the men's movement LOOK BAD!? Thank you for clarifying. > I think that every woman needs to understand how wrong it is to > sexually manipulate men. Thank you for your concern. But your personal experiences do not mirror that of all women. Besides "sexual manipulation" is far too broad an idea to have much real meaning here anyway. You could take that in so many diverse directions that a puritanical twit might assert that wearing heels or lipstick is a form of "sexual manipulation." > I do not think that rape is the only, or even > the best, way to make this clear to women. The situation in which I am > most tempted to say that women deserve to be raped is the sort of women > who claim that all men are rapists. But I would not say it even then. You just DID! And I read it often enough in that k00k newsgroup of yours - women deserve to be raped for their clothing choices, it has often been said there. > Rape is a bad thing and saying that some people deserve to be raped is > a problem. A "problem?!" How about dispicable? > I suspect that this attitude is one factor in why prison > rape is so prevalent. When people think that prisoners are criminals > who deserve to be raped they don't take the actions necessary to put an > end to it. > <end quote> > Jayne Well - male politicians dominate the neo-conservative movement. Why not start with them? I am completely appalled that anyone is raped anywhere. But you have shown a remarkable reluctance to buck the twisted mainstream in soc.men and condemn your fellow soc.men'ers when they screech that "all women deserve to be raped!" Cat > > In response to a soc.men thread entitled "Every Woman Deserves to be > > Raped At Least Once in Her Life" on Sept 19, 2005, I wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > monstrously evil - but it might make the men's movement LOOK BAD!? > Thank you for clarifying. I gave the argument that I thought would be most persuasive to the person I was addressing. I did later assert that rape is wrong and nobody deserves it. > > I think that every woman needs to understand how wrong it is to > > sexually manipulate men. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > many diverse directions that a puritanical twit might assert that > wearing heels or lipstick is a form of "sexual manipulation." I was addressing a person who believes that women are constantly sexually manipulating men and that this is the reason they deserve to be raped. > > I do not think that rape is the only, or even > > the best, way to make this clear to women. The situation in which I am [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yours - women deserve to be raped for their clothing choices, it has > often been said there. No wonder you think that my views are identical to everybody else's in soc.men. When I say something that directly contradicts someone there, you dismiss it. > > Rape is a bad thing and saying that some people deserve to be raped is > > a problem. > > A "problem?!" How about dispicable? I used the language that I thought most persuasive to my audience. Since you have been remarkably unsuccessful at convincing anyone at soc.men of anything with your strident denunciations, I far prefer my judgment to yours. > > I suspect that this attitude is one factor in why prison > > rape is so prevalent. When people think that prisoners are criminals [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > twisted mainstream in soc.men and condemn your fellow soc.men'ers when > they screech that "all women deserve to be raped!" You just read a post in which I took a clear stand of disagreeing with that statement. Apparently my language was not emotional and indignant enough for you. BTW, the person I was addressing was Connor, one of the people you profess to find indistinguishable from me. Jayne > > Oh I see - the statement is not wrong because it is ipso facto > > monstrously evil - but it might make the men's movement LOOK BAD!? > > Thank you for clarifying. > I gave the argument that I thought would be most persuasive to the > person I was addressing. So as not to alienate that particular bitter a.shole? (You're so thoughtful.) > I did later assert that rape is wrong and > nobody deserves it. As an afterthought... > I was addressing a person who believes that women are constantly > sexually manipulating men and that this is the reason they deserve to > be raped. Yes...I've read posts by those idiot losers. In truth, the sexes both constantly attempt to "manipulate" each other through sexual attractors - everything from neckties to lipstick color choices reflect the sexual dynamic. It is the losers in this continuous mating dance that turn to rape. You might have told him that! > I used the language that I thought most persuasive to my audience. > Since you have been remarkably unsuccessful at convincing anyone at > soc.men of anything with your strident denunciations, I far prefer my > judgment to yours. Darling - no one outside the soc.men cult will ever convince those madmen of ANYTHING! They are no measure of success or failure. They are ADDICTED to their resentment and hatred! Look around you - you're only support in this protracted argument comes from childish morons like Andre! That's GOT to tell you something. > You just read a post in which I took a clear stand of disagreeing with > that statement. Apparently my language was not emotional and indignant > enough for you. BTW, the person I was addressing was Connor, one of > the people you profess to find indistinguishable from me. > Jayne You simply try to rationalize his on-going insanity. As for your tone - I suppose there were people in Nazi Germany who called the SS a bunch of "naughty but misunderstood boys" rather than sadistic mass murderers. I just don't suffer psychotics as well as you, apparently, do. Cat > > Oh I see - the statement is not wrong because it is ipso facto > > monstrously evil - but it might make the men's movement LOOK BAD!? > > Thank you for clarifying. > I gave the argument that I thought would be most persuasive to the > person I was addressing. So as not to alienate that particular bitter a.shole? (You're so thoughtful.) > I did later assert that rape is wrong and > nobody deserves it. As an afterthought... > I was addressing a person who believes that women are constantly > sexually manipulating men and that this is the reason they deserve to > be raped. Yes...I've read posts by those idiot losers. In truth, the sexes both constantly attempt to "manipulate" each other through sexual attractors - everything from neckties to lipstick color choices reflect the sexual dynamic. It is the losers in this continuous mating dance that turn to rape. You might have told him that! > I used the language that I thought most persuasive to my audience. > Since you have been remarkably unsuccessful at convincing anyone at > soc.men of anything with your strident denunciations, I far prefer my > judgment to yours. Darling - no one outside the soc.men cult will ever convince those madmen of ANYTHING! They are no measure of success or failure. They are ADDICTED to their resentment and hatred! Look around you - you're only support in this protracted argument comes from childish morons like Andre! That's GOT to tell you something. > You just read a post in which I took a clear stand of disagreeing with > that statement. Apparently my language was not emotional and indignant > enough for you. BTW, the person I was addressing was Connor, one of > the people you profess to find indistinguishable from me. > Jayne You simply try to rationalize his on-going insanity. As for your tone - I suppose there were people in Nazi Germany who called the SS a bunch of "naughty but misunderstood boys" rather than sadistic mass murderers. I just don't suffer psychotics as well as you, apparently, do. Cat > [...] > > > Action A is abusive. Action B is abusive. Therefore action A is like [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > who said, "Since you forgot about my birthday, you can just forget > about having sex?" What about it?! I call it foolish, childish, immature, disrespectful, unproductive, and damaging to a marriage. By the way I'd say the same thing if a person says "I'll won't buy you such and such", or "I won't do such and such" because you don't have sex with me as much as I want. > Surely you are not claiming that these are acceptable? No, I don't think it's acceptable -- not if one wants to have a happy and successful marriage. But "abusive", it certainly is NOT! [...] > > What would you call a situation in which a person said, "I refuse to > > have sex with you until you clean out the garage?" What about a person [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What about it?! I call it foolish, childish, immature, disrespectful, > unproductive, and damaging to a marriage. I would say all these things as well as abusive. > By the way I'd say the same > thing if a person says "I'll won't buy you such and such", or "I won't > do such and such" because you don't have sex with me as much as I want. I'd call this abusive too. It is attempting to coerce sex. Jayne > [...] > > > What would you call a situation in which a person said, "I refuse to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I would say all these things as well as abusive. You can call them whatever you want, they are not comparable with rape. BTW, you do a great disservice to victims of abuse by misusing of the word this way. >[...] >> > Action A is abusive. Action B is abusive. Therefore action A is like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >What would you call a situation in which a person said, "I refuse to >have sex with you until you clean out the garage?" How about him not cleaning out a garage resulted in me not feeling close or turned on by his presence. Should I put out anyway? >What about a person who said, "Since you forgot about my birthday, you can just forget >about having sex?" I think just about everyone knows that goes without saying. My partner forgets my b-day, he's on a sh.t list. Not because of retaliation, but because I don't feel attracted to and like having sex with someone inconsiderate. >[...] >> > I never made such a claim. My position is that withholding sex can be, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >My claim is that deliberately hurtful, i.e. abusive, whithholding of >sex can cause a degree of pain comparable to that caused by rape. Methinks you oughtta be raped to see and feel the difference. > >[...] > >> > I never made such a claim. My position is that withholding sex can be, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Methinks you oughtta be raped to see and feel the difference. I believe this is the crux of the whole disconnect in this conversation. Because of Jayne's sexual preferences -- liking to be dominated, restrained, etc. -- she does not appreciate the true horror of being sexually assaulted. Therefore, it is easy for her to compare it to things that are not at all comparable. Sheila >> >[...] >> >> > I never made such a claim. My position is that withholding sex can [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Therefore, it is easy for her to compare it to things that are not at all > comparable. That is a good point. > I believe this is the crux of the whole disconnect in this conversation. > Because of Jayne's sexual preferences -- liking to be dominated, restrained, > etc. -- she does not appreciate the true horror of being sexually assaulted. > Therefore, it is easy for her to compare it to things that are not at all > comparable. I think you have a valid point here. Here is a short exchange I had with her a while ago: me: > It's absurd to suggest that being forced to have sex is emotionally less > painful than being denied. Jayne: Why is it so absurd? Perhaps that is how you personally would react, but there is no reason to assume that your experience is universal. For me, neither of these is intrinsically more painful than the other. It would depend on the circumstances. If someone forced me to have sex and I perceived it as a desperate act of a man who had lost control, I would find it less emotionally painful than if someone denied me sex on the grounds that I was repulsive. >> I believe this is the crux of the whole disconnect in this conversation. >> Because of Jayne's sexual preferences -- liking to be dominated, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > the grounds that I was repulsive. She's a flippin' fruit loop or a really good actor/actress and pot stirrer. >>> I believe this is the crux of the whole disconnect in this conversation. >>> Because of Jayne's sexual preferences -- liking to be dominated, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > She's a flippin' fruit loop, or a really good actor/actress and pot stirrer. I don't think she's acting. I think she subscribes to it, sadly. I still find it unfathomable, for the most part. > I don't think she's acting. I think she subscribes to it, sadly. I > still find it unfathomable, for the most part. Try considering that this "Jayne" person is, in fact, a man in drag. Read what this person just posted about not being able to see the physical harm in rape! Not only is it inaccurate medically, it shows an incredible ignorance of "her" own alleged anatomy!!! Cat catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote: > > I don't think she's acting. I think she subscribes to it, sadly. I > > still find it unfathomable, for the most part. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > physical harm in rape! Not only is it inaccurate medically, it shows an > incredible ignorance of "her" own alleged anatomy!!! According to the Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault (the first on that turned up on my Google serach) "Most acquaintance rape victims do not have any physical signs of abuse." They also say, "Acquaintance rape is the most common form of rape. According to the National Bureau of Justice Statistics, 69% percent of women who are raped are raped by someone they know." I suggest you write to the Center and tell them how ignorant they are. Jayne [...] > According to the Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault (the > first on that turned up on my Google serach) "Most acquaintance rape > victims do not have any physical signs of abuse." They also say, > "Acquaintance rape is the most common form of rape. According to the > National Bureau of Justice Statistics, 69% percent of women who are > raped are raped by someone they know." Sorry, forgot the url: http://www.sacasa.org/acqrape.htm Jayne > According to the Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault (the > first on that turned up on my Google serach) "Most acquaintance rape [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I suggest you write to the Center and tell them how ignorant they are. > Jayne When the vagina does not lubricate, due to fear and emotional trauma, forced vaginal penatration very often causes tearing. You DID know that didn't you? (Maybe not?) You give a statistic that covers both forced oral and vaginal copulation. (There is often little or no evidence in a case of forced oral copulation - not so with forcible vaginal rape.) Are you are therefore merely in error or purposely obscuring the truth to cover for your amazingly ignorant statement? How can you NOT know that? How can you NOT KNOW how your own body works? Cat > > According to the Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault (the > > first on that turned up on my Google serach) "Most acquaintance rape [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > forced vaginal penatration very often causes tearing. You DID know that > didn't you? (Maybe not?) When women are raped they often do lubricate and even have orgasms. According to women's counselling sites (not just the one I quoted), it is common for there to be no physical signs of rape. > You give a statistic that covers both forced oral and vaginal > copulation. (There is often little or no evidence in a case of forced > oral copulation - not so with forcible vaginal rape.) Are you are > therefore merely in error or purposely obscuring the truth to cover for > your amazingly ignorant statement? The exact numbers are not relevant. My claim stands that there will not necessarily be physical damage from rape. > How can you NOT know that? How can you NOT KNOW how your own body > works? It is illogical to conclude from what I have posted that I do not know how my body works. Jayne > When women are raped they often do lubricate and even have orgasms. > According to women's counselling sites (not just the one I quoted), it > is common for there to be no physical signs of rape. It does, occasionally, happen. But it's far from common. List the sources that say that it is "common" for women to orgasm during rape. > The exact numbers are not relevant. My claim stands that there will > not necessarily be physical damage from rape. The exact numbers will show that you are attempting an orderly retreat from your ridiculous statement. > It is illogical to conclude from what I have posted that I do not know > how my body works. > Jayne The more you struggle - the more you sink. Your arguments are like quicksand. If you to admit that rape is both physically and psychologically traumatic, your previous analogy comparing it to sexual refusal looks stupid. Now you are falling back on familiar soc.men ground - rape does very little damage to women and you personally (as a woman...sic) wouldn't find it all that horrible. Poor Mr. Jayne... Cat > > When women are raped they often do lubricate and even have orgasms. > > According to women's counselling sites (not just the one I quoted), it > > is common for there to be no physical signs of rape. > > It does, occasionally, happen. But it's far from common. List the > sources that say that it is "common" for women to orgasm during rape. I never claimed that it is common for women to orgasm during rape. I said it was common for there to be no physical signs of rape. http://www.womenandhealth.org/On_The_Run/tasiopoulos.htm "In fact, the majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the survivor knows and trusts, and the closer the relationship between the victim and offender, the less physical force is used. The lack of outward physical signs of sexual assault can cause many victims to remain silent." http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/safrica/Safrica-05.htm However, in cases in which no physical struggle took place, where the woman is sexually active, and especially if she has had several children, the types of physical injury suffered during rape may be relatively minor and will disappear after several hours. The Pretoria medico-legal clinic stated to Human Rights Watch that a woman who has been raped should be seen within four hours to ensure that minor physical abrasions - which may be crucial to the woman's case that sexual intercourse took place without consent - can be detected. Here are some sites to support that orgasms occur during rape: http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/survivors/4/9 In some cases a person may respond sexually during the assault, but this is purely a reflex physiological response, it does not indicate that the abuse was welcome http://www.a-womans-touch.com/article/2/57/Can_a_woman_orgasm_during_rape.html The answer is, yes, a woman can have an orgasm even when participating in sex she is not consenting to. The reason is that the type of arousal that leads to sexual pleasure, and the type of arousal your body experiences during fearful and stressful times, are very close to being the same thing. http://www.ou.edu/womensoc/myths.htm Orgasm is a physiological reaction and is no indication of consent. Many survivors feel as though their bodies have betrayed them when this happens; however, it is simply our body's natural reaction. > > The exact number I claimed that it is commonrs are not relevant. My claim stands that there will > > not necessarily be physical damage from rape. > > The exact numbers will show that you are attempting an orderly retreat > from your ridiculous statement. [...] Again, I suggest you contact all the women's counselling sites that make this statement and tell them how ridiculous they are being. Oh, and accuse them of being men. Jayne > > > When women are raped they often do lubricate and even have orgasms. > > > According to women's counselling sites (not just the one I quoted), it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I never claimed that it is common for women to orgasm during rape. I > said it was common for there to be no physical signs of rape. You said they often have orgasms. Is that different from saying it is common for them to have orgasms? > > > > When women are raped they often do lubricate and even have orgasms. > > > > According to women's counselling sites (not just the one I quoted), it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You said they often have orgasms. Is that different from saying it is > common for them to have orgasms? I said that they often lubricate (which we can deduce from there being many cases of no physical signs of rape) and that they even have orgasms. I can see that it was ambiguous whether the "often" applied to the first clause or both. Jayne > > > According to the Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault (the > > > first on that turned up on my Google serach) "Most acquaintance rape [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > When women are raped they often do lubricate and even have orgasms. Do you have any references for the idea that raped women often have orgasms? I find this bizarre, and contrary to what I've heard. [...] > Do you have any references for the idea that raped women often have > orgasms? I find this bizarre, and contrary to what I've heard. I'm not sure how often they have orgasms, just that they do. None of the sources that I've seen discuss it mention anything about it being rare. These are the ones I posted in response to Cat, in case you missed it: http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/survivors/4/9 In some cases a person may respond sexually during the assault, but this is purely a reflex physiological response, it does not indicate that the abuse was welcome http://www.a-womans-touch.com/article/2/57/Can_a_woman_orgasm_during_... The answer is, yes, a woman can have an orgasm even when participating in sex she is not consenting to. The reason is that the type of arousal that leads to sexual pleasure, and the type of arousal your body experiences during fearful and stressful times, are very close to being the same thing. http://www.ou.edu/womensoc/myths.htm Orgasm is a physiological reaction and is no indication of consent. Many survivors feel as though their bodies have betrayed them when this happens; however, it is simply our body's natural reaction. Jayne > [...] > > Do you have any references for the idea that raped women often have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rare. These are the ones I posted in response to Cat, in case you > missed it: Your references say it is possible that a woman might have an orgasm during rape. Not that it often happens. In fact not even that it ever happens, just that in some physiological sense it could. > catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote: >> > I don't think she's acting. I think she subscribes to it, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > live in Fundie communes in Southern Arizona that are rather like the > Fundie commune she lives in." Typos fixed. PJR :-)  SignatureHave you been touched ___ ___ Hammer of Thor, Jan 2006 by His noodly / _ \ / _ \ appendage? ( (_) )( (_) ) Pierre Salinger Memorial \_ _/ \_ _/ Hook, Line & Sinker, Dec STOP GLOBAL __ _.-\\----//--._ 2003 & May 2005 WARMING _ / _\___.-'/ _| / _\ /\/\`-._.-.__ _ NOW, (_\_)| \___ ||_ ((_ //\/\\ _.-._ \-' ) AHM Wittiest JIM LAD! \__) __) | _| _) ) || || (_ \_.-' Troll of the /_-. || \_/ || .-'-.\ Year, 2003 http:// _._// / .--._______.-'\ \ \\__._ 2004 & 2005 www. /_._/ \ \ )) \__._) venganza (/ _.-') ( `-._ wsd 42 ~ mhm 34x8 .org/ (_.-' :F_P: `--._) smeeter 30 ~ mwpl 12 "Stephanie" (me@misandrist.nut) whines frustratedly at her own INABILITY to debate/refute Jayne's arguments: >>> I believe this is the crux of the whole disconnect in this conversation. >>> Because of Jayne's sexual preferences -- liking to be dominated, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > She's a flippin' fruit loop or a really good actor/actress and pot > stirrer. Fact and argument free Ad Hominem; The last refuge of the Feminist scoundrel. Thank you for further proving YOUR hate of men and of oppositions. Baby Feminists is SO *stoopid*. Andre > >> I believe this is the crux of the whole disconnect in this conversation. > >> Because of Jayne's sexual preferences -- liking to be dominated, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > She's a flippin' fruit loop or a really good actor/actress and pot stirrer. I'd say she's a fruit loop, with no self respect. Ick. me: > > It's absurd to suggest that being forced to have sex is emotionally less > > painful than being denied. > Jayne: > Why is it so absurd? Perhaps that is how you personally would react, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would find it less emotionally painful than if someone denied me sex on > the grounds that I was repulsive. And you wonder why I think "Jayne" is really a man? It seems to me that "Jayne" is projecting here about being denied sex "on the grounds that I was repulsive." It just seems that there's a very damaged man behind that persona. Cat > me: > > > It's absurd to suggest that being forced to have sex is emotionally less [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "on the grounds that I was repulsive." > It just seems that there's a very damaged man behind that persona. Dammaged something. It really doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman. The damaged part is the central issue. > Jayne: > Why is it so absurd? Perhaps that is how you personally would react, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > the grounds that I was repulsive. Wow, I missed that one!! How come a woman can have the control to say no, but a man cannot be expected to have the same control to respect no as the answer? Jayne, it seems to me you really have very little respect for men, even though you claim otherwise. It seems you don't believe a man can keep himself under control. Are men just desparate, weak humans to you? Wow... I have to say I am stunned you view men this way. jen > > Jayne: > > Why is it so absurd? Perhaps that is how you personally would react, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > How come a woman can have the control to say no, but a man cannot be > expected to have the same control to respect no as the answer? I was writing about my imagined response to some hypothetical situations. I do not see how you read all this into it. Ellie quoted this comment to illustrate that I am not horrified at the thought of being raped. She is correct: I am not. This says nothing about my views on how likely men are to commit rape or the moral standing that I assign to rape. Jayne > > > Jayne: > > > Why is it so absurd? Perhaps that is how you personally would react, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > views on how likely men are to commit rape or the moral standing that I > assign to rape. My wording was poor; I was just so stunned. Trying again... you said: "If someone forced me to have sex and I perceived it as a desperate act of a man who had lost control" ... and I get this picture of you saying no, but the guy forces you. You may perceive it as a "desparate" act... the man "loses" control... Now, either you figure that you're just so fabulously sexually appealing, it's understandable that a man would lose control and rape you, *or* you have a lot less confidence in a man's ability to stay in control. Which is it? jen [...] > Trying again... you said: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Which is it? I don't think that men, in general, have trouble controlling themselves. I was imagining a hypothethical situation in which a man was being unusually tempted. Jayne > I don't think that men, in general, have trouble controlling > themselves. I was imagining a hypothethical situation in which a man > was being unusually tempted. Do you think that women who say no don't mean no, and that they must somehow be tempting their rapist? jen > > I don't think that men, in general, have trouble controlling > > themselves. I was imagining a hypothethical situation in which a man > > was being unusually tempted. > > Do you think that women who say no don't mean no, and that they must > somehow be tempting their rapist? Sometimes. Jayne > > > I don't think that men, in general, have trouble controlling > > > themselves. I was imagining a hypothethical situation in which a man [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sometimes. And how often have you done that to a man? jen > I was writing about my imagined response to some hypothetical > situations. I do not see how you read all this into it. Ellie quoted > this comment to illustrate that I am not horrified at the thought of > being raped. She is correct: I am not. [!!!] What? my goodness you ARE a submissive slave-like person! Either that - or a man who cannot quite understand how horrific a rape can be. Do you actually KNOW anyone who has been raped? I do. It was devasting for her. > This says nothing about my > views on how likely men are to commit rape or the moral standing that I > assign to rape. > Jayne You obviously place little gravity to the heinous crime of rape. To my mind, that includes men who are raped in prison. Because I AM a woman, I can only imagine the horror and sense of violation and powerlessness that men who are raped (by other men) must suffer. It in no way compares with being denied sex. Cat > > I was writing about my imagined response to some hypothetical > > situations. I do not see how you read all this into it. Ellie quoted [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It in no way compares with being denied sex. Hell, if someone raped me, I'd wanna kill them. > > Jayne: > > Why is it so absurd? Perhaps that is how you personally would react, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > How come a woman can have the control to say no, but a man cannot be > expected to have the same control to respect no as the answer? Doesn't this seem like a classic example of projection? > Jayne, it seems to me you really have very little respect for men, even > though you claim otherwise. It seems you don't believe a man can keep > himself under control. Are men just desparate, weak humans to you? Another projection? > Wow... I have to say I am stunned you view men this way. > > jen I find it odd that this individual is so incredibly misinformed about female sexual behavior. For a "woman" - "she" seems to be quite clueless. Cat catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Jayne: > > > Why is it so absurd? Perhaps that is how you personally would react, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > female sexual behavior. For a "woman" - "she" seems to be quite > clueless. No, I'm convinced she's a woman, and my suspicion isn't that it is projection, so much as that she truly feels she has some awesome power over men. That's why she can imagine a man losing control and committing a desparate act of raping her. Because she's such a temptress or something. I think that's probably part of the basis of rape fantasies. It's not just about being forced to submit to something you'd normally say no to; it's also that you are so sexually appealing that men lose control and can't help themselves. I suspect Jayne indulges in rape fantasies so much she's lost sight that they are fantasies and not necessarily what one might truly enjoy. And I guess if your ego is such that you need to feel you have such power over men, then it makes sense you'd hang out in a place like soc.men, with immature men who are easy to lord it over! So you could say I don't necessarily agree with the others who suggest she has a need to feel submissive... I think she's got a serious domnination streak. It's all about using her sexual power to make men lose control. Of course she wouldn't punish such a man for falling right into her game. jen > No, I'm convinced she's a woman, and my suspicion isn't that it is > projection, so much as that she truly feels she has some awesome power > over men. Really? Hmmmm...perhaps. > That's why she can imagine a man losing control and > committing a desparate act of raping her. Because she's such a > temptress or something. Now, see, I don't get that impression. I get a sense of powerlessness, of sexual injury and resentment. This person comes across as sexually naive - almost to the point of cluelessness. > I think that's probably part of the basis of rape fantasies. It's not > just about being forced to submit to something you'd normally say no > to; it's also that you are so sexually appealing that men lose control > and can't help themselves. I suspect Jayne indulges in rape fantasies > so much she's lost sight that they are fantasies and not necessarily > what one might truly enjoy. Hmmmm...okay. But that would mean she is ignorant about actual rape and fantasy role-playing during sex. > And I guess if your ego is such that you need to feel you have such > power over men, then it makes sense you'd hang out in a place like > soc.men, with immature men who are easy to lord it over! That DOES make sense. Ooooo...but that's a very slimey way to get male attention. > So you could say I don't necessarily agree with the others who suggest > she has a need to feel submissive... I think she's got a serious > domnination streak. It's all about using her sexual power to make men > lose control. Of course she wouldn't punish such a man for falling > right into her game. > jen Here we part company - One thing, more than anything else, comes clearly through "Jayne's" posts. This person is very, very sexually naive. I think if "she" is a real she - her sublimation to those mutants over in soc.men is a replacement for the appeal she probably lacks in RL. Cat catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote: > Here we part company - One thing, more than anything else, comes > clearly through "Jayne's" posts. This person is very, very sexually > naive. I think if "she" is a real she - her sublimation to those > mutants over in soc.men is a replacement for the appeal she probably > lacks in RL. I can't say - maybe it works for her and she has great sexual appeal IRL, at least, to a certain type of man. I have an acquaintance who's into the S&M thing. It's very interesting. She says that the submissive person isn't really submissive at all; the power is, in fact, ALL in their hands. And I suspect that's the kick Jayne gets from all of this. In which case, I don't view her as sexually naive. jen > I can't say - maybe it works for her and she has great sexual appeal > IRL, at least, to a certain type of man. I seriously doubt that. > I have an acquaintance who's into the S&M thing. It's very interesting. > She says that the submissive person isn't really submissive at all; the > power is, in fact, ALL in their hands. And I suspect that's the kick > Jayne gets from all of this. In which case, I don't view her as > sexually naive. > jen Have you read her most recent statement about rape? It should be looked at closely. I cannot imagine a woman saying such a thing unless she is completely ignorant. ***What damage is caused by rape?*** "Jayne" asks? I have heard similar statements made by numerous men in soc.men. Cat [...] > Have you read her most recent statement about rape? It should be looked > at closely. I cannot imagine a woman saying such a thing unless she is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I have heard similar statements made by numerous men in soc.men. You can find similar statements about the lack of physical damage from rape on women's counselling sites. I guess they are really men pretending to be women too. Jayne > You can find similar statements about the lack of physical damage from > rape on women's counselling sites. I guess they are really men > pretending to be women too. > Jayne You have failed to divide the aforementioned rapes into the two catagories, oral vs vaginal. Indeed, some women, usually older women, often show little or no vaginal tearing. (Unless they are post-menopausal.) Younger women generally do. And girls almost always. Consider your own vagina for a moment. (That's amusing...) Are you in a constant state of sexual arousal? Is your vagina always filled with blood and lubricated as when you are preparing for intercourse? (That's why foreplay is kind of important darling.) Do you even comprehend what I am talking about? You know, that squishy feeling you get down there when you're hotter than a bowl of Mexican chili? Cat > > You can find similar statements about the lack of physical damage from > > rape on women's counselling sites. I guess they are really men [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You have failed to divide the aforementioned rapes into the two > catagories, oral vs vaginal. Since my sources did not, I could not. The fact remains, and even you admit below, that vaginal rape will not necessarily be accompanied by physical damage > Indeed, some women, usually older women, > often show little or no vaginal tearing. (Unless they are > post-menopausal.) Younger women generally do. And girls almost always. So why is it so ignorant and ridiculous for me to say there might be not be physical damage? BTW, the site at http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/safrica/Safrica-05.htm refers to "small and easily missed abrasions indicating that sexual intercourse took place without lubrication." The physical damage from lack of lubrication that you seem to find so significant is so minor that many examing doctors won't even notice it. Jayne >> I can't say - maybe it works for her and she has great sexual appeal >> IRL, at least, to a certain type of man. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Cat I was raped with no physical damage aside from a few days of discomfort. It was not a lot of fun, but I doubt if I had been checked out they would have been able to see much. That's the physical damage side, anyway. > I was raped with no physical damage aside from a few days of discomfort. It > was not a lot of fun, but I doubt if I had been checked out they would have > been able to see much. That's the physical damage side, anyway. I am so sorry to hear that! You should have been checked. The discomfort was a sign that something wasn't right. A doctor would have probably noticed something. At the risk of being overly graphic - I frequently have vigorous sex, numerous times, over a weekend, and suffer no discomfiture. I am 32 years old, have never had a child, so I consider that I am pretty average in terms of my anatomy. I might also add that my SO is a bit more than average in the...ummm...man-thing. Now I am just one person...and I've never been raped. But a close friend of mine was and she suffered physical damage in the assault. She was beaten as well. I hope at least you reported the rape and that the perp was brought to justice. Please accept my sorrow and concern. Cat > No, I'm convinced she's a woman, and my suspicion isn't that it is > projection, so much as that she truly feels she has some awesome power > over men. That's why she can imagine a man losing control and > committing a desparate act of raping her. Because she's such a > temptress or something. Or someone did a good brainwash job on her. > I think that's probably part of the basis of rape fantasies. It's not > just about being forced to submit to something you'd normally say no > to; it's also that you are so sexually appealing that men lose control > and can't help themselves. I suspect Jayne indulges in rape fantasies > so much she's lost sight that they are fantasies and not necessarily > what one might truly enjoy. I think that maybe she likes the exhibition of force. It probably makes her feel secure... Sort of taking the bad boy attraction to the extreme. Or, maybe makes her feel at home. > And I guess if your ego is such that you need to feel you have such > power over men, then it makes sense you'd hang out in a place like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lose control. Of course she wouldn't punish such a man for falling > right into her game. I did notice she has a manipulative streak. > > Jayne: > > Why is it so absurd? Perhaps that is how you personally would react, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Wow... I have to say I am stunned you view men this way. I consistently notice this with her posts. I think she infantilizes men. Of course I also think she has little respect for women and doesn't view them as truly autonomous. > I consistently notice this with her posts. > > I think she infantilizes men. Yeah, I saw your post about that, and I noticed how she seemed to deliberately ignore addressing this part when she responded to you. I think she probably very well knows she infantilizes them. jen > Of course I also think she has little respect for women and doesn't > view them as truly autonomous. Oops, oversnipped. Meant to comment on this part too. I'm not sure about this: it seems to me that there's very little difference between Jayne and the feminists she purports to disdain! She views men as weak-willed creatures who can't control themselves like she can. That indicates a serious lack of respect for men. And it sounds like she believes she can manipulate men, just as much as the feminists she claims are manipulative. Manipulation implies you have some power over the other person. She obviously feels she has the power to drive a man to commit a desparate act of raping her. So I get the impression she does feel women are truly autonomous and men are not. She just doesn't like the way the feminist use their power over men. She thinks that we women should be using it to tempt them into fulfilling our rape fantasies!!! jen > > Of course I also think she has little respect for women and doesn't > > view them as truly autonomous. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > over men. She thinks that we women should be using it to tempt them > into fulfilling our rape fantasies!!! Well, you're willing to do more psychoanalysis than I am. But based on what she writes: -if a man's desire goes unfulfilled it is damaging to his psyche. -therefore women have the duty to fulfill these desires. Hence the infantilization of men, and the lack of autonomy for women. > Well, you're willing to do more psychoanalysis than I am. Slow day here. :-) Mostly I'm just amused by the whole thread! And DH is too. jen > > Of course I also think she has little respect for women and doesn't > > view them as truly autonomous. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm not sure about this: it seems to me that there's very little > difference between Jayne and the feminists she purports to disdain! I believe Jayne told us a while ago that she was a raging feminist in her younger days. > > > Jayne: > > > Why is it so absurd? Perhaps that is how you personally would react, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Of course I also think she has little respect for women and doesn't > view them as truly autonomous. I was noticing that too! (You just formulated it much better then I could) > > >[...] > > >> > I never made such a claim. My position is that withholding sex can [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Therefore, it is easy for her to compare it to things that are not at all > comparable. Good Point. I wonder if she'd react the same about a real rape. Make believe is little different then a real rape. > [...] >> > When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or manipulating [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > said it was comparable and ought to be taken equally seriously. What > do you think of this statement: Comparable and taken *equally* seriously despite the difference. Violence and not nice are not comparable. > Emotional abuse is comparable to physical abuse and ought to be taken > equally seriously. Even if you disagreed, would you claim that a > person who said it was hateful or depraved? > Jayne > > [...] > >> > When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or manipulating [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Comparable and taken *equally* seriously despite the difference. Violence > and not nice are not comparable. So would you say that emotional abuse is never comparable to physical abuse and never ought to be taken as seriously? Or is it just this particular form of emotional abuse that is merely "not nice"? Jayne > > > [...] > > >> > When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or manipulating [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > abuse and never ought to be taken as seriously? Or is it just this > particular form of emotional abuse that is merely "not nice"? You are trying to capture a vast range of behavior under "physical and emotional abuse" and assert that it is all equally serious. Furthermore, you are engaging in manipulative use of language which is not quite worthy of the sophists by ignoring that fact that physical abuse is universally accompanies by emotional abuse. That is what makes it "abuse" rather than "assault." > > > > [...] > > > >> > When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or manipulating [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You are trying to capture a vast range of behavior under "physical and > emotional abuse" and assert that it is all equally serious. Why do you think that I am asserting that? I think that all abuse is serious and that some instances of emotional abuse are equally serious to some instances of physical abuse. > Furthermore, you are engaging in manipulative use of language which > is not quite worthy of the sophists by ignoring that fact that physical > abuse is universally accompanies by emotional abuse. That is what > makes it "abuse" rather than "assault." You are the second person who has seen some sinister significance in my refraining from stating the obvious. Of course physical abuse is also emotional abuse. I would think that this point of similarity supports my claim that they are comparable. Jayne > > > > > [...] > > > > >> > When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or manipulating [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > emotional abuse. I would think that this point of similarity supports > my claim that they are comparable. Hmm. I would think even your vastly oversimplified calculus of "behavior A is abuse. Behavior B is abuse. So behavior A is comparable to behavior B. would allow for the distinction: "Physical abuse _plus_ emotional abuse isn't likely to be comparable to emotional abuse alone." >> > > > > [...] >> > > > >> > When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or manipulating [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >So behavior A is comparable to behavior B. She is drawing a false conclusion based on an over-generalization. A is a car, B is a car therefore A and B are BMW's... >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or >>>>>>>>> manipulating another (the only situation that I have been discussing >>>>>>>>> in this thread), it becomes an immoral, abusive act. It seems to me >>>>>>>>> reasonable enough to put rape in the category of immoral, abusive >>>>>>>>> acts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But it is not *merely* immoral and abusive. It is also violent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I never said that rape was identical to abusive withholding of sex. I >>>>>>> said it was comparable and ought to be taken equally seriously. What >>>>>>> do you think of this statement: >>>>>> >>>>>> Comparable and taken *equally* seriously despite the difference. Violence >>>>>> and not nice are not comparable. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > She is drawing a false conclusion based on an over-generalization. > A is a car, B is a car therefore A and B are BMW's... Which is highly illogical. Someone needs to take Logic 101. Or Phil 102 (Logic) >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>>> When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >Which is highly illogical. >Someone needs to take Logic 101. Or Phil 102 (Logic) There's a specific term for that logical fallacy, but it slipped my mind and I'm feeling too lazy to look it up. here it is...Inductive Fallacy called False Analogy She's also making categorization errors, assuming that the sum of characteristics of parts defines the characteristic of the whole. Also, Non Sequitur... Sexual rejection of a man is painful, therefore it must be similar to rape. And fallacy of definition, one is too brad, the other too narrow. [...] > > She is drawing a false conclusion based on an over-generalization. > > A is a car, B is a car therefore A and B are BMW's... > > Which is highly illogical. > Someone needs to take Logic 101. Or Phil 102 (Logic) I have taken a university logic course (I got an A+). If you knew anything about logic, you would realize that Kitty is wrong. Jayne > [...] > > > She is drawing a false conclusion based on an over-generalization. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have taken a university logic course (I got an A+). If you knew > anything about logic, you would realize that Kitty is wrong. What you've demonstrated is something any teacher can provide countless anecdotes of: Being able to pass a course is no guarantee that a person will apply that knowledge effectively. No matter whether you can get a good grade in a logic course, your reasoning in this thread isn't logical. (Of course there is also something absurd about Bill telling people to take psychology and logic courses. But that's another issue.) >> [...] >>>> She is drawing a false conclusion based on an over-generalization. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (Of course there is also something absurd about Bill telling people to > take psychology and logic courses. But that's another issue.) What? Are you implying I can be illogical too? Geeesh, the nerve...! >[...] >> > She is drawing a false conclusion based on an over-generalization. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I have taken a university logic course (I got an A+). If you knew >anything about logic, you would realize that Kitty is wrong. I work with logic on daily basis. Not some college course eons ago. >> [...] >>>> She is drawing a false conclusion based on an over-generalization. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I work with logic on daily basis. Not some college course eons ago. Well, maybe you're wrong in your "daily basis dealings", hon! LOL!! >>> [...] >>>>> She is drawing a false conclusion based on an over-generalization. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Well, maybe you're wrong in your "daily basis dealings", hon! LOL!! hehe, yeah, it's a miracle I managed to do so well for so many years, by doing things the wrong way. Kitty (Conniecrazy@virus.kan't) whines: >>Bill in Co. dribbled from his rubber room: >>> Kitty screeched hate: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I work with logic on daily basis. Credentials: Jayne, 1. KrazyKat: 0. Oh, one more thing: No proof ever offered ( Unlike Jayne, who offers loads of unrefuted proofs ) ? Cowshit self serving fact free claim still... *fails*. > Not some college course eons ago. Ah, now an ageist dig. Thank you for proving that WomenFirster Bigots have NO shame, when it comes to looking for avenues of slagging. That makes it Jayne: 100, WomenFirsterBigots: -50. <laughs> Andre > You are the second person who has seen some sinister significance in my > refraining from stating the obvious. Of course physical abuse is also > emotional abuse. I would think that this point of similarity supports > my claim that they are comparable. This is like saying that engaging in a boxing match is comparable to beating someone in order to kill them. After all, the latter involves punching with fists too, so murder is comparable to boxing. > > You are the second person who has seen some sinister significance in my > > refraining from stating the obvious. Of course physical abuse is also [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > beating someone in order to kill them. After all, the latter involves > punching with fists too, so murder is comparable to boxing. So you do not think that one point of similarity is enough to claim that things are similar. How many points of similarity are necessary then? Jayne > > > You are the second person who has seen some sinister significance in my > > > refraining from stating the obvious. Of course physical abuse is also [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that things are similar. How many points of similarity are necessary > then? What do YOU think? What's your criteria for comparability of various acts? Do you believe that all behaviors that have some points of similarity are necessarily comparable? Do you disagree that some behaviors are *inherently* incomparable regardless of having "points of similarity"? Let me give you an example. There are people who enjoy rough and painful sexual acts, even to the point of getting seriously injured or even dying if they are not careful. Some of the acts that these people engage in are more violent than most mild beatings or other assaults (even rape). Do you think that voluntary engagement in rough sex is comparable to tying someone down and whipping them, just because there are some "points of similarity" in them? I used an example which mirrors your "using sex as punishment" before, and will repeat it here. Some gun lovers will fight to death to keep their guns. It's certainly possible to "use guns" as means of punishment, by taking their guns away. It's also possible to "use guns" as means of punishment by shooting people with them. Are you saying they are comparable? >> > You are the second person who has seen some sinister significance in my >> > refraining from stating the obvious. Of course physical abuse is also [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >that things are similar. How many points of similarity are necessary >then? At first you claimed equality. Similar is a very relative and a broad brush term. You need to get into specifics, and explain yourself in more detail. I mean, hell, my cats and I are similar, we both have teeth and ears and eyes. If someone kills me, they might be in for a death penalty. They do it to my cat, they're in for a $500 fine. Yeah, the consequences of the acts are similar too, they both carry punishment. You could also way that refusing sex is similar to telling jokes because it is done by a verbal expression. Hopefully that sheds some light on the problem with your argument. [...] > >So you do not think that one point of similarity is enough to claim > >that things are similar. How many points of similarity are necessary > >then? > > At first you claimed equality. I said they ought to be taken equally seriously. I did not say they were equal. Jayne > [...] > > >So you do not think that one point of similarity is enough to claim [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I said they ought to be taken equally seriously. I did not say they > were equal. Why should they be taken "equally seriously" if they are not "equally serious"? Note that my question is based on your view that they are comparable to begin with, and not the reality that rape and withholding of sex are not even remotely in similar categories to be compared. Once again I ask, do you take shooting someone with a gun "equally seriously" or even merely "more seriously" than taking someone's gun away? Based on your logic these two are not only comparable but should be taken equally seriously. After all, both cause pain, and in both cases "guns" are used to manipulate or punish. > > [...] > > > >So you do not think that one point of similarity is enough to claim [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > comparable to begin with, and not the reality that rape and withholding > of sex are not even remotely in similar categories to be compared. If I said that I think that drunk driving ought to taken equally seriously with armed robbery, it would not mean that I think drunk driving equals armed robbery. Obviously, they are two different things. It is a way of expressing that I think drunk driving is very serious. > Once again I ask, do you take shooting someone with a gun "equally > seriously" or even merely "more seriously" than taking someone's gun > away? If it was a soldier in battle, then I would consider taking his gun away as serious as shooting at him since both acts that endanger his life. In general, however, it is not as serious. > Based on your logic these two are not only comparable but should > be taken equally seriously. After all, both cause pain, and in both > cases "guns" are used to manipulate or punish. In most cases, the pain of having one's gun taken away comes nowhere near the pain of being shot. As I understand it, the pain of being refused sex as a deliberate act to punish or manipulate is similar to the pain of being raped. Therefore your analogy is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with my logic. It is possible that my understanding of the pain that other people experience is wrong because it is difficult to know what others are feeling. Jayne > > > I said they ought to be taken equally seriously. I did not say they > > > were equal. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > things. It is a way of expressing that I think drunk driving is very > serious. Excellent example. Drunk driving and armed robbery can be compared because they *can* cause similar damages (injuring or killing people). Therefore your statement above makes perfect sense. In fact, saying drunk driving should be taken *more* seriously, thought may face many disagreements, isn't totally off base. It can be argued that more people are likely to drive drunk than commit armed robbery. Therefore more people are endangered by drunk drivers, so it should be taken more seriously. In short, this is about comparing apples and apples, and people may disagree on the degree of each one's damage. Not true in the case of rape and denial of sex. > > Once again I ask, do you take shooting someone with a gun "equally > > seriously" or even merely "more seriously" than taking someone's gun [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > away as serious as shooting at him since both acts that endanger his > life. Very good! You are making great progress :-) Here again, you are comparing acts with "similar" results. Taking a soldier's gun may get him injured or killed. Shooting someone may get him injured or killed. Apples and apples! And let me say that if, like in your war example, there were circumstances in which refusal of sex would violate the person's body or cause injury by an external entity, I'd agree that it would be comparable to rape! > In general, however, it is not as serious. That's a relief. I am glad that you aren't willing to reach to absurd levels in order to defend your (in my view absurd) logic! > > Based on your logic these two are not only comparable but should > > be taken equally seriously. After all, both cause pain, and in both > > cases "guns" are used to manipulate or punish. > > In most cases, the pain of having one's gun taken away comes nowhere > near the pain of being shot. You think?! Talk to some of NRA's dedicated members. There are people who consider owning guns as one of their most important individual rights, and are willing to fight to death (literally) to keep them. But let's leave that aside. I thought you were convinced that measuring people's "pain" was impossible. What happened? Are you going back to comparing "pains"? > As I understand it, the pain of being > refused sex as a deliberate act to punish or manipulate is similar to > the pain of being raped. You understand wrong! But I realize that *you* feel that way. I am not going to tell you what feels more painful to you. It's irrelevant to the fact they are inherently incomparable regardless of how much pain different people feel. Unlike your above examples, they don't cause "similar" damages or violations. > Therefore your analogy is incorrect. The analogy is perfect! You have said that rape and refusal are both "using sex" to manipulate (I am not saying anything about how much each hurts, nor can you). My analogy is "using guns" to manipulate. You don't like it because you want to use "pain" as a criterion (even though you have admitted that it's not measurable). And because you, personally, can't imagine the pain of rape being much more than the pain of refusal, you think you have it all figured out. Well, not only yours, but no one else's feeling of "pain" is a valid basis for comparing these different acts. > There is > nothing wrong with my logic. So you think! > It is possible that my understanding of > the pain that other people experience is wrong because it is difficult > to know what others are feeling. And your whole logic crumbles if you don't take your understanding of pain into account. [...] > > > Based on your logic these two are not only comparable but should > > > be taken equally seriously. After all, both cause pain, and in both [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > who consider owning guns as one of their most important individual > rights, and are willing to fight to death (literally) to keep them. I have never heard a person, no matter how strongly he felt about the right to own guns, describe his feelings on having the gun taken away as pain. From what I can tell they feel angry and indignant, not hurt. > But let's leave that aside. I thought you were convinced that measuring > people's "pain" was impossible. What happened? Are you going back to > comparing "pains"? In your example, it is questionable if the people being denied guns are feeling pain at all since they do not state that they do. In contrast, I have seen many people claim to be hurt by being denied sex by a spouse, especially in situations in which it seemed the causing of pain was intentional. > > As I understand it, the pain of being > > refused sex as a deliberate act to punish or manipulate is similar to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > different people feel. Unlike your above examples, they don't cause > "similar" damages or violations. What damage is caused by rape? While it is possible for there to be physical damage, this is not necessarily part of rape. It is not the sex act itself that is the problem; it is that the lack of consent to the sex act causes emotional damage. If feelings are irrelevant, then I do not see how we can even talk about the damage caused by rape. > > Therefore your analogy is incorrect. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > yours, but no one else's feeling of "pain" is a valid basis for > comparing these different acts. Your analogy does not match my argument; it matches your view of the situation. > > There is > > nothing wrong with my logic. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And your whole logic crumbles if you don't take your understanding of > pain into account. My conclusions follow logically from my premises. That is the definition of a logically valid argument. ( A logically valid argument, might or might not have a true conclusion.) It is reasonable to question those premises, since my understanding of the pain of others will necessarily be imperfect. An incorrect premise is not a flaw of logic. Jayne > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > right to own guns, describe his feelings on having the gun taken away > as pain. From what I can tell they feel angry and indignant, not hurt. A person who loves his gun may very well feel emotional pain if it was taken away. Perhaps the "thought" of losing their guns makes them feel angry, just like the "thought" of someone daring to rape a woman makes her angry. But if it really happens they may indeed feel pain. Of course you realize that I am only saying this to satisfy *your* sole basis for your argument which is perception of "pain". Otherwise, the analogy stands on its own without any need to appeal to the wishy washy comparison of pain levels. >>But let's leave that aside. I thought you were convinced that measuring >>people's "pain" was impossible. What happened? Are you going back to >>comparing "pains"? > > In your example, it is questionable if the people being denied guns are > feeling pain at all since they do not state that they do. How many gun lovers have you interviewed to know how they'd feel? I have talked to quite a few who've said they would feel violated and losing control because something that's rightfully theirs is taken away. I'd say much more similar to rape than being refused sex is! > In contrast, > I have seen many people claim to be hurt by being denied sex by a > spouse, especially in situations in which it seemed the causing of pain > was intentional. OK, you're back to using perception of the amount of "hurt" as the sole basis of your argument. What's funny is that you have insisted in few posts (in response to Doug I think) that you are not doing that! It is very telling that you cannot support your ideas without getting into subjective perception of feelings. >>>As I understand it, the pain of being >>>refused sex as a deliberate act to punish or manipulate is similar to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What damage is caused by rape? Rape is a violation of a person's body, the control of which is the fundamental right of any person. No one needs to show any damage beyond that. > While it is possible for there to be > physical damage, this is not necessarily part of rape. Irrelevant. > It is not the > sex act itself that is the problem; It is not up to you to tell anyone who is raped what is or isn't a problem. > it is that the lack of consent to > the sex act causes emotional damage. I refer you to my earlier post with the analogy of eating. You fail to realize that the "lack of consent" *defines* the damage. In fact, a woman may be like you and not even feel emotional damage by rape. But if she did refused and was forced to have sex, regardless of how she felt, she'd be a victim of a crime. That's why when someone has sex by manipulating a retarded person who is not capable of consent it's considered rape even if the person didn't know or claim any pain. > If feelings are irrelevant, then > I do not see how we can even talk about the damage caused by rape. Rape, by definition, is a violation. No "feelings" need to be expressed to show damage. And that's exactly where your comparison breaks. What you don't get is that the feelings of the person who is raped are not what makes rape a crime. >>>Therefore your analogy is incorrect. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Your analogy does not match my argument; it matches your view of the > situation. It matches what you have presented. The "situation" is set up by you. >>> There is >>>nothing wrong with my logic. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > question those premises, since my understanding of the pain of others > will necessarily be imperfect. lol... OK, so you admit that your premise is flawed. I'll accept that. But you are right, I misspoke. I should've said "your whole premise crumbles". > An incorrect premise is not a flaw of > logic. Fine. If you are happy to build logic on incorrect premises go ahead. You can start from a position that night is day, and build a case for yourself (and your soc.men buddies). It doesn't have to make sense to the rest of the world... [...] > > If feelings are irrelevant, then > > I do not see how we can even talk about the damage caused by rape. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you don't get is that the feelings of the person who is raped are not > what makes rape a crime. Yes, I can see that in order to be a crime, there needs to be an objective action. Basing laws on feelings is extremely problematic. (Hence the controversy around hate crimes.) But I have not said that deliberately hurtful refusing sex ought to be a crime. I've said that it should not be treated like a joke. Something that hurts people isn't funny. It should be taken seriously. When I hear people expressing horror about rape, they keep talking about all the emotional trauma it causes. I don't hear people expressing any concern for men being hurt by sexual manipulation. The attitude on asm appears to be that men who are hurt by this have something wrong with them. You, Ellie, were an exception in even admitting that women who did this to their husbands were doing something immature and damaging to their marriages. The others seemed to think that it is quite acceptable. [...] > > My conclusions follow logically from my premises. That is the > > definition of a logically valid argument. ( A logically valid argument, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But you are right, I misspoke. I should've said "your whole premise > crumbles". There is a possibility that my premise is flawed. I haven't seen much evidence to convince me that it is though. Most of the posts have either misrepresented my position or been ad hominem attacks. The closest people have come to addressing my premise is to tell me that I would know that rape is more painful than I think it is if I had been raped. This is probably not correct since it seems likely that I would have an atypical reaction to rape. > > An incorrect premise is not a flaw of > > logic. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > yourself (and your soc.men buddies). It doesn't have to make sense to > the rest of the world... If I were convinced that my premises were incorrect, obviously I would not build an argument on them. However, even if deliberately hurtful refusal of sex did not cause a similar degree of suffering to rape, it does cause suffering. It disturbs me to see the lack of concern expressed for this suffering. This thread has reinforced my belief that the soc.men are right about the existence of negative attitudes to men. Jayne > [...] > > > If feelings are irrelevant, then [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Something that hurts people isn't funny. It should be taken > seriously. You've said far more than this. You've specifically made comparisons with rape, as if there were enough similarities for the comparison to be relevant. You do so again below. As far as the "joke" business goes. Yes, people deal with pain - both their own pain and other people's pain - through humor. I don't think this is an especially bad things. And I don't think it is possible to stop. > When I hear people expressing horror about rape, they keep talking > about all the emotional trauma it causes. I don't hear people > expressing any concern for men being hurt by sexual manipulation. You once again compare violent crime to a person who doesn't want sex not agreeing to have sex. The only basis for comparison you can make is the amount of pain cause, which you have no way of measuring. > The > attitude on asm appears to be that men who are hurt by this have > something wrong with them. No, that isn't the attitude. The attitude is that men who find a sexual refusal to be as wounding as rape have somethign wrong with them. > You, Ellie, were an exception in even > admitting that women who did this to their husbands were doing > something immature and damaging to their marriages. The others seemed > to think that it is quite acceptable. People who do not want to have sex with other people should say "no." They should say "no" regardless of the reasons they don't want sex with the other person. People who _want_ to have sex with someone who _doesn't_ want to have sex with them have something wrong with them IMO. >> [...] >> > > If feelings are irrelevant, then [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > sexual refusal to be as wounding as rape have somethign wrong with > them. Which does not equate to lacking in sympathy for a person who finds themselves in a mental health conundrum, I might add. Personally, I don't think withholding jokes are even remotely funny. But this whole notion of withholding as this thing which should be taken as seriously as rape (even though it is not as serious) is mind boggling. The way I look at it, if a man's ego is so fragile that being turned down is going to squish it, then giving in the keep from squishing his ego is a form of enabling. >> You, Ellie, were an exception in even >> admitting that women who did this to their husbands were doing [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > People who _want_ to have sex with someone who _doesn't_ want to have > sex with them have something wrong with them IMO. >>Rape, by definition, is a violation. No "feelings" need to be expressed >>to show damage. And that's exactly where your comparison breaks. What [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But I have not said that deliberately hurtful refusing sex ought to be > a crime. I've said that it should not be treated like a joke. Who treats it like a joke?! You have created a pseudo reality based on a premise that's built upon occasional humorous bits in sitcoms! You ignore the fact that comedy touches *everything*, and at times very painful topics. People's looks, voices, behavior, misfortunes, even diseases and ailments that many suffer from, are exaggerated and made fun of all the time. Sex, particularly is a favorite subject because people respond to it. I have seen many men make joke about "not getting enough from their women". At times it's almost used as a badge of honor to say they always want sex from all sorts of women, and joke about "she won't give it up" or "how to get her into her pants" in a sort of put down and sexually objectifying way. If anyone, it's mostly MEN who make joke about this horror that concerns you so much. In real life many of the topics that are joked about in sitcoms are painful issues that people deal with all the time. You think portraying women as nagging jealous bitches who want to control their man and prevent them from the pleasure of enjoying other women is not a serious and painful reality for many women? Or all the disrespectful talk and acts that are laughed at never really hurt anyone in real life? There is nothing especially noteworthy about men's sexual rejection in the media, neither in the frequency of it happening nor in the level of its trivialization compared to any other issue. You have just blown it up in your own mind, and of course getting all the cheers and support of soc.men has made you really buy it! > Something that hurts people isn't funny. It should be taken seriously. > When I hear people expressing horror about rape, they keep talking > about all the emotional trauma it causes. Yes, because it is the real experience of people who are raped. Medical professionals, social workers, therapists, and families see it, experience it, and acknowledge it. > I don't hear people > expressing any concern for men being hurt by sexual manipulation. If there are men who are so traumatized by lack of sex they are not coming out of their closets. > The > attitude on asm appears to be that men who are hurt by this have > something wrong with them. Nonsense. No one says that unfulfilled sexuality has to be dismissed, or people who complain about it have something wrong with them. These issues are discussed in asm all the time. > You, Ellie, were an exception in even > admitting that women who did this to their husbands were doing > something immature and damaging to their marriages. Come over to asm and see how seriously these complains are treated. If you were a woman and posted your example (that you gave here) in asm you would be torn to pieces by everyone for your behavior and immaturity. I have also never seen anyone who comes and says they are unhappy with their sex life dismissed without some useful suggestions and sympathy. Of course there are jerks or trolls who just come to poke at people, and get what they deserve. > The others seemed > to think that it is quite acceptable. Huh? You are so totally confused! No one says mistreating your spouse and being spiteful or withholding sex for punishment is acceptable. What people DO say is that anyone has a right to not have sex when they don't want for any reason. If they do it often and play games like that they'll suffer consequences as they should. What you will never hear sane people say, however, is that forcing sex on an unwilling spouse is EVER an acceptable reaction to any behavior. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > There is a possibility that my premise is flawed. Well, your premise has been based on comparability of the pain of rape and refusal as punishment. I think even you have admitted that such comparisons are neither possible nor useful in evaluating each behavior. [...] > If I were convinced that my premises were incorrect, obviously I would > not build an argument on them. However, even if deliberately hurtful > refusal of sex did not cause a similar degree of suffering to rape, it > does cause suffering. So? Many things cause suffering. Constant complaining that the house is not clean causes suffering. Not paying attention and avoiding communication causes suffering. Dismissing your spouse's opinion and being disrespectful causes suffering. Not talking to your spouse as a form of punishment causes suffering. But none of these have anything to do with rape, neither does refusing to have sex. On top of that, of all the above things (and many more) refusing sex is the one which a person has more fundamental right to do. > It disturbs me to see the lack of concern > expressed for this suffering. This thread has reinforced my belief > that the soc.men are right about the existence of negative attitudes to > men. There you go...! You have already made up your mind about something and it doesn't matter if your reasons are valid, logical, realistic, or even shared by most men! [...] > Come over to asm and see how seriously these complains are treated. If > you were a woman and posted your example (that you gave here) in asm you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Of course there are jerks or trolls who just come to poke at people, and > get what they deserve. [...] Reading asm is a major influence in forming my impression of how hurt men can be by wives refusing to have sex over a long period of time. I am appalled at the idea that some women would deliberately do that to cause such pain. Jayne > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > am appalled at the idea that some women would deliberately do that to > cause such pain. We must be reading different newsgroups. Of all the posts about lack of sex (mostly by men) I can't remember any that talked about "deliberate" withholding of sex (and I have no interest in googling the newsgroup right now). Overwhelming majority of cases are about different levels of sex drive, and lack of "desire" in spouse. Of course there have been posts about marital problems and their effect on sex, but again, in these cases lack of sex is a symptom of other problems, and not a tool for manipulation. I am not saying deliberate sexual manipulation never happens or it has never been mentioned in asm, but I can't remember seeing it. Even if it has happened it must have been among the small minority of cases. And this is very telling, since a man who comes to asm with complaints is likely to *view* it as manipulation even if it isn't. And yet, we don't see too many men saying their wives deliberately withhold from them. Now, what I want to know is that among all the problems that come up in asm (some truly heart wrenching), have you ONLY been appalled by this one issue? Is it possible that it's because this is a case where you think the *woman* is to blame (even if it means exaggerating the cases in your own mind and assigning motives which are likely not there)? Think about it... [...] > > Reading asm is a major influence in forming my impression of how hurt > > men can be by wives refusing to have sex over a long period of time. I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > these cases lack of sex is a symptom of other problems, and not a tool > for manipulation. I was not being clear. From asm posts I developed an understanding of the pain men can feel when denied sex from wives even when it is not done deliberately to hurt. When I later came across that some women do use this as a weapon, I was appalled. > I am not saying deliberate sexual manipulation never happens or it has > never been mentioned in asm, but I can't remember seeing it. Even if it > has happened it must have been among the small minority of cases. And > this is very telling, since a man who comes to asm with complaints is > likely to *view* it as manipulation even if it isn't. And yet, we don't > see too many men saying their wives deliberately withhold from them. I don't recall any either. > Now, what I want to know is that among all the problems that come up in > asm (some truly heart wrenching), have you ONLY been appalled by this > one issue? Is it possible that it's because this is a case where you > think the *woman* is to blame (even if it means exaggerating the cases > in your own mind and assigning motives which are likely not there)? > Think about it... I think that I had the strongest emotional reactions to problems involving sex, regardless of the sex of the poster. I've been so blessed in this area, that asm was my first real exposure to first hand accounts of serious sexual issues. Jayne > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I don't recall any either. So let's summarize! You are saying that you have observed some men complain about lack of sex because their wives have lower sex drives. You haven't actually encountered men who say their wives manipulate them with sex, but at some point have "come across" some women (wonder how many) who use sex as a weapon (and I presume you don't know or care *why* they end up doing it, and it's irrelevant if they do it because their husbands mistreat them, right?). Then you've put 2 and 5 together and concluded that..... "using sex as a manipulating tool is a typical female offense, in par with rape, but is not being treated as seriously as rape, *men* are suffering because of it, and their suffering is dismissed and made fun of".... WOW! THIS, is what is called rational thinking and logical conclusion from "evidence". > > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > dismissed and made fun of".... WOW! THIS, is what is called rational > thinking and logical conclusion from "evidence". Jayne has a very compliant husband who stays underfoot very well. In fact, he does it to the point of actively giving the marriage a traditionalist sham makeover in order to keep her controlling fingers hidden from view. Not too many women pull it off to that extent. She's the neoconish guilty-liberal type, and probably a closet racist as well. Having conquered all else in the home, she sets out to conquer other women who are making her look bad - either with legitimate careers of their own or as wannabes who still manage to expose her lack of ambition. ...Not counting her little "community" past times. If you understand, she needs to seek validation by pretending to be superior to other women; otherwise, she would seem pretty redundant. Her whole life is fad-driven illusion. She can control her own home, but projecting an image to the public requires changing the rules, somewhat. Thus, we have a housewife with outside hobbies - but no true education or qualifications - who picks up a casual interest in Men's Advocacy in the same way she would get involved in youth activities. It's about herself. Not men, and not women, either. - - - Always an enlightening moment, with: Turin I have such sites to show you... ------------------------ http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/ http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First ------------------------ "He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall burn in hell forever and ever...." ----- Interesting viewpoint. I agree that "Jayne" is partly an attempt to convince women that there ARE, indeed, women who agree with some of the more looney opinions running around like retarded children on crack in that asylum called soc.men. (I had fun typing that!) LOL! Oh well, what can we do? As long as usenet exists we will be treated to this parade of nuttiness. Cat Haha It's mainly your a.sholes of the bland like Andre, Phil, Greg (GA), Ross and Jayne who give the group a bad name. What they're doing here is a mystery - even to themselves. The first four are basically just the typical posers and losers of IRL who endlessly troll others on the Internet, due to being f.cked up nobodies. Like Jayne, they have no identity in real life. They could be anyone. I'd keep it a secret, too. Jayne, though, is a real person ...though, she may as well not be: http://www.haltonsearch.com/hr/ob/story/2671327p-3096861c.html http://www.wholevillage.org/home.htm > Interesting viewpoint. I agree that "Jayne" is partly an attempt to > convince women that there ARE, indeed, women who agree with some of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Cat - - - This has been another sympathic explanation, with: Turin I have such sites to show you... ------------------------ http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/ http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First ------------------------ "He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall burn in hell forever and ever...." ----- > Haha It's mainly your a.sholes of the bland like Andre, Phil, Greg > (GA), Ross and Jayne who give the group a bad name. What they're doing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://www.haltonsearch.com/hr/ob/story/2671327p-3096861c.html > http://www.wholevillage.org/home.htm Whoa... did I hit the nail on the head when I called her susceptible to brainwashing or what??? [...] > > Jayne, though, is a real person ...though, she may as well not be: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Whoa... did I hit the nail on the head when I called her susceptible to > brainwashing or what??? If they ever make jumping to conclusions an Olympic event, you will be a serious contender. Living in intentional community does not equal cult. I suggest you go to the our website at www.wholevillage.org. You can learn about my community in particular and follow the links to learn about cohousing and intentional communities in general. Jayne > > So let's summarize! You are saying that you have observed some men > > complain about lack of sex because their wives have lower sex drives. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > It's about herself. Not men, and not women, either. That sounds rather believable! > [...] >> > Reading asm is a major influence in forming my impression of how hurt [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >I was not being clear. That happens to you often. > What damage is caused by rape? While it is possible for there to be > physical damage, this is not necessarily part of rape. Okay - let's all stop and take a deep breath here. How can this alleged woman NOT know something very basic about female anatomy and emotional sexual response? How are CSIs able to ascertain if a woman has had consensual as opposed to non-consensual (rape) intercourse? > It is not the > sex act itself that is the problem; it is that the lack of consent to > the sex act causes emotional damage. How could you be so incredibly misinformed? > If feelings are irrelevant, then > I do not see how we can even talk about the damage caused by rape. Of course not - because you ARE a man. And nothing you have said thus far has more confirmed my hypothesis. > My conclusions follow logically from my premises. That is the > definition of a logically valid argument. ( A logically valid argument, > might or might not have a true conclusion.) It is reasonable to > question those premises, since my understanding of the pain of others > will necessarily be imperfect. An incorrect premise is not a flaw of > logic. Let's start with your complete LACK of knowledge regarding female anatomy. An anatomy that you allegedly share! Cat >> What damage is caused by rape? While it is possible for there to be >> physical damage, this is not necessarily part of rape. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Let's start with your complete LACK of knowledge regarding female > anatomy. An anatomy that you allegedly share! Let's be fair. The lack of knowledge of our own bodies is one of the big reasons Our Bodies, Ourselves was even written. It is not at all uncommon for women to have funky ideas about what is going on. > Cat [...] > Let's be fair. The lack of knowledge of our own bodies is one of the big > reasons Our Bodies, Ourselves was even written. It is not at all uncommon > for women to have funky ideas about what is going on. While it is not uncommon for women to be ignorant about their bodies, I am not one of them. I have an above average knowledge of women's physiology and have been invited as a speaker on sex and sexuality for both marriage preparation and high school sex ed classes. Jayne > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > invited as a speaker on sex and sexuality for both marriage preparation > and high school sex ed classes. Oh brother... What do you teach these kids? Hope you don't tell the girls that saying no to a boy (even to manipulate him) is similar to being raped. [...] > > While it is not uncommon for women to be ignorant about their bodies, I > > am not one of them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > girls that saying no to a boy (even to manipulate him) is similar to > being raped. In high school classes, I've only talked about pregnancy and birth control. I was (I've let my certification run out) a qualified instructor of Natural Family Planning, so was asked for that expertise. In marriage prep, I have talked more broadly about sexuality but only from my own experiences of marriage. Since my marriage includes neither rape nor sexual manipulation, those topics would not come up. Jayne >[...] >> > While it is not uncommon for women to be ignorant about their bodies, I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >from my own experiences of marriage. Since my marriage includes >neither rape nor sexual manipulation, those topics would not come up. Um, Jayne, that was a rhetorical question... You're smart enough to figure that out, aren't you? >[...] >> Let's be fair. The lack of knowledge of our own bodies is one of the big [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >While it is not uncommon for women to be ignorant about their bodies, I >am not one of them. You sure come across as very ignorant when it comes to the understanding of female body and of female emotions. >I have an above average knowledge of women's physiology and have been >invited as a speaker on sex and sexuality for both marriage preparation >and high school sex ed classes. You're not demonstrating any of that supposed knowledge in here. Feel free to start, any time. And let me know what HS you speak at, so I can make sure noone I know goes there. > [...] >> Let's be fair. The lack of knowledge of our own bodies is one of the big [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jayne Oy Vay! Where do you live so I can fail so sign my kids up for THAT course. > Oy Vay! Where do you live so I can fail so sign my kids up for THAT course. She once alleged that Andre was a noted public speaker when I referred to him as a nutbag. Now she TOO is a respected speaker! It's just too...too amusing. Cat > > Oy Vay! Where do you live so I can fail so sign my kids up for THAT course. > > She once alleged that Andre was a noted public speaker when I referred > to him as a nutbag. Now she TOO is a respected speaker! It's just > too...too amusing. Let's see what she will say next... Popcorn anyone? :) >>> Oy Vay! Where do you live so I can fail so sign my kids up for THAT >>> course. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Let's see what she will say next... > Popcorn anyone? :) Oh, I've been getting through buckets of the stuff! It's even better than the tennis. (The Australian Tennis Open is on here at the moment.) But I do feel as if I should be interjecting the occasional cheer for the players who are doing such a masterly job countering the whackos. Oh well, they'll know who I mean. Great job, people! Tai >>>> Oy Vay! Where do you live so I can fail so sign my kids up for THAT >>>> course. >>> >>> She once alleged that Andre was a noted public speaker when I >>> referred to him as a nutbag. Now she TOO is a respected speaker! >>> It's just too...too amusing. But is it really amusing, when you realize what it really means? That's kind of cruel, isn't it?? It's almost like laughing at those who are institutionalized. >> Let's see what she will say next... >> Popcorn anyone? :) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Tai > >>> Oy Vay! Where do you live so I can fail so sign my kids up for THAT > >>> course. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > players who are doing such a masterly job countering the whackos. Oh well, > they'll know who I mean. Great job, people! I wish I had as much self control and grace as you. I post the cheers and one liners as they pop in my head :) [...] > But I do feel as if I should be interjecting the occasional cheer for the > players who are doing such a masterly job countering the whackos. Oh well, > they'll know who I mean. Great job, people! Thanks, Tai. It has been a bit of a challenge not to lose patience. Unfortunately, I don't have any more time to waste on people who are not capable of anything more that ad hominems and straw men arguments, so I will have to drop out of this discussion. Jayne > [...] >> But I do feel as if I should be interjecting the occasional cheer >> for the players who are doing such a masterly job countering the >> whackos. Oh well, they'll know who I mean. Great job, people! > > Thanks, Tai. Careful, Jayne, your reality slippage is showing. > It has been a bit of a challenge not to lose patience. > Unfortunately, I don't have any more time to waste on people who are > not capable of anything more that ad hominems and straw men arguments, > so I will have to drop out of this discussion. Okay! We'll see you the next time you want to trot out your absurdities. I doubt the wait will seem long. Tai >>[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Okay! We'll see you the next time you want to trot out your absurdities. I > doubt the wait will seem long. Unfortunately I think you have to put the popcorn away for a bit longer this time. She won't be able to recover from the total crush of this round of defeat that soon. I've never seen her lose so completely. She's usually very good with use of language, and can present absurdities with a thin facade of faux reasonability. This time she lost all control, despite all her talent in leaving wiggling room for manipulation and deniability! >> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: > Tai wrote: > [...] >>> But I do feel as if I should be interjecting the occasional cheer >>> for the players who are doing such a masterly job countering the >>> whackos. Oh well, they'll know who I mean. Great job, people! (And "Jayne", cluelessly...) >> Thanks, Tai. > Careful, Jayne, your reality slippage is showing. > > It has been a bit of a challenge not to lose patience. > > Unfortunately, I don't have any more time to waste on people who are > > not capable of anything more that ad hominems and straw men arguments, > > so I will have to drop out of this discussion. > Okay! We'll see you the next time you want to trot out your absurdities. I > doubt the wait will seem long. > Tai Oh ouch!!! ROTFLMAO! Now if only the Broncos can win this one - it will be a complete rout of the forces of darkness! You guys are good! You guys are really good! I will have to lurk in ASM & ASD just to pick up some pointers. Cat >>> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: >> Tai wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >You guys are good! You guys are really good! I will have to lurk in ASM >& ASD just to pick up some pointers. It's be fun to have you here. :) Other then marriage and divorce we talk about relationships, and a good dose of fun and interesting OT things. >>>> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: >>> Tai wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> You guys are good! You guys are really good! I will have to lurk in ASM >> & ASD just to pick up some pointers. I don't think you need any pointers, Cat. You're doin great! > It's be fun to have you here. :) > Other then marriage and divorce we talk about relationships, and a > good dose of fun and interesting OT things. > I don't think you need any pointers, Cat. You're doin great! Thank you - I appreciate that. Cat > Thanks, Tai. It has been a bit of a challenge not to lose patience. > Unfortunately, I don't have any more time to waste on people who are > not capable of anything more that ad hominems and straw men arguments, > so I will have to drop out of this discussion. > Jayne IOW...every soc.men'er for themselves!!! Run for it, the enemy has breeched our best lame-assed defenses! (Cough, sputter, laughing hysterically...oh this is just too precious!) Cat-Giggles > [...] > > But I do feel as if I should be interjecting the occasional cheer for the > > players who are doing such a masterly job countering the whackos. Oh well, > > they'll know who I mean. Great job, people! > > Thanks, Tai. It has been a bit of a challenge not to lose patience. It must be very frustrating for you to be emotionally sure of your point and yet to have no argument or evidence for it. It is a good opportunity to examine whether it really makes sense, or if it is a product of preconceptions. > Unfortunately, I don't have any more time to waste on people who are > not capable of anything more that ad hominems and straw men arguments, > so I will have to drop out of this discussion. Well, I won't especially miss this discussion, but I'll note that I've made no straw man arguments, and haven't attacked you. I've just pointed out the inconsistencies of your opinions, and my strongly held opinion that assaulting another person is _not_ comparable to exercising autonomy about one's own body. And yet you still have had no adequate response to my points. So it isn't just straw men and ad homs which you have no time to waste on. But again, that's fine. > And yet you still have had no adequate response to my points. So it > isn't just straw men and ad homs which you have no time to waste on. > But again, that's fine. Straw men and ad homs accusations are the default response of soc.men residents and their standard way of reacting to logical arguments for which they rarely have any answer. What's a bit different here is her correct use of "straw men" instead of the usual "stwawomen" that the linguistically challenged among them use! > > > Oy Vay! Where do you live so I can fail so sign my kids up for THAT course. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Let's see what she will say next... > Popcorn anyone? :) I'd been thinking more in the line of rotten eggs and over ripe tomatoes. I hear pitching is very good exercise. Grace doesn't suffer fools lightly > > > Oy Vay! Where do you live so I can fail so sign my kids up for THAT course. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Let's see what she will say next... > Popcorn anyone? :) Too early here for that! But the coffee's on! (I'm staggering about in longjohns and Ugg boots...got the fire going.) Oh she will doubtlessly imagine she is restraining herself [?] and the mass of opinion here (save the other soc.men.loonies) is made up of...hmmmm...let me guess..."evil feminists"!? How amazingly clueless "Jayne" is to the flow of this threat. Cat >> > > Oy Vay! Where do you live so I can fail so sign my kids up for THAT course. >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >of...hmmmm...let me guess..."evil feminists"!? >How amazingly clueless "Jayne" is to the flow of this threat. It's amusing to get a glimpse into dysfunctional thinking at times. My overanalyzing little brain likes to try and figure out where the normal pathways got blocked, and some odd thing started growing. Fog, moss, brick wall, I dunno... > It's amusing to get a glimpse into dysfunctional thinking at times. > My overanalyzing little brain likes to try and figure out where the > normal pathways got blocked, and some odd thing started growing. > Fog, moss, brick wall, I dunno... Well, in the case of this "Jayne" person - he/she/it has been defending and therefore enabling the most lunatic statements made by soc.men'ers for at least three years. I found a post from her, dating from October 24, 2003, defending a guy named "Bob" who thought that 12 and 13 year old girls deserved to be raped and abused. "Jayne" found Bob "thought provocing!" I couldn't believe what I was reading. (As if there is anything "thought provocing" about pedophilia and child rape!) So, like you, I wanted to see the den out of which the weasle emerged. Cat >> It's amusing to get a glimpse into dysfunctional thinking at times. >> My overanalyzing little brain likes to try and figure out where the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >So, like you, I wanted to see the den out of which the weasle emerged. Yeah, it's like slowing down for a traffic accident, isn't it? > Oy Vay! Where do you live so I can fail so sign my kids up for THAT course. Oh yes! Now remember girls, never turn your man down when he asks for sex. I might damage his little ego. That would surely trumatize him just as much as being raped would traumatize you. EEEEEwwwwwww! Grace >> Oy Vay! Where do you live so I can fail so sign my kids up for THAT >> course. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > might damage his little ego. That would surely trumatize him just as > much as being raped would traumatize you. DH will turn down gift sex most of the time. And I don't give gift sex grudgingly. On the other hand, lately there has not been much of a need for gift sex. > EEEEEwwwwwww! > > Grace > DH will turn down gift sex most of the time. And I don't give gift sex > grudgingly. On the other hand, lately there has not been much of a need for > gift sex. Well, generally speaking, I've aways been prety receptive even when I'm not dying for it. I tend to attract men who are pretty driven and male, male,, male. But I've enjoyed it, and being receptive has generally been fine. Oh course, when dying for it, it was fine, fine, in fact oh so fine! But.....I have never felt I've had to "give in" for fear of damaging a man's ego. Egos as big as Montana has been more the norm. And I've never withhed to punish or manipuate. i've I'm realynot in the mood, that ship isn't going to sail. And I've i'm not happy with him, not being banished to the sofa or the dog house is what passes for getting loucky in my house. I think having to give in just to satesfy some one's ego is the quickest route to fragidity I can think of. I'm dying to know who these fragil wimps jayne's talking about are. Guys who've never been on job interviews? Grace > [...] > > Let's be fair. The lack of knowledge of our own bodies is one of the big [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jayne Ahhh...yes. You're a noted "speaker" - just as you alleged about Andre. (Remember?) And how would one go about demonstrating an "above average" knowledge of women's physiology? Wouldn't such an knowledge include the fact that in far more cases than not, rape causes physical as well as psychological trauma? Oh, wait, I remember - you wouldn't find rape by a desperate man all that bad - right? If this keeps up I'm going to have to put my barn boots on. Cat > > [...] > > > Let's be fair. The lack of knowledge of our own bodies is one of the big [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Ahhh...yes. You're a noted "speaker" - just as you alleged about Andre. > (Remember?) Andre speaks at science fiction conventions and is very good at it. As I recall, he has given links to online convention programs that include his name. It is easy enough to verify that he his telling the truth for people who actually care about truth. >And how would one go about demonstrating an "above average" > knowledge of women's physiology? Wouldn't such an knowledge include the > fact that in far more cases than not, rape causes physical as well as > psychological trauma? [...] I made the factually correct statement that rape does not necessarily involve physical damage. You have already admitted that this is correct. Considering the incomplete nature of the data on rape, it is not possible to state what happens in the majority of cases. There is some speculation (which I find plausible) that women who are not physically damaged are less likely to report rape because they fear they will not be believed. Perhaps I can demonstrate my above average knowlege of women's physiology by correcting your apparent assumption that sexual arousal is the only cause of vaginal lubrication. The wall of the cervix is lined with mucus producing crypts that are controlled by the reproductive horomones. As a woman approaches ovulation she produces a slippery mucus that lubricates the vagina. (You may not have experienced this if you take birth control medication because it interferes with this process.) This feels very much like the sensation on sexual arousal and I would almost always dream about sex during that time of my cycle. There is also a condition called cervical erosion that can be caused by childbirth and using birth control pills, among other things. This produces a slight discharge which is probably sufficient to prevent vaginal abrasions during penetration. Jayne > I made the factually correct statement that rape does not necessarily > involve physical damage. You are being disengenuous. You knowingly or unknowingly manipulated quotes to imply that there is no physical damage a majority of the time. You also wrote a sentence which seemed to say that women commonly had orgasms during rape. This would seem to be an attempt to minimize the seriousness of the crime. > You have already admitted that this is > correct. Considering the incomplete nature of the data on rape, it is > not possible to state what happens in the majority of cases. There is > some speculation (which I find plausible) that women who are not > physically damaged are less likely to report rape because they fear > they will not be believed. If you are going to consider this evidence, then you need to consider the commonly circulated assertion that rape is vastly under-reported and is a huge and epidemic problem. This clashes with the soc.men tenet that rape is vastly _over_ reported. > > I made the factually correct statement that rape does not necessarily > > involve physical damage. > > You are being disengenuous. You knowingly or unknowingly manipulated > quotes to imply that there is no physical damage a majority of the > time. I gave a quote to support my assertion that rape does not necessarily involve physical damage. I didn't manipulate anything. I gave the link and you can see what the site itself said. > You also wrote a sentence which seemed to say that women commonly had > orgasms during rape. The ambiguity of that sentence was not deliberate. I'm sorry it was not clearer. > This would seem to be an attempt to minimize the seriousness of the > crime. That is something that you are reading into my comments. At no time have I said or implied that rape is not serious. Jayne > > > I made the factually correct statement that rape does not necessarily > > > involve physical damage. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > That is something that you are reading into my comments. At no time > have I said or implied that rape is not serious. I disagree, as I've pointed out. Your remarks speak for themselves, and are an attempt to minimize the seriousness of rape without saying outright "rape is not such a big deal." . > Your remarks speak for themselves, and are an attempt to minimize the > seriousness of rape without saying outright "rape is not such a big > deal." "Jayne" DID modify the outrageousness of her belief that rape isn't all that serious by claiming that "she" wouldn't find it so bad, personally. That is, apparently, if the man were merely desperate for sex (obviously because he evil wife had denied him because he was "repulsive.") That is just so wildly funny as to constitute a self-parody. Cat > > > > I made the factually correct statement that rape does not necessarily > > > > involve physical damage. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I disagree, as I've pointed out. You have pointed out things that you have read into my comments, not things that I have said. > Your remarks speak for themselves, and are an attempt to minimize the > seriousness of rape without saying outright "rape is not such a big > deal." I was making the point that it is reasonable to compare rape to something that only causes emotional damage because in many cases rape only causes emotional damage. I do not think that a lack of physical damage lessens the seriousness of rape in any way. Remember, I'm the one claiming the emotional abuse needs to be taken as seriously as physical abuse. Jayne > > > > > I made the factually correct statement that rape does not necessarily > > > > > involve physical damage. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You have pointed out things that you have read into my comments, not > things that I have said. Actually, I've pointed out things that you've said, not things I've read into them. Consider this: your fundamental belief is that men are oppressed (in Canada? in North America? in the Western World? Everywhere? I don't know, but it doesn't matter in this context). Leaving to the side the merits of this belief (which contradicts the objective measures of economic, political and social power) surely you understand that the fact that you _have_ this belief leaves you open to wanting to interpret suffering by men as more significant than it is - at least when that suffering can be attributed to women, and rape (a crime committed almost exclusively by men, and primarily targeted toward women) as less significant than it is. By asserting that when a man is refused sex, it can be just as painful as being raped, and by asserting that women dominate men by using sexual power (and hence that while rape is bad, it is a natural response to these situations) you implicitly are arguing against interpreting rape as seriously as most people would like to interpret it. You go on to minimize the damage it causes in two ways: -one by saying that the majority of the time there is no physical damage -two by saying that the damage from being refused sex can be just as bad The first claim is not justified by your sources (though truly, I think it is not relevant to anything. The reason rape is wrong is not because it causes physical damage, but because it interferes with a human's bodily autonomy and that seems to me to be an especially precious thing). The second claim would be laughable if it wasn't so insulting to both men and rape victims: The picture you paint of men is if anything even worse than the one painted by your imaginary feminist. Man is an infant, incapable of understanding when his sexual desires are not met. And at best, barely being able to control those sexual desires. The irony is that you are making precisely the sort of claim that you would decry if it came from a feminist. You are as good as asserting that "all men are potential rapists." > I was making the point that it is reasonable to compare rape to > something that only causes emotional damage Nope. That's not what you did. You compared rape to "something" that is perfectly a fine thing to do, causes no harm to anyone, and is the absolute right of any person. The fact that there are some mentally sick people who may get "emotionally damaged" by someone's rightful and harmless act only proves that, well, some people need to get help for mental disease or something. It says nothing about the "act" that you compare to rape. It's like saying that your posting to public newsgroups, and expressing unconventional opinions, "hurts" some people and causes emotional damage. In fact I imagine a rape victim can be emotionally damaged by reading your views. Does that mean that you are emotionally abusing them? I say NOT! If they are so vulnerable and damaged to be emotionally affected by what are indeed VERY HURTFUL views to them, they should seek help, not accuse you of being abusive. > because in many cases rape > only causes emotional damage. I do not think that a lack of physical > damage lessens the seriousness of rape in any way. Remember, I'm the > one claiming the emotional abuse needs to be taken as seriously as > physical abuse. Nice try. You are claiming no such thing. What you *are* claiming is that harmless and lawful acts should be taken as seriously as hurtful and criminal acts that violate people's rights. > > > > > I made the factually correct statement that rape does not necessarily > > > > > involve physical damage. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > one claiming the emotional abuse needs to be taken as seriously as > physical abuse. Actually, because it is typically chronic in nature, emotional abuse can cause more psychological damage then physical abuse. But, an adult of a sound mind has the responsibility to proptect themselves from emotional abuse, and unless they're a minor child or physically imprisoned, they have the ability to protect themselves from it. Unless for some reason you think that men are uncapable of experiencing and handling emotion. So, a man who continually exposes himself to this kind of a treatment needs to have his head examined.... > Actually, because it is typically chronic in nature, emotional abuse > can cause more psychological damage then physical abuse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Unless for some reason you think that men are uncapable of experiencing > and handling emotion. > So, a man who continually exposes himself to this kind of a treatment > needs to have his head examined.... I don't understand what keeps people in loveless and sexless marriages! Why not simply divorce? Wouldn't the abusive and manipulative characteristics of the significant other be apparent BEFORE marriage? Why would anyone bother with all of this? Cat >> Actually, because it is typically chronic in nature, emotional abuse >> can cause more psychological damage then physical abuse. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I don't understand what keeps people in loveless and sexless marriages! Fear, comfort, low self esteem, can't stand on their own. None of the things a mercy f.ck would cure. >Why not simply divorce? They can't, it's too hard. ;) >Wouldn't the abusive and manipulative characteristics of the >significant other be apparent BEFORE marriage? Denial has great powers, especially when it's self-inflicted. ...He's just misunderstood... ...noone gave him a chance... ...I can chage him... ...He'll never be mean to MEEE, he only does it to other mean people.... ...But, But, I LOVE him.... ...I can help him... (he needs me) Even dysfunctional puzzle pieces can find a fitting counterpart. Hmmmm...yes, it seems so. Well, it's not like I've NEVER been in a dysfunctional relationship. But it was different. He was never, even for a moment, abusive. But the relationship was wrong. I was young and he was separated but not divorced. I believe he DID wish to leave his wife, but he had a child and he was so tortured about leaving his child. His wife was a controlling bitch and I was sooooo stupidly willing. When she got pregnant the second time - I knew he'd never leave this second child. So I devolved into a mistress of sorts. To make him jealous, I cheated on him and made sure he knew. At times I flaunted my amores, which only inflammed him the more. He always came back, always professed his love. Finally, I got sick of the whole thing, especially sick of myself. Strange to look back on the ashes of a once intense fire and feel nothing. Anyway... I am actually sympathetic by nature. I see how people's lives can become all entangled and twisted. Love, hate, passion... [sigh] Cat >Hmmmm...yes, it seems so. Well, it's not like I've NEVER been in a >dysfunctional relationship. But it was different. He was never, even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Strange to look back on the ashes of a once intense fire and feel >nothing. For me it's like it was another lifetime. >Anyway... > >I am actually sympathetic by nature. I see how people's lives can >become all entangled and twisted. Love, hate, passion... >[sigh] Yeah, I hear ya! I made some youthful mistakes back when too. I wound up with someone abusive for 2-33 years, before I learned enough to get out.... Doug Anderson (pussiboi@misandrist@loon) demands that Free Speech STOP: >> I made the factually correct statement that rape does not necessarily >> involve physical damage. > > You are being disengenuous. You knowingly or unknowingly manipulated > quotes No proof ever offered ? Cowshit libelous fact free claim fails. > to imply that there is no physical damage a majority of the time. > > You also wrote a sentence which seemed to say that women commonly had > orgasms during rape. Yep. How dare she oppose your views ? That MUST be stopped, for FREEDOM is ONLY for the right thinking ! <sarcasm mode off> > This would seem to be an attempt to minimize the seriousness of the > crime. Or, to report FACTS... How dare Jayne report FACTS ! >> You have already admitted that this is >> correct. Considering the incomplete nature of the data on rape, it is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the commonly circulated assertion that rape is vastly under-reported > and is a huge and epidemic problem. Unlike the matters Jayne brings up, there is NO EVIDENCE for this claim. > This clashes with the soc.men tenet that rape is vastly _over_ reported. Given that it has been shown over here that rape has by far the *highest* rate of provably false claims of any major crime, there are FACTS that support our views. Too bad for *you* that there are NO facts that support your misandry. Ptui. HTH. Andre > Doug Anderson (pussiboi@misandrist@loon) demands that Free Speech STOP: > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > rate of provably false claims of any major crime, there are FACTS that > support our views. Reading problems again? _Jayne_ was suggesting that rape is under-reported. Not me. > Too bad for *you* that there are NO facts that support your misandry. > Ptui. You mean Jayne's misandry. [...] > Reading problems again? _Jayne_ was suggesting that rape is > under-reported. Not me. I was not suggesting that rape is under-reported in general. I mentioned a specific situation in which rapes might be under-reported. I have no idea if this happens enough to counter all the false reports of rape. Jayne > [...] >> Reading problems again? _Jayne_ was suggesting that rape is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I have no idea if this happens enough to counter all the false reports > of rape. Quite. IOW, I was right and Dipshit Douggie was... consistantly *wrong*. I can live with that. <bg> Andre > [...] > > Reading problems again? _Jayne_ was suggesting that rape is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I have no idea if this happens enough to counter all the false reports > of rape. Your assertion is that commonly there was no physical damage. Bringing up unreported rape only supports that assertion if in fact unreported rape is common. You can't have it both ways. Dougie Anderson (misandrist-loon@retard.cow) further de-logics: >> [...] >> > Reading problems again? _Jayne_ was suggesting that rape is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Your assertion is that commonly there was no physical damage. Indeed. Note that " commonly " is NOT a statement, either way, of majority or minority status. If YOU wish to disPROVE Jayne's statement, then offer some FACTS that PROVE your disbelief. No facts ever offered ? Cowshit sexist bigot claim always fails. > Bringing up unreported rape only supports that assertion if in fact > unreported rape is common. Indeed. Note that " common " and " majority " are NOT synonyms. But, it remains a matter of FACT that OVER reports of rape and both common and are commonly FALSE. > You can't have it both ways. <Massive Projection> Ptui. Andre > Dougie Anderson (misandrist-loon@retard.cow) further de-logics: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Indeed. Note that " commonly " is NOT a statement, either way, of > majority or minority status. Yes, I know that. Why do you bring it up since no one has mentioned majority or minority status? > If YOU wish to disPROVE Jayne's statement, then offer some FACTS > that PROVE your disbelief. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Indeed. Note that " common " and " majority " are NOT synonyms. I have no confusion about that. Do you? You are the one who is bringing up the word "majority." Having failed to disagree with me (and accidentally disagreeing with Jayne instead) you are now going to disagree with yourself? OK, whatever. >> Dougie Anderson (misandrist-loon@retard.cow) further de-logics: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> If YOU wish to disPROVE Jayne's statement, then offer some FACTS >> that PROVE your disbelief. >> No facts ever offered ? Cowshit sexist bigot claim always fails. LOL. The line above clearly indicates natural intelligence. We stand in true awe. >>> Bringing up unreported rape only supports that assertion if in fact >>> unreported rape is common. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Jayne instead) you are now going to disagree with yourself? OK, > whatever. > > Dougie Anderson (misandrist-loon@retard.cow) further de-logics: > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yes, I know that. Why do you bring it up since no one has mentioned > majority or minority status? Because he's a troll. > > If YOU wish to disPROVE Jayne's statement, then offer some FACTS > > that PROVE your disbelief. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I have no confusion about that. Do you? You are the one who is > bringing up the word "majority." All that Andre ever does, and all that he's capable of doing, is turning a debate into an argument about the procedures of debate. He does this whenever he starts losing - which is usually pretty much right away - because he's ignorant. Jayne is just another attention whore who has no real point in anything that she says, because she's a SAH airhead who's picked up some of the vocabulary. That is, other than to constantly cut left and right, and to see how many knee-jerk reactions she can get out of you. Which is it? Is emotional abuse as serious as physical abuse, or Isn't it? The answer is that Jayne is having her own orgasms as a phony moderate elitist who is pretending to be raped by ideological "extemists" who can't see the gray. > Having failed to disagree with me (and accidentally disagreeing with > Jayne instead) you are now going to disagree with yourself? OK, > whatever. - - - Always an enlightening moment, with: Turin I have such sites to show you... ------------------------ http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/ http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First ------------------------ "He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall burn in hell forever and ever...." ----- > All that Andre ever does, and all that he's capable of doing, is > turning a debate into an argument about the procedures of debate. He > does this whenever he starts losing - which is usually pretty much > right away - because he's ignorant. I think he must be profoundly unhappy. His posts resemble nothing so much as hysterical adolescent tantrums. And I find it very difficult to believe that he is much different in his everyday life. Cat > > All that Andre ever does, and all that he's capable of doing, is > > turning a debate into an argument about the procedures of debate. He [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And I find it very difficult to believe that he is much different in > his everyday life. Yeah, or just a profound a.shole. Most neocons are. > Cat Doug Anderson (misandrist-loon@retard.cow) weasels: >> Dougie Anderson (misandrist-loon@retard.cow) further de-logics: >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yes, I know that. Why do you bring it up since no one has mentioned > majority or minority status? Then, what is your problem with Jayne's comment ? I addressed the ONLY rational possible objection, and explained how it was disproven. Presumably, all you have left is a knee-jerk reaction to hearing that rape might NOT always be " a fate worse than death ", oh pussi-boi. >> If YOU wish to disPROVE Jayne's statement, then offer some FACTS >> that PROVE your disbelief. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I have no confusion about that. Do you? You are the one who is > bringing up the word "majority." Indeed, as I was addressing YOUR *dishonest* and fact free complaint. > Having failed to disagree with me (and accidentally disagreeing with > Jayne instead) No proof ever offered ? Misandrist loon fact free claim still fails. I was AGREEING with Jayne's factual comment, as her statement that such a reaction is " common " is correct, and I pointed out, and YOU just agreed, that you had NO fact based objection to her *correct statement*. Up your meds; they're clearly failing you. > you are now going to disagree with yourself? OK, whatever. Ah, the flounce of the fact free sexist bigot retard. Ptui. Andre > Doug Anderson (misandrist-loon@retard.cow) weasels: > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > ONLY rational possible objection, and explained how it was > disproven. You'd have to actually have read what I posted to understand my objection. If you really want to know, I invite you to read my post. Apparently you didn't. Doug Anderson (flaming-loon@pig.dog.cow) flat out lies: >> Doug Anderson (misandrist-loon@retard.cow) weasels: >> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You'd have to actually have read what I posted to understand my > objection. <yawn> No proof offered that I didn't ? Self serving fact free lying cowshit claim still fails. > If you really want to know, I invite you to read my post. Apparently > you didn't. Ibid. No refutation of my statements offered ? My statements, fully refuting your cowshit lies, stands. Deal with it, man hating looser pig. Ptui. Baby Feminists is SO *stoopid* ! Andre > Dougie Anderson (misandrist-loon@retard.cow) further de-logics: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Indeed. Note that " commonly " is NOT a statement, either way, of > majority or minority status. Wrong! For something to be in common (in the context that Jayne used it in), it has to occur in majority of cases. 4 a : WIDESPREAD, GENERAL <common knowledge, common occurence> "Kitty" (crazy-man-hater@retard.cow) whines: >> Dougie Anderson (misandrist-loon@retard.cow) further de-logics: >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Wrong! NO proof offered ? Cowshit claim fails. > For something to be in common (in the context that Jayne used it in), No proof offered ? In fact, PROOF of Jayne's actual use snipped AWAY ? Self serving, *false* claim fails. > it has to occur in majority of cases. > > 4 a : WIDESPREAD, GENERAL <common knowledge, common occurence> See dictionary: Note that " common " and " majority " are NOT synonyms. QED. Baby Feminists is SO *stoopid* !! Andre Doug Anderson (pussi-boi.misandrist-liar@retard.cow) further illiterates: >> Doug Anderson (pussiboi@misandrist@loon) demands that Free Speech STOP: >> > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Reading problems again? _Jayne_ was suggesting that rape is > under-reported. <laughs> Nope, thats your reading prboblem. Jayne was hypothesing that there may well be different reporting rates between those two groups of women. When you ADD that to the KNOWN FACT that very many rape claims are utterly FALSE, then you may still have an OVER reporting rate, with under-reports from non-physically damaged actual victims being more than compensated by FALSE reports. Resulting still, in OVER reporting. Rape is a serious crime. When it actually happens, it is one. But, in many real cases, its not the next worst thing to death, as Festering femmeroids and their slurpers claim that is MUST BE. > Not me. <Massive Projection> >> Too bad for *you* that there are NO facts that support your misandry. >> Ptui. > > You mean Jayne's misandry. Wrong. But, at least you are consistant; Consistantly WRONG. Ptui. Andre >>I made the factually correct statement that rape does not necessarily >>involve physical damage. > You are being disengenuous. You knowingly or unknowingly manipulated > quotes to imply that there is no physical damage a majority of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This would seem to be an attempt to minimize the seriousness of the > crime. Playing the devil's advocate here, the answers to your questions would depend upon the nature of the even and whether it was a "rape", as understood by the vast majority (ie: a violent attack and forced intercourse) or the more "modern" variety such as described by the likes of Mary Koss who found that 27% of college women had been raped...the only problem of course was the 75% of those women didn't think that they had been raped at all ! So you see, often what the *law* calls "rape" and what the general public thinks of as "rape" are substantially different...and in may cases of "legal" rape, Jayne is quite correct, no physical "damage" has resulted at all...in fact, one of the primary reasons for aquital on a charge of rape is *still* the complete lack of physical evidence, no bruises, not tearing, no chaffing or abrasion...in fact no indication that this "rape" was in any way (physically) different from consensual intercourse... It's easy to see where this arises when we consider the words of some of the most influential feminists of the last 40 years, the theory that sex is rape, as articulated by feminist "scholars" and "legalists" such as: Catherine MacKinnon in "Professing Feminism, where she says "In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" -- Or Marilyn French in "The Women's Room""All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- And Robin Morgan "I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- > If you are going to consider this evidence, then you need to consider > the commonly circulated assertion that rape is vastly under-reported > and is a huge and epidemic problem. This clashes with the soc.men > tenet that rape is vastly _over_ reported. It's not just a "soc.men" tenet...these are the findings of a large number of researchers in the field...consider but one example (and not the most damning): Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, pages 81-90 False Rape Allegations Eugene J. Kanin, Ph.D. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Purdue University, 1365 Winthrop E. Stone Hall, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1365. ABSTRACT: With the cooperation of the police agency of a small metropolitan community, 45 consecutive, disposed, false rape allegations covering a 9 year period were studied. These false rape allegations constitute 41% the total forcible rape cases (n= 109) reported during this period. These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations The full article is available on line...it has never been successfully challenged, let alone refuted... ...Ken > >>I made the factually correct statement that rape does not necessarily > >>involve physical damage. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Playing the devil's advocate here, the answers to your > questions I didn't ask any questions. > would depend upon the nature of the even and whether it was > a "rape", as understood by the vast majority (ie: a violent attack and > forced intercourse) or the more "modern" variety such as described by > the likes of Mary Koss who found that 27% of college women had been > raped...the only problem of course was the 75% of those women didn't > think that they had been raped at all ! I go by the legal definition: forced sexual intercourse. Either physical force, or forced cooperation while under physical threat. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by trying to muddy the waters about the meaning of rape, or why you dignify that pursuit by calling it "playing devil's advocate." > > > [...] > > > > Let's be fair. The lack of knowledge of our own bodies is one of the big [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Jayne Nice job of emergency internet research. (Amazing what one can do with their back to the wall.) But I never said that sexual arousal was the only thing that could produce vaginal lubrication. And you need to be careful when you talk about unreported cases of rape. We both know that soc.men orthodoxy requires it's cult members to believe that either half or "most" rape reports are false. If you keep looking things up on the internet in order to save the credibility of your female persona, you're likely to report something that will alienate the anti-female fanatics in your soc.men fan club. What a tangled web we weave - yes? LOL! Cat [...] > > Perhaps I can demonstrate my above average knowlege of women's > > physiology by correcting your apparent assumption that sexual arousal [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Nice job of emergency internet research. (Amazing what one can do with > their back to the wall.) I wrote that without looking anything up. Besides, how would I have known that there was anything to look up, if I hadn't already known that you were wrong? >But I never said that sexual arousal was the > only thing that could produce vaginal lubrication. You did not say it. However, it was clearly the underlying assumpiton of your remarks because they would not have made sense otherwise. In the context of discussing vaginal tearing, you wrote: "Consider your own vagina for a moment. (That's amusing...) Are you in a constant state of sexual arousal? Is your vagina always filled with blood and lubricated as when you are preparing for intercourse? (That's why foreplay is kind of important darling.)" Jayne > > interferes with this process.) This feels very much like the sensation > > on sexual arousal and I would almost always dream about sex during that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > their back to the wall.) But I never said that sexual arousal was the > only thing that could produce vaginal lubrication. Heh, that might just be the proof that Jayne never had an OBGYN exam with a pap. > Heh, that might just be the proof that Jayne never had an OBGYN exam > with a pap. "She'll" have to do more research and try again with another nic. You know, it has occurred to me that "Jayne" could be a tranny. Wouldn't that be a hoot?! Cat >> Heh, that might just be the proof that Jayne never had an OBGYN exam >> with a pap. > >"She'll" have to do more research and try again with another nic. >You know, it has occurred to me that "Jayne" could be a tranny. >Wouldn't that be a hoot?! hehehe... 'butt up in the air' would take a whole new meaning. [ducking and running] >> > [...] >> > > Let's be fair. The lack of knowledge of our own bodies is one of the big [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Andre speaks at science fiction conventions and is very good at it. As Fiction does seem to be his forte >[...] >> > > Based on your logic these two are not only comparable but should [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >the sex act causes emotional damage. If feelings are irrelevant, then >I do not see how we can even talk about the damage caused by rape. Maybe you *are* a guy. You have no comprehension of rape whatsoever, and even less of the feelings, at least female feelings, while you are all about male feelings. How fair is that? You don;t know squat about fairness, and if you can't comprehend the damage caused by the rape, then you are incapable of feeling for the underdog, and have no capacity to objectively evaluate the comparison you were making. >> > Therefore your analogy is incorrect. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Your analogy does not match my argument; it matches your view of the >situation. We're not interested in your argument, since it's been obvious a while ago that it doesn't hold water. Didn't you *get* that? >> > There is >> > nothing wrong with my logic. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >My conclusions follow logically from my premises. Your premises are not realistic, so your argument and conclusions are pure fiction, and not applicable to RL. That's probably why most people here don't care to bother with them. > Your premises are not realistic, so your argument and conclusions are > pure fiction, and not applicable to RL. That's probably why most > people here don't care to bother with them. Outside the dark and smelly confines of soc.men, almost nothing soc.men'ers believe about the world finds much credibility. They "Jayne" character is safe there, with the nutty-boys, who want desperately to believe that they are not k00ks and that someone will "feel their pain." Sock puppets like "Jayne" were created to meet that obvious need. Yes - I agree that "Jayne" gives little credit to men. I think an astute man will see through this hoax too. And quite probably from an angle of observation that I, as a woman, don't share. Cat >>> [...] >>>>> So you do not think that one point of similarity is enough to claim [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > refused sex as a deliberate act to punish or manipulate is similar to > the pain of being raped. Well then, this is the problem right here: clearly you don't understand it. > Therefore your analogy is incorrect. There is > nothing wrong with my logic. It is possible that my understanding of > the pain that other people experience is wrong because it is difficult > to know what others are feeling. > > Jayne > [...] >> >So you do not think that one point of similarity is enough to claim [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jayne You said *as* seriously. >[...] >> >So you do not think that one point of similarity is enough to claim [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I said they ought to be taken equally seriously. I did not say they >were equal. Then why should unequal things be taken equally seriously? It's like saying that one should pay the same amount of money whether they're getting a glass of wine, or a whole case. On one hand you go on about how you're very interested in fairness, but yet you want to treat unequal things equally. Where's fairness in that??? Makes no sense. This is where your ideas and arguments go downhill, you contradict yourself, which indicates they're not thought through very well. >> > > > [...] >> > > >> > When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or manipulating [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >serious and that some instances of emotional abuse are equally serious >to some instances of physical abuse. That's not what you were saying earlier. >> Furthermore, you are engaging in manipulative use of language which >> is not quite worthy of the sophists by ignoring that fact that physical [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >emotional abuse. I would think that this point of similarity supports >my claim that they are comparable. On one hand you talk about them being comparable, on the other hand you talk about them being equal. You're all over the place. Your brainwasher needs to teach you some better debating and expression techniques. > I never said that rape was identical to abusive withholding of sex. I > said it was comparable and ought to be taken equally seriously. What > do you think of this statement: Stephanie can speak for herself, but this is a public forum so I will respond too! > Emotional abuse is comparable to physical abuse I disagree. Physical abuse always includes emotional abuse as well. So perhaps it can be said that at times the emotional abuse involved in physical abuse is comparable to some serious forms of emotional abuse alone. It is also *possible* that emotional abuse is so severe that the pain is devastating, and even more than some mild forms of physical abuse (with their imbedded emotional abuse). But in general (and certainly in the context that is being discussed in this thread) they are different by nature and not comparable. > and ought to be taken > equally seriously. Even ignoring the very important fact that physical abuse is usually MORE of an emotional abuse than emotional abuses alone, "taken seriously" is a clever use of words to distract from reality. You have to clarify what you mean by "taken equally seriously". Do you mean venting with the same level of vengeance in soc.men? Do you mean verbally condemning the person committing it? Do you mean supporting a person's right to leave the abusive environment? Do you mean acknowledging that it is painful? Then yes, they ought to be taken "equally seriously". But if you mean that society should treat them the same way in terms of sanctions or punishments, then I strongly disagree that they should be treated equally seriously. > Even if you disagreed, would you claim that a > person who said it was hateful or depraved? IF the person categorized people into two groups (say, men/women, black/white, etc.), assigned each form of "abuse" to one of the groups (say, "typically male offence"/"typically female offence"), didn't acknowledge the direct responsibility of the physical abuser for the *act* that causes great emotional as well as physical abuse, didn't acknowledge that their emotional abuser has done nothing abusive and is not directly responsible for the *feelings* of the supposedly abused party, and in general ignored objective facts for the purpose of minimizing the "act" of their preferred group and overflowing the "non-act" of the other group.... then YES, I certainly claim that the person is hateful. > minimizing the "act" of their preferred group and overflowing the Oops, I meant "overblowing" (even if it's not a valid word) - my spell checker changed it to overflowing! > > I never said that rape was identical to abusive withholding of sex. I > > said it was comparable and ought to be taken equally seriously. What [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > certainly in the context that is being discussed in this thread) they > are different by nature and not comparable. So you think it is possible for them to be comparable under some circumstances, just not in general. > > and ought to be taken > > equally seriously. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > acknowledging that it is painful? Then yes, they ought to be taken > "equally seriously". That is the sort of thing I was trying to get at with my comments about portrayal in comedy giving a message that it is acceptable and amusing. > But if you mean that society should treat them the > same way in terms of sanctions or punishments, then I strongly disagree > that they should be treated equally seriously. Even if one thought that society should do this, it would not be practical. It is much harder to establish the existence of emotional abuse than physical abuse. > > Even if you disagreed, would you claim that a > > person who said it was hateful or depraved? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "non-act" of the other group.... then YES, I certainly claim that the > person is hateful. I gather that you think this is my position. I don't see where you are getting these things from. Do you really think that I think that men are not responsible for their actions if they commit rape? Have you missed my repeated statements that I am talking about cases in which a person withholds sex *deliberately* to cause pain or manipulate? Jayne > > I disagree. Physical abuse always includes emotional abuse as well. So > > perhaps it can be said that at times the emotional abuse involved in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So you think it is possible for them to be comparable under some > circumstances, just not in general. I think I was clear. But let me amend what I said above. I don't see any useful purpose in "comparing" two very different things. So nitpicking about whether or not they can be comparable under some very odd circumstances is of no interest to me. > > Even ignoring the very important fact that physical abuse is usually > > MORE of an emotional abuse than emotional abuses alone, "taken [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That is the sort of thing I was trying to get at with my comments about > portrayal in comedy giving a message that it is acceptable and amusing. OK. You can write to the sitcom producers and express your concern. Me? I have way too many complains about serious misrepresentation in the media to even think of this issue as a problem. > > But if you mean that society should treat them the > > same way in terms of sanctions or punishments, then I strongly disagree > > that they should be treated equally seriously. > > Even if one thought that society should do this, it would not be > practical. This "one" doesn't think that society should do it -- even if practical. > It is much harder to establish the existence of emotional > abuse than physical abuse. Yes, and that should tell you something. I am in no way downplaying serious emotional abuse and its existence. But much of what is presented as such (not only by men, mind you) is simply not taking responsibility for our own emotions and feelings, and blaming others for making us "feel" this way or that way. > > IF the person categorized people into two groups (say, men/women, > > black/white, etc.), assigned each form of "abuse" to one of the groups [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I gather that you think this is my position. I don't see where you are > getting these things from. >From the collective body of your writings. > Do you really think that I think that men > are not responsible for their actions if they commit rape? Yes, I do. I can't help it when you compare their act to that of a woman refusing to have sex. If you think these two are remotely comparable then you don't hold men responsible for their action in my view. Tell me, can you imagine a circumstances in which forcing a woman to have sex is justified? > Have you > missed my repeated statements that I am talking about cases in which a > person withholds sex *deliberately* to cause pain or manipulate? No, I haven't. And that's exactly why I think you don't hold men responsible. That you think withholding sex "for any reason" is even on the same plane as raping a person is a clear indication that you have no clue what being responsible for one's "actions" mean. > I think I was clear. But let me amend what I said above. I don't see > any useful purpose in "comparing" two very different things. So > nitpicking about whether or not they can be comparable under some very > odd circumstances is of no interest to me. It's an invideous analogy...serving only to encourage mutual animosity. And what is more, this "Jayne" person knows it well. Acting like "the good cop" to Andre's bad (or just plain stupid) doesn't alter anything. Cat > I gather that you think this is my position. I don't see where you are > getting these things from. Do you really think that I think that men > are not responsible for their actions if they commit rape? Have you > missed my repeated statements that I am talking about cases in which a > person withholds sex *deliberately* to cause pain or manipulate? The two things just are not comparable - a person who believes their partner is deliberately withholding sex in order to cause pain or manipulate is free to leave the situation. They do not have to tolerate it - they can just say "I don't need this". This would be true for either gender, btw. A person who is being raped does NOT have the freedom to leave the situation. By definition, they are being forced. A situation in which the partner is free to depart is never going to be comparable to a situation in which the victimized partner is not. >> I gather that you think this is my position. I don't see where you are >> getting these things from. Do you really think that I think that men [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to depart is never going to be comparable to a situation in which the > victimized partner is not. I really would like someone to explain to me how *anyone* could be so dense as to not get this!! (It's really bugging me). >[...] >> > When withholding sex is done for the purpose of hurting or manipulating [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Emotional abuse is comparable to physical abuse and ought to be taken >equally seriously. Emotional abuse can be psychologically damaging, but physical abuse can be psychologically AND physically damaging, where someone's basic safety is immediately threatened. If you knew anything about human needs, you;d know that a person can sustain themselves a lot longer with their emotional well being threatened then with their physical safety threatened, and someone being emotionally abused usually has a lot more ways out then someone physically abused. It's like saying a paper cut and amputation should be taken equally seriously. >> Of course comments that I make about refusing sex to >>punish or manipulate don't apply to every case of refusing sex. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It should always be legal and appropriate for a man or woman to refuse > sex for any reason he or she wants to. I agree and support this notion but to prevent any sort of coercion, perhaps we should add the proviso that if an individual refuses sexual intimacy to their partner without "legitimate" reason, and I'm sure we could argue what is a "legitimate" reason for ever ;-), that the partner can not be expected to maintain their vow of fidelity... > It should never be legal or appropriate for one person to force > another to into sexual relations or a sexual act. Absolutely agreed with a couple of disclaimers: ONE, it's not "rape" if a man refuses to stop once "consensual" intercourse has begun...he may be guilty of a misdemeanor but nothing more; TWO, all (conscious, unimpaired) individuals are responsible to clearly make their wishes known. All individual have a responsibility to say NO if they do not want to participate in a particular activity. (Of course it should still constitute rape to have intercourse with an unconscious/impaired individual...see below for exception); THREE, "coercion" implies threat of force or violence, it's NOT coercion to tell a women that you won't go out with her again or that you won't drive her home (provided this doesn't put her in undue danger) if she doesn't have sex with you...you may be a cad but you're NOT a criminal since she DOES have a viable, if unpleasant CHOICE; FOUR, the crimes of rape/sexual assault must no longer be seen as "absolute liability" crimes. This would mean, for example, that if otherwise consensual intercourse occurs when BOTH parties are drunk and/or high, then NEITHER party can be seem as having committed an offence...if the drunk/high women is, by virtue of her impaired state, incapable of giving consent, then the man, by virtue of HIS impaired state is incapable of forming the mens rea to commit an offense These are some simple propositions that would hopefully level the power balance between men and women in the intimate arena by insuring that men and women are held to the same standards of behavior and are both expected to behave responsibly...what do you think ? ...Ken > >> Of course comments that I make about refusing sex to > >>punish or manipulate don't apply to every case of refusing sex. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ;-), that the partner can not be expected to maintain their vow of > fidelity... Better yet - if you don't want to be held to a vow, just don't make it. No one is forcing you to. I don't know how you can decide what is a "legitimate" reason for not having sex with someone you don't want to, and what isn't. As far as I'm concerned "I don't want to" is perfectly legitimate. And the thought of coercing someone who doesn't want to have sex with you into doing it is sickening. > > It should never be legal or appropriate for one person to force > > another to into sexual relations or a sexual act. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > insuring that men and women are held to the same standards of behavior > and are both expected to behave responsibly...what do you think ? I think that it is astonishing for you to be working so hard to justify what various instances of non-consensual sex. If consensual sex is really unavailable to a man, I suggest that masturbation is both more fun than rape (or whatever you want to call your other forms of non-consensual sex) and not subject to legal action. From the legal point of view, I don't know why you are holding up proposals which are _already_ the de facto level of enforcement as necessary to level the power balance. I can only think that by codifying them you would wish to make it impossible to prosecute rape. >>>Regardless of whatever moral weight you assign to refusing sex, let >>>me put a proposition to you: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>;-), that the partner can not be expected to maintain their vow of >>fidelity... > Better yet - if you don't want to be held to a vow, just don't make > it. No one is forcing you to. I agree, but the corollary is, if you don't live up your marital vows/obligations, you can't, with integrity, expect to hold your spouse to his/hers...so, if you refuse sexual intimacy to your spouse, your can't, with any moral justification, expect your partner to maintain a vow of fidelity... > I don't know how you can decide what is a "legitimate" reason for not > having sex with someone Illness, injury, no time due to other obligations...there are all sorts, but using the withdrawal of sex to punish or coerce your spouce/partner because they did something you didn't want them to do or didn't do something you wanted them to do isn't one of them... > you don't want to, and what isn't. > As far as I'm concerned "I don't want to" is perfectly legitimate. "Not wanting to" is a perfectly acceptable reason...if it occurs infrequently...it you *truly* don't want to though, you should tell your spouse you don't want an intimate relationship with them and give them your blessing to seek sexual intimacy elsewhere...but trying to control your spouse via sex should be seen as a completely illegitimate and abusive endeavor... > And the thought of coercing someone who doesn't want to have sex with > you into doing it is sickening. Like forcing someone to be a parent when they don't want to ? >>>It should never be legal or appropriate for one person to force >>>another to into sexual relations or a sexual act. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>insuring that men and women are held to the same standards of behavior >>and are both expected to behave responsibly...what do you think ? > I think that it is astonishing for you to be working so hard to > justify what various instances of non-consensual sex. What's "non-consensual ? In the first case, above, the intercourse began as a consensual act, further, while stopping "in the middle" of intercourse has no medical implication for women, it certainly does have medical implications for men and in severe cases can cause several quite painful and possibly be a cause of impotence so expecting a man to "stop in the middle" at the woman's whim is completely unreasonable. In the second instance, it should not be incumbent upon anyone to be a mind reader. If you don't want to participate in something, your should be obligated to express that objection in clear, direct language... The third simply recognizes if an individual makes a choice to do something that they don't particularly want to do to avoid something they want to avoid more that...except in the case of physical violence...this is a CHOICE...they haven't been "criminally coerced" any more than you were "coerced" into working overtime because your boss said he's fire your a.s if you didn't...if an individual agrees to sex to avoid walking home...they have AGREED = CONSENTED TO SEX...which is different from someone putting a gun to your head... The fourth is simply "equal treatment before and under the law" (do you recognize that...it's from the US Bill Of Rights)...if a drunk woman is incapable of giving consent, then a drunk man must be equally incapable of forming mens rea (guilty mind) which is the common standard for virtually every other crime...why should rape be different ? > From the legal point of view, I don't know why you are holding up > proposals which are _already_ the de facto level of enforcement as > necessary to level the power balance. I can only think that by > codifying them you would wish to make it impossible to prosecute rape. No, just more difficult. Far to many false accusations are made, far too many men innocent men are convicted of rape...lets require the same standards of evidence and accusation that we require for any other crime... ...Ken > >>>Regardless of whatever moral weight you assign to refusing sex, let > >>>me put a proposition to you: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > spouse, your can't, with any moral justification, expect your partner > to maintain a vow of fidelity... I don't expect my wife to be sexually intimate with me unless she wants to. If I'm unable to fulfill the conditions necessary for her to want that, I might seriously think about divorce. > > I don't know how you can decide what is a "legitimate" reason for not > > having sex with someone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spouce/partner because they did something you didn't want them to do > or didn't do something you wanted them to do isn't one of them... I think that is nuts. If someone doesn't want to have sex with someone, then they shouldn't. Whatever their reasons. Furthermore, I can imagine few things worse than having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with me. And I feel sorry for people who are so desparate or twisted (and yes, I think it _is_ twisted) to _want_ to have sex with someone who doesn't want sex with them. Masturbation is cheaper and better. (Further excuses for non-consensual sex, and unsubstantiated claims that false conviction for rape is common, cmitted.) >> I agree, but the corollary is, if you don't live up your >>marital vows/obligations, you can't, with integrity, expect to hold >>your spouse to his/hers...so, if you refuse sexual intimacy to your >>spouse, your can't, with any moral justification, expect your partner >>to maintain a vow of fidelity... > I don't expect my wife to be sexually intimate with me unless she > wants to. You are making the dangerous assumption that the reason a women isn't having sex with her partner is because she "doesn't want to". In many cases it isn't a matter that she "doesn't want to" (as in has no desire to) but is more a matter of her exerting the self discipline necessary to use her sexuality to modify and/or control your behaviour, in the same way that she might exert self discipline to modify and/or control the behaviour of a child and while she might be able to rationalize her behaviour to the extent that she feels fully justified in doing so, this is fundamentally and abusive, condescending and disrespectful ploy > If I'm unable to fulfill the conditions necessary for her > to want that, And what if it's not a matter of her "not wanting to" (as in having no desire to be with you) but simply a ploy to get you do do things you don't want to do or to refrain from doing things you want to do...let's posit a scenario (one that actually happened to a fellow who works for me) say your are a sports fan and you want to watch the game but your wife wants to go visit her sister with whom you have, at best, a troubled relationship. You tell her to go ahead but she insists that you come with her and when you continue to refuse she tells you that if you don't come you can forget about sex for the foreseeable future ? Sound reasonable to you does it ? > I might seriously think about divorce. Which would be a much stronger threat if it weren't for the fact that if you do you will likely be financially and emotionally destroyed in the process, you could have your good name and personally reputation sullied by false accusations of domestic violence and/or child abuse...remember Doug, feminist rhetoric aside, men are by far the biggest losers in divorce... >>>I don't know how you can decide what is a "legitimate" reason for not >>>having sex with someone [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If someone doesn't want to have sex with someone, then they > shouldn't. Whatever their reasons. Again, when it's about control it's not about wanting or not wanting to have sex but about using sex to obtain an end that favours the interests/desires of one partner while disregarding the interests of the target partner... > Furthermore, I can imagine few things worse than having sex with > someone who doesn't want to have sex with me. I agree and if you think that I advocating for that you have missed the whole point... > Masturbation is cheaper and better. But oh so lonely... > (Further excuses for non-consensual sex, and unsubstantiated claims > that false conviction for rape is common, cmitted.) I find it strange that you think the "claim" that the false conviction rate for rape is unsubstantiated when, since 1992 over 700 men have been released from US prisons after DNA testing proved their innocence...700 men who have continually asserted their innocence...that's a hell of a lot of falsely convicted men don't you think ? Even more troubling is the fact that almost 85% of these men were convicted based upon mistaken "eye witness" testimony and that close to 90% of all rape convictions result from eye witness testimony so it's probably reasonable to speculate that there are similar numbers of false convictions in those cases where there is no available biological evidence that can be offered for DNA tests...there certainly are a lot of men "claiming" innocence...just as these 700 did... ...Ken > >> I agree, but the corollary is, if you don't live up your > >>marital vows/obligations, you can't, with integrity, expect to hold [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > fully justified in doing so, this is fundamentally and abusive, > condescending and disrespectful ploy Hey Ken. Ever here of Occam's Razor? You're in danger of bleeding to death here! >>>> I agree, but the corollary is, if you don't live up your >>>>marital vows/obligations, you can't, with integrity, expect to hold [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Hey Ken. Ever here of Occam's Razor? You're in danger of bleeding to > death here! I must say that reading these soc.men stuff has been quite enlightening. So far we've learned that "men" are these weak, vulnerable, helpless, irrational, easily manipulatable people who have no control over their feelings and are totally at the mercy of women who can pull them around by their sexual leash, and cause them deep suffering and emotional pain. Now we are learning that women, in contrast, are self disciplined, clever, rational, smart, strong people who know what they want, can control and modify men's behaviors like children, and get them to behave as they want them to. What a great privilege to have been born a mighty female instead of a feeble male! > What a great privilege to have been born a mighty female instead of a > feeble male! But most importantly, Ellie, you managed to escape marriage to a feeble man. Your hubby sounds like a mensch....a lovely and manly mench. I don't know anyone in real life who you might encounter on soc. men. It's like a diferent planet from my wolrd. Yours, too, I'd imagine. Grace >>What a great privilege to have been born a mighty female instead of a >>feeble male! > > But most importantly, Ellie, you managed to escape marriage to a feeble > man. Yes, indeed. Furthermore, I really don't know any feeble men who fit the image that's presented in soc.men. The men that I know have far more control over themselves and *cannot* be so easily manipulated by women's sexuality -- even if some vicious women tried. Sex can only be used as a controlling tool by women if it is viewed and treated that way by the man. > I must say that reading these soc.men stuff has been quite enlightening. > So far we've learned that "men" are these weak, vulnerable, helpless, > irrational, easily manipulatable people who have no control over their > feelings and are totally at the mercy of women who can pull them around > by their sexual leash, and cause them deep suffering and emotional pain. > Now we are learning that women, in contrast, are self disciplined, > clever, rational, smart, strong people who know what they want, can > control and modify men's behaviors like children, and get them to behave > as they want them to. > What a great privilege to have been born a mighty female instead of a > feeble male! Thank you Ellie! I think you have hit upon the real issue with the soc.men crowd. They are the sad little boys of the male gender, now grown to angry ravers. Fortunately, there are many many good men in the world. And these few soc.men'ers are, well, I guess the ones that didn't make the team. Cat >>>>> I agree, but the corollary is, if you don't live up your >>>>> marital vows/obligations, you can't, with integrity, expect to hold [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > What a great privilege to have been born a mighty female instead of a > feeble male! Ah, so you to have also missed (ignored?) the point to Ellie ? ...Ken > And what if it's not a matter of her "not wanting to" (as in having > no desire to be with you) but simply a ploy to get you do do things you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't come you can forget about sex for the foreseeable future ? Sound > reasonable to you does it ? It does indeed. What is "reasonable" depends on the kind of relationship between two people. If the arrangement is something like "I married you, I am entitled to sex, I have my duties towards you, you have your duties towards me, providing sex is one of your duties", then it's perfectly reasonable that negotiations are done based on the terms of their marriage. Sex becomes something that she "gives" him and the currency with which she can get what she needs, because she gets nothing else out of it. In the case of your scenario, he is most likely one of those guys who, while watching game, calls her during the commercial to satisfy his sexual needs. She is able to use it as a negotiating tool because he treats it that way. Making love to a loving man who care about a woman's feelings and takes pleasure in *her* ecstasy is one of the most fulfilling and satisfying experiences that a woman can have. It's very unlikely that she'd be willing to give up such an experience for a visit to her sister's house! But of course that's not what she gets, is it? If sex doesn't provide any more pleasure than visiting sister, then indeed, it's very reasonable for her to negotiate that deal! It never seizes to amaze me that men who claim women use sex to get other "seemingly trivial" things don't ever stop to wonder *why* a woman is soooo indifferent towards sex with them that she's willing to give it up so easily. They don't stop to think that unless she was a sick masochist she wouldn't want to give it up IF it gave her one of the most pleasurable experiences of life. I think that's because if they go there then they have to start thinking about sex as more than just a service that they're entitled to from their lives -- and that must be very hard for them to comprehend. > > > I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose > > > of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I doubt that one could. Me neither! So why are you even bothering to bring this point up, if it can't be proven anyway? Isn't it likely that an unempathetic man is going to view his wife's "no" as being manipulative and punishing (ie., all about himself, rather than anything that could possibly have to do with another person)? When it may have absolutely nothing to do with him at all? Although if he keeps going down that path - that she's manipulative and punishing and it's all about HIM HIM HIM - then she may very well start to become unempathetic towards him herself. > However, it is not necessary to prove it in > order to create a culture in which this is considered as unacceptable > rather than normal and amusing. What is needed is to talk about it as > the abusive and painful thing it is. Which is, I imagine, just as abusive and painful as asking a woman to submit to sex with her husband even if she just had a baby and the scars are still not healed, she has been up all night with puking kids and is exhausted, she has health problems that make sex painful, or she is having traumatic memories of sexual abuse as a child. > > > Obviously there are other reasons why a person > > > might not want to have sex. Those situations are irrelevant to what I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sex in general, when I have been talking about a specific subset of > these situations. That you admit can't even be proven. > Of course comments that I make about refusing sex to > punish or manipulate don't apply to every case of refusing sex. > Refusing sex is, in itself, a morally neutral act. It can become good > or evil depending on the circumstances and motivation. Good of you to back off, now that you've noticed you got yourself down a path you can't win. jen > > > > I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose > > > > of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Me neither! So why are you even bothering to bring this point up, if it > can't be proven anyway? Good question. She has specifically tried to create an analogy between the pain of being raped and the pain of being deprived of sex. Although this in and of itself would seem laughably spurious to me if it weren't for that fact that she seems to be serious, it undercuts her assertion that she is mainly concerned about cases where women deprive men of sex to be manipulative or punitive. What she is actually concerned about is the degree of pain that the men feel. Now I'm sympathetic to pain, but any person who finds him or her self being psychically ripped up by denial of sex, is, IMO, stuck in an infantile stage of development where any interruption of the flow of comfort and gratification from the Mother figure brings up the infantile feelings of disappointment at discovering that not all desires are always gratified. The appropriate reaction to that is _not_ to supply instant gratification to the sufferer, but to help him or her grow up. > Good question. She has specifically tried to create an analogy > between the pain of being raped and the pain of being deprived of sex. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > _not_ to supply instant gratification to the sufferer, but to help him > or her grow up. It's not as simple as that! I have read some of her posts in soc.men, and it appears that her concern about men's pain is not solely based on what lack of sex "feels" by itself, but the "emotional pain" of being deprived of something that in her mind is a man's god-given right. It's like someone stealing your lunch for which you have spared sweat and blood! You won't *just* suffer from hunger, but also the rage of being ripped off. Here is a sample of her posts on the subject. I think they support my theory! <begine quote> The principle works like this: if you promise to marry a person you have an obligation to keep your promise and can be held responsible for the emotional pain caused by your faillure to do so. It seems to me that we ought to apply similar reasoning to sex. If you promise to have sex (which is implicit in marriage) then you have an obligation to keep your promise and ought to be held responsible for the emotional pain caused by your failure to do so. [...] People do not have a right to fail in their obligations. Just as refusal to pay taxes is considered comparable to stealing from the government, persistent refusal to have sex with one's spouse is an abuse of the spouse comparable to rape. [...] Some things are very wrong but it is not practical to make laws about them because the law would not be enforcable. Proving that a person is denying sex for a bad motive is probably not practical. It may be more practical to establish long-term denial of sex. If so, this could be grounds for civil suits. [...] If I have promised to have sex with a person I do not have a right to rescind my promise. I have a right to decide who I will have sex with. I do not have a right to say that I will have sex and then not do it. Why should my right to my body be different from my right to property? If I own a bicycle and agree to sell it to you, I do not have a right to refuse to sell you the bicycle. <end quote> > > Good question. She has specifically tried to create an analogy > > between the pain of being raped and the pain of being deprived of sex. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > ripped off. Here is a sample of her posts on the subject. I think they > support my theory! Hmmm...but that also supports mine! That being - "Jayne" is an embittered man. Cat > <begine quote> > The principle works like this: if you promise to marry a person you [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > to refuse to sell you the bicycle. > <end quote> > > It's not as simple as that! I have read some of her posts in soc.men, > > and it appears that her concern about men's pain is not solely based on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hmmm...but that also supports mine! That being - "Jayne" is an > embittered man. Not to me. Furthermore, I don't care if she is or isn't a woman (or how she chooses to live her life, for that matter). I respond to her *ideas*, not her person [...] > > Hmmm...but that also supports mine! That being - "Jayne" is an > > embittered man. > > Not to me. Furthermore, I don't care if she is or isn't a woman (or > how she chooses to live her life, for that matter). I respond to her > *ideas*, not her person. Thank you, Ellie. I wish Catbrier could learn to do the same. Jayne > [...] > > > Hmmm...but that also supports mine! That being - "Jayne" is an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you, Ellie. I wish Catbrier could learn to do the same. Why is it important that she learns to do the same? You can give importance to her claim or ignore it. Usually people stick with something as long as it gets them the reaction they want. > > [...] > > > > Hmmm...but that also supports mine! That being - "Jayne" is an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > importance to her claim or ignore it. Usually people stick with > something as long as it gets them the reaction they want. I tend to ignore it when she posts it to groups where people are already familiar with the people about whom she makes her false claims. They are so obviously absurd that it is not necessary to say anything. When new groups get included into the cross-posts, I feel it is important to go on record with the truth. Cat impugns my honesty and tries to destroy my crediblity rather than directly dealing with my ideas. This reveals more about her than about me. Jayne > I tend to ignore it when she posts it to groups where people are > already familiar with the people about whom she makes her false claims. What a liar you are! I never start any threads - nor do I purposely cross-post anything. > They are so obviously absurd that it is not necessary to say anything. And yet you have - in volumes. > When new groups get included into the cross-posts, I feel it is > important to go on record with the truth. LOL! Of course, of course, you are, once again - the victim! > Cat impugns my honesty and > tries to destroy my crediblity rather than directly dealing with my > ideas. This reveals more about her than about me. > Jayne You destroy your own credibility by posting ideas that are so blatently stupid that they are self-destroying. Cat > > > [...] > > > > > Hmmm...but that also supports mine! That being - "Jayne" is an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > tries to destroy my crediblity rather than directly dealing with my > ideas. This reveals more about her than about me. On the internet no one knows you are a dog. It is your ideas which destroy your credibility. Not whether you are a man, woman, martian or dolphin. >> > [...] >> > > > Hmmm...but that also supports mine! That being - "Jayne" is an [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >tries to destroy my crediblity rather than directly dealing with my >ideas. This reveals more about her than about me. You destroy your credibility by the way you present your arguments. With logical fallacies and lack of critical thinking. You being a man or a woman or Andre posting in girls underwear is independent of your arguments ability to hold water. > Why is it important that she learns to do the same? Possibly to save the elaborate hoax "she" has perpetrated? Or...? Oh, yes, her love of truth? ROTFLMAO! > You can give > importance to her claim or ignore it. Usually people stick with > something as long as it gets them the reaction they want. Or "she" can stand on "her" (sic) ideas. Cat > [...] > > > Hmmm...but that also supports mine! That being - "Jayne" is an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jayne "Jayne" - in order to get "your" ideas all I have to do is read Andre's or Connors, or Vikings...etc, et al. They are virtually identical. You simply repeat what they say. I have seldom seen such a mental/intellectual prison camp. Cat > > > > > I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose > > > > > of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Good question. She has specifically tried to create an analogy > between the pain of being raped and the pain of being deprived of sex. No I did not. I was comparing the pain of being raped with the pain when a loved one deliberately uses withholding sex to punish or manipulate. > Although this in and of itself would seem laughably spurious to me if > it weren't for that fact that she seems to be serious, it undercuts [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What she is actually concerned about is the degree of pain that the > men feel. At no point in this discussion have I been talking about deprivation of sex in general. In every single post I have made in this thread, I have taken care to qualify my comments on deprivation of sex to make clear that I am talking about one specific situation in which that deprivation might occur. Jayne >>>>>> I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose >>>>>> of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > when a loved one deliberately uses withholding sex to punish or > manipulate. You can NOT! And it's extremely depressing for me to believe that you think you can. And I don't need any more depression, thank you. > > > > > > I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose > > > > > > of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > when a loved one deliberately uses withholding sex to punish or > manipulate. When you make the issue the pain being felt by the person who isn't getting the sex that he (or she) wants, you are no longer making it an issue of the motive of the person who doesn't want to have sex. Personally I think the motive doesn't matter. If person A doesn't want to have sex with person B, then person A shouldn't. And again, I find any other opinion both shocking and bizarre. But regardless of the motive, when you speak about the pain, you are no longer speaking about the motive. The person feeling the pain has no way to divine the motive, and the motive isn't relevant to the pain. (Though the person feeling the pain may have beliefs about the motive, and his or her beliefs may make the pain better or worse. It still isn't the responsibility of the withholder.) > > Although this in and of itself would seem laughably spurious to me if > > it weren't for that fact that she seems to be serious, it undercuts [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > clear that I am talking about one specific situation in which that > deprivation might occur. Wrong. You have made clear that the issue is the amount of pain felt, not merely the motive of the person who wishes not to have sex. [...] > > > Good question. She has specifically tried to create an analogy > > > between the pain of being raped and the pain of being deprived of sex. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > getting the sex that he (or she) wants, you are no longer making it > an issue of the motive of the person who doesn't want to have sex. I was not "making an issue of the pain". I was saying that there are two points of similarity between rape and deliberately hurtful refusing of sex. Both are unethical abuses of sexuality and both involve inflicting serious emotional pain. > Personally I think the motive doesn't matter. If person A doesn't > want to have sex with person B, then person A shouldn't. And again, > I find any other opinion both shocking and bizarre. If a person repeatedly said to her/his spouse, "I don't love you. I think you are unattractive. I want to see you suffer. I want to control you," most people would consider this severe emotional abuse. This is exactly what a person withholding sex to punish and manipulate is saying with actions. That is why it is emotional abuse too. > But regardless of the motive, when you speak about the pain, you are > no longer speaking about the motive. The person feeling the pain has > no way to divine the motive, and the motive isn't relevant to the > pain. (Though the person feeling the pain may have beliefs about the > motive, and his or her beliefs may make the pain better or worse. It > still isn't the responsibility of the withholder.) A person who is deliberately withholding sex to inflict pain is likely to let their victim know rather than leaving the victim to imagine an innocuous explanation. > > > Although this in and of itself would seem laughably spurious to me if > > > it weren't for that fact that she seems to be serious, it undercuts [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Wrong. You have made clear that the issue is the amount of pain felt, > not merely the motive of the person who wishes not to have sex. I have been talking about the pain felt when sex is withheld in a deliberately hurtful way. I do not think this is anything like the unpleasantness of being deprived of sex because one's spouse is sick, for example. The knowledge that one's loved one wants to cause one pain would completely change the feelings involved. Jayne > [...] > > > > Good question. She has specifically tried to create an analogy [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of sex. Both are unethical abuses of sexuality and both involve > inflicting serious emotional pain. In an effort to force a point of similarity you are doing violence to meaning and language. Forcing someone to do something against their will isn't "an abuse of sexuality." It is assult. And saying no to sex also isn't an abuse of sexuality; it is excercising one's right to control one's own body. I don't ever want to be in a world where it is considered unethical or illegal _not_ to have sex with someon if you don't want to! Calling that an abuse of sexuality is positively Orwellian!! And again, rape typically results in severe emotional pain and I think it is fair to blame the person committing the assualt for that. However if someone refusing to have sex with you results in severe emotional pain, that is an indication of your own immaturity, and not something they have "inflicted" on you. There are so many horrific things about your point of view that it is hard to list them all, but let me add some others: 1) why would someone _want_ to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with them? 2) why would someone want to have sex with someone who enjoyed hurting them? 3) why are men supposed to be so infantile that the pain they experience in not getting a desire met is in any way comparable to the pain of being raped? 4) why are women supposed to be not autonomous enough to decide for themselves when and with whom they are willing to have sex? > In an effort to force a point of similarity you are doing violence to > meaning and language. It appears that whatever involves a woman and makes a man feel bad = rape. From being deceived about the paternity of a child, to being refused sex. I even remember reading a while ago that forcing a man to pay support for a child that he didn't want was "raping" him. It must be something in soc.men's air! > It appears that whatever involves a woman and makes a man feel bad = > rape. From being deceived about the paternity of a child, to being > refused sex. I even remember reading a while ago that forcing a man to > pay support for a child that he didn't want was "raping" him. It must > be something in soc.men's air! I hate to say this Ellie, but I have heard radical feminists say almost the identical thing. I once heard a woman describe Newton's Principia as a "rape manual". I think she thought it safe to say such an absurd thing because her audience was principally female. I remember outraging quite a few by openly laughing in her face and calling her statement - "stupid." Soc.men'ers are the direct mirror image of the most ridiculous and anti-male feminists. Soc.men'ers are most annoying when they whine incessantly about their alleged "victimhood." Cat > > It appears that whatever involves a woman and makes a man feel bad = > > rape. From being deceived about the paternity of a child, to being [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I hate to say this Ellie, but I have heard radical feminists say almost > the identical thing. So? Who said soc.men has a monopoly on being grotesque?! I have no intention of defending radical feminists or anyone else with deplorable views. > I once heard a woman describe Newton's Principia > as a "rape manual". I think she thought it safe to say such an absurd [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Soc.men'ers are the direct mirror image of the most ridiculous and > anti-male feminists. Yes, that could be... > Soc.men'ers are most annoying when they whine > incessantly about their alleged "victimhood." >> It appears that whatever involves a woman and makes a man feel bad = >> rape. From being deceived about the paternity of a child, to being [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > anti-male feminists. Soc.men'ers are most annoying when they whine > incessantly about their alleged "victimhood." I think that we, as people, have a desire for glory and adoration. And since we cannot all be famous at a national or international level, we tend to try to find a "niche" so that we can at least be a big fish in a little pond. This behavior can be demonstrated in all areas of life -- the mom who takes over the PTO, the "regulars" at the bar, and yes, the regular posters on Newsgroups. It is my opinion that many of these extremists, soc.men and rad- fems included, are simply trying to gain popularity or notoriety by magnifying their views. And so, when Jayne claims that Andre is a nice guy in person, I have no trouble believing that. He probably comes off as perfectly normal in real life. And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started out with more reasonable views, but as she gained fame and favoritism among the soc.men, she went a little farther each time, until now she can equate rape with refusing sex, apparently with a straight face. Zorra >>> It appears that whatever involves a woman and makes a man feel bad = >>> rape. From being deceived about the paternity of a child, to being [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Zorra That's effectively brainwashing. >>>> It appears that whatever involves a woman and makes a man feel bad = >>>> rape. From being deceived about the paternity of a child, to being [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >That's effectively brainwashing. I was saying that a while ago. > That's effectively brainwashing. Ergo my reference to soc.men as a cult group. They have made a cult of their hatred for women. Cat >> That's effectively brainwashing. > >Ergo my reference to soc.men as a cult group. They have made a cult of >their hatred for women. I think you have me convinced it's a man. > I think you have me convinced it's a man. It was "Jayne", her...himself who proved it to me. Cat > > I think you have me convinced it's a man. > > It was "Jayne", her...himself who proved it to me. Yeah... a strange one, huh? By the way, Cat, I like your nick :) --Kitty > Yeah... a strange one, huh? > By the way, Cat, I like your nick :) > --Kitty Thank you so much! There's a little reconfigured letter code in it. "Cat" has been my nickname since...since my grandfather decided it would be. To this day he calls me "Kitty Cat". So, from one "kitten" to another - hello! Cat >> Yeah... a strange one, huh? >> By the way, Cat, I like your nick :) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >would be. To this day he calls me "Kitty Cat". So, from one "kitten" to >another - hello! Oh, how cute :) My parents always called me Kitty, and we always had cats... It's only normal that I be a Cat, Kitty or some sort of a meowy critter! And my three little hairballs, Tigger, Bubba and Snickers say hi too :) > Oh, how cute :) > My parents always called me Kitty, and we always had cats... > It's only normal that I be a Cat, Kitty or some sort of a meowy > critter! > And my three little hairballs, > Tigger, Bubba and Snickers say hi too :) I love the wild cats; mountain lions, bob cats, and lynx. Such amazing animals - and I've seen them in the wild! As strange as it sounds however, I do not own a cat! I have a sweet but very protective labradoddle. Quail and all manner of birds come into my yard and I fear a cat would predate my little winged friends out of existence. Cat who has a dog >> Oh, how cute :) >> My parents always called me Kitty, and we always had cats... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >labradoddle. Quail and all manner of birds come into my yard and I fear >a cat would predate my little winged friends out of existence. Oh, with my kitties I fix that by putting collars with bells on them. Messes up their hunt. By now they're home bodies. >Cat who has a dog My BF has a black Lab... it was his Christmas present last year. Heh, when we start out 'life together' (what we call it when we talk about that kind of stuff), looks like we'll end up with 5 cats and a dog... and two teenagers. [...] > And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started > out with more reasonable views, but as she gained fame and > favoritism among the soc.men, she went a little farther each > time, until now she can equate rape with refusing sex, > apparently with a straight face. And let me say yet again that I have been talking about one specific subset of refusing sex. Feel free to disagree, but please do not misrepresent my position. Jayne > [...] >> And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > subset of refusing sex. Feel free to disagree, but please do not > misrepresent my position. To those of us that don't see *any* refusal of sex to be remotely like rape, it simply makes no difference. Zorra > > [...] > >> And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > To those of us that don't see *any* refusal of sex to be remotely > like rape, it simply makes no difference. Doesn't it matter to you that you are claiming that I hold a position that I do not, in fact, hold? Jayne >> > [...] >> >> And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Doesn't it matter to you that you are claiming that I hold a position > that I do not, in fact, hold? But you do in fact hold that position, and have repeated it several times. You see some important difference in refusing sex because you are sick, and refusing sex because you are angry. To me, it seems like you are just splitting hairs. Now, had I said, "Jayne believes that every instance of refusing sex is equivalent to rape" I would have been misstating your position. I didn't say that. Zorra >> > [...] >> >> And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Doesn't it matter to you that you are claiming that I hold a position >that I do not, in fact, hold? Does it matter to you that you;re not communicating your ideas in a comprehensible manner, at least in a manner that would illustrate your ides as intended. You know, most of the burden on correctly communicating their ideas falls on the communicator. That would be You. >> [...] >>> And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Zorra Exactly, and well stated. > [...] > > And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > subset of refusing sex. Feel free to disagree, but please do not > misrepresent my position. The position that refusing sex is _ever_ similar enough to rape to matter is mind-bogglingly absurd to me. The examples you've given make it, if anything, even _more_ absurd. >> [...] >>> And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The examples you've given make it, if anything, even _more_ absurd. Indeed. I am reminded once again of that line from the Bible, "Forgive them Lord, for they cannot see..." >[...] >> And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >subset of refusing sex. Feel free to disagree, but please do not >misrepresent my position. my dear, it's the vagueness of your representations that misrepresents your position. "Zorra" (zero@clue.nut) admits that she CANNOT debate/refute the topic, so ad homimens is all the poor bigoted troll has left: > <catbrier04@yahoo.com> screeched more ad homs, being UNABLE to offer > anything else: news:1137595789.947814.197920@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > level, we tend to try to find a "niche" so that we can at least > be a big fish in a little pond. Well, that explains you... > This behavior can be demonstrated in all areas of life -- the mom > who takes over the PTO, the "regulars" at the bar, and yes, the > regular posters on Newsgroups. As well as NOW, NAC, NARAL, The Women's Caucus... > It is my opinion that many of these extremists, soc.men and rad- > fems included, are simply trying to gain popularity or notoriety > by magnifying their views. Gasp ! Stone the crows ! How dare some people actually offer up their views, such that they can be debated, and that some might consider them in forming their own views. Why, you'd think that there was Free Speech somewhere, and that even men were entitled to some of it... > And so, when Jayne claims that Andre is a nice guy in person, > I have no trouble believing that. He probably comes off as > perfectly normal in real life. <laughs> I my Real Life, I don't hang around retards, Feminists, and other brain damaged folks. So, my major intolerance of STUPIDITY isn't activated. > And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started > out with more reasonable views, but as she gained fame and > favoritism among the soc.men, she went a little farther each > time, until now she can equate rape with refusing sex, > apparently with a straight face. That would be interesting... IF she had ever done that, which her own cites show that she did NOT. Her point, and clear it was to non-retards/Feminists was that both rape and use of sex to control another are both examples of control of another, by someone USING power with which to control. This is sufficiently not a controversial a matter that even rocker Pat Benatar sang a song over 20 years ago titled " Stop Using Sex As A Weapon ". As the quote from the character of Frasier shows ( " Men can't use sex to get what we want. Sex IS what we want ! " ), its not men doing such. Note that the old Greek play Lysistrata is about *women* using sex to control men and men's behavior. So, this fact of women commonly doing so, and viewing it as fine and dandy, is a view that goes back over 2,000 years. To deny that... well, thats insane. Ignorant as Hell, too. But, sicne Feminists ARE ignorant and insane, their denial of such, is not news. Andre > >> It appears that whatever involves a woman and makes a man feel bad = > >> rape. From being deceived about the paternity of a child, to being [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > level, we tend to try to find a "niche" so that we can at least > be a big fish in a little pond. Oh god...do you thinks that's why Dennis Miller became a conservative? > This behavior can be demonstrated in all areas of life -- the mom > who takes over the PTO, the "regulars" at the bar, and yes, the > regular posters on Newsgroups. I see where this is going. "Jayne" is the soc.men's cheerleader...of Doom! That's so funny! > It is my opinion that many of these extremists, soc.men and rad- > fems included, are simply trying to gain popularity or notoriety > by magnifying their views. Or are these their REAL views, the one's they have to hide in real life? > And so, when Jayne claims that Andre is a nice guy in person, > I have no trouble believing that. He probably comes off as > perfectly normal in real life. Now that is a truly frightening thought! It reminds me of theat haunting book by Max Picard - "Hitler In Ourselves", wherein the friendly guy at the newstand is, in actuality, a mass murderer. > And it is how I perceive Jane herself. She may have started > out with more reasonable views, but as she gained fame and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Zorra I don't know about their "straight faces" over there. They almost all seem pretty twisted to me. ;> Cat >> It appears that whatever involves a woman and makes a man feel bad = >> rape. From being deceived about the paternity of a child, to being [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >anti-male feminists. Soc.men'ers are most annoying when they whine >incessantly about their alleged "victimhood." Just about anything taken into the extremes becomes dysfunctional. > > > > I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose > > > > of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > with another person)? When it may have absolutely nothing to do with > him at all? Since I am a wife, I am looking at the issue from that perspective. I assume that some women, like me, want to be good wives and will sometimes examine their own behaviour towards their husbands. In this situation, proof is irrelevant. A woman reflecting on her own actions and motives might realize that she has been manipulating or hurting her husband. Even if she knows she has good motives for refusing sex, knowing its potential for causing pain, she can make extra efforts to reassure him. After I had my hysterectomy in September, I could not have PIV sex for six weeks because it could cause major damage. Even though my husband knew this intellectually, I still made a point to do things (other than PIV sex) that would make him feel loved and desirable. Sex affects people on a very primitive level where what we know intellectuallly does not have much influence. > Although if he keeps going down that path - that she's manipulative and > punishing and it's all about HIM HIM HIM - then she may very well start > to become unempathetic towards him herself. So do you think that we should never talk about things that women might do wrong because it encourages men to blame women? > > However, it is not necessary to prove it in > > order to create a culture in which this is considered as unacceptable [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and is exhausted, she has health problems that make sex painful, or she > is having traumatic memories of sexual abuse as a child. My initial point was that abusive things that women do should be take as seriously as abusive things that men do. Men and women both have the potential to hurt each other. I am certainly not denying that. I am saying that in our culture I observe a focus on women as victims that I believe is unfair to men. People of both sexes get hurt. [...] > > Of course comments that I make about refusing sex to > > punish or manipulate don't apply to every case of refusing sex. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Good of you to back off, now that you've noticed you got yourself down > a path you can't win. If you will reread my comments in this thread you will see that this has been my position all along. Others have been misinterpretting/misrepresenting my views, but this is what I have been talking about. Jayne >Since I am a wife, [chortle] >I am looking at the issue from that perspective. I >assume that some women, like me, want to be good wives and will >sometimes examine their own behaviour towards their husbands. Assuming that a denile of sexual intimacy is her fault at all. > In this >situation, proof is irrelevant. Proof is irrelevant? > A woman reflecting on her own actions >and motives might realize that she has been manipulating or hurting her >husband. Even if she knows she has good motives for refusing sex, >knowing its potential for causing pain, she can make extra efforts to >reassure him. Is this what your wife did to you? >After I had my hysterectomy in September, I could not have PIV sex for >six weeks because it could cause major damage. Even though my husband >knew this intellectually, I still made a point to do things (other than >PIV sex) that would make him feel loved and desirable. Sex affects >people on a very primitive level where what we know intellectuallly >does not have much influence. And so your sexless life has driven you to become an online misogynist crusader and your loveless marriage is your excuse? >So do you think that we should never talk about things that women might >do wrong because it encourages men to blame women? You seem ONLY inclined to blame women. >My initial point was that abusive things that women do should be take >as seriously as abusive things that men do. Denial of marital "bliss" may be a heinous thing to do when its purpose is manipulation and control - it is certainly grounds for divorce, but rape is felonious. The two cannot be likened, one to the other. It is a very poor analogy. > Men and women both have >the potential to hurt each other. I am certainly not denying that. I >am saying that in our culture I observe a focus on women as victims >that I believe is unfair to men. People of both sexes get hurt. You do not even attempt to sympathize with women - EVER! (Despite your claim to be one!) And you trivialize rape by making this erroneous comparison. >If you will reread my comments in this thread you will see that this >has been my position all along. Others have been >misinterpretting/misrepresenting my views, but this is what I have been >talking about. >Jayne You consort with and apologize for sone of the worst sexist pigs online and now you want to pretend you are objective. It won't wash. Cat >> > > > I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose >> > > > of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >sometimes examine their own behaviour towards their husbands. In this >situation, proof is irrelevant. [head pat good wife] Now get your a.s over here and up in the air, nice and perky with a smile on your face. >A woman reflecting on her own actions >and motives might realize that she has been manipulating or hurting her [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >So do you think that we should never talk about things that women might >do wrong because it encourages men to blame women? The problem is that the way you talk about it reeks of your subjugation. You wanna talk about that women do wrong, but in a non subjugating manner, I have couple pf books I can recommend for you, like 10 stupid things women do to mess up their lives, and proper care and feeding of husbands. Neither of those two come across as submissive and brainwashed and lacking self respect as you do. >> > However, it is not necessary to prove it in >> > order to create a culture in which this is considered as unacceptable [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >My initial point was that abusive things that women do should be take >as seriously as abusive things that men do. You made a very unequal comparison, that's why you're in hot water now. You would have been much better off making a comparison between rejecting a man for sex with rejecting woman's feelings. Rejecting a man for sex being compared to rape is ludicrous. Here's something for you to pay attention to: SUBJUGATION: (from: http://www.schematherapy.com/id73.htm) Excessive surrendering of control to others because one feels coerced - - usually to avoid anger, retaliation, or abandonment. The two major forms of subjugation are: A. Subjugation of Needs: Suppression of one's preferences, decisions, and desires. B. Subjugation of Emotions: Suppression of emotional expression, especially anger. Usually involves the perception that one's own desires, opinions, and feelings are not valid or important to others. Frequently presents as excessive compliance, combined with hypersensitivity to feeling trapped. Generally leads to a build up of anger, manifested in maladaptive symptoms (e.g., passive-aggressive behavior, uncontrolled outbursts of temper, psychosomatic symptoms, withdrawal of affection, "acting out", substance abuse). >> Since I am a wife, I am looking at the issue from that perspective. >> I assume that some women, like me, want to be good wives and will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Now get your a.s over here and up in the air, nice and perky with a > smile on your face. You're the third woman in ASM who's written of getting that image when reading Jayne's posts. Mine was "tupped like a ewe", Sheila's was "bottoms up!" - I like yours too! Not that there's anything wrong with that position, of course - it's one of my favourites - but Jayne certainly personifies it. >> A woman reflecting on her own actions >> and motives might realize that she has been manipulating or hurting [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Neither of those two come across as submissive and brainwashed and > lacking self respect as you do. This is something that is within Jayne's total control and her husband humours her as she embraces that mindset. She isn't abused or subjugated, she's just kinky that way and it permeates her world view. My opinion is that her husband is probably a lovely guy who treats her very well indeed but actually isn't nasty enough for Jayne (apart from pleasing her with the odd spanking) and that's why she hangs out with all those revolting and dysfunctional but safely distant guy in soc.men. But I am mildly curious about her foo - it seems there must be more to it than just a personality quirk! Tai [...] > This is something that is within Jayne's total control and her husband > humours her as she embraces that mindset. She isn't abused or subjugated, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > odd spanking) and that's why she hangs out with all those revolting and > dysfunctional but safely distant guy in soc.men. While I don't find this an especially flattering theory, it at least incorporates the facts that I am woman and that my husband is a lovely guy who treats me very well. He matches most women's description of an ideal husband. Another factor to consider is that I have a strong sense of justice and a compulsion to defend the underdog. Once I became convinced that men are treated unjustly in our society, my reaction was inevitable. > But I am mildly curious about her foo - it seems there must be more to it > than just a personality quirk! I really don't understand why I get the reactions that I do on asm. >From my perspective, I'm not saying anything much different from _Care and Feeding of Husbands_ which Kitty just recommended to me. I read post after post her which leaves me wondering, "How did they get that from what I said?" Jayne Jayne > [...] > > This is something that is within Jayne's total control and her husband [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > post after post her which leaves me wondering, "How did they get that > from what I said?" Does "Care and Feeding of Husbands" try to draw analogies between rape and refusing sex? I suspect not. [...] > > I really don't understand why I get the reactions that I do on asm. > > >From my perspective, I'm not saying anything much different from _Care [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I suspect not. It stresses the importance of sex for a man and explains how devasting a wife's refusal to have sex can be. Sex communicates love and respect and refusing it can tear down a man's self-worth. Refusing sex is not something a woman should do lightly, even if she has a good reason. It has the potential to hurt him greatly and if it's "not about him" she has a responsibility to make that very clear to him. Jayne > It stresses the importance of sex for a man And it is NOT important to a woman? You seem to (strangely and very uncharacteristically) imagine that women do not have drives and needs also! > and explains how devasting > a wife's refusal to have sex can be. And a sexless marriage would not be so to a woman? > Sex communicates love and respect > and refusing it can tear down a man's self-worth. Or a woman's, I would imagine also. > Refusing sex is not > something a woman should do lightly, even if she has a good reason. (I cannot pursuade myself that you are a woman! You can only imagine a one dimensional dynamic in which the man is - once again - the hapless victim of female evil.) > It > has the potential to hurt him greatly and if it's "not about him" she > has a responsibility to make that very clear to him. > Jayne Once again - that really isn't the issue. Cat > > It stresses the importance of sex for a man > > And it is NOT important to a woman? You seem to (strangely and very > uncharacteristically) imagine that women do not have drives and needs > also! What I have read and heard about it sounds like, in general, men's experience of sex is different from women's. I > > and explains how devasting > > a wife's refusal to have sex can be. > > And a sexless marriage would not be so to a woman? Yes, it bothers me to go without sex. I don't like going more than two days without it and start becoming irritable after a week. But its absence does not leave me feeling unloved and rejected. From what I can understand of men's experience, going without sex has an emotional impact on them that it does not have on me or on most women. Jayne >> > It stresses the importance of sex for a man >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What I have read and heard about it sounds like, in general, men's >experience of sex is different from women's. I But that doesn't mean it's of a lesser or greater importance, it;s just different. In general, men and women experience emotions differently too. Pick up another book, male and female realities. Talks about just how many ways men and women are different. BUT, it takes polling of both sides into the account, not just whining's of an extreme male faction. >> > and explains how devasting >> > a wife's refusal to have sex can be. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >can understand of men's experience, going without sex has an emotional >impact on them that it does not have on me or on most women. Absence of sex does have emotional impact on me. In a loving relationship it's one of the important bonding experiences. Not having sex can very much make me feel unloved and rejected. This is another area where I wonder just how much you're able to be in tune with your own feelings. I get the impression that most of them are pushed away in the background. My question for you is what out of the average need does the approval you're trying to get from soc.men feed? What insecurity has you so far out. > Yes, it bothers me to go without sex. I don't like going more than two > days without it and start becoming irritable after a week. But its > absence does not leave me feeling unloved and rejected. From what I > can understand of men's experience, going without sex has an emotional > impact on them that it does not have on me or on most women. I just read your post to my DH and asked him what he thought. He says he feels the same way as you do if he goes without sex - it bothers him and he may get irritated, but it doesn't leave him feeling unloved and rejected. He says you must be hanging around with some immature men. He's faced lots of sexual rejection in the past, and his attitude is more like, "Oh well, your loss." jen catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > It stresses the importance of sex for a man > > And it is NOT important to a woman? You seem to (strangely and very > > uncharacteristically) imagine that women do not have drives and needs > > also! > What I have read and heard about it sounds like, in general, men's > experience of sex is different from women's. I You SHOULD understand that we have sex drives and needs too..."Jayne!" Right now, at this stage of my life, I find it very difficult to go for more than a week without it. Now everyone's drive is different - assured. But my women friends pretty much assert similar needs. > > > and explains how devasting > > > a wife's refusal to have sex can be. > > And a sexless marriage would not be so to a woman? > Yes, it bothers me to go without sex. I don't like going more than two > days without it and start becoming irritable after a week. But its > absence does not leave me feeling unloved and rejected. From what I > can understand of men's experience, going without sex has an emotional > impact on them that it does not have on me or on most women. > Jayne Apparently, and very strangely, you seem to know very little about how we (women) feel about things. It's almost impossible to make an accurate generality. But for me and many of the women that I know, sex and intimacy produce that very same sense of being loved and connected, maybe more so than men - in general. You've read what soc.men'ers have posted about their painful sexual droughts - but how many men have you actually been intimate with? Cat > catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > more than a week without it. Now everyone's drive is different - > assured. But my women friends pretty much assert similar needs. Maybe it would be educational for you if your partner "cut you off" for a couple of months...you might gain some perspective... ;-) ...Ken > Maybe it would be educational for you if your partner "cut you off" for > a couple of months...you might gain some perspective... ;-) > ...Ken LOL! We aren't childish, silly, people. And he'd be denying himself as well. Why would either of us want to? Cat >>Maybe it would be educational for you if your partner "cut you off" for >>a couple of months...you might gain some perspective... ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We aren't childish, silly, people. And he'd be denying himself as well. > Why would either of us want to? From what I've seen and read, women do it to exert control, as both a "carrot" and a "stick"...presumably the behaviour they wish to "encourage" is of more importance to them than immediate pleasure. Some might assert that this is an intelligent behaviour, and maybe it is if you think of your partner as someone who needs to be controlled...but then women have always asserted their (self proclaimed) moral superiority so perhaps many really *DO* feel justified in such behaviour... ...Ken > From what I've seen and read, women do it to exert control, as both a > "carrot" and a "stick"...presumably the behaviour they wish to > "encourage" is of more importance to them than immediate pleasure. You associate with some pretty crazy people over in soc.men - so - perhaps the women you know are no better. Maybe you should choose different friends and lovers. Your experience doesn't conform to mine. > Some > might assert that this is an intelligent behaviour, and maybe it is if > you think of your partner as someone who needs to be controlled...but > then women have always asserted their (self proclaimed) moral > superiority so perhaps many really *DO* feel justified in such behaviour... > ...Ken I'm sorry Ken - you're speaking in soc.men-ish and it's all pig-Latin. Which women? Can you name these women? Who are you talking about? Cat > > catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Maybe it would be educational for you if your partner "cut you off" for > a couple of months...you might gain some perspective... ;-) Couple of months is not that big of a deal. [...] > > Maybe it would be educational for you if your partner "cut you off" for > > a couple of months...you might gain some perspective... ;-) > > Couple of months is not that big of a deal. Speak for yourself. Jayne >>>catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Couple of months is not that big of a deal. Maybe for you Kitty, you seem to be one of those women ideally equipped to refuse sex to a partner until they do what you want tome to do... Apparently however, Cat is not since she said "Right now, at this stage of my life, I find it very difficult to go for more than a week without it" so presumable for her it *would be* a big deal...hense if she *were* cut off she might come to understand how damaging and abusive that actually is... ...Ken >>>> catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > deal...hense if she *were* cut off she might come to understand how > damaging and abusive that actually is... If one spouse in the marriage cuts the other off from sex surely the emphasis should be on establishing why that is happening and improving the relationship to the point where each is as available to the other as is possible, emotionaly and physically? Stamping one's feet and declaring the other partner should do their duty will always be counter productive. As will be ascribing the kind of unusual and unpleasant motives of the sort you seem to think are commonly used! I am sorry if your wife relates to you in such a controlling way that you feel led around by your penis much of the time - it is not the kind of relationship that would suit me either. However, you do have other choices than submission. Tai >>>Couple of months is not that big of a deal. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>deal...hense if she *were* cut off she might come to understand how >>damaging and abusive that actually is... > If one spouse in the marriage cuts the other off from sex surely the > emphasis should be on establishing why that is happening and improving the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > will be ascribing the kind of unusual and unpleasant motives of the sort you > seem to think are commonly used! You seem to have completely missed the point of this whole thread Tai. We're NOT talking about men and women who for some (emotional) reason have decided that they DON'T WANT TO have sex with their partner, we've been talking about situations where an individual DELIBERATELY uses sex in a coercive matter to effect the behaviour of their partner...and yes, it HAPPENS...more often that you seem willing to accept... > I am sorry if your wife relates to you in such a controlling way that you > feel led around by your penis much of the time - it is not the kind of > relationship that would suit me either. However, you do have other choices > than submission. Thankfully, my wife doesn't treat me this way at all but I have had former relationships (two in fact) where the woman DID attempt to control the agenda with sex. Fortunately, since I wasn't married to either of them the relationships were easily ended without the devastation associated with most divorces. As to "other choices" what, pray tell, would they be ? Our society doesn't see infidelity as an acceptable alternative, even in a case such as this and divorce has become a nightmare for men, often leading to financial ruin and emotional devastation so bad that many therapists equate it to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder... ...Ken <snip> > As to "other choices" what, pray tell, would they be ? Our > society doesn't see infidelity as an acceptable alternative, even in a > case such as this and divorce has become a nightmare for men, often > leading to financial ruin and emotional devastation so bad that many > therapists equate it to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder... OK, so you've married someone who you feel is manipulative and evil. The choices are really very basic: either work together to improve your relationship (in which case you _might_ discover you were misinterpreting motives), divorce, or decide you will stay with the manipulative and evil person and try not to let her affect you very much. What other choice _would_ you want? ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >What other choice _would_ you want? Someone to rescue him and make it easy, and make it so there's no consequences to his poor choices. A fairytale. >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > consequences to his poor choices. > A fairytale. Do you equally argue that women should not be rescued from *their* bad choices or do you feel that society should protect the poor dears ? ...Ken >>><snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Do you equally argue that women should not be rescued from *their* bad >choices Yup! I've given probably a dozen copies of "10 stupid things women do to mess up their lives" book to females IRL over the years. I haven't given away a single copy of "10 stupid things men do to mess up their lives". I probably tend to be harsher with women then men when it takes to the inclination to nag them towards taking responsibility for their own lives and choices, especially when it comes to things of emotions and relationships. I'd probably hold a regular man to a higher standard then a regular woman when it comes to changing a tire. (if I didn't know anything personal about them) > As to "other choices" what, pray tell, would they be ? Our society >doesn't see infidelity as an acceptable alternative, even in a case such >as this and divorce has become a nightmare for men, often leading to >financial ruin and emotional devastation so bad that many therapists >equate it to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder... Poooor baby, life is rough, ain't it? Better find your mommy's skirt to hide under. Kitty (Kuntkrazy@Kartoon.kow) oozes more of her HATE of men: >> As to "other choices" what, pray tell, would they be ? Our society >>doesn't see infidelity as an acceptable alternative, even in a case such [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Poooor baby, life is rough, ain't it? Imagine if men had said this to women, when women complained... Burquas... 10 seconds. Period. > Better find your mommy's skirt to hide under. Divorce your husband. Its the best thing you could ever do. Baby FemiNazis is SO EVIL ! Andre >> As to "other choices" what, pray tell, would they be ? Our society >>doesn't see infidelity as an acceptable alternative, even in a case such [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Poooor baby, life is rough, ain't it? > Better find your mommy's skirt to hide under. Do you respond in a similar way when a woman who has been abused has emotional problems as a result of her experience or do your reserve your scorn and contempt for men alone ? ...Ken > >> As to "other choices" what, pray tell, would they be ? Our > >> society doesn't see infidelity as an acceptable alternative, even [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > emotional problems as a result of her experience or do your reserve > your scorn and contempt for men alone ? Some of us don't find the word "abuse" a reasonable description for having been refused sex. If a person has emotional problems, that is indeed a sad thing, but I don't believe those problems stem from being refused sex. > Kitty further bared her *hate* of men: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > emotional problems as a result of her experience or do your reserve your > scorn and contempt for men alone ? Quite. The misandry flowing from the poorly MSnamed newsgroup " alt.support.pussyboi.marriage " makes one believe that they are a surrogate for NOW... Oh well, as with the front page article about the AAA study that *proved* that the old wive's tale that men won't stop to ask for directions was a LIE, this Krazed Kitty merely proves that empathy and compassion, and WomenFirsters have never... met. Andre >>> As to "other choices" what, pray tell, would they be ? Our society >>>doesn't see infidelity as an acceptable alternative, even in a case such [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >emotional problems as a result of her experience or do your reserve your >scorn and contempt for men alone ? You already asked me the same thing. I tend to be nicer to men then women. > > If one spouse in the marriage cuts the other off from sex surely the > > emphasis should be on establishing why that is happening and improving the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You seem to have completely missed the point of this whole thread Tai. Tai can speak for herself, but you have also told me that I missed the point. Apparently quite a few of us have missed the point which seems to be very well established and understood in soc.men. Perhaps you can walk us through the "point" and help us understand. > We're NOT talking about men and women who for some (emotional) reason > have decided that they DON'T WANT TO have sex with their partner, we've > been talking about situations where an individual DELIBERATELY uses sex > in a coercive matter to effect the behaviour of their partner...and yes, > it HAPPENS...more often that you seem willing to accept... OK, let's see if I can understand the scenario that you claim happens "often". You have a woman in a relationship with a man. She WANTS to have sex with him, but withholds it in order to force him to behave in the way she wants. Did I get it right so far? Right here we have to clarify one very important thing. The untold assumption is that the woman (justified or not) doesn't feel angry and upset with her husband at the time of rejecting him. Because otherwise your whole premise that the woman WANTS to have sex breaks down. You may not *like* the (common) fact that your woman doesn't want to have sex when angry or upset, but I think that even the most narrow-sighted among soc.men crowd are able to see that this is NOT "deliberately" withholding sex for the sole purpose of control and manipulation. I very much understand the anxiety of a man in a rocky marriage who finds himself in situations where his wife is uninterested in sex due to fights or other relationship problems, but I am equally sympathetic towards the woman who is no happier than him in that troubled marriage. However, this comes under the category of marital problems that affect everything, including sex. You have been very clear that you are NOT talking about this scenario. Are we on the same page? Do I understand your premise correctly? Because if that's the case, the image that pops to my mind is of a crazy and irrational woman who jeopardizes her own self interest by 1) not having sex that she wants it, and 2) making her partner upset and less likely to cooperate with her. If you say that this kind of stupidity among women is common, then you are absolutely right that I don't get the point. Even the most selfish women that I know (and I know selfish women and men both) are more clever in getting their way than giving up something that they really desire (like sex). > You seem to have completely missed the point of this whole thread Tai. > We're NOT talking about men and women who for some (emotional) reason > have decided that they DON'T WANT TO have sex with their partner, we've > been talking about situations where an individual DELIBERATELY uses sex > in a coercive matter to effect the behaviour of their partner...and yes, > it HAPPENS...more often that you seem willing to accept... I don't doubt that it does happen. There are many people in this world who operate their relationships based on tit-for-tat: I do this for you, then you do this for me. But I'm of the mind that like tends to marry like, and that it takes two to play this game. I'm not saying the men deserve to be treated that way; I am saying that it is quite likely that the men fell into the relationship because this was a familiar and acceptable way of relating for them. Otherwise, why marry such a person? Tit-for-tat negotiations in marriage don't just deal with sex. A husband might offer, "I'll take out the trash for me if you will clean up the dinner dishes." Or "I'll give you extra allowance money so you can buy that new dress, if you let me go to watch the game tonight with my buddies." Or "I'll give the kids a bath tonight if you watch them their bath tomorrow night." IOW, it is an all-encompassing way of relating, not just about issues of sex, but about everything. > Thankfully, my wife doesn't treat me this way at all but I have had > former relationships (two in fact) where the woman DID attempt to > control the agenda with sex. Fortunately, since I wasn't married to > either of them the relationships were easily ended without the > devastation associated with most divorces. So you are not the type that runs relationships based on tit-for-tat. You didn't marry such a woman. Ask yourself: why would a man do so? Could it be because like tends to marry like? That a woman who would play such a game feels comfortable and familiar to a man who would play a *similar* game? Not withholding sex from his wife, per se... but some other form of the same game. > As to "other choices" what, pray tell, would they be ? Our society > doesn't see infidelity as an acceptable alternative, even in a case such > as this and divorce has become a nightmare for men, often leading to > financial ruin and emotional devastation so bad that many therapists > equate it to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder... One alternative is to stop playing the game. This may take divorcing. But you do have a valid point: divorce is a tough alternative. Other alternatives include going to marital counseling to learn new, better ways of relating that don't involve game-playing on either spouses' part. This will take changing the entire relationship - not just how they deal about sexual matters. But Jayne's suggestion, IMO, is prone to backfiring. It sounds to me that she is suggesting that women treat their men like they do their infants. I'm all for empathy, but it seems to me she is going well beyond that, and suggesting that a wife who doesn't have sex on demand is just as bad as a mother who doesn't feed a hungry crying infant. By encouraging a wife to take on such a responsibility for her partner, she is inadvertently running the risk that the man will become infantilized to such an extent that the relationship will become not one of adults, but one of parent to child. And that, right there, is a very serious desire killer!!! For men in this situation, I highly recommend Dr Schnarch's book, "Passionate Marriage." It provides an in-depth discussion of why being too needy and looking to your partner to validate your sexual desirability is very often the reason a couples' sex-life begins to falter in the first place. Therefore, Jayne's solution is no solution at all - it will only compound the problem!! Here is a related article that appeared recently in Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20051209-000001.xml jen >> You seem to have completely missed the point of this whole thread Tai. >>We're NOT talking about men and women who for some (emotional) reason [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But I'm of the mind that like tends to marry like, and that it takes > two to play this game. Very true. Even if a couple are not alike in the beginning, in time they adjust to each other's style and learn how to deal with one another (if they last beyond the initial stages!). They both find things that "work". So if a man is likely to respond to trade of sex for other things the woman learns to use it that way. If a man doesn't fall for such a game the woman is out in the cold if she used it, and very unlikely to continue something that is a losing game for her. [rest of a great post snipped] >> I don't doubt that it does happen. There are many people in this world >> who operate their relationships based on tit-for-tat: I do this for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > [rest of a great post snipped] I disagree completely, and was in fact rather shocked that Jen even wrote such a post. Does she think she's "like" that soul-killing first husband of hers? That Sheila was "like" hers? That Tracey was? Or Kitty? Zorra >>>I don't doubt that it does happen. There are many people in this world >>>who operate their relationships based on tit-for-tat: I do this for [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that soul-killing first husband of hers? That Sheila was "like" > hers? That Tracey was? Or Kitty? Well, Jen will explain her meaning, but I didn't read her that way. I thought se meant that we get attracted to people who think, or perhaps react to situations, like ourselves. I think that this phenomenon isn't always true in the very beginning but does develop over time. I've observed that in good relationships people "learn" each others' ways and adjust to one another. That's what I meant by "if they last beyond the early stages". IMV there is always a learning period in relationships, where we get beyond the early romantic and forgiving stage and face the reality of each other's personalities with that we like or find annoying. Gradually we either adjust or move farther apart. It's during the adjusting part that we learn how to act and react based on our partners' responses. After a while these behaviors become part of us, and in long term relationships it's not unusual to see a couple act (or even think) similarly in certain situations. So in a way I think it's fair to say people do become closer in their ways, if not becoming "like" each other. >>>>I don't doubt that it does happen. There are many people in this world >>>>who operate their relationships based on tit-for-tat: I do this for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> Jen even wrote such a post. Does she think she's "like" >> that soul-killing first husband of hers? > Well, Jen will explain her meaning, but I didn't read her that way. I > thought se meant that we get attracted to people who think, or perhaps > react to situations, like ourselves. I think that this phenomenon isn't > always true in the very beginning but does develop over time. I would agree that over time people tend to....develop a way of relating to each other that may be somewhat unique to their relationship. But that's not what I got from Jen at all. In fact, she said, "But I'm of the mind that like tends to marry like, and that it takes two to play this game. I'm not saying the men deserve to be treated that way; I am saying that it is quite likely that the men fell into the relationship because this was a familiar and acceptable way of relating for them. Otherwise, why marry such a person?" Which would seem to clearly indicate that she thinks people marry people, indeed seek out people who are already like them. While I'm sure there is *some* truth to that statement, I don't think it's true in the general sense. And definitely not in the way which she seemed to mean it -- that is, that if you marry someone who is mean to you, it's probably because you are the same way, and if you weren't, you wouldn't have married them in the first place. I'm surprised that a woman who so clearly feels that her first husband was *not* like her in some very important ways would even say that. Zorra Brought this to ASM & ASD, as I don't think genuine discussion of relationships is of much interest in the other groups! > "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>Well, Jen will explain her meaning, but I didn't read her that way. I >>thought se meant that we get attracted to people who think, or perhaps >>react to situations, like ourselves. I think that this phenomenon isn't [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > you are the same way, and if you weren't, you wouldn't have > married them in the first place. Are you talking about what we may "end up" with, or the person we choose to marry in the first place? Why would anyone marry someone who is "mean" to them if they know that from the beginning? Perhaps we read into words meaning that we can relate to ourselves (at least that's how I feel). To me, seeking people who are "like" us means people who have similar worldview and styles of relating to others or situations. And I think that we DO seek people who are like us in that sense, it's just that we don't always end up with someone like that! If two people are "alike" they are both likely to view the give and take of a marriage (to use the premise of this thread) as "you do this for me I do that for you", or "whoever makes more money should have more say in how it's spent" etc. If they both view a relationship that way they are more likely to succeed. As for the latter part of what you wrote above, obviously many of us may end up with a person that we didn't intend to in the beginning. But don't we *think* we are alike (in the sense of relating to each other similarly and sharing worldviews) when we get married? That we may change or discover that we or our partners aren't exactly how we thought doesn't mean that we didn't want to marry someone who was similar to us in the beginning. > I'm surprised that a woman > who so clearly feels that her first husband was *not* like > her in some very important ways would even say that. We'll have to wait for Jen to clarify what she meant. > Perhaps we read into words meaning that we can relate to ourselves (at > least that's how I feel). To me, seeking people who are "like" us means [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it's spent" etc. If they both view a relationship that way they are more > likely to succeed. Okay, I can buy this part.... > As for the latter part of what you wrote above, obviously many of us may > end up with a person that we didn't intend to in the beginning. But don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mean that we didn't want to marry someone who was similar to us in the > beginning. Aha! And this is rather my point. Jen seemed to me to be saying that if a man ended up with a woman who intentionally used sex as a bargaining tool, that it's because he is the same way, though his bargaining tool might be something different. And I think that a man could fall in love with a woman that he thinks is one way, and only discover the tit-for-tat stuff later. Or perhaps he realizes that she's that way in some ways ("We ate at your favorite place last week -- it's my turn to pick.") and not realize how far it would extend. Now, I don't believe that there really are all that many women who would use sex so coldly (certainly it's not as common as the sitcoms suggest!), but if you take the statement "like marries like" and apply it to other situations, then it's an insult to pretty much everyone who has ever been in a painful marriage. Zorra > > Perhaps we read into words meaning that we can relate to ourselves (at > > least that's how I feel). To me, seeking people who are "like" us means [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > last week -- it's my turn to pick.") and not realize how far it > would extend. I think you are probably right about this (what Jen means). And I think I agree with her. To me the spectre of someone in a marriage with which they are rather unhappy, nevertheless they are stuck because they are unable to change the part of their behavior that reinforces the dynamic with which they are unhappy, is achingly familiar on this group. And I think that is a general case of "like marries like" even though the details of the two partner's contribution to the problems are often very different. > Now, I don't believe that there really are all that many women > who would use sex so coldly (certainly it's not as common as > the sitcoms suggest!), but if you take the statement "like marries > like" and apply it to other situations, then it's an insult to pretty > much everyone who has ever been in a painful marriage. I don't think it is an insult so much as a recognition that most marital problems aren't caused because one partner is good and the other partner is bad, but rather because of an unbalanced dynamic on both parts. Look at Sheila's experience that she just related: she and her husband went to a counselor, and Sheila _agreed_ (at least in some sense) not to talk about her husband's drug use, and other things which bothered her. For that dynamic to take place, not only did Sheila's husband have to be the way he was, but he had to marry someone who was young and insecure enough (or whatever Sheila was at the time - I'm not trying to analyze you Shiela, I don't know what you were like) to put up with his crazy ground rules for counseling. Now in that marriage it sounds like maybe Sheila grew and her husband didn't, but I bet they started out in _some_ sort of complementary symbiosis. I think Jen would (and has) related her own story in somewhat similar terms of how her own weaknesses contributed to the problems with her first marriage as well as her husband's. Certainly when my wife and I went through our worst period we each made significant contributions to the bad stuff, though contributions of superficially different natures. >>> Perhaps we read into words meaning that we can relate to ourselves (at >>> least that's how I feel). To me, seeking people who are "like" us means [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > made significant contributions to the bad stuff, though contributions > of superficially different natures. It is hard (well, at least for me) to even imagine someone marrying a drug addict or an alcoholic, for that matter. I just can't envisage it. Now if they turned into that later, I guess it's easier to understand, but even then, wouldn't there be at least *some* signals? Or maybe I'm missing something, I dunno, but I don't get it. >> Aha! And this is rather my point. Jen seemed to me to be saying >> that if a man ended up with a woman who intentionally used sex [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > made significant contributions to the bad stuff, though contributions > of superficially different natures. It sounds to me more like you are agreeing with Sheila than Jen. I agree that when you have two people in a relationship, it takes both to get the relationship to whatever point it gets to, good or bad. But I don't believe for an instant that I went *looking* for someone who was going to be constantly putting me down. That wasn't my experience in my FOO. Yes, I knew he was critical, but I held my own then. I respected myself and felt I was respected as well. Life has happened between then and now. Furthermore, I don't believe that Matt was looking to be yelled at, that Kitty was looking to be beat up, that Sheila was looking to be shut out, or that Casey was looking to be cheated on. Sometimes you just miss the signals. Sometimes you don't realize what they mean, or might mean down the road. And sometimes, things really do change. Maybe I've just completely misunderstood what Jen was saying. But I strongly disagree with what I think she said. Zorra >>> Aha! And this is rather my point. Jen seemed to me to be saying >>> that if a man ended up with a woman who intentionally used sex [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > was looking to be shut out, or that Casey was looking to > be cheated on. Sometimes you just miss the signals. But how can you miss those signals if you've been with that person for several months (or even years) ahead of time (before getting married)? > Sometimes you don't realize what they mean, or might > mean down the road. And sometimes, things really do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Zorra >> Furthermore, I don't believe that Matt was looking to be >> yelled at, that Kitty was looking to be beat up, that Sheila [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But how can you miss those signals if you've been with that person for > several months (or even years) ahead of time (before getting married)? It depends on what the signs are, and what they're signs *of*. Do you think, Bill, that you could tell with 100% accuracy before marriage which, if either, spouse will go on to cheat 10 or 20 years down the road? I've read that wife beaters often start off sweeping women off their feet with flowers and attention. The abuse may not start until after she's gotten pregnant or had her first child. So, should every woman with a romantic beau run for the hills? Zorra >>> Furthermore, I don't believe that Matt was looking to be >>> yelled at, that Kitty was looking to be beat up, that Sheila [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > accuracy before marriage which, if either, spouse will go > on to cheat 10 or 20 years down the road? I suppose not - not with 100% accuracy. But OTOH, haven't you EVER met some people with whom you'd (pretty much) bet your life on it (meaning honest, innocent (and perhaps somewhat naive, about a lot of things), and very moral)? (these are the same people who are often easily taken advantage of) > I've read that wife beaters often start off sweeping women off > their feet with flowers and attention. But that's not enough, and that's not what I'm talking about. Those are (or can be) just superficial traits - not really getting to the core of the individual. > The abuse may > not start until after she's gotten pregnant or had her > first child. So, should every woman with a romantic > beau run for the hills? > > Zorra >>>> Furthermore, I don't believe that Matt was looking to be >>>> yelled at, that Kitty was looking to be beat up, that Sheila [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > very moral)? (these are the same people who are often easily taken > advantage of) Every once in a while you know someone who is just dating the *wrong* person. And you can tell that they are just asking for trouble. And every once in a while, you meet the "perfect" couple who are just so much in love that you use them as the basis of comparison for what a relationship *should* be like. And maybe I'm just not as perceptive as I'd like to think I am, but I've been wrong on both counts. Zorra >>>>> Furthermore, I don't believe that Matt was looking to be >>>>> yelled at, that Kitty was looking to be beat up, that Sheila [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >And maybe I'm just not as perceptive as I'd like to think I >am, but I've been wrong on both counts. Did you notice that this seems to happen pretty often: We catch a glimpse of the nice part of someone's life, see their best foot forward, and we start thinking that their life or relationship is without struggles and problems, and we wish our life was more like the idealized version of someone else's. >>Every once in a while you know someone who is just dating the >>*wrong* person. And you can tell that they are just asking for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > without struggles and problems, and we wish our life was more like the > idealized version of someone else's. Well, like I said, I've been wrong both ways. In fact, I've been wrong twice with the same couple! When they first decided to marry, I was sure it wasn't going to last. The main reason was that he was of the belief that sex is just recreation. Going and having sex with someone was no more or less of a deal than going to a movie with them. In fact, he did cheat once while they were dating with an ex- girlfriend. But apparently he agreed not to sleep with anyone else because it was important to her. And they married, and were the ooey-gooey couple that everyone hates. I'd call long distance to talk to her, and she'd spend half her time talking to him in the background. Same thing when you visited them in person. In the middle of a conversation, they'd end up nuzzling and whispering to each other. So eventually, I decided I'd been wrong about them, and they were the most in love couple I'd ever met. So when they said they were divorcing, I literally thought they were joking. I actually laughed out loud. But it turns out that all the loving little jokes were turned into snide condemnations as soon as they were alone. They alone were enough to convince me that you can't really know what is going on in anyone else's marriage. Zorra >>>Every once in a while you know someone who is just dating the >>>*wrong* person. And you can tell that they are just asking for [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >They alone were enough to convince me that you can't >really know what is going on in anyone else's marriage. Yea, I hear ya! Sometimes people put on a good front, sometimes they overblow a problem... It's not always easy to get an objective picture of what is going on... sometimes even for people in the middle of it. That reminds me of a friend with whom I lost touch, after a long sigh, she would say, "I keep being told to just enjoy the process" I think I've determined to look at the glass half full, even if I have to turn it up-side down. Whatever it takes to find the bootstraps and go on. Okay, off the rambling box. > >> Aha! And this is rather my point. Jen seemed to me to be saying > >> that if a man ended up with a woman who intentionally used sex [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > It sounds to me more like you are agreeing with Sheila than > Jen. I'm probably agreeing with both of them. > I agree that when you have two people in a relationship, > it takes both to get the relationship to whatever point it gets > to, good or bad. But I don't believe for an instant that I > went *looking* for someone who was going to be constantly > putting me down. Well, that is probably an oversimplification. For whatever reasons, I bet you went looking for someone like your husband. And I bet some of the qualities you were looking for (consciously or unconsciously) are related to whatever the reason is that he constantly puts you down. Similarly for Matt, Kitty, Sheila and Casey. Yeah, sometimes you miss the signals, but more likely some of the bad you get comes with whatever you were looking for (again, possibly unconsciously). > That wasn't my experience in my FOO. > Yes, I knew he was critical, but I held my own then. I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Maybe I've just completely misunderstood what Jen was > saying. But I strongly disagree with what I think she said. OK. >>>> Aha! And this is rather my point. Jen seemed to me to be saying >>>> that if a man ended up with a woman who intentionally used sex [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > you get comes with whatever you were looking for (again, possibly > unconsciously). ??? THAT is pretty sick, though - IF that is true. Is that speculation on your part? >> That wasn't my experience in my FOO. >> Yes, I knew he was critical, but I held my own then. I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > OK. >>>>> Aha! And this is rather my point. Jen seemed to me to be saying >>>>> that if a man ended up with a woman who intentionally used sex [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >??? THAT is pretty sick, though - IF that is true. Is that >speculation on your part? There's good and bad in almost everything. Most people have periods (some very short and mild, some longer and harsher, some very extreme) when the not so nice side of their personality shows up. To put it mildly. >>> Aha! And this is rather my point. Jen seemed to me to be saying >>> that if a man ended up with a woman who intentionally used sex [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >respected myself and felt I was respected as well. Life has >happened between then and now. I don;t think it's so much of purposely looking for someone to put you down as it is liking certain aspects of a personality (like taking the lead, or being intelligent), and not fully realizing that it has the flip side that you'll eventually have to deal with. Then, once we get attached, it's hard to balance the positives and negatives and evaluate whether to stay or leave... Un till the bad gets really really bad. >Furthermore, I don't believe that Matt was looking to be >yelled at, that Kitty was looking to be beat up, that Sheila [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >mean down the road. And sometimes, things really do >change. Yeah, not knowing potential extremes and negative side of a personality... For example: A social butterfly (which may be very fun and entertaining to be around) may be a tad more likely to bore quickly and form a bond with someone else, which may lead to cheating. An introvert (which may exude stability and security) may not be able to handle or understand a lot of emotion, and people grow apart or get into arguments. A decisive (stability and power) guy may end up wanting to decide for you all the time as well, and may become pushy, controlling or even abusive. A smart guy may become a perfectionist and overly critical. A very nice and sweet woman may end up being a pushover or too dependent. An independent woman may end up being too emotionally or physically distant. Most people are a combination of several personality traits, and just about any trait has a negative aspect to it when it gets to the extreme level. For example, in my case, at the time it was very good to be with someone that had a lot of interest in my life and helping me out with little things. From being too young, I didn't know that this is a sign of someone who likes to control you. As I learned my way around, he felt like he was losing control, and things got uglier and uglier. Today, I would know that someone taking *that much* interest in your life is not quite normal, and would be a turn on. When I was 19, I didn't know the bad side of it, and it was very nice to have someone interested in helping me get on my feet in the new country. If I was doing that now, I'd say it would be a negative reflection on me, since by now I should know much better. At 18 years old and somewhat socially behind, I was very clueless as to what things I was seeing often mean on the long run. > Yes, I knew he was critical, but I held my own then. I > respected myself and felt I was respected as well. Would you say that knowing your DH was critical, and yet accepted you - enough to propose - made you feel like you were particularly worthy? My ex was the critical type and had very high standards for people. That he would find me worthy and find nothing to criticize, made me somehow feel more worthy... that I measured up to a very high yardstick. Back then, that was a common theme for me. At the time I met my ex, I was in a very stressful job situation, one I now realize was quite dysfunctional. I had a super-critical boss - I thought he was fantastic but today I see he was a total nut case. But back then I was really proud of myself that I could manage to jump through all his hoops and be his star employee. If I worked for someone like that today, I would start sending out resumes and get the hell out. jen >> Yes, I knew he was critical, but I held my own then. I >> respected myself and felt I was respected as well. > > Would you say that knowing your DH was critical, and yet accepted you - > enough to propose - made you feel like you were particularly worthy? hm....I don't know. I don't think so. I really was much more self-confident then. I held more of the power in our relationship. Not that I thought of it that way, but I knew I could walk at any time and find someone new. There were a lot more available guys than girls in our circle, and I'd had more dating experience. So, well, it seemed like every now and again he'd go off the deep end about something stupid, but it didn't hurt me then like it would now. > My ex was the critical type and had very high standards for people. > That he would find me worthy and find nothing to criticize, made me > somehow feel more worthy... that I measured up to a very high > yardstick. Yeah, I can see that. As I grew to respect him more and more, I also developed pride in being with him. > Back then, that was a common theme for me. At the time I met my ex, I > was in a very stressful job situation, one I now realize was quite [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be his star employee. If I worked for someone like that today, I would > start sending out resumes and get the hell out. heh -- live and learn. Zorra > hm....I don't know. I don't think so. I really was much more > self-confident then. I held more of the power in our relationship. > Not that I thought of it that way, but I knew I could walk at any > time and find someone new. There were a lot more available > guys than girls in our circle, and I'd had more dating experience. I could've said that about my ex when we met. Not implying here that we were the same - I really don't know! - but just that I could've said the same. I knew I could walk at any time and find someone new. I also had more dating experience than he did, and that became a huge issue down the road, later in our marriage. Which was bizarre... but that's another story! One of the first things that attracted me to him was that I sensed in my heart that he would never hurt me. I think I knew deep down that I'd hurt *him* long before he ever hurt me. And so, there was something safe about him for me. I wasn't going to get hurt. I was in control. > So, well, it seemed like every now and again he'd go off the > deep end about something stupid, but it didn't hurt me then > like it would now. In our case, our courtship & engagement was pretty fast; I really don't recall him ever doing anything really stupid or hurtful until after we were married. > Yeah, I can see that. As I grew to respect him more and > more, I also developed pride in being with him. I think you're talking about something different than I am; I'm talking about respect that was misplaced because I didn't really know him, and thus lost as the relationship developed. Respecting your partner and being proud to be with him are essential to any good relationship. If you could somehow find your way back to that feeling for him again, you could, perhaps, build on it. jen (ASM only) (much snipped) > if you take the statement "like marries > like" and apply it to other situations, then it's an insult to pretty > much everyone who has ever been in a painful marriage. Well, it is certainly *painful* to realize that you picked someone *because* of who they were, because of your own shortfalls, and that you knew more than you admitted to yourself. But I also think it is nearly always true. And figuring out *why* you picked that person and what your part in the dynamic was, is, IMO the *only* way not to make the same mistakes again. My ex was a person who did not want very much emotional intimacy, who pretended that everything was fine and pressured me to do the same, who let me control the surface details of the relationship while he controlled the underlying reality. And I picked him because I was afraid of risking deep intimacy, because I might get really hurt. I *wanted* someone who I wouldn't care about too much. I *wanted* someone who would protect me from feeling too much pain. Later, I moved beyond that fear and wanted someone who I could be truly intimate and honest with. I wanted to experience real life. And it wasn't my ex's fault that I wanted to change the deal, and he didn't want to come along with me. But even though I had sort of figured out what I didn't like about my first marriage, I found I was still being attracted to the same sort of person, and still terrified by really opening up. I had to go to therapy to work on my own stuff before I could stop reflexively trying to make the same mistake again. So yeah, it would have felt insulting if someone had said to me that I picked my ex because I was too chicken sh.t to really open up to a man, but it would have been true. >(ASM only) > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >picked my ex because I was too chicken sh.t to really open up to a man, >but it would have been true. What I don't understand is why get insulted if something is true? To me, insult is a putdown that doesn't have anything to do with the truth, with the intent to paint me as something that I'm not, and with intent to harm. If someone points out how things are, and I know it's true, I don't feel insulted. I feel like, yeah, I know, I'm working on it. Perhaps I'd feel insulted if I was trying to portray myself as more together or trying to hide some flaws. I mean, having flaws is normal, and if someone thinks one is somehow lesser person or wants to put them down because of a few flaws, it's a negative reflection on the person dishing out putdowns and insults. >> (ASM only) >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > What I don't understand is why get insulted if something is true? Because they don't want to hear it! Boy are you naive! Just look around - even in here or ASD. Geeesh! Come on now, Kitty!! > What I don't understand is why get insulted if something is true? If only it was so simple! > To me, insult is a putdown that doesn't have anything to do with the > truth, with the intent to paint me as something that I'm not, and with > intent to harm. You are lumping too many variables together! It's quite possible to use a "putdown" which has something to do with "truth". It's also possible to intend not to paint you (generic) as something that you're not, but magnify your weak point. The intent could be either to harm, or to wake you up to something that the person feels you should know, or simply expressing an opinion! > If someone points out how things are, and I know it's true, I don't > feel insulted. I feel like, yeah, I know, I'm working on it. Sure, if it is something that you *are* working on (and even then, the chances are you don't want others to bring it up). In any case this assumes that what you think is "true" is the same as what the other person thinks as truth. Even if it is an obvious truth, one can still be insulted when it's brought to open. In our society weight is a big thing, and telling someone they are fat can be very insulting even if they are fat and know that they are. But it's also possible that someone calls you fat when you don't think you are. Truth, after all, is not absolute most of the time. > Perhaps I'd feel insulted if I was trying to portray myself as more > together or trying to hide some flaws. Or simply not wanting others to bring up your flaws. > I mean, having flaws is normal, and if someone thinks one is somehow > lesser person or wants to put them down because of a few flaws, it's a > negative reflection on the person dishing out putdowns and insults. It sure is, but that doesn't stop the receiver from feeling insulted. > (ASM only) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > knew more than you admitted to yourself. But I also think it is nearly > always true. But that isn't what I meant. Jen said that women who would withhold sex until the garage was cleaned or whatever, are engaging in tit-for-tat relationships. Okay, I can buy that. Then she went on to say that the men who marry those women likely also engage in tit-for-tat relationships, and that's why they end up with these women. Well....okaaaay. But she characterized it with the general statement that "like marries like." So, tit-for-tatters marry tit-for-tatters, does that also mean that drunks marry drunks, that cheaters marry cheaters and that beaters marry beaters? That is clearly and demonstrably not always true. > And figuring out *why* you picked that person and what your part in the > dynamic was, is, IMO the *only* way not to make the same mistakes again. I think most people can avoid the same mistakes. The problem is that there are all too many new mistakes waiting. Zorra > > (ASM only) > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > marry cheaters and that beaters marry beaters? That is > clearly and demonstrably not always true. I think jen meant something more complicated. Drunks marry codependents. Beaters marry people whose self-esteem is so low they feel that they deserve to get beaten. Etc. > > And figuring out *why* you picked that person and what your part in the > > dynamic was, is, IMO the *only* way not to make the same mistakes again. > > I think most people can avoid the same mistakes. The problem > is that there are all too many new mistakes waiting. My non-random sample suggests that most people repeat their mistakes. > But she characterized it with the general statement that "like > marries like." So, tit-for-tatters marry tit-for-tatters, does > that also mean that drunks marry drunks, No, drunks usually marry codependent enablers.... > that cheaters > marry cheaters Well I think there's a difference between cheating once, and perpetual cheating. I think anyone can marry someone who would possibly cheat once. But those who marry perpetual cheaters could fear intimacy, suffer from low self-esteem, or have a verrrry open mind! > and that beaters marry beaters? A person who marries and stays with a beater is someone who likely suffers from low self esteem, or who was raised in a violent environment and that's all they know. > That is > clearly and demonstrably not always true. You are giving extremes here. Consider, would you stay if your DH hit you? If he was a drunk who had his mouth on a bottle from morning to night? If he cheat perpetually on you? I don't think so. You are comparing apples to oranges; tit-for-tat exchanges are far more prevalent and acceptable in this society than beating and alcoholism. Once in a relationship, where everything becomes a tit-for-tat exchange, it is much harder to rationalize that it is wrong to be putting up with it. In that sense, I do agree with Jayne - such manipulation shouldn't be put up with. I just disagree that it is along the same lines as rape, beating, or alcoholism. (Yes, probably comparable to staying with a perpetual cheater, but that is not illegal and nobody is comparing that to rape). I would also say that retraining to new ways of relating that *don't* involve tit-for-tat is far easier than curing an alcoholic or a beater. So leaving is not necessarily the only or even the best choice. > > And figuring out *why* you picked that person and what your part in the > > dynamic was, is, IMO the *only* way not to make the same mistakes again. > > I think most people can avoid the same mistakes. The problem > is that there are all too many new mistakes waiting. Yeah, I know, and that's probably why it took me 4 years to finally tie the knot. ;-) Is this what is frightening you? Know what? The only thing you can be sure of, whether you stay or you leave, is that you will make a gazillion more mistakes before you die! We all do! The only way to sleep at night is trusting in yourself that you can address those mistakes somehow. That you know you would work on it or leave, if that's what it took to make it right. jen >> But she characterized it with the general statement that "like >> marries like." So, tit-for-tatters marry tit-for-tatters, does [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > exchange, it is much harder to rationalize that it is wrong to be > putting up with it. Okay -- it was the generalization that I had so much trouble accepting. I understand and agree that I am as much responsible for letting my marriage get to where it is as DH is, but while we both have issues, I don't think we have the same ones. And I also think that there do exist marriages or relationships where one partner truly is the "bad guy" more than the other. I may not be in one, but I still think they exist. >> I think most people can avoid the same mistakes. The problem >> is that there are all too many new mistakes waiting. > > Yeah, I know, and that's probably why it took me 4 years to finally tie > the knot. ;-) heh -- it took us 5, and look where it got us? lol > Is this what is frightening you? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you can address those mistakes somehow. That you know you would work on > it or leave, if that's what it took to make it right. I'm working on not getting as uptight about making mistakes. But yeah, that is one thing that worries me. That I might leave and find someone new only to find out that I'd "traded down." One among dozens of things that worry me. Zorra > And I also think that there do exist marriages or relationships > where one partner truly is the "bad guy" more than the other. > I may not be in one, but I still think they exist. You are making a lot more value judgment on "like marries like" it carries. I don't believe that the statement necessarily says anything about "bad guy"/"good guy", just an explanation of how people go about finding mates. A beater may marry a person with low self esteem who feels they deserve it (Doug's example). That doesn't mean that an insecure person is as bad as a violent one. To me the beater is clearly the "bad guy", even if their mate chose them because of some match in their personalities. > You are making a lot more value judgment on "like marries like" it > carries. That should be "than it carries"... >> And I also think that there do exist marriages or relationships >> where one partner truly is the "bad guy" more than the other. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > finding mates. A beater may marry a person with low self esteem who feels > they deserve it (Doug's example). Or the abusive behavior might not show up until after they are married (my point). And failure to recognize early signs of what later becomes unacceptable behavior does not indicate that you were looking for it or asking for it or whatever. Zorra > "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> And I also think that there do exist marriages or relationships > >> where one partner truly is the "bad guy" more than the other. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Or the abusive behavior might not show up until after they are > married (my point). Of course. I don't doubt that most relatively healthy people won't marry someone who is abusive prior to marriage. But I don't think anyone has suggested that here. Things change during a marriage, and that includes people's behaviors as well as how they feel about their partner. The "beaters" in my example don't beat during the courtship, but they have characteristics that can *turn* them into beaters. Those characteristics are likely to attract a person with low self esteem, who certainly doesn't want to be beaten up, but may put up with, and justify, their partner's jealousy (thinking of it as a sign of love) and even occasional angry outbursts. > And failure to recognize early signs of > what later becomes unacceptable behavior does not indicate > that you were looking for it or asking for it or whatever. True again. However, a person may be attracted to people who make things happen, are go-getters, self assured, confident, proactive, persuasive, even outgoing and charming in group settings (all attractive qualities). Later in marriage they maye find themselves with overly controlling person who wants to run every aspect of their lives. That doesn't mean they "look" for a controlling spouse, but they are unlikely to be attracted to a shy and quiet person who may make the most loving and caring spouse. Some of the qualities that attract us while looking for a mate can turn on us later! >> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that includes people's behaviors as well as how they feel about their > partner. Okay, first "like marries like" doesn't really mean "like marries like" it means "people with complementary dysfunctions marry each other." Now it has become "people in a marriage grow to have complementary dysfunctions?" Sheesh. If people don't say what they mean, I can hardly be expected to know what I'm arguing against. >> And failure to recognize early signs of >> what later becomes unacceptable behavior does not indicate [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > most loving and caring spouse. Some of the qualities that attract us > while looking for a mate can turn on us later! Okay, so what does one do with this information? Just reading your paragraph above, one might assume that they should forgo all self-assured, confident go-getters in favor of shy, quiet people! Pretty much every attractive quality can have it's "dark side" if you will. We've talked about that before. So to avoid all possible negative qualities in a mate, you'd have to avoid marrying altogether. Which brings us back to what Jen seemed to be saying in that first post, which was that if a guy marries a girl that would use sex as a weapon, then he probably had it coming. Zorra >>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > your paragraph above, one might assume that they should forgo > all self-assured, confident go-getters in favor of shy, quiet people! Yup - if you want to play it safe, I think so. > Pretty much every attractive quality can have it's "dark side" if > you will. We've talked about that before. So to avoid all possible [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Zorra >>> True again. However, a person may be attracted to people who make >>> things happen, are go-getters, self assured, confident, proactive, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yup - if you want to play it safe, I think so. Not really. DH is a quiet, introverted person (not shy, but *definitely* not outgoing), and he has turned out to be pretty controlling. So maybe we should all marry timid, mousey types, except that of course, if they are more timid and mousey than we are, that would make us outgoing and confident in comparison, and then they couldn't marry us! Zorra > Okay, so what does one do with this information? Just reading > your paragraph above, one might assume that they should forgo > all self-assured, confident go-getters in favor of shy, quiet people! > Pretty much every attractive quality can have it's "dark side" if > you will. We've talked about that before. So to avoid all possible > negative qualities in a mate, you'd have to avoid marrying altogether. My view is that to attract (and be attracted to) a better class of mate you have to become a better class of mate. Healthy people end up with healthy people. >> Okay, so what does one do with this information? Just reading >> your paragraph above, one might assume that they should forgo [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you have to become a better class of mate. Healthy people end up with > healthy people. But what is a better class? We've already been told to avoid self-confident, outgoing, go-getters! Zorra > But what is a better class? We've already been told to > avoid self-confident, outgoing, go-getters! Wait a minitue! Who said to avoid them? The confident, out going go getter part isn't the dangerous part, it's the critical, distainful, non-loving part that makes them musts to avoid. Those icky parts come in lots of disquieses....even the easy going, going nowhere ones. Grace >> But what is a better class? We've already been told to >> avoid self-confident, outgoing, go-getters! > Wait a minitue! Who said to avoid them? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Those icky parts come in lots of disquieses....even the easy going, > going nowhere ones. I've been trying to make the point that you don't always know what you are in for when you get married. Many of us are not expert enough in human psychology to figure out which outgoing go-getters are great people, and which of them will eventually turn into disdainful, overly critical people down the road. And so I don't think it's fair to say that people should always know what they are getting into when they get married, or that they are subconsciously choosing people whose dysfunctions mirror their own, or any of the other myriad ways people have been choosing to say on here that we get what we deserve. I think it happens, perhaps often, that two pretty normal people get together, and then through the course of time, the cirsumstances of life, and the interaction between their two personalities, they change into people that they never thought they would be. What I don't like is the unspoken implication that if you end up in a bad marriage, that means there must be something wrong with you. Must have *been* something wrong with you from the beginning to get into that bad marriage. I remember learning long ago that people can't stand the thought of something bad happening to them, and therefore they try to find a way to blame the victim. Thus a rape victim shouldn't have dressed that way, a mugging victim shouldn't have been out alone or in that part of town, and a burglary victim should have had a better lock or an alarm system. We want to believe that we can control all the variables in our life. And so, if we're just careful enough, just smart enough, then surely we will not end up in a bad marriage. Or we are smarter now and won't end up in a bad marriage *again*. Sure, I believe in taking precautions when I can, and as long as they are reasonable. But I simply don't subscribe to the theory that we are in complete control of our lives. Zorra > >> But what is a better class? We've already been told to > >> avoid self-confident, outgoing, go-getters! [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Zorra I agree completely. I'm coming from a position where so much in my childhood was so completely out of my control that I seek to control as much as I can because I fear that something will come up, beyoond my control and overwhelm me. It's not a comfortable way to live, but it passes for feeling safe. It's even reflected in my career choice. Starange, isn't it. It comes from a feeling of being constnantly required to work without a net, and ending up being in the net building business. Grace confident that you, and I wil land on our feet. >>> But what is a better class? We've already been told to >>> avoid self-confident, outgoing, go-getters! [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > between their two personalities, they change into > people that they never thought they would be. Ummm. Yeah. Well, not even that necessarily, but just that the differences become too important. I mean, initially it's great, but after ten or twenty years, you have to have enough similar things - similar goals, similar agendas, and the like. Sigh... > What I don't like is the unspoken implication that > if you end up in a bad marriage, that means there [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Zorra > What I don't like is the unspoken implication that > if you end up in a bad marriage, that means there > must be something wrong with you. Must have > *been* something wrong with you from the > beginning to get into that bad marriage. I am not saying this (if anyone is). First of all, while I contend that people pick someone who is their match, both people change thereafter. If a person becomes depressed, for example, that is something their spouse is stuck with, without having picked it. This (depression) happened to me, and I feel for my H, who certainly didn't sign up for that! But, on the other hand, if the spouse picked a person who attacks problems, and deals with things, and doesn't take things out on the other person, he's a lot better off, because the chances are much better that the unforseen (e.g. depression) is going to be dealt with. So, character is largely destiny, but luck plays a part too. Second of all, this formulation that something is "wrong" with the unfortunate spouse is a loaded way of putting it. There are things wrong with everyone - and things right. It isn't an attack to say the relationship is what it is because of who you both are. Or even that the seeds of who you both are were there when you chose each other. Only you can untangle what parts of what's wrong are you and what parts are him, but it is practically never the case that it is all him. And figuring out your "parts" and dealing with them pays huge dividends, IME. Not because blame needs to be allocated, but because things can go better in the future. > I've been trying to make the point that you don't always > know what you are in for when you get married. Many [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > myriad ways people have been choosing to say on > here that we get what we deserve. Okay let me try again: it's *not* necessarily about choosing. It's more about how you relate. Learning to relate in healthy ways is a skill, one that I do believe anyone can learn, so for me I place less emphasis on character. Not to say character isn't important... but rather, that it is not the be-all-and-end-all for a successful marriage between two people. Good relating skills are, IMO, more important. Take the "controlling" thing. It doesn't matter how impeccable your character, how wonderful you are as a person: there are certain styles of relating that are fairly guaranteed to result in a relationship in which one or both partners may eventually seem like they have become control freaks. I.e., when you operate codependently to an extent that your happiness relies solely on your partner making you happy. This is a sure-fire recipe for a relationship to transform from happy coexistence, to accusations that one or both partners are "controlling." And the tit-for-tat thing: it's not that a person is born with a character prone to such manipulation; it's that they've learned to relate that way, either before or during the marriage, but either way, usually the marriage relationship reinforces it over the years. It works just peachy in the beginning, and then down the road it starts to backfire. They can learn a better way if they want to. > I think it happens, perhaps often, that two pretty normal > people get together, and then through the course of > time, the cirsumstances of life, and the interaction > between their two personalities, they change into > people that they never thought they would be. Yes, I agree. To me, this is about relating styles that work well in the beginning, may even work well in most other situations such as neighborly relations, work relations, parent/child relations, friend-to-friend relations............ but not necessarily over the long haul under conditions of marriage. <snip the rest> I need time to think about the rest of your post before responding. But right now, we need to watch a DVD we need to return tomorrow ! I just want to say one last thing: if you haven't read Schnarch's book yet, you really should, then you would have better insight into what some of us are alluding to in this particular thread drift! jen > I need time to think about the rest of your post before responding. But > right now, we need to watch a DVD we need to return tomorrow ! Returning DVD on a certain day?! What's that? I thought netflix buried that ancient 20th century concept :-) >>>But what is a better class? We've already been told to >>>avoid self-confident, outgoing, go-getters! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I've been trying to make the point that you don't always > know what you are in for when you get married. I will agree that many people don't always acknowledge the possibilities that might come from marrying a certain person but I don't think that, in most cases, it's because their spouse has had a total personality change. IMO and IME, it's more of a matter of 'Yes, he/she can be rude to people but it's because.....' IMO, *in most cases*, there will be signs of a person's negative traits. Most people just tend to choose to believe that those negative traits will never be focused on themselves. >Many of us are not expert enough in human psychology to > figure out which outgoing go-getters are great people, > and which of them will eventually turn into disdainful, > overly critical people down the road. IMO, you don't have to be an expert in human psychology. You just have to realistically and objectively watch what another person's actions are to see how they will *most likely* eventually treat you. >And so I don't > think it's fair to say that people should always know [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > myriad ways people have been choosing to say on > here that we get what we deserve. Well, the 'get what we deserve' part comes entirely from you, you know. No one has said that people 'get what they deserve' in this thread. > I think it happens, perhaps often, that two pretty normal > people get together, and then through the course of > time, the cirsumstances of life, and the interaction > between their two personalities, they change into > people that they never thought they would be. I disagree. The potential to be who we are *now* has always been there and, if we are paying attention, we all know what kind of person we *could* be. > What I don't like is the unspoken implication that > if you end up in a bad marriage, that means there > must be something wrong with you. Must have > *been* something wrong with you from the > beginning to get into that bad marriage. And that is, IMO, your own interpretation of what is being said. > I remember learning long ago that people can't > stand the thought of something bad happening to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > don't subscribe to the theory that we are in > complete control of our lives. I don't see how not being in complete control of our lives has much to do with this subthread. Of course we aren't completely in control of our lives. I have no control over whether Keane Kamakawikiole from Waiaenae goes to happy hour after work and rams into my car while I'm on the way home from the grocery store. I *do* have control over the fact that I choose not to drive anywhere at 4am on a Saturday morning to lessen the chances of Keane hitting me on his way home from a bar then. IMO, in many cases, saying that being in a bad marriage is not in our control *in most cases* is losing sight of the fact that we most likely *had* most of the information that we needed to know that it was possibly going to turn bad and gives us permission to blame it all on our spouse. Tracey >>>> But what is a better class? We've already been told to >>>> avoid self-confident, outgoing, go-getters! [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > Tracey But that's almost like saying those who marry someone, who later has an affair, had all the information to know that was going to happen before even getting married to them. And maybe you're right - the signals were already there. I dunno. (I haven't been there, so I can't say). [snipping most of this] >> I think it happens, perhaps often, that two pretty normal >> people get together, and then through the course of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > been there and, if we are paying attention, we all know what > kind of person we *could* be. Yes, but the operative word is *could*. Do you really think that we should analyze our prospective mates and determine what the worst possible manifestation of every flaw could turn out to be? No one would ever marry anyone if we did that. And an awful lot of great people would get passed over because they had some flaw that *could* have turned into something worse. > IMO, in many cases, saying that being in a bad marriage is > not in our control *in most cases* is losing sight of the > fact that we most likely *had* most of the information that > we needed to know that it was possibly going to turn bad and > gives us permission to blame it all on our spouse. I didn't say that being in a bad marriage is not in our control. I said that most of us do not have the knowledge and foresight to predict with 100% reliability what the problems, or potential problems in or marriages will be down the road. And if you read the paragraph I wrote above, I'm not sure how you can say that I'm trying to blame it all on the spouse. Zorra > The confident, out going go getter part isn't the dangerous part, it's > the critical, distainful, non-loving part that makes them musts to > avoid. Very true. My ex's confidence was what I was attracted to when I married him (age 21).. what I didn't realize or understand was that his confidence was one step away from arrogance and that as the years went by that arrogance would turn him into a very disdainful and unpleasant person. At 21, I wasn't able to discern the difference between confidence and arrogance. SignatureCal~ calliope 123 at gmail dot com >> The confident, out going go getter part isn't the dangerous part, it's >> the critical, distainful, non-loving part that makes them musts to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >At 21, I wasn't able to discern the difference between confidence and >arrogance. Which is a good argument against not marrying very young, or if one will marry, to listen to their parents and elders. Not that I listened when I was that age.... Much easier said then done. Then again, maybe it was one of those things that I was supposed to learn first hand, or I would have never learned it. >>> The confident, out going go getter part isn't the dangerous part, it's >>> the critical, distainful, non-loving part that makes them musts to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Not that I listened when I was that age.... > Much easier said then done. Hmm...I married at 29, and my elders *still* love him, even though I've told them how he treats me and how it makes me feel. Zorra >>>> The confident, out going go getter part isn't the dangerous part, it's >>>> the critical, distainful, non-loving part that makes them musts to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >even though I've told them how he treats me and how >it makes me feel. My mom liked every guy I ever went out with... So much for her judgment. Maybe she just wanted to be agreeable... who knows. She doesn't say much about things like that. >>>>> The confident, out going go getter part isn't the dangerous part, it's >>>>> the critical, distainful, non-loving part that makes them musts to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Maybe she just wanted to be agreeable... who knows. She doesn't say > much about things like that. Heh, not mine. She has been openly disapproving of my sister's husband since day one. The two of them can hardly be in the same room anymore. Of course my sister has a great marriage and is very much in love. I pointed out to mom that should be more important than which so-in-law will glue a chair back together, but her only response was, "It doesn't take much to make your sister happy." Zorra >>>>>> The confident, out going go getter part isn't the dangerous part, it's >>>>>> the critical, distainful, non-loving part that makes them musts to [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Zorra Was that a sarcastic remark on her part? >> Of course my sister has a great marriage and is very >> much in love. I pointed out to mom that should be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Was that a sarcastic remark on her part? Not in the sense that she didn't mean it, as I'm sure she did. She truly doesn't see what my sister sees in her husband. Zorra >>>>>> The confident, out going go getter part isn't the dangerous part, it's >>>>>> the critical, distainful, non-loving part that makes them musts to [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >chair back together, but her only response was, >"It doesn't take much to make your sister happy." Interesting! Almost like your mom likes to find opposition, or the negative side of things. > >> Okay, so what does one do with this information? Just reading > >> your paragraph above, one might assume that they should forgo [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But what is a better class? We've already been told to > avoid self-confident, outgoing, go-getters! Not by me! My point is that you don't choose a good mate, using a check list and calculator. Instead, you pick someone that is your match in some sense. I don't mean to make you defensive. Perhaps I should restate this: *I* only found a better man after *I* became a better, more healthy person. When I was just trying to pick better, it never worked. >>> Okay, so what does one do with this information? Just reading >>> your paragraph above, one might assume that they should forgo [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >But what is a better class? We've already been told to >avoid self-confident, outgoing, go-getters! Someone very self aware (not vain or self conscious) but someone capable of taking care of themselves and relatively balanced is a good choice. Not someone with no problems or a certain personality type, but someone who knows how to manage themselves and their problems without burdening others. Personality type, when it's within manageable range, you go for what suits you (you when you're in as balanced of a state as possible) Not when one is too lonely or too horny or too scared... Not a sexual, spiritual, intellectual, social or a financial crutch, but a partner. When we're too needy, we tend to get attracted to a crutch. I think that's why people sometimes say that someone really good comes along when we aren't looking, and when we're looking, we tend to find trouble. >>>> Okay, so what does one do with this information? Just reading >>>> your paragraph above, one might assume that they should forgo [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > along when we aren't looking, and when we're looking, we tend to find > trouble. See, here is the thing. I was 29 when I married. I'd been dating him for 5 years. I'm not stupid or masochistic, and I wasn't enveloped in a fog of lust or romance or dreams of a big wedding. was at the stage of my life where I wanted to get married, that's true, but I wasn't desperate to marry *him* -- I could easily have left and gotten someone else. In fact, there were two guys that I sort of started dating during a time when DH (just BF then of course) and I were split. These were both great guys who treated me nicely, had good careers, and so on. But I loved DH, so I held them off. Looking back, there is really nothing that I can point to and say that I did wrong. I picked someone that I loved and respected to marry. I picked someone that at the time appeared to love and respect me as well. Sure, if there is a next time, I would not pick the same personality type (at least I hope not), but I'm only sensitive to this one area. I don't see what I could do differently to pick someone who will make a better partner. It's not like buying a car anyway, where you can compare options and then custom order your mate. You date one person long enough to develop something, and then you have to decide -- is *this* one right for me, flaws and all? And what bigger factor is there than how you feel about him? Oh, gee, he's a great guy and I love him, but he got mad at me when I broke his phone, so he's going to turn into a bitter, overly critical guy who will make my life miserable? Zorra > Looking back, there is really nothing that I can point > to and say that I did wrong. I picked someone that I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > differently to pick someone who will make a better > partner. So then consider it wasn't about who you picked; it is about how you relate together. Couples fall into comfortable relating patterns early on, patterns that work well in the early years. But then life changes. Children are born. One partner may quit their job to stay home. They may move away from their circle of support. Health and financial issues intrude. What worked in the early years, may not apply as circumstances change. For example: consider a couple in which the relationship worked early on because the wife was ultra-attentive to her DH's every waking need. She mothered him and catered to him, and enjoyed doing so. Everything is fine, until the babies come. Now she is mothering children *and* a DH, maybe even juggling a full-time job, and the stress starts taking its toll. There's nothing left for her at the end of the day. She's too tired to have sex, so they fight about sex. She begins to hate sex because it just means mothering one more child.... doing one more duty. It's not about her pleasure (but then again, it had never been about her pleasure: their relationship may always have been based on her pleasuring him). Or none of the circumstances change, yet what worked beautifully early on ends up working the couple into a corner. And it stops working. Perhaps it stops working for one partner, but is still working for the other, so that partner resists changing his relating style because he thinks it should still work. For example: tit-for-tat transactions. Work beautifully in the beginning, but then over time, one partner starts to resent it that *everything* seems to be a trade! Even sex eventually becomes a bargain. And maybe the woman who bargains sex is completely flustered when her partner accuses her of being manipulative. Afterall, it's how they've operated for years, since the beginning, about everything. Why not sex? Also for example: a woman marries a man who is the "take control/responsible" type. He makes all the decisions for the family. The wife likes this because she can relax and not have to worry about every little detail. Because she has a partner who is taking care of the details for her. But then flash forward years later, and maybe she's starting to feel stifled. Maybe for once she wants the freedom to make her own choices, or at least have an equal say. Maybe she doesn't even have any clue about the family's finances. So she tries to change the style of relating, tries to take on more responsibility and make more of the choices herself, or at least have a say in those choices. This takes her DH by surprise and makes him feel threatened, because it's not what worked for them all those years. So he resists, and becomes even *more* controlling. And the more controlling he becomes, the more rebellious she becomes, like a teen acting out against a parent. Perhaps he knows no other way to be, having been the one in control for years and years. Perhaps he doesn't trust her to make decisions, since she's delegated it all to him in the past, and now she's acting like an immature adolescent... so what's to trust? (The above paragraph is no comment on your current marriage - I am describing what happened in my own first marriage). Or maybe *he's* the one who gets tired of it all, and wants his DW to step up to the plate and pull more weight. But DW panics because this is how they've always operated, it's what worked, and maybe she has no idea of any other way of operating. So she resists and digs in her heels. Or maybe his only complaint is that she doesn't take control in the bedroom. He has to do all the work, initiate sex, etc. He's tired of that. But you see, it's how the entire relationship was founded and operated from the start. It may not be so simple to fix it in the bedroom only. I could go on, but you get the idea. While it can be helpful to analyze "what went wrong" --- or rather --- how something that was going so right, eventually became a problem --- you don't really have to. You can simply concentrate your efforts not on analzying or trying to fix each partner's perceived character flaws, but rather, just try learning different, new ways of relating. This is not an easy task; when we're feeling vulnerable, stressed or threatened, we are particularly apt to want to resort back to the familiar patterns we know the best. And I also don't think there's any particular "ideal" way of relating. Every couple is different, and once you find a way that works, there's still no guarantee that years down the road, it may also stop working and you'll be out shopping for a new pattern again. I think couples who stay happily married for decades tend to be flexible enough to keep learning and improving their relating styles. They don't ask "did I marry the wrong person?" they ask "okay, the relationship is suffering - how can we fix it and make it better and get back on track?" jen > I think couples who stay happily married for decades tend to be > flexible enough to keep learning and improving their relating styles. > They don't ask "did I marry the wrong person?" they ask "okay, the > relationship is suffering - how can we fix it and make it better and > get back on track?" This is a very good attitude, and my hat's off to people who are successful in putting their suffering marriage back on track -- especially if it's more than a one time slip . In the happy marriages that I see around me (including my own), the couple are adaptable and learn how to relate to each other over time. But after a while they simply get into a working mutual dance of some sort, and don't have to constantly examine their relationship. I have rarely seen happy endings when a couple get off track, especially if it happens more than once. It appears to me that most couples can overcome one bump on the road, but it takes a lot of energy, and if the rest of the journey is not smooth they're likely to fall off. Fixing a broken relationship is a very hard job, and I don't think I'd be capable of enduring such a rough ride if it didn't end fast -- and for good! > This is a very good attitude, and my hat's off to people who are > successful in putting their suffering marriage back on track -- [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > one bump on the road, but it takes a lot of energy, and if the rest of > the journey is not smooth they're likely to fall off. I agree about the mutual dance, and that most happy couples don't need to constantly examine their relationship. I think maybe it's more like they tweak the relationship as they go along, *before* they hit the big bumps that can threaten to derail them. And I suspect that couples who have made it to 30, 40 or 50 years of marriage and consider themselves happliy married have all been through a major rough patch at some point in the relationship. That is the case with my own parents (over 40 years together and quite happy, but they have had their rough moments; today they joke that they have an "option to renew" each year), my grandparents (nearly 60 I think - and when my grandpa died, they were still leaving love letters underneath each other's pillows, a habit they started when their marriage hit the skids decades earlier), and my siblings and their spouses (my sister's marriage hit their crisis about 5 years ago, when their baby was stillborn - today, they are finally hitting their stride again). I suspect it's that first big bump or relationship crisis that makes them more attentive afterwards. I highly doubt that such couples *never* have some sort of crisis at some point in their relationship, that they somehow just lucked out. That they didn't divorce over it, however, may be testament to the fact they are both adaptable and flexible. And also that both *equally* committed to working through the issues and making things better, instead of bolting. Because it does take two, and if your partner is not on board, there is only so much you can do yourself. If you improve your end of things, your partner has to adjust, and then the two of you need to work back to find a new & better mutual dance. jen > > In the happy marriages that I see around me (including my own), the > > couple are adaptable and learn how to relate to each other over time. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > marriage and consider themselves happliy married have all been through > a major rough patch at some point in the relationship. I am well aware that my personal experience and that of my parents, in-laws and a few of the siblings (though not all) are not at all *typical* in the environment that we live. But I am curious about what you consider a "major rough patch". Are you talking about situations that my cause a couple to question their marriage and/or wonder if they want to be together? Do you consider disagreements, and perhaps compromises that the couple aren't too happy about but go along with, a "major rough patch"? In most self proclaimed happy marriages that I know there are things that the couple *wish* were different, but don't consider them big enough to fuss over too much or a "major" problem, not to mention breaking up over them. I'd be interested to hear some real examples of what you view as a "crisis" that people get over. > > I think couples who stay happily married for decades tend to be > > flexible enough to keep learning and improving their relating styles. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > one bump on the road, but it takes a lot of energy, and if the rest of > the journey is not smooth they're likely to fall off. Then it seems to me that without a the reciprocity of working into a mutual dance of some sort; it simply is NOT going to work. It takes two. Period. I, Zorra or Joe Schmoe can work as hard as possible to get things back on track, but without the cooperation (no matter how small that cooperation might be), the foundation of the relationship is not going to turn into something positive. What often happens in my marriage is that we get "on track" for a little while, but then we slip and sometimes find it too overwhelming to get back on. Sometimes it takes a few days but sometimes it takes a few weeks. It's difficult to remain hopefull and positive in those few weeks. I do have a creative mind and have used it countless times to try and get back on track...but staying there is another story. > Fixing a broken relationship is a very hard job, and I don't think I'd > be capable of enduring such a rough ride if it didn't end fast -- and > for good! Again, it's not what i signed up for and I've said your words, yet I"m still here. As we've discussed countless times in here; ending a marriage seems to come easier to some than it does for others. Frankly, I don't know which one is better! > > In the happy marriages that I see around me (including my own), the > > couple are adaptable and learn how to relate to each other over time. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > small that cooperation might be), the foundation of the relationship is > not going to turn into something positive. That's true. You certainly need both people's effort to make a happy marriage, and even then, IME, if you have too many bumps people lose the drive and energy to keep at it. The *happy* marriages (not necessarily those who just stay together) that I see are not those who keep working on one crisis after another. It's way too exhausting! [...] > Again, it's not what i signed up for and I've said your words, yet I"m > still here. As we've discussed countless times in here; ending a > marriage seems to come easier to some than it does for others. > Frankly, I don't know which one is better! I don't think anyone signs up for situations like this. We sometimes fall into them and have to decide how to respond. As I've said before my husband and I have a very large extended family and are quite close to our aunts, uncles, and cousins. I know three older couples who've been together over 40 years in a relatively cold and unhappy marriage. Divorce has never been on the table for them. They've tried to make a happy life for themselves to the best of their ability, raising their kids (all relatively happy and successful now), and pretty much making their own version of marriage. One of couples actually lived in separate homes for a long period after the kids were out of the house. A few years ago they got back together in the same house because the man got very sick and needed care. They have been there for each other, and now that they're all older they seem to be getting along better too. This is not a kind of marriage that I would sign up for, but frankly I don't know what I would do if I were in their shoes with young kids and a spouse who, while not intimate and compatible with me, was a good parent and cared about me. I am not a firm believer that you either have to have a near perfect marriage or leave, because I have seen different arrangements that have worked for people. I don't think there is one formula that everyone should follow. However, I believe that if one gets to a point that no matter what they do they can't get their marriage the way they want, and don't want to leave for some reason, they should put their focus on accepting and arranging a different lifestyle that's relatively satisfying, instead of constant struggle to achieve something that they know they can't. > I don't think there is one formula that everyone should follow. > However, I believe that if one gets to a point that no matter what they > do they can't get their marriage the way they want, and don't want to > leave for some reason, they should put their focus on accepting and > arranging a different lifestyle that's relatively satisfying, instead > of constant struggle to achieve something that they know they can't. Yep. Giving up that struggle relieves a person tremendously. Tracey >> Looking back, there is really nothing that I can point >> to and say that I did wrong. I picked someone that I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So then consider it wasn't about who you picked; it is about how you > relate together. That I can agree with. > Couples fall into comfortable relating patterns early on, patterns that > work well in the early years. But then life changes. Children are born. > One partner may quit their job to stay home. They may move away from > their circle of support. Health and financial issues intrude. What > worked in the early years, may not apply as circumstances change. Sure. > I think couples who stay happily married for decades tend to be > flexible enough to keep learning and improving their relating styles. > They don't ask "did I marry the wrong person?" they ask "okay, the > relationship is suffering - how can we fix it and make it better and > get back on track?" Thanks for this post Jen. I was beginning to think no one understood what I was trying to say, but I think you've got it. Zorra > Thanks for this post Jen. I was beginning to think no one understood > what I was trying to say, but I think you've got it. One thing I admire about you is that you resist the urge to say "I just married the wrong person." And I am really glad you kept asking questions to clarify what I said originally. It helped me refine the language behind my own thoughts, which are always evolving. :-) jen >>>>> Okay, so what does one do with this information? Just reading >>>>> your paragraph above, one might assume that they should forgo [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >loved and respected to marry. I picked someone that >at the time appeared to love and respect me as well. Sometimes things just change slowly over time. Small dysfunctions become very visible and annoying after umpteen years. >Sure, if there is a next time, I would not pick the same >personality type (at least I hope not), but I'm only >sensitive to this one area. I don't see what I could do >differently to pick someone who will make a better >partner. Sometimes you can't foresee it all. The best one can do is try to maximize their chances of picking a good one. It also has to do with what we make of it. Everyone has problems. It's how they manage them that can make a difference. See, with you and your hubby, I don't necessarily see you picking a bad one. It turns out that with smaller things that may matter on the long run you guys weren't enough of a match. Close, but no cigar. >It's not like buying a car anyway, where you can >compare options and then custom order your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >phone, so he's going to turn into a bitter, overly >critical guy who will make my life miserable? Also, there's a bit of a difference between seeing pretty major dysfunctions vs. not being a match. Finding a good match involves a lot more subtleties then seeing a bigger dysfunction. To say something about the 'phone' example, if I broke someone's phone by accident, and they got mad at me, I'd wonder about them, their temper. It would be different if I broke it on purpose... > My view is that to attract (and be attracted to) a better class of mate > you have to become a better class of mate. Healthy people end up with > healthy people. But early in the game some of may not even know what healthy looks like. I find that actively selecting role models is a good way to learn. imagine the thril when you outgrow those role models and move on to even healthier ones! Chose and learn! and, you have to make some effort to get out among those you'd like to be like, and the pools where the fish you want to attract swim. Don't just spend time with people who chose you! as in gloom onto you. you have to select....which also means learning to politely decline those who are not what you want. Grace >> My view is that to attract (and be attracted to) a better class of mate >> you have to become a better class of mate. Healthy people end up with [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you have to select....which also means learning to politely decline >those who are not what you want. Hi Grace, You made some very good points there :) > "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>Of course. I don't doubt that most relatively healthy people won't >>marry someone who is abusive prior to marriage. But I don't think [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > what they mean, I can hardly be expected to know what I'm > arguing against. In my view these issues are fluid and fuzzy. There is no clear mathematical formula that applies to every case, and I certainly don't claim that people can follow a check list to guarantee finding a perfect mate. I've tried to explain what I mean the best I can and further attempts won't make it any more clear or precise. So I'll leave it here. >>True again. However, a person may be attracted to people who make >>things happen, are go-getters, self assured, confident, proactive, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > your paragraph above, one might assume that they should forgo > all self-assured, confident go-getters in favor of shy, quiet people! I know real people (both men and women) who have become so impressed by these qualities that it's prevented them from seeing the whole package and noticing alarming areas. Sometimes we are so attracted to some things that they become our sole focus and make us blind-sighted. > Pretty much every attractive quality can have it's "dark side" if > you will. We've talked about that before. So to avoid all possible > negative qualities in a mate, you'd have to avoid marrying altogether. There is no guarantee. Obviously we are attracted to particular qualities and should look for mates who meet most or some of what's important to us. but it's equally important to not get "hooked" with those things to the point of ignoring other things -- or at times justify things and talk ourselves into accepting what we know can become a problem down the road. > Which brings us back to what Jen seemed to be saying in that > first post, which was that if a guy marries a girl that would use > sex as a weapon, then he probably had it coming. The way I see it a girl can only use sex as a weapon if the guy is prone to viewing sex as a commodity. To clarify, someone like my husband would NEVER end up with a sex trader, not because he is so smart to avoid them but because if a woman tried to use sex that way she'd flat fall on her face and totally fail. So yes, though not as directly as you put it, I'd say that if a guy "ends up" a victim of sex as a weapon, he had it coming. > > "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > put it, I'd say that if a guy "ends up" a victim of sex as a weapon, he > had it coming. Early on in our relationship, I jokingly said something to DH like "If you go get me a smoothie, I'll give you a blow job later." <wink,wink> (Of course, I'd hoped/planned to have sex anyway, and I was totally kidding.) DH looked at me *very* seriously, and said that he never, ever wanted for sex to become a commodity between us. A woman who viewed like that would be totally frustrated by him. Sheila > "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>The way I see it a girl can only use sex as a weapon if the guy is prone >>to viewing sex as a commodity. To clarify, someone like my husband [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > DH looked at me *very* seriously, and said that he never, ever wanted for > sex to become a commodity between us. Exactly. > A woman who viewed like that would be totally frustrated by him. Either that, or she'd grow to not view sex that way in her marriage. That's what I meant by my original point that couples adapt to each others' ways. Our views and habits aren't always well established and firm. They get formed as we live with our partners. If there is a solid base for the relationship the couple grow to *fit* the other. So a woman who may have a tendency to use sex as currency (perhaps because of past experiences) will soon learn to drop that practice if she married your or my husband! >>> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >first post, which was that if a guy marries a girl that would use >sex as a weapon, then he probably had it coming. I think it comes down to having clear personal boundaries about what's acceptable for us, and not get so swept away into the warm and fuzzies that we end up bending the rules. I think when we find a person that intensely feeds an overblown need (likely a dysfunction) they are more inclined to bend the rest of their personal boundaries, so that this intense need continues to be fed. Coincidentally I think that's one of the reasons rebounds can be a can of worms. We're in a more needy, more vulnerable stage where we may be more susceptible to bending the rules, and to a greater degree then if we weren't as needy. >> "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > most loving and caring spouse. Some of the qualities that attract us > while looking for a mate can turn on us later! Sigh. Ain't it the truth. I'm thinking of outgoing vs ingoing, for example. To make up for the "deficit". Complementary differences (with an "e"). "turn on us" is a little stronger than I would have put it, cause it's almost implying there were bad intentions. It's just that the differences can become a bit unbearable, day in and day out. And then you probably start expecting the other person to change for you. > I'm working on not getting as uptight about making mistakes. > But yeah, that is one thing that worries me. That I might leave > and find someone new only to find out that I'd "traded down." > One among dozens of things that worry me. It's a valid and worthwhile thing to worry about. Now, can I point out that you, like your DH, are a perfectionist? That you may be just as critical of yourself and your own mistakes, as he is of you? jen <<<snipped most of the post>>> > Well I think there's a difference between cheating once, and perpetual > cheating. I think anyone can marry someone who would possibly cheat > once. But those who marry perpetual cheaters could fear intimacy, > suffer from low self-esteem, or have a verrrry open mind! I'd love to make a thread out of this one thought process of yours. Of the people that I know personally, who have cheated.....it did not just happen once. Two of the most common outcomes of those cheaters have been: 1. Falling in love with the person who they cheated with 2. Serial cheating Maybe I'm blowing this one point of yours out of proportion, but you seem to speak of cheating once, very lightly. > I'd love to make a thread out of this one thought process of yours. Of > the people that I know personally, who have cheated.....it did not just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Maybe I'm blowing this one point of yours out of proportion, but you > seem to speak of cheating once, very lightly. Well, yeah, I would, because I cheated once, and don't intend to ever do it again. ;-) I do believe that cheating is fairly prevalent in marriages. I don't believe that all marriages break up over it, or that it becomes serial. jen > > I'd love to make a thread out of this one thought process of yours. Of > > the people that I know personally, who have cheated.....it did not just [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I do believe that cheating is fairly prevalent in marriages. I don't > believe that all marriages break up over it, or that it becomes serial. Of those I spoke up...the marriages didn't break up, interestingly. I don't know about you, but of those I know, I don't think that any of them _intended_ to cheat. > jen > Of those I spoke up...the marriages didn't break up, interestingly. Yep, I think this is much more common than anyone lets on: a one-time cheat, doesn't become a serial thing, and the marriage doesn't break up. May even go on to thrive. My gf who was going through cheating (on both sides) this summer? Her marriage may end up being one that not only makes it, but improves. Things are going in the right direction at the moment (fingers crossed). > I > don't know about you, but of those I know, I don't think that any of > them _intended_ to cheat. Of course not. I think very few people do. jen > But that isn't what I meant. Jen said that women who would > withhold sex until the garage was cleaned or whatever, are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > marry cheaters and that beaters marry beaters? That is > clearly and demonstrably not always true. Taking "like marries like" *literally* distorts its true meaning. A seller will seek someone who is willing to buy what he's selling. They are both interested in the same commodity, but their interest need not be the same. One likes to produce it, the other to buy it. What is constant is that each will seek the one who complement their need (at times subconsciously). > Well, Jen will explain her meaning, but I didn't read her that way. I > thought se meant that we get attracted to people who think, or perhaps [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > it's fair to say people do become closer in their ways, if not becoming > "like" each other. Yes, and if you read the article I posted, adjusting to each other sometimes works beautifully for years, but then over time starts to backfire in other areas, such as the bedroom. The article gave the example of the wife who adjusts to the man's emotional neediness. He needs reassurance, and she lovingly gives it to him. Everything works fine for years, but eventually the cost is her own individual sexuality: sex becomes all about validating her DH and soothing his neediness, and not about her own pleasure, and perhaps even her own neediness. She loses sight of that because there's no room for it in the sexual relationship. Instead of being a woman with her own sexual identity, she becomes a caregiver, and sex is what she gives. She can't relax and explore her own sexuality because she's too busy soothing and worrying about his needs to worry about her own. jen > > Well, Jen will explain her meaning, but I didn't read her that way. I > > thought se meant that we get attracted to people who think, or perhaps [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > jen This is exactly what made Jayne's dictim so repugnant! And who would want a man who's rejection button is so raw that he'd expect you to? However, this phenomenon also happens outside of the bedroom. Women who cater to the needs of others while letting their own slide is probably one of the most heartbreaking things we see and do. Selfish gets a bad rap. Getting our own needs met is also crucial in my opinion. I wouldn't want to lose myself in order to be married. Many people do. Grace > >> I don't doubt that it does happen. There are many people in this world > >> who operate their relationships based on tit-for-tat: I do this for [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Zorra Eh.... if we are going to discuss my history, can we move this to just ASM? That other place gives me the willies. Sheila >> >> I don't doubt that it does happen. There are many people in this world >> >> who operate their relationships based on tit-for-tat: I do this for [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > ASM? > That other place gives me the willies. Oops, sorry Sheila. I didn't even think about cross-posts. But what do *you* think about Jen's theory? Zorra > >> >> I don't doubt that it does happen. There are many people in this world > >> >> who operate their relationships based on tit-for-tat: I do this for [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Zorra No problem. :-) I think that, in general, people with the same *level* of dysfunction may hook up. For instance, today I am emotionally healthier than I was when I married my ex. There were signs that, now, I would see and run away as fast as I could. Now that I am healthier, I found a mate who is equally healthy. But, at that point in time, I was still at the point of needing to see myself through a man's eyes, and the fact that this smart, successful man wanted me was an indication, to me, that I was "okay". That is a dysfunction all of its own. And, while I knew he had his demons (although I didn't know the nature of them until much later... I thought it was all alcohol/drug/FOO related), I thought that my love could make it all better. That, too, is a dysfunction -- of the "savior" type. So, we were both dysfunctional. I guess I'd say it is rather like one person having the flu, and the other pneumonia -- both equally sick, but in different ways. Sheila >> >> >> I don't doubt that it does happen. There are many people in this > world [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > in > different ways. What you see as dysfunctional, I see as inexperienced, and perhaps a little immature. I would hope that we all continue to grow in wisdom and experience as we age. Not to mention that hindsight is 20/20. I too, can look back on my marriage and on the courtship that preceded it and say that there are signs I should have recognized then -- or signs that I did recognize, but should have taken more seriously. So, yeah, maybe someone a little smarter or world-wise would have realized that the marriage was bound to have problems, but I don't think that not recognizing that at that time is sign of a dysfunction, just naiveté. Zorra > So, yeah, maybe someone a > little smarter or world-wise would have realized that > the marriage was bound to have problems, but I don't > think that not recognizing that at that time is sign of a > dysfunction, just naiveté. Neither do I. It just is what it is! I believe it is more like we do this instinctually, for a purpose. We choose just the mate who is best qualified to teach us what we need to learn about ourselves. I married someone who, it turns out, is probably highly functioning Asperger's. In hindsight, that is really ironic to me and just blows my mind, considering that I've *always,* since childhood, been on the extreme side of emotionally perceptive. Sometimes, I feel like I can read people's minds. I am that good at picking up other people's emotional radar signals. Why would I marry someone who can't read emotional signals because there's something wrong with his brain that makes it impossible? When I'm around another highly emotional person and I'm emotional myself, sometimes it is just too much... my senses get too flooded. Perhaps I felt comfortable around my ex because he *wasn't* emotional and therefore didn't flood my senses. Perhaps it also felt good to be his crutch and to help him navigate the world by reading other people's emotions for him. It makes sense he'd be attracted to someone like me: I had extreme strength where he had extreme weakness. We complimented each other. And it worked okay for many years, but we hit a point where it stopped working. It was too much for me to be his crutch, and also be emotionally attuned to our babies at the same time. I was completely strapped out, and also ignoring my own emotions. And I had a breakdown, as you all know. My next relationship post-divorce was with a man who didn't have Asperger's but was a rational type. I had so much emotional white noise in my own head, I found it soothing to be around him, because he wasn't an emotional guy. With him, I learned to use the more rational side of my personality. That relationship lasted 4 years. It gave me the space to work on getting control of my own emotional nature, and finding a better balance for myself. DH is an emotionally perceptive guy, and just as prone to anxiety as I am. I couldn't have handled a relationship with someone like him if I hadn't spent the intervening years working on myself and finding that balance. And so the work continues, in a different sort of relationship with two people who can get overly emotional at times. DH can read my emotions quite well, and I can read his. Neither one of us needs to do the heavy lifting for the other. That leaves us free to do our own heavy lifting. jen >> So, yeah, maybe someone a >> little smarter or world-wise would have realized that [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I had extreme strength where he had extreme weakness. We complimented > each other. You mean you "complemented" each other. (And (hopefully) complimented each other in the process. :-) And yes, I think that's what attracts a LOT of us to our mates. (well, past tense here) > And it worked okay for many years, but we hit a point where it stopped > working. It was too much for me to be his crutch, and also be [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > jen >> So, yeah, maybe someone a >> little smarter or world-wise would have realized that [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >the heavy lifting for the other. That leaves us free to do our own >heavy lifting. What you're talking about is very interesting. The three significant relationships that I had were pretty different from one another in the type that I picked. Seems like I'm closer now to balanced relationship now, then ever before. At the same time, the lessons I learned over the years were necessary for me to get attracted to my BF now. In the past I would not have been attracted to him. I probably wasn't ready for the type of the relationship. My first relationship, I'd characterize it as 'too much' (of pretty much everything), the second was 'too little'. So far I think I found a middle. > My first relationship, I'd characterize it as 'too much' (of pretty > much everything), the second was 'too little'. So far I think I found > a middle. The only thing you can be sure of, Kitty, is that if you have any remaining dysfunctions (and we ALL do... ) then this relationship will eventually bring them to light. I think now that I know that, I'll be more apt to stay in this relationship and work them out through the relationship, if it is within my power and DH is willing, instead of jumping to the next one! He gets that too, which is why I am hopeful for us! jen >> My first relationship, I'd characterize it as 'too much' (of pretty >> much everything), the second was 'too little'. So far I think I found [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >He gets that too, which is why I am hopeful for us! What seems to be good about this relationship is that we are both pretty aware of our own dysfunctions, and trying to manage them on our own, rather then expecting, thinking or even hoping that our partner will make up for them. So, if there's a disagreement or something isn't going smooth, the first line of thinking and evaluating is, is this my dysfunction at play, or am I being objective. Where in the past, when I wasn't aware of a particular dysfunction I may have been inclined to make someone else responsible for bridging the gap, which would result in more conflict in a relationship. I think this is what part of standing on your own means. Knowing to minimize leaning on your partner, or burdening them with your dysfunctions. (ugh, I'm too tired to explain this well) Sorry I left you in suspense, Zorra! We had a busy day yesterday. > I think that, in general, people with the same *level* of dysfunction may > hook up. For instance, today I am emotionally healthier than I was when I > married my ex. There were signs that, now, I would see and run away as fast > as I could. Now that I am healthier, I found a mate who is equally healthy. This is the closest to what I meant. As for me and my ex, yes, we had a tit-for-tat relationship and I was equally guilty of allowing that and participating in the game. EXCEPT when it came to sex! I first want to make that clear, given what this thread is about!!! No way would I have ever used sex to get what I wanted, because I like sex too much and in our relationship it *was* what I wanted. LOL. I was the partner who wanted it more than he did. I was the one always being judged as too lusty. But as for the rest of the relationship, we related often by trading tit for tat. It started during our courtship and worsened after the babies came. "If you do this for me, I'll do that for you" was the daily refrain. "I will watch the kids on Saturday so you can mow the lawn, if you watch them on Sunday while I go to the gym." "I will give you extra spending money this week if you promise you won't use the credit cards for a month." "Your mom can come visit for a week if we can go visit my mom this summer." And on and on. I was just as guilty of using that refrain as he was. And no, I can't remember this being something I observed in my parent's own marriage growing up, but maybe my mother did make these sort of bargains with us kids to get us to do things around the house. I know my sister made such bargains with me all the time, and so did my closest girlfriends. So I can't say if it's something I learned solely in my FOO; I think it is just so pervasive in our society. I learned it from all around me. It may simply be a stage a lot of people tend to go through. I don't recall when it dawned on me that this was no way to run a marriage. I just know that today it is something I very *deliberately* try not to do anymore. Sometimes I will catch myself knee-jerk resorting to it, and will stop myself or DH will stop me. It is not an easy habit to break. It's easier with DH because he's very conscious of it himself, but much harder with my girls, such as bargaining with them, "If you put away your laundry, I'll iron that skirt you wanted to wear." I try really hard not to do that, because today I realize it is not a good example to give them. I am in no way perfect though. It is an easy mode of parenting to fall into, because it works! "If you get your homework done, yes I will take you to the mall." "If you clear the dishes, yes you can watch that t.v. show." Etc. My ex does this himself with the girls, and I can see they are learning quickly to take full advantage of it. For example he'll pay them $1 for every book they read. They will ask me to also pay them to read, and I'll roll my eyes and tell them reading is its own reward. In fact, they are constantly trying to make bargains like this with me. I'm not sure if I can completely blame my ex and myself for that; maybe they also learn it from their friends too. I think it is very common in our society and it could also just be a natural stage people go through (and some never grow out of it). I certainly see it a lot at work too: "If you help me with this report, I'll help you with yours." Etc. But, today my ex and I rarely make such bargains with each other! If one of us offers, "If you will watch the kids for me on this day, I'll trade you any day you like" the other will respond, "I can watch the kids that day, and you don't need to trade; they are my kids and I'm just happy to have the extra day." We've both slowly learned over the years that this works better all around to encourage generous cooperation between us. As for DH, he abhors any sort of tit-for-tat bargaining. His first marriage was also like that, and I would guess he played a role in it as well. But today, no: If I forget and offer him a bargain, such as "if you drive the kids to school today for me I'll do your laundry for you" he'll always stop me and say, "I'm happy to drive the kids to school today because I love you ... and you don't have to bribe me to do it!" Beyond the tit-for-tat thing, my ex and I definetly were equally dysfunctional but it was more like we had opposite-yet-complementary dysfunctions. It wasn't about me having a bad picker; it was about me picking just exactly the right matching dysfunctional person who was best qualified to teach me a valuable lesson and grow. At that stage of my life, I would not have been attracted to anyone healthier. jen > Sorry I left you in suspense, Zorra! We had a busy day yesterday. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This is the closest to what I meant. I read you somewhat differently! As I said, I think that we interpret things based on our own experience and personality. To me, saying "likes marry" doesn't necessarily mean "levels" of health or dysfunction, as much as overall worldview and how we relate to things that life throws at us. Two people could be equally healthy or unhealthy and very different. And an unhealthy person can be fundamentally "like" someone healthy at their core, but the dysfunctional version of them! [...] > I don't recall when it dawned on me that this was no way to run a > marriage. But that depends on the couple. I know very happy marriages which are based on tit for tat relations. In my own marriage we don't operate that way explicitly, but I can't help thinking that deep down we try to maintain a *balance* of give and take. Of course this is never applied to sex or other expressions of affection or offering comfort (like back rubs and such!). Those are things that we do because we both enjoy, so tit for that has no meaning in them. But when it comes to running our daily lives, there is an implicit and subconscious tit for tat in place in our relationship. For example, when kids were young and needy I remember that we DID take turns with "I'll do this, you do that" or when one of them was sick "I'll take a day off today, you take it tomorrow", and a whole range of things like that. We never held our affection or even daily services hostage to the other's performance (so if I didn't feel well, for example, my husband would naturally take over everything without a blink, and vice versa), but in the long run, and on average, we DID (and still do) try to balance everything. Though it's more automatic and we don't *think* in those terms. > I just know that today it is something I very *deliberately* > try not to do anymore. Sometimes I will catch myself knee-jerk [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > your homework done, yes I will take you to the mall." "If you clear the > dishes, yes you can watch that t.v. show." Etc. Oh, we couldn't function and have a peaceful home if we didn't operate on the "tit for tat" basis with the kids! That's a whole different ball game as far as I'm concerned :-) > My ex does this himself with the girls, and I can see they are learning > quickly to take full advantage of it. For example he'll pay them $1 for > every book they read. They will ask me to also pay them to read, and > I'll roll my eyes and tell them reading is its own reward. Well, that would work if the kid enjoyed reading. It's difficult to pass something as a reward if it feels like torture to a kid! > In fact, > they are constantly trying to make bargains like this with me. Thanks for bringing a smile on my lips, Jen. You post brought back some heartwarming memories! It seems like 100 years ago, but I remember once my son, 5 at the time, was soooo looking forward to seeing his best friend who had moved to a different state and was coming to visit us with his family. He had for a week, gotten new toys and games to share with him, etc. and couldn't wait (literally!) to see him. The day that they were supposed to come they called to say he had come down with strep throat and they had to cancel the trip. When we told our son, he just leaned on the wall and slid down to the floor crying without control. It was the most heartbreaking scene, and we couldn't soothe him. My husband said something like "maybe we'll go out and buy you such and such toy" that he wanted. I had an automatic reaction and said "I don't think it's a good idea to bribe him in these kinds of situations", not realizing that he could hear us even through his sobbing. Without a pause in crying, and with skipping and shaking voice, he immediately said "I.. hu hu..accpet.. hu hu.. bribes hu..hu.. in .. these.. situations..too.." I can't believe how fast those days are gone... > But that depends on the couple. I know very happy marriages which are > based on tit for tat relations. In my own marriage we don't operate that > way explicitly, but I can't help thinking that deep down we try to > maintain a *balance* of give and take. Well, that is true, DH and I do deep down maintain a balance of give and take. It just doesn't happen on a tit-for-tat transactional basis; it's more like "everything eventually evens out in the wash." Hmm... how can I put this, without having enough coffee yet this morning? :-) To me, tit-for-tat transactions have, at their basis, a distrust that the other person would do something for you UNLESS you do something for them. In our marriage, the balance is found because we do trust each other to do these things out of love, not bargains. I trust that he has a genuine desire to make me happy and meet my needs, and he trusts that I have a genuine desire to make him happy and meet his needs. So there's no need to offer bargains, but the result is the same: we both get our needs met. It is also an acknowledgement that not everything has to be equal all the time: the important thing isn't that two people get an equal-sized share of the birthday cake, but that each person gets as much cake as they need. And then there's just doing things because you're a member of the family. Like my kids should put their laundry away because it's their laundry and they're a contributing member of the household; not because if they do, they get a ride to the mall. > Of course this is never applied to sex or other expressions of affection > or offering comfort (like back rubs and such!). Those are things that we [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "I'll take a day off today, you take it tomorrow", and a whole range of > things like that. I think this is very, very common. And maybe it is one of the reasons why marriages tend to start suffering when kids come into the picture? I just feel it's a set up to start sliding down the slippery slope of score-keeping. > We never held our affection or even daily services > hostage to the other's performance (so if I didn't feel well, for > example, my husband would naturally take over everything without a > blink, and vice versa), but in the long run, and on average, we DID (and > still do) try to balance everything. Though it's more automatic and we > don't *think* in those terms. Yes, things still balance out in our house too, but not necessarily along equal lines. Every member gets their needs met, and we all have different needs. I used the birthday cake example earlier: I don't *want* a bigger share of the bday cake! Too much bday cake makes me feel sick. DH has higher caloric needs so in our house he gets the biggest slice. Ultimately, we all get what we need - it doesn't have to be equal all the time. > Oh, we couldn't function and have a peaceful home if we didn't operate > on the "tit for tat" basis with the kids! That's a whole different ball > game as far as I'm concerned :-) I know, it is common mode of parenting, precisely because it works. I'm just much more conscious of it these days, because I fear it may ultimately backfire when kids grow up and get married. For example, cultivating the Flylady attitude has been very helpful to me when it comes to housework. I no longer walk around fuming and feeling like I'm the only one who ever lifts a finger to clean. I clean because I personally *want* it clean. I like a clean house, more so than any other member of the family. So instead of fuming and resenting, I just clean it myself and I enjoy doing it. > Well, that would work if the kid enjoyed reading. It's difficult to pass > something as a reward if it feels like torture to a kid! In which case, then they should read because they are expected by their teachers to read a certain amount. > Thanks for bringing a smile on my lips, Jen. You post brought back some > heartwarming memories! [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > said "I.. hu hu..accpet.. hu hu.. bribes hu..hu.. in .. these.. > situations..too.." LOL!! So cute... Yeah, I have to say that even though I am trying not to make tit-for-tat transactions with my kids, I still admire them for their shrewd and clever negotiation attempts. DD11 is a master at it. Everyone who knows her says she's going to be a CEO someday, and she probably will. So it's not necessarily a terrible skill to have, and something one should *never* do. I just think that there is a time and a place, and that marriage and family is not necessarily the best place. jen [..] > Hmm... how can I put this, without having enough coffee yet this > morning? :-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a genuine desire to make me happy and meet my needs, and he trusts that > I have a genuine desire to make him happy and meet his needs. Yes, I think that is what makes a difference. The trust comes form the fact that you both know the other has your best interest in mind. People have different ways of handling their daily lives, and they all can work IF their marriage is based on concern about their partner's well being more than their own. Now, I am not talking about a self-sacrificing attitude at all. My theory is that we are naturally selfish, and automatically DO care about our own needs (and those who don't have some kind of martyr syndrome or other mental imbalances in my view). So it's not *necessary* to focus on "what's in it for me", because that will happen without any effort! The focus, which can be a bit of challenge at times, is to consciously think about your partner's interest. > So > there's no need to offer bargains, but the result is the same: we both > get our needs met. In my view much of what appear as bargains (implicitly or explicitly) are not so much about meeting our needs, but doing the necessary things that have to be done and neither one of us particularly like doing! > It is also an acknowledgement that not everything has to be equal all > the time: the important thing isn't that two people get an equal-sized > share of the birthday cake, but that each person gets as much cake as > they need. That's right. That kind of equality is meaningless to us too. But we do reach for equality in the sense of both getting the leisure time that we need to relax and do what we like, or care that one doesn't get overly physically exhausted, or (when the kids were little) equal involvement in their everyday lives even if one of us did one task exclusively and the other something else... [..] >>Of course this is never applied to sex or other expressions of affection >>or offering comfort (like back rubs and such!). Those are things that we [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I think this is very, very common. And maybe it is one of the reasons > why marriages tend to start suffering when kids come into the picture? Maybe. I know that our lives were much more stressful with little kids, but the division of chores didn't cause any problem for us. Again, I think the reason was that though we did split the tasks and assigned things based on some level of *balance*, both of us approached it with concern about the other. > I just feel it's a set up to start sliding down the slippery slope of > score-keeping. It could be. But if the relationship doesn't have a solid base, any arrangement can slide down some sort of slippery slope. People can become overworked and resentful even if they don't believe in tit for tat or expect their partner to carry equal load. >>We never held our affection or even daily services >>hostage to the other's performance (so if I didn't feel well, for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > along equal lines. Every member gets their needs met, and we all have > different needs. That's true. Our tit for tat arrangements are for things that neither one of us "need" but have to do :-) <snip> > It seems like 100 years ago, but I remember once my son, 5 at the > time, was soooo looking forward to seeing his best friend who had [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I can't believe how fast those days are gone... What a sweet story! It reminds me of something my own son might do! > Sorry I left you in suspense, Zorra! We had a busy day yesterday. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > when it came to sex! I first want to make that clear, given what this > thread is about!!! I don't think tit-for-tat is so wrong unless it goes overboard, or becomes too inflexible. > No way would I have ever used sex to get what I wanted, because I like > sex too much and in our relationship it *was* what I wanted. LOL. I was > the partner who wanted it more than he did. I was the one always being > judged as too lusty. The worst sexual period of my life -- yes, even worse than now -- was when DH started this thing about "taking turns". He'd say, "I did all the work last time, it's your turn to do all the work this time." Even if I went into way more detail than I want to, I don't think I could possibly explain just how horrible this time was. And that time I *did* actually cut out all sex for a time. Well, I didn't cut it out exactly, I just said something along the lines of, "I'll be here if you want me, but I never want to hear another word again about "taking turns". Ugh, ugh, ugh! And he claims now not to remember anything about it. > But as for the rest of the relationship, we related often by trading > tit for tat. It started during our courtship and worsened after the > babies came. "If you do this for me, I'll do that for you" was the > daily refrain. "I will watch the kids on Saturday so you can mow the > lawn, if you watch them on Sunday while I go to the gym." We've never taken it to that extreme. > I don't recall when it dawned on me that this was no way to run a > marriage. I just know that today it is something I very *deliberately* > try not to do anymore. And this is a good point. You are hyper-sensitive to this issue because it came to be a big issue for you. But how can you (general you, not just Jen) be sure that you recognize *all* possible pitfalls, even with a second marriage or a later life relationship? Zorra > I don't think tit-for-tat is so wrong unless it goes overboard, or > becomes too inflexible. I think there's a time and a place for it. The older I get, the less I think families are the place for it. It just has this way of backfiring. Not just in marriage, but with kids too. It works for awhile with them, but then it becomes one negotiation after another. Don't get me wrong... negotiation is a good skill to teach kids, and a worthwhile one for any marriage. But it's, as you say, when you go overboard and everything becomes a transactional exchange. That's the problem! > The worst sexual period of my life -- yes, even worse than now > -- was when DH started this thing about "taking turns". He'd [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > another word again about "taking turns". Ugh, ugh, ugh! And > he claims now not to remember anything about it. Ugh is right! That would definetly turn me off too! > And this is a good point. You are hyper-sensitive to this issue > because it came to be a big issue for you. But how can you > (general you, not just Jen) be sure that you recognize *all* > possible pitfalls, even with a second marriage or a later > life relationship? There's no way I can recognize all the pitfalls. The only thing I can be sure of is that I picked a mate now who is right for me at this stage of my personal development. The only thing I can guarantee, in fact, is that if there are any remaining dysfunctions to my personality (and I'm darned sure there are!!), this relationship will eventually bring them to fore. I really do believe in my heart that that's the whole purpose of relationships! To make us grow. So I will be ready when the challenge hits! I no longer believe there are any truly *perfect* relationships. Just two imperfect people striving for perfection. And at this state of the game, it's no longer about recognizing all the possible pitfalls - it's more about knowing what is in my control, and what is not, and then acting on what is in my control and letting the rest take care of itself. And as I just said to Kitty, knowing what I know now, I hope DH and I will both choose to work through those remaining dysfunctions within the context of the relationship. I truly believe we will. Yet if DH refused to work on them, after a time, my patience would run out because I am not getting any younger. And I'd expect the same from him, so that keeps me on my toes and vice versa! Both of us have already been through one divorce and we both value being happy during our remaining time here on earth (DH will probably live forever; me, I'm not quite so sure... I smoke too much, so I figure I shouldn't bank on it!!). ;-) Neither one of us would put up again with a shitty marriage. And as a second marriage without kids, there's nothing we can hold over each other's head or our own - not children or money or anything. There is no control in our relationship. I have no unbearable need to control him so he will continue to make me happy. I know I can make myself happy without him, if need be, and vice versa. So we are together by choice. And because of that, it keeps us on our toes, but in a quite different way than my first marriage. In that marriage, because we had kids together and were economically intertwined, we were both compelled to find ways to manipulate each other into meeting each others' needs. Hence all the transactional exchanges. jen >>>> I don't doubt that it does happen. There are many people in this world >>>> who operate their relationships based on tit-for-tat: I do this for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> adjust to each other's style and learn how to deal with one another (if >>> they last beyond the initial stages!). They both find things that "work". >>> So if a man is likely to respond to trade of sex for other things the >>> woman learns to use it that way. If a man doesn't fall for such a game the >>> woman is out in the cold if she used it, and very unlikely to continue >>> something that is a losing game for her. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Sheila "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself", grasshopper. Sigh, I think the lessons of history are getting all too easily forgotten these days. That's too bad; they'll soon be nobody left to pass on the legacy. >>> I don't doubt that it does happen. There are many people in this world >>> who operate their relationships based on tit-for-tat: I do this for [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >that soul-killing first husband of hers? That Sheila was "like" >hers? That Tracey was? Or Kitty? Well, way back when there was something about my ex that attracted me to him. I'm long over it now, after I learned the dysfunction of it... Today, there's no way I'd have the remotest interest in someone like him. I've learned a lot of new things between then and now. >>>>catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Maybe for you Kitty, you seem to be one of those women ideally equipped >to refuse sex to a partner until they do what you want tome to do... LOL, major ASSumption on your part. Actually, I can't recall ever refusing my partner. We've been on at least three a week average for years. > Apparently however, Cat is not since she said "Right now, at this stage >of my life, I find it very difficult to go for more than a week without >it" so presumable for her it *would be* a big deal...hense if she *were* >cut off she might come to understand how damaging and abusive that >actually is... When I'm not in a relationship, I find it relatively easy to go for a year without. If a guy couldn't go without it for couple months, I'd be really worried what would happen if for some reason we got separated for some time (business trips, family matters, training courses etc..) > Maybe for you Kitty, you seem to be one of those women ideally equipped > to refuse sex to a partner until they do what you want tome to do... And pray tell how you were able to gather that little nugget of nonsense Ken? > Apparently however, Cat is not since she said "Right now, at this stage > of my life, I find it very difficult to go for more than a week without > it" so presumable for her it *would be* a big deal...hense if she *were* > cut off she might come to understand how damaging and abusive that > actually is... > ...Ken Ken, sweety, I wouldn't associate with a man who played childish games like that. As a matter of fact, I do often go for more than a week because my SO lives in another state. We can only get together on weekends and holidays right now. And it is mutual torture. AND, need I mention, if I were denied - it would be only a matter of an hour or two for me to find any number of extremely enthusiastic men. Right now, I am being good. He's the first man I have ever been faithful to. But unlike the women YOU apparently know - I have my own hunger, my own strong needs, and absolutely no antiquated mental baggage to prevent me from satiating myself. Cat >> Maybe for you Kitty, you seem to be one of those women ideally equipped >>to refuse sex to a partner until they do what you want tome to do... > > And pray tell how you were able to gather that little nugget of > nonsense Ken? Simply from her own words cat...I would "presume" that the first requirement of a woman who uses sex to coerce her partner's behaviour must have the ability to "hold her breath" so to speak...Kitty said that she could go for months without sex with "no problem"...ergo she has the basic "emotional equipment" to use her sex for that purpose... >> Apparently however, Cat is not since she said "Right now, at this stage >>of my life, I find it very difficult to go for more than a week without >>it" so presumable for her it *would be* a big deal...hense if she *were* >>cut off she might come to understand how damaging and abusive that >>actually is... >>...Ken > Right now, I am being good. He's the first man I have ever been > faithful to. Ah well, you certainly have understood what I've been saying all along ;-)...if a woman (or man) tries to use sex to control their partner, I think that they lose the moral "right" to expect fidelity from that partner, AND that society should have the same expectation...in fact, I think that if sexual fidelity were NOT considered an important part of a relationship, that this sort of sexual coercion wouldn't happen because the "injured" partner could simply "get it elsewhere" > But unlike the women YOU apparently know - I have my own > hunger, my own strong needs, and absolutely no antiquated mental > baggage to prevent me from satiating myself. Which would, of course, solve the problem completely for everyone if there were no consequences from infidelity, or at the very least, if infidelity were "indemnified" if it arose because your partner was denying you sexual intimacy... ...Ken > [...] > > > I really don't understand why I get the reactions that I do on asm. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > has the potential to hurt him greatly and if it's "not about him" she > has a responsibility to make that very clear to him. You didn't answer my question. > [...] >> > I really don't understand why I get the reactions that I do on asm. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It stresses the importance of sex for a man and explains how devasting > a wife's refusal to have sex can be. ONly in the context of either a ridiculous self-esteem problem and/or a badly disfunctional relationship. Seems to me that this would tend to be symptom rather than problem. > Sex communicates love and respect > and refusing it can tear down a man's self-worth. In the name of helping said men who find themselves in this position, I would recommend the book "Passionate Marriage" with or without counseling. The truth is, no one should be the master of your self worth but yourself. It is the same advice I would give anyone who is emotionally abused. Learn to hold onto yourself, then no one can abuse you. > Refusing sex is not > something a woman should do lightly, even if she has a good reason. It > has the potential to hurt him greatly and if it's "not about him" she > has a responsibility to make that very clear to him. I think in the context of a healthy marriage that's a crock. >[...] >> > I really don't understand why I get the reactions that I do on asm. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >has the potential to hurt him greatly and if it's "not about him" she >has a responsibility to make that very clear to him. Which is not even close to rape. If you want to draw a parallel between that and something women can relate to, perhaps a more appropriate parallel is when a man needs time alone, but isn't very clear that this doesn't mean the same as "I don't want to be with her". Remember, the order of magnitude here is very important. For example, if I guy I loved didn't want to spend time with me or interact with me, and I thought it was because of the way I am, all of the above would be true, it would be emotionally devastating, love, respect, self worth, relationship intimacy would all get challenged, including my questioning my attractiveness to him. But it's nowhere near rape. What you end up communicating is that you seem to take rape lightly, because some perceived underdog used it to lash out with. See why I say subjugation? You're not considering your (or most female) feelings about rape, and focusing on pleasing a guy. Look at the definition of subjugation again, about putting your feelings aside and giving in to someone else's pushing. Makes one wonder why is Jayne so able to feel for one side, but shows a great inability to understand the feelings of her own gender. That's why cat probably decided you're a guy. The inability or unwillingness to empathize with rape. Something is very seriously out of whack here. You even have guys who haven't gotten any from their wives I quite a while telling you that your position is wacky. > [...] >> This is something that is within Jayne's total control and her [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that men are treated unjustly in our society, my reaction was > inevitable. Maybe, but I think you like being controversial and stirring things up even more. You also appear to be far more easily swayed by extreme ideas than most intelligent people who are capable of critical thought so it doesn't surprise me that you have embraced the soc.men victim mindset so wholeheartedly. >> But I am mildly curious about her foo - it seems there must be more >> to it than just a personality quirk! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > post after post her which leaves me wondering, "How did they get that > from what I said?" Gee I don't know, Jayne. Perhaps it has something to do with some of the appalling ideas you express in writing, your manipulative fluency and to a lesser extent those more obvious loons you befriend. E.g. GA, Andre and that peculiar bloke whose name escapes me for the moment. (He's recently married, managed to expose his unpleasant thought processes to news.groups recently and seems to believe there should be no concept of marital rape at all.) While, like you, he doesn't give the impression of frothing at the mouth when he writes, you're both apologists for evil and more dangerous because of your apparent lucidity. As a much smaller point, the fact that you spend so much time in a newsgroup with the likes of conner and STaylor (whose views you don't particularly share, I know) doesn't lend much to your credibility, either. Not that many of the regular posters to soc.men, man or woman, impress me as rational human beings. I can think of only one or two... maybe. And, no, I don't rely only on crossposts for my opinion. Tai [...] > Gee I don't know, Jayne. Perhaps it has something to do with some of the > appalling ideas you express in writing, your manipulative fluency and to a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mouth when he writes, you're both apologists for evil and more dangerous > because of your apparent lucidity. [...] People on asm sure do have an affinity for negative adjectives. Now I can add dangerous, appalling and evil to hateful and depraved. It seems strange to me that I should be such a horrible person and not have noticed it It sounds like I should expect to start kicking puppies at any moment. (Perhaps someone should warn the puppies to stay away.) Oh well, at least I am apparently lucid. Jayne > [...] > > Gee I don't know, Jayne. Perhaps it has something to do with some of the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > puppies at any moment. (Perhaps someone should warn the puppies to stay > away.) Oh well, at least I am apparently lucid. Add careless. Tai called you an apologists for evil and the opinions you promote appaling. As far as negative adjective, Tai is applying them to ideas you have expressed. Do you find a newsgroup like ASM where ideas are criticized more negative than a newsgroup like soc.men where insult and invective is the norm? >[...] >> Gee I don't know, Jayne. Perhaps it has something to do with some of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >People on asm sure do have an affinity for negative adjectives. Now I >can add dangerous, appalling and evil to hateful and depraved. It Most normal people don;t like to be exposed to such negativity. >seems strange to me that I should be such a horrible person and not >have noticed it It sounds like I should expect to start kicking >puppies at any moment. Actually you sound like someone who would be willing to make excuses for some creep kicking puppies. The type that marries serial killers because they're just misunderstood. Makes one wonder how low your self esteem is to be willingly exposed to so much negativity and distortion. Do you enjoy it, or do you think you can fix them? Have they manipulated you into wishing to show them how a woman is capable of giving up herself to appease their extreme ideas? Balanced people aren't likely to be attracted to the environment in which you hang out. >(Perhaps someone should warn the puppies to stay >away.) Oh well, at least I am apparently lucid. See, you can't even discern bad from dysfunctional, and are starting the poor me routine. Makes me wonder if you're not that smart, or trying to be deliberately manipulative. If you're trying to be deliberately manipulative, you've underestimated your audience. > As a much smaller point, the fact that you spend so much time in a newsgroup > with the likes of conner and STaylor (whose views you don't particularly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > only on crossposts for my opinion. > Tai I read and post from soc.women and occasionally alt.romance. The last time I read through soc.men they were celebrating the anniversay of a Canadian man who mass murdered a group of women at a university. What a bunch of sickos! Cat >>As a much smaller point, the fact that you spend so much time in a newsgroup >>with the likes of conner and STaylor (whose views you don't particularly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Canadian man who mass murdered a group of women at a university. > What a bunch of sickos! There *are* several posters to soc.men who revere Mark Lepine, but not many...there are a LOT MORE posters to alt.feminism and soc.women who think the SCUM Manifesto is a great piece of literature and a guide book for man/women relations... ...Ken > >>As a much smaller point, the fact that you spend so much time in a newsgroup > >>with the likes of conner and STaylor (whose views you don't particularly [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ...Ken Name one. The only posters who ever mention SCUM as far as I know are soc.men'ers. furthermore, I don't know any women, including "feminists" (the real ones, not the caricatures you guys screech about) who considers it anything more than the ravings of a criminal lunatic who was savagely molested as a little girl. As far as gender hate is concerned, there is nothing like soc.men anywhere online that I know of. Cat >>>> As a much smaller point, the fact that you spend so much time in a >>>> newsgroup with the likes of conner and STaylor (whose views you don't >>>> particularly share, I know) doesn't lend much to your credibility, either. >>>> Not that many of the regular posters to soc.men, man or woman, impress me >>>> as rational human beings. I can think of only one or two... maybe. And, >>>> no, I don't rely only on crossposts for my opinion. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Cat You should give it up, Cat. There's "nobody home". Whatever it was checked out, a long, long, time ago - IF it ever existed in the first place. > You should give it up, Cat. There's "nobody home". Whatever it was > checked out, a long, long, time ago - IF it ever existed in the first place. You're probably right. It's just that I cannot imagine anyone actually clinging to a wrong-headed opinion with such tenacity. Prejudice is so stunting. Cat >> You should give it up, Cat. There's "nobody home". Whatever it was >> checked out, a long, long, time ago - IF it ever existed in the first place. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cat Prejudice and abject stupidity. It's a combination of both. > >> You should give it up, Cat. There's "nobody home". Whatever it > was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Prejudice and abject stupidity. It's a combination of both. I don't think the "Jayne" person is stupid. Full of sh.t, yes - but not innately stupid. "She" has pulled every rhetorical trick in the book to try and save "her" sock puppet from annihilation. Her forelorn hope was the citations scrounged from internet sources which, by the way, trash the"false rape charge" dogma of soc.men. And, as predictable as nightfall, Andre chimes in with his "false rape report" song and dance. It's the inevitable problem of having a desired outcome. Jayne and Andre, et al, desperately want something (their hate dogma) to be true. But it isn't. When I was in college I had quite a scare. I thought I might be pregnant and I went to the health clinic to be tested. The nurse, stupidly, asked if I wanted a positive or negative and I looked at her dumbfounded. "Do I get a choice?" Was my counter-question. Of course, being in grad school and unmarried, I wanted a negative with every fiber of my being. But the truth doesn't care what we think about it - it just IS. I wasn't pregnant! But if I HAD been, denile would not have made it go away. And that is the point in all of this - at least to me. My 32 years of life have taught me that men are no better and no worse than women, that neither gender has a patent on logic (as this thread clearly shows) and that neither gender is essentially better or more moral than the other. If we replaced women for black - soc.men would be a racist newsgroup. I really appreciate the input from both alt.support.marriage and divorce. You guys are great! I don't read those newsgroups because...well...I am not married and I'm not divorced. So what would I say? Enjoy the weekend! Here, just more snow, as usual. I'm going skiing. Cat >>>> You should give it up, Cat. There's "nobody home". Whatever it was >>>> checked out, a long, long, time ago - IF it ever existed in the first >>>> place. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I don't think the "Jayne" person is stupid. No, I wasn't referring to Jayne, in that regard. > Full of sh.t, yes - but not > innately stupid. "She" has pulled every rhetorical trick in the book to [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Cat > > You should give it up, Cat. There's "nobody home". Whatever it was > > checked out, a long, long, time ago - IF it ever existed in the first place. > > You're probably right. It's just that I cannot imagine anyone actually > clinging to a wrong-headed opinion with such tenacity. > Prejudice is so stunting. I'm sure you heard this saying: Difference between intelligence and stupidity, is that intelligence has limits. >>>>> As a much smaller point, the fact that you spend so much time in a >>>>> newsgroup with the likes of conner and STaylor (whose views you don't [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > checked out, a long, long, time ago - IF it ever existed in the first > place. sh.t, I agree with Bill. What's to become of this? >>>>>> As a much smaller point, the fact that you spend so much time in a >>>>>> newsgroup with the likes of conner and STaylor (whose views you don't >>>>>> particularly share, I know) doesn't lend much to your credibility, >>>>>> either. Not that many of the regular posters to soc.men, man or woman, >>>>>> impress me as rational human beings. I can think of only one or two... >>>>>> maybe. And, no, I don't rely only on crossposts for my opinion. >>>>>> Tai [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > sh.t, I agree with Bill. What's to become of this? I think it just means that you're finally seeing the Light - and with an open mind, to boot! Kudos to ya!! >>>>>> As a much smaller point, the fact that you spend so much time in a >>>>>> newsgroup with the likes of conner and STaylor (whose views you don't [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >sh.t, I agree with Bill. What's to become of this? HELP! We're rolling back to the 50's! >>>>As a much smaller point, the fact that you spend so much time in a newsgroup >>>>with the likes of conner and STaylor (whose views you don't particularly [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > As far as gender hate is concerned, there is nothing like soc.men > anywhere online that I know of. There's an adage I heard recently that fits you quite well I fear, "bigotry is like an accent, if you have it you usually fail to recognize it in others"... ...Ken > There's an adage I heard recently that fits you quite well I fear, > "bigotry is like an accent, if you have it you usually fail to recognize > it in others"... > ...Ken Don't try to tag me with me with your collective disease over there in soc.k00kmEn. You cannot find a single anti-male statement by me in the anals of usenet. In fact - just the opposite. It is a testament to how far out in the k00kzone soc.men'ers are that any NORMAL human reaction to THEIR rampant bigotry is seen as an attack by radical feminists. No! Not even close! Cat >>>>As a much smaller point, the fact that you spend so much time in a newsgroup >>>>with the likes of conner and STaylor (whose views you don't particularly [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > As far as gender hate is concerned, there is nothing like soc.men > anywhere online that I know of. The first time I had ever even *heard* of the SCUM Manifesto was on alt-feminism...where I was told by one of the then "regulars" (1996 0r 97) that I should be dealt with as recommended in that "work"...my crime ? I had deened to point out that Suzanne Steinmetz had identified husband beating as the most under reported crime in America...which comments certainly created a fire storm... ...Ken >[...] >> This is something that is within Jayne's total control and her husband [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >a compulsion to defend the underdog. Once I became convinced that men >are treated unjustly in our society, my reaction was inevitable. Therein lays the key indicator of your being brainwashed. Get a clue, life is not fair in many aspects, most of us just deal with it, and don't incessantly whine about it. >> But I am mildly curious about her foo - it seems there must be more to it >> than just a personality quirk! > >I really don't understand why I get the reactions that I do on asm. Perhaps you need to explore that in more depth. Start with the hint I gave you about subjugation. You're putting yourself and your desires aside because you're helping another normal able bodied and minded person that has convinced you they are the underdog. If you really had compassion for underdogs, you'd be much more likely to get involved in a dog or cat or pet rat rescue. Your involvement in soc.men tells us that you're very susceptible to manipulations. Even your interactions with cat indicate that you're susceptible to manipulations. Just look at how she has you jumping around over some detail that is completely irrelevant to the ideas you're trying to represent. I know when you're in the middle of it, it's hard to see, but trust me, from perspective of a number of others in here, it's in plain sight. Red flags everywhere. >>From my perspective, I'm not saying anything much different from _Care >and Feeding of Husbands_ which Kitty just recommended to me. I read >post after post her which leaves me wondering, "How did they get that >from what I said?" You should be wondering. Your scales are tipping into an unhealthy extreme. Another thing that suggests subjugation.... You are able to have compassion for a man and the hurtful experience of being refused sex in a not very nice manner. You are unable to have compassion for what it feels like to be raped, and at some point even suggest that those two are equal. If you really are a woman that demonstrates an inability to get in touch with your own feelings. That's dysfunctional. It will lead you to agreeing to behaviors that are hurtful to you, unconsciously. You have yourself convinced that your feelings don't matter much. What seems to matter the most is to get approval of a guy, and be responsible for his happiness. That's codependent. The very statement that you believe that men are underdogs has codependent overtones. If I was refusing my boyfriend in an abusive manner, I sure hope he would dump my a.s, but I would never in a million years compare it to rape. Pain of emotional and physical rejection is not even in the same vicinity as rape. The other BIG red flag about you is that you fail to see whiners in soc.kiddies comparing rejection to rape as childish lashing out. Characteristic of that kind of lashing out is that the magnitude of force of the defensive strike (or a pre-emptive strike) is much greater then the potential offense. Your buying into that thought shows the inability to objectively evaluate the balance of power and balance of needs in a relationship. To put it bluntly, makes you look very gullible. You're over-focused on pleasing the 'underdog', and not realizing that the underdog has you on the leash. And that comes to you from someone who has been known to catch a lot of flack from other women (in denial) for promoting the proper care and feeding of husbands. [...] > I know when you're in the middle of it, it's hard to see, but trust > me, from perspective of a number of others in here, it's in plain > sight. Red flags everywhere. [...] Your speculations about my life and marriage have been so completely wrong that I do not trust your ability to make this kind of judgment at all. Your ideas about logic are pretty screwy too. Jayne >>> Since I am a wife, I am looking at the issue from that perspective. >>> I assume that some women, like me, want to be good wives and will [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >up!" - I like yours too! Not that there's anything wrong with that position, >of course - it's one of my favourites - but Jayne certainly personifies it. Really? Yeah, she certainly does personify it. The other aspect of that image is appeasing her abuser. >>> A woman reflecting on her own actions >>> and motives might realize that she has been manipulating or hurting >>> her husband. Even if she knows she has good motives for refusing >>> sex, knowing its potential for causing pain, she can make extra >>> efforts to reassure him. >This is something that is within Jayne's total control and her husband >humours her as she embraces that mindset. She isn't abused or subjugated, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >But I am mildly curious about her foo - it seems there must be more to it >than just a personality quirk! She's certainly working really hard at trying to get approval of an extreme faction of men. Make you wonder what causes that. What is even more curious to me is that she comes across as extremely submissive (to a very unhealthy degree) to me... Contrast that to me being someone who has probably never refused sex, so I really don't have a reason to be defensive, or opposing her opinion, if anything, one would think that I'd be more likely to agree. > >> > > > I specified that I was talking about wihthholding sex for the purpose > >> > > > of manipulation/punishment in my first statement and in all my [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > outbursts of temper, psychosomatic symptoms, withdrawal of affection, > "acting out", substance abuse). None of that sounds like Jayne's life. But all of it does men's. Hmmm... I like this, so there... > Here's something for you to pay attention to: > SUBJUGATION: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > outbursts of temper, psychosomatic symptoms, withdrawal of affection, > "acting out", substance abuse). None of that sounds like Jayne's life. But all of it does men's. Hmmm... >>My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a >>wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts >>him very much. >>To understand how much it hurts him, she can imagine >>what it would feel like if sex were used as weapon against her, for >>example, as in rape. Why does this scare you? This is like saying shooting someone with a gun (as a form of punishment) is the same as taking someone's gun away from them (as a form of punishment). I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone was teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. > While it definetly takes a lack of empathy to commit a rape, it doesn't > take a lack of empathy to not be interested in sex. I think it takes more than "lack of empathy" to commit rape. > I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone was > teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. Hey, I wasn't the one questioning this - Jayne was. > > While it definetly takes a lack of empathy to commit a rape, it doesn't > > take a lack of empathy to not be interested in sex. > > I think it takes more than "lack of empathy" to commit rape. What else do you think it takes? jen >> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone was >> teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What else do you think it takes? I think there are probably lots of non-empathetic people around who still aren't prone to violence. >>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone was >>> teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I think there are probably lots of non-empathetic people around who still > aren't prone to violence. Good point. (As I said, it's about power and control). > >>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone was > >>> teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Good point. (As I said, it's about power and control). Do you mean "[rape is] about power and control"? What objective evidence do you have for that assertion? >>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone was >>>>> teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Do you mean "[rape is] about power and control"? > What objective evidence do you have for that assertion? Do you ever read or watch the biographical (case study) documentaries on it? It's all right there. > > >>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone was > > >>> teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Do you mean "[rape is] about power and control"? > What objective evidence do you have for that assertion? You don't know squat about human behavior and psych, do you? That's the only explanation I could think of for someone to be asking the question you asked. For evidence, start with Psych 101. >>>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone was >>>>>> teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. >>>>> >>>>> Hey, I wasn't the one questioning this - Jayne was. >>>>> >>>>>>> While it definetly takes a lack of empathy to commit a rape, it doesn't >>>>>>> take a lack of empathy to not be interested in sex. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> >>>> I think there are probably lots of non-empathetic people around who still >>>> aren't prone to violence. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the question you asked. > For evidence, start with Psych 101. LOL. But that's in college! > >>>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone > was [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > LOL. But that's in college! And US Colleges to boot, so I've not been through Psych 101 myself. But until you actually point to some evidence to justify your assertion I shall assume you don't have any. For a thorough discussion of why the assertion is wrong see Thornhill & Palmer (2000). > > >>>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone > > was [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > But until you actually point to some evidence Like I said, start with psych 101. You know, psychology is a science, based on evidence. You can find most of learning materials about it online too, look up just about any college. >>>>>>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone was >>>>>>>>> teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > You can find most of learning materials about it online too, look up > just about any college. And you can probably find Psych 101 (or Psych 1A) at your local community college. > >>>>>>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone > was [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > And you can probably find Psych 101 (or Psych 1A) at your local community > college. Yeah... It's about as crazy as someone asking for evidence that 1+1=2. Tell them to go take a friggin' math class and learn the basics. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone >>>>>>>>>>> was teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > It's about as crazy as someone asking for evidence that 1+1=2. Tell > them to go take a friggin' math class and learn the basics. Well, you just said that a bit more bluntly than I essentially did. I must be slippin! >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone >>>>>>>>>>>> was teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think there are probably lots of non-empathetic people around who >>>>>>>>>> still aren't prone to violence. >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Well, you just said that a bit more bluntly than I essentially did. I > must be slippin! But then again, ya got to keep in mind that soc.kiddies is spearheaded by a guy who has only completed *one semester* in college (Andre), as he once admitted. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if > someone [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > guy who has only completed *one semester* in college (Andre), as he once > admitted. Psych 101 isn't any kind of evidential reference. If and when you find some, post it. Until then, nothing else cuts any ice. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone was teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While it definetly takes a lack of empathy to commit a rape, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't take a lack of empathy to not be interested in sex. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think there are probably lots of non-empathetic people around who >>>>>>>>>>>> still aren't prone to violence. >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>>>>>>> You don't know squat about human behavior and psych, do you? >>>>>>>>> That's the only explanation I could think of for someone to be asking >>>>>>>>> the question you asked. >>>>>>>>> For evidence, start with Psych 101. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>>>> >>>>> And you can probably find Psych 101 (or Psych 1A) at your local community >>>>> college. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Psych 101 isn't any kind of evidential reference. How do YOU know? Why don't you get off your butt and take the damn course, and THEN get back to me on that? > If and when you find some, post it. > Until then, nothing else cuts any ice. Sigh. I am reminded of "Forgive them Lord, for they cannot see..." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone was teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >How do YOU know? Why don't you get off your butt and take the damn >course, and THEN get back to me on that? Rob is trying to say that algebra (psych 101) is no evidence, but now an experimental applied mathematics algorithm (controversial paper in evolutionary psych), now *that's* real proof. Talk about someone saying there ain't no trees in a forest, cause they're up in the plane only seein the leaves. [eyeroll]+[eyeroll]=[double eyeroll] > Bill in Co. proved his utter insanity: >> >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> by a guy who has only completed *one semester* in college (Andre), as >> he once admitted. No proof ever offered ? Self sering fact free ad hominem cowshit claim fails. But, at least I'm now *leader* here ! Boy down all you before me ! Bwa-ha-ha-ha !!! I seem to recall spending more than one semester in CEGEP. Perhaps Bill is failing to take his meds, again, and so is suffering under the delusion that he knows my life better than I do. As well as the delusion that calling other people names and making up unsupported sh.t about what one claims or wishes that they had said, is some sort of substitute for *affirmative evidence* for his claims. One might consider the world of Bill: Scientific conferences where issues are resolved by name calling competitions, with no need for papers with such silly things as citations, proofs, and facts. Theres a name for that world: Bizarro World. > Psych 101 isn't any kind of evidential reference. Hey, thats as close as the poor loon has ever come to offering any... > If and when you find some, post it. Don't hold your breath... > Until then, nothing else cuts any ice. Other than his pointy tin hat... Andre >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if >> someone [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >Psych 101 isn't any kind of evidential reference. >If and when you find some, post it. You mean like your post citing evolutionary psychology as a reference? What a dingbat you are, you just discounted your own reference. Beam me up Scotty. > >>> I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone was > >>> teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Good point. (As I said, it's about power and control). So is feminism. So is everything (including eg makeup). This "rape is about power not sex" argument is typical of idiots/ democracy. I don't ever remember anybody ever saying it wasn't (when the argument was first made by overprivileged unchallenged middle brow and lower harpies and their sichophants). (I could imagine some take the counterpoint to it now for the reasons people take counterpoints.) Yet this 'rape is power/sex' argument is presented as though it's being assaulted by some secret power that naysays it. It's all part of the disaster that is christan morality and the consequenting false dichotmy of strawmen that formed. Females should be controled. Idiots should be dead. Period. f.ck rape politics. > > I don't know about you, Jen, but I'd be scared to death if someone was > > teaching this kind of reasoning anywhere in my community. > > Hey, I wasn't the one questioning this - Jayne was. Of course. It was my answer and I just didn't want it to appear as if I was talking for you. > > > While it definetly takes a lack of empathy to commit a rape, it doesn't > > > take a lack of empathy to not be interested in sex. > > > > I think it takes more than "lack of empathy" to commit rape. > > What else do you think it takes? The ability to enjoy sex with an unwilling partner for one thing. That is different from not caring about your partner's "pleasure" (which I think is much more common). >>> My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a >>> wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I think it takes more than "lack of empathy" to commit rape. Rape is about power and control. It's NOT about the sex, per se. > >>> My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a > >>> wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Rape is about power and control. It's NOT about the sex, per se. Irrelevant to just about everything no less what's being talked about in this thread, you bird brain. It's all part of the disaster that is christian morality and the consequenting false dichotmy of strawmen that formed. Females should be controled. Idiots should be dead. Period. f.ck rape politics. >Females should be controled. Idiots should be dead. Period. f.ck rape >politics. Spoken like a true gender fascist and soc.men'er. Cat > >Females should be controled. Idiots should be dead. Period. f.ck rape > >politics. > > Spoken like a true gender fascist and soc.men'er. > > Cat Arrghh!!... >My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a >wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts >him very much. Is that what your wife did to you Mr.Jayne? >To understand how much it hurts him, she can imagine >what it would feel like if sex were used as weapon against her, for >example, as in rape. Do you feel that you were "raped" when your wife began to deny you sex? >Why does this scare you? It doesn't scare anyone. But it only makes sense if you are a man. A man who feels emasculated by a selfish and heartless woman. But we are not ALL like that! >Perhaps women who listened to me would learn some empathy for men. >Perhaps women also have some responsibility in creating a reciprical, >intimate sex life. Jayne I am sorry to hear that this happened to you. Really! (No irony intended.) It explains why you have perpetrated this elaborate hoax. And I DO sympathize with you and other men who suffer through this kind of perverted treatment. It is certainly grounds for divorce. Sex IS important. So is the tenderness and validation that it gives to one's partner. I would NEVER deny my lover's reasonable desires. I would be denying myself too. And even when I'm not in the mood, I am inclined to satiate him. (We can't always be in perfect harmony with our partners. But we can still give love.) But, as heinous as this sort of treatment is - it doesn't compare to rape. Cat > >My view is that using sex to manipulate people is bad and that when a > >wife withholds sex from her husband to punish/manipulate him it hurts [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Do you feel that you were "raped" when your wife began to deny you sex? Maybe we should sticj a broomstick up his bum, and he can tell us if it feels the same as NO :P LOL! Mr. Jayne slips up and says: >Unless one has been both a man and a woman Faking it online doesn't count sweety. You are no Theresas. Cat >>>> When I talked about being prejudiced and hateful I was talking about >>>> those who claim absurd things like: a woman refusing to have sex with a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > material for sit-coms. It seems that in this culture, female suffering > is tragic, while male suffering is comic. Let me see if I have this straight. In your mind, rape is, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to "withholding sex to manipulate". > I would like to see this disparity addressed. I think that wrongful > withholding of sex and wrongful taking of sex ought to be treated [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jayne Both of your statements make sense. But, Ellie thinks it's absurd and you think it's logical. And, I agree with Ellie. Withholding sex and rape are not, in any way, the same offense. Just as emotional abuse and physical abuse are not the same. Even robbery and armed robbery are not considered the same. I'm curious... Do you know anyone who has been raped? At gun point, then beaten to a pulp, for example? I do. If you had seen her in the hospital afterwards I think you would change your mind. The emotional *abuse* some women may commit while withholding sex for manipulation purposes is serious, especially within a serious, committed relationship. But, comparing it to rape is what doesn't make sense. There is no equal suffering between someone who has been physically attacked and someone who hasn't (whether it's rape or not). Both of *whose* statements??? There is nothing quoted here to refer to. > Both of your statements make sense. > But, Ellie thinks it's absurd and you think it's logical. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > There is no equal suffering between someone who has been physically > attacked and someone who hasn't (whether it's rape or not). Reposting with original text. (it didn't carry over on my post). > > > > When I talked about being prejudiced and hateful I was talking about > > > > those who claim absurd things like: a woman refusing to have sex with a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Jayne Both of your statements make sense. But, Ellie thinks it's absurd and you think it's logical. And, I agree with Ellie. Withholding sex and rape are not, in any way, the same offense. Just as emotional abuse and physical abuse are not the same. Even robbery and armed robbery are not considered the same. I'm curious... Do you know anyone who has been raped? At gun point, then beaten to a pulp, for example? I do. If you had seen her in the hospital afterwards I think you would change your mind. The emotional *abuse* some women may commit while withholding sex for manipulation purposes is serious, especially within a serious, committed relationship. But, comparing it to rape is what doesn't make sense. There is no equal suffering between someone who has been physically attacked and someone who hasn't (whether it's rape or not). > Both of your statements make sense. But, Ellie thinks it's absurd and > you think it's logical. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > There is no equal suffering between someone who has been physically > attacked and someone who hasn't (whether it's rape or not). A minority of rapes are of the sort you describe. Few victims experience severe, lasting injuries (e.g. Katz & Mazur, 1979). By stating that fact I do not mean to understate the emotional damage, of course. I know and totally agree... I simply meant to emphasize the different between a physical attack and emotional abuse. > Both of your statements make sense. But, Ellie thinks it's absurd and > you think it's logical. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > There is no equal suffering between someone who has been physically > attacked and someone who hasn't (whether it's rape or not). The fallacy in your argument results from your conflation of TWO separate crimes, the rape is the unwanted sexual intercourse, the brutal beating is a criminal assault causing bodily harm. They are separate and distinct from each other. The rape could have occurred without physical violence and the brutal assault could have taken place without a sexual assault. In fact, the vast majority of what our laws today call RAPE occur with little or no physical violence at all...so called "date rape" almost never has violence associated with it for example. "Rape" is, as feminists have been preaching for years...rightly I think...primarily about power and control and as such is primarily an emotional crime...the rapee (?) loses control, thereby suffering in self image, the rapist attains it, likely gaining in self image. I think what Jayne is getting at is that this is, in fact, quite similar to the situation where an individual in a position of "control" denies that which they control to another...so a husband or wife who denies their partner sex, knowing full well that their partner has no other "legitimate" option to attain sexual congress, attempts to exert what is an unethical and unhealthy control over their partner to force/coerce them to do something that they (I think obviously) don't want to do... ...Ken > > > > When I talked about being prejudiced and hateful I was talking about > > > > those who claim absurd things like: a woman refusing to have sex with a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > equally seriously. > <end quote> Thank you Jayne. It occurred to me that Ellie might be exaggerating or mischaracterizing your views. It appears she wasn't. By your argument, for example, you'd like to see the disparity between, say, -refusal to give someone money (which is considered normal and appropriate in our society) and -robbery (which is considered illegal and morally wrong) erased. What other things are like this? Refusal to donate an organ should have the same status as forcibly taking someone else's kidney? I'll pass on that world, thank you very much! >> > > When I talked about being prejudiced and hateful I was talking about >> > > those who claim absurd things like: a woman refusing to have sex with [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > material for sit-coms. It seems that in this culture, female suffering > is tragic, while male suffering is comic. I think you are putting on equal footing that which is not. Certainly punishing and hurting you mate is at best mentally unhealthy. > I would like to see this disparity addressed. I think that wrongful > withholding of sex and wrongful taking of sex ought to be treated [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > characterizing this position as hateful and prejudiced. > I want men's suffering to be taken as seriously as women's suffering. I guess the only way these 2 things can be seens as equally painful is if you take a very slim view of men's ability to take care of themselves. Otherwise they have options. > That's just the sort of thing that equality is supposed to be about. > Jayne >> When I talked about being prejudiced and hateful I was talking about >> those who claim absurd things like: a woman refusing to have sex with a >> man is the same as a man raping a woman, and stuff like that... >What a coincidence that you should give that as an example. I recall >saying something a bit like that, but what I said made sense. >Jayne Actually, what you said makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. The two are in no way alike or analogous. What's more, I doubt if any woman would make that comparison. But a bitter man, denied sex by a wife or ex-wife, might very well imagine it similar. Cat Ellie wrote: > Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: > > Ellie wrote: [...] > > > That's a good point, though I wouldn't relate it to "credibility" as > > > much as naiveté, narrow mindedness and stereotypical thinking. To [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > those who claim absurd things like: a woman refusing to have sex with a > man is the same as a man raping a woman, and stuff like that... What a coincidence that you should give that as an example. I recall saying something a bit like that, but what I said made sense. Jayne I'd be interested to know how refraining from sex is aggregious. Certainly it is hard to imagine it as aggregious as an act of violence. In my world view, sex is a person's to give. Or not. Ellie wrote: > Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: > > catbrier04@yahoo.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > assume that anyone who is prejudiced and hateful towards one sex must > necessairily be of the other sex is foolish. Yes, it's as foolish as assuming that being critical of feminism is the same as being prejudiced and hateful. Jayne What IS feminism, anyway? It's like ascribing certain political beliefs to homosexuals as a large group. There is no one gay agenda. And there is no one feminism. [...] > What IS feminism, anyway? It's like ascribing certain political beliefs to > homosexuals as a large group. There is no one gay agenda. And there is no > one feminism. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Of course it is orthogonal to political beliefs. Feminism, on the other hand, refers to an ideology. While there is variation among feminists, they tend to hold certain beliefs in common. For example, feminists are likely to believe that women ought to be able to vote. Jayne >Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Of course it is orthogonal to >political beliefs. Feminism, on the other hand, refers to an ideology. > While there is variation among feminists, they tend to hold certain >beliefs in common. For example, feminists are likely to believe that >women ought to be able to vote. >Jayne Yes...voting. You once volunteered to give up your right to vote to make men happy. And you want us to believe that you are a woman. Give it up. Cat > [...] > > What IS feminism, anyway? It's like ascribing certain political beliefs to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > beliefs in common. For example, feminists are likely to believe that > women ought to be able to vote. Do you believe you should be able to vote? >Do you believe you should be able to vote? That one really threw me..."Jayne" willing to give up her right to vote to make a bunch of misogynist pigs happy. I thought that very strange. Cat >>Do you believe you should be able to vote? > >That one really threw me..."Jayne" willing to give up her right to vote >to make a bunch of misogynist pigs happy. I thought that very strange. More subjugation. She *really* thinks she is inferior, I suppose. >>> Do you believe you should be able to vote? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > More subjugation. > She *really* thinks she is inferior, I suppose. Well, I believe she has said something to the effect of accepting a somewhat subjugated role as being part of her norm. Which, to me, sounds kinda Talibanish. >>>> Do you believe you should be able to vote? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Well, I believe she has said something to the effect of accepting a somewhat >subjugated role as being part of her norm. That would explain her susceptibility to brainwashing. She might feel like she's not sure of which way she wants to go, or can't figure it out for herself, so she is looking for a strong lead to show her the way. Sounds like she;s parroting learned lines without having a full appreciation of what they really mean, or being able to internalize them. > [...] >> What IS feminism, anyway? It's like ascribing certain political beliefs [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > beliefs in common. For example, feminists are likely to believe that > women ought to be able to vote. They are also likely to believe that the earth is round. Holding beliefs in common doesn't necessarily imply ideology. > [...] >> What IS feminism, anyway? It's like ascribing certain political beliefs [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > beliefs in common. For example, feminists are likely to believe that > women ought to be able to vote. And this sort of white bread basic feminism is objectionable? > > [...] > >> What IS feminism, anyway? It's like ascribing certain political beliefs [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And this sort of white bread basic feminism is objectionable? I don't object to that particular feminist belief. Another belief that is almost as common among feminists is that men receive more pay than women for doing the same job. Since I have seen no evidence to support this belief and much to contradict it, I object to it on the grounds that it is not true. Another belief that is almost universal among feminists is that women are oppressed by patriarchy. I object to this because I question the very validity of treating women as a class within a Marxist style model. Jayne >> > [...] >> >> What IS feminism, anyway? It's like ascribing certain political [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > is almost as common among feminists is that men receive more pay than > women for doing the same job. Actually the beleif is that men and women should be paid the same for the same work. It is considerably less common to not be the case anymore, thanks to feminist activities. Alas, these kinds of things do not change because of the goodness in people's heart and the desire for fair play. > Since I have seen no evidence to support > this belief and much to contradict it, I object to it on the grounds [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jayne So when you use the word feminism to describe something that is bad, you do not use a very accurate word to reflect what you mean when their are feminists and a feminism to which you would not object. [...] > > I don't object to that particular feminist belief. Another belief that > > is almost as common among feminists is that men receive more pay than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to feminist activities. Alas, these kinds of things do not change because of > the goodness in people's heart and the desire for fair play. They can change due to market forces. What evidence is there that feminism brought about the existence of women being paid the same as men for the same work? > > Since I have seen no evidence to support > > this belief and much to contradict it, I object to it on the grounds [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not use a very accurate word to reflect what you mean when their are > feminists and a feminism to which you would not object. Anybody calling him or herself a feminist gives credibility to feminist organizations. I have never heard of one of these to which I do not object. Jayne > Anybody calling him or herself a feminist gives credibility to feminist > organizations. I have never heard of one of these to which I do not > object. > Jay |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message