I wouldn’t judge the man who balks when his fiance demands a guarantee for two weeklong trips to Paris every year and diamond jewelry on birthdays, or the woman who balks when her fiance demands a guarantee for sex twice a week, at least not without without more details.This is truly astonishing. Apparently sex, a fundamental and intrinsic aspect of the marital relationship, without which no marriage is considered to have been consummated, can somehow be equated with a weeklong trip to Paris, plus diamond jewelry. This strikes me as somewhat of an overvaluation of the female service provided, especially in light of the readily available economic data on the average cost of sexual transactions. If we assume $7k per trip, plus another $5k per diamond jewelry, that works out to $182 per sexual encounter with no volume discount. Actually, that would be cheaper than a mortgage... although one suspects this is envisioned as being in addition to rather than instead of the household expenses.
Anyhow, if a woman is unwilling to commit to having sex on some sort of regular basis, then how on Earth can any man be reasonably expected to commit to never having sex with anyone else? If 104 times per year is too much and justifies a refusal to commit to it, then how much is a reasonable average expectation? 12x per year? 1x per year? Never? Dalrock recently posted on the ways that marriage and men's reasonable marital expectations have been debased, but are we really supposed to believe that marriage, with all of its responsibilities, sexual and otherwise, now provides absolutely no sexual rights to the husband?
Update: Marriage isn't the only form of false female advertising.
80 comments:
"Would you have sex with me for a million dollars?"
"Um... sure, okay."
"How about for twenty bucks?"
"What!? What do you think I am, a common whore!?"
"We've already established what you are, honey. We're just negotiating price now."
Vox,
From where does the quote in your post come?
"are we really supposed to believe that marriage, with all of its responsibilities, sexual and otherwise, now provides absolutely no sexual rights to the husband?"
And if we do believe that, could a woman please explain why she thinks men should sign up for that?
In the long list of reasons Phyllis Schlafly is hated, one of these was that she made a clear contract law statement: Marital rape is a non-existent crime since the status of being married means that the woman has already consented to sexual availability to her husband. The wife of course has a choice -- and she made it -- so, shouldn't her pledge for life count the same as the crazy "18 years of financial obligation" argument thrust on men?
If you watch for it, you will see various Jezzys and their friend chafe at this idea and emote about it pretty regularly. It's a shame Americans stopped seeing the contract law relationship so clearly.
Whores are cheaper, and often, more wholesome.
The best advice my mother-in-law (now married 51 years) gave me, a then 19 year old from an ugly background: "Don't ever use sex as a weapon."
OT-Stingray, your comment made me smile. We just played a game here on how to make sentences without ending them with prepositions. What a formal and lovely language we once had. Sure sounds more elegant than "Vox, where'd you get that at?"
Stingray:
I suppose I should take responsibility for this since I'm the one who started it:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/09/25/politics-and-feminism/squaring-the-circle-on-female-solipsism/comment-page-9/#comment-153509
Then commenter "Sassy6519" followed up, as did "commentary" later, then Vox.
I started this with:
"Moreover, why should any man marry if he can’t get a reasonable shot at sex, the one tangible benefit he gets from marriage?"
"Vox Day on AlphaGamePlan had a post up a while back in which a man asked his wife to be for a guarantee of sex twice a week. She balked. Why should a man marry such a woman who can’t give him any kind of guarantee that she will have sex with him?"
deti
Whores are cheaper, and often, more wholesome.
Because you aren't paying them for sex, you're paying them to leave.
Yes, Vox, that is exactly what we are supposed to believe.
My English teacher's principle was that you should use "from where" and "to where" if you're the queen of England, and to end a "where" question with a preposition if you're someone else.
SD and Markku,
That's really funny. I wrote that question without thinking about the phrasing. I have been reading a lot more well written books and I tend to write like what I've been reading. When I went back to check for typos I nearly changed the wording of the question for the exact reason Markku wrote. I'm not quite sure where I stand on prepositions ending a sentence yet. I waffle.
Deti,
Thanks.
There was an episode of All in the Family in which Edith explains to her daughter that sex is a marital obligation, but confesses in a very hushed tone that she actually enjoys it.
The comparison of trips and jewelry to weekly sex seems (forgive me for using this word) inappropriate. Wouldn't the wife's obligation to provide sex (among other things) be more comparable to the husband's obligation to provide income for food and shelter?
Stingray:
I'm not quite sure where I stand on prepositions ending a sentence yet. I waffle.
Surely you cannot be more anal-retentive than the Oxford English Dictionary.
Markku,
Well thanks for the link! And no. I'm not more anal retentive than the OED. I simply go with how I feel at the moment. Hence the waffling. ; )
Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put. Winston Churchill
I felt like waffles a few days ago, myself. A good choice, esp. with the scrambled eggs on the side.
Stickwick: That is my impression as well.
NB: a mortgage (until recently) was an investment that either remained reasonably stable or appreciated. (you could even take a deduction for interest expense.) Speaking bluntly, "investing" in one woman is to invest in a depreciating asset.
Like anything else, what is the market? What are the alternatives? In an area with no cars, a high-mileage toyota corrolla is worth more than in an area of many cars and well-priced Lexus, MBZ, BMW, Audi, etc. Here in southern California? Christ almighty, she had better be so hot as to peel the paint off the walls of any room she walks into to "demand" two trips to Paris. Otherwise it will be Perris for her (desert town in CA - NOT like Palm Springs....).
Speaking bluntly, "investing" in one woman is to invest in a depreciating asset.
True, if the only reason you marry a woman is for the way she looks at the moment you married her.
This post is speaking of marriage with contradictory principles. Who does this anyways? It certainly seems like women avoid sex, but this money for sex thing is contrary to the concept. A woman who doesn't want sex won't be persuaded by gifts and trips. If she demands payment, then you have a bigger problem than sex. All marital assets are jointly owned. She is asking for things that are already acquired by the couple.
I think that alphas view marriage much differently than deltas or gammas, especially when it comes to sex.
It would never occur to an alpha that his wife has to have sex with him because they're married. In fact, it would never occur to an alpha that she didn't want to have sex with him. Alphas are not marrying so they can "have sex" or "have access to sex".
The appeal to authority that comes with playing the "but that's the rules" card isn't alpha behavior. It's gamma.
Josh:
All very true. But marriage any more isn't for alphas, who don't have to marry to get sex. Marriage was and is for betas, deltas and gammas, who comprise the vast majority of men. It is also why a set of rules sprang up around marriage.
deti
A Texan at Harvard asks a passerby, "Excuse me, pardner, where all is the library at?"
The Harvard student responds haughtily, "At Hahvuhd, we do not end our sentences with a preposition!"
The Texan says, "OK, where all is the library at, asshole?"
I also said something like this over at HUS:
What if I said "I want to get married, but I'm not going to guarantee that I'll work and support you. I'll work, but only when I feel like it, and only at a job I like, and only if it suits me and is to my benefit. IF I don't feel like supporting us, I won't."
Think any women would marry that? I didn't think so.
This is more evidence, as I think Vox has said elsewhere, of women wanting benefits but balking at making commitments in exchange for those benefits.
And people wonder why we have women wailing "Where are all the good men" all over every media in the English-speaking world.
deti
deti
And people wonder why we have women wailing "Where are all the good men" all over every media in the English-speaking world.
The supply of good men seems to be much greater than the supply of good women these days
Josh: I wouldn't bet on that fact, dude.
My buddy returned to his live-in Hawaiian girlfriend from a weeklong fishing trip and fruitlessly tried to get it on with her. She was indifferent. So he laid a $100 bill on the dresser and asked "Does that change your mind?"
Every vagina should just have a "For Sale" sign on it.
To put a finer point on Vox's comments:
Ladies: Marriage requires commitment. YOUR commitment. If you cannot see yourself having enthusiastic sex on a regular basis for the rest of your natural life with the man you plan to marry, then DO NOT MARRY HIM.
Sex is a part of marriage, especially for a man. He will expect regular sex from you. If you do not want to give him that, DO NOT MARRY HIM.
If you do not want to have sex with him, and only him, forever, DO NOT MARRY HIM.
If you marry expecting not to have sex, or you do not want to have sex with the man you're going to marry, or if you will not expressly agree to provide him with good sex on a regular basis, and you marry him anyway, then you are cruel, heartless and selfish.
deti
Thing is, deti, that those 20-30 something women may honestly believe the words they say ("I'd never deny sex, I'll never cheat, etc).
It's after the bloom is off the rose that they start to give in to their rationalizations. It's at that point that they need stern rebukes from older women. And today's married woman doesn't get that. They get hand-holding and TERRIBLE advice from the older/same age women. What's worse is that those women listen to them before their husband. Why? Because TV tells them he's a boob, and the girlfriends never "judge" or make her feel bad for not being a good wife.
I know a 25 year old woman, married less than a year, that has already pulled the sex-for-barter card on her husband. He married her (they were dating for some time) to help her with a custody issue, involving her first child. Completely white-knight/magnanimous move to help her. He offered to adopt the oldest to get the first dad out of the picture (really complicated story). She has already "paid" him back by pulling the "no sex until" card and they aren't married a year. Her mother backs her. Her friends back her. Her father backs her. I sat one night, giving him Red Pill advice over beer on the front porch. She had her dad drive up to tell me to head home at 11, rather than she walk down and talk to me like an adult.
Nah, deti, there's no asking women to agree to anything (not really suggesting that was a position you're taking). It's entirely up to the guy to properly screen, because women will change their minds whenever and will get high-fives for moxie.
Wife or $200 whore? Whats the difference?
One of my favorite cartoons of long ago: an about-to-be wed couple walks down the aisle, each have a balloon thought. His: "This is great, now I can have sex whenever I want!" Hers: "This is great, now I won't ever have to have sex if I don't want to!"
Solution:
Southern women from small towns.
"Nah, deti, there's no asking women to agree to anything (not really suggesting that was a position you're taking). It's entirely up to the guy to properly screen, because women will change their minds whenever and will get high-fives for moxie."
I agree. Unfortunately, this should force a husband's hand. He needs to lay down the law and stand up for his interests.
The response to "no sex" is:
"Wife, sex is one of your marital obligations to me. We will begin having regular sex. If you do not want that, and if you continue to refuse sex, then I will consider your actions to be marital abandonment and grounds for divorce. What do you want to do? You have until [insert deadline date here] to let me know."
deti
"The diamond encrusted vagina" :)
Everyday treasure hunt around here.
Actually, all of those techniques don't work nearly as well as just keeping her aroused constantly through choice Alpha presentation and manly decisiveness. Not being a loser also helps. If you want your wife to have sex with you, then read Athol Kay's MMSL. Game for married dudes. Possibly the most important Game book written in a while. Even if you aren't married, Athol will give you some pretty tight strategies for LTRs and even Basic Game.
Anyway, marriage isn't rocket science. It's biology and psychology. And good mate selection. If you decide a high-maintenance 8 is going to make you happy, you better have a billion in the bank and a ten-inch dick. If you find a practical, level-headed 6 who understands the way things work, then you'll have far less tension in your life.
There's a famous porn industry saying: "It's easier to take a girl who knows how to fuck and make her pretty than it is to take a pretty girl and teach her how to fuck." Amy Ried is case in point. If you're actually going to get married, then use some rational wife-selection criteria and then vet the hell out of her. Then keep her so stuffed with . . . purpose that she doesn't have time to consider anyone else. You win, she wins.
"Thing is, deti, that those 20-30 something women may honestly believe the words they say ("I'd never deny sex, I'll never cheat, etc).
It's after the bloom is off the rose that they start to give in to their rationalizations."
RTP makes a very good point. We have to understand that humans work on incentives, and these incentives work subconsciously. Some women are craven, but many don't go into relationships/marriages planning on dialing down the sex once they get to the commitment/cohabitation/marriage/children milestone. It offends them for us to talk about women "letting themselves go," because they can never imagine doing it themselves.
But this illustrates the key psychological principle that you can't predict what you'll do until you're actually in the situation. All of a sudden you're in a position where your body agenda/intuitive drive/etc causes you to stop caring about sex or pleasing him or whatever, and due to social factors that will shame and cajole the man because he's "committed" or "the kids are more important" or pick your cliche, no one will call you out for giving up on your man.
Only an extremely conscientious person is going to "do the right thing" in the absence of carrots or sticks. Today's relationship/marital environment contains very few carrots or sticks for women to keep up their end of the bargain, thus women who never planned on dialing down their interest find themselves with a marked lack of urgency about keeping their relationships afire.
People who swear they'd "never" do it are sort of dangerous to depend on, because they don't acknowledge that wicked thoughts cross everybody's mind, and they are thus more likely to put themselves into temptation's path. Many, MANY a cultural myth or fable have been written about this brand of hubris.
Of course it doesn't and good luck finding a court to agree with you
Your wife IS having sex on a regular basis -- just not with you. And thanks for paying for my trip to Paris!
Well, it can be frustrating, but some people love coffee, some just like it now and then. I am afraid this is how sex is for women but not for men. It is not just a case of turning it on or off.
Instanlanche!
Good work! That brings a lot more readers in.
Wife complains to the husband, "You don't care if I live or die!"
He responds, "I hate to burst your bubble...but I do have a preference."
The Churchill quote went more like this: [In response to someone criticizing his "improper" use of prepositions] "Sir, that is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."
Funny that quote should come up, since the "negotiating price" exchange is also attributed to Churchill (speaking to Lady Astor).
Ian Ironwood hits the ideal point. Unfortunately society has largely devolved into marriage as contract which is an obstacle for any relationship to develop into something deeper than a utilitarian exchange. IMHO men are increasingly recognizing that women are more apt to prioritize their own utilitarian/material benefits. That's a losing hand for the ladies as it guarantees they'll be replaced in time by a younger model, but still many educated women advocate it. Go figure.
I guess I'm pretty naive based on comments in this thread. When I got married in 1976, it never occurred to me to get an agreement for ongoing sex, and she never got an agreement for support. I was cheap on dates, spending only $12.36 over the 6 months from the time we met to the day we got married, an absurdly low amount even for the late 70s. My wife and I made up for lack of money with lots of time together, and she appreciated that I would be careful with money as a practical matter. However, when I was dating her, I could tell she was hot for me, and I for her. She wanted a large family and so did I. We also had the "sex as a weapon" conversation, and another conversation about "secrets", wherein we discussed our past so as to avoid surprises in the future. It never occurred to me that she might not be trustworthy.
I hit the jackpot in terms of a good relationship. We had 5 kids in 7 years while still in school, and sex occurred at pretty much every opportunity. We both enjoy each other's company, and love each other's physical presence. After age 40, my productivity dropped to around once per day, and around age 53-55 I started having erectile dysfunction to the point where intercourse was no longer possible. Pills didn't work. At age 59, my wife still loves me, and I still love her. Today we went up into the mountains and made love amongst the fall colors. Our sessions are made longer because I can't perform, and hence foreplay can be extended for as long as we have the energy.
I strongly suspect that our success is due to the way we were brought up. Both her parents and my parents were married over 60 years before they passed away. It seems to me that if either party is making demands, that signifies a lack of trust as well as vetting. Marriage works if both partners really know each other and are working for the team and have each other's backs rather than holding out for or demanding perks.
The problem with describing sexual intimacy in marriage as a "right" is that, although this is technically accurate, it is legally, morally and ethically unenforceable by any means other than dissolving the marriage contract. (It's worth noting that no contract law I ever heard of gives you the right to, say, knock out a security guard, break into a warehouse and steal a product you bought simply because the merchant took too long to send it; even going to the authorities is as likely as not merely to get you a recompense payment and a dissolved contract, rather than a physical repossession on your behalf of whatever item you paid for.)
There are reasons somebody may not be able to live up to prior sexual commitments which have nothing to do with selfishness or dishonesty -- health, age and hormone level drop, lack of time or energy, lack of opportunity in a small house with kids and no nearby support family; and there are reasons why lack of intimacy may *not* qualify as a legitimate dealbreaker: you may still actually love her for more than the sex, or take your vow seriously for its own sake or as a religious sacrament, or not want to deprive your children of a parent. (Heck, as far as parenting goes, the best birth control fails 1% of the time; if you're having sex twice a week every week for ten years, I not only applaud a level of drive I never heard of, but you're as like as not to have 6+ kids by your tenth anniversary. A woman does not have to be selfish or dishonest to balk at this prospect.)
Treating sex as a privilege you can dispense or withhold at your whim to manipulate your partner is contemptible, certainly; but so is treating it as an entitlement you can insist on at any time or place regardless of your partner's feelings, or as a justification for walking away from your responsibilities if you don't happen to get the complete level of satiety and gratification *you* want. And neither is a foundation for the ability to compromise, and even sacrifice, that's vital to making a marriage work.
Badger: People who swear they'd "never" do it are sort of dangerous to depend on, because they don't acknowledge that wicked thoughts cross everybody's mind, and they are thus more likely to put themselves into temptation's path.
"...one tends to reject or remain ignorant of the least desirable aspects of one's personality..."
..."and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28psychology%29
More men should do what Toban Morrison did :
http://photogallery.thestar.com/1038282
He hired a surrogate, and became a single dad, thus bypassing the most expensive and riskiest step in the process..
Given how many men get their children taken away from them merely because they failed to keep their selfish wives entertained, this is a good decision.
More men should do what Toban Morrison did.
What a lot of the comments here seem to have a blind spot about is that marriage/divorce laws are extremely unfair to the man (especially if children are present).
A man cannot simply threaten to divorce his wife if she declines to have sex (or becomes obese and DEMANDS sex from the unwilling husband)..
....Because HE would pay through the nose, even if he is the victim (even if he is abused, or cheated on).
Woman wants out? Man pays, and loses kids.
Man wants out? Man pays, and loses kids.
The risk is so astonishingly high that no man should seriously consider marriage in the US today.
Not all women are the howling harridans so plentiful in the U.S.
Look overseas to Japan and China. Many feminine women there who do not aspire to masculinity.
Best not to interfere with a marriage -- what people do to each other is their business, and whether they kill each other with axes or the courts... nothing you can do or say will change that or them. If you gave them both a full sex change, they'd still be shitty people.
And their kids will most likely continue the 'family culture' and be as shallow and ghastly as their parents.
I don't think this is an MRA issue, it looks like one but it's not, no matter what rules would be in place, people like that always have, make and want stupid problems.
Which is why it's an old tradition to never get involved in marriage disputes...
Surely the point of the original quote is that, yes, you should WANT to give your wife trips to Paris or give your husband regular sex, but you shoudln't marry but not marry someone who DEMANDS such things from you as a condition for getting married at all. Such things should happen in marriage because the giver wants to give them, not because the receiver demands them.
A whore will never ask a man to brush his teeth, shave, or take a bath, She will never ask a man to soak those funky feet, she won't tell you that your beer breath is atrocious. To do any of these things would destroy her business. She won't tell you your hands are rough. Or, that what you are doing is hurting her. Her body is a commodity. Her soul long gone. She deals with the lowest common denominator of men. They have no feeling for her, she certainly has none for them. She numbs her mind with alcohol or drugs to get through her day. Her body is a commodity. Her soul long gone. Little girls hope that one day their princes will come and they will live happily ever after. Men aren't princes to the prostitute, but vile creatures. Base. A man is killed in the red light district...no prostitute cares. Her soul is long gone. Her life's work is a business deal fraught with danger, disease, and doctor visits. Fading youth is her enemy. Her soul....long gone.
I like that surrogate mother thing. You could buy some high quality eggs, use your sperm, and a surrogate. Voila. You get a high quality child (hopefully), avoid cuckcoldery, avoid divorce and losing your money and your child. And your house. And, having to pay alimony or "child support" to support your ex's boyfriend.
I certainly hope to see more of this.
Men almost never admit to the failure in a marriage as being anything pertaining to them. The blame game...men play it well. It always has, and always will....take two to tango. And take two to ruin a marriage.
Regarding the surrogate mother, it is so advantageous to men that I think they will try to outlaw it, you know, in the best interests of the child.
Ensnaring men in the marriage/divorce industry is just too lucrative to allow this sort of activity to become common.
BTW, I wonder if being a single Dad will allow you to suck money out of the nanny state.
Regarding the original post, wife vs. whore, the whore is always the better bargain. When you tire of her, you don't have to keep paying. The whore can't take your house. "Free sex" is very, very expensive.
If you have to marry to get sex, don't.
When they debate whore versus wife, the people who favor the wife compare the whore to the good wife, whereas as those who favor the whore compare the whore to the bad wife.
Considering the divorce stats, the ratio of bad wife to good wife must be 1:1 or more. Not all bad marriages end in divorce. So, if you just play the odds, and you are an average guy, the whore is the better bet. Getting married is the high risk option.
From the practical view, don't marry for sex. So, the advice to the young men. Don't marry when you are young and lusty. Wait until your sexual appetites have cooled, you can think straight about women, children and marriage, and marry a good woman who will be a good wife and mother. And, get a rock solid prenup.
Armstrong and Getty, interviewing their old friend and radio financial guru Clark Howard, start off with a joke question: So, which is better, getting married or getting a prostitute?
She wants diamond jewelry?
Sounds to me like she can get a J-O-B and buy such things for herself.
If she lacks the talent, skill, initiative and education to secure the kind of gainful employment required to purchase such trinkets, then why the hell would I want anything to do with her in the first place?
I would rather be a celibate monk than have to deal with a woman who is vain, shallow, and not terribly bright.
Luckily for me, my fiancee is nothing of the sort. She is intelligent, competent, industrious, emotionally stable, and clear headed.
As a happily married man for 20 years, let me offer my view. Young men have seen their fathers destroyed financially by biased divorced courts, they have seen that women view men a 'sperm donors' these days, popular culture/TV/commercials portrays married men as buffoons, cool guys are the homosexuals don't you know where as straight guys are knuckle draggers, and finally women have changed as well with sex before even a traditional date with drunken hookups as taught by women's studies empowerment. Basically, there is benefit to marriage for man anymore when there is zero expectation place on them other than being an occasional baby daddy. There is no judgement anymore on women/men with children out of wedlock. Why sign a piece of paper?, popular society says you are foolish if you do.
A wise man once said to me, "If it floats, flies, or f#cks, rent it".
You can't contract with someone who is incompetent to do so and that is essentially the claim, women are held to no standard by society or the law just like children, the insane or a hamster. Yes, marriage did amount to chattel slavery in many regards in centuries past and in some minds now but overall, like reparations for slavery, it has become a social strip-mining operation. Guess who plays the part of the vein of ore in this scenario?
In other news.... twice a week? You should be able to have three wives then. No, we don't HAVE to do it every day. But we can. Rest on Sunday. Or twice on Sunday will also work.
Man,
Whenever I read this game stuff, all I can think is "where are you all digging up these (epithets for bad women)?" I've been with exactly two women like this my entire life, both of whom were clearly and obviously damaged goods, and treated as such.
Maybe life in beta/delta/gamma-land (whatever category I'd be put in by the game folks) is better simply because these people are self-selecting for other targets...
Q: Why does a woman smile as she's walking down the aile on her wedding day?
A: She knows she's given her last BJ.
What, is this site for people advocating a throwback to the 13th century? Stunningly lowgrade.
Marriage must of necessity look like it is based on a contract, but in essence it cannot function like a typical contract. Like the dude said, you can't sue in court to make someone have sex with you, even if they signed a contract saying so. The only recourse available can be an equitable dissolution of the erstwhile "contract," and that's the biggest problem: no equity in the dissolution.
Besides other things, American women are cold, period. I have lived for 12 years in Latin America and this problem does not exist. Women are the ones who want sex and who complain if they don't have sex from their husbands and boyfriends. They enjoy sex.
Two centuries of American puritanism give their fruits.
In my experience men get old and then cannot preform and then blame the woman. Old old story and true.
Hi I am so glad I found your webpage, I really found you by mistake, while I was searching on Bing for something else, Anyhow
I am here now and would just like to say many thanks for a tremendous post
and a all round exciting blog (I also love the theme/design), I
don't have time to read through it all at the moment but I have saved it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the great work.
Stop by my site - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOpRZQF0U-E
Your style is very unique in comparison to other
folks I have read stuff from. I appreciate you for posting when you've got the opportunity, Guess I'll just book mark this site.
Have a look at my page :: free iphone
I would dump a woman who didn't want to do me at least twice a week if I was a man, and I would dump my husband as well if I didn't get it on regular basis. Let's not sugar coat it. Part of the reason people couple up is for regular nookie. If you're not getting any, what's the point?
TFH, I love you bro. The Misandry Bubble was a stroke of genius, you've played a significant role in raising awareness of all the issues we in the 'sphere care about.
But dude, you need to get off this surrogate Mother-to-enable-single-fatherhood kick.
You are essentially taking the mirror attitude of the feminists. Who needs a Mother?
Every child needs both a Mother and a Father.
The feminist movement fought to remove Father's from children's lives, and the kids are all worse off for it.
Encouraging men to take on single fatherhood by choice is just as selfish, solipsistic (my kid don't need no Mom!), and corrupt as the feminists doing the same to Fathers.
The feminists attacked Fatherhood by lying that Father's don't matter.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking we're striking some sort of blow back at the feminist movement by increasing the single father households using the Feminists exact same tactics.
You seek to fight fire with fire, but the only people who are going to get burned, are the children denied a parent, be that a Mother or a Father.
When it comes to having children, it has to about their well being, and not just some action to claim a small victory in the gender war!
If the wife agrees to a set number of times she will have sex each week, does she have to like it? Can she be a willing participant and not be "into it"? What is the reality here? Assuming she doesn't make it difficult, still does her part and keeps her end of the bargain. Or is it that she's gotta want it, not just "do it"? Just curious what everyone's experience is with this.
If this was the NBA Finals of sex economics:
Whore sweeps series (4-0)
Game 1 whore 103 wife 101 OT (wife tries early)
Game 2 whore 125 wife 98
Game 3 whore 114 wife 90
Game 4 whore 120 wife 79
Whore is destroying wife!
MVP: Vasectomy
Μy famіly always ѕaу that I am killing my time here at net, howeveг Ӏ know
I am getting knοω-how evеry day by гeading thеs nіce content.
Here is my web sitе loans for bad credit
HotStuff said: "A whore will never ask a man to brush his teeth, shave, or take a bath,... "
There are whores and there are whores. You describe the lowest of the low as if she is the common one. Not so.
A decent whore will require you be clean and groomed or she will refuse you. She sees sex as a service she offers, with quality service, that wives refuse to give. She is proud to be a lover, to have a man enjoy himself and want to return to her.
She will talk to you over a cup of coffee, massage your aches away, commisserate, and give of herself - in addition to good sex and bjs. And she is in turn treated well by her client, who will like her as a person as well as a sexual partner.
A good whore is the same as a good mistress, only at rates those of us not rich can afford.
Ρretty great poѕt. I simply stumbleԁ upon
youг blog and wiѕhеԁ to
mention that I've really enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. In any case I'll be ѕubscribing іn
your rss feed and I am hoping уou wгitе agаin veгy soоn!
Mу blog: Same Day Payday Loans
I just got done reading your article, and really enjoyed it, thank you. You can see some fun books at fun2readbooks.com where you can also hear the girls read the stories for the same price as a paperback book, but they are reading exotic sexy hot wife stories that will get you going!
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.