Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Bluegoat

surprising POV?

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

What really surprised me though was that following on from this came a claim that even if both spouses wanted and were happy with the sex, because there was not consent it was rape, and women who were ok with this were just participants in their own oppression in some way

 

I know the thread has gone down other roads, but just addressing this... I would assume that that came from one of the "all heterosexual sex is rape" people and leave it in the ca-razy folder where it belongs. 

If I was feeling extra generous I might spend some time considering that a lot (a lot!) of women have never, not once, had sex that felt good to them. Even after years of marriage. NOW all of a sudden, there are these new-to-most people ideas like consent and marital rape. It stands to reason that some of these women might latch onto these ideas as ways to explain their own own personal situations. 

Aside from the above, addressing more of the rest this thread, a lot of men don't walk around fully understanding that their wives are people. I know that for people whose dads and husbands always treated them like they had brains in their heads and feet in their shoes it can really hard to grasp a relationships that are not that way. Women in those situations, as above, might be newly getting familiar with the idea that they can say "no." Like all new converts, I'd assume they'd be more zealous than long-time believers and cut them some slack, even though they're selling crazy folder stuffers.

Edited by OKBud
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

I know the thread has gone down other roads, but just addressing this... I would assume that that came from one of the "all heterosexual sex is rape" people and leave it in the ca-razy folder where it belongs. 

If I was feeling extra generous I might spend some time considering that a lot (a lot!) of women have never, not once, had sex that felt good to them. Even after years of marriage. NOW all of a sudden, there are these new-to-most people ideas like consent and marital rape. It stands to reason that some of these women might latch onto these ideas as ways to explain their own own personal situations. 

Aside from the above, addressing more of the rest this thread, a lot of men don't walk around fully understanding that their wives are people. I know that for people whose dads and husbands always treated them like they had thoughts in their heads and feet in their shoes it can really hard to grasp a relationships that are not that way. Women in those situations, as above, might be newly getting familiar with the idea that they can say "no." Like all new converts, I'd assume they'd be more zealous than long-time believers and cut them some slack, even though they're selling crazy folder stuffers.

I can see that. I have an acquaintance that has gotten out of a bad marriage, and she is adjusting to the idea that she is a person with full bodily autonomy.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

As a nation, we are still working to shed our puritanical roots. 

I don't want to join in on this topic (though did anyone note that there's already been a case of a husband being prosecuted for raping his wife, who apparently gave actual consent, because authorities and adult children from her first marriage decided the wife was incapable of consent?).

But I do want to make a historical objection here: the Puritans were in fact noted for their theology of "companionate marriage." Like "the Dark Ages," "Puritanism" sometimes gets reflexively blamed for things of which it's guiltless. The acme (or nadir) of "the woman belongs to the man" legal concept in the West was arguably the Napoleonic Code of 19th-century France.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

I know the thread has gone down other roads, but just addressing this... I would assume that that came from one of the "all heterosexual sex is rape" people and leave it in the ca-razy folder where it belongs. 

If I was feeling extra generous I might spend some time considering that a lot (a lot!) of women have never, not once, had sex that felt good to them. Even after years of marriage. NOW all of a sudden, there are these new-to-most people ideas like consent and marital rape. It stands to reason that some of these women might latch onto these ideas as ways to explain their own own personal situations. 

Aside from the above, addressing more of the rest this thread, a lot of men don't walk around fully understanding that their wives are people. I know that for people whose dads and husbands always treated them like they had thoughts in their heads and feet in their shoes it can really hard to grasp a relationships that are not that way. Women in those situations, as above, might be newly getting familiar with the idea that they can say "no." Like all new converts, I'd assume they'd be more zealous than long-time believers and cut them some slack, even though they're selling crazy folder stuffers.

the bolded was my first thought when I saw it.

I think there are a range of ways sex can be uncomfortable/not-enjoyable.  having her own hang-ups from various things (previously molested/assaulted to being overtly taught enjoying sex was sinful but she must suffer through it ((my grandmother's attitude)). - mindset is important.) where her body is reluctant to be aroused all the way through  to a wham-bam--thankyoumam jerk who doens't give one thought to his wife's enjoyment even if he otherwise takes some consideration of "not tonight dear, I have a headache", to true violent rape as one more method of control in a DV  marriage.

as for the second bolded - I think much of that depends on the subculture where you live.  most of the men we hang out with have obvious respect for their wives as a true partner. (I can only assume that percolates down).  otoh: my brother - the golden child (with his own narcissistic tendencies) - certainly treated wives #1, & #2 like extensions of himself - and from what I've heard from his daughter, his treatment of wife #3 is right up there. (so, I wouldn't be surprised it if extended to the bedroom.)   but he was already a sob, so this is par for his course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

But I think that the issue we fight in modern times with marital consent is that we are still shaking off the concept of "women as property". For most of human history, female consent was a "non thing" and especially when it came to marriage because marriage was an economic contract in which a female was bartered off for some monetary, political, or status gain. Men were entirely in control. Whatever he wanted he got whenever he wanted it. I think that an awful lot of men, while not actually thinking overtly in this way, still have a little bit of this mentality when it comes to marriage. They figure they got married which means sex whenever they desire, and are baffled by the concept that they don't own the woman's body.

As a nation, we are still working to shed our puritanical roots. 

I'm not sure about this. I hesitate to post because my thoughts are still not fully formed, so please bear with me ... I almost certainly won't word this right.

I realize that it is historically accurate to say that women were considered property legally and, in many cultures, culturally for a lot of recorded history. But I wonder how that actually played out in most day to day real life marriages. I've seen enough of human nature to know that a certain percentage of men - of any age or historical period - are just plain mean and narcissistic and will lord their power over the women in their lives. That's fact. But I also think that most men - again, of any age or historical period - are decent and capable of truly loving and respecting the women they share a life and a bed with and I find it difficult to believe that most men would completely disregard their wives' s@xual preferences and demand s@x whenever and wherever they want, even if the cultural practices of the day that they participated in and perhaps even worked to perpetuate tell a different story about what they thought a woman's role was in society. I mean, seriously, humans have known about the female org@sm for a loooooong time. And I don't know any men who have experienced their partner having one who prefer s@x without one. Even King Solomon in the Songs of Solomon in the Bible is pretty explicit about how pleasurable his wife found s@x to be 😉

So I guess what I'm saying is that although in a broad cultural sense the subjugation of women is a very real thing both now and historically, I have a hard time visualizing how that plays out in the majority of individual marriages when a very common sentiment through the ages boils down to "she who rocks the cradle rules the world". Regardless of what a man and his culture think a woman's role in society should be, I'm not convinced that that attitude carried over into how most of them treated their wives in the bedroom.

I feel like I explained that very poorly, so feel free to disregard. 

Edited by Momto5inIN
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of men can't tell the difference between being attracted to women and actually liking them; as though being heterosexual and being a misogynist are mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, while I'm lodging historical objections....

"Western Civilization" covers about 2500 years and, maximally, the continent of Europe plus non-European parts of the Mediterranean and, from the 17th century, North America. When and where, exactly, were women considered "property" qua women (excluding chattel slavery, which didn't distinguish sexes)?

And to make that question meaningful, what precisely is meant by "considered property"? A normal reader I think would take it to mean enjoyed the same legal status as, say, a horse or dog or tree or other living thing that we would speak of as property in the legal sense.

I would like primary sources on this, as I can find links to people making the claim easily enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the entire thread here, but some people have a relationship dynamic where they have given blanket consent to their partner. 

I think in old traditional marriages it was implied that the husband had blanket consent just by the fact of marriage, until the social more' changed.  Now the consent pendulum has swung opposite so that many people believe every encounter requires consent.  However, an open conversation with one's partner can ensure that both parties have the same understanding.  The problem is that many people have a communication taboo when it comes to sexual topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think some of the women as property business is overplayed.  It was certainly a thing in medieval Europe that a marriage was considered the point of sexual consent, rather than each individual sexual act.  Theologically the idea was that under normal circumstances the couple should be sexually available to each other, unless both had agreed to some other arrangement.  It's not the case that this only applied to the husband, and that is practical as well as theoretically - women sued their husbands over refusal of sexual access and won the cases.  The medievals were not particularly inclined to the view that women were uninterested in sex.  

We have a tendency to pick up these ideas about the past which flat around, and one is that people though women were delicate and asexual and had no sexual agency. and apply them in the wrong way, or too broadly.  Victorian attitudes about women or sex weren't necessarily reflective of what the early moderns or medievals or people of any other time thought or did.

 

As far as other posts - I think the idea that there is a basic sense in which a sexual relationship is implied in the marriage (or any other thing that acts like a marriage even if it's not officially) is true.  Sexual activity then takes place within that context, it's more about timing.  This is something that in hindsight I think seemed odd about the conversation I read - there seemed to be a sense in which there was never any implication that there would be an expectation of sex in the marriage.  I suspect that for most people, if it came to that without a significant reason, that would be the end of the marriage - that it's a commitment over time seems to me to be integral to the concept.

With regard to verbal consent being a useful safety element in marriages that are oppressive or abusive, where people feel coerced or don't realise that they are being coerced or pressured -  I don't really see how it would help - I think the same pattern would just play out verbally.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

So, witnessed an online conversation today that struck me as odd.

It was about sexual consent in marriage/long term intimate relationships.  As in many discussions like this, people expressed that there can be rape in these relationships, and that seemed generally uncontroversial. There was also the POV that it would be rape to have sex, or maybe even caress intimately, a drunk or sleeping spouse, or caress without first asking.  I've heard this POV before of course though it seemed a somewhat strong version of it.

What really surprised me though was that following on from this came a claim that even if both spouses wanted and were happy with the sex, because there was not consent it was rape, and women who were ok with this were just participants in their own oppression in some way.  This game me real pause - I've always taken the idea of consent as important only in so far as it is a signal of willingness to have sex. It seems that in this POV it is the thing itself, as a sort of abstraction, that is the issue?  That seems very odd to me, I can't figure out how to make that work out in a consistent way.

I'm curious about people's thought - I can kind of see, given where talk about this has been going, over the years, how this view came about -  but it seems completely unworkable and just odd to me.  Have people heard this before?

If one partner did not object to sex, it is not exactly rape. I think it diminishes rape and what it really is to claim it is rape just because the female did not use the actual word yes prior to sex. 

 

I have read a lot of stupid articles and opinions online. Just yesterday I saw one from someone saying it isn't okay for American Girl to make boy dolls and something about white boys having privilege and men wanting to take away reproductive rights away from women having something to do with there being a boy AG doll. It was one of the stupidest things I have read online. 

 

There will always be stupid things. Oh..and I am sure the word stupid will anger some people. But stupid is as stupid does. And the opinion that when a woman says she consents to sex, it is still rape and she is just oppressed because she does not want to admit it is not real consent if it is not done how some other person thinks it should have been done. Just to those opinions..whatever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

Yeah, I think some of the women as property business is overplayed.  It was certainly a thing in medieval Europe that a marriage was considered the point of sexual consent, rather than each individual sexual act.  Theologically the idea was that under normal circumstances the couple should be sexually available to each other, unless both had agreed to some other arrangement.  It's not the case that this only applied to the husband, and that is practical as well as theoretically - women sued their husbands over refusal of sexual access and won the cases.  The medievals were not particularly inclined to the view that women were uninterested in sex.  

We have a tendency to pick up these ideas about the past which flat around, and one is that people though women were delicate and asexual and had no sexual agency. and apply them in the wrong way, or too broadly.  Victorian attitudes about women or sex weren't necessarily reflective of what the early moderns or medievals or people of any other time thought or did.

Yes. Just as there's a human tendency to look at the direction of current trends--the "arc of history"--and extrapolate forwards, there's a matching tendency to look at the recent past and extrapolate backwards. So the 19th century, which in many ways was a low point for women's legal rights, is assumed to indicate that women must have been even worse off in prior eras.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Violet Crown said:

Well, while I'm lodging historical objections....

"Western Civilization" covers about 2500 years and, maximally, the continent of Europe plus non-European parts of the Mediterranean and, from the 17th century, North America. When and where, exactly, were women considered "property" qua women (excluding chattel slavery, which didn't distinguish sexes)?

And to make that question meaningful, what precisely is meant by "considered property"? A normal reader I think would take it to mean enjoyed the same legal status as, say, a horse or dog or tree or other living thing that we would speak of as property in the legal sense.

I would like primary sources on this, as I can find links to people making the claim easily enough.

No primary sources, and perhaps I used the wrong terminology, but to clarify what I was referring to - instances in history when women were married off with or without consent for political and/or economic reasons with no legal recourse. Maybe they had other rights that a horse or dog or tree didn't have, and so were not considered property per se in all situations, but in the situation of their marriages they essentially were considered goods to be exchanged between two other parties.

Edited by Momto5inIN
Eta But I still think this attitude didn't/doesn't necessarily translate into a bunch of men throughout history having nonconsensual s@x with their wives
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea is that men inclined to do it over all non-verbal "no's" will also do it over a verbal "no" with their wives, in practice. 

So women like the person referred to in the OP are just plumb barking up the wrong tree. 

There's correct on paper and then there's workable irl and they just aren't fully compatible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Janeway said:

I think it diminishes rape

 

It absolutely does. 

But I get the feeling that for people saying these ridiculous things, it's rather like saying, "I'm starving" when you've never missed a meal but could go for some fries if is someone's ordering for the table. 

 

Edited by OKBud
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

It's interesting the idea that "consent was not part of the equation".  I'm not sure if that is true - it looks to me that it was applied in a different way - that is, consent to marriage, a kind of contract in this legal sense, included consent to sexual activity within the marriage.  Lack of sexual activity, if it's from a willed POV, is linked with the end of the marraige itself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

A lot of men can't tell the difference between being attracted to women and actually liking them; as though being heterosexual and being a misogynist are mutually exclusive.

Good point. I think I have seen that general attitude radiating from some pretty public people. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a literary tangent: the horror and brutality of marital rape is central to John Galsworthy's classic A Man of Property, written over a century ago. It contributed to his eventual Nobel prize.

Edited by Violet Crown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Violet Crown said:

On a literary tangent: the horror and brutality of marital rape is central to John Galsworthy's classic A Man of Property, written over a century ago. It contributed to his eventual Nobel prize.

Forsythe Saga, yes? Not even Damien Lewis can make marital rape look good. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, madteaparty said:

Forsythe Saga, yes? Not even Damien Lewis can make marital rape look good. 

That's it. I haven't seen either the 1967 or 2002 series. Any good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Violet Crown said:

That's it. I haven't seen either the 1967 or 2002 series. Any good?

I’ve only seen the one mentioned above. It’s excellent, in that I aim to watch it annually, but many people objected to Irene’s...hair. Anyway I thought the casting was perfect. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

A lot of men can't tell the difference between being attracted to women and actually liking them; as though being heterosexual and being a misogynist are mutually exclusive.

being female never stopped my grandmother from being misogynist.   she was a twisted woman . . . . .

she had a very prurient interest in sex.  wanted girls to get involved in premarital sex - so she could salaciously condemn them. but boys could do no wrong. 

1 hour ago, madteaparty said:

Forsythe Saga, yes? Not even Damien Lewis can make marital rape look good. 

my first encounter with the idea of marital rape was one of the poldark books back in the 70s'.  and, it was very brutal.  it actually made it into the filmed 70's series.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

being female never stopped my grandmother from being misogynist.   she was a twisted woman . . . . .

 

Yeah. Female misogynists are interesting. I had one accuse me of being a probable future murderer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER & RECEIVE A COUPON FOR
10% OFF
We respect your privacy.You’ll hear about new products, special discounts & sales, and homeschooling tips. *Coupon only valid for first-time registrants. Coupon cannot be combined with any other offer. Entering your email address makes you eligible to receive future promotional emails.
0 Shares
Share
Tweet
Pin
×