The Obedient Wives Club

[Vigile]

I don't have a clue what gender equality means. I thought I did, but being married to a Russian twisted me up real nice like. I've observed that if I'm bossy with my wife, to a point, that she responds favorably to it. I hate being bossy though and if I just try and be sweet to her, she will walk all over me and turn up the bitch dial to intolerable levels. If you guys think I'm just being a closed-minded chauvinist, I can show you a recent Skype conversation we had with one another and I think you would all be shocked, but I'd just assume not do it (let's just leave it at, I remained collected and non confrontational while she unloaded on me over a complete non issue). In the end, at least in my marriage, I have to find a happy medium between taking the boss role and not going overboard with it both for my own and my wife's sake. I'd really prefer a more equal partnership to be honest.

[DeGaul]

Legion: I should have specified, by extreme left I mean "anarchist" (the title I identify myself with, incidentally, although I like to call myself an ontological anarchist....but, once again, that is a different discussion). By extreme right I mean fundamentalist (think Christian totalitarian).

 

Not to digress too far off topic, but it is kind of interesting the ways in which the traditional right/left divide actually breaks down rather rapidly when you look at the specifics of how different groups want to achieve their ends. Anarchists are extreme leftists and are considered a branch of socialism; they fear and hate the government or any other form of authority more than any other political group. Communists are also considered leftists, and yet they seem to almost elevate the government to a divine institution. Republicans and Democrats nowadays seem to want nothing but to solve all our problems with regulations, and yet they are supposed to be opposed to each other (doesn't look like it to me), and the more radical branches of conservative politics seem to sometimes be the only ones raising the call for less regulation and more freedom (at least in economic areas). So, the whole spectrum thing is kind of crap, but I used it as and example because it gets the main idea across----not every cultural group has the same central values.

 

Vigile, your example is perfect: Russian women do not generally value sweetness as much as they value perceived strength. (Actually, a lot more women than are willing to admit it value perceived strength, but it is more socially expected in Russian culture than in more liberal secular culture.) Some women actually value the feeling of being treated with a firm hand. That isn't to say that they want to be abused, but rather that a display of strength and firmness in the face of (at times deliberate) distress or willfulness creates a feeling of security----a feeling that the woman can trust that if things get out of control, or if she loses her senses, she can know that her man will be there to protect her, even from herself. And really, doesn't this make sense of a lot of the cultural differences we see? The countries in which we see Islam as the dominate cultural force are generally dangerous countries for women. Doesn't it make sense that women would favor a relationship in which they could rely on their men and submit themselves in order to be protected? And don't we all need protection from time to time? It seems that it would be a shame to try and entirely eliminate this instinct in ourselves. What is wrong with a woman wanting a strong man to steady her? Is it any more wrong than a man wanting a woman who is capable of seeing his tears and sympathizing with him when he is at his weakest? A balance needs to be struck. Men should not give up their own history of being powerful and commanding in exchange for a watered down form of gender consciousness, but neither should men allow the mistake to persist that being powerful and commanding means being abusive or denying the equal moral value of women. In the same way, women shouldn't seek moral equality by trying to emulate men at the expense of their own history as a gender. We often here about feminist support for "powerful women", or seeking to "empower" women, but that is really just taking the history of femininity and grafting it onto the masculine ideal. This seems a tragedy to me, because it ignores the importance of values that women have historically nurtured----the values of privacy, comfort, beauty, grace, sensitivity, etc. We don't want to lose the values traditionally associated with femininity in a desperate attempt to immediately resolve equality issues, because if we do that the most likely result is that we will simply turn women into "Men 2.0" and the richness and depth of our own culture will be significantly reduced.

[Vigile]

This thread reminds me of the joke:

 

Deserted Island

There is a beautiful deserted island in the middle of nowhere where the following group of people is stranded:

2 Italian men and 1 Italian woman

2 French men and 1 French woman

2 German men and 1 German woman

2 Greek men and 1 Greek woman

2 Bulgarian men and 1 Bulgarian woman

2 Irish men and 1 Irish woman

2 American men and 1 American woman

2 Indian men and 1 Indian woman

One month later on this absolutely stunning deserted island in the middle of nowhere, the following has occurred:

One Italian man killed the other Italian man for the Italian woman.

The two French men and the French woman are living happily together in a "menage a trois".

The two German men have a strict weekly schedule of when they alternate with the German woman.

The two Greek men are sleeping with each other and the Greek woman is cleaning and cooking for them.

The Bulgarian men took a long look at the endless ocean and one look at the Bulgarian woman and they started swimming.

The Irish began by dividing up their island, Northside and Southside, and by setting up a distillery. They do not remember if sex is in the picture because it gets sort of foggy after the first few liters of coconut whiskey, but at least the English are not getting any.

The two American men are contemplating the virtues of suicide while the American woman keeps on talking about her body being her own, the true nature of feminism, how she can do everything that they can do, about the necessity of fulfillment, the equal division of household chores, how her last boyfriend respected her opinion and treated her much nicer and how her relationship with her mother is improving. But at least the taxes are low and it is not raining.

...AND...

The 2 Indian men are still waiting for someone to introduce them to the Indian woman.

[Vigile]

The countries in which we see Islam as the dominate cultural force are generally dangerous countries for women.

 

I know a lot of shit goes on in Islamic countries and in the Muslim culture, but I was just in the Abu Dabhi airport yesterday and was quite surprised to see so many smiling, laughing, happy muslim families. The women, at least in that setting, didn't appear subservient, or worse, timid, they appeared to be, other than their dress, just like happy equals with their husbands and not assigned merely a role set aside from men. This is probably an inaccurate picture of Islamic culture, but it surprised me nonetheless.

 

I've been around it quite a bit in DC as well, but didn't pay much attention back then, so I can't really offer any observations about what I saw there other than with Ethiopians, who we lived amongst. They too seemed pretty happy and emotionally healthy. I still think it depends on class. Lower, poorer, lesser educated classes in all cultures tend to have higher levels of abuse and lower levels of emotional health. It's not true of all, but is a statistical reality.

[Darklady]

I don't have a clue what gender equality means.

 

Gender (or ethnic) equality is generally meant to mean 'equality of opportunity'. This is a basic human right, that each person should have the same opportunity as the next person, regardless of gender or ethnicity.

Not everyone is capable or desires to be the same as the next person, we all have likes, dislikes and different abilities or desires in life.

We few people are 'equal' to another person, in ability, looks, etc etc, regardless of gender or ethnicity. This is not what gender equality means, it is not about being the same.

 

The original point of the post was that any women who 'obeys' her husband is not equal in this sense. men and women in a marriage should be equals, that is able to make their own decisions.

[Noggy]

This may sound crass but I do support 100% women's rights.

 

However women are not equal to men. Physically men are taller, stronger etc. and there seems to be a universal recognition for their different roles in society.

 

Emotionally, women tend to be more empathetic than men and as such make the better nurturing parent. Men tend to be aggressive and territorial concerning wife and offspring, women too to a lesser extent.

 

Something a woman can do that a man cannot (mostly) is find a suitor and become "submissive" (offer of sex for care if you will). The way laws are enacted clearly shows (in most cases of divorce) that the man is obligated to support not only children but the ex spouse too. In most cases women will not object to this obvious benefit of a patriarchal society.

 

The modern world has tried to make gender roles equal but they still tend to be the way they were "designed" Stuff like BC has made it possible for women to compete for the same modern jobs and as such the walking incubator meme diminished somewhat.

 

The relationship between man and woman tends to work best when both parties cohabit and "share" responsibilities. The only time a man is put to a challenge is when the woman dies and there are still young to be cared for. This challenges the male to adopt the role of both and some pull it off very well. A male with offspring does not make an attractive option for a single female in modern times as she may simply be expected to adopt the role of the missing mother while denying/accepting that her reproductive role is diminished as wife 2.0. In the case of the man dying where young are involved, the situation is different and the male may have no qualms of supporting and the potential for a kid of his own is not such a big issue and typically one or two new kiddies may be accommodated leading to bigger than normal family. In the female version, the natural care provider is still there, they are all her offspring.

 

The problem with these roles, is that the church and the religious have taken it to the extreme and made women to feel inferior to men. They are still in a way made to feel like "property" belonging to the male. They still take on the surname of the male and as such lose their individual identity they are born with.

 

Even with the equal rights meme, women are still seen as unequal when it comes to reproduction. Thankfully society has moved forward and no longer designates women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen sex slaves to the men. Women at least are offered a longer tenure in the marketplace as equals before they elect to reproduce/get married.

 

I really cannot understand how any woman in modern times will willfully submit (in the biblical sense) to a husband, hell how does a guy even get a wife if he is overbearing? The only answer is that girls are already either pre-wired for this or influenced by society to adopt/accept this "lesser" role.

 

The reality is, the woman brings a lot more to the table as nurturer of offspring than the man does. For that we men should be grateful, not domineering assholes.

 

 

OMFG..... ....Checking frantically to see if the moon is blue......I totally agree with LL.......OK....did we just enter the twilight zone?

 

Hey ladies....not trying to be a prick...but a woman who agrees to marry agrees to some semblance of gender roles within a culture and society. If you get married and refuse to put out....expect him to cheat and ultimately hand you divorce papers. Simple of that....

 

Unless you live in a different country. Then they just fucking beat you for not submitting.

 

 

 

[LivingLife]

searches for porn by country

 

Islamabad: Pakistan may well be named as 'Pornistan' after search trends thrown by Google indicate that it is the world leader in porn searches.

 

Pakistan - the land of the pure where websites get banned for showing offensive and blasphemous material at the drop of the hat, has been ranked as the top country for searching sex-related terms, according to a Fox News report.

 

"So here's the irony: Google ranks Pakistan No. 1 in the world in searches for pornographic terms, outranking every other country in the world in searches per person for certain sex-related content," the report reads.

 

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/...-sites-37665

 

No wonder the fuckers wear man dresses.

[VacuumFlux]

Hey ladies....not trying to be a prick...but a woman who agrees to marry agrees to some semblance of gender roles within a culture and society. If you get married and refuse to put out....expect him to cheat and ultimately hand you divorce papers. Simple of that....

 

Lol, my parents nearly divorced because (among other issues) my dad wasn't putting out, then mom caught him looking at porn instead. Women have sex drives too.

[OpheliaGinger]

Unless you have lived as a woman in a patriarchal society, you haven't a clue what it is like to be ruled by men.

[stryper]

 

 

That is all.

[Noumena]

 

 

That is all.

 

Hhahahaha! Right!? This reminds me of an ex-friend of mine (same age as me and the one I ditched because we disagreed about "loving thy enemy"....and well...about everything else because she turned into a fundy xtian). She posted this question on facebook a long while back~~ "Does anyone else think Justin Bieber is hot? I totally do!!!"~~ My reply was "No! Are you fucking kidding me? He is a CHILD!" She quickly deleted that status.

[Vigile]

The original point of the post was that any women who 'obeys' her husband is not equal in this sense. men and women in a marriage should be equals, that is able to make their own decisions.

 

It's a good rant unless you are proposing actually doing something about it. Intruding on religious freedoms by using the state to define the relationship between two spouses is hugely problematic and using the state's power to dictate human rights in another state just creates more victims. I'm sure, for example, a million or more dead or displaced Iraqis found life much better under Saddam Hussein.

[DeGaul]

Hmmm....if by "equality" we mean equality of opportunity, then I can't get behind that kind of argument at all. Practically speaking, equality of opportunity is a flat fiction, and even theoretically speaking it is a pretty lame argument. What the hell is "opportunity" anyway? That's a pretty abstract and empty concept. I think the idea that we mean to be getting at is that people should have the liberty to live their lives anyway they please, but that has more to do with the rejection of any kind of social hierarchy rather than the positive endeavor to provide opportunities for all.

 

It seems to me that the only path to something like real "equality of opportunity" would be to let everyone just run free doing as they like and minding our own business. As long as all social relations are consensual, keep your nose out of it. I fully agree with standing up against non-consensual social relations, but as much as we might not like it, that means accepting that some people will want to engage in relationships that we see as sick, demeaning, or abusive. True liberty would demand, however, that if individuals seeks out sick, demeaning, or abusive relationship and insists on staying in them, even given the opportunity to leave, well.....frankly that is on them, and who is anyone to deny them the opportunity to live the life they want.

 

Vigile, you are right, I spoke a little to generally about Muslim countries. Many are very, very dangerous for women (many places in Africa---yet another reason I hate Africa), but many are also quite normal and relatively modern, with plenty of happy families and happy women. I appreciate your comments, by the way, which always remind me to refrain from being too bombastic.

[Galien]

 

 

That is all.

 

Hhahahaha! Right!? This reminds me of an ex-friend of mine (same age as me and the one I ditched because we disagreed about "loving thy enemy"....and well...about everything else because she turned into a fundy xtian). She posted this question on facebook a long while back~~ "Does anyone else think Justin Bieber is hot? I totally do!!!"~~ My reply was "No! Are you fucking kidding me? He is a CHILD!" She quickly deleted that status.

 

Child my ass. I got married 2 weeks after I turned 17 and trust me I was NOT a child. Don't know what has happened to the world in the past 40 odd years in this regard but it is incredibly stupid. Do you think 16 years olds sending each other naked pictures of themselves is the result of them being CHILDREN?? Don't think so.

[DeGaul]

Anyone who is 17 years old or younger is an idiot. Realistically speaking, the majority of people who are under 28 years of age are idiots, and a good chunk of those who make it to 30 and beyond are also idiots.

 

I was an idiot at 17. You were an idiot at 17. Everyone was an idiot at 17. A 17 year old is incapable of the perspective necessary to have anything non-idiotic to say about life, and even when a 17 year old does say something profound, it is primarily by accident.....not unlike 100,000 monkeys banging away at typewriters and producing Shakespeare.

 

So, 40 year old women lusting after a 17 year old is sick (at least in so far as I understand sick), and is probably an indicator that those aforementioned 40 year old women fall into the camp of "those who have made it over 30 and are still idiots".

[OpheliaGinger]

 

 

That is all.

 

Hhahahaha! Right!? This reminds me of an ex-friend of mine (same age as me and the one I ditched because we disagreed about "loving thy enemy"....and well...about everything else because she turned into a fundy xtian). She posted this question on facebook a long while back~~ "Does anyone else think Justin Bieber is hot? I totally do!!!"~~ My reply was "No! Are you fucking kidding me? He is a CHILD!" She quickly deleted that status.

 

Child my ass. I got married 2 weeks after I turned 17 and trust me I was NOT a child. Don't know what has happened to the world in the past 40 odd years in this regard but it is incredibly stupid. Do you think 16 years olds sending each other naked pictures of themselves is the result of them being CHILDREN?? Don't think so.

 

Yes you were. A 17 year old does not have the proper reasoning abilities or to predict the future from their actions like an adult does. That ability doesn't start to develope until the early 20s.

[LivingLife]

When I was in my late teens (18ish) and still a virgin, I played cricket for a predominantly Indian team, and we used to congregate Friday evenings at another Indian's garage (service station) and play darts, drink and enjoy someone's curry - a boys night out.

 

One white guys wife was there, I was eliminated from the darts competition early and she asked me to take her to the Reps club (a theater for the arts) as her hubby was still in the darts game.

 

She plied me with booze as I played guitar at the bar, then she was all over me and kissing me, her friend also was feeling me up, taking my hand, putting it on her exposed thigh. Then she looked into my eyes, and said, "why don't you take me home (her place) and fuck me."

 

I was dumbstruck but thinking back that was my only shot at a three way I ever had. The two woman were at least 10-15 years older than me (early 30's). I kinda did not imagine having my 1st with another man's wife.

 

Her husband was very much bigger than me and all I could think of he would walk in any minute to the bar and beat the crap out of me.

 

When women do it, it is boy toys, when men do it it is statutory rape.

 

The only thing I learned that night is women like to f**k too.

[Galien]

Anyone who is 17 years old or younger is an idiot. Realistically speaking, the majority of people who are under 28 years of age are idiots, and a good chunk of those who make it to 30 and beyond are also idiots.

 

I was an idiot at 17. You were an idiot at 17. Everyone was an idiot at 17. A 17 year old is incapable of the perspective necessary to have anything non-idiotic to say about life, and even when a 17 year old does say something profound, it is primarily by accident.....not unlike 100,000 monkeys banging away at typewriters and producing Shakespeare.

 

So, 40 year old women lusting after a 17 year old is sick (at least in so far as I understand sick), and is probably an indicator that those aforementioned 40 year old women fall into the camp of "those who have made it over 30 and are still idiots".

 

Yes, seems you are as judgemental as your spouse. Honestly do you ever think outside social mores or are you tethered to someone else's idea of what is "sick"? So every single 17 year old on the planet is an idiot and every 40 year old woman who lusts after younger men is an idiot. Who died and made you god?? Don't get out much do you??

[DeGaul]

Galien, you are an angry person, and that is ok. I'm an angry person too, but there are times when you should give up an argument. Not only is the weight of actual brain research and psychology against the assertion that 17 year olds are fully rational beings, but now you are starting to sound as if you are advocating for statutory rape.

 

And yes, I didn't make myself unclear.....all 17 year olds are idiots, and all 40 year old women who lust after 17 year olds are idiots, and mentally confused.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by asking if I get out much? Referring back to the whole statutory rape thing, I tend not to equate "getting out" with committing immoral and largely illegal acts. (Well, certainly not illegal in crime ridden parts of Asia, but immoral none-the-less.)

 

As far as my "judgmentalism" goes, I don't see a lack of judgment as being a virtue. In the immortal words of Ayn Rand, "Judge and prepare to be judged." If you seriously condone 40 year old women lusting after 17 year olds, then I judge you as sick. That is my right. And you, in turn, are welcome to judge me. (As you already have.) So, here we sit in judgment of one another......and I'm just fine with that.

[Galien]

Galien, you are an angry person, and that is ok. I'm an angry person too, but there are times when you should give up an argument. Not only is the weight of actual brain research and psychology against the assertion that 17 year olds are fully rational beings, but now you are starting to sound as if you are advocating for statutory rape.

 

And yes, I didn't make myself unclear.....all 17 year olds are idiots, and all 40 year old women who lust after 17 year olds are idiots, and mentally confused.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by asking if I get out much? Referring back to the whole statutory rape thing, I tend not to equate "getting out" with committing immoral and largely illegal acts. (Well, certainly not illegal in crime ridden parts of Asia, but immoral none-the-less.)

 

As far as my "judgmentalism" goes, I don't see a lack of judgment as being a virtue. In the immortal words of Ayn Rand, "Judge and prepare to be judged." If you seriously condone 40 year old women lusting after 17 year olds, then I judge you as sick. That is my right. And you, in turn, are welcome to judge me. (As you already have.) So, here we sit in judgment of one another......and I'm just fine with that.

 

Yes it is okay One of the reasons I am angry is because I live in a world where people strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, to use biblical terminology. We don't have statutory rape in Australia, we realise here that teenagers are horny little buggers, and that not only are they fucking each other silly, but sometimes even lust after people older than them!! Who would have thought such a thing???

 

The world is NOT America, not everything America does is the right way to do things, just because you have decided that 17 year olds are idiots doesn not mean they will stop getting married and reproducing at that age in many parts of the world. So are all 60 year old men who have 15 year old wives sick? Do you have the right to call an entire culture sick because their cultural practices are different from yours? Will you tell the Spanish to change their age of consent from 13 to whatever you think is reasonable??

 

Typical americocentric bullshit. And arrogant to boot. Well done.

[DeGaul]

Galien, you have a sad obsession with hating Americans. I don't judge anyone by American standard, I judge them by MY standards. I have not simply absorbed my standards from my home country, I have come to them through many years of careful thought and consideration.

 

What you do in Australia is irrelevant to me. What they do in Spain is irrelevant to me. And I do, indeed, have a right to pass judgment on a whole culture and call it sick. In the words of the Dread Pirate Bellamy: "...I am a free prince, and I have...authority to make war on the whole world..."

 

What you call arrogance, I call honesty and unwillingness to debase myself in order to make others feel good about themselves and the way they choose to live their lives.

 

Do as you like and support what you like, but don't try to browbeat me into place with that bleeding heart, cultural sensitivity, hippie bullshit. It won't work, and you will look sad in the attempt.

 

 

[Galien]

Galien, you have a sad obsession with hating Americans. I don't judge anyone by American standard, I judge them by MY standards. I have not simply absorbed my standards from my home country, I have come to them through many years of careful thought and consideration.

 

What you do in Australia is irrelevant to me. What they do in Spain is irrelevant to me. And I do, indeed, have a right to pass judgment on a whole culture and call it sick. In the words of the Dread Pirate Bellamy: "...I am a free prince, and I have...authority to make war on the whole world..."

 

What you call arrogance, I call honesty and unwillingness to debase myself in order to make others feel good about themselves and the way they choose to live their lives.

 

Do as you like and support what you like, but don't try to browbeat me into place with that bleeding heart, cultural sensitivity, hippie bullshit. It won't work, and you will look sad in the attempt.

 

 

 

Look sad?? Like I give a shit what anyone thinks of my attempts to do anything.

 

Ok you win asshole, you know everything, you know the right way everything should be done, your opinions are right, you are informed by all the knowledge in all the world, and you have absolute credibility in the sight of your peers. You happy now? I do not dislike all americans, just that sad arrogant group of you who think you fucking well know everything and who sound remarkably like christians in your arrogance and complete lack of self doubt. I don't know what the fuck they teach you over there but a good deal of the rest of the world find it obnoxious, over confident and completely lacking in substance or humility. If you ever take your head out of your ass, you may notice that too. Oh but thats right, the rest of don't exist and if we are 17 must be idiots.

 

Oh, and expect you to be capable of sensitivity of any kind? Yeah right.

[Galien]

Why DeGaul....I do believe you have just been told off......by no less than an expert....

 

Sadly the only thing I am an expert on is being told what to think and how to think it by dickheads who thought they had all the answers. It would do some of the people on this site a lot of good to remember that not all of us waltzed out of the church without a backward glance and with our souls complete. Some of the people here, like myself, are traumatised and probably always will be to some extent. I have PTSD and probably will never recover completely from that. If you start telling me what I should think, and accuse me of being sick for not agreeing with you, I WILL come out swinging.

 

What I have learned from my journey through life, is that life is not a one size fits all affair, that none of us know everything, and that it is never okay to abuse power over anyone. Neither is it okay to put the boot into already traumatised people. I thought that was the specialty of christians, NOT ex-christians. If you are silly enough to do so, dont be suprised what comes out.

[LivingLife]

Remember that case of the Miley Upskirt pic that got a young man into trouble b/c she was still under age 17 or so.

 

Click the link and see just how much she put her pussy out there and just b/c that pic of her getting out of the car went viral, the dude 22 something was accused of child porn.

 

Not sure if he ever was convicted but this type of reaction is ludicrous.

 

Females develop mentally quicker than lads do and not unusual to have 20 somethings dating mid to late teen girls. After all they have wheels and money to treat them whereas the guys their age still ride bicycles or walk.

 

Age of consent here is 16 but it is not unusual to hear of 14 yo getting pregnant.

 

My brother's 1st wife was a 15 yo he knocked up when he was 22.

[Darklady]

Hmmm....if by "equality" we mean equality of opportunity, then I can't get behind that kind of argument at all. Practically speaking, equality of opportunity is a flat fiction, and even theoretically speaking it is a pretty lame argument. What the hell is "opportunity" anyway? That's a pretty abstract and empty concept.

 

Is it flat fiction? Three hundred years ago I'm sure it was 'flat fiction' that women would have the vote. But they have it. Equality of opportunity is a valid idea, and a legitimate term to use in the debate. Society will need to make huge changes for it to happen, but it is the way we need to move.