What if women went on a sex strike before the midterms?

Post removed by ATS staff

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah, the last time you asked me a question, I ended up being pelted with ad hominems.

My belief is that long term monogamous relationships are great, but they take work and compromise. I personally am willing to do the work and compromise to make a long term monogamous relationship work. I don’t agree with the woman who wrote the article claiming long term monogamous relationships aren’t really good for women, and that women shouldn’t compromise. I would agree that if one partner doesn’t want to put in the work or compromise, then maybe the relationship is best ended.

I believe that in the past, women were subjugated by men. I think the belief was that women were weak and emotional, and therefore just weren’t up to doing the same things men could do. I think that belief for the most part, is gone now - and that’s a good thing.

The woman who wrote the article is obviously a bit of a militant. I get that.

Whether women control men or not, I think entirely depends on individuals. I’ve seen women controlling men, and I’ve seen men controlling women.

I don’t think, in this thread, we are disagreeing all that much, but you seem to want to disagree with me very badly. I just don’t want to fight today.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

It's the norm in my world, I have more than a few friends who want no strings sex with someone they trust.
I was disagreeing with your line about men being desperate for sex compared to women, that's bull# and you know it.

When I was young sex was rather big on my priorities list and if everything is as you say I would have gotten laid a hell of a lot more...lol

I don't crave sex though, it just happens organically when I watch a chick flick with a bottle of wine with female friends. Okay, if I'm going round to a friends house and she's cooking some food or whatever we both know the intention, it is just unspoken until the wine is finished.
Women are just the same as men with sexual wants/needs, and the whole OP seems ridiculous to me, withholding sex to make a political point...I'd dump her sorry arse in a heartbeat.

Shares in Kleenex would sore!!!

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Shares in Kleenex would sore!!!

But just think how much single guys will save not having to buy drinks and expensive dinners...

originally posted by: JAGStorm

What if women went on a sex strike before the midterms?
www.cnn.com...

Let's consider what it might mean to go on a sex strike of sorts -- to get what we want, rather than give what we think we owe others.

basic and deeply personal form of degradation

They have learned that the overfamiliarity with a spouse and the institutionalization of the relationship that accompany companionate domesticity actually dampen female desire in ways they don't male desire

So what is this article saying? Basically women should hold out the goods and maybe that will help us get better pay and become CEOs. It says that marriage is like a prison term, and that men are basically unable to give women pleasure. It says womens only token is sex and that it should be used to its fullest, yes like a prostitute. It says forget about love or caring about a relationship, you should only care about your own pleasure.

First of all fellas, calm down. There are still plenty of us women that see right through crap like this. I find writers like this pure evil, and the people that follow this train of thought need to do some soul searching, and get an education.

Yes, let's use sex as a weapon en mass and make a mockery of ourselves being stereotypes.

What dimwitted twat came up with this?

a reply to: JAGStorm

Then Men's Right Hands would become Very Popular Again .

originally posted by: JAGStorm

What if women went on a sex strike before the midterms?
www.cnn.com...

Let's consider what it might mean to go on a sex strike of sorts -- to get what we want, rather than give what we think we owe others.

basic and deeply personal form of degradation

They have learned that the overfamiliarity with a spouse and the institutionalization of the relationship that accompany companionate domesticity actually dampen female desire in ways they don't male desire

So what is this article saying? Basically women should hold out the goods and maybe that will help us get better pay and become CEOs. It says that marriage is like a prison term, and that men are basically unable to give women pleasure. It says womens only token is sex and that it should be used to its fullest, yes like a prostitute. It says forget about love or caring about a relationship, you should only care about your own pleasure.

First of all fellas, calm down. There are still plenty of us women that see right through crap like this. I find writers like this pure evil, and the people that follow this train of thought need to do some soul searching, and get an education.

I'm sorry, but my wife could never go that long without an orgasm.



Fred..

Based on the idea that men are more addicted to sex than women are.
Not sure statistics about cheating on marriage would bear that out.
Let's all go without sex over politics!
Are these people crazy or what?
Glad I married a sane woman who would never consider such an extreme idea.
If she's going to withhold it would be because I did something truly mean and stupid.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: JAGStorm

Then the world would be overwhelmed by spiders and unopened pickle jars...

LIES!

a reply to: TheRedneck
well, just think about your own circle of friends, if you know women who have kids and women who don't around the same age, do the women with no kids look much younger? it helps if your friends aren't prone to slap on a ton of makeup to make this comparison I admit.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: JAGStorm

Then the world would be overwhelmed by spiders and unopened pickle jars...

LIES!

Of course, Hilldog can open a pickle jar...she hasn't put out...for a man...in decades.

a reply to: kaylaluv

My belief is that long term monogamous relationships are great, but they take work and compromise.

I agree completely.

I don’t agree with the woman who wrote the article claiming long term monogamous relationships aren’t really good for women, and that women shouldn’t compromise. I would agree that if one partner doesn’t want to put in the work or compromise, then maybe the relationship is best ended.

That's the heart of any good relationship. Both partners have to be willing to sacrifice for the other. If one is not, that relationship is doomed anyway. I would wager she is in such a relationship, and I actually feel sorry for her. Not sorry enough to not crack a few jokes, obviously, but I do have some sympathy in there.

We all have selfish desires. I know I do, and I know my wife does. That's usually where the fights start. But we're both willing to compromise to work things out, and we're both looking forward to that 50th anniversary. 19 years to go...

I believe that in the past, women were subjugated by men. I think the belief was that women were weak and emotional, and therefore just weren’t up to doing the same things men could do. I think that belief for the most part, is gone now - and that’s a good thing.

In the past, and still today unfortunately. Let's face it; women are physically and mentally different from men. Women are typically smaller and weaker physically, but tougher and more adept mentally for handling stress. Human mating practice places the woman in the submissive role, as a rule, and it's likely that is where those antiquated views come from. Nothing could be farther from the truth, though.

I sometimes wonder if part of that historical subjugation was at least partly a result of women being simply satisfied in their roles. While I am not quite ancient enough to remember a time before women's suffrage, I am old enough to have witnessed a change in attitudes. There was a time in my life when women as a rule were quite happy being housewives and homemakers. As societal pressure began to force more women into the labor force, more than a few seemed genuinely unhappy with their new role.

Anyway, just thinking out loud...

The woman who wrote the article is obviously a bit of a militant. I get that.

Another point of agreement between us. We're getting good at this!

Whether women control men or not, I think entirely depends on individuals. I’ve seen women controlling men, and I’ve seen men controlling women.

It certainly depends on the individual! I made some generalities above, such as women being physically smaller and weaker than men, but let me tell you: I have seen women that could kick my happy little redneck butt with one hand tied behind their back, and probably not miss a puff on their cigarette doing it! Generalities are fine IMO for general conversation, but are certainly not applicable to all individuals.

I am happy to see that even without the societal pressure of yesterday to join the labor force, more women are taking more roles in traditionally male-oriented occupations. That's a good thing. Societal expectations are exactly not: expectations. Not demands. I'll even bring up the recent changes in the WWE: the Divas division has been renamed to the Women's division, and some of those matches are every bit as intense as the Men's division.

I don’t think, in this thread, we are disagreeing all that much, but you seem to want to disagree with me very badly. I just don’t want to fight today.

I am not trying to fight. We're simply not going to see things from like perspectives. As you so correctly point out, we tend to disagree much more than we agree. But on this subject it sounds like we are agreeing. That intrigues me, and I want to know more about why we agree... maybe it will help me to see things from your perspective.

I have no intention of picking a fight; I really never do. If it seems like I am, it's because I disagree so strongly.

Besides, I'm not in a fighting mood myself either, really. Just got back from the damn hospital again yesterday (another heart attack) and I'm more in a relax and watch football mood. I'm enjoying the conversation.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar

Interesting... some do, some don't. I think I would be safe in saying, though, that among older women, those who have had kids tend to look at least as young if not younger than those who don't.

And yeah, makeup can hide a lot of sins...

TheRedneck

a reply to: IAMTAT

Put out what?

Oh....

Ugh....

Think I'm gonna be sick now. Thanks a lot!

TheRedneck

In direct response to the question posed in the title: nothing would change for me.

My wife and I are fighting and I'm not giving in because at the very least I'm not wrong: no way she'll trick me into giving up my smoke.

Besides, I'm still working on the machine. I can't squander my creative powers on anything, not even my unappreciative wife. When the machine is done, she'll understand. You'll all understand.

Long story.

Plus I don't vote. Christ I'm not even 40 yet.

This whole idea reminds me of a little kid who threatens to hold her breath if she doesn't get her way. On a more "adult" (cough) level it's like a hunger strike. Nobody gets hurt except the person doing it, who winds up looking ridiculous. Nobody else cares.

Find another chick to knock boots with.
There are plenty of fish in the ocean.

I’m investing all my money in fleshlights!

There’s gold in them thar fake pooters!
Gold I tells ya!

a reply to: JAGStorm

well for what its worth the donald forum on reddit is doing "no nut november" so seems team trump is allready on strike ...even for self fulfillment ,dont know if any one is actually doing it . but OP does realize that there are Republican women too right?