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

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




You do realise she most certainly can, and probably does achieve one without you (or any other man) on a regular basis!

This Thread is cracking me up....... back on page 1 some poster already had brought up 'Lysistrata' the ancient Greek play by Aristophanes - a satirical comedy that exposed masculine posturing within politics as a farce - isn't it strange how little has changed in the last two and a half thousand years or so. The story was used most recently by Spike Lee in his film 'Chi-Raq' where the girlfriend of an inner-city gang leader persuades her friends to abstain from sex with their men until they give up the cycle of violence that blights their lives. The article is obviously using a similar satirical approach to highlight the way politics has become a masculine tribal warfare - and the cultural context is obviously striking a nerve with most of the posters in this discussion.

What I find most enlightening is the attitudes towards the female gender that is being exposed - it reminds me of that scene in the movie Pleasentville where the women within the town are awakening and discovering their own voice (sexually, artistically, politically) and all the men retreat to the bowling alley to discuss the situation and bemoan the loss of the world that was whilst getting angry at progress.

Ladies and Gentlemen: ATS - The Bowling Alley of the World Wide Web!

originally posted by: kaylaluv


a reply to: TheRedneck

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. What power are you talking about? Sex?

Some people on this thread think she is saying to withhold sex until you get what you want politically. They are not okay with that concept, and neither am I. But I don’t think that’s what she’s saying.

That is exactly what she is saying and why the article is titled what it is:
sex strike before the midterms?

originally posted by: WeAreSound


You do realise she most certainly can, and probably does achieve one without you (or any other man) on a regular basis!

This Thread is cracking me up.......

And you know this how, oh great one? Your post is what cracks me up. Anyone of either sex who withholds sex from their partner for political ransom reasons is not the kind of person one would want to be with anyway. If one does this in an agreed-upon monogamous relationship, it's a violation of T&C and is grounds for terminating that relationship. At the very lest it shows you're not on the same track emotionally. Doing this is emotional blackmail.

If woman didn't have pussies men would throw stones at them.

originally posted by: dawnstar
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.

Actually, he's not wrong in the parental guidance sense here. As the kids age, moms get a little less important and pivotal and dads become more important and pivotal.
I looked to my dad in my teen years for advice and behavior to model, as did virtually all of my friends (who had dads in the picture) As of right now with 2 tweens of my own, they're ignoring me more often than not and turning to their dad for advice, support & behavioral guidance, and so are their friends.

Granted, this is just my personal observation from my own experience & my friends', and watching my own kids & their friends, but I think Redneck's on to something nobody ever really bothers to scrutinize.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: kaylaluv

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.

I think there's more truth in that than a lot of people would like to admit. In my life I've talked to a lot of women who went through WWII, and I, as a girl-child of the 80s, was absolutely shocked (and at the time, a little horrified) to hear that more of these women than not were thrilled when it was all over and they could leave the factories etc. and go back to being housewives. Granted, I don't have any kind of scientific sample, but the majority of women I've spoken to were perfectly happy with their lives and were relieved when they didn't have to try to take on a man's role anymore.

Now before I go on to my next thought, I want to make one thing perfectly clear so that no one (not that you would, DB, but other people probably will) misinterprets my intent. I do not in any way, shape, or form go back to the good ol' days when women couldn't vote, married women couldn't hold property (like in the UK till well into the 20th century), become doctors or lawyers etc.

That said, historic writing--not the famous words of the movers-and-shakers, the manifestos of the activists etc. but the thoughts of everyday people--show that even the women's suffrage movement wasn't as cut-and-dried as we feel like it is today. Yes, there were women who were ready to fight and even die for it. (And thank God for them!) But there were also plenty of woman who thought it was a really, really bad idea and were concerned that it would take away from their lives rather than enhancing them; that it would damage their roles as women in society. And, as with so many hot-button social issues, a vast number of women fell somewhere in between. On the whole, women seem to have been pretty happy with their roles.

Edit to add: What a great discussion!

edit on 3-11-2018 by riiver because: (no reason given)

a reply to: schuyler

A woman withholding sex from a partner in a monogamous relationship is breaking the T&C and is grounds for terminating the relationship? Really? It is a male's right to have sex with a women they are in a relationship with? really?

I guess you were not a big fan of #metoo

This is exactly what I meant by exposing the attitude of the forum towards women.

You did read the part about the story being satire didn't you? You do realise it is attitudes such as yours that is being satirised?

And I don't have to be a mystical Orion to know that woman can achieve orgasms alone.

I've seen videos

Oh for the love of Pete! Are we living in the dark ages? Does Dr. Ruth need to come back? I thought that this had been settled- if you don't know how to show your partner what you like; then you are doing it wrong. Withholding sex for some potential future prize sounds like prostitution to me. Marry your true love and don't marry for ulterior motives then you don't have to have sex for his benefit.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
withholding sex as a training tool bad dog, now you don't get to play with the stick.

* for that

The headline is deceiving, but what would we expect from CNN. Even their headline lies. There is no mention in the article about withholding sex until the midterms.

originally posted by: misskat1
The headline is deceiving, but what would we expect from CNN. Even their headline lies. There is no mention in the article about withholding sex until the midterms.

I'm pretty sure it is implies all over the article, and this is an actual quote:

It's time for a revolution. At the polls, and in the bedroom

I guess if you aren't into the person you are with, withholding sex is easy.

If you are into each other though, I doubt either party would be up for such a lame exercise in blackmail.


My wife frequently votes in a different way to me and, we are grown up enough to respect each other as human beings who have their own opinions. What's wrong with people? Now, if she started saying nice things about Manchester United, we might have issues...

a reply to: WeAreSound

It is not one-sided as you are presenting it. In a monogamous relationship, the man has a right to the woman sexually, and vise-versa. Since these people exchanged wedding vows, this should not be a problem. But if one partner decides to withhold sex from the other in order to manipulate their actions, it is definitely grounds for termination of the relationship. Can't you see why?

a reply to: JAGStorm

They can hold back all the sex they want. We have a right hand that ends all the same, and there are other women out there, that will pick up where they leave off...and guess what? There are crap loads of female CEO's and Corporate stooges out there. Look around, they're everywhere. (Not speaking about you OP. The ones in the article.)

"You do realise she most certainly can, and probably does achieve one without you on a regular basis!"

Oh wow what a surprise, so can I.

Get over yourselves. Equal. Not superior.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: seagull

Depends greatly, I suppose, on what results are *ahem* desired.

I wouldn't touch that statement with someone else's ten-foot pole...

TheRedneck

Then I will....touch the ten-foot pole that is...

originally posted by: BoscoMoney
"You do realise she most certainly can, and probably does achieve one without you on a regular basis!"

Oh wow what a surprise, so can I.

Get over yourselves. Equal. Not superior.

That only relieves the 'itch' what about the salve to the emotions?

Without that for me the 'deed' is an empty exercise.