« Pretend Ignorance | Main | Mean Green Fundraiser »

When a man doesn't call

What the feminist movement has descended to: the notion that making your husband happy = female subservience to the evil Oppressive Male. This sort of yapping is usually followed or preceded by blog posts and essays that might as well all be titled "Why Won't That Male Chauvinist Pig Go Out With Me?"

Comments (15)

Annalucia [TypeKey Profile Page]:

Oh, Lord - I read that whole thread at Ace, and the best comments came from Red pointing out what should be obvious. When you have babies/small children there is always somebody nursing, or climbing all over you, or needing a nose wiped or a diaper changed, or banging on the bathroom door screaming when you're trying to do your business - at that point the one thing you long for above all others is to be LEFT ALONE FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES. It's not only hormonal crazies that send the libido plunging.

On the other hand, life is full of situations where you don't really feel like doing something, but you do it anyway because the positive good outweighs
your temporary inconvenience. That could mean the subject under discussion at Ace, or it could mean visiting your boring elderly aunt, or working two jobs instead of one because the wife is home with the babies (as my husband did early in our marriage). People who retreat into their own little bubble and don't want to be inconvenienced by others, well, they shouldn't be surprised when the others return the favor.

This is a very long-about way of saying that the authors of the original book (the one Marcotte trashed) have the right idea, and I really, really hope that Marcotte stays single, and doesn't inflict her rotten attitude on anybody except herself.

Oh BTW - I took the liberty of writing to Jimmy Akin and suggesting that he hire you as a Troll Whacker. There's a lot of thread-hijacking going on at his place lately and he seems insufficiently ruthless to deal with it.

Ugh...what can I say -- I don't agree with Marcotte or Ace. I didn't get very far into the thread either (as is usually the case with Ace's blog). The only one who had anything sensible to say was Rightwingsparkle.

Hey, it goes without saying that Marcotte is a moron, but I don't see any daylight between her attitudes and this Ace clown's - or a fair number of his commenters. (They just use different synomyms for "meeee, meeee, meeee!".) Though it is fleetingly entertaining to watch vapidly self-absorbed emotional retards scream accusations of "selfish!" at each other. My fave is the one about how your exhausted sleep-deprived postpartum wife owes you blow-jobs to make up for so selfishly thwarting your need for sex by having to spend a few weeks recuperating from childbirth. (Because only a pussified girly-man would put consideration for his wife above his dick in any circumstance.) When this guy dies and goes to hell he's going to meet 72 Marcottes.

"Synomyms". I meant "cinnamons".

God bless you Moira! You said exactly what I was thinking and was unable to articulate this morning. According to Ace and his fellow knuckledraggers, it is the woman who is "selfish" because she won't degrade herself to satisfy her husband's all-important need for "release". (Of course, the husband's inability to have some self-control out of consideration for his wife and not merely see her as a source of "release" is not considered selfishness by these nimrods.) They believe it is "selfish" to think that maybe, just maybe, there should be mutual pleasure and affection between two partners instead of one using the other as a masturbatory device. You know, that whole "becoming one flesh" thing...it's so very "selfish".

When this guy dies and goes to hell he's going to meet 72 Marcottes.

The very thought of that gladdens my heart! :-)

Well, I don't agree with Ace or his commenters either. I was more defending the women that Marcotte and Co. were slamming. Both sides on this "debate" (if I must dignify it with that term) were taking these womens' harmless suggestions and twisting them to serve their own selfish ends. They are both sides of the same tarnished coin -- I'll bet Marcotte would be not at all uninterested in a suggestion that her current male playdate service her on days that he was feeling unable to... "perform."

PS: if Jimmy Akin wants to pay me a lot of money I'll be glad to whack his trolls, but what he really needs to do is set up his blog for commenter registration. All current blogging software has modules that do that.

CGHill [TypeKey Profile Page]:

Hey, how come the A-list bloggers get all the vapidly self-absorbed emotional retards?

(I do my best, but hey.)

While I don't agree with the way Ace stated it, that is exactly what married couples do - they take care of each other. It's a two way street, and that's not limited to sex (in any particular form). You do things for each other. Sometimes it's very one-sided, other times it's "other"-sided. Sometimes, it's even. Because that's what you do.

Rightwingsparkle is a bit Pollyannaish about it, though. "True love" doesn't automatically lead to a good sex life, unless one has very low standards (or is really insensitive to one's partner's feelings).

And Susan and Moira, go back and reread, please. I think you overly misconstrued Ace's comments.

So tell me, Ken S, FSonBoL - I'm honestly curious - exactly why do you think some of the women here are expressing such disgust at Ace and his commenters? Do you think that perhaps it is because we are all very young and naive, and that the two-way streetiness of a happy marriage is somehow beyond our experience or comprehension? Are we perhaps not very bright undergraduates who've had our silly heads stuffed with feminist propaganda and therefore we resent, a la Marcotte, the very notion that we should ever do something selfless for a man? Are we mayhaps tender naifs with fluffy-bunny notions of romance who are scandalized by the brute realities of male sexual needs, clewless virgins...(OK I gotta stop here. I put part of my brain to work parsing the phrase "overly misconstrued", and now my verbal fluency works are all buggerup.)

Anyway, which do you think it is, Ken?

On the other hand, you might consider the possibility the some of us, at least, are mature happily married women and mothers of families who've been there, done that, and know a vapid, emotionally retarded baboon - who wouldn't know a two-way street if he got pancaked flat on it by a convoy of mack trucks both ways running - when we see one. It's a thought.

And no, twue wuv doesn't guarantee good sex, but feeling loved is a necessary if not sufficient condition for good sex for a great many women. (Yeah, we're a pain in the ass that way.) It's also what makes a non-hooker have sex with a man when she's not in the mood, so considering the issue under discussion, it's a bit counterproductive to be sneering at it, dontcha think? I suspect that's what rws might have been trying to get across to those apes, albeit in a regrettably hallmarkian style.

CGHill - all right, all right, I'll come comment more often on your blog.

Susan B. - thanks. Re: masturbatory device. Yeah, you'd think "what you should do to make sure your wife doesn't start feeling like she's been reduced to the status of wank-aid under circumstance X" would come right after "you should blow your husband regularly during circumstance X." I'll look it up. I'm sure it's discussed.

Andrea - eh, Marcotte. I noticed a weird inversion at her blog, though. The bulk of her commenters seem to be noticeably less stupid than she is. What I've always seen is a reasonably intelligent and sane blogger with a comment section awash in idiocy. But when you're scanning through the comments a thud into a big IQ-dip comment, you look up and see it's her. But it's not as if I'm going to peruse any more of Pandagon to shore up the observation.

Moira, I meant that I think you read too much into it, nothing more.


I don't think so...I think I pretty much read into it what Ace meant. He's a typical libertine, pornography-influenced male of the early 21st century. And no, I won't reread what he has to say because I don't need the aggravation.

Most of the time I think Ace is just joking. Many of his commenters, though, I'm not so sure. Then again, he plays along.

Ricky [TypeKey Profile Page]:

If you’ll allow a view from the chauvinist side of the aisle.

I took a good bit of Ace’s post as humor & also a lot of the commenters, as well. That said, we all need to realize that chicks & dudes are hard-wired differently. I know this is obvious & you guys are saying “of course we know that, moron” but sometimes I think you gals don’t realize that our ‘needs’ (yes, we’re adolescent apes who think of nothing but sex, and yes we too often don’t put your needs as high on the priority list as we should) are often addressed as much as your ‘needs’. And by that, I don’t mean the same needs. You want – and don’t deny this – the man to listen to you. This is one of your needs…to vent, discuss, let loose, complain, praise, bemoan, whatever…one of your needs is for the man to listen. And, well, if he doesn’t listen to you enough then that makes him a certifiable a-hole who doesn’t understand your needs (“you” and “your” being general terms). That’s why so many women have affairs yet swear that it’s not because of the sex but because of the companionship….their husbands left them emotionally. Likewise, so many men have affairs because their wives left them hanging.

But, men are a-holes if they bring that up.

I had this discussion with an engaged female co-worker today (we had to word things carefully in order to escape any harassment claims in the future) and she agreed with every word that I typed. And deep down, you know its true. A BJ to him is the physical equivalent of the emotional response you’d get were he to provide a surprise bouquet of roses with a note saying “wanted to remind you of how much you mean to me”. You guys don’t understand because you’re wired differently. I don’t understand why roses are better than the big O, but I’m wired differently.

I think all this "wired differently" stuff, while it may be true to a point, does not serve men and women very well. You know, I'm a woman. I don't like to yap at length about things. I like peace and quite. I like to try and find solutions instead of just venting. Maybe I'm wired all wrong.

A BJ to him is the physical equivalent of the emotional response you’d get were he to provide a surprise bouquet of roses with a note saying “wanted to remind you of how much you mean to me”.

Except one is intrinsically degrading and the other isn't.

Whatev...I'm done with this subject.

A blowjob is no more intrinsically degrading than returning the favor.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Don't worry, he's just chopping broccoli.


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on April 10, 2007 10:54 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Pretend Ignorance.

The next post in this blog is Mean Green Fundraiser.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.33