Posted on 12/29/2008 11:11:17 PM PST by goldstategop
Re your church class experience: At one point I was reading "The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell. Farrell relates how he had large audiences for his seminars when he would focus on how men needed to fix things about themselves to make the relationship work. Women would drag their guys to his seminars. Then at one point he changed his format to pointing out how men AND women needed to keep things going. Women stopped dragging their men to his seminars. Follow the money -- women will drag men to seminars that bash men, but men will not drag women to seminars that bash women (and more importantly, women will not go to such, or will walk out in a huff)
If the wife is not satisfied, then shouldn't she talk to her husband, and then "train" him? I would think such skills could only be developed through experience (and suggest that they were a slut), watching porn (better than being a slut but not by much), or natural ability. I'm a virgin myself, so I can't say anything from person experience. I think I'd like to get married some day. I am apprehensive about such a proposition, though. It could be the worst decision of my life. Or the best. Who knows but God.
Check your freepmail
Yes, that seems accurate.
Why is that difference important? Both of them are things that are needed in a good relationship. For both you'll sometimes have one partner less ready to "get involved".
Sure, but that doesn’t change my statement about “how women are”...There are alot of little things that will get a much better result than telling a woman “it’s your duty..”
I don't disagree with you there. Your advice, in most circumstances, would probably lead to a better outcome for the husband. (I suspect Mr. Prager's article is about those circumstances where your approach would *not* work but he doesn't make that clear in the article).
And likewise, women who desire more communication or more emotional intimacy from their husbands could probably obtain it pretty easily by following the advice of Mr. Prager. Or, they could get him to open up by talking about things *he's* interested in, or doing a number of other things.
I just find it curious that women are not often given this advice when they aren't getting what they want from their husbands. And when this advice is given, many people would dismiss it as sexist, chauvinistic garbage. Instead the basic assumption is that a husband *must* do these things, even when he doesn't really feel like it, "just because".
And yet when husbands may not be getting the things they want- like sexual intimacy - the conventional wisdom is either that he doesn't even deserve those things in the first place, or that if he wants them he needs to do certain things that his wife wants.
Again, that's not to say a man won't be better off by making those small gestures for his wife. And of course, any good husband should be doing those things anyway. I just wonder why it is that meeting a wife's needs is supposed to be automatic, while meeting the husband's needs is supposed to be something that is "earned".
Sarah’s pro-life and gun principles are solid, I agree. She is also quite charismatic, likeable and can rally the base.
My point was more in response to another’s assertion that the GOP does not objectify women. Sarah’s resume was never examined. Just now we are beginning to do that. She was immediately praised or hated for her looks, body, sex appeal, etc. It still happens today on the Palin threads. Rumor is even her husband Todd is getting sick of all the guys lusting after his wife. The original poster made a valid point IMO.
I forgot to add, if Sarah Palin looked like Helen Thomas none of us would be talking about her today.
Can we clone you?
Oh, I don’t know ... we talk about Helen Thomas ;-).
I have it on good authority: Nope.
great post!
And as I relate it to my own life?
I cannot think of one instance where I had to say to myself “oh geez - well I guess it’s my obligation”
“Why is that difference important?”
Because ears pretty much work the same with men and women.
Sexual response works quite differently.
” I just wonder why it is that meeting a wife’s needs is supposed to be automatic, while meeting the husband’s needs is supposed to be something that is “earned”.”
I’m not sure what you mean here.
I don’t think it is an “either” “or” situation.
I think they both can get what they want and what they need, if they simply start thinking about one another.
A woman who feels her husband isn’t listening to her SHOULD stop and ask herself if she is hindering communication.
A man who isn’t getting any might want to consider his approach a little better.
Win - win
some people are destined to be miserable and walk thru life essentially dead...
enjoy your 7 Blessings and show em you love em every day...best example you can give em...
“But I notice you don’t mention premarital sex.”
Can’t mention everything all the time.
“That’s one place men need to get their heads on straight. Men want to test-drive women before they marry them. And if the women don’t measure up, then out they go.”
Actually, it’s even worse than that a lot of the time. Some men “test drive” lots of women they have no intention of marrying.
“Granted, women are as responsible for this as men.”
No, I don’t think so.
“But the reality is that most men today wouldn’ marry a woman who wouldn’t sleep with them beforehand.”
That’s because they wouldn’t have a fourth date with a woman who hadn’t slept with them by the third.
“but I guess you think that’s okay.”
I’d be absolutely fascinated to hear what it was that led you to make that supposition.
“the party is going to continue to shrink until it gets fully behind people like Sarah Palin”
The party is going to shrink until we get leftists out of all positions that allow them to indoctrinate the young.
“Better yet, the party could promote women who don’t look like Sarah Palin but might be a little more articulate and a little less cowed by the media.”
You’re on the wrong track there. What the ‘Cuda has is the same thing Ronaldus Magnus had—authenticity. And if she appeared “cowed” by the media, that was only because McLame’s lackeys were reining her in.
“Single women might even be an option. Granted, there aren’t many single conservative women, but there are some.”
Women leaders are as scarce as hen’s teeth. Ain’t been but three in my lifetime. The pubbies can go wth the ‘Cuda, or go down to dusty death.
“You really should read your statements before posting. This line is just creepy.”
It’s creepy that you think a tradition dating back thousands of years is creepy. These things become traditions because they have better outcomes than the alternatives.
This was a good response. Don’t disagree with you on much. Still think Sarah could use some coaching — from a conservative woman, preferably. And I still think the GOP should work a little harder to promote women. If they had more practice, the mistakes made with Palin wouldn’t have occurred.
“I just don’t buy it. If a guy can’t keep some degree of his woman’s passion, then nothing is pretty much what he deserves.”
The problem with your logic is that you are presuming honesty. You are presuming that the problem is that the man is an inattentive or inept lover, but not considering that the woman may be playing cynical power games.
“Anything else is more akin to making a travesty of the institution.”
One of the most important facets of the institution is that sexual needs are met within it. When one party refuses to live up to his or her end of the bargain, the consequences are rarely good—for the family or for society.
“My goodness (chuckle,) this old Grandma hit your hot button.”
The attack on the family by the left is indeed one of my hot buttons. Putative conservatives who have accepted elements of this attack are another.
“You might look up “female hysteria.” All sorts of psychological and female symptoms were included under this Victorian diagnosis.”
We spent some time on this when I was studying psychology at university back in the early 1970s. We also studied the problems with their methodology, their small, non-representative samples, their prejudicial assumptions, and other problems that make this work...well, either bilgewater or hogwash, depending on your point of view.
In the 1960s and 1970s, those portions which supported feminist dogma were touted, those that militated against it, ignored.
“You must be a young person and did not live through the sexual revelations of the Kinsey Report and the book “What You Always Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask.”
What amused me most about that era was women burning their bras, laboring under the misapprehension that men wanted women to hide their breasts. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they figured out, “Hey, all we’re doing here is giving the phallocrat oppressors a better look at our goodies.”
Oh, and if you could get a girl ranting on about how a promiscuous male was admired as a “swordsman” while a promiscuous female was denigrated as a slut, the fornication was a done deal. All you had to do at that point was undress.
Yes, I lived through the time of the dissolution of morals, largely under the influence of the fraudulent pervert, Kinsey. I expect to do a couple of eons in Purgatory as a result, *if* I’m lucky.
“Hysterectomies” are called that for a reason. This was the surgical response to psychological and other female maladies - e.g “hysteria.” If women acted out, they might become a candidate for this treatment.
I remember my mother (now in her 90s) talking to me after she read about “What you always wanted to know...” She had no idea that such things were possible. It was a new concept at the time that women might experience the big O like men. There were even magazine articles on the discovery. Things are quite different now.
At least for women, I would bet that this is not a part of history to which we would wish to return. I would not call it cultural degredation that we no longer yank out a woman’s reproductive organs when they behave as men would not wish. Nor do I call the expectations of sexual pleasure by both parties degrading. I am sure that the Taliban would not agree, but hey this is America.
I don’t think it is an “either” “or” situation. I think they both can get what they want and what they need, if they simply start thinking about one another.
I don't agree with the first statement- I believe men and women approach communication differently. But there's no need to quibble over the details since you don't seem to buy into the double-standard I was describing... and it's that double-standard that I object to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.