The "Smart Women are Scary" Moment of the Day....

A friend of mine, who is a smart and attractive young woman, was sitting at a bar, when some guy came up to her and offered her a drink. He started chatting her up, and eventually asked what she did for a living.

She replied that she was working on her PhD in Neuropsychology. The guy did not answer and simply took his drink elsewhere.

This, people, is 2008. "Smart women are scary." Boo.

Happy halloween. (Sort of.)

Breaking News: Raising a Family Interferes with Pursuing a Career

Wow. I'm in shock.

The Québec government, just found out, from the conclusions of a totally groundbreaking study, that fathers who take this whole raising kids thing seriously and who are actually involved in the upbringing of their offspring do not ascend the workplace ladder as fast as their childless or deadbeat counterparts.

No shit. Really. Who knew?

***

It's interesting to note how the media spun this news. For men, family is seen as interfering with paid work, i.e. a man's natural activity, whereas for women, it's paid work that is seen as interfering with childrearing, i.e. our natural purpose...

The "You've come a long way, baby" moment of the week

Law, when it comes to gender issues, is a most amazing field of study - and work.


One very interesting thing is that, along with medicine, law used to be a predominantly male bastion of the workplace. Don't get me wrong, our noble profession is still in many ways run like an old boys' club (think "billable hours"). However, young women are graduating from law school and are being called to the Bar in gargantuan proportions (in Québec, there are roughly 3 female law students for every male, and guys are becoming an endangered species in Bar school).

The phenomenon is strikingly observable in the courtroom. In practice division (where lawyers show up at court in the morning to be either heard by a clerk or dispatched before a judge to present their motions), the great majority of lawyers in their 20's as well as a good proportion of lawyers in their 30's are female, while the lawyers with grey hair are almost all men.

10 to 20 years form now, if we keep this pace, we'll be running the business.

Until then, I guess we'll have to cope with our beloved patriarchal legal practice, as sexist and - sometimes - disappointing as it gets...

***

I was waiting for my case to be called in practice division the other day, when I had to momentarily leave the room to speak to the other counsel, leaving my briefcase and my documents on my seat behind me.

When I got back inside, a middle-aged lawyer was sitting on my chair, preventing me from getting to my stuff. I politely whispered: "Excusez-moi, mais ce sont mes affaires."

He got up, smiling, started stroking my shoulder paternalistically and said: "Tu sais, tu peux t'asseoir sur mes genoux."

I managed to stay polite and not to let show how pissed I was from this verbal butt-slapping, and told him: "No, I don't think so."

Many people noticed, among them the clerks (all women) who, to my relief, frowned in utter disgust.

The lawyer in question, on the other hand, seemed blissfully unaware of both the lack of propriety of his conduct, and the fact that he's part of a - hopefully - dying breed.

Rant of the Day

"If I had a cock..." - A rant on pornography by Oni Baba

It's no secret for those of you who read this blog that I'm deeply opposed to pornography.

From an ideological point of view, I think it's at odds with the egalitarian and non-exploitative values that feminism - in my opinion - stands for.

I also think that it is morally - and should be treated as legally - wrong. It's wrong because it's about making objects out of women - you know, those uppity female human beings. It's about using women, and trying to make them fit into the mold of unrealistic fantasies. It's also morally wrong because the goal of pornography is to use static interactions with representations of women as a way to reach sexual arousal/satisfaction. This necessarily entails that such arousal of satisfaction is not conditional to the male pornography consumer's negotiating the terms of the sexual act with the woman. The static nature of pornography make her consent entirely irrelevant. The women featured in pornography are always willing partners. We find the same attitude towards women in men who consume porn to get off, and those who rape women to achieve the same end.

And on a personal level, I really don't get it. Maybe it's just because I'm a woman.

Maybe my female upbringing didn't teach me that it was OK and socially acceptable to get off on unknown persons of the opposite sex because I want instant, easy sexual gratification, or just to boost my self-confidence.

Maybe it's just that I don't have a cock, where, as everybody knows, male self-confidence resides. If I had one, maybe I'd be tempted to exercise my god-given right to use women without their consent to satisfy my personal needs.

Maybe if I had a cock, I'd feel so lousy about myself that I'd rather play with myself and fantasizing about my virtual sexual performances than have real, consensual sex with an actual human being, with *gasp!* feelings, an *gasp!* intellect and even an *GASP!* ability to criticize my pathetic performances.

Maybe if I had a cock, no life and a fast Internet connection that allowed me to access loads of porn on demand, I'd do society a huge favour and I'd shoot myself.

Quote of the Day

From Me Julie Latour, former Bâtonnière du Barreau de Montréal, on the assumption that career women necessarily favour motherhood and recognition at home over professional ambition, and that men are wired to do the opposite:

Le Blackberry a démontré que l’homme professionnel est doté d’un grand talent pour une petite chose difficile à manipuler, qui requiert une attention constante. Pourquoi pas un bébé?

Go read the whole of the speech Me Latour gave at the Barreau de Montréal's conference Pouvoir et Féminité: Oser prendre la première place.

"The Greatest Medical Discovery Ever Known" - Curing women from being women

When I came across this vintage ad a few days ago, I thought it was absolutely hilarious.

I can't help but think that the device in question must have been invented by some uptight victorian physicians who had had enough of "cure" hysterical or frigid women by manipulating them to orgasm. I can just picture the utterly awkward and uncomfortable look on their prudish faces: "Gross! Women experiencing sexual pleasure! Eeeeew!"





It seems unreal that, back in the early 20th century, physicians and psychiatrists genuine believed that women were either hysterical or frigid, depending on whether they enjoyed sex too much or not enough. (And by "enjoying sex," what they really meant was the ability to have a so-called vaginal orgasm.)

A woman's lack of ability to enjoy sex on exclusivity male terms, i.e. via penetration alone, was then, as evidence by the ad above, a "disease" that had to be "cured."

Such attitudes were mistakenly and largely based on androcentric perspectives on sexuality and the female body, and fueled, namely, by Freud's psycho-analytic theories.

The problem is that they still persist today. It still seems to me that, to a certain extent, women are inherently abnormal. As a matter of fact, women are constantly being reminded that, at their natural, basic state, they necessarily either (1) grossly depart from the acceptable model of womanhood and femininity, or (2) constitute abnormal variants of the normal human, i.e. the human male.

Many people still refer to women who don't/can't experience "vaginal" orgasms as being frigid, or as being plagued by arousal problems. Hence drugs that can supposedly enhance a woman's abnormally low sexual desires, or procedures purported to enhance a woman's elusive "G-spot" so as to increase the probabilities that she will reach orgasm during penetrative sex.

Would such remedies exist at all if our society adopted a female perspective of sexuality, or at the very least, if we collectively acknowledged once and for all that sex is something that is physically and physiologically experienced differently in men and women?

Imagine if society adopted a female outlook on sexuality. Would men who don't/can't reach climax solely by manipulating their female's partner's clitoris deemed "frigid"? Would male orgasms obtained via vaginal penetration considered inferior or "immature" by medical and psychiatric literature?

***

The idea that women, simply because they are women, need to be cured of some form of inherent and congenital female disease related to one's femaleness, often takes a psychiatric twist.

Not only are women physically deficient, but there's also apparently something wrong with the way we're wired.

For years, medical textbooks and publications aimed at a female audience have urged women to seek psychiatric attention and/or treatment should they experience feelings of uneasiness, discomfort or frustration towards their bodies, marriage, men, sex, pregnancy, and whatever else was traditionally expected from women.

The following is an excerpt from a book aimed at a female teenaged audience:

Au temps de l'ovulation, quelques jours avant ou après la menstruation, certaines adolescentes sentent un besoin sexuel intense qui les rend excessivement nerveuses. Ces jeunes filles ont beaucoup de difficultés à contrôler leurs sens, durant ces courtes périodes.

Vous connaissez bien vos jours de faiblesse? Alors, n'allez pas vous exposer ces jours-là! Si vous devenez trop tendues, certains tranquilisants vous aideraient à adoucir ces orages.

- Lionel Gendron, L'adolescente veut savoir (Éditions de l'Homme: Montréal, 1964), at 51.

Dr Gendron also recommends that young girls take sedatives and tranquilizers to treat "nervous" symptoms related to menstruation, fatigue, headaches, lack of self-confidence, not feeling appreciated by your husband, and love.

As if, women needed constant medical attention. As if the mere fact of being female required medical intervention.

Vous pratiquerez ce test de fécondité pendant au moins dix mois consécutifs. Avec ce tableau, vous verrez votre médecin au moment de votre mariage et il établira avec vous votre calendrier sexuel conjugal.

- Ibid., at 103.

Seriously.

***

This is still going on today. A little while ago, I saw an ad on an American TV channel (I forgot which) for a new oral contraceptive, Yaz, that also purports to "treat" or "suppress" the psychological symptoms associated with menstruations.

On the one hand, I think it's great that there is finally an alternative to "hard" medications, such as anti-depressants, for women who experience regular bouts of anxiety and depression-like symptoms at some point of their menstrual cycle.

On the other hand however, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea of "treating" menstruation as if it were a disease. It's not. It's unpleasant for many, but it's not a disease.

***

On a related topic, many women's rights groups in Québec - including la Fédération québécoise pour le planning des naissances - have required a moratorium on the mass vaccination of teenaged girls against HPV, on the ground that there are still many things we don't know about how safe the Gardasil vaccine actually is, and have raised questions about the adequacy of suppressing menstruation via various contraceptive medications.

As much as I loathe the systematic "medicalization" of women and of conditions associated with being one, I don't think it's appropriate to ban a technology or a medically approved practiced for fear that it be unnecessary or that it become systematically imposed on women.

Whether a woman should be vaccinated against HPV, or whether she should opt for a medical contraceptive that will - temporarily - stop her menstruations, is matter of personal choice. Find an OB-GYN who is knowledgeable in those areas and whom you trust, discuss these issues and make a choice that suits your beliefs and your personal needs.

Ode to creepy men in lingerie stores

Let's face it: our collective lingerie/pyjama shopping experience would not be complete without them...

***

A man was paying his purchase, a pink peignoir, and asked the (female) clerk to gift wrap it. He then notice a Christmas lingerie catalogue on the counter, and asked the clerk that she put one inside the folded garnment. (Quite a classy way to drop a hint, don't you think?)

A really interesting thing is that the man made the following lapsus: he asked for a calendar instead of a catalogue.

(At this point, you start to see a clearer picture of the type of man in question.)

He then went on rambling about the Christmas decorations in the store, pointing how appropriate it was to decorate a lingerie store with "plein de belles boules." He also found wise to add: "moi j'aime ben ça, des petites boules."

Then, nodding towards a table covered with panties, the man said to the clerk: "There are a lot of things in here that would suit you well."

She kind of smiled back at him, with a noticeably annoyed look in her eyes.

*sigh*

***

Lingerie saleswoman #1 to lingerie saleswoman #2: "I used to work at La Senza on Ste-Catherine, but I couldn't stand the drunken men who would come into the store just to touch the clothes and the mannequins, and harass the female personnel."

(I find it really sad to think that we live a society where some men seem incapable to distinguish between an underwear store and a sex shop/strip club/porn booth.)

Masculinism 101

Go read this hilarious (but to-the-point) FAQ about "men's rights activism", i.e. the delusion that White, Christian, males are an endangered species in North America.

It's too late when you're dead...

A recent StatsCan study reports that "[t]he slaying of a spouse is often the first time authorities are notified of a domestic violence problem in a home".

Because domestic abusers are just "nice guys" after all, right?

This is so depressing... *sigh*

Withdrawals...

In 2006, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals answered 'no' to the question "If a female consents to sex initially, and, during the course of the sex act to which she consented, for whatever reason, she changes her mind, and the man continues until climax, does the result constitute rape?"

The incident at issue involved an 18 year-old woman who was taken by car, at night, to a secluded location by two vague male acquaintances (both aged 16 at the time). She was first raped by the other accused Wilson (who was eventually found guilty of rape) on the back seat of the car. The accused in this case, Baby, then asked his friend "Will you let me hit it?", referring to the young woman. He then told the victim that he "wouldn't want to rape her." (Baby admitted to making both utterances.) The victim then said "yes" to sexual intercourse with him, on the condition that he pull out if it hurt her (logically: upon her saying so).

Baby then proceeded to vaginally penetrating the woman, thrusting inside her. She then said 'no' and told him to stop, because it hurt. It was admitted in this case, that, at this point, the accused continued thrusting inside her for 10 seconds before he ejaculated and pulled out.

Although Baby was convicted of rape at trial and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, his conviction was overturned by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. The appeal judgment not only rejected the prosecution's argument that the circumstances (e.g. the victim having been raped for a first time moments before, the secluded location, the victim being outnumbered by her assailants, her subjective fear, Baby's veiled threat of additional physical violence) in themselves were coercitive enough to nullify the woman's "consent."

Relying on the Battle case, it went on to say that, when it comes to rape, common law tells us that it's really about the vindication of the loss of a woman's value, as a chattel, to her legal owner, that is to say, her father or husband.

(Uh hum... 'Rings a bell, anyone?)

Thus, the fact that a woman withdraws her consent to sexual intercourse once it has started is irrelevant to whether or not the intercourse amounts to rape, because beyond the initial penetration, once the woman has been deflowered, there is nothing more to lose, and therefore nothing to be further punished.

Pretty depressing, eh?

The good news is that this Middle-Ages ruling has been heard on appeal last week.

Let's just hope that the Court of Appeals will yield to 21st century concepts (such as "women are people too and have their say on the terms and conditions under which they engage in sexual activity") and restore Baby's conviction and sentence.

On the other hand, I'm disappointed that the prosecution's argument seems limited to the assertion that the intercourse constituted rape because "[y]ou clearly have the element of force, you have the resistance by the victim, the victim was quite clear that it was hurting, that she wanted him to stop."

By raising this argument, the prosecution emphasizes the importance of physical coercion and legitimize the requirement that the victim attempted to resist the rape, as legal markers for the victim's lack of consent, rather than focusing on what really matters in sexual assault cases, i.e. the victim's actual, subjective feelings towards the sexual activity.

Sexual assault, as defined under Maryland law, and as acknowledged by the prosecution's argument, is not about punishing the accused's disregard for another person's subjective preference about whether or not she wants to have sex. When the law defines a woman's consent to sexual activity as something else than her own subjective state of mind, for instance, by defining "consent" as lack of "adequate" (read: from a male point of view) resistance, or as passivity or submission, it obviously does not give a damn about whether or not the woman being penetrated is actually willing or not.

In that context, it does not even make sense to be talking about a woman's withdrawing her consent.

What I would have appreciated from the prosecution in the current Baby appeal is a genuine argument to the effect that women, as human beings, deserve the right to decide of the conditions under which they will engage in any type of sexual activity. Men do. (Obviously.) The right to the legal recognition of women's sexual agency is nothing short of a fundamental equality requirement.

For such recognition to be possible, the laws of Maryland must be amended so as to make the legality of sexual acts absolutely conditional to both partners' subjective consent. Therefore, the definition of "consent" as the absence of extrinsic physical violence, lack of sufficient physical resistance, submission, or passivity must be thrown out, and replaced by a notion of "actual consent", which consists of one's own subjective feelings.

***

The Baltimore Sun published an article about the Baby appeal. It's not really informative for those who are not already familiar with the case, given that it considerably distorts the facts of the case.

What is most disturbing though are the comments to the article. They reveal a shocking resistance to the idea that a woman has the right to withdraw her consent to sexual activity, and that doing so does not make her a whore or a liar, nor does it strip her of her rights to vindicate the attempt on her bodily integrity. They also provide a thorough - and disheartening - summary of rape myths and prejudices about women who file complains for sexual assault. (Including the suggestion that the victim is the one who should have been prosecuted for rape, given that she had "lure" two underaged males into sex.)

"Either you want it or you don't. If there is a question mark, say no up front. Or wait. After penetration, unless under violent circumstances, it is just not valid. Bad performance is not rapeor 3/4 of the population would be in jail. And not the providence of 16 year olds. Strangers, sex and liquor are a very poor combination."

"It is asking alot to even think of accusing someone of rape when you let him enter your body and get within five seconds of climax. By the way they should accuse her of raping him because he was 16 and she was 18."

"Anyone who says yes during sex is in a position where they must consent until it is over. Anyone who says yes then no has less sexual credibility. Those with little to no sexual credibility should be barred from the right to file rape charges period. There are real rapes, the West Virginia torture, a woman who is jumped and kidnapped by three men, and similar such situations where the real rapists need to be thrown into prison so that they themselves can be punished severly. Any case however involving a person who cannot make up their mind should automatically be thrown out because whats to stop them from filing a charge of rape over the decision that it was simply bad sex. Real rapes only in the courtroom, no drunks who said yes at one point during the intercourse and no one who engages in other such acts should be given the right to file charges. Rather they need to punish the accusors who go between yes and no during sex with perjury as they are filing false charges for something they allowed to happen."

***

Many people who commented the Baltimore Sun's article seem to share the view that once a man has penetrated a woman, especially if he is approaching climax, loses his capacity to acknowledge her demands that he stops and to pull out immediately. Such people also seem think that a delay of 10 seconds between the moment when a woman, who is being penetrated, says "no, stop, it hurts" and the moment when the man actually pulls out, is actually quite reasonable, and can be easily justified by the handy "getting-near-climax-has-become-unresponsive-jelly-of-lust-can't-hear-you-until-I-get-off" theory.

But it's not only retrograde, misogynistc jerks who adhere to this view. I have had a serious - and quite awkward - discussion about this issue (as it arises in a sexual assault context) with one of my professors, a brilliant mind and a kind man, who sincerely seem to think that sometimes, even 10 seconds are not enough.

In all fairness, being a woman, I obviously don't have a first hand experience of this, but I remain extremely sceptical about the "I-can't-hear-you-I'm-gonna-come" excuse.

What is certain though is that 10 seconds can seem like a lifetime in certain circumstances. Those who have been raped or sexually assaulted very well know this. (For those who have been lucky enough to have never experienced such a situation, here's a thought: paper sheets, an unknown OB-GYN and a metallic, cold speculum.)

10 seconds of unwanted sex certainly qualifies as full-fledged sexual assault.

***

Since the mid-80's, Canada has - in theory, as least - left the Middle-Ages of sexual assault legislation by (1) replacing the gendered offence of "rape" with the neutral one of "sexual assault", and (2) ditching the unrealistic "objective" notion of "consent" (which was similar, under the common law, to the notion of "consent" as it applies in Maryland) with a subjective view of consent that corresponds to the person's subjective state of mind at the relevant time.

Moreover, the Criminal Code now explicitly provides that there is no consent when someone's, having validly given it earlier on, chooses to withdraw it (s. 273.1(2)(e)).

*sigh* Here she goes again!

A little while ago, Sarah Hampson, from the Globe and Mail, attempted to convince her readers that married women are responsible to meet their husband's sexual demands, regardless of their own preferences, desires or state of mind, because otherwise, they would essentially be pushing their spouse into the arms of another - and arguably more "responsible", i.e. sexually submissive - woman.

I was therefore a little sceptical when I started reading her newest article: "Good sex, or she's an ex". Nevertheless, I figured that I would read the whole thing first, and give the woman a chance to redeem herself.

At best, I was hoping that Ms. Hampson would write equivalent "advice" for married men who are not able to keep up with their wife's sexual needs. A very legitimate expectation. I mean, isn't that what the title of the article suggests in the first place?

Well guess what? She did not.

Unlike her previous opus, she starts with a relatively neutral tone:

It is not just the male need for sex that is misunderstood, as I wrote in my previous column (Sex, or he's your ex, June 7). In the interest of sexual reciprocity - hey, what's good for him needs to be good for her, too - I should explain the other half. And that is simple: Women's expectation for sex in marriage has changed.

But then Ms. Hampson continues:

Make way for the CEO of Pleasure. Female empowerment has reached a climax in the bedroom. She wants what she considers her right: good and frequent sex.

"It's a real role shift," says Betty Stockley, a veteran marriage and sex therapist in Toronto. "Women are calling the shots in the bedroom. Power has shifted."

*sigh* Here we go again with some classic "female empowerment" crap and the "pussy power" myth (with respect to the latter, please check out what the Happy Feminist has to say about it).
Anyhow, I fail to understand how this assertion is supposed to support her ramblings about the sacro-sanct duty of married women to be sexually accessible to their husband on a 24/7 basis. I'm sure such women view themselves as "CEOs of Pleasure"...

Others complain about poor sexual technique. "I was 18 when I met my first husband," a 40-year-old professional woman tells me. "He was not my first sexual partner. I had had maybe two lovers before him. But I was his first. He didn't know what to do. He really wasn't able to satisfy me, and he wouldn't talk about it."

They remained married for four years. "I tried for about two or three years, but it got to the point that when he expressed interest in sex, I just said, 'No thanks. Unless you're going to help me out and not just roll over, then forget it.' Oral sex was distasteful to him. He wasn't into masturbating me. I could do anything to him. There were no limits there. Finally, I told him, 'You're not good in bed.' It was a huge blow to his ego. I regret saying those words," she offers. "But I don't regret how I felt. It was completely valid."

So? That's it? I mean: that's just it? How come this woman remained married to this guy? Did she not ran into the arms of younger, hotter studs? She stayed with the guy for four fucking years? And only then did she tell him how she felt about their intimacy? And she regretted telling him?

That "CEO" obviously needs to attend some leadership seminars or something...

Back to the main issue. How come is it that women are dissatisfied in bed? I mean, besides incompetent sexual partners?

Apparently, it's a question of geography.

It's just that men are a continent and women are an ancient civilization. A woman has to explore his topography, which is very exciting, but all rather easily discovered. There are flat plains, some lovely undulating ones, and then there's Mount Vesuvius.

Women, on the other hand, have to be unearthed. In the past 40 years or so, since the Pill liberated women from sex as merely reproduction, much energy has been devoted to this emotional archaeology, with female orgasm as the coveted treasure in the deep, dark womb-tomb place.

Uh... wtf? What better argument to convince a woman of her innate sexual inadequacy than to compare her vagina to a "dark womb-tomb place"? Isn't it sweet to be compared to something dead, cold, rotten and potentially hazardous, and that needs to be unearthed by a third party? Now that's empowerment.

Silly me. For all those years, I had believed for some wacky reason that a vagina and a uterus were two separate organs. But I must have been wrong. After all, how is a woman supposed to know anything at all about her own bodily functions?

But constant compromise rubs against the feminist grain. "It's not like compromising on other things, like when to go out for dinner," says Joan Sewell, author of I'd Rather Eat Chocolate: Learning to Love My Low Libido, published earlier this year. "This is your body. There is nothing more personal. When you don't have desire, it's not merely sexual, it's invasive. Continual compromising like that is going to poison you. Men might be clueless, but the resentment in the woman will eventually pop."

She almost gets it right. But she forgot to point out that sex without willingness is, if not full-fledge sexual assault, at the very least, sexual exploitation. At worse, a criminal offence. At best, mental or physical cruelty, i.e. a cause for divorce.

Ms. Sewell asserted her power by defining the limits of her willingness to service his sexual needs. On the brink of divorce, she wanted to save her marriage by satisfying her husband, Kip, in ways that didn't fuel her resentment. He wanted sex five or six times a week, whereas her preference was once or twice a month.

"Servicing" someone else's sexual needs is NOT a good reason to engage in any form of sexual activity. No one should have to ask herself what are the limits of her willingness to do so.

Finally, they reached a sex agreement. Male orgasm became optional. She could take breaks. Plus: "When I know Kip wants sex, and I'm not that keen, we know what sex acts are neutral for me, but there are conditions on those, too. Oral sex, for example. Well, what if it goes on for 15 minutes? If it does, well, I'm out," Ms. Sewell says. "And there are days when I don't care what you're doing down there to me, I am not going to play."

"She could take breaks." Whoa. What a gentleman, ladies. You know, it's not as if, like, women had a legally protected right to withdraw their consent to sexual activity at any point in time. Shit. It's really too bad that Kip dude is already taken...

She has been called "anti-feminist and pre-Victorian," she confesses, but she believes that women are fed unrealistic images of abundant female libido. Lack of desire may be the new taboo in today's sexually explicit culture, but Ms. Sewell maintains that a lack of libido is just as important to take power of, if that's what women feel.

Du-uh! Anti-feminist? Right you are! A healthy sex-drive and the idea that (1) you should not have to submit to sex when you don't feel like it, and that (2) when you feel like it, you expect your partner to make a genuine effort to please you, do not constitute in my mind "unrealistic images of abundant female libido."

And seriously, is it just me or the idea of using one's "lack of libido" (that is, in Ms. Hampson's language, a woman's preference not to have sex at a given point in time) as "power" has no merit at all?

Absolute control in the bedroom is never healthy, Ms. Stockley says. The skill, which a therapist can help develop in couples, is how to talk about sexual compatibility without hurting either partner's feelings.

"I do think many women abuse the power in the bedroom," she cautions. ... But I tell them [women] that having power should not be about being overpowering."

So, to sum up the last couple of points, and the whole of Ms. Hampson's article, it's not as much "Sex, or she's your ex" as "Sex: it can be lousy and she might not want to, but you my male friend are gonna get some anyways." If sex is unsatisfying, your husband need not chastise himself and force himself to "sexually service" you, because you're not expected to just dump him for that. Again, it's all about the women. It's women who, once again, are expected to be "responsible" and solve the problem by compromising their own desires and needs.

Moreover, by refusing - again, not completely, but only to the extent that the guy doesn't get exactly what he demands - to engage in sexual activity, women are supposed to feel empowered. But on the other hand, they are warned that by so doing, they might be abusing their so-called power, or be *gasp!* overpowered.

Different articles, same conclusion. If you're a woman, whatever you do, it's always your fault.

Because your wedding vows didn’t make you a housecleaning sex-bot

Being interested in women’s issues often means that you have to read unpleasant, backwards statements written by stupid – or just careless – people. Sometimes, such anti-feminist articles are so egregiously misogynistic and so crazy that they’re almost hilarious. Hey, in another context, the whole “feminists are turned on by murdering babies” affair could have been a brilliant piece of satire. Such assertions are so fucked up, you really need to be a crazy phallocrat to endorse them.

But what frustrates me and freaks me out the most are those articles that are equally egregiously misogynistic but which, by some sort of pop psychology smoke and mirrors, are afforded credibility and are hailed as thoughtful and needed reflections on human experience.

Such as this one.

When Globe and Mail’s columnist Sarah Hampson named her article about men’s sexual needs in marriage “Sex, or he’s your ex”, boy did she mean it.

The penis rules.




This, people, is actually the first sentence of her piece. You can already guess where she is going.
A few lines below, she reaffirms the point:

The penis rules. Or should, anyway.



By which she means that:

1) Men have a HUGE sex drive, and thus typically feel horny all the time;
2) Men have a huge sex drive because their masculinity and ego depends on it;
3) Women don’t understand their husbands’ sex drive, because they’re emotional beings.
4) Women unjustifiably deny their husbands’ required dose of sex, on flimsy grounds, e.g. all they want to do is talk about their day, they want to share feelings, they’re physically exhausted after having taken care of the kids all day, cleaned the house, done the laundry and fixed dinner, they’re pregnant, have just given birth or are nursing, they simply don’t want to;
5) When you’re a man, being denied sex by your WIFE is “emasculating”;
6) Men who are not getting any from their wives and who cannot get the same egotistical fulfilment “through sports” or “through work by the accumulation of money” will get on their wives;
7) It’s a wife’s duty to service her husband and submit to his sexual demands, even though she doesn’t want to, if she wants to keep her marriage on the rails.

Got that ladies? YOU, and only you (that means, not that jerk you’re married to) are responsible if he cheats on you and/or leaves you for a sexier model. If entirely your fault if the marriage isn’t working. So stop being that selfish and frigid and follow Ms. Hampson’s thoughtful advice.


I remember an acquaintance of mine complaining about her husband's expectation of sex. She had two young sons at the time, and she was a wonderful hands-on and attentive mother. There were lunches to be made, laundry to finish, dinner to make, homework to help with, errands to run, and just before she passed out from exhaustion, a husband to do. And she did, because if nothing else, she is highly responsible. (And still married, by the way.) [emphasis added]

Wow. Are wee still in the 50’s? I don’t remember ever getting that memo.

Seriously, how is the fact that you’re still married at this point supposed to show that you’re “responsible”? If you get to do all the domestic work, in addition to working a full-time job, and your husband keeps whining about how you’re not properly taking care of him, then the wise thing to do is undoubtedly to just dump the ungrateful bastard.


But I guess in Ms. Hampson’s world, female “selfishness” is way worse than male utter lack of empathy:

“It's not healthy for men to feel pathetic about their urges and shame about their desire. It's not just their masculinity they are expressing through sex but also their lesser masculine qualities, their tenderness, their vulnerability, their desire to give pleasure and receive it,” she explains.

So, to summarize her point, men need to be fucked by their wives to feel manlier, so that they can express non-manly qualities? Uh?!? And please, let’s reflect on the alleged “desire to give pleasure and receive it”. What a hypocrisy! The part about giving pleasure is merely an attempt to comfort themselves. How much pleasure can one give to a partner who’d rather not have sex at all?



(Also note that this statement presupposes that such men are actually able to please their wives in bed. This has yet to be established.)

It's easy for the women to just brush it off, and say, ‘All he wants is sex.' What they should be asking is, ‘Why am I never interested? What happened to my own desires?'


Here you go. If you’re so exhausted after working two jobs (i.e. your real job and the part of the domestic work that your husband is too cheap to do himself) that you’re simply not interested in “taking care” of him by sexually servicing him, then there’s OBVIOUSLY something wrong with you, honey. YOU are the one who should feel responsible for the problem, and YOU are the one who should be working to “solve” it.


And here comes the scary part, shortly followed by the mandatory sexual objectification of women part.

Many men, not being the greatest communicators, resort to anger when they're not getting the intimacy they crave. They will say lack of sex makes them feel “they were sold a bill of goods,” as one guy explains, since “women are much more sexually aggressive and suggestive during the courting stage, and inexperienced men can be fooled by that.


Excuse me? “Bill of goods”? “Fooled by that”? Is it just me or is she actually a wacky version of the caveat emptor rule to heterosexual relationships? WTF?!?


For men, on the other hand, a romp in bed is stress therapy. “For us, it can be like golf or watching television,” admits a source from the world of men.


Awnnn. How flattering. Nothing turns me on like having my feminine charms compared to a wide-screen plasma TV.


You also gotta love the “for us, men” tone. Because, you know, it’s not as if women actually enjoyed sex, or actually knew that it’s not just for making babies.

See:

Of course, for women, talking is like golf. (Confused yet?) “Women want to emotionally share and talk about their day,” the man continues.


Still married to his wife of 21 years, with whom he has two children, he should be called Mr. Highly Evolved. But he didn't get there on his own. All that wisdom about how women and men think differently comes from years of couples therapy.


“For men, it's like Chinese water torture to be talking about something endlessly,” he says. “Guys think, ‘Just fix it.' So when the wife says she wants to be asked how she is, the man goes, ‘What? We've got to have an hour and a half discussion about emotional connection before you feel like having sex? What happened to sex on the kitchen floor?'

Poor thing. Forced to communicate for a whole hour and a half with the person he chose to spend the rest of his life with. What a torture indeed. Someone please send this poor guy a check or something. ‘Really breaks my heart.

But if interacting with another (yet female, thus uninteresting) human being is such a pain in the ass, why do such men marry at all?


Silly goose! Here’s why!


“Men marry for two reasons,” she states. “They're proud to be with that woman socially. Look,” she adds in best-girlfriend whisper, “we both know women who have sex with men who aren't seen with them publicly. The second reason men marry is sexual compatibility.”

Bravo! Now, at last, our crazy acid trip into the 50’s is complete with the trophy wife truth! Bravo I say!


And now for the great finale:


Which brings me to a final bit of good advice. Be a lady in public and a whore in the bedroom. And help him understand that before talking dirty, the whore sometimes needs to have a cuddly chat about her day.

So, to wrap up, women need to be dirty whores in the bedroom in order not to be evil ball-crushers. On the other hand, the same women, in order not to bring eternal shame to their husbands, need to be all virginal and sexless.

I guess Ms. Hampson really meant that only men should not feel ashamed of their sexual urges and desires…

With the Whore-Madonna dichotomy, Ms. Hampson brilliantly completes the exercise of compiling in a single hateful piece a sample of practically all the existing stereotypes on heterosexual relationships and sexual behaviour.

You’ve got to admire the effort. I could not possibly have done any better.



***



If you’re not too pissed/depressed about this article already, have a look at the comments following the article online.

Your friendly neighbourhood housecleaning sex-bots, i.e. "responsible" wives...