Apparently, books like this still get published.

I found this article on Jezebel this morning after a few friends had sent links to it. ('Real Housewife' Melissa Gorga's New Book Advocates Marital Rape)

I know a few of you that are friends with you have seen it (DamnitAll Baraka_Guru and CinnamonGirl at least), but I wanted to get a few more opinions. I've posted the article in its entirety here in case no one feels like leaving the page:

I typically don't read too many articles on this website. I find that they can skew a little too far into "militant feminism" world, and don't always give thought to any other opposing viewpoints. This article, though, I read entirely - including a few breaks where it was nauseating to keep reading. It feels like it reads straight from a 1950's housewife guide, but a lot more rape-y.

Personally, I have no problem if people decide to follow traditional gender roles. I don't have a problem with stay at home moms. I don't have a problem with women who decide to be homemakers for their husbands. What I do have problems with are unions that are less partnerships and more suffocation and controlling.

To me, the most disturbing part of the article is how they seem to view sex, especially "maintenance sex", sex to avoid fights, and Melissa accepting the fact that she is obligated to have sex when she doesn't want to. Men like Joe who have a "my wife can't say no" mindset disgust me, especially from a personal experience in that type of relationship. He is harping about "respect", but neither he nor his wife seem to have an idea of what respect is.

Are any aspects of this relationship functional? What constitutes a "healthy" sex life in a marriage or partnership? What kind of issues does publishing a book like this instigate?

Mostly, I'm just curious of what you guys think about this article.

 

It all comes back to what types of guys girls find attractive and want to date... There is plenty of 'alpha male' behavior there.

Would you rather be with a rich guy who has respect and power, or some guy who is barely getting by working all hours of the day.
There is the other 'fake' alpha male in the trailer parks or gangs who also gets women by treating them badly. This is what the feminist movement failed to fix.
Women wanted to have sex just like men, but didn't realize that it would lead men to compete more and improve their status to sleep with more women.

Having said that, I think there are some parts of that article that might not be typical, but would make for healthier marriages. I don't agree with the 'equality'
statements, or coming home to an empty house... but with the high divorce rate that we have in this country, I think that there needs to be an honest discussion
on why. And what could be done to fix it in order to make people's lives better.

 

This is not feminism. This is the very opposite end of where feminism would lie if there was a spectrum. I was thinking about this a while back and I even wrote down my opinions on it but never put it here because I was afraid of the TFP backlash that I would endure. So it sits in a text file in my hard drive waiting for the more open audience.

 

I think at the core, I agree with this. As I stated in the original post, I have no issue with traditional gender roles, if the marriage is still treated like a partnership. I'm sure I could think of a more eloquent way to put this, but it's been a long day and I'm tired.

I have a problem with there being repercussions if there is a lack of sex and the insane fights that spring out of nowhere.

I just have such an overwhelming feeling of ick after reading most of this that I can't articulate my thoughts correctly.

Just for clarification, do you think that I think this is feminism? I feel as you do, that this is nowhere near the accepted definition of "feminism". I mentioned feminism because the website this article was posted on can typically take on an extreme feminist view.

 

It's amazing that in 2013, a woman would allow herself to be treated this way. I suppose, if it works for them, it's all well and good, but from the excerpts above, I get the impression that the only person in the relationship that this arrangement is working for is the husband. Frankly, I feel sort of nauseated after reading it...

 

"In an emergency, I have my ways of pooping so he won't hear, smell, or see. It's a challenge."
I hope that someday this woman sees the light, escapes from her abusive marriage, and becomes independently wealthy teaching the secrets of stealth pooping.

Nothing amazing about it, this is the shit our society teaches men and women to believe.

 

These are two imbeciles on a "reality" TV show that could only be reality in the bizarro world of TV.
Why does anyone give a shit what they think or write?

 

Because it is something that needs to be discussed. And this topic has an impact on every persons life.

Not talking about it won't make it go away or improve. I am guessing that people want to have successful relationships, and I don't have any experience to judge one way or another as to what will work out in the long term. Then you have to take into account that people are all different, and a suggestion that Joe makes in the article up there might be taken very differently by some other woman.

The TV show Wife Swap looks into this issue, but doesn't come to a conclusion about what society should do in order to have better relationships. Maybe they would learn more from a "Divorce Swap" TV show where people who just got divorced can see if living with someone else would be any better.
--- merged: Sep 25, 2013 at 8:02 PM ---
I will also add that it is about what works in a relationship, or to get in the relationship in the first place. If acting a certain way will get you a more attractive or richer partner, how many people will act in that way even if 'society' finds it to be bad.

And what are the chances you have to do certain things so your partner doesn't leave you once you are in a relationship? You can 'be yourself' all you want when you are single, but what if it doesn't fit the vision your partner has for the two of you in your relationship?

 

Unfortunately, there are women who look for that type of relationship. To be totally dominated and controlled. There's a pot for every lid.

 

I've had a number of discussions about this over the years. Well, not all of it. But the points you touch on above. Also, I'm a bit loopy from going through some medication withdrawal, so bear with my ramblings.

A.
I cannot speak to the 50s housewife ideal (which makes some women very happy), but I can speak to the rape-yness feel. If done "correctly", it can be incredibly hot. Well, for me. But I've got my rape fetish. If I was with a man who had the expectations that Joe seems to have about sex, who enforced those expectations, who roughed me up if I did not comply --but still respected me in the ways I desire respect-- I'd be thrilled. Best monogamous sex life ever.

B.
Sexual obligation has been a big topic for me over the years with my guy friends. I'll actually speak on one in particular, who is an extreme case, but a real one. His name is also Joe, but I'll call him by his nickname (Ferret) to save us from confusion.

Ferret started dating this girl, Danielle, what must be about 12 years ago now. They have a couple of major long-term relationship issues (kids versus no kids sorta things), but Ferret's big sore spot is a common one: they have sex maybe once a year. It trickled after the first few years of them dating, from often to a couple times a month, to once a month, to once every three months, once every six, once every twelve.

Ferret is deeply dissatisfied. His needs aren't being met, both physical and psychological. Biology and sex drive aside, he feels undesired and that impacts him in a major way. He has talked to her about this repeatedly over the years, about how sex makes him feel close to her, that sex makes him feel desired, that he would like to have an orgasm that he didn't produce by himself, that he misses her in bed, that he wishes she'd stop saying "no" to him.

She doesn't do anything about it. She acknowledges it, she understands it. She loves him, she wants to be with him, she finds him attractive (he's a very good looking male, in my opinion as well). She just doesn't want to have sex with him.

He has asked for a sexually open relationship. He has no desire to leave her. He wants to marry her. He just wants to get laid, you know, like ever. She has told him, understandably, that she is not comfortable with such a set-up.

They love each other. They want to spend the rest of their lives together. His needs aren't being met, she is never going to meet them, and she is not going to allow him the freedom to get them met while still devoting himself to her emotionally, financially, etc.

Now, the questions follow:

Who, in this situation is responsible for his happiness? You could say he is, that he should leave her-- but that would make him unhappy, at least for a decent period of time. You could say she is, as his partner, his happiness should be important to her, and helping him achieve happiness should be important to her. You could say they both are... but what actions could they take, aside from splitting up, that would create a solution?

If he leaves her for not getting his needs met, is he a bastard?
Is she a frigid girlfriend/wife, and is this lack of happiness on his end her fault? How hard is it for a woman to fake arousal a couple times a year? Lube covers a variety of sins (and allows a variety of sins *rimshot*).
Is a lack of sex reason enough for them to go their separate ways?
Does she "owe" him sex, as part of the "deal" they made by entering a monogamous relationship?
Is sex an obligation at this point?
Would he be considered a bad partner for having sex with her willing (but reluctant) participation, knowing that she's not actually into it and would rather be watching Breaking Bad? If he tries to talk her into sex, is he a dick? If he begs her for sex, is he pathetic?

This is a common situation. There are blogs galore devoted to the topic of "how do I get my wife to have sex with me again?" You marry someone, pledge to make them happy (or whatever), to be there for them, but apparently not when you don't want to-- and god forbid if they push you about it.

C.
When you ask if any aspects of their relationship are functional, the answer is already there. Their relationship functions. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in one. It doesn't mean it functions in a way that you respect, appreciate, or doesn't make you want to hork into your Top Ramen (Why Top Ramen? No idea.), but it does function and it does seem to make them happy-- at least as far as we'll ever be able to tell.

D.
As for what constitutes a healthy sex life, I'd venture that as long as both partners are happy with their sex life, it's healthy. Whether that means sex once a year, sex once an hour, or sex with the neighbor's toy poodle.

Meep meep!

 

I get that these sorts of extremely conservative roles are still held by many. I just don't understand the mind set that informs people to assume this is the way it should be...

I would just find it too much work to be traditional. I have to think about what I should or shouldn't be doing rather than just doing it.

My partnership with my wife works.

 

A few more thoughts!

A. If that's a fetish that both people involved are consenting to, I'm all for that. To me, the relationship in question goes far beyond a fetish and into overbearing suffocation territory.

B. I get this. I think I was too broad when I used the term "maintenance sex". I understand the basis of it, and I have participated in it. Like Borla there have been times where I haven't been raring to go, but played along if I wasn't seeing him for awhile or knew it would make him happy. I don't think that is wrong, even though I do think that sexual compatibility and similar views on the importance of sex are facets of relationships just as big as whether or not you want children, goals, values, whatever. What I have an issue with is that she views "maintenance sex" as a way to avoid arguments and whatever emotional and possible (not going to say it is or isn't happening, as we're not sure of the quality of the source) physical harassment is on the horizon if she doesn't. I have an issue with Joe basically making an ultimatum of "if we don't have daily sex, I will cheat on you". We're not all going to be in the mood for awesome sex 100% of the time. That's fine and normal, in my eyes. But the way it's addressed in these clips makes me uncomfortable.

C. I guess by functional, I mean maintainable. Obviously, some aspects of it are working if they're still in a relationship and have the balls to write a book about it. Even from as neutral of a mindframe that I can think about it in, it still just seems way too fucked up to work.

MEEP MEEP

 

And I work with a guy that deposits his check in a joint account and gets an "allowance" (of his own salary) from his wife. Eh, consenting adults and all.

I've been married to the same woman for 33 years and we're still working shit out. Sometimes it's traditional, sometimes it isn't. She's a horrid cook, I used to cook in a country club. I'm not opposed to cleaning; but apparently, she can see dirt that is invisible to me. I can't say that either of us ever submits to anything; but we compromise on a daily basis.

 

as for why the book exists as book---which has little to do with its contents---the answer should be clear. celebrity-->enhanced personal brand identity---->more attractive to agents, who profit from translating enhanced personal brand identity in one domain into others---->more attractive to publishers, which are corporate entities interested in the funky dollar bill above all other things. that the content provokes discussion is good for sales...there is no bad publicity...everything is a commercial. including this.