Feminists Are the Ruin Of Marriages, and Your Sex Life

It is appalling what feminists and feminist counselors tell couples about sex. They say that women should only have sex when they feel like it and disregard their husband’s feelings. The feminists would say that a woman should not allow herself to be a “sexual slave” to her husband. There are even some feminists claiming that any married sex amounts to rape. This is not conducive to resolving sexual conflicts in a marriage relationship.

Feminists and feminist marriage counselors tell women and men that women should only have sex when they feel like it and to disregard men’s needs. This message has become common in mainstream marriage counseling. In all sincerity, is this not the ultimate in self centeredness? Is not love defined as putting the needs of your partner above your own. It is widely reported in studies published in women’s magazines that about 60% of the married couples out there have sex about once a week. For most husbands that is tantamount to a starvation diet of sex once a week or less. Typically the woman gives her husband sex on Saturday night. The idea being, that she is now rested and relaxed enough to engage in sex, knowing that it is not a work night for her. Would any woman support giving kids a hug only once a week on Saturday night. Imagine when a child is feeling bad or sad and comes to mom for a hug and she says; “now you know that I only give hugs once a week on Saturday night.” Of course that notion is ridiculous and yet the feminists support the notion of doing it to their husbands. It is a logical and factual inconsistency and a continuing example of dominance demanded by the feminists. In what way does that resolve the issue of frequency in a marriage?

Most feminists are liars! That of course is an inflammatory statement. Before you dismiss that claim, allow yourself to read the ongoing evidence in this chapter with an open mind. At the end of the chapter, you must decide for yourself the veracity of that statement.

Feminists claim to desire equality. They don’t want equality, they want ABSOLUTE DOMINANCE.
If feminists truly wanted equality, that would include equality for men as well. Equality after all means that both men and women are equal and should receive equal treatment. Do men get equal treatment? Well the feminists claim that women should only have sex when they feel like it. If men and women were truly equal in a relationship, men would have the opportunity to have sex with their wives on one night, and the women would have the opportunity to not have sex on the next night. If men were equal, then the wives would be giving their husbands sex 3-4 times a week. If that were the case, then we would not be arguing about sex. After all, sex is one of THE BIG THREE that couples argue about. There is nothing equal in demanding the right for women to refuse sex to their husbands any time that they want to. After all, isn’t the ultimate definition of equality is sharing equally? Is not the definition of love putting your partner’s needs above your own? Would any woman support the notion that a husband should only be allowed to eat when his wife feels like allowing him to eat? This position violates the principle in I Corinthians 7 where it says that the wife is not to defraud the husband nor the husband defraud the wife, that their bodies are not their own.

If you reduce that demand to its logical consequences, it reduces men as nothing more than stud service on demand. The man does not get sexual satisfaction when he wants it. He has to wait until the wife is in the mood and willing whenever that might happen. Far too many men have complained not only in counseling but in letters to Ann Landers and Dear Abby, that they suffer from frequency of once or twice a month. Other men have complained about not getting sex literally in years. Explain how anyone can justify that as equality?

Remember that back in the 80’s women sportswriters sued the NFL because they were not allowed in the men’s locker rooms. They claimed that they were being unfairly discriminated against. The men’s right to privacy was completely abdicated and the women have been in the locker rooms ever since with naked men running around. The feminists argued that the right to privacy allowed them to kill their unborn children, but they did not see irony in denying a man to his right to privacy in the locker room. Now if there were equality, would it not stand to reason that male sportswriters should be allowed in women’s locker rooms? Do you see men sportswriters in women’s tennis player’s locker rooms? Of course not. Do you see men allowed in the locker rooms of women volleyball players? Of course not. Do we see men sportswriters in the locker rooms of women golfers? Of course not. I ask you, are we practicing equality? We are practicing reverse sexism and dominance on the part of women.

Women have successfully sued to join men’s clubs and golf clubs. Do we see women’s clubs opening up their clubs for male members? Of course not, we are seeing dominance and reverse sexism.

Women have successfully sued to have women allowed to attend all boy’s academies and colleges. Yet when an all girl’s school officials decided to open enrollment to men because of declining enrollments, we saw televised pictures of weeping women tearing out their hair and screaming and throwing themselves on the ground. Please…feminists don’t want equality, they want dominance. Their behavior and attitudes portray nothing but that.

In the city of Saint Paul, Minnesota, women successfully sued the Fire Department claiming that the physical testing requirements were designed to keep women out of the firefighter’s department. What the physical requirements were designed to do is to weed out weak men. After all, for example, a firefighter is called upon to pick up a 200lb unconscious man in a fireman’s carry and run down a flight of stairs so as to save his life. The requirements were watered down to satisfy the successful lawsuit where two female firefighters can now drag that same 200lb man down the flight of stairs. Now you have 3 people whose lives are at stake. What about the injuries incurred by the unconscious man as he is being unceremoniously dragged down the steps? Now we have two women taking the place of one man. What happened to equality? Feminists scream about equal pay for equal work and yet the two firefighters taking the place of one firefighter will get the same pay for half of the work. Is this equality? No, it is dominance and reverse sexism. Suppose a woman comes home and finds out that her house is on fire and her husband is trapped inside unconscious from smoke inhalation on the second floor bedroom. What emotions would go through a wife’s mind as she saw two female firefighters going in to get him out? How would she feel watching them dragging her husband down the flight of steps, his body and head banging on the steps on the way down? Would she not rather have a big strong man throw her husband over his shoulder and run down that flight of steps? According to the feminists, that woman would be guilty of sexism if she had wished it was a man carrying her husband or adult son down the steps. Is it worth risking his life in order to have social engineering? These are the kinds of attitudes and ideas foisted upon the public that causes men to have tremendous resentment towards women. Truly the battle of the sexes has not improved but gotten more entrenched. More and more we have a liberal court practicing political correctness and giving to the feminist’s dominance rather than equality.
If a woman gets pregnant, she can saddle the man for child support for up to 22 years. If the man does not pay, he can be jailed, have his driver’s license revoked, his salary garnisheed, his tax refund’s seized, etc. If the woman does not give the man court ordered visitation the courts do nothing to the offending mother. Is this equality? No, it is dominance.

If a woman gets pregnant, she can decide on her own to kill the baby in her womb. The father has absolutely no say so or any rights to the child. Is this equality? It is dominance.

If a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the child and she is hit by a car, then she can have the driver charged with vehicular homicide if the baby is killed in the accident. Is this equality? No, it is not only dominance, it is playing God. It is a baby if she decides it is for lawsuit purposes, but not a baby if she chooses to kill it through abortion.

If a woman gets pregnant, she can go right to term and have the baby delivered feet first in the breech position. The whole body is delivered, but the head is still in the birth canal. The physician stabs the baby in the skull and sucks its brains out and collapses the skull and delivers a dead baby. Is this murder, no, it is legal abortion. If anyone kills the baby after the head slips out, then it is murder, but as long as the head is still in the birth canal, then it is considered legal abortion. Is this equality? No, it is not only dominance but legalized infanticide. What about the baby’s equal rights as guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. The first right in the Bill of Rights is the right to life. This is dominance personified.

We are seeing gross reverse sexism called misandry in the TV commercials. Men are portrayed as hapless boobs where the heroic woman sweeps in to save the day.
Another example for example is a guy trying to do the family’s taxes using a software program; the wife comes in to ask him questions in a condescending tone. When he admits to having a problem she verbally belittles him in a very insulting and condescending manner. Women would not stand for that kind of attitude but it is okay to insult and belittle men. More importantly they encourage that behavior on the part of women. That is not equality but absolute dominance.

The definition of Misandry, from Wikipedia
Misandry (pronounced /mɪˈsændri/) is hatred (or contempt) of men or boys. It is parallel to misogyny, the hatred of women. Misandry (μισανδρία) comes from Greek misos (μῖσος, “hatred”) and anēr, andros (ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός; “man”). Misandry is also comparable with misanthropy which is the hatred of humanity in general.

Wendy McElroy, an individualist feminist and Fox News commentator,[9] argues that some feminists “have redefined the view of the movement of the opposite sex” as “a hot anger toward men seems to have turned into a cold hatred.”[10] She argues that men as a class are considered ireformable, all men are considered rapists, and marriage, rape and prostitution are seen as the same.r
McElroy states “a new ideology has come to the forefront… radical or gender, feminism”, one that has “joined hands with [the] political correctness movement that condemns the panorama of western civilization as sexist and racist: the product of ‘dead white males.'”[11]

Conservative pundit Charlotte Hays argues “that the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism has filtered into the culture at large is incontestable; indeed, this attitude has become so pervasive that we hardly notice it any longer.”[12]
[edit] Analogies to other forms of bigotry
Masculist writer and frequent speaker at the Cato Institute[13] Warren Farrell compares dehumanizing stereotyping of men to dehumanization of the Vietnamese people as “gooks.”[14]
In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism, and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humor.

—Warren Farrell, Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say
Religious Studies professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young make similar comparisons in their three-book series Beyond the Fall of Man,[15] which treats misandry as a form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American society. Nathanson and Young credit “ideological feminism” for imposing misandry on culture.[16]

Their book Spreading Misandry (2001) analyzes “pop cultural artifacts and productions from the 1990s” from movies to greeting cards for what they consider contains pervasive messages of hatred toward men. Legalizing Misandry (2005) the second in the series, gives similar attention to laws in North America.

Feminism is clearly not supported in mainstream society. One need only look at Ms. Magazine for proof. They were founded in 1972 and after all of these years, their circulation nationwide is a mere 150,000 according to their own statement. There is so little editorial content of any consequence that they only publish quarterly. For years, the only way that the magazine has survived is on subscriptions alone. They can’t get any advertisers to buy adds in the magazine. Ad sales indicate the viability of any magazine. In spite of this mere pittance of a magazine, they claim a FEMINIST MAJORITY. It is clearly not so, in fact but a false PR slogan. Every election, feminists are out claiming Funds for a Feminist Majority.

You can find Ms. Magazine in a tool for writers entitled: WRITER’S MARKET. The next magazine following the Ms. Listing entitled: REDBOOK shows a circulation of 2,500,000. Can you see the difference in the circulation of a monthly magazine compared to the quarterly magazine of MS. Interestingly enough, Redbook has extensive articles every month about women’s sex lives. You can read it for yourself, they don’t follow Ms’. notions about sex.

Feminists claim equality and diversity. What they practice is absolute dominance. At feminist meetings, pro-life women are “shouted down” and are not allowed to speak. How is that diversity or equality? It is not, it is absolute dominance. There are multiple examples of feminists either attacking their own or ignoring their own if the women are conservatives. Where were the feminists when the pundits in the press were viciously attacking Sara Palin and more importantly her daughters?

Here is another example of how feminists don’t represent women in general and will attack their own. Back in the mid 1970’s there was a woman by the name of Marabelle Morgan. She started a seminar program for married women based upon her best selling book entitled: The Total Woman. She suggested to women to better take care of their husband’s sexual needs. One of the suggestions that she made was to: Greet your husband at the door in nothing more than saran wrap.

This was a suggestion for women to have fun in their sex lives and practice a little spontaneity. She further recommended that women initiate sex once in a while. The Saran Wrap was designed to illustrate those suggestions. The feminists howled making noise about women being treated as sexual objects. The liberal media picked up this diatribe and gave massive amounts of coverage to it. It caused a national ministry that had proved to save and/or improve tens of thousands of marriages to be shut down. She got death threats over her work. At that time the divorce rate was about 25%. Today it is widely reported that the divorce rate is around 50%. In what ways has feminism shown to improve marriages? The evidence would speak to the contrary.
This so empowered the liberal cabal that there was even a movie produced to shower down condescension and disapproval over Mrs. Morgan’s message. That movie was called the Stepford Wives. If you saw the movie, the leading message was to women that they should be rebellious and feel no compunction to satisfy their husband’s sexual desires.

17 Responses to Feminists Are the Ruin Of Marriages, and Your Sex Life

  1. kdaddy23 says:

    Very nice – we should talk sometimes and compare notes…

  2. Vendetta says:

    I think a lot of your arguments are not valid. For instance, equal pay for equal work usually applies to non labor type jobs. A female copywriter and a male copywriter are doing the same nonphysical job and should be paid the same. For the entire time women have been allowed to work, they have been paid lower wages than men. In this day it’s not like we live in traditional families either, we are forced as women to work as our husbands have left us with 3 children for someone younger. Not me of course, but more women than I can count.

    However if we are going to talk equality, and women working, sex being equal, I think housework, and raising children should be equal as well in the house. If we are striving for real equality, lets share equal everything. But that isn’t reality, instead maybe we can strive for balance and fairness and loving each other and doing things for each other.

    I think what the feminist movement is missing is reason, and as with any extremist movement it has it’s faults. I understand being a woman that they are trying to level the playing field for centuries of abuse and oppression. Much how African Americans now seek restitution and many (not all) may have lower scores than a white person and still be allowed into a college because they are require a certain percentage be admitted. It’s not fair, it’s leveling the playing field. Throughout history extremist movements have asked for more than what they will get, hopefully both extreme sides of the argument can land somewhere logically and fairly in the middle with peace and compromise.

  3. Sonya Batten says:

    This article almost made me throw up. So what you are saying is that I as a woman NEVER have any right to turn down sex with my husband and it’s all the feminist’s fault! This is the biggest load of horse pucky I have ever heard in my life. Do women not have the right to bodily autonomy? You know, sometimes my husband is not in the mood and I am, does that make him as evil as me when I’m not in the mood? Personally, I wouldn’t want to have sex with my husband unless he was in the mood and he feels the same way. Otherwise, it’s kind of like rape!!!! Last I checked, I had the right to say yes or no because it’s well, MY BODY!

    • I have never said never and of course I realize that there are reasonable reasons to say no. What I am saying is that far too many women abuse their right to say no on a routine basis. Do you think that it is reasonable that 40% of married women with children at home FORCE their husbands on a diet of sex once a week or less. Feminists seem to demand the right to force their husbands to do without sex on a routine basis against his will. I am suggesting that women compromise and take better care of their husbands.

      Now I am quite sure that you won’t like this, but the bible says that the husband is supposed to give it to you any time that you want it as well. The bible was for equality long before it was cool.

      Feminists wail against pornography but men use porn as a masturbation aid. Men also cheat when they are not getting their needs met at home. I am trying to get women to see that it is not in their best interest or especially their children’s best interest for couples to get divorced because of the huge impact that divorce has on kids.

      Blessings on you and yours
      John Wilder

  4. Sonya Batten says:

    Oh and by the way, I am EXTREMELY happily married for the last 10 years and I am as feminist as they come!

  5. diana says:

    I stumbled across this article on an angry feminist blog, where we discuss our plans for ABSOLUTE DOMINANCE through equal pay, accessibility to education and sexual assault/domestic violence prevention, among other things.

    I think you need a refresher course on “rights.” For instance, no one is guaranteed the right to have sex. Everyone, however, regardless of marital status or gender, is entitled to bodily autonomy and privacy. Bodily autonomy and privacy means that no one, not even my spouse, has the right to have sex with me when I do not want to have sex. Period. Forcible sex is called rape, and that definition does not change because I have a ring on my finger.

    “Equality” in this case would not be compromising bodly autonomy, as you suggest. Equality would, in fact, mean both partners agree that enthsiastic consent is necessary for a fulfilling sexual experience. Equality would be recognizing that both men and women experience slumps in sexual desire. Equality would be examining why (presumably loving) partners are experiencing sexual incompatibility, and working through those issues.

    No one, not a single person, has ever perished from being “forced” to go without sex. Men are not ravenous, insatiable beasts with no self-control. If a partner in a committed relationship chooses to watch pornography, or be sexually satisfied outside the relationhip, that is her or his fault.

    I’m not going to touch your arguments against feminism. They are shallow and tired tropes, with no substance or legitimate analysis.

    Rape apologia is sickening.

    • I do not approve rape. I fight against the notion that feminist teach that women should only have sex when they feel like it. The very self centered notion that it is perfectly okay to force men to do without sex against their will. I deal with couples whose husbands are not forcing their wives to have sex but the wife is forcing the husband to do without sex against his will.

      It is true that men don’t perish due to the lack of sex, but their self image does, their sense of well being does, their sense of worth does, their sense of being loved does. I advocate that women express their love in ways that men can relate to. To have some understanding and give sacrificially to take care of her husband through her own free will. I will not apologize for that.

      Feminists have gotten their way when they should not have like the case of the Saint Paul Fire Department where they sued the department claiming that their physical requirements were designed to preclude women. They were not designed to preclude women, but men who were not strong enougnh to do the job. The job entails taking a 200 lb man who is unconcious and throwing him over your shoulder and running down a flight of stairs to save his life. Now the requirements have been diluted to where two women can now drag that man down the stairs putting all 3 lives at stake. In spite of the feminist battle cry of equal pay for equal work, you now have two women doing the work of one man and getting equal pay for it. Try and defend that notion. How would you feel if it were your dad, husband or brother that these two women were dragging down the steps causing additional injury to him and further risking his life? Women sportscasters sued to enter men’s locker rooms but we don’t have corresponding men entering women’s locker rooms. That is not equality but absolute dominance.

      • diana says:

        Ah, yes: absolute dominance. The epidemic of sexual assault and gendered violence, the truly horrifying amounts of female sexual slavery across the globe, the teeny-tiny percentage of women in positions of political power- all of those things are definitely signs that women have the power.

        I don’t really care about the St. Paul Fire Department. Besides the fact that there is no evidence that anyone has ever been injured as a result of having equal opportunity of employment, the St. Paul Fire Department has no bearing on sexual assault, rape culture and rape apologia in a marriage.

        Women SHOULD only have sex when they feel like it. Men SHOULD only have sex when they feel like it. Anything less than consent is rape. Having sex with someone that does not want to have sex is rape.

        Why would you want to have sex with someone that does not want to have sex with you? Doesn’t that strike you as odd? I am trying to think of a situation in which I want to engage with an unwilling participant. Shop? Watch TV? Go to the zoo? Converse? Have sex? I don’t want to do any of those things with someone who is not fully engaged and consenting.

        A selfless person, making sacrifices for her/his partner and the relationship, as you suggest, would refrain from pressuring or forcing her/his partner into a sexual situation she/he is not comfortable with.

        I write, not to convince you, but in defense of women, trapped in emotionally, physically and sexually abusive relationships, that may read this blog and think rape is normal and accepted; that compromising your body and your identity is somehow moral and Christian and expected in a marriage. It is not, and there is hope.

  6. I am not dealing with the whole world. I don’t dismiss that there is sexual abuse in the world. I am dealing with couples in this country. Again, I am not advocating that women be forced to have sex against their will. I am advocating that women cut their men some slack in the sexual arena. If women had sex 4 times a week (and I can already hear the howls of the feminists out there at such a suggestion) and the act lasts 1/2 hour, that is a measly two hours out of her week or stated in other terms a lousy 1% of her time. If she can’t devote 1% of her time to nurturing her marriage and her husband, she should not be married and should be single.

    You might not care about the Saint Paul Fire Department but clearly it is dominance and clearly puts others lives at risk that the men have to make up for. I had a brother in law die in a fire as a fireman. You clearly don’t care about equal rights for men. You failed to comment on the female reporters going into male locker rooms and the male reporters are of course not allowed in the women’s locker rooms. Clearly it is not equal rights. I look at the whole picture not singling out sexual abuse around the world. Why don’t you go to these foregn countries and advocate for women’s rights over there instead of just giving lip service to it from your comfortabloe perch. Otherwise, you just come across as a limosine liberal spouting diatribes but doing nothing to alleviate it.

  7. kdaddy23 says:

    Well, John, what do you think is gonna happen when you piss women off? To me, this is one of the reasons why men and women can’t get along as much as they should. Really, it’s all about not understanding certain things about the differences between men and women; it’s not really a thing about what men/women want, it’s what they think and whether or not their thoughts are in the here and now… or from a time that’s no longer relevant in the grand scheme of things.

    Given that men, sadly, behave the way they do, does it surprise you that, yeah, some women don’t give a rat’s ass about any rights a man thinks is his by divine right? Doesn’t surprise me at all; we have not always done things in a woman’s best interests – and now, some of us are paying for that indiscretion in ways that makes us unhappy.

    It is a problem… but not one that’s repairable by implying in anyway that it’s still a man’s world – it isn’t. I like your blogs but this is one that even makes me duck for cover!

  8. Hey Rob:

    Somebody has to take up for men’s rights. As you know, men are getting the raw end of the stick nowadays. It is most evident in the family courts where the modus operandi is women good, men bad. And men are guilty until proven innocent, and even when proven innocent, they can throw the whole thing out.

    I take the slings and arrows because I have a strong self image and all the hate speech they throw at me bounces off.

    Blessings
    John

  9. I love a great article, wonder how you came up with this super write up.

  10. credit repair minnesota…

    This website is terrific – I will be coming back later….

  11. Mindset Mastery…

    […]Feminists Are the Ruin Of Marriages, and Your Sex Life « Marriagecoach1's Blog[…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: