4
5

Question for RedPill[Question for Red Pill] Do women own their own bodies? (self.PurplePillDebate)

SpaceWhiskeyBlue Pill Wizard が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]PemBayliss [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

I don't think that people should just suck it up and have sex, even if they don't want to. But I think that they do owe it to their spouse to try to meet their needs, in a way that both of them can enjoy.

These two sentences are inherently contradictory.

Is that the only thing you get our of your marriage?

Good sex at frequent intervals is the only benefit I get from my marriage, yes.

There are plenty of other things men could get out of marriage (emotional support, extra income, family, a partner), but it all depends on the couple.

A man can get emotional support from family of origin, friends, and religious/spiritual connections.

A man doesn't need extra income from a woman. If he's got any sense at all, a single man with no dependents ought be able to earn all the income he needs on his own. From the moment I finished school I earned more than enough income on my own.

"Family" is "children". When you get all the way down to it, children are nothing but neverending burden and obligation for parents. They require enormous amounts of time, attention, care and money.

A man does not want or need a "partner". He can get care, love and companionship from friends. (What is meant by "partner", anyway? A man worth his salt wants a wife. A lover, a courtesan. Not a "partner". I have "partners" I do business with. A man does not have sex with a "partner". I don't want a "partner". I want a wife.)

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

These two sentences are inherently contradictory.

I think that you owe it to your partner to attempt to increase your libido, if there is a significance difference. Not simply have sex when he wants it, but to seek ways to make you want sex more.

Good sex at frequent intervals is the only benefit I get from my marriage, yes.

Well, that's sad.

A man can get emotional support from family of origin, friends, and religious/spiritual connections.

But not with the same emotional connection he can get from a lover.

A man doesn't need extra income from a woman. If he's got any sense at all, a single man with no dependents ought be able to earn all the income he needs on his own. From the moment I finished school I earned more than enough income on my own.

Then ever since you finished school, you never need a promotion or raise? Sure, a guy with a decent head will be able to make enough. That doesn't mean he will scoff at the concept of extra money. Extra money is nice, and most men would enjoy having it. Also, I'm trying to keep things general, so let's not qualify this with what type of man.

"Family" is "children". When you get all the way down to it, children are nothing but neverending burden and obligation for parents. They require enormous amounts of time, attention, care and money.

All very true, but many men really want kids. They want the family life, heirs, passing in their genes, the full deal. They are happy to take on the burdens on fatherhood. BTW, is that how you feel about your daughters?

A man does not want or need a "partner". He can get care, love and companionship from friends.

But many men do want partners. A wife can offer a level of care, love, and companionship that friends just can't.

What is meant by "partner", anyway?

A partner to deal with life in general with. Help with the kids, deal with a leaky roof if you are too busy, things like that. If she is living with you, and your lives and intimately intertwined, she can be a very large source of support in many different ways. At the level that a mere friend, with his own very distinct life, cannot offer.

A man worth his salt wants a wife. A lover, a courtesan. Not a "partner". I have "partners" I do business with. A man does not have sex with a "partner". I don't want a "partner". I want a wife.

Again, don't qualify this. A partner in life is a very attractive prospect to many men. Maybe not you, but it's fair to try to say they aren't worth their salt and don't count.

[–]PemBayliss [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, that's sad.

Why are you judging it? I'm looking at it from a purely utilitarian perspective. Morals aren't relevant here. You're calling that "sad" is a purely emotional reaction and a moral judgment.

But not with the same emotional connection he can get from a lover.

But it's not needed and it's not a benefit.

Then ever since you finished school, you never need a promotion or raise?

WANTED, not needed.

but many men really want kids. They want the family life, heirs, passing in their genes, the full deal. They are happy to take on the burdens on fatherhood. BTW, is that how you feel about your daughters?

The fact that many men want kids doesn't mean they aren't burdens. The fact that many men want to take on burdens doesn't make them less burdensome.

How I "feel" about any of this, or about my kids, is not relevant to this discussion. That's little more than an inappropriate attempt to personalize this to me and discredit the argument by saying PemBayliss is a bad man because he sees kids -- HIS kids -- as "burdens" and obligations. Don't personalize it. Respond to the arguments, don't demonize the man making the arguments.

But many men do want partners. A wife can offer a level of care, love, and companionship that friends just can't.

That's where you're getting tripped up. "Wife" and "partner" are not interchangeable. But that's a matter of perspective. You see them as one and the same. I don't.

A partner to deal with life in general with.

That's a "wife". I want a wife to have sex with. I can do all those other things on my own if I have to. If I had no wife, I would not have had kids.

Again, don't qualify this. A partner in life is a very attractive prospect to many men.

I can qualify it any way I wish. If you had said "A wife is a very attractive prospect to many men", I'd agree with you.

A man has sex with a wife. A man builds a life with a wife. A man does business with a "partner".

"Wife" and "partner" are not the same thing. "Husband" and "partner" are not the same thing.

[–]SpaceWhiskeyBlue Pill Wizard[S] [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I think it's kind of sad to bring children into this world merely as some sort of tradeoff for getting to have regular sex with your wife. Children should be celebrated and loved by both parents.

Since you don't want a partner and think the only positive thing out of being married is getting to have regular sex and also think that to some extent you own your wife's body.... that adds up to a disturbing picture. I don't think all men think this way.

[–]PemBayliss [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

What do you care about any of this? You're not married and have no kids.

Here's the bottom line on children - yes, they should be loved. My kids are. I'm pretty confident that based on your answers here, I know far more about loving, caring for, and investing in children than you do. (Children don't need to be "celebrated", that's for sure.) That does NOT mean they aren't enormously expensive in time, money, resources and attention.

Your "disturbance" at my view from a utilitarian perspective is irrelevant. This is just cheap moralizing and putting on superior airs, really. I was looking at this from a purely utilitarian perspective because that's what the inquiry asked for. And from that perspective, children are burdensome.

[–]SpaceWhiskeyBlue Pill Wizard[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's fascinating to me. This sub is an opportunity to for me to read the opinions and converse with types of people I don't off the internet.

I also work with children, specifically families often going through divorce. I'm always trying to hear new perspectives about people and their marriages.