I don’t get HBO, so I can’t see . But since I love Mahr and Jane Lynch, I just had to share this clip in which the dynamic duo read the Weiner text messages & tweets. I also think this is a fine time to realize how corny your own sexting sounds to others…
From the “Rules that everyone tells you that are just plain stupid” files…
Relationship rule myth: Never, and I mean never, say ‘I love you’ first.
OK, suppose every single person the world-over adopted this rubbish — who would ever be told the three magic words? Someone has to say them first.
The real rule here is not to rush into saying such important words.
Learn to discern love from infatuation; love from good sex; lasting romantic love from loving attention.
No matter how genuine your feelings, don’t blurt such sentiments too soon. How soon is too soon? Well, there’s no magic rule here, unfortunately, but use some common sense. Has he or she even known you long enough, well enough, to have fallen in love with you?
Just ‘cuz you’re on the emotional express train, doesn’t mean you need to express your emotions before the guy or gal catches up with you.
When you’re convinced not only that what you are feeling is lasting & real, but that the object of your lifetime worthy affection has had enough time to possibly know enough about you to feel the same, then go ahead, be the first to say it. Leave them the sloppy seconds of saying so too.
But if they don’t, well, so what? Maybe you were too quick on the draw with your love bullets this time — only more time will tell, right?
Words like “rape” and “murder” cover a spectrum of activities, and degrees of culpability. Let’s consider a couple of murder scenarios.
First, suppose a kidnapper seizes the son of a wealthy family, and extorts money from the parents. Then after the ransom is paid, he seeks to cover his tracks by deliberately murdering his hostage.
Second scenario: a young husband returns home to find his bride in flagrante delicto with the milkman. In a fit of blind rage, the husband attacks the milkman, who dies of his injuries.
In both cases the assailant is guilty of murder, and deserves to be convicted and punished. But the cases are hugely different. In the first case, the murder is calculated, premeditated, deliberate and undertaken for money. In the second case, none of these comments applies. In the first case, I’d happily hang the murderer (I’m part of that retrograde majority which still believes in the death penalty). In the second case, a much more lenient sentence would be appropriate.
In the same way, let’s consider two rape scenarios.
The first is the classic “stranger-rape”, where a masked individual emerges from the bushes, hits his victim over the head with a blunt instrument, drags her into the undergrowth and rapes her, and the leaves her unconscious, careless whether she lives or dies.
The second is “date rape”. Imagine that a woman voluntarily goes to her boyfriend’s apartment, voluntarily goes into the bedroom, voluntarily undresses and gets into bed, perhaps anticipating sex, or naïvely expecting merely a cuddle. But at the last minute she gets cold feet and says “Stop!”. The young man, in the heat of the moment, is unable to restrain himself and carries on.
In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished. But whereas in the first case, I’d again be quite happy to hang the guy, I think that most right-thinking people would expect a much lighter sentence in the second case. Rape is always wrong, but not always equally culpable.
My two scenarios also give the lie to one of the popular over-simplifications trotted out by the feminist tendency in these cases: “Rape is always about power and control and domination, never about sex”. In the first case, that may well be true. In the second case, it is clearly not true.
Let me make another point which will certainly get me vilified, but which I think is important to make: while in the first case, the blame is squarely on the perpetrator and does not attach to the victim, in the second case the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind.
All I can say I’ve said before. So here’s a, “Thanks for giving males permission to be dumb animals with no ability to control themselves, jerk,” to Roger — and anyone else who agrees with his dangerous bullshit.
Alessia here, responding to AskMen.com’s Top 10 Scary Girlfriend Behaviors, so that they — and you — can, you know, learn something.
10 She knows things about you that you haven’t told her. Uh, maybe that’s because you men are transparent children and we can see right through you.
9 She introduces herself to your family & friends behind your back. OK, that is wildly inappropriate, if not down-right scary stalker behavior. Girls & boys, don’t do that. However…
This line, “If she gets in good with the ones you trust, it will be much harder to give her the eventual heave-ho,” is stupid. Unless you are a completely dependent or codependent person, any grown-up can and does run their own relationships and break-ups.
8 She responds to messages on your behalf. Unless she was practicing number 9 — or you were, silly boy, by not being a gown-up and avoiding things, this doesn’t really happen.
7 She has all your passwords without you having given them to her. This is like stalker No 9 behavior. Learn boundaries, people.
6 She shows up in places unexpectedly. First of all, don’t tell her where you’ll be if you don’t want her to know — that way, unless she’s a stalker doing number 9 things, it won’t happen. But girls, if a guy didn’t invite you, you’re not welcome. And that doesn’t have to be personal; it’s just some personal time.
5 She made a key to your house without asking. The article continues to say, “How she did it isn’t important right now because you should be much more concerned with why she did it and what you’re going to have to say to get it back.” Well, the freaking “how” is important. Because unless you’re a weak dude who won’t admit you actually gave her the key (or one to copy), the chick is not right in the head. Ditto guys who do this to girls.
4 She stops taking birth control without telling you. There’s so much wrong with this, I have to show it to you:
As crazy as she’s been acting, the sex is still porn-movie material. It makes sense because the crazy ones are always phenomenal in the sack. You ditched the love glove weeks ago because she is on the pill. At least you think she is on the pill. You haven’t see her take it, she hasn’t had to stop at the pharmacy for a refill and, now that you think about it, you can’t recall the last time she had a monthly visit from “Aunt Flo.”
How to handle it: You could just be imagining things, but come right out and ask her if she is still on birth control. Ask to see proof. Make up an excuse, like a friend who just found out his girlfriend is unexpectedly expecting, and it made you realize that you’re in no way ready to be a dad. She’ll want to ease your fears and show that she still pops the pill daily. If she can’t show proof, you’ll need to make a pit stop at the pharmacy for a new stock of rubber raincoats and a home pregnancy test.
Whoa, there’s so much unconditional love and trust going on there, I’m nearly at a loss for words. Nearly.
Dudes, did she ever say she was on the pill or any other birth control? If she did, she’ll tell you if/when she’s going to stop. Likely she’ll tell you why too. But she will tell you before she stops and probably even tell you to go get condoms. Why? Because she knows she’s the one at greatest risk with a pregnancy, so she’ll avoid it.
Unless, of course, all your worst stereotypical male behavior is an indication that you are living in some soap opera or movie… Then yeah, she’s gonna try to trap you into marriage by having you help create a fetus; because we womenfolk know just how well that works out for us.
(That’s dripping with sarcasm; I tell you that because if you’re so dumb as to believe this has a greater likelihood of occurrance than her killing you and your entire family, you probably can’t figure it out.)
3 She gets physical when arguing. Yes, that is scary. (Though the odds of that are far less than the odds of you men hitting a woman.) But you missed the opportunity here, AskMen.com, to suggest how to properly deal with abuse, i.e. get professional help for the both of you &/or stop dating/end contact entirely.
2 She threatens to hurt/kill herself. Yup, that’s scary. Neither guys nor girls should do this. Also see my previous advice about getting professional help, etc.
But then, article author Chris Illuminati (an ironic pen name, I suppose?), you had to go and say this: “The other scary behaviors should have raised enough red flags.”
OMG here I thought we were talking about the Top 10 Scary Things Women Can Do, not building the stalking pyramid of danger of one freak of a girlfriend!
I don’t want to blame a victim, but if this is all the same woman why didn’t you leave earlier? Why, Chris, didn’t you better title and otherwise sell this article as the 10 Steps To Death From A Lover?
1 She won’t let you break up with her. I think that’s a repeat of number two, personally… Or at least one and two should be reversed because only an spineless idiot is more freaked by continued contact than by suicidal (or homicidal) threats.
Yes, you ignore all contact with her; yes, you tell your family & friends do please do the same. And if we are talking about the same chick (or dude) here, you also contact the police so that there is a record of the stalking behavior and perhaps you change your phone number, tell family and friends you’ve done so (possiblly have them do the same).
And really, is this comical photo the one you should really be using here? Really?
At Motherhood Metamorphosis, Deanna writes, “You Know Sex Ed Is Really Bad When… Cosmo can’t even get it right. In their instructions for Sex Position of the Day: Sensual Shower, their diagram for how to achieve erotic thrills literally misses the mark — the genitals don’t even line up.”
And then she proves the point, by illustrating the error of Cosmo‘s ways. (If you’re a curious grown-up who won’t be offended, click here to see the line drawings.)
The one thing that Deanna failed to note is that along with impossible penetration, the female form is levitated. Perhaps that’s Cosmo pandering to men again, allowing him to imagine his pen-is a mighty sword, capable of lifting women off of the ground
In a real shocker, Maxim publishes obvious sex information with girl-on-girl photos. (Just ‘cuz hubby got shafted with a Maxim replacement subscription when Stuff folded, does he have to keep re-subscribing? Maxim ain’t no Stuff; Stuff was Stuff. ‘Nuff said?)
Anyway, the article is all about how people have more sex (including kinkier sex) on vacation because they’re relaxed. Oh, and in case you didn’t know, the best vacation spots for steamy sex are literally hot spots, like the tropical islands. I think the only stereotypical thing Maxim missed in the trite and trashy Have Condom, Will Travel was a reference to powerful thrusting love swords.
Anyway, if your man’s a subscriber to Maxim and he suggests taking you away for a relaxing vay-cay, well, you know what he’s expecting.
Rumor has it that Jon (of Jon and Kate + 8) may be doing a “reality show” dating the Octomom. I heard it on some TV show or other, but Christine Navratil’s talking about it too.
What I don’t get is how they could even hope to apply the word “reality” to such a show. Everyone knows Jon’s not interested in settling down again (even the chick he professes to love can see that), let alone to a woman with kids; Jon can’t handle responsibility.
Oh, I’m sure Jon would sign the contract and do it, even have his kids participate (you remember his kids, the ones he’s saying shouldn’t be on TV now); but then it’s acting. Or whoring. Not really dating.
I was going to write a rabid response to this bozo who wrote into “Since You Asked” at Salon, whining that it’s unfair that he should have to worry about his current girlfriend’s response to discovering that he — on more than one occasion — abused his former wife:
On half a dozen occasions, during the first few years of my decades-long marriage, I physically abused my wife. This abuse, and the years we went without discussing it, was one of the factors that led to our recent divorce. The divorce itself led me into therapy where I was able to understand my reasons for the abuse, and the effect it had on both my wife and our relationship …
Currently, I’ve started seeing someone else and this woman means a lot to me. Our relationship is at a point where we’ve started talking about sharing a future together; however, I haven’t told her about the abuse in my previous relationship. I want her to know because it’s part of my past — albeit a very painful, unflattering part — but I believe that she may leave me once I tell her. To complicate matters, my ex-wife, in a bit of uncharacteristic malice, has announced her intentions to tell any woman I might be in a relationship with about the abuse at their first meeting.
So, I’m scared and confused. I want to tell my girlfriend about my past, but also want her to understand that she’s not at risk of being abused. And ideally, she would choose not to dump me.
But when I discovered that Heartless Doll had posted such a good response, I figured I should save my efforts for an issue/occasion when I’m more needed. You should go read her entire post, but here are her much applauded highlights:
- Anyone with a history of abuse who thinks they are an “ex” abuser is a holy-cow-you’re-pretty-much-about-to-do-this-again-abuser, not dissimilar to the “ex” alcoholic who believes she can have “just one.”
- Not disclosing a violent (and probably controlling) past to someone who has a vested interest in knowing whether or not you’re violent and controlling is … violent and controlling.
- Not wanting to “get dumped” is a bad reason not to tell someone the truth about a history of abuse. Because she will find out, and then you will definitely be dumped.
- An ex-wife who refuses to stay silent about your abuse is not exercising “malice.” She’s “refusing to continue be a victim” so that you can “bone some girl.”
At first glance, these “grounds for divorce” snippets from a 1949 issue of Quick magazine seem funny — but then you read them, and then…
You realize that it’s not funny when a husband controls and limits his wife. Sure, painting a car so that it’s too embarrassing to be seen in it sounds funny (and it sure isn’t flattering to Zona, making her look like a shallow materialistic person), but he has no right to limit her life like that.
And it sure, Tai-chien’s divorce story lends itself to a visual of his four wives disagreeing with his opinion that multiple marriages are OK — providing a punchline worthy of Leno. But Tai-chien broke the law — and probably four hearts too. That’s not so funny, is it.
Pepsi’s latest foray into social media with an iPhone app for its AMP energy drink is more than trending on Twitter — it’s downright pissing women (and men who give a damn) off.
The “fun” application is called “before you score” — and yes, with “score” means what you think it does: getting laid. As in men who “bag” chicks.
For all the gory details, check out Mashable’s post, “Alienate Your Female Customers? Pepsi Has An App For That” (the title of which is where the trending “alienate your female” topic comes from). But maybe all you need to know is the simple premise of the app, as stated by Mashable’s Adam Ostrow: “AMP has actually built features into its application that make it seem one can systematically “score” by exploiting women’s naivety. Beyond that, they actively encourage users to promote such conquests through social media.”
Whether or not the app can really assist in the exploitation of any woman is neither here nor there. And if Pepsi tries to defend itself with a “the app is just entertainment” it’s no excuse. The pure perpetuation of predatory male stereotypes and encouragement of such actions is horrible.
I would rant on & on about this, but there’s plenty of smart comments to read at Mashable (and at Jezebel too). But that won’t stop me from asking a question…
What’s next, Pepsi, a cave man app where you can slip a Mickey into a woman’s drink and drag her off by the hair? Oh yeah, and brag about it too.
America, your apathy offends me.
Based on trending Twitter topics, popular blog stories, and popular keyword action, you are more concerned with the rude comments made by Kanye West and Taylor Swift’s hurt feelings than you are with the institutionalized victim blaming and other crimes of health care. What are the acts of one classless man when compared to the battered and shattered lives of women and children?
Based on trending Twitter topics, popular blog stories, and popular keyword action at the time, you were more concerned about Chris Brown‘s bow tie selection than his acts of violence towards Rihanna and his paltry sentencing — combined. Is deriding fashion more important than denouncing violence towards women?
What’s wrong with you?
Where do your priorities lie?
Are you the shallow person you say you want to avoid when dating?
If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem; if you aren’t willing to acknowledge the problem, if you won’t even express outrage at issues that matter but would rather focus on unimportant celeb dish, then you perpetuate the problem.
You, yes – you, are condoning acts of violence when pay attention to classless clutter. You, yes – you, are sanctioning the blaming of victims with your silence.
Your silly preoccupation with nothingness in light of what really matters offends me.
You are the shallow person you say you wish to avoid.
An “Emmy Award Winning Talk Show” has placed the following casting call: I May Break-up With You…Because You’re TOO Rude!
Is it just me, or is the person who responds to this equally — if not more — rude as the person they are complaining about?
Even if the casting call insists, “Don’t write in unless both of you are willing to appear on a national TV show,” can you imagine that conversation?
“Uh, honey, we need to talk…”
Sighs as they silently think, “Oh crap!” — but replies, with a tentative, “Now what?” (Or maybe because they are in fact rude, they reply with “Crap, now what?”)
She continues, “We need to talk… On national television.”
“About how rude you are.”
“How rude I am? How rude I am?! What the f***?! Can you even spell irony?”
Some quick responses to what I’ve been reading this week…
First, The Cult of Masculinity by Jennifer Kesler, which clearly articulates thoughts in my own head & heart; specifically the following:
I must caution casual readers: this article is not a “Men’s Rights Activist” platform. The form of feminism I grew up taking seriously was the kind that believed the current patriarchal system was hurting both women and men, and wanted to replace it with something that would establish equal opportunity and equal responsibility for all adults (and legal protection for children and for adults unable to care for themselves). Men’s Rights Activism has a fatal flaw of interpreting natural consequences for male behavior – so long suppressed and suffered by innocents instead – as infringements of their rights, and this makes most MRA arguments illogical to the point of hilarity, if they weren’t so frightening in their blindness.
Kudos to Kesler.
If only this true equality existed — then I might not have to show you this recent post at Feministing about the cute nicknames given to men who assault women:
At Georgetown University yesterday morning, an unknown man revived a year-long series of assaults between GWU, Georgetown, and American University in which he breaks into women’s apartments near campus, lies down next to or on top of them while they sleep, attempts to enter them with his hand, then runs away when they scream. This earned him the nickname “The Georgetown Cuddler.”
“The Cuddler?!” Cuddling is a sign of affection, which implies caring for the other person, respecting at least the fact that they are separate from you & so, as autonomous beings, have their own bodies & feelings — and rights to same. Penetrating a non-consenting person, however, is as cuddly & affectionate as how I would respond to it — by striking his penis with my knee.
My reaction would be just another natural consequence the MRA folk would scream is unfair to men. *sigh*
A recent study reports that today, in 2009, 71% of Americans think women should take their spouses name after marriage — and half of the respondents said the act should be a legal requirement!
Researchers from Indiana University and University of Utah say these findings come despite a clear shift to more gender-neutral language. “The figures were a bit sobering for us because there seems to be change in so many areas. If names are a core aspect of our identity, this is important,” said Brian Powell, professor of sociology at IU Bloomington. “There are all these reports and indicators that families are changing, that men are contributing more, that we’re moving toward a more equal family, yet there’s no indication that we’re seeing a similar move to equality when it comes to names.”
Laura Hamilton, the Indiana University associate professor who lead study, was interviewed at NYDailyNews:
When the respondents were asked why they felt women should change their name after the wedding, Hamilton says, “They told us that women should lose their own identity when they marry and become a part of the man and his family. This was a reason given by many.”
Other respondents said they felt the marital name change was essential for religious reasons or as a practical matter.
“They said the mailman would get confused and that society wouldn’t function as well if women did not change their name,” Hamilton says.
Americans who feel that women should take their husband’s last name also tend to be conservative in other areas, according to Hamilton.
“Asked if they thought of a lesbian couple as a family, those who believe that women should take their husband’s name are less likely to say yes,” she says. “If you’re more liberal about the name change issue, you tend to include a larger population in the definition of family.”
By now you’ve probably heard how Chris Brown barely got his hand slapped for beating up Rihanna; just probation, community service, domestic violence counseling, and a restraining order. This for a man who, as reported by CNN, had two earlier incidents of domestic violence with Rihanna before the more publicized incident in which Brown punched Rihanna numerous times; put her in a head lock, restricting her breathing and causing her to start to lose consciousness; bit her ear and her fingers; and threatened to kill her.
Rihanna’s injuries included cuts and bruises inflicted by a large ring on Brown’s right hand, which he used to punch her, the probation report said.
“Officers at the scene observed numerous contusions and abrasions to the victim’s face and forehead, as well as bruising to her left arm near the bicep,” it said. “They also saw abrasions to her arms near both wrists and on her upper chest near her collarbone and around her neck. There were abrasions on her left leg and on the inside of her upper lips.”
If you want to know how such atrocities can be met with such a lazy legal response, keep reading here at Relationship Underarm Stick; we’ll be going through this subject in great detail. For now though, you may want to consider this poor court response of little consequence to Ryan Jenkins. He had a history of domestic violence & he too was allowed to be free — and he killed Jasmine Fiore. Rihanna should remember this anytime she even considers letting Brown break that restraining order.
A woman goes out with her friends, meets a guy named Dmitri and they talk for “at the most 2 minutes.” She hands him her business card and says call me… These are the voicemails he leaves her (with some images added for video appeal):
In a case of “Oh My God, why would anyone have a need to write a post like this?!” Laura recounts a recent home invasion in which the person was invited to make a repair estimate — but thinks he has rights to her person. Astonishing.
But then, most of the replies are heartwarming & give me reason to hope that one day no one will ever need to write such a post because such stupid inexcusable things were done. (Except for “The Fixer,” who is obviously a very broken person.)
This post is part of the blogathon for Hope For Healing, raising awareness of domestic violence. Twolia generously sponsored me in this wonderful event! You can help too: Comment, link, Tweet & use this special link to iSearch.iGive.com — clicking it and performing searches will raise money for HopeForHealing.Org.
Now it’s important that you don’t start dating as a means of getting financial help for single parents. You don’t want to date because you can’t pay the bills. This is, of course, common sense, but many people — particularly single mothers enduring financial difficulties — seek to date as a means to find someone to help pay the bills. This can cause a lot of problems down the road, so don’t do this.
Yeah, Jenny, way to alienate your supposed audience. I know that I always trust advice from folks who call me a gold digger.
And you do know that anyone who actually would date to “find someone to help pay the bills” isn’t going to suddenly become ethical because you wrote that drivel, right?
Last month, AskMen.com (50,000 AskMen.com readers) & Shine (19,000 respondents over a four week period) conducted its second annual online survey, where real women and men answered questions on such topics as online dating, money, careers, soul mates, marriage, romance, cheating, etc.
One area where men really weighed-in differently was the matter of weight gain. Seems fatty-fatty-two-by-four will be kicked out of the couple’s door — by (surprise!) males.
An overwhelming 70% of women responded to “Would you dump a boyfriend if he became fat?” with “No, his appearance does not affect my love for him.” But 48% of men said they would dump their girlfriend. Shocking? No. Superficial? Yes.
While 75% of US men (just a few points off of their male counterparts in the UK, Canada & Australia) and 63% of the women believe marriage “is a necessary institution, and one that I will participate in to help preserve,” there’s something funky going on… I guess marriage as an “institution to preserve” only applies to skinny folks — for men, anyway.
But perhaps most upsetting to me were the results regarding divorce (as in “she’s too fat to remain with me”). When asked, “Do men get screwed by the courts in divorce?” 83% of the men said “Yes.” I guess I’m not surprised to hear men continue to whine about their victimization (as if!), but the women? While the 44% who said, “No, men and women generally get fair and equal treatment,” may seem comforting, look closer and you’ll see that 40% also said “Yes” — 40% of women believe that men are victimized by divorce courts.
I guess these women aren’t really listening to their friends’ divorce stories.
Yet 35% of these whining & irrational men who believed they are treated unfairly by divorce courts say prenups are “Not at all important.” Isn’t that a dumb reaction, to not protect yourself from what you (irrationally) fear?
But that’s only part of the story, really; just look at the questions & results:
How important is it to you for your future wife to sign a prenup?
35% Not at all important
33% Not very important
22% Somewhat important
10% Very important
Do you want your future husband to sign a prenup?
73% No, I will marry a man who I trust enough to not need a prenup
11% Yes, but I won’t risk jeopardizing our relationship by asking him to sign one
9% Yes, I won’t marry him unless she does
7% No, I’m out to steal his money
And that sexist difference in the survey questions & responses may be the most telling thing of all.
Women too insecure to ask for a prenup? But not the big strong he-man. (He’s just too dumb not to ask, even when he thinks the male created & controlled courts are out to get him because he has a penis. A-duh.) Women asked a question in which they are offered the golden opportunity to self-identify as gold diggers? Where are the men’s sugar daddy responses? And that confusing typo (see 9% female response) — for a minute there I thought they were actually including lesbians. Yeah. Right.
If such sexism was ignored or thought “cute” by the female respondents, then no wonder they themselves are sexist enough in their thinking to believe that men have it bad in divorces.
I do believe now we know why this is called The Great Male Survey; Long Live The Great Male.
Last night’s Royal Pains gave me a royal pain in my donkey. Normally I love the show (especially the MacGyver-medical stuff), but last night…
One of the plots in this episode (titled Crazy Love) revolves around a “passionate Latino couple” from Caracas. (I’ll spare you my diatribe on the stereotypical ick of that — and most of the hour long show’s plot — and just get to the part that makes me want to slap Royal Pains with a fine.) “Passionate Latina” Sophie (played by the lovely Roselyn Sanchez), discovers that along with paying for her boob job, her adoring husband (who is having financial troubles and so fears his beautiful wife will leave him) has had a GPS device implanted in her without her permission. This is discovered when she’s having an MRI and the device tries to pop through her chest (incredibly gross!), and gives her radiation poisoning.
We never see Sophia upset (though the concierge doc, when confronting the husband with moral & medical outrage, tells the husband to “give her some space now” — and Divya, when asked by the doc how Sophia is doing, says, “She just keeps saying (in mocking Spanish accent), ‘Why me? Why me?'”). When Sophia lays in the hospital bed, recovering from the surgery to save her from the radiation poisoning, her sheepish husband shows up at the door to her room and asks if he may come in. Sophia says yes; he says he’s so sorry. Sophia’s reply?
(Get ready for it, because it’s so infuriating!)
Sophia’s reply to her controlling spouse who has had her secretively implanted with a GPS device so that he can track her, to a man who nearly killed her with such abusive behavior, is… “I didn’t know you loved me so much.” And then they kiss so much that everyone leaves the room.
Didn’t anyone during the writing, acting, editing — any part of making this show — violently puke at the idea of even suggesting a happy, sexy, “forgive & forget” reaction to the discovery that a man has violated his wife by secretively implanting her with a tracking device?!
I guess it’s all a-OK because he was stressed over money & insecure; isn’t that the excuse we so often offer abusers? We see the incidents (at least the reports) increase during times of economic down-turns, and we study those connections, but do nothing about it — other than use it to justify, to excuse the control & violence. Here, in this show, literally.
And they didn’t even leave it at that!
This lovely-dovey stuff makes Divya covet such passion for herself with her (presumably arranged) engagement. Barf barf barf barf barf.
Isn’t one woman mistaking love for abuse enough? No, you had to show us another woman craving it, thinking that’s the secret sauce missing from her happiness sandwich.
Knowing all this, doesn’t it make the episode’s title of Crazy Love wildly inappropriate? You’re going to inform us that you can check for blood type matches in a jiffy using a silver tray, but you’ll pass along the dangerous mythinformation that love = control? Bad math, bad science, bad idea.
Shame on all of you at Royal Pains. I sentence to you to a fine of $60 million to, payable to two different abuse & crisis centers (each receiving $30 million) — one organization specifically helping Hispanic women.
And don’t ever do this again. I want to keep watching your show — but if you ever do this again… Well, let’s just say that I doubt you’ll be responding to me with a “I didn’t know you loved me so much.”
Have you seen these screaming headlines yet:
Can you imagine if we saw headlines & programs dedicated to calling women ugly? If we saw casting calls announcing how husbands who were sick of their wives looks could get help — as if it were acceptable?
The media would have a field day, bringing on expert after expert to discuss female body image pressures & concerns & how this sort of valuing females for their looks was abusive. But do it about men? Oh, that’s fine.
Even if women are taught to be more (self) conscious about their appearance and so are (often) more obsessed with make-overs etc., even if these shows are aimed at a (materialistic & superficial) female audience who wants to see men transformed back to some snazzier (more romantic novel looking) version of themselves, these sorts of shows are just plain mean.
Double-standards flipped back to bite the sexist stereotypical hand that feeds them BS are not what equality & respect are about. Physical makeovers and unrealistic romantic notions are not the stuff that gets you through a healthy, longterm relationship. And dragging your mate in for a show which wants to make him less hairy because “you are sick of it” or pronounces him “ugliest” is a sure way to run your relationship off of a cliff.
If you’re really considering such a thing as being on such a TV show, just ask for a divorce, you shameless bitch. Don’t prolong the guy’s agony, don’t encourage shows like this — and don’t let me hear about it. I have rolled-up newspaper; will travel.
I spotted this casting call at RealityWanted:
Looking for married couples to throw down on a nationally syndicated court show!
We give you a $500 appearance fee each, airfare, hotel & $70 each for food.
Now I ask you, what married couple is going to “throw down” (whatever that means — I hope it’s not violent!) for a grand? I mean, there’s not even the pretense of help.
All they say is that it’s for a “syndicated court show,” so is the “throw down” a divorce? Or what? …With such little information, I think it’s safe to say that whether it was your intention or not, simply suggesting you & your spouse “audition” is probably going to result in the end of your marriage.
Vittorio at Toronto Men Unite, a blog encouraging “open and honest discussion” about “the problems many men face in the ‘trenches’ of modern dating,” writes the following in Why Men Lose Interest After Sex:
Many women mistakenly believe that the only reason guys lose interest after sex is because they gave it up too soon. While this is true sometimes, there are other reasons as well. One reason is that the men only wanted to have sex one time, and then move on. So witholding sex will not change this outcome.
Another reason is, men lose interest because the women have difficult personalities. Let’s look at this one more closely. Some women have difficult personalities, and guys will put up with them until they get the sex, and then they will bail shortly after. If these women had sex after one date or several dates the result would have been the same – the men would have ditched them regardless.
Sometimes, these women mistakenly assume that the solution is to hold out on sex even longer the next time. It never occurs to them that they are the problem.
Yeah, that sure sounds like women are the problem — why won’t we just understand & accept that, despite what they tell us on dates, that all men want is sex. Even if that sex is with a woman with a “difficult personality.” What are we women, stupid or something?
But why would we consider the problem is “us” when men play such games?
If all a man wants is to get laid, why doesn’t he walk up to a woman & say so? “Hi, I’m Bob and all I want to do is screw you.”
He doesn’t do it because he’s afraid of the, “No way, Jose,” response. So he decides to lie to get his lay. And then complains about what happens.
Worse yet, he uses the “cycle of f***-and-dump,” as he calls it, as a way to explain women and their “difficult personalities” — of course, he neatly leaves out any responsibility from men in their creation; this is all something that just happens to women. It is to be expected:
If the cycle of [f***]-and-dump continues, it can feed increasingly neurotic behaviour. These women can become increasingly demanding before and after they have sex with a man, needing constant attention and affirmation from the men that they will stick around. This of course has the opposite effect, driving the men away, which in turn can further compound the problem, causing the women to further “ratchet” up their efforts. The result is an insanely demanding woman who pulls out all the stops, even by going so far as screening men right away to make sure they can provide all that she needs, so that she doesn’t “waste time”. It’s a sick cycle.
You’re right, Vittorio; it is a sick cycle. But it’s not neurotic; it’s a learned self-preservation mechanism. And it begins with men who pretend to want more than sex.
If you want to break the sick cycle of “neurotic cock-blocking,” why not stop the “f-and-dump” cycle? Be honest, admit you’re just after sex and take getting shot-down like a man.
Vittorio finishes up his post with the following advice to men:
As men, you need to trust your instincts. If a woman shows signs of insecurity and possessiveness at the beginning, she is most likely a time bomb ready to explode. So cut your losses early.
Me? I say first of all that males need to act like men, be honest and face the rejection. And second, women, follow your instincts; if he shows signs of being a dawg, he probably is a dawg and block him accordingly. And feel free to be as neurotic as you like about it. You’ve got my permission.
On the other hand, when an honest guy actually says he justs wants sex with you, please praise him for his honesty. Your praise need not include putting out (unless you’re already agreeable!), but at least throw the guy a bone for being honest about the fact that he’s only in it for the bone.
In the June 2009 issue of Cosmo (you know, that magazine I neither subscribe to, nor like), the perplexing page that is number 98, titled “Fun Fearless Female,” a Q & A about T & A with Anna Paquin:
Is there anything you wish guys understood about women?
No, because then they’d be girls. It would take away half of what women talk about.
First of all, Cosmo, why does a (supposed) women’s magazine care about offering advice to men about women?
And second of all, Anna, I don’t know anything about you & your friends… But speaking for myself and my friends, we’d rather talk about — and listen to — pretty much anything else other than “my man doesn’t understand me.”
But that’s not the really creepy part.
As captioned by Anna’s photo, a quote from Ms. Paquin:
What’s so endearing about boys is that they’re so different from us — we’re not all wired the same.
Um, Anna, it’s really & truly creepy when a grown woman (and your age is listed as 26, so if anything, you’ve shaved a few years off that number) refers to possible male relationship candidates as “boys.”
If you’ve been living under a rock and somehow missed the slimy activities going on with Steve Ward and VH1’s Tough Love show…
It starts here, with Giving Steve Ward & VH1 Some Tough Love Of My Own, continues with More On Moron Steve Ward & The Rape Issue & Mommy, Make The Bad Man Stop, and, frustrated with all that, I then directed you to contact the producers etc.
I’ve been contacting them all, one by one, and thought you might be interested in my progress…
First I contacted Flower Films, the commercial film production company founded by Drew Barrymore & Nancy Juvonen which is a partner in Tough Love‘s production. If you thought for just one moment that being “woman owned” would make the company receptive to this issue of blaming women for rape you’d be dead wrong.
During a phone conversation last week, with a woman who refused to give her name, I was told that “all complaints/comments are to be posted to VH1’s blog.” When I explained that this had been done, but Ward was only continuing his misogynistic statements, I was told, “We read the blogs, we are aware.” I’ll admit, that set me back a bit, so I countered with a, “Don’t you wish to make a public statement to at least clarify Flower Films’ views — to separate them from those of Ward?” Her reply was to say that there would be “no statement on the subject” and I was dismissed.
Can you feel my hackles rise?
Next I contacted the other production partner in the making of the show, High Noon Entertainment “one of America’s largest creators of unscripted television.”
There I spoke with Paul Taylor, Executive In Charge Of Production, who began by plainly & dismissively informing me that they had “been in touch with their legal department and they were protected.” Because, you know, the litigious are all they ought to be worried about.
I countered by restating my concerns for the perpetuation of misogynistic rape mythology; he countered with, “Well, you know, VH1 is a controversial network…”
So profiting from dangerous myth-information is a-OK?
Ready to spew (both anger and vomit), I thought about High Noon Entertainment’s primary concern regarding legal action… They have a legal team & they know how to use it — which is not the case for victims of rape. That smug “been in touch with legal & we’re protected” line…
Well, if that was their line then I was going to jerk it.
So I told Mr. Taylor that next on my list was to inform those involved in the federal lawsuit regarding trademark infringement, trademark dilution and related claims against MTV Networks, Drew Barrymore’s Flower Films and High Noon Entertainment based on the unauthorized use of the trademark “Tough Love,” of which Toughlove America is the exclusive licensee. (See details here.) He interrupted, countering with noise about how unfounded the lawsuit was — so I interrupted right back with an, “Oh, given that the lawsuit expressly states a desire to collect damages for the harm being done to their brand by the show’s use of the name, I imagine that they’d be interested to know just how many of us are now associating the phrase “tough love” with blaming rape victims.”
Now I had more of Paul’s attention. He wasn’t quite conceding anything, mind you, but he was now actively asking questions, such as my name, my telephone number, and the name and location of this blog. (I cooperated fully — and I totally welcome any further contact, should it occur.)
Feeling that perhaps he had moved past the party-line deafness and that he might just hear me now, I reiterated my concerns about Ward’s statements especially in light of the interviews Ward has done. In the interviews since the show aired and we responded, he’s defending his beliefs, not budging an inch; antagonizing, not apologizing.
Either Taylor began to hear my concerns or he’s just really good at the old “neutralize a complainer by being a good listener” thing because we ended the call with Taylor informing me that he would share my concerns but, due to a staff wedding that week, I likely wouldn’t hear from anyone until this week.
Not that I’m holding my breath.
But I will call back, Mr. Taylor, to see just what High Noon Entertainment intends to do about this mess Steve Ward has gotten them into.
And when I do, I’ll share it with you. As I will all my contact with those involved with this issue.
Now I have to go puke. Again.
In an interview with some nameless VH1 bot, Ward defends the indefensible:
You said that Arian is going to end getting raped if she continues her behavior.
You know it’s going to go down hill from there; he’s admitted that what he said wasn’t a mis-step, an ill-formed phrase, or something said quickly that “came out wrong.”
There was some talk around the Internet that your mindset was not unlike that of those who blame victims for being raped.
Well, that just goes to show how naive people are.
Wait, wait, wait; did Ward just call me naive?! I’m the one with the facts! He’s not merely “naive” or even “ignorant” — because we’ve told him, he’s got access to (at least) the same facts, experts and research as we do, yet he’s sticking with fiction. Dangerous fiction too yet.
I wasn’t blaming anybody for anything.
But, as you’ll soon see, Ward is doing just that.
I was explaining to her that there are risks to her behavior. She seems to feel that there are no consequences to her behavior. Like nothing bad can happen from her being as raunchy and as inappropriate as she was. And I was trying to explain to her that when you do things like that you put yourself in harm’s way. And there are men out there that because they are f***ed up in the head, for whatever reasons, they may take it as some sort of an invite, or that you really want it or this or that. I mean why would you sit there and rub a guy’s d*** under a table? You don’t know who he is or where he is from or what he is about. And you know what, a couple of beers later he may go try to rub you and you might not like it and he is not gonna stop. That’s all I was trying to point out them.
There are risks to her behavior — but not rape. The risks are that Arian is limiting herself, reducing her value to her looks, her body & sex. This is a pattern of behavior based on low self-esteem which will not bring her respectful relationships but continue with a parade of one-night-stands (who may be around for multiple nights, but are invested in her only as far as they are inserted in her). These are all fine issues to be discussed — and they certainly fit the context of the show and Ward’s (quickly diminishing In my eyes) expertise. However, everything else he discusses is the exact definition of blaming the victim.
This “if she, then he” line of thinking places the burden of responsibility for his (crappy) behavior upon her shoulders. He’s literally,”Hey, she asked for it.”
And I’ve got news for you; even when you are appropriate, “classy,” and “a good girl” — and even when he’s had no beers or alcohol whatsoever — he may try to rub you and you do not like it and he is not gonna stop. I know. Personally.
And that’s why there wasn’t backlash from the rest of the girls in the room, because they agreed with me.
Oh, so if everyone in the room agreed that you could fly, that would make it true?
The reason the women in the room agreed with you is because such bullshit thinking is so prevalent in our society — which is precisely why I continue to harp on this topic. I hope you all educate yourselves to the facts.
It’s time you, the women in the room, the VH1 producers, the Stepford Wives’ leaving comments in defense of your misogynist mythology, the asshats who like things the way they are, and, yes, the frightened & desperate who want to believe that such things won’t happen if they are “good” — you all need to be educated. You present a clear and present danger.
The reality, though, is that Arian wasn’t going to get raped in this situation. You’re there, cameras are there, producers are there. I wonder if there’s any suspicion that she might be playing up the salaciousness for the sake of the show.
No, I believe that she does this in her daily life. She is truly like that.
I too believe this is, more or less, Arians MO. But scaring her with lies & threatening her with violence is not the answer.
And she enjoys taking the risk and putting herself in that position. It is a very precarious situation. She doesn’t realize that there may be consequences. I’m not blaming the victim, but if the girl would act a little bit more appropriate, then I’m sure she wouldn’t be treated the way she is by men.
You are blaming the (in your eyes, potential) victim. If (desperately knocking wood!) Arian were to be raped, you’d be all, “I told you so!” and therefore not holding the rapist 100% accountable.
If she walked around like a classy woman and treated herself with respect, she would command respect and men would respect her.
I agree with you, she would command more respect — at least from non-violent, non-controlling, rapists.
With a personality like she has, why would anyone respect her? That was the point I was trying to make. She was trying to say that there were trust issues, and she doesn’t trust men. And of course, why should she trust men? Men don’t respect her.
True. But there’s a HUGE leap between men not respecting a woman, not wanting to “bring her home to mom,” and rape. I myself have not respected people who have not warranted respect — like you right now, Ward — but I’m not raping or assaulting any of them.
Honestly, Ward — and the rest of you at VH1 who refuse to correct the gross errors of your words and ways and continue to perpetuate myth-information, placing more women in danger — you make me feel violated.
And for every woman and man who feels that they must teach their daughters to “be good” so that the bad men won’t hurt them rather than addressing the issue of bad men, it’s another forced entry.
“Show mommy where the bad man touched you on this doll, honey.” I’m pointing all over, because that’s where it hurts.
And there’s no place on the doll for my soul.
You know what else? There are no, “And what did you do to the man to make him touch you,” or, “And what were you wearing,” or, “And what do you do for a living” questions when you show a child victim of rape or abuse the doll. Why not? Because it’s not ever the victim’s fault.
Ward, your statements perpetuate misogynistic mythology and generate the same sense of shame which victimizers, abusers, and rapists use to keep victims silent, docile, and in control.
You may not be raping women, Steve Ward, but you are adding to the exploitation of their shame and you are reducing the responsibility of rapists & perpetrators of abuse; things which punish victims and prevent them from receiving justice. And that just adds to the power of the rapists & abusers, creating more victims.
You, sir, are more of a threat to Arian than any “dangerous behaviors” she exhibited. You are a threat to me, to women every where.
UPDATE See how to take action: Enough Is Enough!
But all the talk brings up a few points I’d like to clarify.
1) I was really enjoying Tough Love up to this point. Ward (and the shows producers) seemed to be operating from the old BDSM mantra, “Safe, sane & consensual,” something pretty rare in reality television.
Most remarkably seemed to be the “consensual” part, in which scripted tricks were not played on either the female participants nor their male “possibilities.” (You might be able to debate the use of physically using electronic shocks to modify the women’s behaviors, but it’s not like these were stun-guns or something. It was no worse than having Ward or another coach standing beside them going, “Bup-bup-bup!” when they did something dumb.)
Overall — and up until the misuse of “rape” (both in diagnosis and as a fear-mongering tool) — I’ve been appreciative of the combination of tact & honest bluntness in confronting the women’s baggage — both the emotional issues & the bad habits. So it pains me to see the show go so low.
2) I’m not condoning Arian’s actions. I understand them; but I do worry for her. (A number of the other women on the show too.)
But there is a clear distinction between Arian’s self-hurtful behaviors and the predatory act of rape performed by another. She, and women like her, need to be held responsible for their own actions — but not the actions of others. In this case, Arian needs to be aware of what she is doing, how her perception of the effectiveness of her defense mechanism as inaccurate and is in fact detrimental to herself and her objective of finding a good relationship. She needs to see this in order to change her behaviors — in order to bring her the happiness she both deserves and seeks.
This is what Ward was trying to do/say. And it would have been a great lesson for all those watching too. He started well, but… *shudder*
This would have been one of those educational & self-help moments; a lesson for all of us at home, young & old who need to learn it, or at least understand it. But…
3) What about the other side? When comments are left at VH1’s blog about this “educational moment”, they go something like this one by Kaya:
To all of you who are so upset with Steve, let me ask you this: is this what you will teach your daughters? That it’s okay to get drunk, dress suggestively, act in a sexually agressive manner and take home anybody you like, and nothing will ever happen to them? Many rapists are predators, just like child molestors. A child molestor will seek out a victime when he or she is most vulnerable and least able to resist. So will a rapistt; in this case, a drunk woman eager to be alone with him. Sure, the rapist is at fault, but that doesn’t make the woman less raped, beaten, emotionally scarred, dead, etc….
If you aren’t teaching your daughters how to protect themselves, you shouldn’t be a parent.
Ignoring my desire to nit-pick some of your comments on the behaviors of rapists, let me say that I agree totally that parents should teach their daughters how to protect themselves. And when, for whatever reason, they haven’t learned such things — or have adopted bad or unsafe habits — they need to be reeducated. See all of the above.
This brings up the post I linked to in my original Ward/rape post (read it; I link for a reason, yo). I too wish the world wasn’t the way it is, but it is and we need to safeguard our daughters, our girls, our women. But what are we teaching our sons, our boys, our men? (Incidentally, that same blogger — the author of the main author here at Kitsch Slapped — has a post about talking to her son about such things.)
In all this talk about rape, where’s the part about parents teaching their sons?
Kaya’s statements completely ignore the lessons here about teaching young men that rape & other abuse is not to be tolerated. Like Ward’s original statement and those of the other show participants, such language of omission isn’t an accident. They are excusing bad male behaviors, placing the blame for “enticing” upon Arian’s shoulders — and all women’s shoulders — when the blame clearly belongs to men who commit rape, assaults, and abuse of any sort.
This sort of complacent language dismisses male responsibility & diminishes the crime. It complicates how we as a society react to charges of assault & rape. It’s why Ward said what he did, why the other women agreed with him, and why the comments at VH1 have been so stupid. It perpetuates the myths, blames the victims, and places other women in danger with misinformation. All things I’ve already spoken of, so I’ll stop now. For now.
4) Because I have a lot of friends who are sex workers * (escorts, phone sex operators, erotica authors, strippers, etc.), I also feel I need to clarify my statements about Arian, her stripping, and my thoughts on what I see regarding a history of her past abuse.
This is the toughest part of the post, actually, because what I’m about to discuss is a stereotype as old as the oldest profession. And incredibly hurtful too. So, let me say for the record that abuse & sex work do not go hand in hand.
Like any segment of society, especially female segments, abuse is a part of the demographic — but abuse is not an identifying characteristic. It should not be assumed to be a part of any sex worker’s history.
Unfortunately for sex workers who wish stories that reinforce such stereotypes would just go away, Arian, the sex worker, exhibits a hyper sexuality that moves past a self-described “bad girl” let alone a content within her own skin, sex positive person.
The true tell-tale signs for me, just in this last episode, were her approval seeking glances at her fellow house mates when she sat in the “hot seat,” her upping the loud & raunchy display & talk when she found no support, and her lashing out in pain like a wounded animal when the rape word hit the fan. (As I said before, she was looking for a reason to leave and explode — but watch closely, she’s got more pain than fire in her eyes at that point.)
In past episodes, we’ve seen her both use her sexuality to garner attention and react dramatically when it’s been of no help to her. Most obvious in her dealings with Ward himself, when she feels she not only has no control but no value to Ward.
I can’t speak for sex workers everywhere, but none of the sex workers I know behave like Arian has on the show.
And so it is this set of behaviors I speak of when I say I believe Arian has been abused; these are the behaviors which are dangerous. Her employment as stripper or sex worker has nothing to do with it.
There. I think I covered every thing I intended to.
* Don’t act so shocked that I know and cavort with sex workers. They are damn fine people.
If you are “just surprised to hear this because I never mentioned them before”, well, I also don’t identify my computer programming friends. I also don’t identify my gay friends, my black friends, my white traditional straight vanilla mom friends, etc. How horrible would I be if I identified them as such for no reason? I only mention such identifiers when I feel it is relevant.
UPDATE See how the story unfolds:
Please take action!
I’ve been watching VH1’s Tough Love for the past few weeks now and, despite his somewhat slower-than-I up-take on females and a need to nurse along a viewing audience, I have agreed with Steve Ward nearly word for word — up until tonight that is.
Tonight Steve Ward began to very tactfully, once again, help Arian to see that her automatic defense mechanism, using overt hyper sexuality to turn away men before any attachments could be made (and so avoid being hurt herself), was a bad thing. True, such actions will keep her from being hurt; but they will also keep her from finding what she really wants: to be in an honest, truthful, committed, loving relationship. Where Ward went wrong was saying that if Arian continued on this path, she’d end up raped. Now the already defensive and shut-down Arian used the powerful word of rape as her cue to end the conversation. She was going to do that anyway because she is in complete denial — and wishes to remain there. But Ward was way out of line here.
Rape is not about sex. It is not borne of lust. It is not caused by the penis’ desire for pleasure, nor a biological drive to pass on DNA. Rape is an assault of rage, anger & power. The penis (&/or other objects) are used because the physical penetration and friction of intimate walls violates emotional and spiritual worlds, echoing on in the psyche, forever haunting that person (and those who love them). Whereas death is but a moment’s passing, and therefore finite.
Ward’s perpetuation of such dangerous misogynistic mythology not only places (once again) the responsibility for male behaviors squarely on the shoulders of females, leaving victims to face guilt, but by covering up the truth, leaves more women ill-prepared and therefore vulnerable to attack.
Ward should apologize. And undergo the proper education.
So should everyone behind the show at VH1.
But perhaps even more alarming than Ward’s perpetuation of this dangerous myth, was the fact that all the other women present did not correct Ward — in fact they repeated what he was saying as if it were the truth! (I at least expected my girl Jody to speak the truth!) They are as brainwashed by the rape myth as Ward.
Can you see the huge tears rolling down my face?
As for Arian & the show, she was set to run off set anyway. But it was stupid to even try to talk to a woman who is so wrapped-up in the belief-fear that her only value is her body, by talking about her bodily risks.
It’s been clear to me from the start that Arian’s projection of hyper-sexuality is based upon a fear that this is all anyone sees her as. (And some sexual abuse signals were seen by me with the first watching of the show; so watch for that reveal too.) If she is to feel valued for herself, Ward’s conversation should have focused (more accurately) on the fact that, with continued use of her defense mechanism, the danger Arian faces the continuation of a succession of one night stands — but if she express more value of herself past her sexuality, exhibits less signs of sexual availability, then she increases her odds of finding men who will view her in terms of total person-hood and not just a great lay.
So Ward f-ed up all over tonight.
You’ll notice, if you’ve seen the show, that VH1 conveniently doesn’t have a clip of Ward saying she’ll be raped — they have the clip just before that line (which, if you haven’t seen the show, is evidence of Arian’s hyper-sexuality) and the clip after it, of Arian leaving & the other women’s reactions.
No go to VH1 & demand an apology and proper education for all.
You can also contact Steve via his matchmaking service’s site: Master Matchmakers.
UPDATE See how the story unfolds:
More On Moron Steve Ward & The Rape Issue
Please take action!
At BUST Magazine‘s blog, a post that Afghanistan Legalizes Marital Rape — which naturally reminded me that it wasn’t so long ago that we were writing on the same stone tablet. (I did post a comment there to that effect; but so far, it is not showing up at the site. I hate that.)
Anyway, as Peter at BUST‘s blog writes:
Want to read something mortifying? The Guardian just released an article stating that Hamid Karzai, Prime Minister of Afghanistan just rushed a bill through the Afghan parliament which will legalize marital rape. ‘The final document has not been published, but the law is believed to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house without their husbands’ permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands’ permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex.’
At the post, Allison left the following helpful comment:
Revolting and infuriating.
If you are not aware of them already, please check out Rawa.org, a group that has been trying to help Afghan women find a voice and equality against fundamentalist/sexist power in their country since 1997: http://www.rawa.org/index.php