Well, depending on your particular brand of slut-shaming, even married women aren't supposed to ask for sex or admit they like it - they're supposed to do it out of duty, or to like it but not admit it out loud. I'm pleased to see that this is not the only version of sex within marriage anymore, though, and hasn't been the only view since at least the 1960s.
It's not so much that I'm disagreeing with you over whether or not the dissenters are in favor of equality, it's that they appear, on the surface, to be every bit as much in favor of equality as I claim to be. Some even label themselves as feminist men.
Personally, I happen to agree that it comes from a mentality of not caring about the other person, and I said as much in the arguments I got into when confronted by these people in another blog. I think what I was trying to say is that it's not an obvious stance on inequality, and can therefore be mistaken or missed, including by the idea-holders themselves.
Man As The Head Of The Household types are not the ones arguing against OYMY (maybe because it's just not on their radar yet). Men who think that they view women as equals, but who think arming women & teaching them to say no is good enough, who downplay the social pressure that goes into *why* women have trouble saying no, who think the underlying sense of caution that permeates a woman's behaviour and thoughts are just "sexist" against men, and who think it's unreasonable to ask "are you interested in sex tonight?" are the ones who are most vocally opposed to this concept. These men immediately stand up against accusations that they're sexist because they have wives who love them and who don't think they're sexist and they love women and think we're all equal.
Their stance is that they do care what they're partners want, but that they shouldn't have to wait for her to say yes, because she never will and he will therefore have to go without sex. According to these types, they can just "tell" that their partners want sex and should not require them to actually say so. In one such example, a guy told a story of his girlfriend answering the door in lingerie so she obviously wanted to have sex. That's way too close to "she totally wanted it, your honor, did you see what she was wearing?" for my taste, and a simple "so, can I assume you're interested in sex tonight, honey?" should clear that right up.
Given that the case that brought this whole movement up in the first place was a case of pre-existing relationship grey areas, this seems like such a small thing to insist on - getting active consent to make sure that we're reading our signals correctly - that I keep getting surprised when people oppose it.
no subject
It's not so much that I'm disagreeing with you over whether or not the dissenters are in favor of equality, it's that they appear, on the surface, to be every bit as much in favor of equality as I claim to be. Some even label themselves as feminist men.
Personally, I happen to agree that it comes from a mentality of not caring about the other person, and I said as much in the arguments I got into when confronted by these people in another blog. I think what I was trying to say is that it's not an obvious stance on inequality, and can therefore be mistaken or missed, including by the idea-holders themselves.
Man As The Head Of The Household types are not the ones arguing against OYMY (maybe because it's just not on their radar yet). Men who think that they view women as equals, but who think arming women & teaching them to say no is good enough, who downplay the social pressure that goes into *why* women have trouble saying no, who think the underlying sense of caution that permeates a woman's behaviour and thoughts are just "sexist" against men, and who think it's unreasonable to ask "are you interested in sex tonight?" are the ones who are most vocally opposed to this concept. These men immediately stand up against accusations that they're sexist because they have wives who love them and who don't think they're sexist and they love women and think we're all equal.
Their stance is that they do care what they're partners want, but that they shouldn't have to wait for her to say yes, because she never will and he will therefore have to go without sex. According to these types, they can just "tell" that their partners want sex and should not require them to actually say so. In one such example, a guy told a story of his girlfriend answering the door in lingerie so she obviously wanted to have sex. That's way too close to "she totally wanted it, your honor, did you see what she was wearing?" for my taste, and a simple "so, can I assume you're interested in sex tonight, honey?" should clear that right up.
Given that the case that brought this whole movement up in the first place was a case of pre-existing relationship grey areas, this seems like such a small thing to insist on - getting active consent to make sure that we're reading our signals correctly - that I keep getting surprised when people oppose it.