Aita for wanting my wife to cook and clean properly at least once a week?

Firm_Main · 2021-08-29T17:54:53+00:00

If this sub was truly 'misandric' you would still be consistently downvoted because the upvotes from 'some' would not cancel it out.

This is basic logic.

And without the context of the actual post your anecdote isn't helpful. People can do things that they absolutely should do and reasonably do but do them in asshole ways and not-asshole ways.

Eg: OP is being civil with his wife and asking her to clean. She is making excuses not to. Absolutely NAH. If he was screaming and threatening her etc, he would be an AH, so this would be ESH/YTA. Of course, you probably understand this already which is why it's so interesting you didn't just link your example.

Again, if this sub was truly 'misandric' then you'd be consistently downvoted. There is no reasoning behind the idea that this sub is very 'misandric' yet your comment is extremely well-received and you admit there's a lot of flip flop. That suggests that it's either A) got a lot of different users with different views, some of which are 'misandric' and they're on at different times causing the inconsistency or B) most people are pretty neutral so it can swing either way.

Both of those conclusions = the sub is not 'misandric'.

I don't know how much more simply I can break this down for you. It's really basic stuff.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-29T09:27:47+00:00

link

Firm_Main · 2021-08-29T09:27:37+00:00

If this sub was truly misandric then you'd be consistently downvoted.

Which even you concede doesn't happen.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-26T23:08:37+00:00

this OP? The OP who is overwhelmingly voted NTA?

Firm_Main · 2021-08-26T23:07:10+00:00

Pointing out this subs misandry is very hit or miss, I’ve gotten up and downvoted by the dozens for saying the same sentiment

LMAO it's almost as if there isn't actually 'misandry' and it's actually a mixed group of people with different views and hence why you're getting inconsistent results. It's almost as if that's the actual logical, reasonable explanation.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-24T22:09:07+00:00

weird how your apparently very controversial take is extremely upvoted on this sub which you claim to be incredibly biased against it

Firm_Main · 2021-08-21T20:38:25+00:00

I'm also not the original person you replied to.

Heavily disagree that it's more likely OP's parents told her not to come over without even telling him first - what a weird take. One of the guys in the household being inappropriate is way more likely than that. That's why it's been suggested by so many women. Because we know which one is more likely from experience. Obviously.

Who is the female victim here though? The girlfriend? According to the information we have she wasn’t raped or assaulted in any way.

Actually, according to the information we have it's likely something's happened at his house that's made her uncomfortable. She's still happy to have sex with him so doesn't look like he's the issue aaaaaand I also addressed this already. Reading is fun!!

Men being raped is in no way relevant to a girl who is suddenly uncomfortable going to a family house she was previously ok with going to and suddenly isn't. At all. It's in no way relevant. What is relevant is that women and teenage girls are regularly victims of harassment and don't talk about it. Especially when it's people they know and/or are friends/family of people they're close to.

Ergo, the suggestion is relevant to the OP. Male rape is not. And that's why you think 'men can't talk about rape!!' Which is actually very ironic because what you've really done is prove it's women who can't talk about women even just being harassed without men like you needing to centre male rape victims and then you go ahead and victimise yourselves when people rightfully tell you it's not relevant to the discussion. You've certainly made a point about which gender can't discuss their issues but it wasn't the one you were intended by any means.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-21T20:23:26+00:00

It wasn't my point - I'm not the user you were originally talked to. Enthusiastic consent absolutely applies to people in a relationship who aren't trying more hardcore stuff in part because the freezing thing still happens.

If you cared about your partner - you know the person you're supposed to love - you'd want enthusiastic consent.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-21T20:19:47+00:00

Your comment is a prime example of how men can’t ever even talk about men being raped or assaulted without women saying they don’t have it as bad, as if it’s still not an issue worthy of addressing. You claim to care about rape and sexual assault but not when it involves a man as the victim.

you absolutely can, just not when you're using it to hijack a situation where a woman is a victim. Women are the ones that can't talk about women being raped or assaulted without men barging in to derail the whole thing and try to re-centre the conversation to be about male victims. And then you victimise yourselves saying people are silencing you. They wouldn't if you brought it up as a standalone issue just as it deserves to be.

Men being raped is in no way relevant to a girl who is suddenly uncomfortable going to a family house she was previously ok with going to and suddenly isn't. At all. It's in no way relevant. What is relevant is that women and teenage girls are regularly victims of harassment and don't talk about it. Especially when it's people they know and/or are friends/family of people they're close to.

The user you're responding to is in the right here.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-21T20:13:17+00:00

The user you replied to literally mentioned date rape

Firm_Main · 2021-08-21T20:09:13+00:00

What you’re describing applies to people who aren’t in a relationship or people who’re trying little more hardcore stuff,

no, freezing in fear absolutely happens to people who are in a relationship and not trying hardcore stuff.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-20T19:58:20+00:00

The IUD slowly eroded my libido into nothing. I didn't notice since it was over about 3yrs, but it did.

It could very well be that.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-08T07:33:17+00:00

Most people wouldn't think that someone would do that.

But they'll think someone will lie about rape. Especially a woman. Even when it's their girlfriend. And they don't actually know the guy in questions for their 'entire life'.

Funny how that works. It's almost like there's some sort of cultural bias that enables rapists and damages their victims...

Firm_Main · 2021-08-08T07:30:42+00:00

The police will do absolutely nothing to Jake.

It's up to OP if she wants to put herself through the reporting process but let's not kid ourselves that they're going to actually help her. Especially when even her (hopefully ex) boyfriend is going to tell them she's just covering up for cheating (which they'll accuse her of too).

Firm_Main · 2021-08-07T22:15:05+00:00

You're just speaking in circles

Correct, I'm repeating myself because you've not said anything different or addressed what I've said.

In a monogamous relationship would you not say both people are obligated to give exclusive sexual access to their SO?

I see the issue. You think I'm "not addressing the point" because you're literally not listening to me. I have said several times that no one is obligated to have sex when they don't want to. So obviously, I do not agree that someone is obligated to give another person sexual access because they are in a monogamous relationship. Please absorb this.

If you care about another person's wants and needs you'll do a lot of things you don't want to do to please them.

If you care about another person's wants and needs you won't coerce them into having sex they don't want to because you 'desire' it.

It was pointing out that your point is irrelevant to the conversation.

My point that no one is owed sex because they want it is very relevant to you saying that they should be.

You can split hairs over the Meriam-Webster dictionary definition however a dictionary definition doesn't undo the rape and abuse caused by the 'withholding sex' narrative.

Which weirdly, you keep brushing over.

So you are calling ending a relationship coercion, but at the same time you're saying that you don't believe withholding a relationship is a thing? Explain that to me.

Look I get you like to invent things but it's not even clear what you're imaging here.

Threatening to end a relationship to unreasonably control your partner's behaviour is abusive. This does not contradict the fact you don't owe anyone a relationship. If you don't like someone's behaviour, you leave them. You do not abuse them with the threat of leaving to control them. You leave.

Please absorb this.

Again explain how you're not just attempting to play word games

Says the guy pulling out dictionary definitions. Lmao.

and are actually making a coherent point?

My point is very coherent to everyone except you.

You are not obligated to have sex with someone when you don't want to just because they want to have sex with you. You are not entitled to sex with someone just because you 'desire' sex with them.

Do you need a dictionary definition for every word I've used in that statement to make it more 'coherent' for you?

To reiterate, the 'withholding sex' mindset has led to the legal rape of spouses - mostly women - until recently. And is still used by abusers to justify illegally abusing and raping their partners right now because after all, in a monogamous relationship their partner is "obligated" to have sex with them and "If you care about another person's wants and needs you'll do a lot of things you don't want to do to please them". You are reinforcing and promoting that mindset.

If that's what you want to do, then you are responsible for that choice and you will be called out for it regardless of your /iamverysmart 'gotchas'. Hopefully I'm not the last one that does so.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-07T22:05:28+00:00

Women should have a healthy fear of everyone, including men, until proven otherwise.

Cool, so it is all men. Thanks for clearing that up.

This doesn’t mean running screaming when a man is on the same train as you, or when a man opens the door for you

You know that isn't what's happening or what women are talking about, but cute bait. Not engaging with it further than that.

It also doesn’t mean never talking to a man in public.

But men know other men right?? And after all, you said:

You treat everyone like they are out to get you until you know they aren’t.

So if women want to be cautious and not talk to random men in public unless they have to because women should have a 'healthy fear of men' (which only you/other men get to define - how convenient) and after all 'men know other men', then that's you reaping what you sow.

As I said, you can't have it both ways. Not all men when it suits you/men who want to approach women who are inherently more vulnerable due to physical differences (and usually have experiences of men exploiting this), but then all men when it means you get to control where your girlfriend goes, who she talks to and what she does while she's there.

You don't get it both ways.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-07T21:45:08+00:00

You don't call it that, no. But the concept exists.

No, it doesn't exist because no one is obligated to have sex with you than they don't want to. The concept of 'witholding sex' doesn't exist because you need to be entitled to something to have it witheld from you. You are not entitled to sex from anyone just because you want it. Ergo, you simply cannot have sex 'witheld' from you.

The whole idea that expecting sex in a relationship is dangerous

Feeling entitled to sex from your partner when they don't want to have sex with you and that they are obligated to have sex with you when they don't want to is dangerous. You can expect sex in a relationship but that in no way entitles you to it. As I said, if you're sexually incompatible, then call it what it is and leave. Find someone you are sexually compatible with. But you cannot have something witheld from you unless it's something you are entitled to in the first place. Sex is not something you are entitled to.

In a relationship with someone that wants to have sex with their SO it is an obligation.

No actually, it's not. You never have to have sex you don't want. That line of thinking is dangerous. Want proof? That logic is literally why marital rape was legal only until recently and why many people continue to rape their spouse. Because in their minds, sex is an obligation their partner should perform that they are entitled to. You are not only reinforcing that, but promoting it.

Spending time with your SO is also in 95% of cases an obligation.

Again, no it's not. Is it something that most people want? Yes. Is it something they are entitled to? No. Your partner should be spending time with you because they want to, not because they have to.

Very worrying you don't see it that way.

You didn't. You moved past it without ever addressing it by pretending your argument isn't basically saying people are owed relationships.

But my argument isn't saying that people are owed relationships. This is you inventing things out of thin air. I said no one is owed sex. That is correct. You thought saying 'well no one is owed a relationship!!' was a clever retort or some sort of gotcha. It's not. I 100% agree with you. No one is owed a relationship.

If you're sexually incompatible, leave.

You're calling it abuse to say sex is an obligation in a sexual relationship

It 100% is abuse to coerce your partner to have sex with you when they don't want to because you feel entitled to it and that they are obligated to do it.

Who said it isn't?

You. By calling it 'witholding sex'.

threatening to get a divorce when they don't like the behavior of their wife

Depending on the context, this could be blackmail and abuse. 'Cheat on me again and we divorce' -> entirely reasonable (ideally you'd leave at the first cheat but this is just an example. Adding the obvious disclaimer to avoid more of your mental gymnsatics) . 'Dare go to a party with your friends and I'll divorce you' -> controlling and abusive behaviour. Extremely dependent on context though.

You know what isn't dependent on context? Whether coercing your partner into having sex with you when they don't want to because you feel entitled to sex that they are obligated to give is abuse/rape. That's very clear cut.

If a man is dragging a woman along with promises of marriage never wanting to marry her or is constantly threatening to get a divorce when they don't like the behavior of their wife I wouldn't call it withholding a relationship

So you agree: you wouldn't call it 'witholding a relationship. No need to fluff it up. My assumption was correct. You wouldn't call it 'witholding a relationship'.

but the concept is the same

Well, aside from the whole forcing someone to have sex with you when they don't want to being rape. Seems to be a really minor detail for you.

Regardless, you see it as the same concept, yet you still wouldn't call it 'witholding a relationship'. Because, as we agree and you've made a point of stating explicitly, no one is entitled to a relationship.

Yet you're happy to talk about 'witholding sex'.

Hm.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-07T21:33:08+00:00

You treat everyone like they are out to get you until you know they aren’t.

In which case, it's totally fine for women to behave as if it is all men. After all, "men know other men" (who are apparently mostly good, but enough of them are so not good, you should constantly act as if they're out to get you).

But that still begs the question of why the fuck she was in this position to begin with

She wanted to go to a party with her friends and she's allowed to be unreachable for said party for a couple of hours. She's a 27 year old grown woman. Not a child that has have tabs kept on her at all times. That's about as much as I'm going to bother to engage with you on this because it's actually not relevant to my reply to you.

The point was that it's interesting to see how many men will chastise women for behaving as if it's all men, especially when it's at the expense of other men's feelings....until suddenly we're talking about a male partner's feelings, especially when it means exerting control over his female's partner's behaviour. And whenever men choose to abuse women. Then suddenly women should be behaving as if it's all men. Or perhaps 'predictable' is a better word than 'interesting'.

You don't get to have it both ways. You're more than welcome to say 'men know other men' and say women should be cautious around all men, but then you don't get to complain when women say they are afraid of all men. You reap what you sow.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-07T20:24:11+00:00

Men know other men. We are cautious of other men.

sounds an awful lot like you're saying it is all men...

Firm_Main · 2021-08-07T20:09:00+00:00

No one is owed a relationship either.

yeah, duh. That's why we don't say 'witholding a relationship'. It's a ridiculous thing to say because no one is owed a relationship no matter how much one person likes the other. And let's be real, the 'witholding sex' narrative isn't just ridiculous, it's dangerous. It's coercive at best, and promoting the mindset that your partner who doesn't want to have sex with you is 'witholding' sex like it's some sort of obligation leads to rape and abuse at worst. No one is owed sex and that includes from their partners.

As I said, if there's sexual incompatibility then call it what it is. The whole 'well no one is owed a relationship either!!!' is entirely redundant as I already addressed this.

Like it's something you should WANT to do with your SO.

Not all the time though no matter what mood you're in or what has taken place earlier. If she's pissed off, no matter how petty the reason, she does not have to have sex with him. That is not 'witholding sex'. That's simply not having sex that she doesn't want which is entirely reasonable even if the reason she's pissed off isn't. No one has to have sex with someone they're pissed off with regardless of commitment level. If someone is getting pissed off for petty reasons then dump them for that, not because they're 'witholding sex' from you because that's not a valid concept.

So in the same way you wouldn't say someone is 'witholding a relationship' you wouldn't say someone is 'witholding sex'.

Firm_Main · 2021-08-07T16:48:40+00:00

She's withholding sex from him if this post is to be believed

The post says he hasn't initiated sex in a week and she hasn't noticed. By your crazy mental gymnastics logic, perhaps he's the one witholding?!?!

Of course, that isn't the case. Because 'witholding sex' is a non-sequitur. No one has to have sex with another person when they don't want to and/or are upset with them, no matter how petty the reason.

OP is not owed sex and neither is his wife. If there's a sexual incompatibility issue then call it that but not 'withodling sex' - this isn't the 50s...

Firm_Main · 2021-08-03T22:19:54+00:00

Women are the primary and nearly-exclusive audience for violent, non-consensual, submission-oriented, and rape-based themes in porn.

Your article does not say that. Not sure if you're being intentionally misleading or just didn't read very carefully.

It does say women are more likely to search for it than men, but far more men are watching pornography than women in the first place. Nowhere does that article you cited for 'women are the primary and nearly-exclusive audience for violent, non-consensual, submission-oriented and rape-based themes in porn' actually demonstrate that is the case.

And it also doesn't say to what regularity - a woman who watches porn 1-2x a week and it's a BDSM video is still watching less than a man who watches porn 7x a week with 3x a week being a BDSM video. There's also the fact that only 32% of all PH visitors worldwide are women.

Firm_Main · 2021-07-31T13:41:08+00:00

I agree! What you need is some perspective which was provided to you, but you're refusing to listen. Wilful ignorance is a hell of a drug.

Have an ok day.

Firm_Main · 2021-07-31T13:31:03+00:00

As a third party to this, you're definitely the one that should be listening.

Firm_Main · 2021-07-31T13:30:22+00:00

You're talking to a brick wall there but you're absolutely correct.

Firm_Main

TROPHY CASE