• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Do women in "traditional marriages" get sexually violated without even realizing it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Polchinski

Active Member
I recently lost a girlfriend due to various fights we had. While my job situation was not the immediate reason she broke up with me, it definitely contributed to it. Because that was one of the things that started some of the fights. And, few months before the breakup, she actually told me that she believes in traditional values where a man is a breadwinner. She actually said "if a man can not support the woman, then whats the point?"

The "whats the point" part really hit me the wrong way. Although no matter how hard I kept trying to point it out to her, she wasn't getting it. Now, here is why it bothers me. What it is saying is that the woman is not actually attracted to a man, she is just there for money.

Well, neither of us believe in sex before marriage, so since we were never married we never had sex either so what I am about to say doesn't apply to us. But what about some other couples who do get married and have sex? If the woman just married the man for money, she is not sexually attracted to him. But then wouldn't it be damaging to her to have sex with someone she is not sexually attracted to?

I mean, think of prostitution. The prostitutes get severe psychological damage, I am sure. Well, marriage is not "quite as bad" as prostitution, but isn't it kinda similar? If a wife has sex with a man, with whom she wouldn't want to have sex in some other circumstances, wouldn't she be violated by said sex? It almost seems like she is willing to be "a little bit" violated for the sake of money. And then, like my ex said, if no money are coming, then whats the point?

Now maybe part of it is the context. Like the woman I am talking about is very traditional. Part of her argument as to why she wants me to be a breadwinner is that she wants to be stay at home mom, so that she can homeschool our kids and they don't get exposed to the liberal public education. So maybe less traditional women don't think like that, and less traditional women would actually be with someone they are attracted to rather than just for money?

So would it be correct to say that the women with "more traditional" upbringing are allowing themselves to be sexually violated without even recognzing it as such due to the sexism of a traditional culture? While the women with more liberal upbringing are more aware of the fact that they have a right not to be violated and hence are more willing to focus on physical attraction rather than money?
 
Sometimes people would get married because 'convenience' i think it happens today too, like when a young woman marry an old rich man etc, but being traditional has nothing to do with that, it just means the woman would like to stay at home and take care of the family while the husband supports them, because she loves her husband and family my God, not like a prostitute that sells herself.
 
I think you have some valid points. It doesn't always have to be about money; sometimes loneliness can be enough to push a woman to the point of partnering with a man she isn't really attracted to, at least that is my take. I've most definitely seen some who "settled" and I did feel that they were being violated in a way by being in that relationship. Of course, I wasn't in there brain, or their heart, so perhaps they didn't think that way at all.
 
I've most definitely seen some who "settled"

Interestingly enough, the term "settle" is not something that is being encouraged. Quite the opposite in fact. Yet, at the same time, picking a man based on money "is" encouraged -- because the way she put it is that it is basically mans job to provide money, "otherwise whats the point".

So is it that money-based form of settling is so much accepted that it is no longer viewed as settling?

Or are you saying that she, personally, made a decision to settle this way (since she had that long term dream of being stay at home mom) and because she was telling this to herself all her life, she wasn't even realizing she was trying to settle?
 
Having boring sex with someone you don't love just because you like his financial support is not a "violation." She's using him as much as he is using her. No different than my taking money to wash your windows when I'm bored silly washing windows. It is a choice. People need to own their choices.

If you fear physical abuse, that is a different matter. But money is why most marriages break up, not violence.

Prostitution doesn't have to be a violation, either. There are usually co-morbids that constitute abuse in the profession, but it is possible to have nonabusive prostitution.
 
Last edited:
Having boring sex with someone you don't love just because you like his financial support is not a "violation."

But sex with someone you are not attracted to is not just "boring", it is outright disgusting.

If it was just about "boredom", then we won't have a situation when one person wants sex but the other says no: the other would say yes just to do them a favor. The whole reason they say no is that sex with someone you are not attracted to feels like a violation.
 
But sex with someone you are not attracted to is not just "boring", it is outright disgusting.

That's an opinion, not a fact applicable to everyone. If something doesn't feel disgusting to those involved, then it isn't.

Pity sex and sympathy sex are real things. So is the housewife who works out her grocery list during sex and then fakes an orgasm because she's trading it for a nice house and a good lifestyle. No disgust there, just quid pro quo.
 
So woman with financial issues who can't find a providing partner that is attractive enough for them, should be receiving aid via tax instead? Because otherwise they would have to sleep with unattractive man and be violated?
 
Last edited:
If something doesn't feel disgusting to those involved, then it isn't.

Then what about women having sex with all their male friends? Since they are not "disgusted" by their friends, wouldn't they have "pity sex" with them as you put it?

So the whole point here is that sex "would" feel disgusting "unless" they are sexually attracted to someone. Which pretty much invalidates the point of "boring sex".

Or lets put it another way. Consider two scenarios:

Scenario 1: A woman is not attracted to her male friend, but she agreed to have sex with him because she cares about him

Scenario 2: A wife is not attracted to her husband, but she agreed to have sex with him because she cares about holding the family together, which benefits her financially

Why is it in Scenario 1 she would feel violated while in Scenario 2 she wouldn't?
 
So woman with financial issues who can't find a providing partner that is attractive enough for them, should be receiving aid via tax instead? Because otherwise they would have to sleep with unattractive man and be violated?

Actually I was assuming that is a common sense rather than sarcasm. My assumption used to be that in 70% of cases women marry the men they are actually attracted to, and only the other 30% of cases is settling for money or whatever.

But perhaps I was mistaken? I mean I didn't do any survey or anything like that?

Are you saying that most women aren't attracted to their husbands? That would be sad.
 
Actually I was assuming that is a common sense rather than sarcasm. My assumption used to be that in 70% of cases women marry the men they are actually attracted to, and only the other 30% of cases is settling for money or whatever.

But perhaps I was mistaken? I mean I didn't do any survey or anything like that?

Are you saying that most women aren't attracted to their husbands? That would be sad.
Not necessarily most, just the group of woman i mentioned. I have no idea what percent of the population they actually are.
 
Not necessarily most, just the group of woman i mentioned. I have no idea what percent of the population they actually are.

But then how is it any better than prostitution? If the way its better is that she "isn't disgusted" by her husband but she is "disgusted" by some of those men, then what if she will set it up so that she is allowed to reject men as a prostitute -- and then have sex only with the ones she "isn't disgusted" by?

I guess as a Christian I know exactly how its better: marriage is not a sin while prostitution is. But then what about women that are atheists? Why do atheist women choose a husband they aren't attracted to over a prostitution?

Or if you are going to say that its the society that approves of marriage and not of prostitution, then what about a different question. Why can't rich aspie man, who wants to marry, solve his problem of finding a wife by simply going to one of those women who look for rich husband and telling them he is rich?

As I type this, Russian brides come to mind, and no I would never stoop that low. But that just shows that other women are NOT like that, since Russian brides look so low by comparison.
 
But then how is it any better than prostitution? If the way its better is that she "isn't disgusted" by her husband but she is "disgusted" by some of those men, then what if she will set it up so that she is allowed to reject men as a prostitute -- and then have sex only with the ones she "isn't disgusted" by?

I guess as a Christian I know exactly how its better: marriage is not a sin while prostitution is. But then what about women that are atheists? Why do atheist women choose a husband they aren't attracted to over a prostitution?
I would rather choose a husband that is safe and has enough money, albeit not attractive, over prostitution. Alternatively single woman could also deal with money problems the same way single man do. And they sorta are, single woman are making more money then they ever did before. But i don't thing that single man should pay single woman via taxes to have the life of traditional stay at home mom who takes care of her family.
 
I would rather choose a husband that is safe and has enough money, albeit not attractive, over prostitution.

Your profile says you are a male. Was it a typo and you are actually a female? Or are you saying you are gay?

Alternatively single woman could also deal with money problems the same way single man do,

How do single men deal with them?

and they are, single woman are making more money then they ever did before.

Good point. So then why is it that women are looking for rich husband and not men looking for rich wife?

I guess men can look for rich wife too, but it seems like money tilts things in one direction more than the other -- at least based on the way my ex put it.
 
Your profile says you are a male. Was it a typo and you are actually a female? Or are you saying you are gay?
I mean that's what i would i prefer if i was a woman. And overall they do because more woman seek relationships for financial aid than choose to rely on prostitution.

How do single men deal with them?
Do what you can to make yourself more useful and earn resources that way, if that doesn't work you are just poor and that's your life.
 
I mean that's what i would i prefer if i was a woman. And overall they do because more woman seek relationships for financial aid than choose to rely on prostitution.

So why women seek relationship for financial aid while men don't?

By the way, should I assume my ex didn't love me on the first place and just wanted to use me for money?

Because thats not the way she sounded. She sounded like that is my duty that as a man I should fulfill and preaching me that this is how it is supposed to be between a man and a woman.

Do what you can to make yourself more useful and earn resources that way, if that doesn't work you are just poor and that's your life.

So why is it that men universally do this while in womens case some of them do it while others marry for financial aid?
 
So why women seek relationship for financial aid while men don't?

By the way, should I assume my ex didn't love me on the first place and just wanted to use me for money?

Because thats not the way she sounded. She sounded like that is my duty that as a man I should fulfill and preaching me that this is how it is supposed to be between a man and a woman.



So why is it that men universally do this while in womens case some of them do it while others marry for financial aid?
I honestly can't say.
 
Having boring sex with someone you don't love just because you like his financial support is not a "violation." She's using him as much as he is using her. No different than my taking money to wash your windows when I'm bored silly washing windows. It is a choice. People need to own their choices.

I think you summed up one of the main issues of our time :) I wish we could explore this more, but the topic is probably too volatile.
 
At the yearly sexual harassment training at my school, we learned that "quid pro quo" is a form of sexual harassment.

That's a very narrow legal definition of quid pro quo for a narrow concern. "You work for me, and I pay you money." is a perfectly legal quid pro quo.

"Have sex with me, and I'll hire you or keep you on." is illegal quid pro quo. Employee-employer relations are controlled by labor law.

Definition of quid pro quo: Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase that literally means “something for something,” or “this for that.” We use the phrase to signify an exchange of goods, services, favors, or any other kind of value. - Wikipedia

Sexual harassment law doesn't apply to interpersonal relationships outside the workplace. You could hardly have a relationship at all. None of the things a romantic couple does is legal between a boss and an employee as a condition of work. As a consensual act between adults, they are completely legal.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Top Bottom