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

[Au Naturel]

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?

That is not universally true either. There are men who look to marry women who are more affluent than them. More than a few sponge off their wife.

Anecdotally I'd say that most women are not looking for a househusband, either. Had I not found a good job, it is doubtful I would ever have married.

You are griping about human nature as it evolved a zillion years ago. It hasn't gone away. A woman tends to look for a provider. It is a basic instinct because it maximizes the offspring's survival chances. These days more women are financially independent, and there is cultural acceptance of unwed mothers, so the imperative to hunt down a good provider isn't as strong. But it is still there, waiting to emerge again if conditions warrant.

 

[Hypnalis]

@Polchinski

It's a general issue for Aspies that NTs don't generally speak/communicate in ways that are direct and accurate.
For different topics, communication is more or less direct/accurate.

One of the worst in that regard is anything about M-F interactions. And it's become much worse over the last 25 years or so. And the details keep changing.

The point:
You shouldn't take anything you read, see, or hear on that range of topics as being literally true (except here - e.g. @Au Naturel comments above are fine

IMO the most practical way to deal with this range of topics (excluding spending a few decades figuring it out) is:
* Only pay attention to people's actions. If the words and the actions don't match, go with the actions. (the standard version is "When someone’s words and actions contradict—believe their actions.")
* Follow the "Maya Angelou rule": "When people show you who they are, believe them the first time."

Follow those, and you don't have to "decode" the words.

 

[Au Naturel]

IMO the most practical way to deal with this range of topics (excluding spending a few decades figuring it out) is:
* Only pay attention to people's actions. If the words and the actions don't match, go with the actions. (the standard version is "When someone’s words and actions contradict—believe their actions.")

I grew up with: "Actions speak louder than words."

The problem is that people attach meaning and purpose to actions based on what is happening in their own heads. We do it because we are trying to assign a role to the person and then use that for predictions about future interaction. We have no access to what goes on in the other person's head, so it is likely fiction. If NTs stopped doing this, people on the spectrum would have a much better time of it. But people on the spectrum do it too.

Joe did X. That's fine and well - but why Joe did X has a major bearing on whether Joe is a hero or a villain or just clueless in one's eyes. It is the assignation of intent that messes us up. An optimistic person will assume something positive. A pessimist will assign something negative. An insecure person will rationalize why X is something to be afraid of. Someone trying to control the conversation will devise an explanation that fits into their narrative.

Not assigning motive or making up a narrative and just dealing with the action itself is a very Zen thing to do.

 

[Magna]

That is not universally true either. There are men who look to marry women who are more affluent than them. More than a few sponge off their wife.

I think it happens but I think it's a rarity for men to seek women who are more affluent than they are. I think part of the reason relates to a difference between men and women in a general sense (ie always exceptions). A single man responsible only for himself can live more or less contentedly with the very bare necessities. Something just above survival mode.

A few real life examples:

>I have a cousin, a bachelor who owns his own home. In the winter months he keeps the indoor temp of his home no higher than 50 degrees Fahrenheit ( 10 degrees Celsius ). He wears a winter hat, long underwear under his clothes and a coat indoors while sitting on his couch. He doesn't see the need for heating his home more than that because he can stand it that way and saves money on heat.

>Many men are fine with living off of the same inexpensive food items day in and day out; eating out of cans...fine. "Going out", eating at restaurants...unnecessary.

>Many men are content with rarely buying new clothes and will literally wear clothes out and will wear out underwear until it actually falls apart.

Those are just a few examples but using those examples, single men like that don't have a goal to find an affluent woman to elevate them from that type of lifestyle. They can live that kind of lifestyle and be fine with it. They live this way not because they can't find someone who earns more than they do but because they're fine with living that way.

 

[Au Naturel]

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?

Why would she feel "violated" by either?

You're reading your own biases into the situation. Your feelings are not universally shared. Why would voluntary sex with someone you aren't attracted to be necessarily disgusting? Any more so than washing windows?

 

[Polchinski]

Why would she feel "violated" by either?

You're reading your own biases into the situation. Your feelings are not universally shared. Why would voluntary sex with someone you aren't attracted to be necessarily disgusting? Any more so than washing windows?

If sex wasn't any more disgusting than washing windows, then the whole sexual harassment issue would be non-issue: all men who want to have sex will just ask one of their female friends and be done with it, just like they can ask any of their friends to wash windows for them.

 

[Polchinski]

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 far as boss versus employee, thats a different story. In this case, the issue is not sexual harassment but rather the issue is conflict of interest. For example, a parent who teaches at the university can't have their kid taking their class since then there would be a conflict of interest in how they grade it. For the same exact reason, boyfriend/girlfriend relationship or husband/wife relationship between the teacher and the student is not allowed either.

But I am talking about something else. What if you have two employees on the same level. In this case, yes, the relationships are allowed. For example, in my department, there two married couples. All four of them are professors, and they are at the same level, so no conflict of interest is there.

However, despite this, the sexual harassment at a workplace can occur between people at the same level too. So lets compare two situations:

Situation 1: One of the professors in the department offers qui pro quo to the other professor that involves sex

Situation 2: Two professors in the department married one another

In the Situation 1, there is a harassment, in the Situation 2 there isn't. Why? Because Situation 1 is not qui pro quo.

Yet now I am being told that actually marriage IS qui pro quo. Hence the reason I have those questions.

 

[Au Naturel]

I think it happens but I think it's a rarity for men to seek women who are more affluent than they are. I think part of the reason relates to a difference between men and women in a general sense (ie always exceptions). A single man responsible only for himself can live more or less contentedly with the very bare necessities. Something just above survival mode.

A few real life examples:

>I have a cousin, a bachelor who owns his own home. In the winter months he keeps the indoor temp of his home no higher than 50 degrees Fahrenheit ( 10 degrees Celsius ). He wears a winter hat, long underwear under his clothes and a coat indoors while sitting on his couch. He doesn't see the need for heating his home more than that because he can stand it that way and saves money on heat.

>Many men are fine with living off of the same inexpensive food items day in and day out; eating out of cans...fine. "Going out", eating at restaurants...unnecessary.

>Many men are content with rarely buying new clothes and will literally wear clothes out and will wear out underwear until it actually falls apart.

Those are just a few examples but using those examples, single men like that don't have a goal to find an affluent woman to elevate them from that type of lifestyle. They can live that kind of lifestyle and be fine with it.

To the extent that some women are starting to earn more than their male counterparts, they will inevitably be romanced by men of lesser means. Some of it will be a quest for financial security. There was a time when men would tend to feel insecure if they weren't the primary breadwinners but the proportion of men feeling that way is shrinking. People adapt to changing realities.

It doesn't mean that women, in general, have achieved earning parity but many have. It does mean that those who do well become a kind of prize. The process will only accelerate as many more women are graduating from higher education than men.

 

[Polchinski]

>Many men are content with rarely buying new clothes and will literally wear clothes out and will wear out underwear until it actually falls apart.

In my case, apart from not buying new clothes, I am also not tucking in shirt, etc. So could THIS be the reason why women end up being pickier gender dating-wise: because guys don't care about some of the things that women do? Maybe, "if only" men could relate to finding style so important, they would put themselves into a good style and neither gender would be pickier. But since men don't relate to woman's desire for style, thats why they end up getting rejected without even realizing thats what it is.

Now, what I just said is a question rather than the statement. The question is: is this theory true or not? Because I derived it solely from my personal experience. So who knows maybe its not true: after all, most men don't forget to tuck in their shirt the way I do, and, unlike me, they don't have messy hair either. But could it be some of the things along those same lines, just more subtle, that results in men having hard time finding women?

 

[Polchinski]

There was a time when men would tend to feel insecure if they weren't the primary breadwinners

That is the other thing I don't understand. From my point of view, having more successful woman is more prestigious. I don't understand why some men feel the opposite.

The way that would make sense, from the logic point of view, is if a poor man were to WANT to be with a rich woman, but the rich woman were to reject him in favor of rich men. On the other hand, the idea of poor man "rejecting himself" while the rich woman is interested, seems very self-defeating on mans part.

Yet I heard that this happens. In fact there is a Russian movie from 1980 thats called "Moscow doesn't believe in tears" which ends in a way where a poor man rejects a rich woman for the fact that she is more successful than him, and then she gets her friends to find him and bring him back. He got back at the end but only after days of arguing with her friends.

So yeah, I don't understand why a poor man would be the one "not wanting" to be with a rich woman. Its like a bad student "not wanting" to go to Harvard. I mean come on, who cares if you think you don't deserve Harvard or a rich woman. You got "undeserved" price. Just take it!

 

[Magna]

To the extent that some women are starting to earn more than their male counterparts, they will inevitably be romanced by men of lesser means. Some of it will be a quest for financial security. There was a time when men would tend to feel insecure if they weren't the primary breadwinners but the proportion of men feeling that way is shrinking. People adapt to changing realities.

It doesn't mean that women, in general, have achieved earning parity but many have. It does mean that those who do well become a kind of prize. The process will only accelerate as many more women are graduating from higher education than men.

"Romanced by men of lesser means". I don't know if you're saying that a "higher valued" woman (ie a woman who is more successful and more affluent than men who are not as successful or affluent) will generally accept the advances of men of lesser means? If so I would disagree and instead I would assume higher valued women will choose to romance or be romanced by higher valued men. To me that makes more sense.

 

[Au Naturel]

As far as boss versus employee, thats a different story. In this case, the issue is not sexual harassment but rather the issue is conflict of interest. For example, a parent who teaches at the university can't have their kid taking their class since then there would be a conflict of interest in how they grade it. For the same exact reason, boyfriend/girlfriend relationship or husband/wife relationship between the teacher and the student is not allowed either.

But I am talking about something else. What if you have two employees on the same level. In this case, yes, the relationships are allowed. For example, in my department, there two married couples. All four of them are professors, and they are at the same level, so no conflict of interest is there.

However, despite this, the sexual harassment at a workplace can occur between people at the same level too. So lets compare two situations:

Situation 1: One of the professors in the department offers qui pro quo to the other professor that involves sex

Situation 2: Two professors in the department married one another

In the Situation 1, there is no harassment, in the Situation 2 there is. Why? Because Situation 1 is not qui pro quo.

Yet now I am being told that actually marriage IS qui pro quo. Hence the reason I have those questions.

This makes no sense at all. Conflict of interest has nothing to do with it. I've willing to bet I've had more sexual harassment training than you. A LOT more. The problem is the differential of power, the unwanted nature of the advance, and the hostile workplace environment.

The differential of power is because a superior can make your life miserable if you don't comply. A person at the same level could offer help with a difficult project in exchange for sex, and that person would have attained a position of relative power to the other person. Their cooperation is necessary for the other's employment performance.

The unwanted nature of the proposition is obvious. If the proposition is acceptable, there will never be a complaint filed. It does leave the one making the proposition in a precatipus position because they are vulnerable to the complaint being raised in the future.

"Hostile" workplace environment is a a problem because it depends on the worker's opinion. Some women will be offended by a poster of a pinup girl in a bikini, others don't care, and others might like it. Ambiguity in law is always bad, and so is law enforcement based on someone's subjective feelings. Grey areas keep people from behaving legally out of fear of someone else's thoughts. It enshrines the heckler's veto.

At the other extreme, someone might be catcalled and constantly subjected to sexual innuendos and unwanted contact, and almost nobody likes that, male or female. Not a lot of problems there.

Case number one is clearly illegal if the quid pro quo is one of sex for work activity. However, a case will never be filed if the proposition is acceptable.

Case number two is just as illegal if the proposition is one of sex for assistance at work. There's no exception for marital status. It would be extremely unlikely to happen if the marriage weren't otherwise sexless or for charges to be brought unless the couple was unhappy in the marriage.

Marriage is always quid pro quo and cannot be other. It's a contract where two people establish a legal relationship governing the distribution of assets and support of children; however, it is not an employment contract. It can be a religious institution if you want, but it is always legally secular. Sex isn't one of those things legally required, but lack of it is a common reason for divorce.

It is entirely possible to have all the benefits of marriage without being married. For example, in California we have the concept of "palimony" for unmarried partners who break up, and child support is independent of marriage. The institution of marriage has dramatically declined in perceived value. It hangs on through tradition.

 

[Au Naturel]

"Romanced by men of lesser means". I don't know if you're saying that a "higher valued" woman (ie a woman who is more successful and more affluent than men who are not as successful or affluent) will generally accept the advances of men of lesser means? If so I would disagree and instead I would assume higher valued women will choose to romance or be romanced by higher valued men. To me that makes more sense.

If the woman is successful already and the man is valuable for reasons other than money, why wouldn't she marry him? She just has to make sure he's not a gold digger. Same problem faced by every many who ever married. A lot of people opt to never get married because if you aren't having children, there's no point. Even if you are, there are lots of intentionally single parents out there. That was the whole Murphy Brown controversy back in the early 90s. Long since settled as an acceptable lifestyle choice if you can afford it.

I made about half as much as my wife when we married. Never did catch up.

 

[Au Naturel]

If sex wasn't any more disgusting than washing windows, then the whole sexual harassment issue would be non-issue: all men who want to have sex will just ask one of their female friends and be done with it, just like they can ask any of their friends to wash windows for them.

If men were constantly pestering women to wash their windows and washing windows had a non-zero chance of pregnancy or STDs or the guy getting a fixation on her or pictures ending up on pornhub, you might have a point. It isn't and you don't.

People who think sex is disgusting don't do it unless they are coerced. Coercion is not what is being discussed.

I suppose there could be some benighted souls out there having disgusted sex out of a sense of duty but that's not a "violation." It is a choice made by balancing personal values.

Women generally like sex. Probably have fewer hangups about it than men. It is entirely possible to have sex without any partner at all, let alone one who isn't interesting.