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?
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?