Log in

No account? Create an account

The Toybox

people for the conservation of limited amounts of indignation

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
very random ranting
children of dune - leto 1
You know, I hate Dr. Laura.

Yes, you know who I am talking about here. Radioshow, morals, blah blah blah. Years ago, I went through this phase of agreeing with everything she said. Then I went through a phase of sometimes agreeing, and also thinking, wow, the people who call her are *idiots*, because they asked the most asinine questions in the history of mankind. How do these people figure out how to tie their own shoes without asking the moral way to do it?


But anyway, cut for those who like her, because I have discovered I really, really have come to just--urgh. Beyond creeped out.

It's not that I entirely disagreed with today's segment, in which a woman calls in to say she's not in the mood for sex these days, but her husband is, and what should she do? My first instinct was to say, buy him porn and introduce him to the internet while feeling like this, and maybe read it wiht him to see if that helps the libido issue any. Dr Laura's was, fuck him anyway. Or you know, whatever pleases him.

Hmm. I'm torn. Not being married myself, I have no obligation to have sex with anyone. If I were to marry, I'd expect that there still would be no actual obligation to fuck. Then again, I've never been in a relationship that was so long that sex wasn't in the top five list either. TMI there, but context.

It's not that I--hmm. Disagreed. It's that the way she put it. Because that's how you keep a man and it's your duty, and when the hell did it become anyone's duty to fuck on demand? That just hit me all the wrong ways. For a few thousand years, women had no right to say no for sex, for marriage, for childbearing, for their own life or death, and it just--for a second there, just listening, I felt vaguely sick in remembering that when my grandmother was a child, women didn't have any of what I pretty much take for granted. Even the implication that sex was something you *had* to do, whether you want to or not, just do it for *him* because that's your *duty*....

I suppose it doesn't help I was reading about the sex trade of children in Thailand and Cambodia a few hours earlier.

You know, if she'd phrased it differently, I might have reacted a little less like someone was asking me to prostitute myself, but--eww.

Yes, I overreact splendidly sometimes.

In other news, yes, still pointing and laughing. And is LJ doing something weird to anyone else with friendslocked entries?

And I use the word 'random' a lot in my subject headers. This could be a quirk. I've always wanted to have a decent quirk, but I'm not sure this is the one I would have chosen.

  • 1
And I use the word 'random' a lot in my subject headers. This could be a quirk. I've always wanted to have a decent quirk, but I'm not sure this is the one I would have chosen.

*snerk* That amuses me far more than it should.

All the same, the way you describe Dr Laura's advice? I totally agree. It's such a dodgy idea that... that you should have to do your wifely duties just because he wants it. *grrr*

Then again, I'm currently a little... up in the air about this kind of stuff. I've always hated the idea of settling, hated the idea of having to give up who I am, having to be obligated to act differently to keep a guy. And someone recently pointed out that if you don't settle somehow, you end up totally alone, because you never compromise. Which, y'know, isn't untrue.

Hence, I've decided my opinions on relationships should probably be kept to the totally fictional realm of slash.

However, the concept of giving up who you are, suppressing your own feelings, and settling in a way you don't want to settle is kind of abhorrent, at least to me. You're not required to give up who you are and act differently to keep a guy. It just means finding a guy who likes the way you are instead of settling for someone who'll only love you if you act like someone else. You always do have to compromise, but you don't have to compromise in a way that hurts and drags you down.

*coughs, steps off soapbox* I really detest Dr. Laura and the thought that a woman has to be fake to be a wife. Sorry for the minirant.

But dutysex isn't compromise-sex (compromisex?). There's a difference between really not wanting to, and prefering to do something else, but settling on that (going to see a picture you're not crazy about,but don't hate or anything, rather then the one you actually wanted to see, because it'll still be a fun thing to do togteher and you can see your picture another time).

I'd draw the line between dutysex and favoursex, even. Favoursex is, I guess, to be nice, to be kind- a gift, if a rather messy one. Duty sex is an obligation. Something you must do, not something you want to do. And that's wrong. Sex shouldn't be an obligation. It might not always be about desire, but it shouldn't be this thing you do because you think you can't/shouldn't musnt't say no.

I guess the thing is, people can want to sex sex (or give sex, which sounds odd, but is sometimes an accurate way of describing it) for all kinds of reasons other than lust- kindness, boredom, love, affection,wanting to get/stay close, etc. some of which are better than others. That's ok, whatever works for you. But making it a duty- no.

Uh, I don't think that's overreacting at all.

I mean, if one half of a relationship just never wanted to have sex -ever- then I'd say, yup, something's not quite right there, you need to think about that, maybe get a little help. And ok, sometimes you do when it wouldn't have been your first choice of what to do this evening, but there's a difference between compromise and fucking because it is thy duty, wife, and what thou must do to keep your man.

That's prostituting yourself, and saying your wanting to say no isn't as important as his wanting you to say yes. And that's just wrong on so many levels.

And that aside, if she does start having dutysex- well, that's not fun for anyone, really. Unless, y'know, her husband gets off on a partner that doesn't want to be there. Not unwilling, but unwanting. Brr. I can't see him being satisfied with that, or her getting any satisfaction out of it either. (Not just talking orgasm, here, but emotional satisfaction, and fun phsyical exertion and seeing someone you love lose it big time).

Dutysex is bad sex.

What kind of weird stuff to friendslocked entries?

Huh. Can't say I've ever listened to Dr. Laura, but now I have a good reason not to. I like your idea. Porn and some hand exercises. *nods*

Randomness is a legitimate quirk. And a damn decent one too. lol


If someone doesn't want to have sex then for goodness sake they shouldn't. You'll probably just end up resenting the other person anyway. If you want to give him a 'gift', give him a handjob. Or tell him that you really want to watch while he gives himself one. Men can be gullible and it means you don't have to do any work. :)

Sorry for spamming your journal but the whole 'lie there and think of England to please your man' bit annoys me greatly.

I despise the advice, presentation, and entire TONE of Dr. Laura's show. The particular instnce you're talking about doens't surprise me at all. Having BEEN married and DONE duty sex, let me tell you it really doesn't help. Because if one partner is feeling that way for a long period, then there is more wrong than sex.

Sex is the canary in the coal mine - when one's sex life goes it means there are other aspects of the relationship in trouble and you better fix them. Duty sex is like gluing the canary to it's perch and playing birdsong so that the workers will stay in the mine. You might get a few more hours worth of coal production, but everyone will be dead from asphixiation after that.

Dr. Laura is an idiot. Sex shouldn't be an obigation only; that's no fun. Screw that keep him, please your man crap. A relationship as a whole is important; sex is only a part of that and every couple has to work it out for themselves. I wouldn't do anything "just to please my man" and I've been together with the same guy for...wow! Thirty years? Is that possible? I'm admitting my age, aren't I? I made sure my daughter wasn't tainted by such ridiculous notions as Dr. Laura promotes. And my husband agrees with me, you can be sure.

Eww. Not only is she dismissing the wife's feelings entirely, she's advocating a temporary solution that won't actually solve the problem. Maybe the wife should figure out *why* she doesn't want to have sex (is she tired? angry at her husband? bored with their sex life?), and then discuss those reasons with her husband, as well as what he should do until she wants to have sex with him again. I'm not even a doctor and I know that.

What if the woman want Sex, but the husband don´t want it?

Mostly the media want to suggest, that men only and ever want sex, and the woman are mostly shy and don´t have a sex-drive. How stupid. What if the woman want, and the husband not? Must he have duty-sex,too? Could he, if he don´t want?

I don´t know Dr. Laura, but I´m marrid for over nine years. In a long marriage you have periods with no sex. Like when one is serious ill or you have a hard time (like when a family member died, and you are grieving). This could take weeks. Or you don´t want to have sex, without a reason. If your partner is not o.K. with it, I would say he is the wrong one.And I´m saying partner, not man or women. (there was something about good times and bad times in a marriage vow.)

Porn is a good solution.

And I use the word 'random' a lot in my subject headers. This could be a quirk. I've always wanted to have a decent quirk, but I'm not sure this is the one I would have chosen.
It's a very quirky quirk. And hey, it could be worse. You could have a quirk where you find it entertaining to put the phrase "of Doom" at the end of many nouns. I know this quirk well. It is the Quirk of Doom, and I can't get rid of the damn thing.

  • 1