"Gender Roles"," or "How to Deal With the woman-servant When She Won't Put Out for You"

Xian couples, if the manly man wants some and she won’t give it up, coax her anyway and avoid looking her in the eye. After all, it’s not rape if you’re married.

Ah, but there’s more:

(seventh para in link): Woman, you’d better have that place cleaned up, laundry done, and hot dinner ready when HE gets home. After all, that’s what you’re for.


I know, the Pitting is weak and much too easy. I just wonder how long it will be before those who still buy into this see it for what it is.

My older niece would probably parrot everything in those posts, BTW. Yet she works outside the home, which hubby also does, while their kid stays with hub’s mom. Not sure how she worked that one out.

*“Submit”. *It’s right there in the book. He said it, I believe it. That settles it.

That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it! Speaking of stories, what a Whopper Joseph fell for! You know all his friends are laughin’ behind his back.

I honestly don’t know what’s stupider: That people still believe the nonsense we’re mocking here, or that people think that entire multi-national multi-thousand-year-old cultures can somehow change on a dime or instantly wither and die in the space of, what, five generations at most? Six? Wollstonecraft didn’t live that long ago, and if you bring up Lysistrata I’m going to feed you to the damned frogs.

That said, when change does happen, the change is similarly big, and similarly inevitable. Stonewall to Obergefell was 46 years almost to the day, but it took a Hell of a long time to even get to Stonewall. It is truly a thing of wonder and a sight to behold when a culture finally does get rolling in another direction.

The culture being mocked here is a minority culture. It was a majority culture at one time, that “one time” being a few thousand years, give or take, depending on region. Heck, the stuff described in that Jezebel article is positively feminist compared to what was once effectively written into the laws. The great big culture we have is now rolling against it and it has no chance to survive, so it better make its time count.

It’s terrible that anyone has to live in it. The wonder is that there are so many people today who aren’t living in it.

Until circa 1980, it was legally impossible in the US for a man to rapes his wife.

See ‘Spousal Rape Law’ - each state had to pass specific laws to make ‘spousal rape’ a thing.

Why do people still find the idea bizarre? The lawyer backing Trump - the lawyer who raised a shitstorm by asserting that it was impossible for a man to rape his wife was just behind the times - not wrong entirely.

My assertion: ‘Traditional Marriage’ was patterned on prostitution: He had to pay (forever, or until she could snag another man to ‘assume the role’) and she had to put out - if she didn’t want to, he was legally entitled to take it by force.

Biblically, the same passage that encourages wives to submit to their husbands also tells the husbands to love their wives as themselves. While that does assign ultimately authority to the husband, anyone who uses it as a justification for rape, abuse or keeping women as domestic servants was only reading the part they wanted to read. The attitude that drives that is a cultural one, and it cuts across virtually all religions.

Don’t forget making the babies. They need to be making the babies too.

How is babby formed?

That’s the type of stuff even the people I went to church with (Assembly of God) would think was horrible. I mean, there is a scripture that says not to stop having sex (except as a form of fasting), but it works both directions:

It’s actually about mutual submission. And it’s usually interpreted as “Sex is important to married life. If you stop having sex, it becomes more easy to cheat.”

…whatever the culture surrounding the text says it’s actually about.

The religious objections to postmodernism largely stem from the fact postmodernism gives the game away: Religious groups have always deconstructed and interpreted and re-interpreted texts and have long (pointedly not!!!) acknowledged that texts derive all their meaning from their interpretive context. The difference between a traditional religious group and a postmodern English faculty is that the faculty is usually loathe to threaten eternal damnation.

My point is, a religious text is a wonderful moral compass, in that it always points “I’m Right, You’re Wrong” and never the other way, regardless of who’s holding it.

I don’t think so. I’ve loved myself plenty. And requiring each partner to submit doesn’t cut it either. The man doesn’t get pregnant and back then the man didn’t have a pretty good chance of dying during childbirth. I think we know which sex wrote these passages.

By that argument no man who isn’t a psychopath would ever have sex with a woman, then or now: There is still a finite, non-zero chance that the woman will die during childbirth (and even abortion isn’t a guaranteed safe bail-out) and you would have to be utterly inhumane to consider that any ephemeral pleasure was worth the risk. Even if she consents or initiates, a moral man would not go along with it any more than he would accommodate her insane wish to share a refreshing cup of hemlock. Keep it in your pants, man! When the urge dies she will fully appreciate that you did her a favour.

Of course, the sex that wrote these passages was also fully in favour of the man being the one who assumed the overwhelming share of the risk of dying prematurely in almost every other circumstance bar childbirth, and you have to ask yourself what kind of caring, compassionate woman could ever approve of her mate working in construction, mining, agriculture, or going down to the sea in ships. But it’s probably just as well that someone did assume the risk rather than wait until someone made the occupation a damn sight safer, or we’d still be living in trees until a tiger ate us, or wondering why it was that Ug suddenly started puking up and then died for no reason.

Do you think women didn’t work agriculture in biblical times?

Do you think the vast majority of work-related deaths being a male thing is a recent phenomenon?

Uh, probably. Maybe with the exception of the military. There are only so many ways to die on a smallholder farm, and I don’t see women being as being exempt from very many of them.

I’ve talk with some of the “Christian” protestors at the local women’s health clinic. They have told me “Once a woman spreads her legs, a man has no control.”

Today I questioned why the one female protester is always absolutely silent while the male protestors are talking to me. “Because she is supposed to be submissive, and she knows her Christian duty” I was told. The fact that she was the only African American in a group of white men had me questioning the whole concept.