Something tells me Der Trihs isn’t going to find that the most persuasive rebuttal ever 
It’s hard to find an ideology that hasn’t been warped beyond recognition.
Why should I believe that? That’s exactly what people always say when defending some movement that’s controlled by hatemongers or lunatics; that it’s just a small minority. Judging from what I’ve seen throughout my life, I’d put them at the overwhelming majority, to the extent that they’ve ruined the reputation of the term and alienated the majority of women. People talk about supporting women’s rights or equality or fairness; not feminism.
No, because that’s even more extreme. The feminists who are the equivalent of that would be the ones who say things like that women are shorter than men “because of the patriarchy”, or that women can become pregnant without men. That kind of feminist is as far as I can tell genuinely is a tiny minority; the manhaters and control freaks are not a small minority as far as I can tell.
That’s more mainstream modern values than feminism, at this point. The sort of thing people support, and then follow up with “but I’m not a feminist”. Men generally don’t want to be seen as self hating, and women don’t want people to think they hate men or want to control other women.
Now surely this is imprecise. A man who obtains his sexual satisfaction thanks to commercial transactions with prostitutes can be said to be “getting the milk without buying the cow”. However the hypothetical man in thee OP is getting the milk by sharing the cow’s paddock.
Surely he’s at least renting the cow?
And we’re getting something in return. I’ve got easy acess to sex, he mows the lawn, he builds all the furniture, takes care of all dead things, cleans the toilets, etc. It goes both ways, which is why I agree the statement in the OP is antiquated and dated.
My mother also said it and meant it.
By and large, women seem to dislike being compared to cows. I’m not sure why.
Nor can I explain the existence and apparent success of “Dress Barn.”
Proverbially though, aren’t women meant to be more interested in getting access to the pig without having to put up with the sausage? 
Penes in Latin or penises in English, but not “penii” unless the singular is “penius”. :smack:
Is this a racial objectification?
The answer to the OP is “No.” The statement is a simile, or a metaphor, or analogy, what have you. Those sort of literary devices are parabolic, using symbols. If one were to try to be literal, without an ‘objectification’ one should say “He is fucking her without marrying her, and she is too ignorant to understand why he would marry her when he can get all the benefits, without the obligation.”
Well, she’s getting the semen without buying the bull. I am reliably informed that some women actually like sex and don’t want to be married.
:rolleyes: It’s just a metaphor, people. Back when it was still amusing, people didn’t actually say “sex” in polite company. Milk without the cow, candy without the store, sex without marriage. All same-same.
What!?!? We’re not talking about a real cow here? No wonder I was so confused.
Yeah, that’s what every person proposed to is thinking. I mean, why fix it if it ain’t broke, you know? After 30 years of being asked <by various people, not the same guy, lol> I decided to jump the broom and see what it was people wanted so badly.
It also is, apparantly, not a clean house!
I know that you know, but didn’t know if other people knew what we knew back when we were all-knowing.
{Emphasis added}
So… “Why clean the pigsty, when you can have the pig for free?”
- “Messy” Jack
What’s a metaphor?
–To keep the cow in. 
You’ve completely missed my point. The phrase is obviously an allusion to the ownership of another person that accounts for a partnership through marriage. I’m not haphazardly trying to apply other kinds of relationships to this phrase in light of that. I’m acknowledging that there is a relationship in some branches of feminism toward ownership even if the phrase is meant to be lighthearted or half-serious. But having acknowledged that, I’m also suggesting that when people use it they are ignoring the broader range of ideas about relationships.
What I think you think I’m thinking is that the phrase itself inherently carries these meanings. How could it? But like most other things, the context under which the phrase is uttered does carry those implications. For those who choose to say it, they relate, whether consciously or unconsciously, to normative ideas of relationships and ignore, if only for the time that they accept the use of the phrase, assuming they are using it sincerely, the broader conceptualizations of relationships and identity that people have been talking about for roughly fifty years now.
I’m not sure what your decade-long analogy has to give, but it strikes me that you’ve chosen to ignore my words for the sake of it.
Somebody refresh my memory because I might be misremembering the quote, wasn’t it Shaw who said that sexual morality is the trade unionism of women?
In the past (and still in some women’s cases today), women were not able/allowed to be financially independent. In order to have a serious chance of a comfortable life, they had to marry a man. Some of the major reasons a man would marry her would be sex and home care. If the man got sex and home care without having to get married (with the joint finances, property and alimony in case of divorce), she would be giving him the bulk of benefits he could accrue from the relationship yet she would not be getting the financial security for which she had to depend on a man.
Most women can now be financially independent and so don’t need to think this way. Observe the women who use that phrase and see if most of them have good jobs. As Aanamika pointed out, women can enjoy sex too. Yet the phrase suggests that sex is only what the man wants. That a woman would think that sex isn’t as much for him as it is for her is cause for pity.
I’ve also heard: “Why buy the bull when you can get the beef for free.”
They sell lots of moo-moos?