Two different women...

Two young women were debating the other day over whether or not they should’ve waited until they were married to have sex (yeah, my ears perked up for that one...):

“If you must know, my husband and I were both virgins when we married, I was 20 and he was 26, almost 27. Now I'll be 33 next week and he'll be 40 in October and we're still married. And neither of us has cheated, either. And no, I do not feel like I'm missing out on anything.”

At hearing this, another lady, single, piped in with “Whatever. Personally, I'd prefer someone who was confident in themselves and whose life I could share in and vice versa, without insecurity, D/s roles, and fundie stereotypes coming into play... I prefer not to be terminally barefoot and pregnant and chained to the stove.“

I was shocked by the level of antagonism in the second one’s statement. What's wrong with monogamy? When did self control and commitment become a bad thing? Should I consider myself cursed if I were to marry a woman who thought that it was one of her primary purposes in life to please me? And by reciprocation, I should only please her? To save and keep sacred that which holds the purpose of creating life to be between yourself and your spouse, is that a bad thing? I think it is beautiful. Even a cynical, divorced jerk like me finds that level of commitment commendable.

Two people can have a lifelong loving relationship without the ‘husband – king and master — wife – servant and babymaker’ mentality. I've seen it – I know it exists. Sometimes it is a bit depressing when I see a good couple because I would love to have had a marriage like that. But so many unmarried women these days think if they engage in a ‘give and take’ relationship with a man that somehow they're being a doormat and not being respected. Somewhere they have been taught that if a man has needs, or even demands, he doesn't appreciate them. In other words, from the time they were 12-14 years old, the boys were always being nice and trying to curry favor with the ladies. Courtship and dating is one thing; a committed relationship is entirely another.

Most of those women will go from relationship to relationship to relationship... and maybe a marriage or two and end their days angry and bitter and lonely. This too I have seen. Does the name Maureen Dowd ring a bell?

EJZero

Take the Taken In Hand tour

Have you seen the following articles?
Do you have a commanding presence?
The alpha male and masculine power
Love and fear
Alternative therapy
Do you tell your beloved that he or she is exceptional?
Effect positive change by acting as if...
Why do some prefer a Taken In Hand relationship to a conventional relationship?
He's in charge. . . but I do it my way
Given a choice between two men ...
Is spanking always sexual?

2006 Jul 4 - 22:09 | login or register to post comments | latest article | previous article | next article |

Overheard converstions

How much of this conversation did you actually overhear? Was it the comment about being a virgin at marriage that led to the stuff about being chaine dto the stove etc, or was it something else? I don't particularly see a connection between being a virgin at marriage and being permanenty barefoot and pregnant, so I wonder if the woman had said something else that indicated she was opressed in her marriage?

I certainly find the idea of a man being a virgin at 27 a little peculiar, I wonder what he was doing with himself in the preceding years? 20 is a bit less strange, though I don't personally know anyone who lost their virginity that late.

I don't know enough about present-day relations between young people to know whether women think that being nice to a man means they're currying favour or not. however, judigng by the number of self-help books there are that urge women to be submissive, obedient, let the man take charge etc, I would guess that there are a lot of women around desperate enough to do anything to get a man.

And no, the name Maureen Dowd doesn't ring any bells with me, who is she?

Louise

by Louise C on 2006 Jul 5 - 07:52 | login or register to post comments

Against monogamy

I personally don't get the impression that the second woman referred to above is complaining against monogamy at all. As a matter of fact, she says nothing about monogamy or its opposite. I only gather that she is saying that she doesn't want to feel repressed and dominated and does not mention whether or not she would be willing to be in a monogamous relationship with a man. I think you may be reading too much into it, although we obviously don't have all the details of the conversation.

Peach

by Peach on 2006 Jul 5 - 21:01 | login or register to post comments

Dowd

Maureen Dowd writes for the NY Times. She is also the author of a book called "Are Men Necesssary? When Sexes Collide." An excerpt from the book appeared in the NY Times.

by lex on 2006 Jul 5 - 22:29 | login or register to post comments

The Last of the Dinosaurs

I am a little confused. It didn't seem to me that the first person was against monogomy. She was talking about how she and her husband were both virgins when they wed However in the beginning it was stated that these two women were talking about whether they should have waited until they were married. So is there somethng here that I am missing?

My husband and I have been married for 32 years (Next week) and we were both virgins. We decided that that was what we wanted and we have never cheated on one another. Our love for each other has sustained us through good times and bad and we have had our differences but made a committment to one another years prior that we would work things out no matter what. It wasn't always easy and there were times when I didn't want to always work things out I just wanted to scream I wanted my way. Sometimes it was my way or nothing! Bless my husband he is a gem he is a survivor of me! He doesn't survive my moods anymore he knows how to handle me. And because of this it has drawn us closer together.

We have four children three whom are grown and one of them had cancer then number 4 arrived later in life and it was like starting all over again. We have gotten to the finish line with that one.(I am in my 50's and pregancy is not an option!) Our children will be ours for a lifetime and we continue to pour into their lives as much positive as we can when they need us . However
these days we are taking time for ourselves and not having to worry about taking care of every little thing that goes on in their lives. They are very self sufficient and nice people and it is a joy to have an adult relationship with them now.

Thinking back on being virgins when we married it was not an odd thing in the early 1970's and I have heard many a joke about it since. What I have heard mostly is that having been virgins and remaining in love with each other for so many years we are now considered "The last of the dinosaurs". I don't know how true that is because I don't know about every marriage and I am not going to judge anyone on their marital relationships it certainly is not my business to do so. But what I will say is I am happy these days and proud of my husband I love him so much I wouldn't trade him for anyone else. He is a keeper.
If that is what being a dinosaur is all about then I guess we could be considered part of the "Last of the dinosaurs". All I know is that we love each other more than life itself and with that I have said enough.

by Kat on 2006 Jul 5 - 22:31 | login or register to post comments

I was older

Well, Louise, you don't actually "know" me...LOL...just on this board - but I was 33 when I lost my virginity. Yes, 33 - and I couldn't even believe that I was waiting so long, because I'm a Scorpio, and well, if you know anything about Scorpios...

I was also in a platonic - read "no intercourse" - relationship with a fellow who, when we finally broke up when I was 32 and he was 40, was still a virgin. As far as I know, he still is (he would be 52 by now...)

But to be fair, if I hadn't stayed with this guy for so many years - too many to count! - I would have lost my virginity much earlier. (But maybe not too early...who knows?)

the boss

by sarahdinah on 2006 Jul 5 - 23:01 | login or register to post comments

I was afraid to be chained to

I was afraid to be chained to a stove. I was brighter, smarter, had much more to offer the world. So I embraced a career. You're right EJ, the doormat fear is real and I blame an overly liberal society for it.

My career is lovely and it keeps me warm at night by affording material comforts. However, while I once thought it seemed to so exciting, I have perhaps grown bored with the concept and would love to trade places with a housewife. I answer to men now. And housewives, in my view, seem to have many more liberties.

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2006 Jul 6 - 01:31 | login or register to post comments

Depends on your interest in sex.

Nothing wrong with saving yourself for one person, but it depends on the age. I am glad my daughters haven't for example even though I'm a Catholic.

Someone of 27 who is still a virgin probably just isn't that interested in sex which makes it easy for them. If I said how young I was when I was in the public library copying extracts from autobiographies and novels which contained domination and submission scenes I'd be censored.

Some people are after someone competent, experienced and good in bed and perhaps even with a lot of knowledge about domination etc and for other people that doesn't matter at all. And for others again they learn on the job and are happy with that.

I certainly agree about monogamy. I was married for nearly 20 years. It can work fine.

On the housewife issue again people should exercise a free choice. I have always been happy with my career and haven't been married to or out with a man who didn't also get something out of the fact I work and wanted me to work. Other people (male and female) prefer a non working spouse. Many a working woman would love a house husband. Just make sure people are properly matched.

One word of caution. I married my first boyfriend when I was 21. I would not undo that and we had lovely children etc but I don't really think I benefited from my inexperience, with hindsight.

by Hera on 2006 Jul 7 - 21:38 | login or register to post comments

Maureen Dowd

Well, I got 'Are Men Necessary' and read it, but I can't say I was wildly impressed.

[For the rest of this comment, see Are Men Necessary?, by Maureen Dowd: a book review. - Editor]

by Louise C on 2006 Jul 9 - 21:36 | login or register to post comments

Blip on the Historical Radar

Historically, the importance of virginity, marriage, and marital fidelity were inexorably linked to property and inheritance. More recently, the importance if gender equality has eclipsed the old mores.

Gender equity is predicated on economic advantages. Associated political advantages are linked to the availability of employment opportunities. Once the jobs dry up, the historic status quo will return.

We are simply living in a politically correct bubble that will, one day, pop and disappear as if it never existed.

by Noone on 2006 Jul 17 - 12:42 | login or register to post comments

I don't think women working h

I don't think women working has anything to do with gender equity. I know many men who would prefer not to work outside the home, not have a boss to answer to, etc. It's no shocker that many women feel the same way. If I could quit my job tomorrow and still live a semi-comfortable life I'd do it in an instant. I love my job, but I'd really love not to have to go to it everyday. I'd love nothing more than to stay home and take care of a husband and children. As it stands now I will not have children that I cannot take care of, and my boyfriend doesn't make enough money to support the two of us, let alone the two of us and children.

Once the jobs dry up the historic status quo may return. I would suggest it would look a lot different though. If women don't work simply because there is no work for them it won't create happy male led households, it will create impoverished families struggling to survive and draining state wellfare systems.

A little bit of political correctness doesn't hurt every now and then. Some would call it being sensitive to the values of others. I notice that those who complain about political correctness tend to be representative of the majority population.

Unfortunately, I think you're right about that "bubble" eventually bursting. We are slowly turning away from what those before us fought so hard for. Not just gender equity, but also in race relations. I live in the United States because my great grandparents happened to arrive at a time that they were allowed to enter. Their last name was changed, though not as much as others, and they worked hard for economic opportunities in the US. I had friends in highschool who came at other times, and were able to keep their names and cultures. As a student I became far richer as a person being able to learn about Islam from my friend from Iran instead of from a history book written by an American Professor who took a one year leave to do some internet research for a book. And now were backsliding.

They say "history repeats itself". They also say that "those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it". We could keep history from repeating itself if only we would bother to try.

by cj on 2006 Jul 22 - 13:41 | login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.