I came across this thread on Reddit a few days ago, and felt that it warranted further comment from a Gendernomics perspective. To give the short version, the wife was a major Hillary Clinton supporter, and her husband voted Trump, as a result she decided to deny him sex for 30 days. The responses in the thread vary, from those who advocate that the husband should communicate how it feels to his wife, to those who think it is perfectly warranted considering the false media narrative surrounding Trump's treatment of women.
The first piece of advice that stood out as an illustration of the feminine primary perspective is this :
*Generally speaking, sex as a weapon is not cool. And it only works because of the false pretense that it's purely a service for the guy and that women don't like sex just as much if not more then men.
But on a side note, voting for Trump but then not understanding why a woman is withholding access to her body to express disapproval? The irony is palpable.*
This is an amazing example of female logic, in that sentence one outlines that it is not OK to use sex as a weapon, but the last sentence expresses complete understanding for why this was done. It is either OK to withhold sex, or it is not. The next comment gives some context to the manner, outlining how to more effectively utilize sex as a weapon to promote compliance:
*"This is actually a pretty common tactic that's been used before, known as a sex strike, though if your wife wanted it to be effective, she should've denied the sex before the election to prompt you to not vote Trump. In countries where it's used it's done as a form of nonviolent protest to prompt some action from the husband. In this situation though, she's using it as a punishment since there's not much else that can be done at this point."*
Regardless of if it is used as a weapon, the reasoning behind it is manipulation. In the case of a sex strike, it is used to force behavioral change through operant conditioning. In the case of a "sex strike", the reasoning is "If you do X, you get punished with Y" or "If you do not do X, you get rewarded with Y". In the latter case, it is a case of positive reinforcement, where the husband is punished after he voted. The former is in some ways less malicious than the latter, as the former presents an explicit demand, the latter creates an intermittent reinforcement situation, wherein the husband may frame all his actions going forward based on "if I do this, will she deny me sex?".
In both cases, its a manipulative tactic engaged in to force behavioral change in the other party. By presenting either a punishment or a threat, the party is seeking to establish dominance on some level over the other party in the relationship. Another commenter states:
*"I think you should wait until well after the 30 day period before you think about bringing up sex again. She doesn't owe you sex, you know. In fact, don't bring it up at all. Instead, spend the time honestly trying to understand her point of view. Give her an opportunity to speak about why she felt so strongly about the election that she would even joke about a sex embargo, and show her respect by listening, thinking, and putting yourself in her shoes. You may not see where she's coming from immediately, and that's fine. Relationships are never easy."*
This is a very clear example of the feminine imperative in the form of solipsism, it is fine for him to be denied sex as a punishment, and furthermore, he should spend that time without sex in a time-out thinking about the horrible thing he did. Rather than framing this as a case of the wife punishing the husband, it is being framed as the man not communicating with his wife and putting himself in her position. Rather than thinking about himself, he needs to focus on her, because it is all about her. Perhaps a point to bring up is that if one party can suspend part of the agreement made when entering into the relationship, so can the other.
Another poster in the thread continues:
*"Maybe you don't want to hear this, but she might feel cheated. Maybe you shouldn't call her out on reddit for using sex as a weapon or controlling you before you understand why she did it. I'd like to believe your wife isn't some evil psychopath, but is very very upset with you and she might just not want to have sex with you. She probably feels betrayed. So she came up with a deadline so she wouldn't have to deny it every time you ask. You might not agree and I don't know the exact relationship you guys have, but I'd also like to believe she is not that upset that Hillary lost or that Trump won, but that you of all people took the side of a person she really really didn't like or agree with.
You can see how this presents a problem for married couples as they need to able to trust and depend on each other. So I'd suggest you confirm or refute my hypothesis by talking with your wife and then if proven true try to win her trust back."*
From a philosophical perspective, this would be an argument rooted in deontological ethics, meaning that the intent behind the action determines the morality, not the consequences of said action. This type of reasoning is a major reason why male victims of domestic violence do not speak up, namely the fact that every issue is cast as the male being the perpetrator. "She hit you with a frying pan?, What did you do?" The reasoning goes that the why of her denying sex is more important than the consequence of her doing so on their relationship. This is very typical of blame shifting, and this highlights gas lighting in a more common light. If you observe the reasoning in this post:
- Deny that the wife attacked him (Deny)
- Suggest that his actions were wicked (Attack)
- Cast the wife in the light of having a perfectly valid reason to deny him sex. (Reverse)
- Cast the wife as the victim (Victim)
- Cast the husband as the offender. (Offender)
Also known by the mnemonic "DARVO", which is well documented in abusive relationships, as the manner in which a person over time is trained into behaving in a certain manner. This is a form of gas lightning where over time, the victim's perception of reality is twisted into a perspective where they consider the other person's reaction and perception before their own.
Read the rest here: http://wp.me/p78k8O-CE