Marriage as enslavement of women

From what I have been reading about, the taking on of the husband’s last name is an extension of the wedding ring; both meant to signify that the woman is now her husband’s property (he “took her hand in marriage”), instead of her father’s. Women used to be kidnapped from their families for marriage. Rings were also worn by slaves in some ancient cultures, such as through the ears. This makes me think that the wedding band for husbands is a relatively new invention. And “patriarch” means male head of the family, which is the first line of institutional patriarchy. He owned women, their children, and slaves, and could also marry slaves.

Plus there’s the fact that the bride typically wears a white veil, symbolizing purity, just as if she were a gift being unwrapped. Parents, but especially fathers, love to get up in their daughter’s business about her sex life and claim they need to protect their “little girl.” It’s creepy, a violation of privacy, and incestuous-sounding.

When I was briefly married, I never changed my last name. I suspect this had something to do with the delay of the judge granting the divorce. That there needed to be a hearing and the scum didn’t show up because he was on military leave, is ridiculous.

Anyway, if couples are really bothered by this and don’t want to do either, they can hyphenate their names.

Relevant:

Chaste and caste

Virgin-whore dichotomy revisited

“The word “family” comes from the Oscan word “femil” which literally means slave or servant. Father comes from the Latin pater – meaning master or owner. So a family man literally means the master/owner of slaves. So not only are wives considered men’s slaves, but so are children. Marriage is in fact men’s legal ownership of women and children as sanctioned by the church and state.”

—Lucky Nickel

See also types of marriages in Biblical times. Might I add, the law allowing a rapist to marry the victim was alive and well in Morocco and was appealed only recently, on account of the suicides.

Sex is not a fundamental human need. Prostitution is not a fundamental human need.

The Prime Directive

Early this year, Amnesty International UK (which seems like somewhat of a oxymoron) had one of their policy documents leaked. As it turns out, Amnesty International is considering making the legalization of prostitution part of their platform. This is of course a woman-hating position and isn’t based on anything resembling reality, especially given the gravity of human trafficking, rape and murder in prostitution.

But the most outrageous statement from the document, which elicited some response from the public, was the following:

As noted within Amnesty International’s policy on sex work, the organization is opposed to criminalization of all activities related to the purchase and sale of sex. Sexual desire and activity are a fundamental human need. To criminalize those who are unable or unwilling to fulfill that need through more traditionally recognized means and thus purchase sex, may amount to a violation of the right to privacy and undermine the…

View original post 707 more words

The Girlfriend Experience

This parody video by Wendy Ho perfectly illustrates the real Girlfriend Experience.

It also illustrates, to a lesser extent, how men feel they are entitled to sex and probably aren’t very sincere in a relationship – just going along to get sex. Men twist this around by complaining how they invest so much money into a relationship and don’t get any sex in return, comparing it to prostitution. They complain about how their IRL girlfriends fake orgasms, and then pay a woman to do the same thing, and end up spending far more money in prostitution than in a relationship or even just socializing and dating. When they ask for a GFE from prostituted women, they are really asking for a feminine, submissive ideal – a woman who pretends to be caring and orgasmic, who doesn’t talk back or refuse anything. So their original arguments are invalid: Johns want to be made to feel like they are Nice Guys no matter what.

The underlying issue is the transactional model of sex and in relationships, male sexual entitlement that attempts to enforce such a view. The real girlfriend experience involves the ability to refuse sex for any reason, including “not being in the mood,” and if the boyfriend has a problem with that then he needs to help put her in the mood or deal with it; if he doesn’t want to and insists on penetrating her, he’s committing rape. I’m with the “girlfriend” on this one in her exercise of consent – or rather, non-consent.