“I agree it isn't practical as a promise - but it's useful as a goal. It's important to note that the sex you have with the person you marry should be itself transformative in your life - it should not feel like a chore to have sex with your spouse. If you have sexual issues its important to work these out with conversations and make sure everybody knows what to expect. But daily sex can and should be a guiding principle. And it takes 20 minutes, on average. It's not about time. It's about making it a priority. How many times have I heard fit people preach to me the same way about exercise? Sexual fitness is a real thing - it's important to maintain and improve and explore sexuality in a marriage, and it's a critical element of human pair bonding that absolutely cannot be overlooked.”
spartanladkenny on Jan 23, 2014 at 01:05:32
“I agree. The bonding part is the most essential.”
“I agree. It may work for some couples, but I believe that finances are something that should be handled as a team. My husband and I have shared finances since day 1, and although our financial situation hasn't always been good, it was never bad because we shared them. It was just bad because we didn't make enough. I feel like the only reason a couple would keep separate finances is if they were expecting or planning to divorce and wanted to protect their assets. While lots of couples DO divorce, I don't think that expecting a divorce is the right way to avoid one. If the marriage is happy and there is no sign of divorce on the horizon, there's no need to do this.”
Sep 12, 2013 at 15:33:09
“I am not disputing the facts. I understand that the NSA gets to define what is suspicious and what isn't, and that judges were more involved in that process before the existence/changes to the NSA.
What I dispute is the notion that the NSA is somehow collecting data on who is e-mailing 'suspicious' people/groups is evidence of governmental oppression. No widespread evidence exists that people are being unduly prosecuted by the government as a result of the NSA activity. THEORETICALLY & IDEOLOGICALLY, the NSA can be described as a 'threat' or 'fascism' or whatever, but you and I both know it isn't either of those. People are not being jailed for political/unjust reasons en masse as a result of this data collection.
Private companies collect far more specific data on you than the government ever has. They have no problem openly stating that the collection of this data is not being done in the interests of public safety, it being done for profit. *That* is a scandal. *That* is a threat. ”
Sep 12, 2013 at 00:19:11
“This is absurd. Even if you WERE talking to a friend who has a friend who has a friend who is into killing people for religious or political reasons, YOU would not be in danger of being 'spied' on. You would not have committed a crime and therefore your life would be totally unaffected.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU EMAIL PEOPLE. THEY WANT DATA THEY CAN USE TO TRACK TERRORIST AND CRIMINAL COMMUNICATION NETWORKS. IT'S NO BIG DEAL, AND NO ONE EVER LOOKS AT THE SPECIFIC CONTENT OF E-MAIL AT ANY TIME EVER.”
Driver-Eight on Sep 12, 2013 at 12:20:15
“That information was taken from the recently declassified documents that were released after a court order. It was clear from the documents that the NSA only needed a 'suspicion' to gather data on friends of friends of friends. Essentially the NSA has made a case that justifies data gathering on virtually everyone. Capitalizing your sentences doesn't change the documented facts.”
“If she dressed as uniquely as she actually looks, she would look good. Here she looks like she's wearing last nights DRAB dress from the stupid-deodorant-launch-awards or whatever. She should dress in overalls with no shirt on underneath or like full-on lingerie with ripped tights and a velvet fedora. I wish she wore her hair weird and had more fun with makeup. I want her to refuse to even pose or walk correctly but she wants all that stuff, all that mainstream viva glam star celebrity puke. That's what makes me hate her and for me, basically nullifies whatever feminist perspective is allegedly available through her show.
If she wants all that red carpet jazz than I really don't feel bad about critiquing her based on looks alone. I mean she wants to be looked at, doesn't she?”
“Wow. Pearls. That's intense. I *love* pearl necklaces, but not the kind you can wear in public.
I am raising 3 young children while my husband travels about 10 days out of the month. Yes, life is hard. Also I have a M.A. in English, and work from home. I honestly do feel you there.
But dude: how can I possibly design a detailed life plan in the case of my husband's death without killing myself in the process? It's like asking me to plan how to proceed if one of my children dies. He is my beloved, and I his. I am passionately in love with this man. We have been married for 13 years.
Since he's started travelling for work 10 years ago I've had to confront how I would handle his death - he has to go to some fairly dangerous places. What would basically happen financially is, the mortgage would be paid off with the mortgage insurance, I'd score enough cash from the minimal life insurance we have to get by for a few months till I can sell the house, and then I'd get by on that for a few more, and then I'd have to get a job. But why would I lay it out in more detail? And what the hell does any of it really have to do with my marriage?
I am a feminist and I do believe women should not be de facto expected to perform social roles based primarily”
“I was referring to the phrase "most women" as a *concept*, an *approach*, rather than literally.
I realize your article is not an attack on women, but rather a warning: 'do not pretend to know that your marriage will always provide you with financial stability'. This is a fair enough warning. However, in the context of the personal narrative you used to dramatize the warning, it reads like a more specific, more problematic directive: 'no matter how happy you think you are in your marriage, you are probably fooling yourself into thinking you can really trust your husband or your marriage. I did and look what happened to me.'
This idea/fear is popular. However, it usually refers to an expectation and definition of marriage that is patriarchal and oppressive, destined to fail women, and thus defines married women who don't design a 'back-up' plan as naive. I dispute the notion that marriage is itself always suspect, that no woman should ever really trust her husband. The comments on your article make it clear that it was easy to take this idea away from your post. Marriage is changing, and this type of thinking retards the social progress its making. ”
hp blogger Jennifer Ball on Sep 12, 2013 at 17:26:20
“Okay, I've decided: you're reading too much into it. My God, it's not a dissertation. IT'S A BLOG POST.
And that's not the message I feel I was projecting, either. It was more of a "look, ladies (and actually, men as well), life has a way of changing when you least expect it. Are you prepared for that?"
Just because you have auto insurance, does that mean you live in fear of a wreck or your car falling apart? No, you do it just in case. Because to drive without insurance is dumb. I learned, too late in the game, that I should have had some sort of schooling or training or skills. I don't want my daughter to find herself in the same predicament. End of story.”
“I think it's interesting that you claim there is no such thing as "most" women, yet you claim the advice in the article applies to just that.”
hp blogger Jennifer Ball on Sep 12, 2013 at 06:49:27
“Ahhh...I thought I recognized you. You're the one who got his/her panties bunched up over the term "comfortable married sex". Because we all know that "comfortable sex" is like, the worst thing EVER!
I think you're reading too much (or perhaps not enough) into what I wrote. This was about my life, my experiences and my feelings. It's not an attack on married women, on women who work or women who stay at home to raise their families.”
hp blogger Jennifer Ball on Sep 12, 2013 at 06:44:09
“I'm beginning to think that reading comprehension should be stressed just a wee bit more in the US education system.
Two issues with this comment:
#1: In my reply to zumpie, I stated that I am not "most" women. I never said there was no such thing as "most women", because that's silly. There is such a thing as "most women". "Most women" certainly do exist, I bet you run into several a day!
#2: In my post, I am simply stating that ALL women could probably benefit from having a solid education, a marketable skill, or the knowledge of a craft. Are you arguing this point, still? Is it unreasonable to think that "most" of the people in this world would benefit from a good education?”
“In the context of the article and the author's marriage, comfortable meant 'complacent', 'expected', 'routine', and most importantly, 'boring'. This is the type of comfort that can be destructive to a marriage. The author, like so many thousands of others, was apparently 'blindsighted' by her husband's affair. I never quite buy these 'I had no idea' stories. Even though the author clearly buys her own, I was merely pointing out where she (probably accidentally) clearly undermines the idea that no one ever really knows if their marriage will survive. I know mine will. One of the reasons I know, among many others, is that I cannot imagine describing my married sex life as 'comfortable'. Comfortable is passable and mediocre, and almost no one wants to believe that they must settle for that. And they really don't. ”
hp blogger Jennifer Ball on Sep 12, 2013 at 17:41:14
“Are you clutching at your pearls as you type these responses?
I don't care if you don't buy my story. Please remember that I was raising four young kids and running a house while my then-husband worked long hours.
And here's something interesting: if you had asked me, back then? I would have said I was absolutely positive that my marriage would survive.”
hp blogger Jennifer Ball on Sep 12, 2013 at 17:35:37
“Macaroona, fascinating! Now you have the ability to read my mind! Add that to your preternatural ability to predict the future.
Comfortable is soft and warm and pleasant and, dammit, comfortable. I see nothing wrong with that. Believe me, I've tried dating after divorce, and I'd take comfortable sex over what I've seen out here in the trenches.
Nightengale apparently gets what I meant, as did a few thousand other people who didn't seem to get stuck on that one little word.
Providing physical comfort
Free from stress or anxiety; at ease
Producing feelings of ease or security
Hmmm...sounds pretty nice to me.”
Nightengale on Sep 12, 2013 at 06:42:49
“I agree these I didnt see if coming things are amazing. I will know my marriage survived either on my death bed or at my husbands funeral( we are at almost 28 years). I have to say I mainly want to have an orgasm during sex and that is usually our plan. I guess it gets spiced up a bit when a child is lurking around the house. Sometimes it is more exciting than others- but really the trick is to just do it.”
“'Comfortable married sex' is not conducive to a great marriage. When you missed that, you missed everything. Don't take your inability to straight talk and be honest with yourself out on other women. We don't need a Plan B. You need to have another look at your marriage and realize that all stay at home moms are not ostriches being fooled by philandering husbands.”
Nightengale on Sep 10, 2013 at 22:58:52
“as opposed to uncomfortable sex?
I like sex where people say and get exactly what they want and frankly the comfort of this in a long term relationships is very desirable.
Also- some people are easily turned on and seduced- we dont need to have sex with new people or in a place we can get caught etc to have great sex. I think this is an advantage.”
ktisch on Sep 9, 2013 at 13:06:04
“Your post makes you sound very petty and afraid. Perhaps you should, instead of lashing out at this woman's experience, look to your own experience and think about why this made you feel so threatened. Why would you react like that? Obviously, something she said struck a chord within you....”
whalepeace on Sep 8, 2013 at 16:59:47
“But millions are. Look at the divorce statistics.
You see a lot of men going for second trophy wives. You do not see many women running off getting young trophy husbands.”
Lauren Baskins on Sep 8, 2013 at 16:58:10
“I think you missed the point of the article.”
ktmckinsey on Sep 8, 2013 at 16:55:35
“Be careful what you say... Words have a way of haunting even the best of us.”
Jenetics on Sep 8, 2013 at 16:18:18
“Right, I'm sure it's not happening to you. You sound very secure and not at all like you're trying not to freak out about this. Also FWIW, I didn't sense any blame of the other women, just the pain of being lied to.”
hp blogger Jennifer Ball on Sep 8, 2013 at 15:48:27
“Are you saying that married sex isn't comfortable? Is "comfortable" a bad thing? And here's something to think about: not all marriages end because of philandering husbands. Sometimes husbands die. Sometimes they become unable to work. My message is, you never know what's going to happen. I don't think what I wrote is "taking it out" on other women at all. I do think that you seem to be taking something out on me in this kinda-snarky comment.
“Here you define "romantic" in a strictly patriarchal sense. In your and the authors' world, true love requires a woman to swoon at the feet of the powerful male (from Texas!), to change her legal identity/name and indicate that she legally belongs to/is attached to him, otherwise there is something suspect about the marriage. This is as absurd and as oppressive as it gets. Being treated like a pretty statue is fun at first but no one wants to spend a lifetime with someone who can never really see them as an equal, who cannot both give and take the lead in daily life.
You both also dismiss the idea that patriarchal naming practice in our culture is at the root of a system that treats and pays women as though they are worth less than men. How can we really deny this? Why is female/maternal lineage less BY DEFAULT less important than male's? Why are women "given" away at weddings by their fathers? Do you not understand that until we undo these sexist cultural practices, we have no way to really move toward equality?”
RedRat on Jun 19, 2013 at 13:34:46
“I tend to agree with much of what you say. I agree about the "giving away" but this goes way, way back in historical tradition. Perhaps it too should be done away with. You know, the easiest way round this is just to elope and go to Vega and get married there! Then the marriage is yours and only yours and not your family's or friends. Oops, there I go again not being romantic.”
hp blogger Tracy Schorn on Jun 18, 2013 at 22:55:18
“You really think my story is about the Patriarchy? If I kept Sutton, I'd be keeping my father's name, so gee, I guess there is no escaping it.
As for my "powerful" Texan, you may be amused to learn he's a civil rights lawyer, a plaintiff's lawyer (that means he only represent the victim) and sues companies for gender discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, and sexual harassment. I guess he's a real tool of the Patriarchy!”
“So happy marrieds are in the minority. I feel special! I feel superior! But something tells me I shouldn't, that those feelings were not the intended result of your post and posts like this. And yet I look for these types of cynical, bitter generalizations all the time (although I prefer those that are a bit more convincing/articulate) and when I find them I am boosted. So sick. So yummy.”
oldwoman64 on Jan 7, 2013 at 09:22:00
“Happy singles are in the minority as well. Which explains a little about why they're not happy once they become marrieds.”
ftf 99 on Jan 7, 2013 at 05:39:23
“I truly think that happy marrieds are a minority.”
“BAN GUNS NOW! BAN ALL GUNS DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE! RETROACTIVELY! We need to get the police onside. We need to make the ban entire. And retroactive. I don't want them anywhere anymore. This is enough now. Have them turn them in for cash, and then go after the rest.”
“In Canada hunters are allowed hunting weapons. You must obtain a licence and the use of the weapon (i.e. time, in which geographic space, etc.) is highly regulated. My brother-in-law hunts caribou and deer annually and feeds his family with the proceeds. He is very proud of his status as a responsible gun owner, and complies fully with all the regulations including mandatory lock-ups outside the immediate residence. BUT ALL HANDGUNS, ASSAULT WEAPONS, AUTOMATIC AND SEMI-AUTOMATIC GUNS ARE BANNED. Nobody is allowed to have those weapons except the police and the military, and those are also highly regulated. It *is* realistic to do a retroactive ban. You have a voluntary turn-in period, then the police pursue the rest afterward. IT'S THE ONLY WAY.”
Noliving on Dec 17, 2012 at 16:23:42
“And how would you pursue them without a registration?”
Laurence Lance on Dec 17, 2012 at 08:55:08
“Not everyone is delighted with the Canadian model. Crime is up, and the sense by Canadians is that they were lied to by thier political leaders.Day by day they are being herded into a Police State. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrqT9SIkQw”
SonOfUgh on Dec 17, 2012 at 04:46:06
“Actually, the weapons you indicate as banned in Canada are not (save the automatic weapons). However, you need to be licensed (I believe as a collector) and (I also believe) have to store them in a safe.”
schotts on Dec 17, 2012 at 02:16:59
“You tell the 50++ million Americans that own semi automatic firearms to turn them in and the second civil war will start. That idea is so unfeasible...why did I even reply?”
JB Dean on Dec 17, 2012 at 02:15:36
“What a perfectly well-behaved slave mentality you have. Is this also a product of your Canadian culture?”
MJinCanada on Dec 17, 2012 at 02:03:50
“Actually, handguns are not banned in Canada.
However, there is no legal concealed or open carry, except for law enforcement officers and special security guards.
All handguns, when not at a range or other legitimate use, must be kept unloaded in a locked, secure case, with the ammunition secured in a separate locked box. This includes at home and during transport.
All owners must be licensed and can only purchase through a registered dealer. There are NO legal private sales.”
Joe Goforth on Dec 17, 2012 at 01:13:21
“You can go into the red states and see if you can get the guns. I don't think you will find many Texas rangers willing to go with you though.”
Devildog762 on Dec 17, 2012 at 01:11:45
“We're not Canada. If you aren't already living in Canadian, I suggest you move there if you think it's so awesome.”
Jeremy Hymes-Balsley on Dec 17, 2012 at 01:02:47
“But we are not Canada, and if you WANT Canada, then all you have to do is _go_ to Canada.
I still believe in responsible regulations on who can own what, including handguns, concealed carry, and semi-automatics. While I do not see a reason for owning automatic rifles and pistols except to kill lots of people in a short time, I would refuse to support removing the right to own semi-automatic pistols and rifles. They aren't the problem. Self-righteousness is our problem, and though alot of it is on the side of the Right with their 'GAWD TELLS ME YOU ARE A SINNER!!!1!' BS, there's still a decent amount on the Left insisting that all guns be clawed back except for their 'approved list'. Don't be a self-righteous jerk. It makes you no better than the other guys.”
verstecktttttttt on Dec 17, 2012 at 00:56:34
“"IT'S THE ONLY WAY."
Don't look now but your fascism is showing.”
ahwhythehellnot on Dec 17, 2012 at 00:54:15
“Wrong. Handguns are legal if the barrel is over 4.5", as are many assault weapons and semiautos. In fact, many weapons are legal in Canada which are not legal here.
In fact, Canada outlaws PUMP action shotguns, but NOT semiautos, because the sound of a pump racking might SCARE someone before you shot them.”
“If you hunt, like some do in my remote Canadian village, you should be allowed the opportunity to obtain a licence for a hunting rifle or other hunting weapon. No one should ever be allowed a handgun or assault weapon of any kind. No one should be allowed to shoot wildlife on their property, you can only hunt in certain designated areas. Every single bit or research and data on this issue indicates that handgun bans lead to fewer gun murders. I would encourage people to ask their local police officers what they think ought to be done about gun control.”
“I'm a feminist and I have three kids. All feminists are not famous. All feminists are not "against families and kids". That's dumb. Why would we leave the raising of the children to you lot? Somebody has to raise the leaders, you know, for you lot to follow.”
“You really need to think about that list you've written there. It's based on fear and mistrust and those are both things that don't belong in any marriage. You need to look forward to a marriage that will infuse your life with love and trust. You need to make a list of feelings you expect to feel and ways you imagine expressing how much you love your partner. You need to stop imposing your sexist bullshit onto men or else stop dating sexist men! Men are not out to get women!”
nix28 on Dec 5, 2012 at 00:14:48
“What exactly have you been reading? Please point out to me where my comment was sexist, especially given the fact that I'm not seeking anything that I'm not also going to provide for my husband. Look over your last few lines; you're the only person coming across as having issues. I have no reason to believe that men are out to get women, and I've yet to express anything to the contrary. Rather than drumming up falsities so that you can go on a rant, try looking at yourself. I'm not the one that needs fixing.”