Feminist prof says husband's repeated requests for sex were violations

Vox had a very long op-ed by an anonymous feminist professor who claims she was violated every time her husband had sex with her.  She "acquiesced," learning coping strategies, such as reading a book to keep her upper half occupied while her husband engaged her lower half.

On the nights when I couldn't get out of it, we used a method that I had taught myself to tolerate and that he, astoundingly, tolerated as well: I read a book to distract myself for as long as I could while he did the thing he needed to do. I did not let him kiss me for the last several years of our marriage. That was the rule: You can f--- me, but you can't kiss me, and I don't have to pretend to like it.

Isn't this terribly insulting to the husband, to read a book while he is trying to have sex with her?  I don't even know if it is possible; I know I can't read in cars or elevators.  Isn't it really impossible to read when the book keeps bouncing back and forth?

How could my husband listen to me say what I said – even once, even timidly – and sleep well that night, much less continue to insist on sleeping with me?

Of course, the counter-question is, how could any woman have stayed married if she was so unhappy with the sex?  The answer to that question comes in a bit.  But first, a little about the author of this screed:

I am a humanities professor who teaches feminist theory, models feminist behavior for my students and my own children, and has achieved success in a male-dominated field.

Wait.  Feminist theory is a male-dominated field?  She must be talking about all those transgender feminist professors.

Last year, my teenage son and I chanted in support of women's reproductive rights at the Women's March in Washington.

Oy vey!  Any ideas what kind of man this son is going to grow up to be?

And yet for years I submitted to unwanted sex from my husband, leaving me sexually traumatized long after I ended that marriage.  All the feminist texts I had read could not drown out what I had absorbed from society and popular culture: that it was my duty to satisfy my husband, regardless of my own feelings.

She also said that she could not get a divorce, because getting a divorce was too difficult and time-consuming.

Leaving a marriage is much harder than calling an Uber.

The questions about what constitutes consent and assault raised by the Babe.net article about Aziz Ansari become only more disturbing in the context of marriage.  In the New York Times, opinion writer Bari Weiss wrote of "Grace," who had the disturbing encounter with Ansari, "If you are hanging out naked with a man, it's safe to assume he is going to try to have sex with you."

I love it how a feminist professor cites "Babe.net" as an authoritative source!  In any event, this is quite a revelation.  Do you think this feminist professor had no clue when she got married that she would be expected to have sex with the sometimes naked man she got married to?

No wonder she's so upset!

So her basic argument seems to be that because it's emotionally difficult to get a divorce, wives must "acquiesce" to having sex with their husbands, and there is no consent, because they effectively have "no choice," because getting a divorce is harder than calling an Uber car.

No wonder the author decided to post this whining op-ed anonymously.  But it's telling that Vox, a leading source of hard-left propaganda, decided to promote this.  It's part of the continuing war on men.  Every man is a rapist, especially married men, even if their wives "acquiesce."

Questions for discussion:

1. Why do you think the author married this guy if she didn't want to sleep with him?

2. What would happen if your spouse offered physical use, but insisted on reading a book at the same time?

3. What do you think was the most likely title of the book she was reading during these times?

Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.

Vox had a very long op-ed by an anonymous feminist professor who claims she was violated every time her husband had sex with her.  She "acquiesced," learning coping strategies, such as reading a book to keep her upper half occupied while her husband engaged her lower half.

On the nights when I couldn't get out of it, we used a method that I had taught myself to tolerate and that he, astoundingly, tolerated as well: I read a book to distract myself for as long as I could while he did the thing he needed to do. I did not let him kiss me for the last several years of our marriage. That was the rule: You can f--- me, but you can't kiss me, and I don't have to pretend to like it.

Isn't this terribly insulting to the husband, to read a book while he is trying to have sex with her?  I don't even know if it is possible; I know I can't read in cars or elevators.  Isn't it really impossible to read when the book keeps bouncing back and forth?

How could my husband listen to me say what I said – even once, even timidly – and sleep well that night, much less continue to insist on sleeping with me?

Of course, the counter-question is, how could any woman have stayed married if she was so unhappy with the sex?  The answer to that question comes in a bit.  But first, a little about the author of this screed:

I am a humanities professor who teaches feminist theory, models feminist behavior for my students and my own children, and has achieved success in a male-dominated field.

Wait.  Feminist theory is a male-dominated field?  She must be talking about all those transgender feminist professors.

Last year, my teenage son and I chanted in support of women's reproductive rights at the Women's March in Washington.

Oy vey!  Any ideas what kind of man this son is going to grow up to be?

And yet for years I submitted to unwanted sex from my husband, leaving me sexually traumatized long after I ended that marriage.  All the feminist texts I had read could not drown out what I had absorbed from society and popular culture: that it was my duty to satisfy my husband, regardless of my own feelings.

She also said that she could not get a divorce, because getting a divorce was too difficult and time-consuming.

Leaving a marriage is much harder than calling an Uber.

The questions about what constitutes consent and assault raised by the Babe.net article about Aziz Ansari become only more disturbing in the context of marriage.  In the New York Times, opinion writer Bari Weiss wrote of "Grace," who had the disturbing encounter with Ansari, "If you are hanging out naked with a man, it's safe to assume he is going to try to have sex with you."

I love it how a feminist professor cites "Babe.net" as an authoritative source!  In any event, this is quite a revelation.  Do you think this feminist professor had no clue when she got married that she would be expected to have sex with the sometimes naked man she got married to?

No wonder she's so upset!

So her basic argument seems to be that because it's emotionally difficult to get a divorce, wives must "acquiesce" to having sex with their husbands, and there is no consent, because they effectively have "no choice," because getting a divorce is harder than calling an Uber car.

No wonder the author decided to post this whining op-ed anonymously.  But it's telling that Vox, a leading source of hard-left propaganda, decided to promote this.  It's part of the continuing war on men.  Every man is a rapist, especially married men, even if their wives "acquiesce."

Questions for discussion:

1. Why do you think the author married this guy if she didn't want to sleep with him?

2. What would happen if your spouse offered physical use, but insisted on reading a book at the same time?

3. What do you think was the most likely title of the book she was reading during these times?

Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.