--- JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
> jks wrote:
> >I don't understand how this idea is supposed to be
> >patriarchical unless it is not reciprocal, i.e.,
> >unless the idea is that a woman may not also go
> >elsewhere if she isn't getting (ebough) sex from
> her
> >husband,m or theright sort. Are you saying that if
> you
> >don't get enough sex from your spouse, you should
> >either forego it or get a divorce, regardless of
> the
> >other costs, for example to the kids, and indeed
> the
> >benefits of the relationship, which need not all be
> >sexual? That sounds very rigid and Puritanical to
> me,
> >bot at all like you, Kells. jks
>
> It depends on the circumstance, of course, but in
> some cases withholding sex,
> say as part of a fight, is the leverage point for
> the person with less power
> in the relationship. So when that is easily evaded,
> by men going elsewhere,
> it means women have less leverage. Sort of like
> 'striker replacement.'
>
> Jenny Brown
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com