Is it fair that when a husband and wife are arguing, the wife can use sex as a tactic to get her way?
I mean, its never made explicit (except for those odd occasions where a group of wives publicly declare abstinence as a form of protest), but in the case of a typical martial brouhaha, both parties know what's going on – the man ain't sleeping on the couch cuz its warm and fuzzy, knaimsayin?
Its understood that man's physical needs are greater than woman's. So in the course of a dispute, when they are obviously not having conjugal relations, it'll be the man who's under greater pressure to concede.
So isn't there an implicit blackmail taking place?
As I figure, the poor chap has two options: Find a viable alternative or fight fire with fire.
As for the first option, I can envision polygamy playing a positive role in addressing this 'issue'. In the case of multiple wives, sex as a negotiating ploy is removed from the equation and the participants can deal with their problem in a fair and equitable manner.
Not wanting to get into the whole debate on the how's and why's of Quranic polygamy, I'm focusing simply on the dynamics of the specific issue mentioned in the title of this post.
As for the second option, the man can counter by hitting the woman where it hurts most – shopping.
'You no play, I no pay.'
Here in Saudi, the men have serious control over their wives' shopping habits since the women can't drive. So not only can the man not dish out the cash needed for shopping (in the case where the wife is not working), they can also force her to sit at home.
Seems like a nice balance – man's greatest need for woman's greatest need.
In the words of the great 80's philosopher from the A-Team, Hannibal Smith, "I love it when a plan comes together"!
Now that I think about it, maybe that's the real reason why women aren't allowed to drive here...to even the playing field.
Pure Genius!
Just don’t call it genocide
1 week ago
9 comments:
This is a funny post.
On a serious note I have often wondered how it is actually unfair that a man can legitimately refuse sex to punish an errant wife since in a polygamous relationship he has practically nothing to lose whereas the errant wife would not only be missing out on the sex but also feel jealous that other women are satisfying her husband’s needs.
AA Naeem -
Why do you think that a man is supposed to leave the bed of his wife--according to the Qur'an--as a penal measure for her? Because perhaps it's not "understood" that the sex needs of men are greater than women?
I know you were making a joke... but why do you think women get so upset about polygamy anyway? Part of it at least is a lack of attention and affection from their husband--not because they lose a bargaining chip. In fact you even make out polygamy to be worse than it is, effectively hindering the ability of a man to financially support and emotionally and physically satisfy his wife--so she gets cut twice, money and intimacy, not to mention losing the ability to sway her husband to her will with sex.
So how is the playing field level, actually? (By the way, I am pro-polygamy though you might never guess it from this comment.)
This is off topic but you've been tagged!!!
http://desertflower12.blogspot.com/2007/11/game-of-tag-anyone.html
Personally,
I prefer sex to shopping anyday, and since the majority of men have twisted polygamy, which was meant as a protection for women rather than a right for men, to a right for men to have additional partners, I think woemn should do the same;)
AA- Suroor,
Wait, are you saying that polygamous men would act in such an unfair manner? Aren’t all men who marry multiple women upstanding beacons of light? (puzzled look)
OK seriously, your point is valid in that the shoes can be easily turned (with the man using sex as a bargaining chip), so my logic for using polygamy as a sort of equalizer falls short.
Back to the drawing board.
AA- Amy,
“Why do you think that a man is supposed to leave the bed of his wife--according to the Qur'an--as a penal measure for her? Because perhaps it's not "understood" that the sex needs of men are greater than women?”
I don’t read that verse as a punishment for the woman by taking away sex (because I *do* believe that the husband would suffer more than the wife). Rather, I think the act is meant to demonstrate to the wife the seriousness of the situation. The benefits of sleeping together which are enjoyed by both parties (physically, emotionally, etc.) are being put on hold until the deviant act by the wife is ceased – I mention ‘the deviant act by the wife’ as that is the context of this verse and its commonly forgotten – and that’s why you have ignorant men taking these measures when the wife burns dinner or talks to her best friend.
The act of leaving her bedside is meant to be a shock tactic, maybe even alluding to the possibility of divorce if the situation isn’t fixed between the two parties. I never saw it as penalizing the wife by taking away sex.
“-so she gets cut twice, money and intimacy, not to mention losing the ability to sway her husband to her will with sex.”
Aha!, so you *do* admit that the woman loses that advantage when the husband!
Actually, now that I think about it more, I do agree with you and Suroor that the balance gets unfairly tilted towards the husband when another wife enters the fray.
So I guess we all agree that the only fair alternative is to deny women the right to drive!
AA- o_liveoil,
Thanks for the comment. I like your twisted logic. It nicely balances out mine. :-P
AA Naeem -
"Actually, now that I think about it more, I do agree with you and Suroor that the balance gets unfairly tilted towards the husband when another wife enters the fray.
So I guess we all agree that the only fair alternative is to deny women the right to drive!"
First of all, I think that people only *think* the balance gets unfairly tilted, or that if it does, it's being implemented improperly. For example, if the woman isn't allowed to drive. :D
So no we don't agree, nope nope nope, preventing women from driving is really just stupid. It might seem convenient, you see, if a man has only one wife. But think of how inconvenient it would be if you had TWO wives, and they both wanted to go shopping. So you spend the day with one, and take her shopping because she can't drive herself. And then you have to take the next one shopping the next day. And all the grocery trips--for one household one day, for another household the next. Double load of shopping trips, possibly double load of kids to transport to school and whatnot, a double set of wives to chauffeur to parties. Poor brothers... it seems more like women should use polygamy as a bargaining chip. For what I haven't figured out... if they can't drive then it makes polygamy unreasonably difficult, don't you think?
(if that didn't make sense, excuse me... I'm sleepy)
Naeem u are such a shock blogger!
Post a Comment