I’ve been browsing dating and sexuality sites today, and found an interesting article at Our Cheating Ways. It’s called Starting a Wife-Led Marriage – The Orgasm Opportunity. The author suggests that women “train” their husbands to not only accept but genuinely enjoy a relationship in which the woman’s every sexual whim is always satisfied and the man’s sexual satisfaction is always contingent on the woman’s whims. Most men, I think, will recoil in abject terror at some of her suggestions for accomplishing this feat. Probably a lot of women, too.
The first step toward a successful wife-led marriage is to eliminate his ability and opportunity to masturbate. You want to make sure that most of the time he’ll need you to be involved to reach orgasm. There are many different ways to do this. Some women like to “catch” their men looking at online porn and then use his embarrassment to set new rules in the house – like he has to leave the door open when he showers and goes to the bathroom. Other women purchase chastity belts for their partners and keep the keys hidden out of sight and out of mind.
Chastity belts? Really?
After reading this paragraph, I realized that I was reading an article directed towards very dominant women with “Omega” men, but I was still very interested in some of the implications of the wife-led marriage. I was more interested in the comments, which predictably included outrage over the idea of treating men like dogs to be trained. Here are some more of her suggestions:
- Ask him to do something around the house — a chore — and then reward him sexually after he completes it.
- Always be “out of the mood” when he doesn’t do household chores
- Make him ask permission to have an orgasm. Say no often.
- Take away his porn. Don’t let him masturbate.
- Constantly tease him, but don’t put out all the time.
There’s a reason a lot of this looks very similar to techniques we would use to train a dog. It’s exactly the same thing, in fact. People are like dogs — just very smart ones. We can be trained, and we can be manipulated in surprisingly simple ways.
Let’s just get past the outrage and “degradation” we feel when we talk about training humans. Nearly every country in the world has a government funded institution designed specifically to train humans like dogs. It’s called “The Army.” Like every other animal, we are conditioned by our experience. Just like Pavlov’s dogs, we unconsciously develop emotional and physical responses to different stimuli. Back when wives called in the family with a dinner bell, everybody including the dogs salivated at the sound of the bell.
Some of the ideas in this article are a bit extreme. Sure, there are some men who can be trampled into sexual submission, and there are some women who would be perfectly happy with men who subserviently give in to any and every whim. These will be the outliers, though. This approach is an example of taking a valid principle and extending it far beyond its reach.
For one thing, females have innate, instinctual desires when it comes to males. To put it bluntly, females like males who are ambitious, upwardly mobile, and well… manly. Because of these female preferences, most males are manly. That’s how natural selection works. Females want something, and the males who have it get to reproduce, and their children have it. There’s a good reason most men wouldn’t put up with this kind of manipulation. It’s emasculating.
Having said that, there are some truths contained in these over-the-top suggestions.
- Men and women can both be conditioned, and sex can be used as a reward — for either sex. There’s nothing inherently wrong with a certain amount of training using sex. In general, such conditioning needs to be positive. Both women and men tend to respond negatively when sex is withheld as a manipulation tactic. Better to manipulate by offering extra-special sexual favors when a particularly good behavior is demonstrated.
- Inconsistency can be a useful training tool. Ask any dog trainer. When we give a a dog a treat every time it sits on command, the dog learns that sitting is how it gets treats, not that sitting is what we do when we’re told to sit. Humans work the same way, and not just with sex. The article suggests tying sex to household chores, which will teach men that doing chores is how to get laid, rather than teaching them that doing chores is good in and of itself.
- Watching porn and masturbating can negatively effect a couple’s sex life, but not because there’s anything inherently wrong with either one. In fact, most research I’m aware of clearly demonstrates that masturbation is good for both partners when things are going well. Women gain much greater control over their own orgasms when they masturbate frequently, and for many men, masturbation is the best and simplest way to control premature ejaculation, and to learn about how to control their level of excitement during intercourse. If either partner is masturbating frequently and not having sex, it’s indicative of another problem. Preventing masturbation is likely to cause more problems or exacerbate the ones that already exist.
I do agree with the author on one point that she doesn’t explicitly make, but that is implicit in her whole proposal. Humans, being social animals, are conditioned rather easily, and we can set up “training scenarios” with our mates, and they will work if done properly. We can even tell our mate exactly what we’re doing. I’m reminded of a couple I used to know in which the woman would constantly interrupt her boyfriend when he was talking. She always felt bad about doing it, and asked him to help her stop doing it. He told her that from then on, whenever she interrupted him, he would pinch her side. And so he did. For several weeks, she had a bruise on her side, but she stopped interrupting him. What made it work was that the pinch wasn’t done out of anger. It was just done very matter-of-factly, and then the man kept talking as if she hadn’t said anything at all.
Maybe this sounds a little “dehumanizing” to you, but that’s exactly the concept I’m trying to debunk. To say that training another human is dehumanizing is to say that humans aren’t “supposed” to be trained. In fact, what we humans tend to dislike immensely is when we are trained against our will. For the most part, people join the army willingly. They go to college because they want to learn a new skill. They learn their job because they want to get paid.
In an open, honest relationship, both partners will want the other to be sexually fulfilled. To that end, it’s perfectly reasonable for them to train each other to respond positively to each other’s desires. If there’s a need for underhanded, involuntary training, I’d suggest that perhaps there’s a bigger problem than orgasms.