If hubby goes out and has lunch with a buxom co-worker, that's adultery. If he's just looking lustfully at other women, that's natural.

@Jill: "In the sexual department, that means that as a wife, I now "own" every one of my husband's ejaculations."
__________

Under that logic, Jill's husband now owns every one of her orgasms. She can't have one without his consent. If she uses her vibrator on herself after getting turned on by Twilight, she's an adulteress. If he decides he never wants sex, she can never have an orgasm again for the rest of his life.

If a man said that, he'd be a pig, and I bet Jill would be appalled over it.

And THESE are the women who make the rest of us look like idiots. Who the fuck does this bitch think she is, anyway? I'm sorry, but no one "owns" anyone, or any part of anyone. Someone needs to send her the number of a good therapist.

Many women complain that men don't want to commit. With women like this running around, can anyone blame them?

I weep for my gender.

No one can EVER be owned. And if she thinks that porn is what allows her man to masturbate in the shower, she is dumb. Has she ever heard of imagination? A healthy sex drive will help a marriage, not hurt it. Controlling behavior has the opposite effect.

What a dumb chick!

Who takes porn into the shower?

And with these attitudes Jill found someone who would actually marry her? Just goes to show, there's someone for everyone, apparently.

"Who takes porn into the shower?"

Lol .. yeah, plus you honestly don't need porn to 'whack off in the shower'.

Wait...she just found out her brother was a pedophile, and she's upset at the fact her husband is like every other man in the world? And I call bullshit on her assumption that her brother never hurt a child. If he had that stuff, chances are he engaged in it. This dumb bitch needs to get her priorities straight.

The internet has allowed people with room temperature IQs to self identify very quickly. :-)

"The internet has allowed people with room temperature IQs to self identify very quickly"

I think IQ is room temperature in celsius

sorry kid, you can't "own" his mind. thinking that you can is entirely delusional.
regardless of your relationship with him, you are never happy, because no matter how you try, you can't have all of him.

sucks to be so insecure, doesn't it?
it sucks 10X as bad to married to somebody so insecure, I can tell you.

If you really want to keep his mind on you, then make yourself desirable to him. YOU already desire HIM to the point that it's prolly unhealthy. Draw him to you. He has liked you enough over a long period of time to marry you AND stay... If you are desireable to him, then he is going to imagine YOU.

Or you can continue on the path of making yourself and everyone around you miserable, just because ou can.

[aside? Trust, she prolly doesn't have "O's" and doesn't like it at all... her existance is about control, NOT about enjoyment.]

and? The Bible verse? It isn't for you or anyone else to judge him on his lust, ONLY God. You should worry over how YOU will be judged. Do you obey your husband as it is written? Or do you only take the parts of scripture that you like?

As Sam Kinison said, the best thing about marriage is that These Are Attached http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GXPd0fnpKw

Gods I loved that guy, frelling hilarious.

She's barking mad.

Fidelity means he owes you not sleeping with other women.

It also means he owes you not foolin'-around-with-but-not-quite-actually-sleeping-with them.

It does not mean he owes you a no-masturbation pact or that he cannot ever think of another woman, ever.

UW Girl: My impression of the data, admittedly scanty, is that a large number of people who are attracted to children know it's horrible and don't ever physically act on it.

(For that matter, I don't know that I trust her claim on that.

Given the crazy on display, she seems like the sort who *might* think along the lines of:

"This pornographic image has the word "teen" in the title; thus obviously the woman in it must be underage; thus this is child pornography".

I have no evidence to believe that's what's going on here, but I think we all have reason to take her words with a small salt mine.)

And I call bullshit on her assumption that her brother never hurt a child.

UW Girl, I think she was using sarcasm there, as a way to make her point that porn, in her mind, isn't harmless to the relationship.

I tried to bring porn in the shower once, but the computer shorted out.

Trust and Daghain, you took the words right out of my mouth. That has to be one of the creepiest things I've read in a while. She must be a sweetheart to live with.

"I now 'own' every one of my husband's ejaculations."

So you better hop to it, and give him the release he seeks. And just because you're tired or don't feel like it won't cut it, sister, if you want to keep "owning" him.

You disagree? then don't be disagreeable if you hubby pulls one off. Now, if he's not satisfying your needs, that's a problem.

But I don't think that's what you mean.

"And I call bullshit on her assumption that her brother never hurt a child. If he had that stuff, chances are he engaged in it."

Statistically, that's extremely unlikely; the number of men that view child porn outnumbers the number of men who would generate it by a huge margin.

Personally I think a sensible approach is that the laws should really distinguish more clearly between three different activities related to child porn: (1) Creating the stuff, (2) Distributing the stuff, (3) Possessing the stuff. Finally a separate dimension is whether it's real child porn or involves real people, or is fake / cartoon porn. Numbers (1) and (2) both cause harm but completely different types of harm. (3) causes no harm. Creating real child porn harms the child as its abuse. Creating fake child porn harms nobody whether it involves images of real people or made-up people or cartoons. Distributing fake child porn of non-real people or cartoons harms nobody. Distributing child porn of real kids (whether its fake porn or real porn) harms those kids the same: Through the shame and embarrassment of the distribution. Creating child porn without distributing it causes the harm of abuse but not the harm of distribution. Distribution without creation causes the harm of distribution but not of creation. Possession and private viewing, well that's like the proverbial tree falling in a forest, it affects nobody. Principle of harm.

Also, am I the only one that has "Every sperm is sacred" running thru their head right now? I used to laugh myself fuzzy when my Catholic best friend would sing that little ditty.

If hubby goes out and has lunch with a buxom co-worker, that's adultery.

You're kidding me with this, right? Right?

Like the brian, I took porn into the shower before there were computers small enough to use there but the pages got wet. What a waste.

Flat chested; some guys are only turned on by big boobs, some don't care. Anything you can't get into your mouth is wasted.

"I tried to bring porn in the shower once, but the computer shorted out."

That's what you need one of these for!

That's what you need one of these for! - Cousin Dave

Wow! It even says it is shower proof!

" If she uses her vibrator on herself after getting turned on by Twilight, she's an adulteress. If he decides he never wants sex, she can never have an orgasm again for the rest of his life."

Jill doesn't strike me as the type to own a vibrator. She strikes me as very, very Catholic. These are the same type of people who think that birth control is evil and that masturbation is a sin inside or outside of marriage. AKA crazy.

By Jill logic of marrigal ownership of spouses she is her husbands property and therefore should have sex with him whenever and wherever he orders her to.

Its been my experience that many overbearing dominating women are looking for someone to treat them the same way and dont know how to express it

Jill thinks her husband is entitled to only such sexual pleasure as she allows, if any. Would anyone be surprised to learn Jill's marriage is probably 100% sex-free?

If she thought her husband was taking care of business in the shower, and that was a problem, she could have joined him in the shower...but then, sexual pleasure might occur, and she probably won't allow that.

Child pornography and pedophilia are terrible. In mentioning her brother's stash, she makes a false moral equivalence between her brother's sickness and her husband's normal, thwarted, legitimate sexuality.

Jill is one sick piece of work.

I thought exactly the same thing, Kat. Now I can't get the damn song out of my head.

Amy, it would be hilarious if you sent Jill this.

I'll second those who said she's kidding herself if she thinks porn is what lets her husband masturbate in the shower. She's also kidding herself that all of his orgasms are coming from her. I wonder if she would think she was still responsible for them if he was imagining someone else, got aroused and then took care of that arousal with his wife. Because it happens. There is no switch in a man's brain that shuts off his sexual attraction to other women as soon as the words "I do" come out of his mouth.

I would also tell her that there is a huge, huge difference between your average, run-of-the-mill porn and child porn. To equate those is to be incredibly Puritanical and judgmental toward your husband, Jill.

Her brother obviously failed to arrange for a porn-buddy (7:13 in the clip)

Coupling

Personally, all my porn is electronic and I have a monitoring device in my head that will trigger a thermite charge in my computer if brain activity ceases :P

Coupling is my favorite non SciFi show

@Lobster: "And with these attitudes Jill found someone who would actually marry her? Just goes to show, there's someone for everyone, apparently."
_____________

I would bet a large sum of cash that Jill probably left the "I own your ejaculations" out of pre-marital discussions. That was probably a unilateral proclamation post-nuptials on her part.

In fact, I bet the shift in her words and actions in regards to sex when she was trying to get him down the aisle were far different, otherwise it is unlikely she would have gotten him there.

Now that I've been thinking about it for a little while, Jill's letter reminds me of something that happened in a sociology class a few years ago (one of my several attempts at college--I'm in it to finish now, thank the gods). A student asked our professor if he thought it was possible for a man to rape his wife. I was alarmed when the first words out of our professor's mouth were, "Well, the Bible says that..." His doctorate was in theology, so everything got filtered through that. (Funny aside: we were talking about marriage, and a smartass guy asked what the Bible had to say about remaining single for life. Professor Oblivious gets into how it's okay not to commit to a woman...because that means you've committed to religious servitude. D'oh!) He then started talking about how, since a spouse "owns" the other's body, it can't technically be rape because he (or she, I guess, but that never came up) has every right to his wife's body. Really scary when you start thinking about it.

This "owning" of her husband's ejaculations makes me wonder if Jill has thought about the reverse situation. Like Trust said, this logic means that her husband owns her orgasms, too. Also, like IRA Death said, if you own his ejaculations, you better be taking care of all of them. I am not in any way saying that Jill's husband will want to rape her or that it ever, ever lead to that eventuality. I'm just saying that the logic of who owns what and who owes what can get pretty dicey. Jill isn't thinking about anything past how she's offended if her husband gets turned on by anyone but her, but that sort of controlling behavior won't ease up on its own. Like others have said, this isn't really about sex; it's about Jill's need to control, or at least have a say in, anything her husband does. I'd urge her to do some thinking about what else that can lead to. It won't be a happy, satisfied husband, I'm certain. Though I wonder if she cares about that as long as she's getting what she wants (read: needs in order to feel good about herself).

"The only ones he gets as freebees (sic) are the wet dreams."

Imagine being married to someone who takes that approach to sex.

What a sad life it must have been for her husband.

NumberSix, that's a very fair point (and Trust and a few others put forward a similar argument earlier). If she owns his ejaculations, surely that comes with the obligation for her to give it up whenever he wants? Or she can exercise her right to not feel like it that night and he can compensate with porn.

Or he could just leave her for someone who is actually attracted to him and doesn't use sex like you use treats and pats on the head when training dogs.

"And I tell you, if anyone so much as looks at a woman with lust, he is guilty of adultery."

On the other hand, just to show that I'm not really taking this seriously, because I can't believe a real person actually typed that sentence - maybe the dog training method has something to it, I've found pats on the head and frequent supply of chocolates to be an effective girlfriend training technique. "There's a good girl, eat it all up" :)

Anyone taking *this* seriously needs help.

My goodness, what people are reading into this letter. I think one could read her words differently as well. She clearly objects to porn, but the rest could just be a poor choice of words.

One might also want to think about statements like: "If he had that stuff, chances are he engaged in it." How many guys have ever fantasized about something - another woman, a threesome, whatever - and yet remained faithful to their wives? How many women have admired the muscles on atheletes, and yet managed to restrain themselves from running off to the locker room of the nearest sports team? There is a difference between fantasy and reality, and most people have no trouble distinguishing the two.

Assume that this woman will read these comments. She is having enough trouble dealing with the idea of porn, without everyone making it worse with unwarranted assumptions and, frankly, pretty insulting language.

@ltw: "And I tell you, if anyone so much as looks at a woman with lust, he is guilty of adultery."

I can't believe a real person actually typed that sentence
______________

Jill didn't make that up, she took a bible verse out of context. In context, it reads "he has committed adultery with her in his heart." I won't argue religious issues here, since I respect that this is Amy's blog, but I will say Jill took this out of context to use as a club against her husband, when it was really a direct warning to a husband that adultery begins by allowing oneself to dwell on doing so... just as theft often starts by one allowing oneself to covet another's property, followed by rationalization and eventually theft.

I'll leave it at that.... it's context to the husband, it shouldn't be Jill's club.

In any case, i'd like to know how Jill treated the topic (or act) of sex before marriage.

@a_random_guy: "Assume that this woman will read these comments. She is having enough trouble dealing with the idea of porn, without everyone making it worse with unwarranted assumptions and, frankly, pretty insulting language. "
________________

Well, issue with idea of porn is a far cry from saying she owns her husbands ejaculations. No one would care to try to understand what may have been meant or what may put it in a better light had it been the husband saying he owns her orgasms.

I think if she did come here and read the comments, her head would explode! Her email reads like one of those self righteous people that can't even enter into a conversation where her views may be challenged.

mpetrie98, I hope she was being sarcastic.

Sigivald, have to disagree with you. Estimates are that about 60% of childhood sexual assaults go unreported. I'm a nurse, and I can tell you that I have seen first hand children who have been abused. These kids are often so terrified that they don't say a word to anyone. It happens way more often than you'd think. So I stick by what I wrote earlier...if he had the stuff, my money is on him acting on it.

I think you are missing the point. The point isn't her husband looking at porn, the point is her brother was a deviant and it destroyed her world. I agree with UW Girl that "if he had the stuff, my money is on him acting on it." I wouldn't be surprised if he made it himself, as video cameras are everywhere.

I get the impression she's an older lady and very religious. I also wonder if her brother was married. Helping her sister-in-law to clean out her brother's porn stash probably made her doubt everything; fidelity, faith, family, etc. and made her feel defensive of her husband. She's lashing out because someone she loved turned out to be evil, now she wonders how deeply evil lurks in the others she loves. I hope none of you have to face something that awful.

Insead of answering her question, Amy dismissed it, worse, ignored it in order to bludgeon her with the obvious. Yes, she's aware her husband looks at porn, but it's one thing to have a stash of Hustlers under the bed, it's another to have a box of homemade DVDs of your 6 year old neice/nephew. That's what she's asking; Do you worry when you find Playboys? Playgirls? (do they still make those?) Do you worry when he clears out his history and browser every day even though you have no children in your home to protect? Do you find questionable material and ignore it because he's a grown man, or do you ask about the "maybe barely legal" porn your 75 year old husband is drooling over. Is it because he likes a nubile 18 year old body (who doesn't?) or because he can't legally find anything younger? Do you worry when he changes his porn habits - he used to look at porn then bring his horny ass to bed, but now he looks at porn and jumps in the shower without you?

But that's okay, let's all just ignore the pain this woman is obviously in, and engage in idle speculation about what type of stupid, frigid bitch she is!

"I get the impression she's an older lady[...] very religious. "

I don't think so and I'll tell you why. A deeply religious person would most likely not discuss sex in the explicit terms that she used in her letter; terms like "ejaculation", "whack off", and "wet dream" are terms they would never use in a public communication. They'd use very veiled euphemisms. And, assuming that such a woman would write to Amy at all, she'd most likely find the subject so embarrassing that she's ask her letter to be kept private. Which, obviously, this LW didn't.

The LW comes across to me not as a very conservative person, but as a member of the Junior Anti-Sex League. There is some small percentage of women who simply have a visceral dislike of sex and would prefer to see it banned altogether. When they talk about anything related to sex, you can hear the disgust in their voices. Jill strikes me as one of these.

There is a difference between being a conservative and being a totalitarian nut. You can get there from the right or the left. I doubt if this woman has a cohesive set of beliefs that would fit into organized ideology. However, if you were to classify her as a "sex Nazi" I would go along with that characterization. Isabel

It does not matter if she is flat-chested or as ugly as Rosie O'Donnell. Unless they are discussing business, he is spending time with another woman. The wife will have cause to be concerned.

I think it's similar to how, if the boss is discusing something with a female subordinate, he leaves the office door open, so nobody will give any ideas. Likewise, unless discussing business, a married man would be wise not to step out to lunch with another woman.

get any ideas, not give. sheesh.

@Cousin Dave: if that's the case, she shouldn't have married. Marriage does come with a moral (and sometimes a legal) obligation to have sex. If you can't stand the bodily fluids, get out of the bedroom.

@Cousin Dave: "The LW comes across to me not as a very conservative person, but as a member of the Junior Anti-Sex League. There is some small percentage of women who simply have a visceral dislike of sex and would prefer to see it banned altogether."
@mpetrie98: "if that's the case, she shouldn't have married. Marriage does come with a moral (and sometimes a legal) obligation to have sex. If you can't stand the bodily fluids, get out of the bedroom."
______________

I'd bet almost anything that she didn't reveal her hostilities towards sex until after the wedding.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she averaged more sex -- oral and otherwise -- in a week during dating than she does in a year post marriage.

> In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she averaged
> more sex -- oral and otherwise -- in a week
> during dating than she does in a year post
> marriage.

Hey Trust - I didn't know you knew my ex!

What if the co-worker is attractive, but flat-chested. Does that count the same?

Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at January 21, 2011 2:37 PM

Al Pacino says yes, at least regarding derrieres:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s81gWFanDO0&feature=related

Anyway, yes this woman owns her husband. She owns exclusive rights to sex with him, he can't share or it breaks the marriage vows. Same with her. I didn't know masturbation was the same as sex. So he can't self-love? No doubt we'll find plenty of romance novels hidden in her closet or under the bed.

Of course, we live in a society that doesn't really take that vows of fidelity seriously anymore, at least mostly for women. But thats another debate.

@snoopy: "Hey Trust - I didn't know you knew my ex!"
_______________

So we finally meet. I always wondered what happened to my wife's first husband. LOL

I think you are missing the point. The point isn't her husband looking at porn, the point is her brother was a deviant and it destroyed her world. - KT

You know it just hit me, this lady AND her brother are both completly fucked in the head about sex. I wonder what their parents did to twist both of them uop so much.

If I belived in god that cared aout humanity I'd pray this woman never has kids

Shannon, I can tell you from experience that Catholics have pretty damn good sex lives. There are a lot of things that can inhibit one from having sex, most of which an be worked through, few of which have to do with religion (have you READ psalms? Talk about porn!)

"Gregg once told me after we got off a plane that he noticed a woman with a "pert can" walking to the rest room. Then he noticed "Hey, she's mine!""

Well, you DO have a nice can! But isn't it great when your man still realizes it?

Song of Solomon is pretty good too, its even got a gang bang

"Sigivald, have to disagree with you. Estimates are that about 60% of childhood sexual assaults go unreported. I'm a nurse, and I can tell you that I have seen first hand children who have been abused. These kids are often so terrified that they don't say a word to anyone. It happens way more often than you'd think. So I stick by what I wrote earlier...if he had the stuff, my money is on him acting on it. "

Sigh. I appreciate the knee-jerk desire to automatically vilify and go after anyone like this with a pitch-fork. And in your line of work, it's somewhat understandable. But the above "reasoning" is what happens when you think with your heart instead of your brain. You can "stick by" what you wrote as much as you want but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong to make such an assumption. The facts fly in the face of your claim. I can't find links right now but I did some studying up on this some years ago and still recall this. The majority who view child porn don't engage in it. That's like those people who claim that if you view porn you will also go out and rape women. I realize child porn is a HIGHLY emotional subject but we must never stop thinking rationally -- with our brains, not our hearts.

Lets not forget that a large portion of 'child porn' is of physicaly mature teenagers not yet 18 that many 'produced' themsleves.

I'd also like to see a brake down in those convicted base on the age of the poeple in the photos, and what kind of photos, as in acctually full sized photos, or thumbnails of pictures.
\
There was a case out here a while ago where our CA was afer a teenage boy for child porn, even after his lawyer proved a worm was using his computer as data storage without his knowledge

"Lets not forget that a large portion of 'child porn' is of physicaly mature teenagers not yet 18 that many 'produced' themsleves."

Yeah, the whole thing is actually quite complex. There's a world of difference between (say) a 20-year old getting his rocks off looking at pics of a 15-year old (an attraction which is arguably physically natural and normal), and a 50-year old getting his rocks off looking at pre-pubescent kids (ugh). Yet the laws make practically no distinction (and LW wasn't very specific either, on either the age of the brother or the kids in the photos, which makes leaping to assumptions all the more tenuous). In fact there are different names for the biological preferences towards different age groups, and 'pedophilia' is technically only pre-pubescents (then there are categories for early puberty, e.g. up to age 14 or so, and there is basically the 15 - 19 age range, somewhere in which almost all men find physical attraction to even if not admitted ... 'hot models' advertising products in magazines etc. are often as young as 16 or younger even and nobody even blinks to consider this 'child porn' as men ogle, and in fact often it's impossible to even TELL the difference between 16 and 18, which should tell you that there is something arbitrary going on with our standards). Since post-pubescents are technically "ripe" from a biological perspective, there is something of an argument of some level of normality there, as it make sense, evolution-wise, to be attracted to ripe, fertile females (while it makes no sense to be attracted to pre-pubescents, or worse, young boys).

That said, any kind of child abuse is of course flat-out wrong - I am not defending that. If someone is guilty of child abuse, by all means, bring out the pitchforks. But if you don't know, let cooler heads prevail.

Also, there is no way to make a leap from 'feels an attraction towards X' to 'abuses X'. If that were in any way true, every man who liked adult porn would also want to rape women, which isn't the case.

If a husband wants sex and the wife doesn't, and he persists until she gives in, that's not rape—even though some people now claim it is. If the husband uses physical force to make his wife have sex, that is rape—even though in the past, it was not considered an actual rape. In the past it was considered the husbands duty to pleasure his wife, and his wife's duty to let him do it. Whether he enjoyed it or not was assumed—and still is—sometimes wrongly.

This whole letter sounds like bullshit. Cousin Dave seems to have it sussed out, but I'd add for the rest who are saying "she probably hid it until after she was married," I'd bet that part is also BS. No way was this written by an old lady who said "I pledge thee my troth" at her wedding - LULZ!