Better Sex Please: We're Thai

[kat]

Ok big daddy love dude Jamman, I'm going to suspend my ick factor and think about what you are saying. In a sense, I think I could agree on some level but I may be thinking about it more in terms of sexual dominant/dominated energy.

What Ken Wilbur books can you recommend to start?

[kat]

Ok, if both partners work, sure, then it wouldn't be fair for one to have to do extra housework.

In my historical case, I knocked up an older woman, and never wanted a baby. I was working during her pregnancy and the following few years, but she was not. I was still expected to share all the mundane chores, many of which I would never do were I living alone. So in order for her to not feel oppressed, she had to actually oppress me. That happened to me. It was obviously ######ed. It was a result of hypersensitivity to equality, and not being at all comfortable with different partners assuming different roles and tasks. She did not want to be in any female role, regardless that I was the one busy earning income.

And yes, it is all about supporting and sustaining one another. Since men and woman have different interests and desires and even needs, doing the same thing and the same thing for each other won't be mutually supportive. One will get more supported than the other.

And the wife has the titties. I didn't invent that. If I could breastfeed, I would. Wife has titties, wife breast feeds.

Yeah, and I can totally understand and agree with what you are saying above. It's just common sense. But I think the problem arises when women start getting pushed into these roles as the most "sensible" or "correct" one because she has the milk. But yes, I think "modern" women or society can be just as blinded by absolutes as chauvinst men.

*so, what about the Ken Wilbur recommendation?

Edited April 25, 2006 by kat

[rainman]

If I could breastfeed, I would.

oh please ...you don't even cut vegetables.

[jamman]

Ok, if both partners work, sure, then it wouldn't be fair for one to have to do extra housework.

In my historical case, I knocked up an older woman, and never wanted a baby. I was working during her pregnancy and the following few years, but she was not. I was still expected to share all the mundane chores, many of which I would never do were I living alone. So in order for her to not feel oppressed, she had to actually oppress me. That happened to me. It was obviously ######ed. It was a result of hypersensitivity to equality, and not being at all comfortable with different partners assuming different roles and tasks. She did not want to be in any female role, regardless that I was the one busy earning income.

And yes, it is all about supporting and sustaining one another. Since men and woman have different interests and desires and even needs, doing the same thing and the same thing for each other won't be mutually supportive. One will get more supported than the other.

And the wife has the titties. I didn't invent that. If I could breastfeed, I would. Wife has titties, wife breast feeds.

A Brief History of Everything

Boomeritis

Those are both fun and engaging, and contain most of his more interesting insights.

I love all of the rest of his stuff, but many people find them less accessible. Sex Ecology and Spirituality is great. A Brief History of Everything is the more readable and popular version of that.

Yeah, and I can totally understand and agree with what you are saying above. It's just common sense. But I think the problem arises when women start getting pushed into these roles as the most "sensible" or "correct" one because she has the milk. But yes, I think "modern" women or society can be just as blinded by absolutes as chauvinst men.

*so, what about the Ken Wilbur recommendation?

[jamman]

Yeah, and I can totally understand and agree with what you are saying above. It's just common sense. But I think the problem arises when women start getting pushed into these roles as the most "sensible" or "correct" one because she has the milk. But yes, I think "modern" women or society can be just as blinded by absolutes as chauvinst men.

*so, what about the Ken Wilbur recommendation?

This was added to the post you replied to before:

And the bond between mother and child is much stronger in the first two years than between father and child. Thus have I read and experienced. That is a biological fact. No one likes to change diapers, but women are way more into and interested in their babies than men are. Sure, men love their babies too - but there are qualitative differences, and I see no reason why these can't be acknowledged and reflected in social roles. Moms are more important in the first few years of a babies lives than Dads are.

So for Mom's getting pushed into Mommy roles, well, why not. A mothers role in the first few years is not equal and the same as the fathers role - it really just isn't - regardless of who is working at what job.

Recommended books - (way cool books)

A Brief History of Everything

Boomeritis

Those are both fun and engaging, and contain most of his more interesting insights.

I love all of the rest of his stuff, but many people find them less accessible. Sex Ecology and Spirituality is great. A Brief History of Everything is the more readable and popular version of that.

Edited April 25, 2006 by jamman

[kat]

If I could breastfeed, I would.

oh please ...you don't even cut vegetables.

That's actually a very astute observation, *rainman.

And by the way Jamman, I should have remembered to mention that raising a child and taking care of a household is work. So, while you may have been earning an income, you both worked. And child rearing is very hard work.

Thanks for the Wilbur recs, I will look into it.

**edit: ok, so I just read your edit above. This is where you and I diverge for the reasons I stated previously, and in this post above. You are using biology as absolute determinism, and this is, you know, Afghanistan.

Edited April 25, 2006 by kat

[jamman]

If I could breastfeed, I would.

oh please ...you don't even cut vegetables.

No, but I make a mean Ramen.

[jamman]

And by the way Jamman, I should have remembered to mention that raising a child and taking care of a household is work. So, while you may have been earning an income, you both worked. And child rearing is very hard work.

ok, so I just read your edit above. This is where you and I diverge for the reasons I stated previously, and in this post above. You are using biology as absolute determinism, and this is, you know, Afghanistan.

Yes, raising a child is work, which brings us back to what I thought I was trying to say from the beginning. It doesn't much matter that both people share each task, as long as both are performing a roughly balanced workload. It works out much better to do different tasks, as I see it. We are specialized sexes, after all. I'm not saying a woman should cook and clean, I'm saying if a woman wants to cook and clean, that is valuable work also. And if the woman does NOT want to cook or clean, or the man does NOT want to do that, then divide up the work in ways that leave room for the most mutual pleasure. I mind washing dishes less than I mind chopping vegetables, for instance. Insistence on equality is a reactionary imposition and burden.

And one more thing, a thing of beauty that all posters missed - and shame on you - is that making offerings to your mate, is an act of devotion and love. Everyone talked in terms of money and tying someone down. Really, shame on you all. Haven't you ever found pleasure in offering service to your mate? Not a single one of you noticed the beauty in the act of service.

I didn't understand what you meant about "this is, you know, Afghanistan." Sue lives with her husband in the US now. She doesn't want a baby, but if she did, it would be absolutely biologically determined that she would be the one giving birth to it. A lot of social roles have their roots in biology, and I don't see the problem with that. Equality is silly - we need balance of effort and balance of fullfilling opportunities. We don't need an equal number of female to male math professors or an equal number of nights spent up with baby.

Edited April 25, 2006 by jamman

[rainman]

She doesn't want a baby, but if she did, it would be absolutely biologically determined that she would be the one giving birth to it.

no way!!

ok, stop beating the bunny. the bunny is dead. long live the bunny! can we get back to sex now..?

Edited April 25, 2006 by rainman

[kat]

Ok Jamman, I'm too tired and lazy tonight to perfectly quote people and hunt down exact contradictions, but I'm sure this statement is a contradiction:

"...And if the woman does NOT want to cook or clean, or the man does NOT want to do that, then divide up the work in ways that leave room for the most mutual pleasure. I mind washing dishes less than I mind chopping vegetables, for instance. Insistence on equality is a reactionary imposition and burden."

Based on your previous comments, I was under the impression that you wanted a total division of labor between housework and income work. I also think that in most cases caring for a newborn infant or very young children is a heavy workload. It is completely mentally and physically exhausting. I think in that case it is not at all unreasonable to expect her mate to help out.

And ok yes, it is biologically determined that she will carry and deliver that child, but the total division of labor is not. As I recall, you were stating a total biological division of labor based on her function as a reproducing female. Hence my glib - yeah, I know, I forgot what I promised - comment *about Afghanistan.

And no, I didn't forget or ignore the act of food as devotion, I just didn't comment on it. I have had beautiful acts of devotion bestowed on me, with gorgeous naked vegetables in their most natural state.

Where exactly does your ramen fit in random, 3-minute acts of devotion (sorry another glib comment that I couldn't resist, but just a joke).

*and by naked vegetables, I mean vegetables in their most natural state: unchopped and unhusked.

Edited April 25, 2006 by kat

[jamman]

Ok Jamman, I'm too tired and lazy tonight to perfectly quote people and hunt down exact contradictions, but I'm sure this statement is a contradiction:

"...And if the woman does NOT want to cook or clean, or the man does NOT want to do that, then divide up the work in ways that leave room for the most mutual pleasure. I mind washing dishes less than I mind chopping vegetables, for instance. Insistence on equality is a reactionary imposition and burden."

Based on your previous comments, I was under the impression that you wanted a total division of labor between housework and income work. I also think that in most cases caring for a newborn infant or very young children is a heavy workload. It is completely mentally and physically exhausting. I think in that case it is not at all unreasonable to expect her mate to help out.

And ok yes, it is biologically determined that she will carry and deliver that child, but the total division of labor is not. As I recall, you were stating a total biological division of labor based on her function as a reproducing female. Hence my glib - yeah, I know, I forgot what I promised - comment *about Afghanistan.

And no, I didn't forget or ignore the act of food as devotion, I just didn't comment on it. I have had beautiful acts of devotion bestowed on me, with gorgeous naked vegetables in their most natural state.

Where exactly does your ramen fit in random, 3-minute acts of devotion (sorry another glib comment that I couldn't resist, but just a joke).

*and by naked vegetables, I mean vegetables in their most natural state: unchopped and unhusked.

Let me backtrack way up.

My original post meant to explore passion as being power that can be measured by the properties of voltage (differences such as masculine vs feminine) and amperage (libido).

I then went on to give an example of what I see as a pathology in the west that hinders passion - that women can be so hypersensitive about equality that they enforce sameness and equal roles. This will have a negative effect on passion.

I think it is fine if lovers want to have complementary but different roles.

Ok, going forward, I used the example of Sarah. People chose to ignore the fact that I had strongly on many occasions encouraged Sarah to go to school, to foster career. In the end, I learned something important - I learned to respect that choosing a Geisha type role of providing service to a mate is a very worthy ocupation. I was wrong to diminish her for that choice. I wish more people could learn to respect that occupation as much as I now do.

What people do with their vegetables is their own business. I don't care if a woman works or cooks. If they feel that all tasks must be equally apportioned, I suggest that something is seriously amiss. The only thing that should be equally apportioned is helping each other and supporting each other. Viva la difference, viva different household roles - let them be whatsoever the two of you choose.

And as for what Sarah gave me and me her, how balanced were our contributions, well, none of anyones business. It worked for us. You are welcome to do what works for you. My suggestion is that there should not be equal division of tasks - that makes men and women functionally the same - where the passion comes from our differences.

But regarding mothering, it was my experience that mothers and infants have a stronger connection than fathers and infants. I don't suggest a complete division of labour along traditional lines, but I do suggest that being strict about avoiding such divisions of labour is even more arbitrary. Let there be division, if that suits both parties. If the woman hates diapers as much as the man, the two can work it out - I changed a lot of diapers myself - but in the end what happened with us is that she started to just take on more of the mothering roles, because she was BUILT for them, from hardware to software. Mothers relate to babies way more intimately than fathers do - they are a much much bigger part of the babies life, regardless of what you choose. It just happens that way.

Ideology about equality can hinder passion if it goes so far as to negate real differences. Men and woman find powers and passions in our complementary differences.

Edited April 25, 2006 by jamman

[rainman]

you're taking this whole daddy/daughter thing waaaaaaay too seriously..

[kat]

Ideology about equality can hinder passion if it goes so far as to negate real differences. Men and woman find powers and passions in our complementary differences.

Yes, ideology can hinder it, but so can strict role expectaions and control.

I understand your points and sympathize with some, but I wouldn't want to get locked in someone's role requirements without having access to the key.

[jamman]

Ideology about equality can hinder passion if it goes so far as to negate real differences. Men and woman find powers and passions in our complementary differences.

Yes, ideology can hinder it, but so can strict role expectaions and control.

I understand your points and sympathize with some, but I wouldn't want to get locked in someone's role requirements without having access to the key.

Role requirements. Well, can't you see that I am also advocating freedom from role requirements? That's exactly what I'm doing. I don't want to be required to chop vegetables. I would never do so living on my own, and it would be an imposition on me to be requiree to do that by someone who was living with someone.

What about the opposite of role requirements, which would be role generosities? Like Geisha's or Fathers who bring home the bacon provide? He provides this, she provides that, and both feel good for giving.

It is the thinking in terms of requirements that messes with the passion. People suss each other out, and find what they like to do, and find ways to complement. It is the demands and requirements that are off putting - so we are saying the same thing. I'm saying that a feminist stance that dislikes females being held to traditional roles and so asks for sharing of those tasks equally can instead of freeing people from roles wind up instead just imposing arbitrary requirements. Maybe the man doesn't want to have a totally clean bathtub. He's happy with a dirty one. It is only the woman who wants it clean. Why must he clean it half the time? Thinking in terms of halves for this and halves for that is a role requirement and imposition.

In none of my posts have I suggested a certain role for women, other than the obvious one of doing more of the nurturing during a babies early years. I did mention my appreciation for Sarah's genuine and freely offered devotions though. Hearing that thought of as role requirement really dminishes it - I find the equation crass, frankly. However I do admit that the old adage "the way to a man's heart is through his stomach" has a solid ring of truth to it. Being fed is a way to be nurtured, a way to give and accept love.

We are better off providing what we actually like to provide, and instead of dividing labour, offer help. I've seen it work. In another live in relationship that I had the woman worked as much as I, and we both cleaned. We never had to discuss it much. As I recall I tended to clean a bit more than her. She cooked more. We never had to talk about it much. She was always thrilled to see the clean carpets - she felt it as an act of devotion to her. Gave her a kick. I don't really mind vacuuming.

Edited April 25, 2006 by jamman

[kat]

You see, the thing is, I need a clean bathtub. I need a clean bathroom. It's fine, if my man doesn't need one, but he also benefits when I clean it. I cannot live with a dirty bathroom or house, and if we are both living in it, we both need to clean it. Or, we can both share the expenses of a housecleaner. If I decide I want to get a cat, I can care for the cat, clean the cat, feed the cat, but in reality, we are both living with the cat. It affects both of us, even if I'm the one feeding the cat. I can't go out and get a cat without considering my partner's shared value/burden. This creates resentment, which most certainly affects passion.

This brings me back to sex. I may not be thinking in exactly equal terms or halfs for this and halfs for that, but I'm sure that with people who know the difference, if one person is doing all the serving and acts of devotion, more than half the time, some of us are going to notice. And maybe some won't. It all comes down to finding the right balance of values. Shared values equal hot sex, and a clean, resentment-free bathtub.

[jamman]

You see, the thing is, I need a clean bathtub. I need a clean bathroom. It's fine, if my man doesn't need one, but he also benefits when I clean it. I cannot live with a dirty bathroom or house, and if we are both living in it, we both need to clean it. Or, we can both share the expenses of a housecleaner. If I decide I want to get a cat, I can care for the cat, clean the cat, feed the cat, but in reality, we are both living with the cat. It affects both of us, even if I'm the one feeding the cat. I can't go out and get a cat without considering my partner's shared value/burden. This creates resentment, which most certainly affects passion.

This brings me back to sex. I may not be thinking in exactly equal terms or halfs for this and halfs for that, but I'm sure that with people who know the difference, if one person is doing all the serving and acts of devotion, more than half the time, some of us are going to notice. And maybe some won't. It all comes down to finding the right balance of values. Shared values equal hot sex, and a clean, resentment-free bathtub.

Well, that was the logic regarding the vegetables. The ex said that she needed to eat good food, and if we were both going to eat the same food, which she wanted, then I'd have to do my share to cook this food that she preferred. So now, because of something she wants, that I don't want and don't need, I have to do something that I don't want.

Why didn't she just go ahead and chop the vegetables? Would that be too unequal a burden? And why was she so concerned about equality of burden? Why did it matter to her?

Sarah never cared if I chopped vegetables.

Sarah loved me more and cared for me better, as shown by her cutting vegetables.

See the logic? I really, really don't like cutting vegetables. I don't. So why impose that on me? Just to be fair?

I don't want that kind of fairness.

Sarah didn't need that kind of fairness. She loved me more.

There were days where Sarah did no work at all, while I worked many long hours on my work. It never crossed my mind - never - that I was shouldering an unfair burden. There were times when I'd relax while she was cooking and cleaning. I felt no guilt, and she felt no burden. We gave freely, and overall it worked out.

It is this nit picking divisions of labour to ensure equality that is a pestilence of Equal Rights.

It is the unequal labors that show us how much we are loved. Wow, she did that for me. Again. I appreciate that she did that. She didn't have to, but she did, and she always does. And by the way I never took any of Sarah's devotional efforts for granted. Each and every meal I complemented her on how good it was and how thankful I was for her taking such good care of me, and I very obviously meant it each time. These were our rituals - how we gave meaning to our lives. Some work on making offerings to the Gods. We worked on offerings to each other. In the offering we gave renewed life to our love - each time.

How people seem to miss that and instead talk about roles and rights - I don't know.

My current GF is so incredibly good to me. She makes a point to do things that are unequal.

As for sexual reciprocity, sure, and there again that is exactly how I feel and great way to talk about it. Giving head is a pleasure, not a burden. For Sarah chopping vegetables was a pleasure - she took joy in her devotions. I really really love to go down on a girl I love - wow! Love it. Giving is giving. I mean, generosity is pleasure. When you have to focus on dividing up who gives what, it isn't giving anymore. I think it is only the big big picture that matters - is someone feeling over worked and undervalued? Taken advantage of? Then something is amiss. Not if one person is putting in more minutes scrubbing or working at the computer.

Edited April 25, 2006 by jamman

[rainman]

kat & jamman: you two aren't dating are you..? its amazing how you communicate together.

[jamman]

kat & jamman: you two aren't dating are you..? its amazing how you communicate together.

Kat and I have known each other for a few years now. She has a great blog. I'm her admirer.

Are you still in Malaysia, Kat? I may go there in a month or so.

[wolf5370]

Also, I think I know who you are Jamman, and if I'm correct we've had a few discussions on another forum

Ah, a traitor in our midst - Kat, are you batting for the other side (so to speak)?

I like chopping veg. I have too, my subservient, dainty little Thai Mrs submits and lets me do it - even when there's something on TV I want to watch (OK, there's always something on TV I want to watch)!

When I married my little lady and took her to the UK to meet the folks she hadn't met (we had courted for two years so some had). Everyone in the UK kept telling me she looked 16. A salesman once knocked on the door (my mother's house) and asked my wife if her mum was in. I had known her for so long, I never noticed it. She still looks a lot younger than she is (but legal) - and, yes, I like the fact. There is only a small (normal by Western standards even) age gap between us, but I age and she stays young. She has given me two beautiful daughters and the happiest 8 years of my life so far (and counting).

I think people have grabbed the wrong end of your stick (worded precariously there!) Jamman. Peter Stringfellow (owner of the Stringfellow's night-club) has dated 16 years olds by the hand full since the 60's. He is 66 years old. A real playboy. He uses his wealth to seduce young girls. That I think is sick, though legal in the UK - he makes sure of that (probably checks their school library cards).

A 22 year old, that other people think looks too young, that you find attractive because of her youthfulness - I don't have a problem with. Of course, I would think you wiered if you stated that you pretend that she is 13 when you climb on board, but you haven't. I am sure a lot of people imagine a lot of very strange things to float their boats. You can't get arrested for your thoughts (Patriot Act aside that is ).

The Daddy/Daughter thing is a little strange. I often hear the'Daddy' pet name on movies etc, but not 'daughter'. However, if you called her Kitten, would people accuse you of being a closet bestiality fetishist?

As to the work-for-sexes thing. I think its BS really. If you work all day and she doesn't, then fine she has time to tidy up and put the dinner on. If you both work (or both sit on your buts all day), then you should both do the chores. There are some distinctions in my house. I change light bulbs ('cos I can reach and its much funnier when I get an electric shock than when she does) - she irons, because I tend to put more creases in than take out. I take out the rubbish/trash, she throws away anything that belongs to me that SHE deems not of any material worth of use (like my Bike Mags and old trainers that I love sooooo much). She cooks Tue-Fri, I cook weekends and Mon (she does a course on Mon). She's a better cook (even though I owned a Thai Restaurant for 2 years back in the day). I make a mess (and blame the kids), and she tells me to tidy it up (or to tell the kids to tidy up). She reprimands the kids, I cuddle them better and sneak them a chocolate biscuit when she's not looking. Love is sharing.

[wolf5370]

Giving head is a pleasure, not a burden. For Sarah chopping vegetables was a pleasure - she took joy in her devotions. I really really love to go down on a girl I love - wow! Love it.

Lordie, is this thread X Certificated?

[kat]

Well, I did suggest the option of naked vegetables, but you had none of it. There's more nutrition in vegetables prepared that way anyway. The opposite of nit-picking are deaf ears.

You call it nit-picking, but it is actually two people with enhanced options making a life together. Perhaps it was easier for Sarah to accept the roles that you describe, because those were the only or best options available to her.

You ask me why equality of burden matters? Well then let me ask you: why does it matter so much if a non-income wife receives a sizeable settlement from her income-generating spouse? This a rhetorical question, merely to demonstrate the hypocrisy of your statement.

Equality of burden matters because resentments matter. I support what you have said about it not having to be strictly equal rather than equitable, but things still need to be done, and someone needs to decide how they will be done. It's much better when that is done as a couple, so that compromise and negotiated values are possible.

This idea of service can be stretched towards many ends, including the very unequal idea of servitude in the bedroom. I personally can't live with a dirty bathtub, **a man who thinks his time working is more highly rated than mine, and unequal attention in bed. My pleasure, and my time, are just as important to our happiness as his is to mine.

*edit: the responses were so quick, my post is already behind. I'm only up to the edit on Jamman's last post. Jamman, are you sure we're not mixing each other up? I know you from ......... can I mention another BKK forum that was named after a fruit? I was Isabel II. I was thinking of moving to Malaysia but never did, I'm still in BKK. And what blog???? I think I'm pretty sure who you are from .... that saucy website, right G? But are you sure you know who I am?

** And before you all jump on that comment, if he has a higher or more important paying job, and they decide to rate that TOGETHER as more valuable than her time working, then that is what I mean by compromising and negotiating values.

*** quote Jamman: "As for sexual reciprocity, sure, and there again that is exactly how I feel and great way to talk about it. Giving head is a pleasure, not a burden. For Sarah chopping vegetables was a pleasure - she took joy in her devotions. I really really love to go down on a girl I love - wow! Love it. Giving is giving. I mean, generosity is pleasure. When you have to focus on dividing up who gives what, it isn't giving anymore. I think it is only the big big picture that matters - is someone feeling over worked and undervalued? Taken advantage of? Then something is amiss. Not if one person is putting in more minutes scrubbing or working at the computer." End Jamman

yes, it is the big picture that matters. You only tend to focus on who isn't giving or doing when they aren't doing it, don't you.

Edited April 25, 2006 by kat

[jamman]

...She reprimands the kids, I cuddle them better and sneak them a chocolate biscuit when she's not looking. Love is sharing.

See, there ya go. No muss no fuss - that's what I'm talking about. A natural division of labour evolved between the two of you, based partly on generous offering and what you like to do and the work you want to take on, not on counting out all the chores and dividing them in half. It's all in the approach.

Edited April 25, 2006 by jamman

[jamman]

Well, I did suggest the option of naked vegetables, but you had none of it. There's more nutrition in vegetables prepared that way anyway. The opposite of nit-picking are deaf ears.

You call it nit-picking, but it is actually two people with enhanced options making a life together. Perhaps it was easier for Sarah to accept the roles that you describe, because those were the only or best options available to her.

You ask me why equality of burden matters? Well then let me ask you: why does it matter so much if a non-income wife receives a sizeable settlement from her income-generating spouse? This a rhetorical question, merely to demonstrate the hypocrisy of your statement.

Equality of burden matters because resentments matter. I support what you have said about it not having to be strictly equal rather than equitable, but things still need to be done, and someone needs to decide how they will be done. It's much better when that is done as a couple, so that compromise and negotiated values are possible.

This idea of service can be stretched towards many ends, including the very unequal idea of servitude in the bedroom. I personally can't live with a dirty bathtub, a man who thinks his time working is more highly rated than mine, and unequal attention in bed. My pleasure, and my time, are just as important to our happiness as his is to mine.

Let me make sure I'm understanding you.

Are you saying that all chores should be shared equally, if both partners work? That is, equal time on all duties? If not, resentments will build? And you are saying that the main reason Sarah didn't find resentment in taking on specific tasks that were different than mine is because she had no other options and didn't know any better?

I think that the approach of limiting resentment by dividing up all chores 50/50 is nitpicky - looking at small details instead of big details. In the larger society we have bakers and accountants and mechanics and all sorts of specialists, many whom were attracted to their trades by personal interest. And in the household too we can have specialties. What if your husband really, really, really has a strong aversion to chopping vegetables? Is it so important to your sense of fair play and resentment that he must overcome that, for your sake, and chop vegetables? Why not just give extra on some days, and get extra on others? Take on some few extra tasks here, and let him do some different extra tasks there? There is more room for generosity if things are less regimented, and the generosity is the act of love. Avoiding resentment only allows peace of mind - it isn't a generous offering that builds passion and love.

Wow! You vacuumed the carpet your 50% of the time! I'm so appreciative! That would never happen. More likely would be noticing a slight extra or not enough, and trying to balance everything again as fair.

Wow! You vacuumed the carpet again, all week! I never asked you to. You are doing extra! Let's <deleted>!

That could happen.

Edited April 25, 2006 by jamman

[kat]

As to the work-for-sexes thing. I think its BS really. If you work all day and she doesn't, then fine she has time to tidy up and put the dinner on. If you both work (or both sit on your buts all day), then you should both do the chores. There are some distinctions in my house. I change light bulbs ('cos I can reach and its much funnier when I get an electric shock than when she does) - she irons, because I tend to put more creases in than take out. I take out the rubbish/trash, she throws away anything that belongs to me that SHE deems not of any material worth of use (like my Bike Mags and old trainers that I love sooooo much). She cooks Tue-Fri, I cook weekends and Mon (she does a course on Mon). She's a better cook (even though I owned a Thai Restaurant for 2 years back in the day). I make a mess (and blame the kids), and she tells me to tidy it up (or to tell the kids to tidy up). She reprimands the kids, I cuddle them better and sneak them a chocolate biscuit when she's not looking. Love is sharing.

Yeah, you get what I mean. I don't mind distinctions, but everybody lives and takes care of that household together. However, I think the bathroom and kitchen duty almost always falls to the woman, even if they both work. It's worth asking why.

Edited April 25, 2006 by kat

[jdinasia]

Same reason taking the trash out and doing yardwork falls on men ...

or it COULD be that standards of cleanliness are percieved to be different ... so those areas get the better cleaner with higher standards

Edited April 25, 2006 by jdinasia

[kat]

Let me make sure I'm understanding you.

Are you saying that all chores should be shared equally, if both partners work? That is, equal time on all duties? If not, resentments will build? And you are saying that the main reason Sarah didn't find resentment in taking on specific tasks that were different than mine is because she had no other options and didn't know any better?

Please read what I already said, in context. It seems like you are doing the nit picking now.

[kat]

nevermind.

Edited April 25, 2006 by kat

[jdinasia]

OUCH ... nope ... that gets done by the condo folks and not at 1:20 am ... and that's one of the few emoticons I know how to make in "fast reply" mode!

I have actually found it just easier to hire a maid to do the deep cleaning at both houses and then just do a bit of maintenance cleaning in between the visits!

and this is described as a wink in the emoticon list and is meant to take the sting out of comments

Edited April 25, 2006 by jdinasia

[kat]

ok, ok, I'm sorry then. I misunderstood you.

[rainman]

this thread is getting weird. don't you guys think? or maybe its because its 4am now. well, 3:58am ...thats not so bad.