What if Equality is Misery?

Has EVERYTHING always been this meaningless?
Our self-styled intellectual equals at Jezebel have weighed in on what is for them a troubling question: “[What if equality™ is the biggest bonerkill of all](http://jezebel.com/what-if-equality-is-the-biggest-bonerkiller-of-all-1518482932/+TracyMoore)?” Tracy Moore attempts to present an educated feminist take on the issue: I cannot help but notice that her title is a vulgarized reference to an old Disney movie. **The Scribe:** An author by the name of Lori Gottlieb has offended Jezebelian sensibilities by daring to suggest that settling for something good is better than waiting for the impossible and being alone (*sorry, cats don’t count*). Jezebel snidely describes the notion of accepting reality as “calorie counting for the soul:” I cannot help but notice the reference to that insipid [Chicken Soup](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Soup_for_the_Soul) book series. Gottlieb’s assertion makes absolute sense to anyone who understands the moral behind the [story of Narcissus](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/the_story_of_narcissus.html).  The horrible moral of that story is not that Narcissus was irrational, but that he was totally rational.  The pool of water is endless in it’s possibilities, in its desires and distraction.  Echo is limitation.  Echo is calorie counting.  Echo is settling. Greek literature is usually assigned in collegiate English courses: here is where I am supposed to feign surprise at the fact educated and equal women miss this moral completely. **The Premise:** Gottlieb argues that the equality narrative has neutered the relationship between man and woman, negatively impacting the bedroom.  The author’s inspiration comes from a dinner party, and an insightful boyfriend who suggests that the more “equal” (*sterilized, alienated*) couple is less likely to have sex than the conflicting (*normal, loving*) one. After snarking about the beefcake’s mansplaining, Tracy follows up with a snipe that because the author did not have absolute certainty re: who got it on that night that the whole premise is faulty.  Besides, it’s more likely that the child is to blame for their atomized, meaningless “model” relationship. Perhaps there is some merit in basing a premise entirely on something that makes intuitive sense, as opposed to safe, comforting, Christian Grey science and statistics.  As for me, I cannot help but notice that equality is not present when it comes to the sharing of blame. **The Evidence:** Tracy responds to a study with a narrative about daily sexual abuse of housewives in 1950s America.  That this ridiculous narrative isn’t addressed by the study is supposed to be problematic.  *Of course*. Tracy also insinuates that passion is hard to find in marriage.  That passion could perhaps grow and become something different and more fulfilling than brute physical acts and biological stimuli is not covered here.  Or anywhere.  *Of course*.  This IS Jezebel, one cannot expect much.  “We’re feminists here, not magicians.”  Or women.  Or humans, for that matter.** ** Back to the chores study, it’s loooong (*meaning Tracy didn’t read it…  like she didn’t read her Greek literature*). Thankfully, Gottlieb offers a more concise example from her experience as a therapist/counselor.  In the example, the woman says she is attracted to her man…  But he didn’t vacuum. > “Right,” she agreed. “I wasn’t focused on sex, because I wanted you to get out the vacuum.” > > “So if I got out the vacuum, then you’d be turned on?” > > His wife thought about it for a minute. “Actually, probably not,” she said slowly, as if hearing the contradiction even as she was speaking it. “The vacuuming would have killed the weight-lifting vibe.” Cue feminist meltdown. > “Gottlieb seems to think this anecdote is some kind of a-ha! moment… I don’t read it that way at all.  Had he vacuumed, she’d have fucked him.” Tracy spent the first handful of paragraphs criticizing Gottlieb for assuming too much, of putting words in mouths…  Yet when she is presented with something that couldn’t be dismissed with a vulgar-yet-childish (*tee hee!*) comment, the mask slips.  The Jezebelian demands we pretend we didn’t read something that contradicts the narrative.  That is very telling.  It is also very frightening. According to Tracy, she would have fucked him had he vacuumed, not because of passion or desire.  Neither is it because of female volition, agency; feminism apparently assumes control if the woman deviates too far off-script.  They would have had sex because the formula says so, because feminists view sex is a product.  Because feminists view human relationships as a business transaction, [shitty computer program](http://therightstuff.biz/2013/12/14/the-hillarity-of-postmodernism-feminist-programming-languages/), or as an even shittier article on Jezebel. Later on, there is mention of a father who claims to be happy with his boring sex life, that people expect too much from the act of scratching something until something sneezes.  Apparently Tracy and I agree on this point. Miss Moore follows this by asserting that porn has created unrealistic expectations.  I agree with this, though I think she ignores her own [porn](http://jezebel.com/)‘s unrealistic expectations.  The author suggests we need a new conversation about desire, and I agree. I read further and vehemently disagree with her prescriptions. > Respect ought to mean you can set aside the roles you play every day and indulge in perverse, silly, exciting, transgressive consensual acts, whatever they may be. Anyone who finds that dampening to the sexual spirit doesn’t sound quite ready for equality. So next time you read a little stat like, “The risk of divorce is lowest when the husband does 40 percent of the housework and the wife earns 40 percent of the income,” you shouldn’t think, wow, equality is really killing my boner. You should think, wow, we’ve still got a long way to go. Perverse, silly, exciting, transgressive consensual acts are boundless these days.  Ennui and boredom, paralysis and misery are boundless as well.  This is not a coincidence.  Sexual identity has been reduced to the linguistic equivalent of building a sandwich at Subway.  The lines between human interaction and pornography have blurred to the point few really know which is more real. Tracy and Jezebel are frighteningly correct in pointing out that we have a long way to go before we can accomplish true equality. TRS and I merely wish to show you what equality truly is:
[![Ugh, bonerkill.](http://res.cloudinary.com/trs/image/upload/v1428563118/equality_bejzvz.jpg)](http://res.cloudinary.com/trs/image/upload/v1428563118/equality_bejzvz.jpg)
Ugh, bonerkill.