Equality, however a couple wants to define it, is non-negotiable in my world. Sex, though, always negotiable.

Well, as I am always amenable to your advice, I shall not read the article (OK I skimmed a bit, just to see what's what).

As for what it's like to be married, I really can't speak intelligibly on that subject, as I've never had the experience. I have lived with two different girlfriends, and neither was really my ideal version of what an "equal" relationship should look like. The first, when I was fairly young, was a situation in which I was in college and she had a job that paid pretty well. Thus, I was definitely a financial drag, although I did try to help as much as possible (cooked a lot, redid the kitchen, built a deck, etc, all things that made at least made a contribution). The second only ended recently, and in that case, I was by far the supporter, supporting a girl who grew more depressed by the day, apparently didn't love me, and whom I continued to support for far too long out of some warped sense of morality that made me feel as though I had some responsibility to take care of her.

The inequity in each relationship certainly affected all aspects of each relationship, sex included, although I still was physically attracted to both women even when I started hating them. Resentment, which always builds up on both ends of an unequal partnership, can't possibly NOT affect how each person feels about the other, and of course that's going to dampen your sexual relationship. I don't know how equality could possibly be worse than inequality. When both partners feel as full members of a two person club, then neither owes the other anything, and they can just enjoy themselves, and not just sexually, but in all things.

I think the concept of equality is difficult to define and could be different for each couple. For example there's no reason a house wife should be considered unequal to her high earning husband simply because he makes the money that supports the family. So long as the couple defines their expectations for one another and each is living up to their end of the bargain (and happy doing so), then perhaps equality can be achieved. Why does equality have to mean that we each do half of everything?

But anyway, even in a supposedly equal (as the author defines it on my cursory look at the article) relationship, this will always be true:

“I’m very attracted to you,” she said earnestly. “You know when I really crave you? It’s when you’re just back from the gym and you’re all sweaty and you take off your clothes to get in the shower and I see your muscles.”

Women, in my experience (and I'm no Casa Nova, but I've been with enough to at least know up from down), are attracted to one thing and one thing only: power. Power means different things to different women, but in the end, each (let's focus on straight here for the time, I have no idea what lesbians desire) wants a man to be a man. There's nothing wrong with that. I want a woman to be a woman, even though I believe in the inherent equality of all people as a core principle. With sex, logic need not apply.

Doing the dishes is an important thing to do for both people if you want your partner to not resent you, but if you're a man who thinks that doing the dishes is ever going to turn your wife or girlfriend on, then you've got some serious soul searching to do. I think the problem is that men mostly look at sex as trasactional (why else do whores have such a great market?!), in the sense that "I did that 'for you', now you should do this 'for me.'" Obviously that is wrong. Desire, which is affected by the overall happiness or resentment one feels for one's partner, is a dimension that also exists outside of all those other things. It's carnal and instinctual, and each of us needs to feel desirable (and desire itself, which can be a great feeling or a terrible one, depending on one's prospects of getting laid).

In the end, I think equality is way better, but it's not the end game vis-a-vis sex. Do the dishes, then hit the gym; there's time for both. If you have a relationship whose very nature is turning you into a pussy, then you need to reevaluate your priorities. Make your wife dinner, then do the dishes, but when it's all done, pick her up and carry her to bed without asking permission. Sex isn't supposed to be equal (*can't be*, really), no matter how equal the rest of your life is. Its physics dictates that a man be aggressive. There's no other way of doing it, so far as I've discovered. Maybe the important thing is realizing that equality is a product of a civil society, but that there's no civility in sex; it's all nature. The fallacy of this article is that it seems to imply that equality causes a poor sexual relationship (despite the obligatory disclaimer that correlation isn't causation, she's goes on to do just that), when there's no reason the two can't coexist. I want a wife who makes as much money as me, and who splits household chores with me, but I also want one who wants to wear a dress sometimes and wants to feel feminine. I fail to see why those can't be mutually exclusive.

Hyperbolic, no question. But there is also no denying that marriage is a vestige of an old system based on hegemony and servitude.

My own version of the 7th layer of hell would be having to get a gift registry full of esoteric kitchen items. "Look, Honey, Aunt Cuntface got us the olive boat we wanted! This will go great with our new serving platters!!!" Its one of the reasons I'm against marriage.

Finally, for the heterosexual marriage to ever overcome its historic reputation as a relationship based on power and control -- a reality which continues in many parts of the world -- we must model equality.

This is one reason that I reject marriage out of hand. It is historically about transfer of ownership from the father to the husband, and I, for one, don't want the responsibility of owning another human. Slavery has ended, but marriage survives. In the US, spousal rape wasn't even a crime until, what, the mid-70s in a lot of states? Its stupid and outdated. Marriage should be abolished in the eyes of the law. Leave it as a religious practice. We can already co-own a house with whomever we want. We can designate power of attorney to whomever we want. These are civil functions that fall under contract law, and man, woman, gay, strait, are all the same. Why should you get a tax break for being married? So throw that out the window. In the end, the two benefits that marriage affords that are not open to the rest of us sinners are a) being able to designate a singular person who can inherit your estate tax free (but let's be honest, in the US the estate has to be worth way more money than most of us have to even make that an issue), and b) we can't impart legal residency to an alien of our choosing. If those few things were rectified though legislation, then all of the arguments about marriage become null and void. Princess fantasies and dreams of the big, fancy wedding keep women as willing conspirators in their own enslavement. I see no place for it in modern society.