Why do so many men feel entitled to sex within a marriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread really misses the mark. It talks of spouses wanting to have sex all the time, no matter what the circumstances, and feeling that they are entitled to it. In those situations I agree that is not cool to feel that you are owed that whenever you want.

That said, in marriages I feel that is a very small minority of the cases. The majority of situations are marriages where sex has slowed to a trickle or died off completely. As a husband who has had sex three times in the past two years, am I unreasonable to feel rejected, hurt and generally disappointed with my wife for this? I married my wife because I loved her, found her to be beautiful inside and out and never wanted to look at another woman again. I also expected that she would value me, respect me and take into consideration my feelings, including me desire for her and desire to have sex with her. What spouses not having sex feel is not blue balls, or "why is she not putting out as much as I want her to"; but rather "she just doesn't care enough about me to do something with me that she knows is important to me".

Let's say a woman had a really hard day, comes home to her husband for support and he says "I had a great day today, I'm sorry you did not but I don't really want to ruin my day by listening to what happened to you, maybe go call a friend for support." Now play that scenario over the course of weeks, months and or years. I would love to hear a woman on here say that she would be ok with that situation and that the wife should not feel "entitled" to that support from her husband. Counter how that is different than sex in the context of a long term committed relationship? It's not that men (or women in some cases) are super horny people that only care about their sexual satisfaction, but rather hurt, rejected and generally deflated by their spouse not wanting to participate in the one thing that only that spouse can provide. If you feel that is an ok way to go through a relationship with someone for the rest of your life that is fine, but I don't think that most people do.

The choice faced by spouses not having sex is to either give up on sex completely and live an unfulfilled life, break their marriage vows by cheating or blow up their lives and their children's lives completely by getting a divorce. The person denying sex is making the selfish choice to say "I understand you are not satisfied with how things are, but what I want is just more important and if you want to be in a sexual relationship you can alter your entire life to get it or just suck it up and deal." I don't think that expecting sex with your spouse is being entitled. It is expecting that they will care for you, value you and take your needs and desires into consideration. By not having sex the spouse is essentially saying "I care more about me than you, deal with it or leave". I have chosen to deal with it becuase I don't want my children to go through a divorce and multiple families, but I am unhappy and unfulfilled in my life. Yes I have the power to alter it by leaving, but there are other lives at stake and I will not hurt them for my own personal happiness. That is what spouses face, not feeling that they are "entitled" to sex because we are married.

+1

One of the very best posts on DCUM in a while

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a young woman, I don't get it. Like did you get married solely thinking you would get laid regularly? Cause that just seems so... dumb. Messed up. Awful.

Then they put pressure on their wives, who dont feel like having sex, and try to coerce or pressure them into it. Why? Because the dude wants to have sex.

I see so much outrage about Brock Turner and no one seems to be talking about this different aspect of rape culture which is that husbands are entitled to their wives bodies? When they want it?

And it's so bizarre to me. Like.... how is this a thing? In today's modern world?

Women are still expected to lie back and think of England? For reals?

It's a result of a thousand years of patriarchy. Men until VERY recently have been conditioned to think that - and just think - many states don't consider rape with the context of marriage, rape - so if that's the culture you are living in, then that's how it's "a thing" - don't buy into it, make sure you date and perhaps marry a man who consistently gets consent and is concerned about YOUR feelings, orgasm, etc. and you likely will not be in the same position. Date a guy who expects you to give him a BJ so he doesn't get blue balls, pressures you for "one more kiss" or one more step forward on the bases, or otherwise denies your feelings, then you might end up in that kind of marriage.

+1 to the PP and OP. I find it very interesting how the comments on this thread reflect an ignorance of our history of sexual expectations in marriage and rape prosecution (or, non-prosecution, which may be more accurate).

From the early 1700s, English common law explicitly held that a husband could not be guilty of rape because in marriage a wife "hath given herself up to her husband, which she cannot retract." (from History of the Please of the Crown, 1736). For centuries afterward, English common law (and American) basically held that the wife had a duty to provide sex in the marriage and the husband could not be convicted of rape. Many of the PPs seem to be arguing something similar to this -- marriage is a contract that includes sex, although PPs vary as to how available the wife must be.

Not until the feminist movement's influence did states start criminalizing marital rape in the mid-1970s. North Carolina and Oklahoma were the last states to criminalize rape, and neither did so until 1993. Think about that. As little as 25 years ago, in some states a husband could not be prosecuted for having sex with his wife against her consent.

Even today there are a handful of states that prosecute marital rape but do so in a way that is quite different from non-marital rape. For example, in Ohio, as late as 2014 (and still today, I think), Ohio rape statutes are divided in such a way that one part applies to non-marital partners and the other to marital partners. This separation means that force or threat of force are required to prove marital rape, whereas force or threat of force is not required for non-marital rape. Also, if a spouse has sex with a marital partner who lacks the capacity to consent to sex because of diminished capacity thru illness or diminished mental capacity or thru the fact of being drugged or drunk, that spouse cannot be prosecuted for rape. In the same situation, but between two unmarried partners, a rape prosecution could occur. So, the Brock Turner example is very apt. If Brock Turner did what he did in Ohio to his wife, instead of a stranger, the state would not be able to prosecute him for rape, even if his wife did not consent to sex.

Also, in the states in which marital rape prosecutions require threat or use of force, an entire range of coercive acts leaves unpunished what would normally be considered rape if between two strangers.

IMO, the entire history of non-prosecution of rape occurred in a cultural milieu in which women were expected to have sex with their partners whenever the partner wants. That cultural milieu still exists today. That's why we call it "rape culture".

What OP is contemplating is exactly this lacunae in the law and our culture -- that it is still OK to expect a married person to have to have sex with his/her spouse even when they don't want to-- which stands in stark contrast, especially to those under 30, to the newly evolving norm of getting explicit sexual consent (the "yes" movement) prior to sex.

For more info, consider reading....

http://psychcentral.com/lib/marital-rape/ -- which says in part, "Being married doesn’t make any of the above [coercive] situations okay. Wives do not belong to their husbands. Sex is not a “right” that goes with marriage. It is not a wife’s duty. A woman does not give up her right to say yes or no the day she gets married. Sex should be based on respect, equality, consent, caring, and clear communication."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/09/marital-rape-is-semi-legal-in-8-states.html -- for more info about differential marital rape prosecutions.

+1000000000000000000000 & infinity
to this comment.

[Anonymous]

^ Yes copying and pasting a daily beast link clearly merits a [phone] to infinity and beyond. Ok Buzz Light Year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Yes copying and pasting a daily beast link clearly merits a [phone] to infinity and beyond. Ok Buzz Light Year.

If the only context you can recognize "infinity" in is Toy Story, you have some big problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a young woman, I don't get it. Like did you get married solely thinking you would get laid regularly? Cause that just seems so... dumb. Messed up. Awful.

Then they put pressure on their wives, who dont feel like having sex, and try to coerce or pressure them into it. Why? Because the dude wants to have sex.

I see so much outrage about Brock Turner and no one seems to be talking about this different aspect of rape culture which is that husbands are entitled to their wives bodies? When they want it?

And it's so bizarre to me. Like.... how is this a thing? In today's modern world?

Women are still expected to lie back and think of England? For reals?

It's a result of a thousand years of patriarchy. Men until VERY recently have been conditioned to think that - and just think - many states don't consider rape with the context of marriage, rape - so if that's the culture you are living in, then that's how it's "a thing" - don't buy into it, make sure you date and perhaps marry a man who consistently gets consent and is concerned about YOUR feelings, orgasm, etc. and you likely will not be in the same position. Date a guy who expects you to give him a BJ so he doesn't get blue balls, pressures you for "one more kiss" or one more step forward on the bases, or otherwise denies your feelings, then you might end up in that kind of marriage.

+1 to the PP and OP. I find it very interesting how the comments on this thread reflect an ignorance of our history of sexual expectations in marriage and rape prosecution (or, non-prosecution, which may be more accurate).

From the early 1700s, English common law explicitly held that a husband could not be guilty of rape because in marriage a wife "hath given herself up to her husband, which she cannot retract." (from History of the Please of the Crown, 1736). For centuries afterward, English common law (and American) basically held that the wife had a duty to provide sex in the marriage and the husband could not be convicted of rape. Many of the PPs seem to be arguing something similar to this -- marriage is a contract that includes sex, although PPs vary as to how available the wife must be.

Not until the feminist movement's influence did states start criminalizing marital rape in the mid-1970s. North Carolina and Oklahoma were the last states to criminalize rape, and neither did so until 1993. Think about that. As little as 25 years ago, in some states a husband could not be prosecuted for having sex with his wife against her consent.

Even today there are a handful of states that prosecute marital rape but do so in a way that is quite different from non-marital rape. For example, in Ohio, as late as 2014 (and still today, I think), Ohio rape statutes are divided in such a way that one part applies to non-marital partners and the other to marital partners. This separation means that force or threat of force are required to prove marital rape, whereas force or threat of force is not required for non-marital rape. Also, if a spouse has sex with a marital partner who lacks the capacity to consent to sex because of diminished capacity thru illness or diminished mental capacity or thru the fact of being drugged or drunk, that spouse cannot be prosecuted for rape. In the same situation, but between two unmarried partners, a rape prosecution could occur. So, the Brock Turner example is very apt. If Brock Turner did what he did in Ohio to his wife, instead of a stranger, the state would not be able to prosecute him for rape, even if his wife did not consent to sex.

Also, in the states in which marital rape prosecutions require threat or use of force, an entire range of coercive acts leaves unpunished what would normally be considered rape if between two strangers.

IMO, the entire history of non-prosecution of rape occurred in a cultural milieu in which women were expected to have sex with their partners whenever the partner wants. That cultural milieu still exists today. That's why we call it "rape culture".

What OP is contemplating is exactly this lacunae in the law and our culture -- that it is still OK to expect a married person to have to have sex with his/her spouse even when they don't want to-- which stands in stark contrast, especially to those under 30, to the newly evolving norm of getting explicit sexual consent (the "yes" movement) prior to sex.

For more info, consider reading....

http://psychcentral.com/lib/marital-rape/ -- which says in part, "Being married doesn’t make any of the above [coercive] situations okay. Wives do not belong to their husbands. Sex is not a “right” that goes with marriage. It is not a wife’s duty. A woman does not give up her right to say yes or no the day she gets married. Sex should be based on respect, equality, consent, caring, and clear communication."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/09/marital-rape-is-semi-legal-in-8-states.html -- for more info about differential marital rape prosecutions.

+1000000000000000000000 & infinity
to this comment.

-10000000000000 and infinity

Conflating marital rape with the reasonable expectation both spouses have to have regular sex is insane. There is a big difference between saying, 'you don't want to have sex with me and so I will force you to because you are my wife' and 'you don't want to have sex with me and that is hurting our intimacy level and impacting my happiness in our relationship, if it continues it might have long term negative effects on our relationship.' One is horrific, the other is totally normal and reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Yes copying and pasting a daily beast link clearly merits a [phone] to infinity and beyond. Ok Buzz Light Year.

If the only context you can recognize "infinity" in is Toy Story, you have some big problems.

Great comeback. Should I have gone with HRC's favorite, "Delete your account!" Face it PP, mine was witty. Yours was just pee wee herman level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Yes copying and pasting a daily beast link clearly merits a [phone] to infinity and beyond. Ok Buzz Light Year.

If the only context you can recognize "infinity" in is Toy Story, you have some big problems.

Great comeback. Should I have gone with HRC's favorite, "Delete your account!" Face it PP, mine was witty. Yours was just pee wee herman level.

Oh man, you are a sad person. You're angry that someone upvoted a comment you disagreed with. Get over it

(Oh, and update your "comedic" references. They might be witty... if this was 1996)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op,

You are correct, but people who are entitled are not going to admit the are entitled.

There was a whole thread on men claiming they can't function at work (aka, the fog) if they go 5 day, 7 days, 10 days without sex.

It is pathetic.

Many say they will chest if they don't "get it enough" or if they are getting it "the sex lacks passion".

Pain and simple it is emotional anise to tell a spouse put out or I will cheat and the cheating will be your fault because you suck in bed or don't give it up enough... Or my favorite, you put the kids first and I feel devalued.

Cheaters/entitled to sex posters are going to roast you, call you cold, dumb, too young to understand. But you are correct.

It is so much easier to lower a libido than to increase one, but men would never agree, they just blame their wives as if they purposely are denying sex"

So many people go without sex for various reasons... Deployed, illness, etc... It's not a basic need.

I can never understand why, if sex is so unimportant, the spouse with a low sex drive finds it so *incredibly* important that their spouse not have sex with anyone else. It's either important or it's not. If not, then let your spouse go out and get a bit on the side on the weekend. Like golf.

I gave my spouse permission to get as much sex as he wanted, wherever he wanted to get it. He still whined and bitched at me about not having sex with him. He didn't want to put in the effort to go out and date when I was at home and "should be available and willing." Sex at my house is just an unpleasant chore that I do to keep the peace.

Ugh. I feel sorry for both of you.

Thanks. I offered to divorce him with a very generous, non-traumatic financial settlement (I have a great job and don't need money), but he really wants to stay married until the kids are grown. I think we're just hanging in there until the youngest kid is out of the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you considered talking to you gyno about why sex repulses you so much?

You might have a hormonal issue. Or maybe you married the wrong guy.

Oh sex doesn't repulse me, and I'm not married (way too young for that). I have a fairly high libido, actually- but if I dont want to have sex, we dont. And my boyfriend respects that, simple as.

I would never try to force him into having sex if he didnt feel like it either.

It seems pretty simple.

Someone doesnt want to have sex with you- DONT HAVE SEX WITH THEM! Why would you even want to?

Of course you are not married, nor are you ready for it. There are so many things we do for our spouses because they are our spouses. And that includes having sex from time to time when we don't really feel up to it. Entitled to sex on demand -- no, of course not. Entitled to expect sex on somewhat of a regular basis, yes. Now, if he (or she) is not satisfied with the amount, then ultimately divorce (not force) may be the answer, but he (or she) is certainly entitled to the expectation.

Not really. I would say if you expect someone to have sex with you even though they dont want it, then that's a major issue and emblematic of an entitlement issue that you need to seek help for.

Are people really not aware that people's libidos shift and change over time? That women's libidos especially decrease with menopause?

I see a downright villainization of the wives that dont want to have sex and it's really shocking.

I guess my advice would be if you think marriage entitles you to sex without concern for your partner's libido or lack of interest- then don't get married.

How many relationships have you been in? How long have those relationships lasted?

What I can tell you in my experience of being married for 15 years is that my husband and I both have an expectation that the other will want to have sex. There have been times when the frequency has lessened, and during those times, we do what adults do and COMMUNICATE ABOUT IT.

I agree that there is an issue with husbands who expect sex and do not respect wives' reasons for not wanting to have sex. However, I personally believe that people who are married have an obligation to each other to maintain the romantic relationship. My impression is that many of the men who are "villainizing" their wives for not having sex feel rejected and hurt. The counter-argument to your argument is that when your actions cause your partner to feel hurt and rejected, that is a problem that should be addressed. Some women (AND MEN FOR THAT MATTER) do not address the issue.

^ I dont agree. I think "i feel hurt and rejected" is an excuse for the anger men feel when denied access to female bodies.

Not allowing someone access to your organs is certainly not on par with genuinely hurtful acts. It's sad that men have twisted it to equivocate the two (but unsurprising)

And we as a culture need to stop allowing this villainization of women who dont want sex, and call it out when it does occur.

The advice seems to always be to the female- you do need to have sex with him- rather than to the male - adjust your expectations.

Let's change that.

You're so sel absorbed you're clueless as to others' feelings yet feel free to label and judge them (denigrating the legitimacy of others feeling hurt, etc.)


Weak. Ver weak. And very presumptuous and arrogant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Yes copying and pasting a daily beast link clearly merits a [phone] to infinity and beyond. Ok Buzz Light Year.

If the only context you can recognize "infinity" in is Toy Story, you have some big problems.

Great comeback. Should I have gone with HRC's favorite, "Delete your account!" Face it PP, mine was witty. Yours was just pee wee herman level.

Oh man, you are a sad person. You're angry that someone upvoted a comment you disagreed with. Get over it

(Oh, and update your "comedic" references. They might be witty... if this was 1996)

You do realize you are the one getting outvoted in this thread. Most pp's are supporting the poster who wrote a heartfelt post about unilaterally taking sex off the table in marriage. Your daily beast post is losing the popularity war here =)

[Anonymous]

Guy here: When I married my wife I went in with the mindset that I was committed to meeting her needs over the long term. We've talked openly about our needs and some of hers include:
- Me talking to her every day without being distracted
- Being fiscally responsible and earning a good living
- Helping around the house: I pick up, do dishes, clean the kitchen, make the bed, put away laundry, do the grocery shopping, etc
- Being a good parent: I do homework every night, participate in cubscouts, do stuff with the kid every day.

I'm 45 and stay very fit (avid cyclist, gym guy) when I started having ED issuses I went and saw my doc and went through a series of embarassing conversations plus tests.

I'm naturally disinterested in doing most of the items above and I wouldn't do them if it wasn't something she needed. If she were to get to a point where she was unwilling to meet my needs just because some article on Jezebel resonated with her that wouldn't work for me. That's not a mature or realistic or sustainable view of a relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guy here: When I married my wife I went in with the mindset that I was committed to meeting her needs over the long term. We've talked openly about our needs and some of hers include:
- Me talking to her every day without being distracted
- Being fiscally responsible and earning a good living
- Helping around the house: I pick up, do dishes, clean the kitchen, make the bed, put away laundry, do the grocery shopping, etc
- Being a good parent: I do homework every night, participate in cubscouts, do stuff with the kid every day.

I'm 45 and stay very fit (avid cyclist, gym guy) when I started having ED issuses I went and saw my doc and went through a series of embarassing conversations plus tests.

I'm naturally disinterested in doing most of the items above and I wouldn't do them if it wasn't something she needed. If she were to get to a point where she was unwilling to meet my needs just because some article on Jezebel resonated with her that wouldn't work for me. That's not a mature or realistic or sustainable view of a relationship.

How about exhaustion, depression, anxiety, cancer, ..... really... you think people are not having sex because of a Jezebel article?

I doubt you talk EVERY DAY without distraction or if you only had time for 3 time a week now that you have kids I doubt you wife would emotionally abuse you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread really misses the mark. It talks of spouses wanting to have sex all the time, no matter what the circumstances, and feeling that they are entitled to it. In those situations I agree that is not cool to feel that you are owed that whenever you want.

That said, in marriages I feel that is a very small minority of the cases. The majority of situations are marriages where sex has slowed to a trickle or died off completely. As a husband who has had sex three times in the past two years, am I unreasonable to feel rejected, hurt and generally disappointed with my wife for this? I married my wife because I loved her, found her to be beautiful inside and out and never wanted to look at another woman again. I also expected that she would value me, respect me and take into consideration my feelings, including me desire for her and desire to have sex with her. What spouses not having sex feel is not blue balls, or "why is she not putting out as much as I want her to"; but rather "she just doesn't care enough about me to do something with me that she knows is important to me".

Let's say a woman had a really hard day, comes home to her husband for support and he says "I had a great day today, I'm sorry you did not but I don't really want to ruin my day by listening to what happened to you, maybe go call a friend for support." Now play that scenario over the course of weeks, months and or years. I would love to hear a woman on here say that she would be ok with that situation and that the wife should not feel "entitled" to that support from her husband. Counter how that is different than sex in the context of a long term committed relationship? It's not that men (or women in some cases) are super horny people that only care about their sexual satisfaction, but rather hurt, rejected and generally deflated by their spouse not wanting to participate in the one thing that only that spouse can provide. If you feel that is an ok way to go through a relationship with someone for the rest of your life that is fine, but I don't think that most people do.

The choice faced by spouses not having sex is to either give up on sex completely and live an unfulfilled life, break their marriage vows by cheating or blow up their lives and their children's lives completely by getting a divorce. The person denying sex is making the selfish choice to say "I understand you are not satisfied with how things are, but what I want is just more important and if you want to be in a sexual relationship you can alter your entire life to get it or just suck it up and deal." I don't think that expecting sex with your spouse is being entitled. It is expecting that they will care for you, value you and take your needs and desires into consideration. By not having sex the spouse is essentially saying "I care more about me than you, deal with it or leave". I have chosen to deal with it becuase I don't want my children to go through a divorce and multiple families, but I am unhappy and unfulfilled in my life. Yes I have the power to alter it by leaving, but there are other lives at stake and I will not hurt them for my own personal happiness. That is what spouses face, not feeling that they are "entitled" to sex because we are married.

You seem to be equating asking for emotional support after a hard day at work with asking for sex. Your analogy implies that men are expected to provide emotional support, so why shouldn't women be expected to provide sex.

First, I disagree with your premise that men are expected to provide emotional support against their will.

But, even accepting that they are, do you really think being asked to provide emotional support when one isn't in the mood and being asked to provide sex when one isn't in the mood are the same thing?

Sex is a very intimate act. The emotional aside, you are sticking your body parts inside of me. You are touching me in traditionally private areas. You are, likely, seeing me naked. You are potentially exposing me to some pretty serious consequences -- getting pregnant or getting an STD -- although you may think those two unlikely in particular circumstances.

Can you really not see a difference between responding to "I had a shitty day, can you listen to me" and "have sex with me"?

If you were a total stranger and you wanted sex, I'd say yes (unless you were a total beast).

If you were a total stranger and you wanted "emotional support" I'd tell you to get lost.

So from the male perspective, "emotional support" is a far more intrusive, demanding, and obnoxious requirement than sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Yes copying and pasting a daily beast link clearly merits a [phone] to infinity and beyond. Ok Buzz Light Year.

If the only context you can recognize "infinity" in is Toy Story, you have some big problems.

Great comeback. Should I have gone with HRC's favorite, "Delete your account!" Face it PP, mine was witty. Yours was just pee wee herman level.

Oh man, you are a sad person. You're angry that someone upvoted a comment you disagreed with. Get over it

(Oh, and update your "comedic" references. They might be witty... if this was 1996)

You do realize you are the one getting outvoted in this thread. Most pp's are supporting the poster who wrote a heartfelt post about unilaterally taking sex off the table in marriage. Your daily beast post is losing the popularity war here =)

So then calm the hell down and stop putting your lame children's movie jokes when someone upvotes a comment. JFC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guy here: When I married my wife I went in with the mindset that I was committed to meeting her needs over the long term. We've talked openly about our needs and some of hers include:
- Me talking to her every day without being distracted
- Being fiscally responsible and earning a good living
- Helping around the house: I pick up, do dishes, clean the kitchen, make the bed, put away laundry, do the grocery shopping, etc
- Being a good parent: I do homework every night, participate in cubscouts, do stuff with the kid every day.

I'm 45 and stay very fit (avid cyclist, gym guy) when I started having ED issuses I went and saw my doc and went through a series of embarassing conversations plus tests.

I'm naturally disinterested in doing most of the items above and I wouldn't do them if it wasn't something she needed. If she were to get to a point where she was unwilling to meet my needs just because some article on Jezebel resonated with her that wouldn't work for me. That's not a mature or realistic or sustainable view of a relationship.

How about exhaustion, depression, anxiety, cancer, ..... really... you think people are not having sex because of a Jezebel article?

I doubt you talk EVERY DAY without distraction or if you only had time for 3 time a week now that you have kids I doubt you wife would emotionally abuse you.

Really, PP? This is the equivalent of the Hitler argument in debate. Yes, female libidos are fickle after marriage and after 40. No one said women are evil because of it, but to deny this is true and to say it's mostly due to things on the level of cancer -- rather than a lot of other things that can be addressed through hard work and caring -- is just a crap argument.