I have only just discovered you site. I read an article by Jehane Sharah posted on 12 November, 2008. Her article was termed: The forgotten victims of prostitution. I am one of those victims. In April, 2008 I discovered that my husband was engaging prostitutes. For me, that was the end of the marriage. I was in a state of shock for months and have not yet recovered. I imagine that this is what a victim of rape feels like. To find out that one's husband has been with prostitutes creates a feeling of total betrayal, invasion of one's personal integrity, and overwhelming disgust. I intend to gather more information on this topic and would welcome hearing from anyone else who has had this experience. I am fifty-seven years old and have not exactly had a sheltered background. I can't imagine what it would feel like for a young, trusting wife to experience this. To me, prostitution is not acceptable and I am happy to state that publicly. Good on you, Jehane Sharah for your article. I have no legal redress for this absolute violation of my rights.

mrs pierno

Sorry to hear of your betrayal by your husband. It happens far to often. I hope at some stage you find it in your heart to forgive this man for his gross betrayal of trust. Prostitution is something many are happy to promote until it becomes personal. Our previous Premier in WA really spat the dummy when asked if he would like his daughter to enter the 'Profession'. He did not mind making it easier and legal for other young girls to enter the industry.

I am somewhat surprised that prostitution is still thriving as their seems to be plenty of men and women offering sex for nothing these days in our godless society. Feminism which claims to have the best interests of woman at heart fails dismally when it comes to representing women who value their relationship with their husbands. I am convinced their is a very nasty element of feminism that hates the traditional family unit.

As many will point out we will never wipe out what is considered the 'oldest profession'. The perverted porn industry is no doubt an appetizer for many visiting prostitutes and spreading diseases among families. The Government really is to gutless to make it harder for this degradation to continue.

Dear Mrs Pierno,

I'm so sorry to hear about the breakdown of your
marriage. And the shock that you received in finding
out that your huaband has been using the services
of prostitutes. Perhaps you need to talk to a counselor
to help you deal with this? Just a suggestion...

I don't think that prostitution will ever be eradicated
in our society. I don't think it can be eliminated in a
sexually restrictive society - for it arises in response
to those very restrictions.

Men who are away from home may find a prostitute a
convenient substitute for their usual partners.
Men with unusual sexual preferences may find that
prostitutes will cater to tastes that other women
won't. An old or unattractive man may use prostitution
as the only way to enjoy sex with a young and attractive
woman.

Although I know that you feel betrayed by your husband -
it is important to remember that these services involve
no complications, obligations, or emotional entanglements.
Prostitution is simply functional in that it meeds the
man's needs for a variety of sexual outlets without
usually undermining the family system in a way that more
affectionate and involved extra-marital relationships
(such as your husband having an affair) would.

Anyway, I don't know what I would have done in your
circumstances - (probably glued his penis to the side
of his leg with super-glue, and shaved his head while
he slept - or worse - depending on my mood at the time).
You have my sympathy - and I wish you all the Best -
Stay strong - and as I said - talk to someone - which
may help you to move on.

Good Luck!

Terrible thing to happen and I'm sorry for you that it did.

Do you mind me raising a couple of points about your case in particular?. There's a coupla things I could comment on.

IF you want to keep it in general terms that's ok by me.

Thank-you for your comments runner and Foxy.

Runner - I regard myself as a feminist but I can't speak for all women who regard themselves as feminists. I value the family unit. I have three grown-up children from a previous marriage. All I can say is: I did not know this recent husband was addicted to porn and prostitutes when I married him; if I'd known, I wouldn't have spoken to him, let alone married him. He made his choices, but denied me the right to make mine.

Foxy - very funny about the super glue but in reality we aren't allowed to do things like that of course. I am a believer in the old saying: the pen is mightier than the sword. I don't smash and break, that's too easy. I don't think prostitution will ever be eradicated either, but there are still women in this world who uphold decent standards, who don't want a world awash with porn and prostitution and want young women to have the chance to live decently. I want my daughter and two sons to live in a world with decent standards. Anyway, I spoke to one of the prostitutes on the phone and she said - this is straight from the horse's mouth so to speak - the main reason men go to prostitutes is that they don't know how to please a woman in bed. That debate could go on forever. I'm just telling you what she said. Cheerio.

I have no tolerance for this sort of hooker-bashing. Your husband sought out a prostitute, not vice versa, and that prostitute isn't responsible for your feelings. If prostitutes weren't available for a sex-money transaction, your husband would have a full-blown affair, with all of the associated emotional and comittment troubles. I have no doubt that you're upset, but we don't know anything about the quality of your relationship. What was your sex life like? Are we to assume that your husband was happy and satisfied? Have you reflected on your contribution to the marriage, or are you blaming the prostitute because it's easier than dealing with the facts of a foundering relationship? And even if your marriage was strong, the simple truth is that women become less attractive with age. A man doesn't have to justify himself for not wanting sex with a woman in her fifties. If you and your husband can't communicate well enough to deal with these issues, that's not the fault of a younger woman who makes her living as a prostitute.

Hullo everyone - I'm back - Mrs Pierno in her fifties. Isn't it great to live in a democracy! If he wasn't happy, he should have gone. I don't like sneaks. I don't want to be associated with anyone who goes to prostitutes. That's my right, aged 16 or 60. Plenty more men want me, don't worry. He can go to prostitutes whenever he likes or do whatever he likes, but not with me. I want every woman to have the financial and social power to do and say that. As to prostitutues, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't invite them to dinner.

Sorry StG, didn't mean to ignore you. Ask whatever you like.

I can see how it would be shattering to find out this information but...

'I imagine that this is what a victim of rape feels like.'

Frankly I don't think you can compare the two, and in fact I 'imagine' that statement would be quite offensive to rape victims. You know, people that actually have been violated.

'I have no legal redress for this absolute violation of my rights.'

Meh. People are always banging on about their 'rights'. You have no right to dictate the behaviour of your husband. You married him, he broke the marriage vows, you are within your 'rights' to end the unhappy union, but that's about it.

'No legal redress'. And well there shouldn't be. The government has no place interfering in peoples bedroom antics.

BTW Foxy,

'(probably glued his penis to the side
of his leg with super-glue, and shaved his head while
he slept - or worse - depending on my mood at the time).'

Nice to see you condone violence against men. So, if a man stapled his wife's genitals shut because she had an affair, would you feel that it's justified?

Betrayal is an awful experience and I would feel the same way in your position mrs pierno.

As others have said the fault is entirely with your husband because he betrayed your trust.

I don't like prostitution either because much of it fuelled by drug addiction, desperation and in the worst cases people trafficking.

I am sorry for you,welcome to the forum.
However sex is not one sided your husband did what millions of other are doing.
Believe me the true victims are not the wives, think about those who need to do this to buy drugs.
We one day must get away from the idea sex is unnatural, it drives every living thing.
I too think the real victim is those who must sell their body's.

Belly, most of those who sell their Body's are just like drug dealers. They have found a nice little earner, with better returns, for less effort than most business activities. They have clients who are addicted to their product.

Some of their clients are insatiable, but most are simply not receiving enough sex, or affection at home.

Dear Houellebecq,

My, my, where's your 'cool,' sense of humour, dear heart?
You know that I only mentioned the penis and super glue
to Mrs Piero, for a bit of light relief - and it worked.
It did make her laugh. But you on the other hand took
it personally - tsk, tsk, - and this from someone who dishes
it out all the time to others - sniping from the side-lines?

Well, ok, I'll bite - and reply to you against my
better judgement - here goes:

Your definition of 'violence,' is different
from mine. I associate 'violence,' with great
pain. What I suggested - would only
have caused a bit of 'discomfort,'(and possibly
embarrassment). What you're suggesting doing
to women, would cause a great deal of pain.
Therein, is the
difference between us.

Now if I really wanted to be violent - I wouldn't
simply glue his penis to the side of his leg -
I'd lopp it off. And instead of shaving his head ...
well, you get the picture!

But, with your attitude towards women - I imagine -
you'd only grace certain kinds of social gatherings -
(and certainly none that I mix in...).

There you go, another 'quote' from me to add to your
'collection.'

Cheers.

cont'd ...

Dear Mrs Pierno - my apologies for the typo
in my previous post - in mis-spelling your name.

*To me, prostitution is not acceptable and I am happy to state that publicly.*

I'm not sure why you pick on prostitutes here, for if hubby had
knocked off a couple of cute things at the office or the pub,
why would that change things?

I think its just about impossible for any of us, outside of a
relationship, to form an accurate opinion of what happened and
why, and then to play the blame game. We just don't know all the
facts.

Whilst I was married, amazingly I was actually faithful. Tempted
many times I admit :) but that was just a me thing. I figured that
if there wasn't trust, honesty and communication, there was not
a lot to base a marriage on. But I don't preach that to others,
they have to make up their own minds about what drives them.

I have come to the conclusion that often men and women see sex
a little diffently. Some women use it as a weapon to get what
they want. They call the shots and are then amazed if hubby
plays up.

In some cases, some men are just born to fool around. We know
with prairie voles, there is a gene for pairbonding and staying
loyal. I don't see any reason why that same gene can't mixed
in amongst the human population.

In conclusion, I'll write something that you might not want
to hear, but it's hard to deny. At the end of the day, much
as you want to blame your ex partner for everything, fact is
that you have to blame yourself somewhat for being a bad
judge of character, or you would not have married him.

Prostitutes having nothing to do with this debate.

Good Evening Yabby,

I think you've nailed it - when you say
that it's not for us to judge. Because
what goes on in private relationships -
the rest of us know little about.

Many times a couple we thought were so
happy, so perfect together - suddenly
get divorced - and we wonder - why?
How could that have happened? - they were
so happy, so ideally suited. Were they
really happy for so long? Were they really
ideally suited? Only they know what really
went on in their private lives.

In mrs pierno's case - it seems that it
was a question of a trust being broken.
She trusted her husband - he broke that trust.
The reasons for it however - are private.

As I wrote earlier - I would find it very difficult
to discover my husband had been unfaithful to
me - for whatever reason. Because I could not
imagine myself ever being unfaithful to him.

It would be very hard
to self-examine as to what I did wrong. I think
the initial reaction would be to blame the other party.

My heart goes out to mrs pierno - and I really feel for
her. I don't know why her husband did what he did - but
I hope that he'll find - it was worth what he has lost.

It is a simple fact far more male and females betray their partners every day without using prostitutes.
Are we to believe the they are less wrong because it is not prostitution?
Yes as stated some prostitutes just want to make money, some however are little less than slaves.
I doubt the husbands sin if that is what it is was who he had sex with.
We have heard only one side of the story, it has many more than that.
Betrayal always hurts, it some times blinds too.

I pretty much would only echo everything Houellebecq mentioned.

Yabby well said (except that I'd cut lot's of slack on judging character, most of us struggle with that one). These discussions get difficult when a participants life is involved.

mrs pierno, the strength of your comment about not being willing to talk to your ex if you'd known he "was addicted to porn and prostitutes" looks very judgemental and gives the impression that your approach would make it difficult for a partner with different views to you to discuss those views with you. Sometimes people get deeply involved with someone before they discover some of the differences and can't find a workable solution. Deceipt is not a good solution but if you expressed views on porn and prostitution to your ex in the same terms you use here it's easy to see why stuff was kept secret.

Belly, "It is a simple fact far more male and females betray their partners every day". I alwys wonder who they are cheating with :)
I've not made up my mind about the reality of that statement, some surveys suggest that it's generised but not overwhelmingly so.

R0bert

Oh Foxy,

I think you underestimate the power of super glue. I think cutting or ripping the skin away would be more painful than a few little staples.

My sense of humour is here, and I take nothing personally. As you say, I got you to bite.

'But, with your attitude towards women - I imagine -
you'd only grace certain kinds of social gatherings'

How intriguing. Please elaborate. My 'attitude' towards women is one of adoration. You on the other hand, had it pointed out to you that sending someone to hospital to have the skin of their penis or leg cut away isn't all that fun.

So you talk about my 'attitude' towards women as if your joke is harmless, but my reply pointing out the double standard isn't?

Robert,

'I've not made up my mind about the reality of that statement, some surveys suggest that it's generised but not overwhelmingly so.'

Of course it isn't. Any difference is wrapped up in stereotype and distortion. I think if a man cheats you're likely to hear 'he's a selfish a-hole who couldn't keep it in his pants, or he wanted sex with a different woman or his wife wasn't giving him enough'.

But then if a woman cheats you're more likely to hear 'oh she was confused, and she wasn't getting enough attention and he was so distant and she was lonely and her emotional needs weren't being met.' and it's all clouded up in all this emotional self deception.

I remember a tour group dinner when we were discussing the revelation that the engaged to be married female tour leader had slept with one of the group. At the table was me and six women who were just devastated... for the tour leader. Oh she must be feeling terrible, so confused etc etc. Ah, I can only imagine the scorn if the genders were reversed:-) I wasn't popular for pointing this out.

glue penis to leg?

then he would REALLY have to "throw the leg over" - lol

Well in discussions with my male friends, they often say that women and men have different views on sex, proclaiming that a man can have an affair and it means nothing, and still love his partner. Maybe some women think like that too.

It is a complex issue and you cannot judge without knowing all the facts in a relationship regardless of the gender of the betrayer.

I tend to think the 'natural urges of men' approach is just an excuse for bad behaviour. Anyone who really loves and respects another person would not betray them or humiliate them in this way. Dustin Hoffman said in a recent interview that he is faithful to his wife because he loves her and would not want to hurt her, even though he has been tempted and in his role as an actor has plenty of takers.

If a man intends to pursue his sexual addiction to prostitutes why get married to an unsuspecting woman knowing full well you could not be faithful. It is pure selfishness. Marriage is a serious commitment for a man and a woman, if you can't hack it get out of the kitchen or don't get married and save everyone the heartache.

Simple really.

Mrs Pierno

First I'd like to congratulate you for your bravery in starting a topic like this which is clearly emotive and often divisive.

Also, I understand how completely betrayed you must be feeling. Although the prostitution industry is not to blame. Sex workers do not force men to purchase their services, it is entirely up to the client whether he or she wants to use the services of a prostitute. In fact, as Foxy and others have stated prostitution provides an essential service for the disabled or even just the very lonely.

I commend you for actually talking to a prostitute, perhaps you could contact an organisation like the Prostitutes Collective of Victoria who could give you comprehensive information about the industry.

I am not condoning your husband however; quite simply he has been dishonest. Whatever his reasons for seeking out a prostitute, this is something he should have discussed with you first. And now the damage is done. I hope you can work through this; whether your marriage can continue will require openness and honesty from both you and your husband.

Please ignore the vicious responses by some of the posters here, they never have anything positive to say about and to women on OLO and are best ignored.

As for Sancho's comment about older women - well that cuts both ways, perhaps he should have thought of that before posting such a ignorant comment. I usually find Sancho quite reasonable but not this time.

Mrs Pierno back again. Well it certainly is lively, isn't it? I was prompted to write when I read what I regarded as a thoughtful, well-written article by Jehane Sharah. I would like her to read what has been written in the last 24 hours. My husband was using prostitutes before he met me; it's just that he didn't tell me. I agree with Yabby - I was a poor judge of character. I agree with Pelican - if he wanted to keep going with the prostitutes, he should not have married someone like me. I found Sancho's remarks pretty startling. Take this Sancho - you know nothing about human sexuality; you are asexist pig; do you come from some backward ethnic village? To all young women: don't put up with sexist pigs like Sancho! Ciao for now.

Runner linked porn and prostitution. I think it is an unfair linkage. One might slake a desire for sexual variety by viewing porn and thus not betray a partner.

I see it as a wrong to betray a partner. I can't see it as wrong to view pornography.

As long as the porn is of adults engaging in consensual activities I don't see anything wrong with producing it or viewing it.

Dear Houellebecq,

I had no idea your attitude towards women is
one of adoration?

Well, that excuses everything.

Go for it.

Staple away to your heart's content.

And, talking about double standards? - why is it
when I made a joke about a specific male who
behaved badly, you came back with a comment
suggesting I advocated violence against all men?
I did no such thing. I was referring only to this
particular man.

But you're right about 'double - standards.'
I came across the following website:

http://www.jou.ufl.edu/sji/1999/opinion_03.htm

Read it. You may actually learn something.

Foxy,

'Staple away to your heart's content.'
Foxy I never condoned stapling, I explicitly queried whether you thought that was a justified response to cheating, since you thought gluing was justified if a man was cheating.

'I was referring only to this
particular man.'
Even if you took me to mean I did condone stapling, I also was referencing only women who cheat.

I'm beginning to wonder about your comprehension skills young Foxy.

I liked your link, it is a great double standard, and one that I have never subscribed to. If I was a young lass, I would be one hell of a slut. I see slut (I prefer slapper myself) as an affectionate term, that brings up memories of all the wonderful uninhibited sex loving women of the world. I fell for my partner because she was a slapper, who loves sex and is great in bed. Much better than a prudish judgemental starfish. Why anyone thinks a slut is a bad thing I'll never know.

BTW: That particular double standard is justified by the cultural expectation that men do the asking and women do the giving for sex. So in such a scenario, a woman only has to say yes to many men, but a guy has to be accepted by many women, hence the cudos.

*I tend to think the 'natural urges of men' approach is just an excuse for bad behaviour.*

You might think that Pelican, but you could be wrong. In fact
Betina Arndt is one of the few women who lately have tried
to understand the male perspective on this, many women can't.

Lets face it, there are plenty of women who say yes, yes, yes,
up until after the wedding, when they change to no, no, no.

Eventually any healthy blooded bloke will get jack of that
and walking out is sometimes not easy, with kids and sometimes
businesses, houses, money etc involved.

So we could make a list of practical solutions, which might
suit some and not others.

Perhaps a little piggy bank next to the bed, so that when
she really can't be bothered and he can't sleep, he could
donate some money towards the fund to buy that dress she
really wants. Better he spends it at home them elsewhere :)

By the way Pelican and off subject on this thread. I checked
the tomatoe paste at Coles today. All Australian, as much
as you want. No Chinese tomatoe paste that I could see.
Perhaps you should switch to an Australian supermarket,
rather then shopping with those Germans.

A couple of points:
A: How exactly are you a "victim"? Did he give you AIDS? Some other STD? Did he give the lady all you're clothes? Money? Hurt I can understand, but "victim"? Hardly.
B: How were you "betrayed"? Did he indulge in an affair? Did he give his love to another? I can't see him renting a source of satisfaction that wasn't being provided at home as a betrayal, it would seem more like he was relieving you of a duty you weren't able fulfill, an act of consideration. Perhaps you should read Bettina Arndt's latest book, you might gain an insight.
It always amazes me the way women scream "victim" every time a bloke does something they don't like, yet WE are supposed to be "understanding", and "accepting" no matter what a woman does!
Definitely a double-standard in operation there, methinks.

Dear Houellebecq,

Thank You for actually reading the link I gave you.
I'm now impressed.

I'm also happy for the fact that your partner loves
sex and is great in bed.

But, I don't agree with your view that the double
standard is justified because the men do the
asking and women do the giving. That may have been
the case in the past (Man gets and forgets,
Woman gives and forgives). Today, I think it's more true
to say:

"As you grow older and older,
And totter towards the tomb.
I find that I care less and less,
Who goes to bed with whom."
Dorothy L. Sayers
"That's why I never read modern novels."

Foxy, Mrs Pierno

I agree with H there is an enormous difference between being cheated on and being raped. The latter is physically forced on an individual. The former is a function of the individual’s perspective (expectations etc).

I agree with you the lady needs to work out her problems by talking to a councillor. I do understand even empathize with her pain having been “cheated on” (disappointment in my partner) .

You are also right that we’re not in the position to pass judgement on either of the individuals besides it would be unhelpful.

The ‘sinned against’ partner tends to dwell on blame/anger stage. (Themselves consequently losing self-confidence or others.)
*No matter how well you nurse a grudge/hurt it will never get better*
It is just a stage not a fullstop.

It is healthier not to judge people close to you by your standards/expectations but accept who and what THEY are.
* A useful definition of a friend (partner) is someone who knows your faults but loves you despite them.*

A marriage licence isn’t a guarantee of some unwritten future. Either should it be the end of the individuals there are three components in a marriage (you, me and us) problems begin when the number is reduced.

Might I suggest that it might be productive for the lady to look at three issues.
• Which one of the three is hurt here and why ? (expectations? Loss of me into us?) Perhaps this was the motivation to seek the pro?
• Does this negate all the good ‘us’ over the years and all the good that might come?
• What do I do about it?

This may on the surface seem a little remote but you can trust me on this sympathy solves nothing.

Mrs P ..You can and WILL get through this.

P.S. Start by forgiving yourself and him for what ever failing you may think caused this difficulty.
Reclaim the ME by thinking of yourself by your fist name not the married one. Above all I wish you peace within yourself

Dear examinator,

Thank you for your words of wisdom - both to me and
to Mrs P.

I agree with you - offering sympathy is
simply encouraging someone's self-indulgence.
It doesn't really achieve much. Your advice on the
other hand for mrs P - to re-evaluate her situation
is a good one. She has to move on to find her peace,
and I do believe that counseling will help. But
basically it does amount to her finding her own
strength from within.

Relationships crumble and end because they change, and
no longer give people the food they need. Personally, I
like the idea of longevity, (of people liking you in
spite of having known you for a long time). You don't
need to keep on explaining yourself.

I believe in total honesty in a relationship - that's
why I do feel for mrs P - because her husband wasn't
honest with her from the start. She said that he'd gone
to prostitutes before they were married - perhaps he
has a very strong sex drive that no one woman could
ever satisfy - but that's a private matter between
them - and we aren't in a position to be able to judge.
Although I guess - I am being judgemental - I confess
my sympathies are leaning more towards her then her husband.

If I'm allowed to say it, Foxy, that was just about the sanest post on the initial subject here. I do not agree with your final opinion, I'm ambivalent, but I think you summed it all up extremely well, thanks.
It's altogether too difficult to express a bloke's feelings in this sort of matter, even if you can grasp them, without sounding like some sort of Troglodyte, and I don't propose to try, but I think that as a "person", you've spelt it out "as good as ya c'n gettit", lol.

Foxy -- Prostitution is simply functional in that it meets a man’s needs for a variety of sexual outlets without usually undermining the family system in a way that more affectionate and involved extra-marital relationship would.

I realise that this is a widely held belief in our society but I think it is just an excuse used by the prostitutes and the men involved to justify their behaviour.

It assumes that only men have need for sexual variety. The wife might be quite bored with her overweight , or emotionally unengaged husband too. According to this reasoning it would be all right if she went out and paid attractive men to have sex with her. No strings, or emotional involvement, no harm done to the marriage.

I don’t agree, the fact that someone is feeling this way about their marriage needs to be worked out by that person with their partner, going outside the marriage is as sure as hell not going to fix the problem or strengthen the emotional bonds in the marriage as far as I can see. It must only create more distance.

I like the glue idea though, gluing his pajama pants legs together (or sewing them) is another idea. Or cutting holes in all his undies before leaving would satisfy my vengeful heart.

SANCHO--- I have no tolerance for this sort of hooker bashing. That prostitute isn’t responsible for your feelings.

That prostitute IS knowingly responsible for sleeping with other peoples husbands and partners, She knows damm well that they are married men with children and she doesn’t give a damm as long as she gets her money.

You ask - What was your sex life like?

Well maybe it was terrible, but whose fault is that? maybe the wife is working a full time job and doing most of the child care as well; working a lot more hours a week than her husband who is always laying around on a sofa watching television. If he got in and helped to ease her exhaustion a bit then maybe their sex life would be better.

The prostitute wants to always blame the wife because she knows what she is doing is wrong and she needs to justify it. Of course the man is always going to say it’s his wifes fault never his own.

As I’ve said before if they think they do no wrong then why do they put big privacy walls up around these places to hide their identities. He who has nothing to hide, hides nothing.

Those walls scream GUILTY

Dear Sharkfin,

A prostitute hides your identity, but there is no reason to think it is because of a sense that she (there are also male prostitutes) is doing anything wrong. She hides because in most places it is an illegal act. There is no good reason that it is an illegal act. Law should not be used to enforce morality.

Prostitution is an act engaged in by consenting adults. Acts engaged in by consenting adults where there is no coercion, violence or fraud should not be illegal. There is reason for state intervention to minimise transmission of disease, but there is no reason to criminalise that activity.

There are people in jail for selling or possessing drugs and pornography. Those should not be crimes either. Where there is coercion (we can assume coercion if children are involved as they assumed not capable of giving informed consent) the activity is wrong. However, prostitution, drugs and pornography where they are consensual activity among adults should simply be nobody else's business.

Thomas Jefferson said, "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring each other, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."

Whether those pursuits constitute industry and improvement should be decided by those engaging in them.

Sharkfin,
I think you missed the point. Morality issues of prostitutes are a not really at stake here. Sancho simply made the point albeit a little harshly that the pro isn’t at fault here.

Davidf and others
I think your perspective is a trifle naïve or overly simplistic.
Not all people are as capable of your level of smarts. Likewise there are often as many reasons contributing reasons why some take on this activity. Some highly complex, some as a consequence of childhood molestation, some because of poor options the list goes on.

Claims of no coercion are just not sustainable even in countries where prostitution is legal.

Drugs and porn are a different topics and motivations all together and only linked in the minds of the morally turbo charged or those with an axe to grind.

All
I have serious concern with conversations about men’s hyper sexual needs.
While there are differences between men and women the idea that men in that they must get it regularly or “stray” is unsustainable.
Unless you are defining men by their lizard brain instincts. Always over rule the higher functions of the brain. In which case “she made me do it” or ‘she was asking for it” are valid, which is clearly both scientifically nonsense and therefore preposterous.
(Caveats) there is a rare condition of physical hyper sexual dysfunction (I forget its name). Most other hyper activities in this area are psychologically based.
The best that can be said is that men express their emotions differently which can be cultural or circumstantial.
But the simplistic notion that the reason a man seeks a pro is because he’s not getting it or enough at home is unmitigated pre maturity crap.

Foxy,
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “You don't
need to keep on explaining yourself.” Go for it.
[Aside] I suspect it might be important feed back. I would like to know as it may help me. Can you either explain on line or contact Graham for my email address? If appropriate.

I've been a little bothered by this discussion since the OP appeared a couple of days back. While I'm sympathetic to Mrs Pierno's sense of betrayal at discovering that her husband had engaged the services of a prostitute, I also have sympathies towards a husband who feels he has to pay for sex and also towards women who derive income from selling sexual services.

While I've never actually paid for sex, I have been in the situation of being married to a woman who lost all interest in sex and refused to talk about it. I eventually had a disastrous short-term affair that effectively ended the marriage, and I've sometimes subsequently wondered if we'd all have been better off if I'd simply gone to a prostitute as the need arose. As it happens, at the time I had acquaintances who were 'working girls' and it would've been relatively easy.

Mind you, if I hadn't ended the marriage I'd never have met the true love of my life, with whom I've spent the past relatively blissful 7 years.

On the other hand my ex, who is your classic career femocrat, has never confronted her lack of sexuality. On the contrary, in her eyes I will always be to blame for breaking up the family. Since I left, she hasn't been able to maintain a committed intimate relationship with any man - despite living with a very nice bloke for several years. I suspect that he left for much the same reasons I did.

I think that this business of re-defining wives of men who visit prostitutes as "victims" is ultimately a means by which they avoid accepting any responsibility for the breakdown of their marriages.

It takes two to tango - or not, as the case may be.

"I have no tolerance for this sort of prostitute bashing" ??
You then proceed to generalise and make assumptions, and bash the poor girls mercilessly! Like all human affairs, there are as many reasons for prostitution as there are participants, it's impossible to generalise. I have known "Ladies of the night" on a social level, some are as nasty as you'd apparently like to think, most are NOT.
Do you expect them to "vet" their clients, to only accept those who are single or have a "note" from their partner? Hardly likely!
As for your final comments about walls and hiding, lol, do YOU live in a glass house? Do you have fences, blinds, curtains? WHY? What are YOU hiding? Do you indulge yourself publicly? Or, like most humans, do you prefer PRIVACY?

Interesting inputs from everyone - giving
mrs p. quite a few insights which should be
helpful.

Dear Maximillion,

Thanks for your kind words.
They've cheered me up enormously!
Bless You!

Dear examinator,

I'll try to explain, as you ask...
As I've said before, people either connect or they don't.
If they do, that means they're going to be starting to
mould to one another. But the moulding process takes time.
You need time - active time in a relationship. Whether it
leads to communication, as it frequently does, or to a
romantic situation, or both. Too often when people are
dating they're rushed into being sexual - a question of
time again.

I like to have taken the time to discover each other. If
both of us like what we have found its exhilarating, and for
me - sheer magic.

As I said previously - relationships crumble and end
because they change, and no longer give you the food
you need. But I like to remain lasting friends, because
as I said earlier - I like the idea of longevity - of
people liking you in spite of having known you for a
long time (i.e. warts and all). Therefore you don't need
to keep on explaining yourself - because they already
know you (who you are). I can't explain it any better
then that.

My perfect partner is - mysterious, sensitive, strong,
these are the qualities I look for. I love tenderness.
But it is the rarest emotion one encounters.

I hope this helps. I'm very flattered that you asked
me to explain something to you - wow!
It's made my Saturday morning that's for sure!

I have serious concern with conversations about men’s hyper sexual needs.
While there are differences between men and women **the idea** that men in that they must get it regularly or “stray” is unsustainable.
Unless you are defining men by their lizard brain instincts

-

I agree totally, but this *idea* goes far beyond just "human emotions" but as Helen Garner revealed in First Stone it is BIG BUSINESS [Secret Wimmins Business].

and appropriate you mention "lizard" as the new victim Brett Stuart the Manly fullback [and the whole game as we know it] has nickname The Snake

Examinator wrote: Likewise there are often as many reasons contributing reasons why some take on this activity. Some highly complex, some as a consequence of childhood molestation, some because of poor options the list goes on.

Dear Examinator,
I think very few of us find the niche that most suits us in life. Most of us fall through particular doors because of the experiences and people we chanced to encounter. If I had a chance to relive my life I would make different choices in occupation and associations. At 83 I am not going to go round again.

A friend had a severely physically handicapped son. While his mind was razor sharp his main outlet was a computer that he operated through devices set up to accommodate his handicap. My friend took him to a prostitute who took on such people. My friend told me his son said it was one of the most wonderful experiences in his life. She kindly encouraged him, and he was able to perform. His son died in his early thirties, but at least he had that.

My cousin had an emotionally handicapped son. He was in and out of institutions. His emotional control was such that he could not have normal relationships with other human beings. She arranged for a prostitute to have relations with her son. It was a very good experience for him. He also died young, but my cousin was happy that he at least had that.

Prostitutes are not social service workers, but I think they occasionally do more good. A proficient prostitute regards her client’s feelings and leaves her client better for the experience. In providing an experience that may be otherwise not easily available she certainly contributes more than:

President Bush 43 who lied his country into war and adopted torture as a national policy.

Televangelists who prey on the gullible.

Ad people who manipulate people’s needs.

Bankers who persuade people to take out loans they know cannot be repaid.

Of the above only the prostitute is subject to criminal penalties. That is unfair.

david f,
Sometime back the was an article here written by a social worker about the sexual needs of handicapped people and she made mention of an organisation that assists handicapped people by taking them to prostitutes. I have forgotten the name of the organisation but I thought it was a good idea. Perhaps some poster may recall.

To foxy and Houellebeuq. These are meant to be funny.

All women charge for sex, prostitutes are just more open with their prices.

If one has sex with a prostitute against her will, is it rape or shoplifting?

All women charge for sex, prostitutes are just more open with their prices
--

very true,

at the very start of my family law adventure 20 years ago I was talking to a [previously] rich chap at the tennis club who had "better rationalised" his own experience [it had been 5 years for him, so cold hard rationisation had morphed from initial anger]

he appraised the value of the ex marriage as dollars/bonk, and had come to a figure of $200/bonk over 20 years.

as he said, you can get a fantastic prostitute for $200 and are then free to do as you please [like play tennis]

I think there's something in that for all of us, don't you, as Visard used to say

Yabby
I assumed that sex was on offer in the relationship with my comment about "bad behaviour". There are many partners who 'cheat' who are still having sex at home. Would you feel okay about your partner cheating on you if your sex life was good?

FYI, I happen to agree with Bettina Arndt's recent statements. Bettina's presence on Q&A the other night was interesting. She was not advocating that women lie back and think of England but talked about "dipping the canoe in the water" in respect of sexual relations within a partnership and making an effort with intimacy, an important part of any relationship. The same should go for men who might lose interest in bed.

Both parties should make an effort to please each other in bed, that is part of intimacy. But this is a whole different thing to cheating with a partner when sex is freely available at home.

I should add that cheating is only cheating when there is an expectation of fidelity. If partners opt an open relationship or one partner loses interest and says go for it - that is not cheating. It would not be my cup of tea but it might be the drink of choice for some.

[As for shopping Yabby, I don't shop at Aldi I shop at Woolies. My comment on the other thread came from reading about Aldi's move to Australia in various business magazines I was impressed that they make an effort to stock Australian products next to an imported product. So they offer an imported product and an Australian product. I believe all their vegies/fruit are sourced from Australian producers where possible. Contrast this ironically to the Australian owned supermarkets who don't make this commitment.

If you found Australian owned and grown tomato paste at your supermarket good for you but there are none here in my closest supermarket. Luckily in relation to garlic or tomatoes I grow my own for the most part and stock up, and only resort to bought stuff in-between seasons (and remember to plant more next year) :)]

*But this is a whole different thing to cheating with a partner when sex is freely available at home.*

Well that is the point, often it isn't. So that was the point
I was trying to make and I see the two as quite different
situations.

The woman who is on a "no, no, no" trip, should not be
amazed if hubby wanders off to other pastures.

Yup, there are guys who will fool around no matter what,
but also a great many who simply get sick of hearing no.

So that was why I made my original point, none of us know all
the details of what happened in another relationship, so its
not really possible to judge.

You answer on tomatoe sauce surprises me, for I would be amazed
if Woolies don't stock something as basic as Leggo's. Aldi
are the ones with a business plan of stocking as few lines as
possible, in contrast to Coles and Woolies, who give people
massive choice.

Yabby
Well we are in agreement about sex if nothing else.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread too much but from my recollection Leggos was bought out by an American company - I believe the same one that bought Edgells and other Austraian icons. You are right about the more limited range at Aldi but that is another issue, as I said I don't shop at Aldi but whether I would or not I would still buy the Australian owned brand or at least one that sourced the produce in Australia if there was no choice. We are losing a lot of our food brands. I don't want to sidetrack the prostitutes with a tomato paste discussion, I will try and find the other thread - I have forgotten which one it was.

Dear Yabby,

Rather then blaming women for their
sexual frustrations, perhaps men
should look at 'why' they're not
getting it?

There's more to real intimacy in
a relationship then erections
and penetration.

A man who wants action in the bedroom
yet insists on watching TV or playing on the
computer, and emotionally distancing himself from
her - will continue not to get it.

You lament about sexually frustrated men.
Well, - the same applies to sexually frustrated
women. Any male who keeps his wife at arms
length shouldn't be surprised if she goes
looking for someone who'll be more interested.

What's good for the gander ...

Sorry Foxxy, but you're just displaying the same attitude that causes so many misunderstandings within relationships, that men need to perform to a woman's expectations if he wants sex. I can't see too much difference between that and prostitution, to be honest, the man still has to "pay", it's just a different currency. It seems that in any discussion of this topic women can't help repeating the same old formulaes that have brought us to this point. It always has to be the man's "fault", men are sex-mad, it gets "old" real quick. We can all generalise, to no good purpose, there are a million ways a situation can develop, but until women accept their part in it, and stop passing the buck to men, it won't progress. I want to groan every time I hear women defining their problems and attitudes, in terms of men, it's negative, and can't lead to a solution. It is a left-over from the "Liberation Movement" days, and has led to the "victim industry" as we know it today. Women have had the right and the power to be as they like for a generation or so now, it's time to stop blaming men, and really start to examine the role and behaviours of themselves. There is still quite a way to go before we all achieve some sort of social equilibrium, and it's about time women stopped trying to dictate what a man "must" be, and looked in the mirror, "Physician, heal thyself"

Foxy, we are not even discussing women going for somebody else,
we have not even gotten that far yet.

I had a bit of a read of some of the stuff on the Betina
Arnt website and what it seems to come down to is that men
are getting married under the illusion that their wives might
satisfy their sexual needs, but many are clearly deluded,
for "asexual women" and "the disappearing sex drive" are
extremely common problems.

Now let me tell you a little thing about basic biology lol.
It might be fine for some women to go for months and years
at a time without a bit of nookie, but it is not ok for
most men. That is not how they were designed biologically.

These women commonly want hubby's paycheck, they call the
shots sexually, they really want everything on their terms.

If women want an asexual relationship, why did they get
married in the first place? They could have just stayed good
friends after all.

Yet these same guys know that if they leave, they lose the house,
the kids, the lose the lot.

Some of these guys spend all day doing really crappy work for
their families, they are down mines, covered in grease, or
similar. They come home and just need to unwind a bit.

A wife who is just a little understanding, ie what drives a male,
would be hugely beneficial. I have a good friend who says that
if she can give her hubby a bit of pleasure, why shouldn't she?
No wonder her marriage is thriving.

What we have here is a difference in biology. Some women clearly
have no problem in going for weeks, months and years without sex, not
so for most men

Dear Maximillion and Yabby,

My comments to Yabby earlier were the result
of his bringing up that standard old chestnut,
from the past -
" blame the woman for a man's sexual frustrations."

I tried to suggest asking the question that perhaps
men should examine "why" they weren't getting it.
There's always two sides to each argument.
For every argument that's presented - there's
always another perspective -from someone else's
point of view. Nothing is every just one-sided.
As you both concurred earlier - we can't really
judge any situation until we know all the facts.

As I've stated, like the feminine role, the masculine
role today is now more flexible and more subject
to interpretation by the individual.

In the past, everyone knew what their roles were, and
most people unquestioningly behaved as they were supposed to.
The system constrained people, but it also freed them from
making choices. There are fewer constraints today, and the
individual has the liberty of choose his or her own path
to self-fulfillment.

I have never liked binding people by race, religion,
or gender. Generalisations don't account for individual
experience. There are always exceptions to each rule.

And why should our sexual, personal and emotional
needs be opposed? We've come a long way, but it seems
that we've still got far to go.

As for Bettina Arndt? I agree with what one reader wrote
in a magazine article ..."I find your views anachronistic...
You lament the sexual frustrations of men, but
you make no attempt to look at what constitutes real
intimacy in a relationship - good communication, mutual
vulnerability, love, and respect."

.."I find your views anachronistic...
You lament the sexual frustrations of men, but
you make no attempt to look at what constitutes real
intimacy in a relationship - good communication, mutual
vulnerability, love, and respect."

That is a woman's outlook on what constitutes real intimacy, not a generic one, and demonstrates my point, all these discussions tend to be framed within the current female Ideology, rather than a general Humanist one, and hence put men on the wrong foot right from the start, and no conclusions thus reached can truly reflect a balance between the genders. As I've said, it's about time women started to leave the "victim" attitude behind, to grow up, to "own" their problems as their very own, and find solutions that don't involve demanding that men act more like women. I feel there won't be any real progress until this happens, we'll keep repeating the mistakes of the past, just with the roles reversed.

*There's always two sides to each argument.
For every argument that's presented - there's
always another perspective*

Well exactly Foxy, that is precisely the point.

Yet on OLO we constantly hear about those "poor
women, the downtrodden victims"

Garbage - for every female hard luck story that
you have to tell, I can tell you a male hard
luck story. Dozens and dozens of them, if you want.

So I simply raised the issue, if women want men
to be understanding, how understanding are they
of men?

Clearly in one area where they hold all the power,
ie sex, some are clearly very understanding, but
some misuse their power, some don't give a rats
arse, as long as hubby brings home that paycheck.
They use their power to the max.

Now if society thinks that marriage involves no
kind of obligation to be concerned about partners
sexual needs, well fair enough, women should say so.

Then men know exactly where they stand BEFORE they
get married and can act accordingly.

But of course many women want the security of marriage,
they want the kids, they want his paycheck and if he
leaves, they want the house and anything else they
can screw out of the deal.

So I am simply highlighting these points and Betina
Arnt has highlighted the very problem that many women
simply don't understand men from a males perspective.

Now enough of this victimhood nonsense, every story is
different and the fact remains it is not all men,
there are some very nasty women out there too.

Dear Maximillion and Yabby,

We're not really in disagreement here.
As I said previously - it all depends
on the individual circumstances. (Male
or female).

Yes, Yabby there are an awful
lot of 'nasty,' people out there,
male and female.

The point that I've been trying to make -
and as one male writer wrote in the letters
section of the Age's Weekend Magazine (March
21, 2009) - "investigate the "why's" before
the "what to do's."

Bettina Arndt tries to confirm the wife is mostly
to blame for a sexless marriage but as another
reader pointed out in the same magazine - " wifes
who feel loved as opposed to used are more likely
to have a healthy libido".

Another reader added that, " Arndt would be more
constructive if she had researched why this was the
case rather than desexualising and blaming married
women."

I agree.

*Bettina Arndt tries to confirm the wife is mostly
to blame for a sexless marriage*

Nope, she is simply highlighting a problem which
exists out there.

Some women are so busy worrying about their rights,
their feelings, their power, that they have forgotten
that men are a little differnt to women, when it comes
to basic biology.

Most men are fairly simple creatures to figure out,
compared to the complexity and confusion of your
common female.

Give them a good feed and a bit of nookie and they
will do anything for you.

Many women have yet to figure that out.

Gang, I’m still concern about the importance that seems to be placed on what is basically an “enjoyable?” bodily function me evolved by nature to facilitate procreation (End of). Many people have meaningful relationships with out sex (partner or prostitute).

Chocky etc even Megan Gale/ Brad Pitt on a naughty night might be enjoyable but I ask all those with happy marriages with or without sex would you trade any of the above for that marriage. the history, contentment, the emotional security, the feeling of being a part of something of value? As Foxy says not having to explain your self etc?

I envy all you people that you’ve never been so lonely or deprived of affection that sex simply was NOT the issue. Nor is it so with Mrs P the issue is the *emotion*. I would suggest that in a happy marriage Sex is a minor part. Think about it the “rabbit” stage passes relatively quickly and the regularity of sex decreases fact of Life. The last thing we need is Sex to be a pressure performance issue. I’d like a $ for every call I’ve had about sexual performance issues and the unnecessary pain it has caused.

The last thing I want is my partner to do me sexual favours….I want to share the emotional connection and that doesn’t require sex. Are you guys with the dominating libido telling us that if your partner was incapacitated you would HAVE to play away or stop loving her? If you answered yes to either the Megan or the this question YOU have either maturity, marriage, medical or emotional psychological issues.

In essence our attitudes to sex are learn (cultural) and is amplified in our media, business etc what we all NEED is affection. Bettina’s utterances without the specific personal facts are simply cashing in on this commodity.

Examinator, you put the female position clearly, but that does not make it universal. Sex within a relationship is a small part, as long as both are happy, but when they're NOT, it's a huge thing, why else would there be so many discussions of it?
Decrease in activity is normal? Only for women, ask any married bloke!
Our attitudes to sex are not learned, they're hard-wired into us, it's the who, what, how and where that are learnt.
The basic difference that comes clear in all this seems to be that, to a woman, sex and intimacy, love, whatever, are intrinsically linked, a throw-back to the home-maker function that Nature has given the human female gender, whilst for a male, sex isn't linked to anything, it's a "drive", companionship et.al. is nice, even a bonus, but not necessary, sometimes it's even a hurdle. Again, a throw-back to our early biological history, but still a part of our genetic make-up. Any system that fails to recognise these basic facts is doomed to fail, just as we are failing at the moment.
Bettina Arndt is a Femnist who has moved on, grown, got wiser, and is trying to redress the imbalance, to be a voice for those left high and dry by the Femnist Ideology, male AND female, of which there is a multitude.
"Another reader added that, " Arndt would be more
constructive if she had researched why this was the
case rather than desexualising and blaming married
women."
And this, good grief, Femnist Ideology at it lowest, they've been doing THAT to men for 50 years, but don't like the microscope being turned on them. Reminds me of of "Soviet Science", when only "Politically Correct" research was funded, the conclusions had to be clear and correct BEFORE it was permitted

Max,
I think you missed my point. I’m not saying that men and women aren’t different or as a species we don’t have different biological “instincts”. Neither am I saying that men don’t have a greater want for more sex .

I was merely objecting to two basic assumptions that seem to colour this topic.

• That men NEED partnered sex.
Confusing a WANT With a NEED.I want a good scotch, fifteen minutes with Megan sexually but I don’t need either. To confuse the two is simply self indulgent or one of the list in my previous post.
Are you saying that if you were injured and no longer able/interested in sex:
1. That because you no longer have the urge to have sex you’re, what not a man/male?
2. That the worth of a wife/partner is dependent on sexual opportunities provided. In that case a concubine is a better option.

• That the sex drive which is a lower brain function isn’t subjected to control by higher brain functions. In rebuttal to this perspective refer to Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”.
If men on the battle field or in ships can control their urges why then can’t they do so in a relationship? On that assumption the naming of the ship’s head has new meaning altogether.
Anthropologically The home maker issue can be shown as culturally learned.
As for your concern about not wanting sex as often, well time will prove my point.
Me as a femanist? bollocks I simply state as it is Read more on femanism.

FYI I think femanism is over the top and reactionary the same as male chest beating.

I was never saying that wants weren’t important but to define them as needs and there for musts is well over the top. I was putting in a plea for keeping it in perspective. See earlier posts on this topic.

examinator wrote:

"FYI I think femanism is over the top and reactionary the same as male chest beating."

Dear examinator,

Male chest beating is an expression of actual or wouldbe dominance. Feminism is often merely an activity to attain equality in employment and other areas. The demand for female suffrage was feminism. "Equal pay for equal work" is not the same as chest beating.

"If men on the battle field or in ships can control their urges why then can’t they do so in a relationship?"

Perhaps you missed the last couple of hundred years somehow? It's all there in the histories, men DON"T "control" their instincts in those situations, nor in any other where they are isolated from the females.
Haven't you noticed the "Rape in War" publicity recently? Soldiers/clergy/sailors have been raping each other for centuries, and indulging in sexual-practices voluntarily, but they don't consider it homosexual, it's considered a necessary release of tension. Why else do armies usually organise sexual services for their troops, from Roman times on? Look at what goes on in gaol, if you can stomach it.It's brutal, yet they again don't consider it homosexual, and it's not.

That because you no longer have the urge to have sex you’re, what not a man/male?
2. That the worth of a wife/partner is dependent on sexual opportunities provided. In that case a concubine is a better option.

Any drive can die, and men know this, many even enjoy being released from that drive, though I doubt we'd ever admit as much to a woman, the drive may be down but the ego's still there, lol. That should tell you you're actually right on that point, our masculinity IS deeply rooted in our sex-drive, if you'll pardon the pun.
Do you think for one moment that if concubinage was socially acceptable that men wouldn't take it, gleefully?
"Anthropologically The home maker issue can be shown as culturally learned."
And with words you can "show" just about anything, but I prefer the proof of history, every human culture at every time has had women as the keeper of the hearth, whole religions have been founded on that.

david f:"Feminism is often merely an activity to attain equality in employment and other areas."

That was the case historically. As equality is now a fact, with individual attainments being far more important a factor than gender for professional employment particularly, I'd suggest that nowadays feminism has become a "ticket to ride" for those too lazy to do the hard yards.
It is de rigeur in any profession to express one's solidarity with feminist principles and one of the quickest ways for someone with little talent to gain lots of kudos is to be virulently feminist.

It is also very easy for anyone wishing to score a feminist point to get space in newspapers and other traditional media, but much more difficult for anyone wishing to offer criticism.

The internet has made that criticism available and isn't it remarkable how much of it there is? Some of it is mere polemic, just as much of feminist literature is, but there is much of substance.

As for the original comparison, I'd suggest a better one would be between "male chest-beating", which is an open challenge to those who seek to dominate one and "female connivance", which is an indirect path to a similar desired outcome - domination over one's rivals.

Back to prostitution: I've never used their services, but I can understand the demand. Personally, I'm not aroused by a partner who's not also, although I'm sure any hooker worth his/her salt would be a very convincing actor in that regard. Maybe I'll give it a go one day.

Maximillion,

You're a legend. Good work.

I see this jump through hoops to warm the missus up and do all the housework business as manipulative tripe. It builds on the theory that sex should be withheld by women from men until their demands are met. I think the same women who say things like this would be offended if their guy demanded some lingerie or porn or athletic positions or outdoor sex in order for her to get a cuddle or a romantic dinner. Why do we always hear female needs must be met BEFORE the mans all the time, never the other way around.

Foxy,

'at what constitutes real
intimacy in a relationship - good communication, mutual
vulnerability, love, and respect."'

You missed out sex. Typical woman!:-) I think you'll find sex is the lubrication for all of the above. To simulate this, shrinks experimented with Extacy to enhance communication between couples quite effectively. In general, people talk too much and bonk too little. If they bonked they would talk more. Physical intamacy can lead to emotional intamacy just as much as the other way around.

Yabby,

'If women want an asexual relationship, why did they get
married in the first place? They could have just stayed good
friends after all. '

I've often wondered about that.

'Give them a good feed and a bit of nookie and they
will do anything for you.

Many women have yet to figure that out.'
I think that wonderful knowledge has been lost in the feminist revolution. Just like giving a woman compliments has great advantages.

examinator,

'The last thing I want is my partner to do me sexual favours..'

How dull. Doing little favours for each other can lead to much fun. If one partner really isn't that interested, how much effort does it really take to get the other off anyway. You could do it while watching TV even.

'YOU have either maturity, marriage, medical or emotional psychological issues. '
Way to make friends. Now imagine if Col had said that... How's the ivory tower going?

Dear Houellebecq,

Col wouldn't be capable of making any comment
without resorting to gutter language.

As for leaving sex out of the equation in intimacy.
On the contrary. My point was that intimacy was not
just about erections and penetration. Wifes who feel
loved as opposed to used are more likely to have a
healthy libido.

By the way, I'm a young, happily married woman, in a
very satisfying relationship.

Are you happily married and in a satisfying relationship?

What a fascinating thread this is. While I'm not surprised by the sexual alienation inherent in comments from some apparently disaffected men, I am a little surprised at both the range of male attitudes about women and sex, and by the vehemence with which some express them.

Frankly, the attitudes expressed by some men here towards their sexual relationships are positively antediluvian. Yes, women can and do manipulate men sexually - but this requires men to participate in the kind of relationship where sex is a commodity, in the same way that men's typically greater economic contributions are. Some blokes here don't seem to realise that the days of man the hunter/breadwinner and woman the gatherer/homemaker are well and truly over in this society.

If nothing else, this thread demonstrates the continuing relevance of positive feminist ideas in negotiating greater equity in relationships between women and men.

There are apparently still plenty of 'cave-men' out there.

Hullo everyone - this is Mrs Pierno. I'm stunned at how many posts there have been - obviously this issue is bigger than socialism and the Queensland election. Just to add another element to the discussion - I am 23 years older than the husband - he's 34 now, I'm 57. He is my third husband. I'm gone - will apply for divorce in a few months' time. I went to university in the late 1960's, early 70's. read Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer. Bettina Arndt was at ANU at the same time I was. I have three adult children. It is with great interest that I read these comments - so many people who know so much! Just for the record: plenty of men want sex with women aged 50 and over and not just the pot-gutted rejects (men I mean). The applicants come in all ages, colours and income brackets. Just thought you'd like to know.

DD,

'he appraised the value of the ex marriage as dollars/bonk, and had come to a figure of $200/bonk over 20 years.'

Appalling. Sounds like a genius that guy if he's wondering why his marriage failed. Ha!

Antiseptic,

Hey what would you say in this world is NOT the fault of feminism?

Foxy,

'Wifes who feel loved as opposed to used are more likely to have a
healthy libido.'
Hmm. I wonder why we never see a man say he was 'used' for sex. Foxy I would presume any woman who used such language in regards to sex has problems pre-empting a poor libido in the first place. She obviously just doesn't like sex, or has other issues surrounding sex, and is projecting that onto the poor guy. I would suggest to a lass who feels used, just why that is. Perhaps if she can possibly enjoy sex at all, she could suggest activities more to her liking.

She's the slightly more repressed cousin of the 'Oh, if he'd only go down on me for 2 hours to warm me up, and lay me down on pristinely vacuumed carpet next to the ironing he'd just done, I'm sure I could be more into it!' girl.

'By the way, I'm a young, happily married woman, in a
very satisfying relationship.'
Um, I never suggested otherwise, but thanks for the info.

'Are you happily married and in a satisfying relationship?'

I don't believe in marriage. But I am in a happy long term monogomous 'de-facto' relationship, since you ask. Not sure why you're interested really. Oh, Foxy, stop flirting. You know we shouldn't! You're married!

examinator,

You seem to be promoting a sexless marriage as a positive thing? You may be happy with an emotional relationship with your partner and a physical one with your hand, but most people wouldn't be. As Yabby said, why get married in the first place then?

Part 2 to my post above, I was interrupted, sorry.

That the sex drive which is a lower brain function isn’t subjected to control by higher brain functions.
Of course we can control it, largely, but does that make it not a drive? We control our eating, our drinking water, yet these are drives, we may learn to hold it at bay, but that doesn't stop the pressure, and believe you me, it IS a pressure, for most men, we can actually FEEL it. Women appear to need certain pre-conditions to feel aroused, men merely need to wake up in the morning. That is NOT a joke, ask any normal healthy male, we can't help it, our body does it to us, unbidden. And it can be a bloody nuisance at times too, and there I mean at any time, at any place. I'm not referring to inconvenient erections, that's a whole 'nother problem, lol, but to the state of arousal, the flash-fantasies, the attractions, the reactions to females, even when we don't want them.
I will not attempt to explain female sexuality, I can't, whatever I may have learned, and until women accept that they can't dictate male sexuality, we won't progress. This is exactly the point I've been trying to make, we need to stop trying to discuss this on the assumption that men should be more like women, that the female model is the desirable one, caring/sharing/sensitive and understanding. Not even women live up to this, just look around!
Lets start by accepting that there are real and powerful differences, and then go from there, instead of then saying.."yeah, but, those differences are not real or relevant, THIS is the way it SHOULD be".

My response to CJMorgan:
Frankly, the attitudes expressed by some men here towards their sexual relationships are positively antediluvian. Yes, women can and do manipulate men sexually - but this requires men to participate in the kind of relationship where sex is a commodity, in the same way that men's typically greater economic contributions are. Some blokes here don't seem to realise that the days of man the hunter/breadwinner and woman the gatherer/homemaker are well and truly over in this society."
Sorry kiddo, those roles are written in our genes, inescapably so, as yet anyway. That society has, through intelligence and education, moved on, or back, to a more equal valuation of all people may be true, to an extent, but it doesn't change the basic facts of physiology. I see no conflict between the modern world and those traditional roles, it was merely the strident abuse of the Femnist movement that belittled those women who chose follow their instincts. It wasn't MEN who declared that a mother and homemaker was a bad role for women, now was it? My daughter(22)is a strong, independent self-sufficient young person, and laughs at the attitude you express, she considers Femnists to be antediluvian, dinosaurs, fighting a battle they've already won, stuck in a past that has faded away. The male-bashing, the fault laying, the whole victim mentality, is alien to her. She and her friends don't need, or want, to be liberated, they KNOW they are free to do as they wish, in anything they choose.

*Some blokes here don't seem to realise that the days of man the hunter/breadwinner and woman the gatherer/homemaker are well and truly over in this society.*

Perhaps where you live CJ, but not where I live. WA is a mining
state, largely based on fly in - fly out. Men put up with some
pretty crap conditions, to provide for their families. They live
in mining camps much of the time, they could be underground,
hard rock mining, they could be out on an oil rig, in stinking
hot and humid weather. Cheques are banked for the family and
they see them occasionaly. Yet the divorce rates are pretty
high for these families. Commonly the wife lands up bonking
somebody else, whilst hubby is in the mining camp.

Many women have also discovered that this liberating experience
of a full time job and family, has got nobs on it. Better just
to work part time, it gets them out of the house.

Like one young housewife told me " I did not get married to
go to work"

*Just for the record: plenty of men want sex with women aged 50 and over*

Well of course they do. As is being pointed out, men evolved to
have sexual urges that many women (and the odd male) don't have.
Wether they would want to get married and have an asexual relationship,
if they knew that is what the future holds, is another question.

Houellebecq:"Hey what would you say in this world is NOT the fault of feminism?"

I didn't bring up feminism, david f did. I simply disagreed with him about what he said, digressing from this topic and then returning to it. Having trouble reading much?

Stop worrying about issues of power. Tell your partner what you like. Listen to your partner when she/he tells you what she/he likes. Yesterday morning I spent half an hour lightly running my fingers over my wife's back, chatting with her and listening to her happy moans. That was the beginning of another wonderful day.

Your partner may not like that sort of thing, but I think everyone likes something that another person can do. If you're not on good terms with your partner attentions of any kind will not be welcome. However, if you can get on good terms listen and talk. If you can't get on good terms get on olo and complain about your partner's failings. You can also make more general complaints and feel greatly wronged by the way you have been mistreated and neglected. You can find others to share your indignation.

I just read "Indignation" by Philip Roth. It was a tragedy with comic moments. The most effective tragedies have comic moments. Hamlet's inventive puns and his joking with the gravedigger and other characters in the play only makes the tragedy deeper. One has the wit and intelligence to see the futility of the course one is following, but one cannot change that course.

Roth's protagonist and Hamlet were both indignant at the hand fate dealt them. Their actions led inexorably to their death. Whatever we do leads eventually to our death, but unlike Hamlet and Messner we need not hasten the day.

I wait eagerly for my wife's return from the city.

Antiseptic wrote, “I didn't bring up feminism, david f did. I simply disagreed with him about what he said, digressing from this topic and then returning to it.”

I did not bring up feminism. I responded to Examinator who wrote, “FYI I think femanism is over the top and reactionary the same as male chest beating.”

I objected to the equation of feminism with male chest beating.

Haha Anti what has that got to do with my question? You're but a moth to the flame. I think you really are a closet feminist lover. You probably have wet dreams about SJF dominating you.

CJ Morgan,

'Some blokes here don't seem to realise that the days of man the hunter/breadwinner and woman the gatherer/homemaker are well and truly over in this society.'
Over? Reports of this death are greatly exagerated. There's plenty of people still happy with traditional gender roles. Plenty of other people unhappy with them but still engaged in traditional gender roles anyway.

Regardless of this 'equity' that you espouse, I'm sure society will always allow for couples to choose their roles, and some of these couples will choose 'man the hunter/breadwinner and woman the gatherer/homemaker'. In fact, you may not believe it, but 'equity' is still possible with traditional relationship roles. It is just as silly to suggest zero traditional role based relationships exist as it would be to suggest a future like The Two Ronnies 'Worm that Turned'. Although, I think anti might have seen that and taken it too much to heart.

It all sounds like a lot of bull to me. Whats it got to do with womens lib. If this woman was up to the job at hand she would not be bypassed, for a prostitute. There's 2 sides to this story , if it were true.

Houllebecq:"what has that got to do with my question?"

As much as your question has to do with my post. You're starting to sound like the proverbial empty drum, chum.

Do try harder, oh, that's right, you were...

Yabby - your 'fly-in fly-out' example is hardly typical of Austtralian families, and provides yet another reason why it is a poor form of labour management. I live in the bush and I can't think of too many families where the wife doesn't work at least part-time - often full-time - to contribute to the family income.

Houellebecq - I didn't mean to suggest that "traditional gender roles" don't persist in a minority of and defacto relationships. Rather, it's no surprise that those who choose them often become dissatisfied in the context of contemporary Western societies, where the majority of women expect to have lives that extend beyond the domestic sphere of sex, childrearing and housework.

Aren't you guys aware that it takes considerably more than one average income to service a mortgage these days, and that most women therefore engage in at least some paid work?

Dear Houellebecq,

You want me to stop flirting with you
because I'm married?

How very provincial
of you dear heart. Then you'd better stop refering
to me as 'Young Lass." Because I find that very
attractive. :)

You were wondering why we " never see a man say he
was "used" for sex?"

Let's take an intelligent guess shall we?

Could it be because some men have been trained
to believe that "real men" get sex from women, and if they
don't they aren't men? It's going to take decades to re-educate
these men into understanding that their identity is not
based on erections and penetration. And even longer for
them not to pre-judge females for their lack of performance
in this area.

These men need to find out the reasons why their partners are
not being turned on by them. And not blame it on female
repression. The problem may just lie with poor male performance.

As for my sharing with you the happy state of my marriage.
That was in response to your comments made to me about
sex and intimacy in your previous post. I simply
wanted to set the record straight.

And, I'm delighted that you are in a good relationship
as well.

Slug (name suits)Re your comment: "If this woman was up to the job at hand she would not be bypassed, for a prostitute" - I have happily, joyfully, resigned and left him to the prostitutes and whatever woman will put up with it. There is absolutely no competition between me and a prostitute. I take your remark as a compliment. Mrs Pierno (not at all like a prostitute)

*Aren't you guys aware that it takes considerably more than one average income to service a mortgage these days*

CJ, surely you are aware that the average salary in the WA mining
industry is in the 6 figures, well above an average wage.

There are good reasons for fly in fly out, many wives insist on it,
as they aren't going out into the scrub, to put up with the
heat, dust and flies, without the comforts of city life.

For the same reason many country areas can't find Australian
doctors. Their wives don't want to live in the bush without
city comforts.

Like I said Yabby, the situation you describe is hardly typical of Australian workers, most of whom don't work in mines. The lifestyle you describe sounds like a recipe for domestic disaster, and unsatisfactory for all concerned. The money may be good, but at what cost to family life?

I'm talking about the far more normal Australian household, where all the economic cards aren't held by men who expect sex in exchange for bringing home the bacon. Frankly, the kind of expectation that you describe has far more in common with prostitution than the kinds of relationships that happy, sexually and emotionally satisfied people have.

Mrs Pierno - do you think that the age difference between you and your ex-husband may have had something to do with his desire for more (or different) sex than with you?

I ask this as a serious question. As a man in my mid-50s I'm not sure that I'd be able to keep up with a libidinous woman in her early 30s (at least without pharmaceutical assistance). I do, however, have a delightful, loving and mutually satisfying relationship with a woman of my own age.

Dear CJ,

Did it every occur to anyone that this
entire thread could just be a big hoax?

I wonder if mrs pierno - is really who
she says she is? Or if "she" is actually
a "she?"

Here we are presenting all sorts of arguments,
carrying on this discussion, when we've all
been in fact 'punk'd.' (set up). Brilliantly.

Just a thought.

Dear Foxy,

An anagram of pierno is rip one. Maybe we all have been ripped. With malice toward all and fear no pierno.

I would suggest not antediluvian as CJ put it but merely self indulgent and or immature.
BTW maturity isn’t necessarily a function of age or IQ.
Some males writing are obvious well indoctrinated into the “Me male… you Mother of children…sex slave mentality of yesteryears. There is nothing wrong with this if the woman has been like conditioned and is happy in this role. As an aside CJ I remember an ex OLOer who was the epitome of this “ I pay you do as I say” mentality perhaps it’s a function of being conservative unwilling to accept change.
H. and Max need to read what I say and not simply miss quoting me so they can rave.
How many ways can I say this I’m not advocating a sexless marriage or passing judgement either way. I’m simply saying that it ISN’T the central reason people get married. If it is I’m sure a crisis councillor sooner or later is going to get a call from both partners. I AM saying that it’s there are attitudinal differences that demonstrably learned from culture and I reject them. It has nothing to do with isms.

Mrs P
I still say you need to work out your issues clearly you have some. I’m sure they do come in all colours and sizes but obviously the quality you’re seeing isn’t that hot. As for your pot belly rejects comment I think you need to focus on the quality not the wrapper. 3 strikes should tell you something. or is this all a leg pull

CJ, miners are rather common in WA and mining is not the only industry
where blokes put up with all sorts of conditions, to provide for their
families. In fact I would be rather suprised if even Australia wide,
men arn't still the main breadwinners and alot of women simply work
part time.

Its not a case of "expecting" sex for bringing home the bacon.
Were you foolish for imagining that your first wife should have
an interest in sex? Clearly people get married with the notion
that sex is part of marriage and if that female libido suddenly
vanishes or hardly exists, some guys, due to their biological
difference, tend to get a little cranky after a while.

What Bettina Arndt has raised, is that this is a fairly common
problem and that if women just said yes a little more often,
alot of marriages might function alot better.

Foxy tends to blame it on the men for not being understanding
of women. So was it your fault that your first wife had no libido?

I think she makes the mistake of seeing this through her eyes,
rather then through the eyes of some women out there, who do in
fact simply lose interest in sex, once the kids have arrived.

I personally am simply a bit tired of all this "woman the victim"
business. So I'm putting the other point of view forward, of many
cases that I know, where in fact men work extremely hard to provide
for their families, yet they are married to selfish women who
treat them like dirt. Personally I think that they should appreciate
the men they have and saying yes to them occasionally, is not that
hard to do, even if she simply can't be bothered.

Dear Yabby,

I'm not blaming anyone - or at least not
intentionally. I'm simply attempting to
present both sides in this discussion.
Because it "takes two to tango," so to
speak.

I sometimes wonder how honest are some
posters being, when they post their opinions.
Because I'm sure that in many cases they're
not really as "hard-nosed," as they claim to
be. They couldn't be when it comes right
down to it, especially in relationships, or else
they'd end up frustrated and alone. With no one
to blame but themselves.

There's got to be flexibility in any relationship.
That's a given. And Robert nailed it, when in my
thread on "Double Standards," he pointed out that
BOTH parties in a relationship need to be pro-active
and willing to learn.

Yes, definitely!

Sorry Examinator, but since I cut and pasted your comments, then offered my own point of view on them, I fail to see how I'm mis-quoting you.Perhaps you'd care to explain that?
You seem to be a fairly intelligent person, and I don't disagree with a lot you offer, but you also seem to be persuaded that genetics mean little, that it's all in "Nurture" rather than "Nature", and that outlook is being disproved readily as our knowledge increases.
Of course our upbringing has an effect, but it has to work on what we are born with, and scientists are finding more and more that's hard-wired into us, just like the rest of the animal kingdom.
What I've said is we need a new form of marriage, and I offer no thoughts on it's shape, yet one that takes into account the differences between us all, both genders, and the mixtures and oddities too. The old model is dying, and the PC approach you seem to be offering is also dying, thank god, so where do we go from here?
I also think virtually all of us are in agreement about the mutual approach, no contest, but, as I've said, unless or until we stop denying genetic influences, we will fail in this.

You may be right about Mrs Pierno, Foxy. I've had similar thoughts, particularly when 'she' belatedly mentioned the significant age difference. However, even if we're being had, the discussion's been quite revealing.

Yabby: << Its not a case of "expecting" sex for bringing home the bacon. >>

If it's not the case, why frame your comment such that sex is something given by wives in exchange for the economic benefits provided by their husbands? The fact that you think that there is something fair and reasonable about this kind of arrangement where it occurs is probably a good pointer as to why it is that you're single.

<< Were you foolish for imagining that your first wife should have
an interest in sex? Clearly people get married with the notion
that sex is part of marriage and if that female libido suddenly
vanishes or hardly exists, some guys, due to their biological
difference, tend to get a little cranky after a while. >>

When my ex lost interest in sex, I think it was symptomatic of the pathological state of our marriage, which in retrospect had been going downhill for some time. It wasn't just sex - after the birth of our first child she became more career-oriented, cut her hair off and began dressing like a matron. More importantly, she increasingly became controlling while simultaneously uncommunicative when I tried to discuss what was happening with her. I didn't help much by working increasingly longer hours in a career that was more rewarding than home life had become and drinking excessively. Sound familiar?

[cont]

I'm with Foxy on this, particularly as it concerns this thread.

>>I sometimes wonder how honest are some
posters being, when they post their opinions.<<

The closer topics get to issues of emotions, sexuality and relationships, the more (I personally suspect) that the opportunity is used by individuals to testbed thoughts that they feel uncomfortable expressing in their daily lives.

The tendency is always to keep emotions and intellect as far apart as possible, primarily because it is practically impossible for the vast majority of us to express those emotions in clear and logical terms.

And that's exactly the way it should be, in my view.

How logical is falling in love with this person as opposed to that one? How logical can it be to construct other lives (mistresses, gigolos, prostitutes, Sven the pool cleaner) alongside the chosen conventional relationship?

I am sure that anthropologists can provide clues, but that doesn't cut mustard in a divorce court, or when you find the wife whetting the carving knife in the kitchen after discovering that lipstick-smudged phone number in your jacket...

Oh, did I also mention that fantasies don't carry a great deal of logic either?

So whether or not mrs pierno (alternate anagrams: iron sperm, porn miser) is genuine, it's a good and valuable topic to explore.

This has been a great string for me since I found out more about myself. I have been married to two beautiful women. When we weren’t wrangling my first wife and I produced three great children who are all now middle aged and leading worthwhile lives.

About ten years after I split from my first marriage I met my second wife in Cambridge where we were both attending a conference. It was a very romantic meeting. She was living in Norway, and I was living in the US. Eventually she came to the US, and we got married. We got into the same sort of wrangling pattern that I had with my first wife.

Then my mother died. When she died all my anger seemed to go in the grave with her. I realized what I was angry at and have been more or less at peace ever since. My marriage became tremendously happy, and every day is like a honeymoon some 27 years after we first met.

I am now in Australia because my wife was born and grew up here and went to Europe after university. She wanted to come home after I retired in 1987.

I realize now that had the situation been reversed and I had met my second wife when I met my first and the first when I met the second I would probably be living happily with the first and divorced from the second. The change was in me. However, the resulting children would quite likely not be as great.

Thank you, Mrs. Pierno, whoever you are.

[cont]

Despite Maximillion's overemphasis on genetic aspects of maleness, I think that he makes a salient point about marriage. I think that the institution itself retains elements of the kind of economic exchange for sex that some guys apprently still think is normal, such that it's easy for disaffected husbands to become resentful that they're not getting their part of the intrinsic bargain when their wives don't put out for them on demand.

I don't think it's a coincidence that by far the best relationship I've had (and I've been married and divorced twice) is the one I'm in now, where we considered getting married but rejected it - precisely because of the many implicit negative aspects of what ultimately is a contract between two people, in our society at least.

Max,
Cutting and pasting my comments as you have done takes that part of what I say out of context then you seem to comment on something that was neither implied nor explained. In short is not related to what I said except as either a miscommunication or a misunderstanding. I would suggest that words are meaningless like event if taken out of their original context. Specifically I didn’t advocate anything other than the topic of sex generates more heat than light and in the context of the original post over emphasised.
In the next topic by foxy the issue was double standards a whole other issue.

As I have said or tried to indicate that there are certainly studies that address nurture V nature. It has been demonstrated several times both anthropologically and psychologically that nurture is the dominant part of attitudes (60% depending on many fators). I gave examples from archaeological sources etc in the other topic.

I have seen cultures where multi partnered sex is the norm even amongst committed couples. The only logical conclusion in the context of Ms P is that the most elemental issues in a marriage are those related to companionship.
Simply put one can have sex without companionship. One can have a good marriage without sex but not companionship. I did not say sex isn’t an important issue but lets not focus too much on what is an important but periferal issue lest we swamp the companionship, as I submited is the more important.

*unless or until we stop denying genetic influences, we will fail in this.*

Exactly Max, but the pendulum has swung so far to focus on womans
needs and wants, that alot of well meaning and caring guys are
being clean forgotten. Its all on womens terms, never mind a fair
and reasonable balance here.

CJ, I think you are contradicting yourself here. Go and read your
own post about your wife's lack of sexuality and why you suspect
her relationships since have broken down. Next you are accusing
men who complain about the same thing, that men want women
to "put out on demand".

Clearly you don't think its unreasonable for people to expect
sex to be apart of a married relationship, otherwise they
might as well stay single.

My point once again is that if women want men to be understanding
of women and their needs, how understanding are SOME women of
men's needs?

I put it to you that some women are in fact quite selfish. They
want the security of marriage, they want the paycheck, they want
the kids (there is a genetic drive there after all), they want
the house, but when it comes to hubby's needs, they simply can't
be bothered. Lack of female libido after the kids have arrived,
seems to be a fairly common problem, as Bettina Arndt has established.

All that Arnd't is saying is that women don't have to be seen as
downtrodden victims, if they say yes occasionally, even if they
start off not being in the mood. Fair enough.

Pericles, I think you've nailed it. I would just add that many people simply pay too much attention to the topic and it’s often just a scapegoat for deeper issues. Emotions certainly don’t always seem logical but as we gain wisdom what we do about our emotions should be. Yes this is not how many people act all the time.
Of course there are those who fly kites, play mind games etc we are all people and this isn’t group therapy. I join in for the mental exercise in learning, new perspectives and having my IDEAS rebuffed/challenged to whereby I need to re think them all of which I welcome. However when we get into the area of emotional discourse things tends to become somewhat more tenuous. Highly emotive topics like this one can get away and do more harm than good.
Hence my aversion to hard core personal attacks as a method of making a point with a preference for the more logical if removed approach.

I agree with examinator. Sex is an important part
of a relationship - but its only a part - not the
entire relationship. In relationships - it is
the individual connection that matters. You've both
got to work out what's important to you, to make
that relationship work. That's why I brought up the
importance of good communication. Tell each other what
you want. Each of us is different, with different needs,
wants, and desires. What works for some, may not work for
others. We're all individuals. There are some men with
very strong sex drives. Yet there are some men whose
sex drives are not that strong. The same can be said about
women. Some have strong sex drives, some don't. We're not
all the same. Unfortunately, if the wrong two, pair up -
and don't communicate - it can be a case for disaster -
as happened with mrs pierno. A mismatch, by the sound of
it. Good communication was obviously lacking in their
relationship. Either that, or different needs, wants, and
desires, were so large that they couldn't be overcome.

We aren't in a position to judge - but as I said earlier,
blaming others for the marriage problems - in this case -
prostitutes - won't solve anything, but will hinder mrs
p. from moving on. As CJ mentioned earlier - age,
may have
been a factor (although, I suspect it wasn't - "If he dies,
he dies..."). It could simply have been "an itch that couldn't be
scratched" on the husband's side (variety - being the spice
of life for him). Some things in life - you have to simply
chalk up to being out of your control - (change what you can,
and can what you can't)...

I'll end on a lighter note...He said, she said.

He said: "Babe, since I first laid eyes on you I've
wanted to make love to you in the worst way."

She said: "Well darling, you have succeeded!"

Yabby: << CJ, I think you are contradicting yourself here. Go and read your own post about your wife's lack of sexuality and why you suspect her relationships since have broken down. >>

Actually Yabby, if you read what I wrote, I'm not contradicting myself at all. I joined the discussion because it rang a chord with one aspect of my personal experience. The marriage didn't end because of my ex's loss of libido - rather it ended because we had ceased to communicate to the extent that we couldn't/didn't talk about it (or anything much else about intimate aspects of our relationship, in retrospect).

The sex - or rather lack thereof - was symptomatic rather than causal, but it was also the catalyst for ending the marriage, which is why I have wondered at times whether I should have just started to pay for sex discreetly. Of course, as I've said, I'm ultimately glad that the marriage ended.

I just shouldn't have been married to that woman, lovely that she is. The kind of marriage/relationship she seems to want is not what I want - nor, it seems, does anybody else.

Of course I agree that there are some selfish, sexually manipulative women out there - I've known more than one quite well indeed. But I think men who characterise the majority of women as such ultimately miss out on what they have to offer, if treated as true equals.

I know it's posssible because of the wonderful partnership I've had with my lover and best friend for over seven years now.

"The marriage didn't end because of my ex's loss of libido"

Come on CJ, be honest. It left you frustrated and angry at times?
No sex, no talking about it. You had few options. Well you are
simply not alone, other men have experienced the same, which
is what Bettina Arndt has highlighted.

http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/allmenareliars/archives/2009/03/the_sexless_marriage.html

Examinator, you put the female case very well, you are certainly
not a typical male. That is quite possible, genes vary. I once
had an American girlfriend with a male kind of attitude to sex.
Whew, what fun :) Just a shame that she had no intentions of
living in Australia.

If you are simply seeking companionship, no need to get married
at all. They call it friendship. Some just buy a dog lol.

I remind you that what we call marriage evolved from pairbonding,
which is common in nature in species where the offspring require
a large amount of resources. Gibbons, foxes, lots of bird species
are involved and its genetic. All those feelings of "infatuation"
happen for a good reason. Have you never heard women talk of
"chemistry" ?

*It has been demonstrated several times both anthropologically and psychologically that nurture is the dominant part of attitudes (60% depending on many fators).*

Err not so, that is still highly disputed amongst the scientific
community and the figures are still fuzzy. We know lots from
twin studies. What we do know is that a good dose of testosterone
affects behaviour. Now having sleepless nights because of an
erection might not be part of your genetic makeup, but I assure
you that it is for lots of guys. Don't assume that you represent
the common male out there, for clearly you don't.

Pericles, I understand your post re’ out of context, and having carefully re-read the posts, I still think I was responding to your intent, certainly to your words, and not out of context, so I leave it to you, or others, to decide for themselves.
As I see it, we are both offering our thoughts and opinions, exactly what this site is for, and anything you or I have to say is as valid or relevant as any other person’s’ posts, even the unintelligible ones..
There is no right or wrong here, just opinions, surely?
I disagree with you on Nurt’. V Nat’., and since such “studies” are largely statistics, and hence un-reliable, I put limited faith in them, I prefer hard science. Knowledge is always being superseded by new knowledge, it grows, no-one should need reminding of that.
I have faith that over time and other threads you and I will achieve better communication levels, and look forward to that. This place is sure challenging, it would be utterly boring if we all agreed, hence I cry……”Ah hah, have at Ye, Sirrah”! &-}

Eh?

Where did this come from, Maximillion?

>>Pericles, I understand your post re’ out of context, and having carefully re-read the posts, I still think I was responding to your intent, certainly to your words, and not out of context, so I leave it to you, or others, to decide for themselves. As I see it, we are both offering our thoughts and opinions, exactly what this site is for, and anything you or I have to say is as valid or relevant as any other person’s’ posts, even the unintelligible ones.. There is no right or wrong here, just opinions, surely? <<

Too subtle for me. I've re-read my post, and it still doesn't make sense.

For what has been, historically described as a victimless crime - and hence decriminalised, this thread sure does identify alot of wannabe "victims".

Speaking personally, as someone who has never sought the services of a hooker - I just paid through the marriage process (most expensive rates) and these days the occassional dinner (although I found the last lady to bed me / I bedded, recently, exercised due courtesy and we split the bill).

I find the whole issue too complex for anyone to attempt to play the blame game.

I certainly question the right of any woman to complain about a dilitant husband if she has ever decided to feign a headache or ever used the unilateral withdraw of sexual favours as a marital weapon or declared "missionary position or nothing".

Maybe we should open another thread... 'Why I am entitled to declare myself a "victim"'

Dear Yabby,

You're right about one thing - examinator
is a very unique male!

And, as I've said in a previous post - he's
wife is a lucky female.

Why are you assuming that sex is not important
to him though? I can't help wondering ...
Because, that's not what he said - at least
that's not how I understood what he said, and
I'm sure that there are other posters out there
who understood his meaning - in the way that I
did.

The point that examinator was making was that
sex is part of a relationship - but NOT what
the entire relationship is all about. And you
infer that he as a male - is an exception to
this way of thinking?

Yabby, CJ is right! You need to get out more
often into the real world of the 21st Century
and find out that men and women have more
then just sex going for them in healthy
relationships... And I mean that in the best
possible way - you're just being simply very
blinkered in your outlook.

Think with your brain, not your rear end :)

Oh Col,

You're back. Antonios thought you had a heart attack. I figured you were probably researching something sbout Margaret.

I found this on youtube, and thought it might get your pulse racing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv5t6rC6yvg&feature=related

Col, good to see you back. I was concerned that the big heart attack
might have struck.

Foxy: *Why are you assuming that sex is not important
to him though?*

Foxy if a male dimisses sex as easily as drinking a glass
of whiskey or not, unless he is an alchoholic, that is not
a normal male sex drive. Sex is not just a want, its a
genetically programmed urge, driven by the endocrine system.

*The point that examinator was making was that
sex is part of a relationship - but NOT what
the entire relationship is all about*

But a relationship is more then just companionship
and that is the point. A relationship with no sex
life is clearly not satisfying to a heap of males out
there, as Bettina Arndt has shown. In fact its the
no 1 problem in marriages, it seems.

*You need to get out more
often into the real world of the 21st Century*

Hehe, is that so? Perhaps you Foxy, should not
just see the world through the eyes of one Victorian
female, but bother to inform yourself. Bettina Arndt
has been a major sex therapist in Australia since the
70s. If anyone knows what is going on between Australia's
sheets, she does.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/lifeandstyle/lifematters/sex-wives-and-libido/2009/03/03/1235842367573.html?page=fullpage

Perhaps you should buy the book and inform yourself, before
slinging mud.

Of course CJ is going to sling mud. Either he could have
admitted that the contradiction I pointed out was valid,
or sling mud. He chose the latter. It perhaps made him
feel a bit better. Fair enough.

Foxy,

'Think with your brain, not your rear end'

That sounds liek something Col would say. Do you reckon if Col put some smilys in his posts, he would cease to be offensive to you?

'The point that examinator was making was that
sex is part of a relationship - but NOT what
the entire relationship is all about.'

I still want you or examinator to answer Yabbys query. If a relationship isn't about sex, what differentiates a romantic relationship from a close friendship then? The physical expression of love is basically what it's all about, regardless if that involves penetration or nice massages and kissing.

I still say sex is vital in aiding open communication between couples. Even the old and disabled need sex in some form, even if only touching. The endorphins released are enormously important to mental health. Communication can only go so far until actions speak much loader than words. I cant agree with examinator I think it's a basic human need.

If a couple barely ever even kiss, I see them as friends who happen to live in the same dwelling.

Antiseptic,

You seem like the angriest man since Angry Anderson. I can imagine you getting into lots of pub fights over accidental spilling of drinks and walking around yelling 'what are yo looking at!'

Now you're getting silly, Yabby.

<< Of course CJ is going to sling mud. Either he could have
admitted that the contradiction I pointed out was valid,
or sling mud. He chose the latter. >>

Where exactly did I "sling mud" in response to your erroneous suggestion that I'd contradicted myself? I rather thought that I'd patiently explained the context in which my second marriage ended - in somewhat greater detail than I probably should have.

I even let this nonsense slide:

<< Now having sleepless nights because of an
erection might not be part of your genetic makeup, but I assure
you that it is for lots of guys. Don't assume that you represent
the common male out there, for clearly you don't. >>

Neither I, nor any of my male friends, have sleepless nights due to priapism, at least since leaving behind the hormonal nightmare of adolescence. I think you're mistaken in assuming that most men are like you.

And how does an erection keep you awake anyway - does it stop you from rolling over?

As for this tripe:

<< I remind you that what we call marriage evolved from pairbonding,
which is common in nature in species where the offspring require
a large amount of resources. Gibbons, foxes, lots of bird species
are involved and its genetic. >>

For every example of pairbonding in nature, there's dozens where it doesn't occur - most notably among our closest primate relatives. Our notion of marriage evolved from less complex social systems whereby corporate kin groups of men exchanged women with each other. I say this with some confidence as a former professional anthropologist.

Yabby>>>Now having sleepless nights because of an
erection might not be part of your genetic makeup, but I assure
you that it is for lots of guys.<<<

Why don't you just masturbate like any normal person does when horny, doesn't matter if the other half is there or not, sometimes you just gotta relax. You make it sound like a medical condition.

Dear Yabby,

I'm well aware of who Bettina Arndt is.
As a matter of fact I've read her books,
not only the latest one. I find her views
at best anachronistic - she talks about
only one aspect in a relationship - not
what else constitutes real intimacy.

And therein lies the problem with some of you
guys. I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm not
saying that sex is unimportant in a relationship,
all I'm saying is that there's more to a relationship
then sex.

And Yabby, I've got news for you - My outlook
is not at all antiquated as you infer. On the
contrary - your views fit more into that category.

Dear Houellebecq,

You must be really happy to see Col back
Well, I've got news for you - so am I!

My intention to Yabby was not to cause any offense -
simply to point out that as on reader stated in
The Age - Good Weekend magazine (21 March 2009),
"Male thinking that sex begins and ends with a
waving appendage is so limiting and unimaginative..."
Perhaps, I should have used the word "appendage"
instead of "rear end."

And you're right about "smiley faces," I'll try to
avoid them in future - except I did want to point
out that the comment was to be taken lightly -
obviously this was lost on you.

Houellebecq:"I can imagine you getting into lots of pub fights over accidental spilling of drinks and walking around yelling 'what are yo looking at!'"

I'm sure you can imagine all sorts of things. Well done, you.

'"Male thinking that sex begins and ends with a
waving appendage is so limiting and unimaginative..."'

Yes Foxy, but for every man that thinks like that, there is a woman who thinks that sex begins and ends by making like a starfish. (not a chocolate one).

Foxy I wouldn't avoid smiley faces if I were you, otherwise I would find your posts identical in style to Cols:-)

Antiseptic,

As Leyton would say, C'mon!

Fractelle,

'Why don't you just masturbate like any normal person does when horny, doesn't matter if the other half is there or not, sometimes you just gotta relax.'

Any normal Non-Catholic person? That reminds me of American Beauty when he lies in the bed next to his wife jacking off. It didn't go down well. Some (ie SOME) chicks are offended that a man be allowed to please himself,( or have any fun at all really) without her say so:-)

I did have a brief relationship with a girl who forbid me from ever doing that, as she said that was her job. A demarcation dispute. Hard (or stupid really) to argue against that.

BTW: I hope people noticed the use of 'hard', and 'go down'. Channelling Beavis and Buthead.

*I'm not
saying that sex is unimportant in a relationship,
all I'm saying is that there's more to a relationship
then sex.*

Foxy,nobody has denied that, so you are arguing with yourself :)

The point that is being made is that if there is no sex in
a relationship, then in most cases what you have left is
a friendship. No need to get married in the first place.

I'd be surprised if you have read Bettina's latest book, for
it has only be published for a few weeks. You are free to
shoot the messenger of course, but her findings are based
on what many other people think, that is exactly the point.
She is highlighting what is happening in today's community,
not in past communities. She is clearly far more in touch
with peoples views on sex and relationships, then you are.

Yes, she is a sex therapist, but when she was editor of
Forum magazine, she covered all aspects of relationships,
not just sex.

CJ, if you check my post, the second and third lot of
comments were made to Examinator, I did name him at the
start of them.

Your original post that your first wife's lack of libido
was an issue for you and future males in her life,
were fairly clear. That was clearly at the core of
the problem, however much you now try to rationalise
it away.

Well known anthropologist Helen Fisher, who specialises
in this field, might disgagree with you. She thinks that
serial monogomy was part of our genetic past, not marriage
for life as now.

If pairbonding played no role, there would be no reason
for genes to code for it. We would simply do what chimps
and bonobos have been observed to do, ie swap sex for
resources

H

I remember one time unintentionally embarrassing a boyfriend I was living with in Phoenix (he was a lot more 'straightlaced' than me. I had just left him at the condo to go to work and realised I had forgotten my uniform (waitering) and opened the door and there he was spread-eagled on the bed with his fave mens mag. I thought it was hilarious. We all like a bit of a variety, jerking-off to a T&A mag is hardly being unfaithful, we had a great sex life. I was able to tell him I had the occasional self-session when he wasn't around as well. Sometimes Mr/Ms Hand is all you need. Man he was sooo embarrassed, the doofus.

I could never get involved with someone who has weird inflexible "me tarzan you jane" sex lives. Although I do believe in monogamy - serial that is, other wise life can just get too complicated.

Pericles: To quote the God-botherers, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa"!
That post of mine was a response to Examinator, but I stuck your name on it by mistake, lol, put it down to me working three jobs.
Mine fingeren were faster than mine gerthinking-lumpen. Which was on a coffee-break. OOPS.

Dear Houellebecq,

My posts identical in style to Col's?

Now you're simply stirring ...
and this time I'm not going to bite :)

Dear Yabby,

I totally agree with you.

If there is no sex in a relationship then
of course the relationship is purely platonic.

That's not what any of us were saying.
It seems that you've misunderstood
what I was trying to say. Perhaps you
should go back and re-read some of my
posts.

I don't doubt that Bettina Arndt is a
qualified sex therapist. However, she's
not qualified to speak on behalf of people
who's experiences differ from the ones she's
researched. As I've stated earlier -
generalisations don't account for individual
experience. She can speak about some of the problems
that she encounters in her work. But she can't infer
that we all have those problems.

That's the point that was being made.

*However, she's
not qualified to speak on behalf of people
who's experiences differ from the ones she's
researched.- snip- But she can't infer
that we all have those problems.*

Foxy, you are screwing this up because once
again you take it personally, rather then
see the big picture.

Stop seeing a world only revolving around
Foxy, for I don't think you were mentioned
anywhere in her book. Start seeing the big
picture, which is what we are discussing.

Arndt has raised a valid point, about why
there are problems in a great many Australian
relationships and clearly by the reader response,
many men and women can relate to what she is saying.

You are simply one single female out of millions.
Where did she ever refer to all females?

What this discussion has highlighted is just how
far the pendulum has swung towards focussing
only on women and their needs, never mind men
and their needs, they will just have to wear it.

For it cannot be denied that a relationship where
no sex at all is involved, is a friendship, not
much more. At that point it is perhaps not
unreasonable for a male to move on, when it comes
to sexual urges. If his wife shows no interest
at all, IMHO he should feel free to move on and
look at other options, without threat of losing
his kids, his house and half his income.

You see Foxy, I am extremely fortunate. None of
this affects me, but I am still interested in
the topic and enjoy debating it, for clearly it
is a major issue in our society, so is worth
debating.

I've come to this discussion rather late and haven't read it all that thoroughly, but I just had to support Foxy's comments on Bettina Arndt.

For some females experiencing libido problems, Bettina Arndt's urging to just 'do it' anyway is probably sound advice, and could well lead to an increased level of mutual satisfaction and a general strengthening of the relationship.

If however, the low libido is only part of the problem or is a symptom of a much deeper hurting, as is often the case, Arndt's advice, if adhered to regularly, is quite likely to exacerbate the woman's dissatisfaction and unhappiness with the relationship. Just 'doing it' to please the male partner won't change the underlying problems between them, if it's those issues causing the reluctance on the woman's part in the first place, which it often is.

Many women need to be in a relationship where they can talk and communicate with their partners in a comfortable and intimate way, and where they feel valued rather than put upon or objectified, before they'll be able to feel sexually interested. For most women in a supportive and meaningful relationship, sexual desire isn't a problem.

As Foxy quoted earlier, "Wives who feel loved as opposed to used are more likely to have a healthy libido".

Another of Foxy's quotes I strongly identify with is that of the reader who said that Arndt lamented the sexual frustrations of men, but made "no attempt to look at what constitutes real intimacy in a relationship - good communication, mutual vulnerability, love, and respect."

Much of Arndt's advice on relationships is as shallow and simplistic as her political views, which she's also fond of airing and with the same self-assumed sense of authority.

Thanks Foxy, you've clearly enunciated exactly how I felt after listening to Arndt on Life Matters the other day.

Yabby,
you're right. Foxy is just one lone female. So here's another. (Although btw, Fractelle is a female too).

So far no-one- including Foxy - is advocating for a sexless marriage.

All seem to regard loss of libido in a marriage as serious - and to point out that two loving, committed partners recognise this and address the problem together.

However, as has been pointed out, the kind of relationship which both you and Bettina seem to be talking about and which, you agree with her, seems to be quite a widespread arrangement, is not this kind.

It is, as someone else pointed out, a contract.

Bettina's book appears to be advice on how best to fulfill the provisions of this contract.

It seems logical that the majority of relationships that run into trouble would be this contract type with which you are so familiar - the man's side of the bargain is to work long and hard outside the home and the woman side of the bargain is to give him a bit of nookie.

If thats all there is to the marriage then, yeah, that does seem quite reasonable.

Yet male loss of libido is also widespread and every bit as capable of disrupting a marriage. Unfortunately advice to male sufferers to keep the missus happy by throwing the occasional leg over would prove impossible to achieve.

So I would imagine that a book advising spouses on what to do would be equally as important as the one in question.

But for me to extrapolate from such a book, and from the number of women I personally have had cry on my shoulder over their husbands loss of interest in sex (equal in number perhaps to your mining buddies?)that men are crying victim and need a good seeing to would hardly be logical, surely?

Yabby - Helen Fisher is to anthropology what Dr Phil is to psychology.

As much as I realise the women posters here think Yabby doesn't 'get' what they are saying, I think maybe they just don't 'get' what Yabby is saying.

I think he sees Bettina's book as a long overdue expression of the concept that in recent times, increasingly women are fed and embrace the attitude that their needs must always be met first, then if they are adequately met by their partner (and there can be many many hoops to jump through), then they may meet his needs.

What I am saying and I think Yabby is of the same mindset, is that just sometimes, maybe a woman could think of putting her mans needs before hers. Radical I know, but I think Yabby thanks Bettina for putting it out there. Obviously some men also lose interest in sex too, but that's not the topic of the book.

So lets turn Bronwyns quote around...

'Many women need to be in a relationship where they can talk and communicate with their partners in a comfortable and intimate way, and where they feel valued rather than put upon or objectified, before they'll be able to feel sexually interested. For most women in a supportive and meaningful relationship, sexual desire isn't a problem.'

Equally, many men may need to be in a relationship where they can be physically intimate with their partners, where they can feel loved and desired and can share the joy of sex and closeness with their partner, and feel they are welcome caressing the woman they adore, rather than feel like an intruder begging for dirty favours, for them to feel like they can communicate verbally in comfortable and open and uninhibited way. For most men in a happy sensual and sexual relationship, communication isn't a problem.

I see the physical and the verbal expression of love feeding off each other. Whether men or women require the verbal expression for the physical to flow naturally or the other way around, I think it's pretty self-centred to think that your needs must be met FIRST, before you think of your partner.

Houellebecq:"increasingly women are fed and embrace the attitude that their needs must always be met first,"

Another great triumph of feminism. All the propaganda of the past 40 years or more has been about the "rights" of women, with virtually no mention of responsibilities, except as onerous burdens due entirely to men and their selfish laziness or violence or even a simple lack of understanding of women's demands.

It's refreshing to me and must be a little confronting to the women here, judging by their responses, to have a writer such as Arndt state so clearly that women are also sometimes selfish, with negative consequences for those they care for. After all, it's in complete contradiction of all they've been taught.

Houellebecq

"I think it's pretty self-centred to think that your needs must be met FIRST, before you think of your partner."

I agree. Did it ever occur to you though that often the women who've lost interest in sex have been putting out for years to satisfy their partner's sexual appetites, satisfying their own a lot of the time too it must be said, but all the while having their own deeper needs remain largely unmet?

Just as you describe, they've created for their men "a relationship where they can be physically intimate with their partners, where they can feel loved and desired and can share the joy of sex and closeness with their partner, and feel they are welcome caressing the woman they adore, rather than feel like an intruder begging for dirty favours". Many of these women have done all that for years.

"For most men in a happy sensual and sexual relationship, communication isn't a problem."

This is not necessarily the case. Many men appear to have a good sex life with a partner who is faithful to them and always there for them, and yet they still never become communicators. The communication just doesn't stretch beyond the sexual encounter. They are either not capable or interested in relating to their partners in a deeper and more permanent way. They might treat their partner well. In fact most of these men are barely aware that their partner is crying out for much more than sex and a roof over her head.

"I see the physical and the verbal expression of love feeding off each other."

I agree, but unfortunately the 'verbal expression' for many men begins and ends with the sexual side of the relationship. For the rest of the time, they retreat into their world of sport, work, TV, their mates or whatever and are often totally unaware that their female partners want intimacy and closeness both in and outside the bedroom.

Men like examinator and CJ understand this perfectly.

Bronwyn, surely if a woman is doing her best to give her man the relationship he wants, and isn't satisfied with her own side of it, then it's up to her to communicate that fact? Withdrawing sex is hardly an intelligent response, it exacerbates the problems, spreading the pain, not a winning strategy. You generalise about men, repeating the hoary old stereotypes, yet ignore the fact that most young men these days are working their butts off to be sensitive. The sensitivity and communication that is expected of them is a female characteristic, it doesn't come naturally to males, yet they have learnt it to varying degrees. Why should the learning be one-sided? You talk about mutual effort, yet seem to be saying it should be a mutual effort to please the woman, not the pair. Bettina Arndt has made the effort, quite successfully, but because she doesn't now toe the femnist line, her words are rejected, PC lives yet.
IMO, until we stop thinking about it in PC terms, we cannot progress, we need to work out a way that encompasses the gender differences, that supports the idea of "equal but different" within relationships.

Bronwyn,

I understand and agree with most of what you say, but the whole point is that there ARE two sides to this, which I have never denied (Did you notice I said 'Equally, '). The female side of things you put accross, while valid, has been poured over and analyised relentlessly for the last 50 years, usually with the man to blame for everything. The current generation of men have constantly heard how much more attentive they should be to their wifes emotional needs and desired level of verbal communication in the relationship.

The male side of things has been totally neglected to the point where a man wanting a healthy sex life is given all these pre-requesites that must be satisfied (on his part only) to achieve this, in an environment where any woman willingly engaging in any sexual encounter primarily to please her partner is trained to think of it as rape.

I don't remember women being given any pre-requisites to be satisfied when all this brow beating of those non-communicative neanderthal men was handed out. There has been no search for a middle ground, all I've seen is 'verbal communication is king, ' rammed down your average old fashioned 'actions speak louder than words' male's throat.

It's all very one sided, and just look at the uproar from the women here at hearing another side to the argument.

'"Wives who feel loved as opposed to used are more likely to have a healthy libido". '
The term 'used' here really offends me. Anyone who feels 'used' for sex either doesn't like sex, sees sex as something they give in return for something else, isn't communicating their needs to their partner, or their partner is ignoring their needs. I note that all the woman here have concentrated solely on that last possibility. Says a lot to me.

If the old saying that women give sex in return for love and men give love in return for sex has any truth, it's never going to work if only one party is doing the giving regardless of the gender.

Dear Houellebecq,

Did you and some of the other male posters
on this thread not understand the meaning of
these words in my post
where I quite clearly stated - that
Robert had nailed it his statement
that BOTH partners, "need to be
pro-active and willing to learn..."
in a relationship. That it takes
two to tango. That BOTH have to be
involved. That there's got to be give
and take in any relationship. That if all
you do is take - you're going to end up
frustrated and alone. Pro-active is the
key word here.

How is that being one-sided?

To have a one-sided relation ask your girlfriend to do a mobius strip.

Foxy, I admire and laud your attempts to be even-handed, in my opinion you're on the right track, yet you occasionally still fall into the trap(as I see it) of the femnist ideology.
I have a question for you; Why do you decry a male's attitude to sex as a "want", yet a woman's is a "need"? surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander? I have gone back and read your posts again before asking, and that has lead me to another question.
You don't like Btn' Arndt generalising, quoting exceptions such as yourself. BA seems to me to be quite clear that she's discussing overall trends, common situations, and of course there will always be exceptions, that doesn't detract from the points she raises, or her conclusions drawn, does it?

It's Mrs Pierno here. I started this discussion and am quite amazed at the way it has gone, both regarding the number of comments and the subject matter discussed. Just want to say:

1. I am a real person, female, and this was not a "leg-pull" but was in fact a genuine commentary in response to an article written by a capable young writer - go back to the beginning for her name;
2. The young husband does exist; he was (in my opinion) totally self-absorbed; I therefore agree with comments about the need for both parties to be interested, communicating etc;
3. Between husbands number 2 and number 3 I had a relationship with a an Aussie truck-driver/handyman - hullo Steve wherever you are; a great participant and the best lover a woman could ever want; a man to put a smile on a woman's face; not young, just the same age as me; not tall; not rich; but a good honest Aussie bloke. I followed Bettina's policy/recommendation and the relationship lasted more than eleven years; Bettina makes a good point; common sense really.

Dear Max,

I didn't realize that I had described a man's
inclination towards sex as a 'want' and a woman's
as a 'need'. Perhaps that was the language used
to which I was responding. It was not intentional
and my apologies - I did not mean to differentiate
between the two. To me - sex is an important part
of a healthy relationship, one in which both parties
should be pro-active. As Mrs p - stated - simple
really.

As for Bettina Arndt. I don't question her research,
or her views on the sexual problems that exist in our society.
Only her lack of presenting fully the reasons 'why' these
problems exist - before telling us "what" to do about them.
She on the other hand puts the "what to do about them"
ahead of the "whys." That's what I find rather troubling.

But, as I said earlier - that's only my opinion.
Bettina has many admirers - of that I have no doubt.
I just don't happen to be one of them. That's all.
To me she simply does not go far enough. It's not a
gender thing at all.

Well I find Bettina Arndt's one line response of her findings
quite refreshing and for good reasons.

Clearly she is aware that there are all sorts of people out
there in society, not all of them deeply thinking, well read
and as rational as many posters on OLO. Take a look at
Mr and Mrs Average, how many even bother to buy a book to
inform themselves and change their lives?

Her book simply acknowledges the worldwide fact that once
women have that ring on their finger and have had kids, they
commonly lose their libido. Its far greater then an Australian
problem and IMHO there are good evolutionary reasons for it,
but that is another story.

What she has documented is how 98 couples of all types negotiate
the business of the sex supply.

Yes, it takes two caring, thinking individuals to tango, but
not all relationships have two, they still need dealing with.

Not all males are going to be converted into effeminate metrosexuals
either.

Where we have a problem is that for 30 years or so, young females
have been hearing the slogan "you are a victim - but you have power"

I saw this played out in our district, when two young North Americans,
who were not the brightest peas in the pod, moved into the area.
They got tangled up with local guys, but unfortunately for these fellows,
these girls had been impregnated with the victim mantra. Cooking
was not their job and everything would be on their terms, so of course
both relationships failed.

Bettina's one liner might make a few people wake up that if they abuse
their new found power too much, they won't have a marriage left.

“Anyone who feels 'used' for sex either…., or their partner is ignoring their needs. I note that all the woman here have concentrated solely on that last possibility. Says a lot to me”.

Actually, not all the women here have concentrated solely on that last possibility. I agreed that in a relationship where sex is an exchange commodity Bettina’s advice seemed fair enough. Ignoring remarks like this “says a lot” too, I think. As does presenting Foxy, CJ, Examinator as aberrant exceptions.

Bettina A presents, after all, as a sex therapist. She doesn’t deal with the Foxy’s, CJ’s and Examinators. She only sees those who are in bad marriages. I don’t doubt for a minute that if people go into a relationship where sex is regarded as a favour the whole thing is going to fall apart as the seams.

She wrote a book which “documented … how 98 couples of all types negotiate the business of the sex supply.” (the very language seems to put that out of the realms of what I personally would consider a happy marriage. But, hey, whatever floats your boat) . But how on earth does that fact get translated into acknowledging” the worldwide fact that once women have that ring on their finger and have had kids, they commonly lose their libido”?.

I think this discussion is really about the fact that some people see the above 98 couples – or even every single one of Bettina A’s clientele - as supporting their personal experiences and/or views, and from there take a giant leap into using this to support generalizations about women’s attitudes to marriage/sex.

The use of phrases like “all the women here have…” done something, and the description of Foxy, Bronwyn, Fractelle and I as being in an “uproar…at hearing another side to the argument” are mistaken.

I think that what those of us on the other side of the fence are objecting to are these hyperbolic leaps of logic. (those of us who express our sexuality are trained to think of it as rape?. Bloody ‘ell)

Actually Romany, alot of what I wrote in that last post came
straight from Bettina herself, so perhaps you should read the
couple of pages involved, rather then jumping to conclusions.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/lifeandstyle/lifematters/sex-wives-and-libido/2009/03/03/1235842367573.html?page=fullpage

Given that it is her field of expertise and has been for
30 something years, just give her a little bit of credit
for being perhaps better informed on the topic, then the
odd OLO poster, who often has more opinion then knowledge on
a subject.

And all along I thought that MAKING LOVE took two consenting adults and that sex can either be indulged in singly or in consenting groups. Never did I believe that sex was something women provided to men; even in the animal kingdom the female either consents or she doesn't.

Now if a persons libido takes a nosedive (so to speak) then there is a problem; physical, mental or a combination of both.

"Putting the canoe into the water" sounds like a band-aid solution at best, goes nowhere to revitalise a sexual relationship and long-term partnership at worst.

Having had a relationship or two or three or...whatever no-one's business how many partners I've had, but the biggest turn off for me is not feeling loved or respected. This doesn't just mean bringing home a bunch of flowers (although that is appreciated it is a cop-out) but it does mean working at the relationship.

When I was in my 20's I was married, working full-time; I would come home, clean house, cook dinner, wash dishes while my "partner" put his feet up in front of the Teev till bedtime when he expected and often demanded "nookie". Surely it doesn't require an Einstein to figure that sex became an undesirable chore for me: I regard myself as having a very healthy libido BTW. The problem was the relationship. I tried to get him to counseling - he wasn't interested. So I left. He probably went to prostitutes rather than deal with his relationship with his wife (me). And frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. If both partners aren't willing to work at their relationship, then sooner or later it becomes toxic.

It takes two. And neither partner is 'obligated' to provide sexual relief at the whim of another - if that's what you want there are plenty sex aids from inflatable dollies to vibrators.

PS
Romany: excellent point, Ms Arndt only sees troubled couples and apparently there were only 98 of those in her study - hardly enough to reach any sort of comprehensive conclusion - but it does sell books.

Maximillion

"Bronwyn, surely if a woman is doing her best to give her man the relationship he wants, and isn't satisfied with her own side of it, then it's up to her to communicate that fact?"

I agree. My point is that there are many women who have tried their level best to do just that and to no avail. They are forced to accept that their partner can not, or does not want to, put the effort required into creating the close, caring and ongoing communication that is needed to sustain a meaningful relationship. Women in this situation can 'put the canoe in the water' to please their partner. They can do this for years, and many do. There comes a point though, where these women can feel they're doing little more than prostituting themselves. That's when withdrawing or at least not inviting sex can begin to seem like the only way to maintain a sense of one's worth and integrity.

I'm not talking about the young men you mention that are "working their butts off to be sensitive." I'm talking about the ones who aren't.

Fractelle

"I regard myself as having a very healthy libido BTW. The problem was the relationship."

I'm sure those words would strike a chord with many women, and with some men too it must be said. Not every one in that position though is able to walk away, and for many the more they've invested in the relationship the harder it is. It's something that people like Bettina Arndt just don't get.

Yabby

"Actually Romany, a lot of what I wrote in that last post came straight from Bettina herself.."

That's interesting. I don't remember seeing any quotation marks or links or references. That a habit of yours, Yabby?

"Its far greater then an Australian problem and IMHO there are good evolutionary reasons for it, but that is another story."

Not like you to hold back. If and when you do spill the beans and enlighten us all, just make sure we know when you're quoting and when you're not, won't you.

*That's interesting. I don't remember seeing any quotation marks or links or references*

Ah Bronwyn, but I had provided the link to that URL, just a few posts ago.
"Negotiating the sex supply" came from Bettina. What I learned
was that Romany had not even bothered to read what Bettina had
written, despite the URL. Fair enough, that is her choice.

Fractelle, this study alone involved 98 couples. 30 something years
studying a subject generally gives people some knowledge. You have
done much like may female OLO posters, ie. your own experience
is how you see the world, never mind the qualified experts.

You are of course free to keep trading in husbands and boyfriends
for new ones, when they don't live up to your standards, but not
all women want to do that. Some still need hubby around to cough
up that paycheck, to raise the offspring. Bettina would have
been addressing those women as well.

I googled "libido' and found all sorts of interesting information.
It can be caused by medications and all sorts of mental reasons
unrelated to hubby. Clearly those women need solutions and advice
too. Cancelling the love life, is not exactly going to strengthen
the marriage.

Sure a woman has the right to cut off a husbands sex life. She
has the power after all and some people of both genders misuse
power when they have it. If she is not interested in him anymore
fair enough, but in the next breath she should not complain if
he then sleeps with somebody else.

“Romany had not even bothered to read what Bettina had written, despite the URL. Fair enough, that is her choice.” Actually, I had skimmed the article – but that’s beside the point. I’m not arguing with Ms. Arndt here. I’m arguing about using dysfunctional marriages to typify all marriages. Unarguably dysfunctional marriages are the lady’s forte, yeah? I repeat: how does that then get utilized as a blueprint for all marriages?

If Ms. Arndt had experience of 98,000 marriages the fact remains that her expertise is NOT marriage .Her field is dysfunctional marriage. Whether those who accept her advice and ideas end up with fulfilling, happy relationships is also beside the point.

What is significant is that these dysfunctional marriages are operating under completely different parameters to functioning, happy marriages. The responses on this forum unarguably support this observation: - people who have been in a relationship where both partners are not investing in the marriage to the same degree report break down.

Those who have volunteered that their relationships differ from the quoted “contractual” model have reported happy relationships. Surely it therefore follows that thousands and millions of people who have no need of Ms. Arndt’s services have successfully managed to sustain their relationships. The commonality seems to be that they don’t go into them with pre-conceived ideas of genderised roles or attributes but instead see their partners as unique, much-loved people with differing needs at different times which are worked at together.

The only way that this conclusion is not obvious is to dismiss opposing evidence as aberrant. To use Mrs. Arndt’s experiences to make generalized conclusions about women in general seems only to prove that one has tightly-held beliefs that women as an entire gender behave in the same way, have the same ideas, the same views and all need the same come-uppance. Bizarre.

p.s. Providing a URL in a different post doesn't release us from the obligation of clarifying when we are making use of someone else's words and ideas in subsequent posts.

One of biggest and most accepted flaws with Freud was that much of his philosophy was based on his clientele predominately Middle class frustrated Viennese women. Despite his “experience” today much of what he taught i.e. “we all want to express sex” is regarded as belonging to the above context and not applicable today.
Likewise dealing with aberrant is hardly good reference for the sound (what ever that may mean given every relationship is different). Bettina IMO serves the same purpose in society as the rest of the self help book authors. A reasonable read for those who need that sort direction. For better or worse I don’t give any of them much stock as they tend to be about ‘other people’ and not me.

Sorry about this … the thrust of crisis counselling it to help the individual to deal with issue on their own terms…to get them over the hump until they can cope on their own or access professional help. For all of the above reasons Bettina’s wisdom must be taken in context not as blinding insight into your personal lives. (Sex or otherwise). If Yabby wants real insight into sex his or how it plays out there are better sources and documentation around.

As an observation the more I read of yabby on this topic the more I’m convinced he needs to talk to someone about his issues. Like the show on TV ‘lie to me’ (fascination but highly over stated) we declare our problems by body language, ‘Freudian ‘slips and characteristic word patterns, usages, colour preference the way we handle our personal space and the way we dress etc.

His comment about “trading in husbands and boy friends” is one such example. It sticks out because of its superfluousness
His response to a throw away line by Foxy in an unrelated topic also says something. I don’t purport to know what.

PS Romany just to prove I’m not aberrant I’d use a prostitute if I could find one who charged by the minute. :-(

Examinator, I threw Freud and Jung out, around 30 years ago. Perhaps you should
swat up your endocrinology and neuroscience, if you want to make sense of
human behaviour. Things won’t make much sense either, unless you understand
what drives the genders sexually. That is why my interest in the topic.

Foxy once again jumped to the wrong conclusions. Floating on emotional
clouds seemingly gets confusing at times :) So I set the record straight, seeing
that my name was mentioned.

Romany, what is a functional or dysfunctional marriage is really up to the
participants to decide. Not everyone has the same expectations in life.

Could you point out where it was written that all these 98 couples have
dysfunctional marriages? Or was that just another guess?

Mismatched libido can happen with all couples, so how they variously
deal with it, is what was documented. I’ll ignore Examinator’s snobby
comment on that one.

If you girls want men who spend endless hours listening to your every
emotional pondering, perhaps you should discuss these things before
you get married.

I once had a very similar discussion with 4 of my female staff, around
the morning coffee table. I suggested that honesty was a pretty good
policy, when it came to dating. All four were horrified at the thought,
for each one was trying to snare a husband after all.

Lots of blokes don’t change that much, before and after marriage. The
problem seems to be when women marry them and then want to
change them into something that they never were, before they snared
their husband.

If it means cutting off his bit of nooky to try and enforce those changes,
some even try that. Next stop is invariably the divorce courts

Yabby,
Examinator expressed what I was getting at pretty well. I expect I was being just a little too subtle. Or 'snobby'?

You have not really engaged with any of the posters you have replied to and don't seem actually to have taken anyone's comments on board. It also seems that there is quite a bit of transference going on - especially with your comments to Foxy which were what drew me in to reply originally. I honestly thought you genuinely were open to a discussion.

Never mind, mate. You, I guess like most of us, seem to have been battered around the edges by life a bit too. Cheers.

Examinator - maybe a prostitute with a gambling addiction? You could pay her in one dollar coins for the pokies?

Yabby,
You've even told your 4 staff. I bet that went down a treat, the boss telling them how to run our sex lives. Especially if you were as understanding to their point of view as you have been to the women on OLO in this topic.
I do admit you have some issues telling strong women they’re wrong about the way they should feel.

The Freud bit was an analogy to illustrate that despite Bettina’s ‘experience’ her utterances are to be taken in context. Perhaps you must have missed that bit.

I would point out your rave on a different topic was a little excessive and did I mention against the rules of OLO the one that says stick to the topic. Most people would have let it pass hence my thoughts of your unresolved issues.

Does it matter so much that foxy (in your opinion) floats in a cloud or that the women and I and CJ see things differently to you?

In reality emotions are a good things to express given the right time and place but this is neither and they’re diabolically difficult to justify to someone else.
bye

Examinator, so let me get this straight. I was a good 25 years older
then my staff and because I suggested to them that honesty was a
good policy, to sort things out before people get married, you
now claim that I was "the boss telling them how to run our sex lives."

Examinator, either you are really stupid or really devious.

Freud has nothing to do with Bettina Arndt. Perhaps you googled the
word "libido", found the Freud popularised it and thought that you
would make a smartarsed comment to try and make yourself look like
an intellectual. Sorry, but the link is in your mind, nobody elses
mind.

*your rave on a different topic was a little excessive and did I mention against the rules of OLO the one that says stick to the topic.*

In that case Foxy should not have mentioned my name, for in that case, I have every reason to respond. Examinator, you and I speak
different languages. I am more like Bettina Arndt, practical and
I say things as I see them. You float on the clouds, seemingly to
make a good impression. I don't care about my impression on OLO lol.

Lets compare languages. You point out that you would prefer to
hire prostitutes by the minute, given your personal circumstances.
I would interpret that into more common language, ie that you are
frankly too mean fisted, as given your circumstances, you might
not get your money's worth. I say it as I see it, even if you and
the Foxy's of this world don't like it. Bettina calls a spade a
spade, good on her. Viva practial girls :)

Just to set the record straight. Foxy raised the issue of that I
should get about more, I responded. Foxed raised the issue of
Yabby seemingly being obsessed with sex, I responded. I am sure that
Foxy can defend herself quite adequately. I will still point out
where she is deluded, when the occasion arises.

Anyhow, now I have run out of posts for a while, so post all the
crap-that-you-want

Clearly Yabby's right on the issue of female sexuality and all the intelligent, well-adjusted women and men in good relationships with women who've posted here are wrong.

However, I bet we engage in a great deal more "nooky" than Yabby does, without having to pay for it. It seems pretty obvious to me why some men remain single - and pretty bitter and twisted about it.

CJMorgan:"It seems pretty obvious to me why some men remain single "

Oh, please do share with us, won't you CJ? I'm sure we're all agog for the pearls of relationship wisdom that are waiting to spill from your keyboard...

I'll confine my comments to myself, as I don't have your omniscience.

In my own case, I choose to remain single because my experiences have left me distrustful of women in intimate relationships, especially marriage. That may be a reflection on me: make your own judgement, but the fact remains that I have come out the worse from each long-term relationship I have been in. The 5 years of Court battles over my children following my ex-eife's decision to end our marriage was the last straw. That process effectively ended my career and any hope of living out the rest of my life in the manner I had anticipated. It also cost me almost all of the small amount of capital I had accumulated and damn near ended my life.

I was brought up to respect women and to go out of my way to be courteous, "gallant", forgiving of their foibles, protective of their weaknesses and all of the rest of the traditional male virtues. I retain a sense of the "fitness" of those values and have tried to live by them, but all that I have received in return, time after time, is a sense of selfish entitlement.

So be it. I would love to find a woman I genuinely trusted to act honourably and as part of a couple, with our collective interests as the first priority, but I'm not holding my breath. It's their loss.

Antiseptic, one doesn't need to be omniscient to detect from your numerous posts to OLO that you don't like women very much.

<< I was brought up to respect women and to go out of my way to be courteous, "gallant", forgiving of their foibles, protective of their weaknesses and all of the rest of the traditional male virtues. >>

You're an anachronism, just like those who expect sex in return for bringing home the bacon. You need to bring your values up to date, or you condemn yourself to a lifetime of bitterness and frustration.

CJMorgan:"you don't like women very much."

What a lot of rubbish. I like women very much, I simply don't trust them to behave with any sense of personal honour. Why would they, when they're constantly given the message that they're excused from all wrong-doing?

CJMorgan:"You're an anachronism, just like those who expect sex in return for bringing home the bacon. You need to bring your values up to date, or you condemn yourself to a lifetime of bitterness and frustration."

If it is anachronistic to treat women as women, not as men with funny-looking genitals, then I'm guilty as charged. Long may I continue to do the same. Most women I have met seem to appreciate it.

OTOH, if a woman wants to go on to form a closer association with me, then she must convince me that she is able to be trusted to live up to the obligations of such a relationship. If she's unwilling or unable to do that, then she can hit the road. If she doesn't like the height of the bar she has to jump, she can blame her predecessors

Dear Yabby,

A few clarifications need to be made:

As I told you in one of my earlier posts -
the point that examinator was making was
that sex is part of a relationship, but NOT
what the entire relationship is all about.
You inferred that he as a male was an
exception in this way of thinking.

That's why I said that you needed to get
out more into the real world of the 21st
century and find out that men and women have
MORE then just sex going for them in healthy
relationships. And, as I wrote, I meant that
in the best possible way - that you were just
being very blinkered in your outlook.

It seems that quite a few posters agreed with
my point of view.

None of us have denied the fact that there are
problems in male-female relationships. Of course
there are. And they are huge - as you pointed out.
However, what we've been trying to tell you is
that sex in only part of these problems - and its
not a problem for everyone.

Anyway, I did apologise to you if I caused any offence
about referring to your "obsession" with sex. I should
have chosen another word - but it was late at night
when I posted that flippant remark to examinator - and it was
meant to be taken lightly. Obviously, I touched a nerve
with you - and I'm sorry.

You in turn however, accused my of "floating" in my own
little world... so I guess that balances things out.
Yes, I am a bit of a dreamer - however as I'm tall,
five feet ten inches in my bare feet, even taller in heels,
and of a slender build.
I think I wouldn't float successfully - I'd probably
drift away.
Besides I embarrass easily - so I wouldn't even attempt it.

Cheers.

CJ, around 2 years ago, a dedicated SNAG like yourself, preached to me the joys
of his family, for he lived for little else. He had it all figured out, he claimed.
18 months later she ran off with somebody else and his understanding of the world
collapsed, so nearly did his world. Given that you turned to drink over your first
relationship, perhaps there are still things that you have to learn.

If per chance you have found your soulmate, that is wonderful, but not exactly
common. Do no confuse that with marriage, as is common in society.

If only soulmates got married, then marriage would indeed be a rare thing.
People get married because they are lonely, because they want kids, because
it’s the tradition, because they want perceived security, etc.

What Bettina Arndt does is advise how to keep the wheels on the marriage cart,
for those who want to keep things going and they are all types. That she
does well. I have not claimed anywhere that you or others on this thread are
wrong about you, simply that what applies to you, suits you and not everyone
else, so do not confuse the two.

*just like those who expect sex in return for bringing home the bacon.*

In that case why should they bother with bringing home the bacon? The fundamentals
of marriage are still based on a sexual relationship and if there is no relationship,
then there is no marriage to speak of. If the wife can’t be bothered with his needs,
why should he be bothered with her needs? So they land up in the divorce courts. That’s
why Bettina’s advice is worth taking note of, for many couples, even if they
don’t apply to CJ.

So you have never paid for sex? LOL, clearly the first wife was too kind to you
and did not do a good job at taking the house, the kids, the car, the bank account
and half your wages. Lucky CJ! Other men are not so fortunate.

Yabby

Your attitude to women is so bitter and so one-sided that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if you had trouble maintaining long term relationships with them, but I'm not going to make personal judgements. I'm certainly far from having this whole relationship business sorted myself and don't pretend to have the easy answers. I do know though that any relationship has to be viewed as a partnership of equals, and that as others here have pointed out the quality of the communication is critical.

"If the wife can’t be bothered with his needs, why should he be bothered with her needs?"

This statement is just one of the many you make that are so telling. Notice how you've put 'his needs' first. Your statement can just as easily be turned around, and why shouldn't it?

"If the husband can’t be bothered with her needs, why should she be bothered with his needs?"

You see, Yabby, that question is just as valid as yours and yet it never even occurs to you to ask it.

Obviously, both partners are entitled to ask the same question. The only fair solution then is to work together and find ways to meet halfway and to hopefully arrive at a situation where both partners feel they are having their needs met.

The trouble with Bettina Arndt is that she's only looking at one side of the situation. Her solution is that women should just get over it and satisfy men's sexual needs, regardless of any deeper concerns they may have about the quality of their relationship, and that in so doing they will automatically have their own needs met to a greater extent as well.

She and you completely miss the point that the 'woman's needs' are often more complex and less likely to be met solely through sex. You obviously haven't found a woman capable of convincing you of this yet. I hope one day you do.

*She and you completely miss the point that the 'woman's needs' are often more complex*

Bronwyn, if I miss the point, then clearly I am in good company! Frankly I think
that you miss the point, so I will try to explain.

What you are essentially telling me is that you think that you can start with a kelpie
and by talking to it long enough, you hope it will turn into a poodle. Frankly I
don’t like your chances.

Years ago I read a great little book called “Brainsex, “ which delved into all the
scientific research that had been done on gender differences due to hormonal
influences, from foetus to old age. It was “Brainsex “ that got me interested
and learning more about endocrinology.

I dusted it off today and reread a couple of pages, even thinking of you as I did :)

To quote just a tiny bit: 98% of women according to an American study, wanted men to talk to them more, about their own personal thoughts, feelings, plans, emotions.
81% of women say it is they who initiate deep conversations, trying very hard to
get men to express their innermost thoughts and feelings. Nearly 75% of women in
long term relationships had finally given up trying to achieve a closer emotional
bond.

You seem to be ignoring biology . If you want a poodle, so start with one.
Forcing people to be something that they don’t want to be, might well fail.

Some women’s surging and crashing hormone levels makes things so complex,
that they do not even understand themselves, let alone have any male make
sense of them. Once again , biology is kicking in.

Finally some good news :) As you hit your 50s, menopause sets in and his
testosterone reduces, those hormones calm down in both genders, so
you might just get along better then in your 20s, 30s and 40s, when they
were raging on both sides.

Um Yabby... you can dust off all those tomes as much as you like, but the fact remains that you're on your own with your old outmoded texts, while we more enlightened types enjoy far happier lives with our partners - that often include the kinds of sex that you either imagine or pay for.

Yes, Bettina makes sense to those unfortunates who regard sex as a commodity, but - as others have pointed out - there are probably more for whom 'putting the canoe in the water' ia just another exploitative insult than otherwise. In my relatively extensive experience of making love to women, I've learnt that the more we men actively and honestly engage in it, the better for all concerned.

Silly you. It's really not all that difficult, if you have an honest heart and a desire to please your lover.

Hold the boat a minute!

Now I'm completely confused: in a previous incarnation Antiseptic went into detail on a few occasions about how his mother had brought him up in a feminist environment and gave this as his reason for disliking feminists.

Now we hear "I was brought up to respect women and to go out of my way to be courteous, "gallant", forgiving of their foibles, protective of their weaknesses and all of the rest of the traditional male virtues" - the very antithesis of a feminist upbringing - but gives this as his reason for disliking other kinds of women.

Then there was the news that his parter was going to have a baby which was duly born and gave him a reason to dislike breast-feeding women.

Now he claims to be single and says he has not met any woman at all he can honour. (which would include, presumably, the mother of his latest child).

What's going on here really?

Romany:"Antiseptic went into detail on a few occasions about how his mother had brought him up in a feminist environment"

In that case, please point out where, with a quote, because I've said no such thing. I was raised in a traditional family unit, 1 father, 1 mother and my grandmother lived with us until she dies when I was about 13. Off you toddle, the list of my posts is freely available and you've obviously got lots of time on your hands.

Romany:"Then there was the news that his partner was going to have a baby which was duly born and gave him a reason to dislike breast-feeding women."

Another "quote" that doesn't exist. As it happens, I think breastfeeding is an important function in the earliest stages of life, but I also think that some women try to "milk" that function into a career at home, paid for by the Govt and the ex. I don't respect those people or their intent.

2 down, 1 to go.

Romany:"Now he claims to be single and says he has not met any woman at all he can honour. (which would include, presumably, the mother of his latest child)"

Oh dear me, Romany, you really must try to read what is said, instead of trying to put your own rather tepid spin on it. I have two children by the one woman, to whom I was married. That relationship ended some 9 years ago but you're right, I don't have any respect for the personal sense of honour of my ex-wife and frankly, bugger all for you, dear. I don't have much time for dishonest people.

That's 3 out of 3 outright lies, Romany. No wonder you don't get much sex.

I know this will probably sound like
a cliche - but I was raised with the
ethos that, "It's not who we meet along
life's highway that matters; it's how
we treat them."

And so far, it's worked out rather well...

Relationships aren't easy - but if there's
give and take on both sides. If you try your
hardest to make things work - you usually
succeed. Of course there are impossible
situations - where no matter what you do -
you're mis-matched and nothing works - then
perhaps walking away may be the best option.

Yabby, I hope that one day you will find the
partner who satisfies all of your appetites.

I wish you All The Best.

Prostitution is simply sex as commodity. This works fine for people who are more comfortable separating the sexual act from the complications of an ongoing intimate relationship with another person. Some people are simply unable to articulate their feelings and needs in personal relationships and no doubt would be better off simply paying for sex than trying to have long term relationships which are doomed to failure, causing pain and suffering for all involved.

I have seen plenty of evidence of the above mentioned from a few of the posters to this thread. For example, to paraphrase Yabby, “blokes who bring home the bacon are entitled to sex whether their partner is interested or not” missing the point that both partners work whether in paid employment or in domestic chores.

And then followed up by this quote by Yabby from Brainsex: “98% of women according to an American study, wanted men to talk to them more, about their own personal thoughts, feelings, plans, emotions.
81% of women say it is they who initiate deep conversations, trying very hard to get men to express their innermost thoughts and feelings. Nearly 75% of women in long term relationships had finally given up trying to achieve a closer emotional bond.”

And then assuming that all men are like him in not wanting close emotional bonds with their partners. Yabby, men are not a single homogenous group, for which I am profoundly grateful.

Cont'd

Cont'd

So, there are still men trapped in the idea that males don't want to express their feelings to anyone especially their life partners (which prompts the question who do they talk to?) and still think of sex as something that women provide FOR them, that a woman refusing to have sex is somehow 'denying them' – never occurs to these men that women are denying sex for themselves as well and that there is a reason for it. These men will never find out the reason because 'talking about feelings' is female 'stuff' and, therefore, not applicable to them.

While men like this refuse to consider that it takes two people to have a relationship, prostitution will continue to do very well. And prostitutes thank you for that.

To A-septic,

LOL, when I read your claim “I was brought up to respect women and to go out of my way to be courteous, "gallant", forgiving of their foibles, protective of their weaknesses and all of the rest of the traditional male virtues.” I guess that must be when you are not posting online.

However I say thank you kind sir, as I too was brought to respect men and go out of my way to be courteous, gallant, forgiving of their foibles, protective of their weaknesses and all the rest of the traditional female virtues.

Therefore, I feel sorry for you and Yabby that you have been so unsuccessful in maintaining long term relationships and that you cannot reflect on your part in those failures. You bring out my protective instincts with your vulnerabilities. I suggest, perhaps, a course in meditation would at least help with your anger if not your ability to communicate in a courteous fashion to others

Antiseptic,

I do beg your pardon and apologise most sincerely. I obviously made a big mistake and got you confused with someone else. I don't follow OLO as regularly or as avidly as I once did - so the persona seem to have become a little muddled. I really put my foot in it that time, didn't I?

I had to grin at your parting shot, though. Having never once on OLO made any mention at all of my current personal circumstances - while freely discussing past issues - I'm also a little mystified at how you managed to draw that conclusion: or is a bad sex life something you just wish on those you don't respect? In this instance however, that's one shot in the dark that went so wide of the mark I'll dine out on it for months!

Once again, please accept my apologies for my previous post. Cheers.

Yabby

”What you are essentially telling me is that you think that you can start with a kelpie and by talking to it long enough, you hope it will turn into a poodle."

Ah Yabby, a harmless little dog analogy and yet so revealing of your attitude to women, which of course is exactly as you intended.

For you, the non-communicative male is a kelpie - a strong, agile, intelligent working dog. The male he’ll be, if god forbid a designing woman gets him in her clutches and tries to get him talking to her, is a poodle - a small, yapping accessory dog. In your eyes, any man who forms an equal relationship with a woman and allows her to draw out his communicative qualities is somehow a wussier dog, or a lesser man.

“Some women’s surging and crashing hormone levels makes things so complex, that they do not even understand themselves, let alone have any male make sense of them. Once again, biology is kicking in.”

As you so often do, you call on biology to give credence to your antiquated prejudices. Fluctuating hormones are just part of the complexity of being female. They’re something we all live with and manage to greater or lesser degrees of success, just as men too are not immune to hormonal influences. Why latch onto this perfectly natural phenomenon to somehow try and set women up as neurotic and unstable captives of their own weak bodies?

“Forcing people to be something that they don’t want to be, might well fail.”

First of all, no one here that I know is talking about’ forcing’ anyone to be something they don’t want to be. And besides, what makes you so sure that the males you see as kelpies are as keen as you obviously are to remain impenetrable emotional islands? Who’s to say that these men mightn’t actually prefer to throw off the old restrictive stereotypes and be freed to get in touch with their more feminine side?

* Yabby, men are not a single homogenous group*

Err Fractelle, nobody has claimed that they were. However if
like me, you ever have intentions of trying to understand
human behaviour and the world that is going on around us,
it pays to understand basic biological influence on behaviour of both genders.

*I feel sorry for you and Yabby that you have been so unsuccessful in maintaining long term relationships *

That is very sweet of you Fractelle, but I don't think that it might
have occured to you or most posters on here, that perhaps in my
own personal life, I don't yearn for what you yearn for?

The only one who got even close to mentioning what I am personally
developing, was Max, when he mentioned whole new kinds of
relationships that others had not even thought about, or words
to that effect.

Some young ones have discovered the concept of "friends with
benefits" and some forward thinking 50 somethings have discovered
similar concepts. Living free without having to constantly
compromise, has huge advantages. You get to do what you want,
when you want, how you want.

There are plenty of single women in their 50s, living on pretty
low incomes, yet they appreciate the advantages of having their
own homes, as they want, without the normal compromises of
partnership. Yet they would still like a bit of love and affection
in their lives. If they are quite happy to give me a bit of
pleasure, I see no reason why I should not give them a bit of
pleasure and help supplement their incomes for them. Not everyone
is focussed on money and wants a "freebie", like CJ.

Yabby claims:
"There are plenty of single women in their 50s, living on pretty
low incomes, yet they appreciate the advantages of having their
own homes, as they want, without the normal compromises of
partnership. Yet they would still like a bit of love and affection
in their lives. If they are quite happy to give me a bit of
pleasure, I see no reason why I should not give them a bit of
pleasure and help supplement their incomes for them."

Given that you also are in your 50's, have all the emotional intelligence of a pair of Y-fronts, I can only hope you pay them well for their services, given that your after sex repartee would be limited to a snore. And congratulations on those women remaining in complete control of their lives, perhaps, Yabby you should ask yourself this: "Who is comforting whom?"

Sounds like a very equal exchange to me, simply living life on one's own terms which is nothing to brag about as you appear to be trying to do.

Fractelle, there are actually huge benefits to living on one’s own terms. In one
thing Antiseptic is right, there are some nice women out there, but also
a whole lot of scheming ones, who only show their true colours after the ring
is on that finger.

We only need to read this thread to see that some women have no qualms about
trying to turn their husbands into a poodle and will use sex as a weapon to
achieve it. If he tried to leave, he might well be cleaned out in the courts,
so many men would feel trapped. What a shame that some of you girls
can’t be honest about your intentions, before you take those marriage vows,
for I wonder if those same men would have agreed so readily.

Romany, thank you for the very handsome apology, which of course I accept without reservation. I should have realised that you made a sincere mistake, as I've not known you to be deliberately dishonest. Please accept my own apology for the rudeness of my response.

Fractelle, you're right about my persona here being different to my real life personality, but then, so is yours, I suspect. In this milieu I see no need for the lubricating courtesies to be extended and I sometimes deliberately phrase things so as to provoke a response or to ridicule, or even, sometimes, to shut down a conversation although that is very rare for me. On line there are no visual cues: sometimes, extravagant language can be effective in indicating what may be otherwise missed.

IRL, I can't imagine you or SJF or the geriatric CJ engaging me, a solidly-built, sometimes gruff man of 45, in the ways you do here. Despite the fact that I'm entirely non-violent and we have laws to protect us, your visceral sense would be that to do so is dangerous and you'd likely modify your delivery and possibly the content. As such a man, I would do the same when dealing with you, because I don't want to either intimidate you or to be accused of attempting to do so. Here, that problem does not exist.

Hence, you are able to "beard the lion" with impunity and I am free to express myself as I wish, the only risk being that one of us may get offended and go away in a huff.

Geriatric? Antiseptic, as a solidly-built, sometimes gruff man of 53 I'm just somewhat more grown up than you. Mind you, the last 7 years or so have been the happiest of my adult life, so there's hope for you yet! Enlightenment might be just around the corner...

However, you're right about one thing at least - if we encountered one another in IRL you'd be unlikely to be whingeing endlessly about women and I'd be therefore unlikely to call you on it.

Back on topic, I don't suppose anybody read the fascinating article by Kate Legge in Saturday's 'Weekend Oz' about marriages that succeed for decades? It addresses many of the issues that have come up in this thread, and does so quite well IMHO. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be available online.

Yabby

"Yabby, there are actually huge benefits to living on one’s own terms. In one thing Fractelle/Examinator/Romany/CJ Morgan/Bronwyn is right, there are many nice men out there, but also a few scheming ones, who only show their true colours after the ring is on that finger.

We only need to read this thread to see that some men have no qualms about trying to turn their wives into a poodle and will use sex as a weapon to achieve it. If she tried to leave, she might well be cleaned out in the courts, so many women would feel trapped. What a shame that some of you boys can’t be honest about your intentions, before you take those marriage vows, for I wonder if those same women would have agreed so readily."

If OLO's posting system was a little more sophisticated the above would appear far more effective but I am sure you have sufficient intelligence to get my point.

Fractelle:"If she tried to leave, she might well be cleaned out in the courts,"

Nope. At worst, with no children, she'd get 50% of the family assets, regardless of her contribution to them. As feminists are always complaining that men make all the money, that means he's the one to get cleaned out.

If there are children, the odds of his losing everything in a divorce escalate dramatically.

reversing the gender of statements is only effective if the statement is true after the reversal. It is a useful tool to test the inherent sexism in a statement and I'm afraid that yours fails the test.

As yabby and i have pointed out, many men who have been married choose never to do so again after their first marriage ends. This suggests that marriage as it is practised today is not an institution that serves the needs (or at the least, the expectations) of men well. As we are constantly told that women are also unhappy in marriage the same would appear to be true of their needs or expectations.

The question then becomes whether it is the institution or the expectations that need to change to make people happier in a marital relationship. Simply labelling men who don't subscribe to the feminist dogma as "dinosaurs" or similar is begging the question.

My own feeling is that the feminist propaganda of the past few decades has raised the expectations of women to a point at which most men are simply unable to fulfil them, while lowering the expectations of men to the point that they see the whole thing as a waste of effort, especially when things are not going as well as they might.

I'm generalising, since there are obviously some men who are suited by the Brave New World run by Female Chauvinist Pigs, but they are, I suspect, in the minority.

Fractelle, I also have sufficient intelligence to show why your
post is wrong. For you and some others conveniantly just try
to brush off biology as so passed it, in the name of your latest
fad or belief. Sorry kiddo, biology is reality and you ignore it
at your peril, when you try to brush it away.

If women marry men with whom they don't have great communication,
why don't they sort these issues out before they get married?

Its women changing and losing their libido, not men. He probably
married you because he fancied you, not because you gave him the
cold shoulder.

Another little point of biology. When it comes to fight or flight
response, women might flee, not so for plenty of men. Trying to
blackmail them into becoming your poodle will just created anger,
resentment and he'll tell his mates at the pub that you are frigid.
I doubt if it will create the happy marriage that you seek.

The figures kind of bear me out. About half of marriages end in
divorce, of the half that are left, at a rough guess 50% are
working great, the other half stay together for reasons of money,
kids, habit, etc. That makes your chances of a great marriage
around 1 in 4, if that.

Clearly the feminist solution hasn't worked that well in keeping
marriages together and working. At least Bettina seems to
understand basic biology and that you are more likely to get
co operation from a male by being nice to him, then trying to
blackmail him.

As to the courts, we all know that women usually get the kids
and along with the kids go most of the assets.

There is a species of spider where the male presents the female with a package wrapped in his web containing a juicy morsel such as a fly. While she unwraps the package he has his will of her and flees. Sometimes the package is empty.

Humans are different. Either sex can sell an empty package

Antiseptic

I thought Romany's apology was a little too profuse and I now suspect she'll be thinking much the same thing. She may have muddled her examples, but she had the right person alright.

Interesting you should talk of 'female chauvanist pigs'. If there's ever a poster here who consistently exhibits chauvanism, it's your good self.

"Nope. At worst, with no children, she'd get 50% of the family assets, regardless of her contribution to them. As feminists are always complaining that men make all the money, that means he's the one to get cleaned out."

As you well know, this statement completely negates the value of unpaid work and child rearing, which in many relationships is deliberately shouldered by the female to allow the male the time and the freedom to work more and earn more. The only fair way to divide assets that have been built up in an equal time partnership is to at least start at the halfway mark. Unless of course you believe as you do that the male contribution is more valuable than his female partner's.

"IRL, I can't imagine you or SJF or the geriatric CJ engaging me, a solidly-built, sometimes gruff man of 45, in the ways you do here."

What makes you so certain you intimidate women, or men for that matter? Did it ever occur to you there could be another reason many choose to keep their distance?

Your appearance, whatever it was, certainly wouldn't prevent me in real life from pointing out the flaws in your argument, if you started mouthing off about women the way you do here at times. I can't imagine Fractelle or Romany, or any of the other women or men who've stood up to your online bullying and ignorance, suddenly being too intimidated to speak up in real life conversation purely because you happen to be a big man.

Whether or not they'd want to of course is another thing altogether.

The fact that you even mention this possibilty, says a lot more about you than it does anyone else.

Yabby

"...understand basic biology and that you are more likely to get
co operation from a female by being nice to her, then trying to
blackmail her."

Antiseptic

I have no idea what you wrote in your last post because in the one before that you stated that you "In this milieu I see no need for the lubricating courtesies to be extended and I sometimes deliberately phrase things so as to provoke a response or to ridicule, or even, sometimes, to shut down a conversation ..."

So why should I waste my valuable time with you?

Davidf

"Humans are different [from spiders at least have reservations about penguins]. Either sex can sell an empty package"

Very true. Trying to explain that both men and women are responsible for their behaviour to Yabby and A-septic is like trying to explain flowers to a couple of lumps of concrete.

Final Post here:

Mrs Pierno

I am sorry that your husband betrayed you, however I do not blame prostitution. There was something wrong in your relationship. Very few people have hassle free relationships and if they claim they do they are probably lying - it takes a lot of work and open communication. I guess you can see for yourself that with some people no amount of communication is going to make a shred of difference - in that case, cut your losses and get the freak out.

Bye for now.

LOL. Poor Bronwyn, your buttons are so easily pushed, aren't they?

Romany had the good sense to recognise that she had made a mistake and the good grace to apologise. Sadly, it seems you're neither as bright or as gracious.

bronwyn:"this statement completely negates the value of unpaid work and child rearing"

My statement included the words "with no children". Is it that time of the month or something?

bronwyn:"Unless of course you believe as you do that the male contribution is more valuable than his female partner's."

Not my calculation, I was referring to the claims of the feminists that women get paid less for the same work. If that's the case, then dividing the assets 50:50 at divorce is patently unfair, since his contribution must have been greater than hers. Unless one believes that it's the male's role to provide for the easy living of his ex-wife, as you seem to advocate.

bronwyn:"Did it ever occur to you there could be another reason many choose to keep their distance?"

To paraphrase spikey: "personal abuse is sure sign you've nothing to say"

I note that your emtire post consists of personal abuse. Congratulations, you've set the benchmark.

Antiseptic: << Is it that time of the month or something? >>

Yes, it's obvious that you like women - at least the ones you think you can intimidate into silence. It's also pretty obvious that the intelligent, assertive majority of women these days wouldn't tolerate your chauvinistic crap for five minutes.

Clearly, that makes you bitter and resentful. If you weren't so obnoxious about it I might have some sympathy for you, but as it stands I think you deserve to be alone.

Only you can change that miserable state of affairs, old son.

"LOL. Poor Bronwyn, your buttons are so easily pushed, aren't they?"

No, not as a rule, they're not. But there's one thing I don't much like and that's people trying to intimidate others.

"My statement included the words "with no children". Is it that time of the month or something?"

My statement stands. Most women do plenty of unpaid work whether or not they have children.

"If that's the case, then dividing the assets 50:50 at divorce is patently unfair, since his contribution must have been greater than hers."

You're still ignoringing the value of unpaid work. Besides, any discussion on fairness needs to consider the time expended in work, not just the remuneration.

"To paraphrase spikey: 'personal abuse is a sure sign you've nothing to say'."

I agree. I don't have a lot to say to you and never have. You have such a giant chip on your shoulder that most of the time I just can't see the point in attempting to reason with you.

Yes, personal abuse can indicate you've nothing to say, so too can deliberate intimidation. When you can't win the argument, just puff yourself up and try and scare off your opponents. Why else would you tell us how big you are?

Bronwyn:"trying to intimidate "

Oh, poor bronny, scared of the big bad words. How do you suggest I'm trying to intimidate you, dear? It IS that time of the month, isn't it?

Bronwyn:"Most women do plenty of unpaid work whether or not they have children. "

And so do most men. What most men DON'T do is make a big song and dance about how much they do. They just do it.

Bronwyn:"any discussion on fairness needs to consider the time expended in work, not just the remuneration."

Why? A skilled person working efficiently can accomplish things much faster than a relative beginner or someone who is not organised. Is the time taken by someone who doesn't know what they're doing as valuable as that of someone who does? Not in my wages book it isn't.

Nor is "work" that consists of throwing a few clothes into one machine, giving the carpet a quick run over with another and stacking the dishes into yet another before heading off for tennis with the "ladies".

Regardless, we've strayed a long way from the original issue, which is that some married men use prostitutes because their wives don't satisfy them. Reading what some of the women here have written, that's hardly surprising.

Bronwyn:"Why else would you tell us how big you are?"

Go back and re-read what I wrote, dear, once the monthlies are over.

CJMorgan:"yapyapyapyapyap"

Best watch the pomeranian, bronwyn. You know that no leg is safe from humping when he gets this excited.

What is it with these sad and single men and dogs?

CJ

They (the men not the dogs) need a little assistance from the inestimable Tim Minchin. Although the dogs may need some help from the RSPCA.

I couldn't pick between two of his videos, so what the hey here's both:

Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6raVzrbqrM&feature=related

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

Bye bye again.

Mrs Pierno here. I submitted the original post. The discussion has covered a vast territory. I wish to comment on Antiseptic's remark. He said that the original discussion was about the fact that some men use prostitutes because their wives don't satisfy them. No it wasn't. I placed the first post. I complimented an apparently young writer on what I think was a well-written article. I also stated how I felt when I found out that my husband was contacting prostitutes. Whatever ideas other people have about relationships, I thought it might be worthwhile to say how I felt as a woman placed in that particular situation. It was my decision to leave. I feel traumatised. If he was unhappy, he could have left. The person who mentioned betrayal hit the nail on the head. He was free to leave, I was free to leave. He was not entitled to deceive me in such an intimate area of life. I don't think making overly personal remarks and insulting each other helps in discussions.

Ah Fractelle, you got it wrong once again, but we are used to
that by now.

For it is females who firstly change, with a drop in libido,
then it is some females, not all, who try to use blackmail
via sex, where they have control.

What you still don't understand is how Mr and Mrs Average
think out there and nope, they are not as bright as you
think lol. Now if you want to discuss these issues beyond
just yourself, then it helps to understand that.

Go down to the pub and listen to what blokes are saying, I'll
give you a typical example"

"If she can't spare me 10 minutes a couple of times a week,
and is so selfish, why on earth should I care about what
she thinks? I work dam hard to provide for that family"

That is exactly what Bettina Arndt understands and you don't.

Dear Yabby,

What if the shoe's on the other foot?

What if a female has a very strong sex drive,
and her husband's libido is the one that's
dropped. What's she supposed to do?

Bay at the moon? Get a lover? What do you suggest?

She doesn't want to leave her husband - he's wonderful
in every other area - and the sex is fine - when
he feels up to it. But it's not often enough for
her. He won't hear about counseling - and won't
admit there's a problem. She can't talk to any one
about it - because nobody will believe her. So
she shuts up and puts up. Because she loves him.

What do you suggest she does?

Dear Foxy,

I do actually know of a single case like that,
where the guy reckoned that she was oversexed.

The truth eventually came out, but it took a while.
He was in fact a closet gay, knocking off other
guys on the sly. He was involved with her to
try and impress his family.

If people arn't honest with one another and learn
to communicate, before they get married, they
are unlikely to achieve it after they get married.

I haven't met any females who claimed that they
could not get their partners to show interest at
least a couple of times a week. There are some
pretty simple techniques :)

Luckily in the above case, the truth came out
before they got married

Dear Yabby,

The problem does exist, believe me.
And it's more common then you realize.
It's not a question of the man being a
closet gay either. It's simply a question
of a low sex drive.

Not all men are created equal in that
area. But no one wants to talk about it.

Yabby
Let me try one more time.

I said it wan an analogy that was prompted by your rather dubious conclusion that her 30 years experience meant she must have learned something. The comment went to Romany who raised the valid point that it all depends on what that experience entailed.
People that seek her assistance by definition have problems. Freud also a leader in his day. His experience with predominately frustrated middle class women ended up with a theory/philosophy that was skewed. The comparison is that Bettina’s views may be because of her skewed experience. 30-40 year experience depends on what that experience is in.

BTW 90 + test subjects are not statistically significant therefore her advice is to be taken in that context.

I doubt that any staff of any age appreciates sexual advice from
- A boss (power issues)
- Someone of a different generation.
- Some one with your older style thinking like you.
- Basic management training tells you topics like that are unwise with employees for a number of reasons. Misinterpretation etc. Staffs are unlikely to tell you that your are offending them. Or they think you’re an “old Fart”. I’ve had to deal with a manager who had conversations like yours and a staff member lodged a complaint.

The biological urge is not as critical/dominating as you suggest. Important yes but if There are current papers that suggest that the human urge to have sex is more dominated by cultural conditioning.
Nature (urge) is estimated in these papers as PEAKING in the 30-40% range. (This is a statistical conclusion) therefore conditioning (family, church, societal) = 60%
Your personal emotional interests are driving your conclusions.

As this will be the last time you see me for quite some time or ever a response is pointless

Fractelle,
Look after yourself
PS A conundrum for you “we share a periodic 3rd in the pursuit of an elemental” solution. ;-)

Bronwyn, pelican, Romany, CJ, Belly, Max, Pericles and others,
Keep up the good fight and thanks for the conversation or in bad Latin “Illegitimi non carborundum”
I wish you all what every you wish for. :-)

And importantly Foxy.
At any age you are something special. All the best in peace and contentment from wisdom not ignorance. ;-)

See you out there.
Bye all

*Your personal emotional interests are driving your conclusions.*

Err not so Examinator, for the scientific evidence from endocrinology
is quite clear. Testosterone drives sexual urges. Show me a paper
which disproves the huge amount of work done in that field, not
just some speculative hypothesis by a so called social scientist.
Neuroscience wins every time.

As to my staff, you know absolutaly nothing about the situation here.
Suffice to say some of them still stop me in the street to say that
working in my business was the best job that they ever had. Advising
people to be honest in relationships, is not sexual advice.

Foxy, looks like I'll run out of posts again for a while lol, but
by what you describe, endocrinology indeed could lie at the heart
of your described problem.

We can inject both castrated and female sheep, rats, and other species,
with testosterone, they literally start humping one another :)

In males its the hypothalamus which regulates testosterone, which
is 20 times higher then in females. Older men who are losing their
sex drives and want it back, are now being treated with testosterone
and its working for them. The males that you mention could well
have extremely low testosterone levels, so those urges would disappear.
A visit to the endocrinologist will soon sort it out!

In females its the adrenal gland which produces and controles
testosterone. Remove it and their libido collapses.

Interestingly in females, testosterone levels rise at that time
of the month, when they are at their most fertile. Ain't nature
grand!

Some years ago I read a study where they mixed reasonable levels
of T into the HRT mix. The female voluteers asked the experimenters
to remove it, as they were having some really impure thoughts and
feelings :) .

Dear examinator,

I must be dim-witted but I don't understand.
Are you saying good-bye to us all?

Where are you going, and for how long?

Please say it's only for a short time?

We'll miss you.

Dear Yabby,

Thanks for responding.

You could be right with your suggestion.

I'm not an expert in the field - but it
sounds like a good idea. Except how do you
get the man to admit he's got a problem
when he won't discuss it?

Does anybody know what's happening with
examinator?

It's just his saying 'good-bye,' sounds
so final.

Is it a health related issue?

I'm really surprised by the tone
fo his last post, and concerned.

Yes - I certainly hope examinator's OK and returns to us soon.

He'll be missed.

As for this:

Foxy: << What do you suggest she does? >>

Clearly, she needs to get a kelpie :)

Dear examinator

I'm concerned about you too. I agree with Foxy, your good-bye sounded rather final.

I do hope it's not and that you're okay. You're a great asset to OLO and your thoughtful and insightful contributions will be missed.

Hopefully, we've got this all wrong and you'll be back soon.

Meanwhile, take care. :)

Dear Examinator

You have definitely left me with a conundrum: why are you going?

As with all the posters wishing you well and lamenting your absence, is there any way you would reconsider?

I take breaks away from OLO when the vitriol and utter perversity of some people here starts to cloud my thoughts.

You are one of the posters I learn from. OK, maybe that's a bit selfish of me, but I value well considered thoughts whether I agree with them or not and will certainly miss seeing your moniker on the OLO emails.

Fare Well, in the traditional sense.

Dianne

*Except how do you
get the man to admit he's got a problem
when he won't discuss it?*

Foxy, to get back to your question, the emotional
centres of the mind are quite different to the
rational centres.

The emotional centres are more about black or white,
for me or against me, on or off. For that reason its
quite human to sometimes put emotionally troubling
things out of our mind, as if they don't exist. That
is far easier then facing them.

How we say things often matters more then what we say.

You might have noticed that no matter what I say on
OLO, some people get upset :) There is actually a method
in the seeming madness, but that is another story lol.

Being a sensitive soul, I'm sure that if you tried, you
have the skills to put things in a way to not offend,
but still get your message across.

There is lots of information about all this around. Perhaps
leave some printed information around, about men for whom
hormone therapy has worked wonders. You are clearly much
more skilled at being diplomatic then I am :)

IMHO the thing is to highlight the simple solution, not
focus on the problem, perhaps in discussions which are
seemingly unrelated, perhaps about other people, not the
person in denial or feels uncomfortable about discussing
their situation.

That is my 5c worth.

C'mon, Examinator, you're making us anxious.

If you and your lady are going to take a holiday then we would have expected, from someone like you who is careful with your use of words, an "au revoir". But Good-bye?

I will get really pissed with you if you disapear without giving us all a chance to say how much we rely on you as a measured and educated (and you KNOW I am not referring to formal education particularly) voice on a forum that desperately needs one to bring us all down to earth occasionally.

If you are not returning to us from choice, could you at least get your partner to use your account to end this rather dire-full speculation?

cheers - in every connotation of the word -

Dear examinator,

Can't you see just how much you're valued?

"Here's to the kids who are different;
the kids who don't always get A's,
the kids who have ears
twice the size of their peers'
or noses that go on for days.

Here's to the kids who are different,
the kids who are just out of step,
the kids they all tease,
who have cuts on their knees
and whose sneakers are constantly wet.

Here's to the kids who are different,
the kids with a mischievous streak,
for when they have grown,
as history has shown,
it's their difference that makes them unique."
- Digby Wolfe, for The Goldie Hawn TV Special, 1978.

Please, come back to us all, my cyber-space soul-mate!

In the meantime - Take care!

Dear Yabby,

Thanks for taking the time and responding
to my questions. It was most helpful.

Thanks also for your kind words.

As a little girl, I was shy, and never
comfortable in expressing my opinion.
I didn't believe that my ideas were
worthy of being heard. As I grew older,
I was worried about expressing my opinion
too strongly in case it made me abrasive.

Therefore I admire the way that you're
secure and unafraid in speaking your own
mind. Especially since you do it without
malice or anger - but just from the
depths of what you believe to be true.

Sure, we can all say to ourselves, Gosh,
I shouldn't have said that, or perhaps
I should have said it differently. It
is important to act with civility -
but I think it's equally important not to
forsake your own wisdom. Not to lose your
integrity. I think that's the message
that examinator was trying to leave us.