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.