*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.