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.