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.