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.