I married my first wife, and after we divorced, my second wife purely for the purpose of guaranteeing that my sexual rights are preserved. So says a Ms Jane CARRON (sic) who was interviewed on the ABC last night (Monday) ?

Apparently Ms CARRON (or CARREN) an advertising executive and academic, had asserted that when women marry and give up work for the purpose of raising children, and looking after the home. They have in reality sold their bodies to their husband for sexual services, and as such, it amounts to no more than prostitution.

Her prevailing logic being, a husband being the bread winner, the provider, has an expectation that his wife shall provide sexual favours, more or less upon demand. And the wife should ensure (whenever possible) his conjugal needs are satisfied ?

I suppose those old fashioned values like love, affection, companionship, emotional support, humour, etc. mean nothing ? And what happens when the sex finishes, as it has in our marriage (our respective ages), then what ? Believe me, we still have it all ! What on earth are some of these people 'on' ? And what dreadfully facile and vacuous relationships they must endur

Don't be silly O Sung Wu. Did you hear what she said and in response to what? It was discussing prostitution and the question whether is was Okay for women to voluntarily sell sexual favours. One of the women was vehemently against prostitution, saying it was demeaning to women.

Jane Caro's point was why should it be if this is a contract she has entered into freely on her own undertaking. Then she pointed out that, not so much today, but once when women entered marriage did so on the understanding she would be taken care of financially and the man would be entitled to sex whenever he wanted. And don't deny this was not so. As I pointed out in another thread, not until 1989 did it become illegal to rape a wife in Qld. In 1976 the first time legislation was passed in SA that it was illegal to rape a wife. Prior to that there was no such a thing as rape within marriage.

Just like in some quarters there is debate about whether you can rape a prostitute once you've paid and she's accepted payment.

This is not about you if you've never demanded sex from either of your wives when she wasn't willing.

seriously O sung wu if you have watched Jane Caro speaking on the Drum or anything else for that matter you will know she is very quickly out of her depth. I would say Pauline Hanson looks intelligent in comparison. Only the ABC could give her any air space. I would love to know where she got her qualifications because they definetely do not teach or tho think before you open your mouth. She was and still is a staunch supporter/defender of Ms Gillard which says a lot in itself. Nearly always people who have failed themselves in marriage then want to trash it. Of course she demands the rights of 'gays'to become 'prostitutes' in marriage.

OSW>> And what happens when the sex finishes<<

OSW, I take it we are discussing who holds the power in a relationship....I believe regardless of gender, it is individual personality traits that govern who governs in first world relationships. opposites attract and likes collide.

I believe that no matter how obvious it may be to the publics eye as to which partner rules the roost...tables turn regularly in the home.

Re Ms Curren......what a dyke mentality...to her mind men are pigs and she ended up with two blue ribbon swine. She can marry me if she likes and I will stay home and happily do the household chores while she execs and academics away....I'll ceven come up with sex on demand as well...wear what she likes...her favourite aftershave etc etc....yeah hard life being lusted after...but for the Ms, I would put up with it.

Miss Carriage or whatever her name is puts a moron to shame. Poirot, Poirot where art thou ?

Dear O Ssung Wu,

I assume you're referring to lat nights episode
of "Q and A," and the panelist - Jane Caro.
Who was asked - "...what are your thoughts on
prostitution as a conscious career choice -
in a first world country?"

Jane Caro's reply:

"Well I'm going to say something really dangerous
now. When you have a society where women's main
currency is really their sexual favour, their ability
to reporduce, then a lot of what women do is a form
of prostitution. For example, I would argue that
traditional marriage, which included conjugal rights
particularly when women were not able to go to work or
were fired when they first got married or were basically
selling their bodies and their respective rights to
her husband, he bought them by giving her room and
board in return, was a form of prostitution."

"So I think we really have to discuss what we mean by
prostitution. At least the women who choose it as a
career choice, freely and uncoerced - that's very,
very important - only have to put up with their customer
for about an hour. Once upon a time - it was a lifetime,
ladies. A lifetime!"

I have to say that I agree with another woman on the panel
who stated that Jane Caro's take on prostitution and marriage
was a "very abstract comparison." Putting it politely.
It did not sit well with me either and as the other panelist
pointed out - most prostitutes deal with 15 "buyers"
a day. Anyway, it wasn't a well thought out response to
the question - and makes one wonder what sort of personal
problems Jane Caro has encountered in her own life that
has formed this strident opinion.

cont'd ...

Dear O Sung Wu,

Please excuse all the typos in my previous post.
My computer's playing up again.

o sung wu,

Jane Caro is just another human headline. -As can be expected of someone from advertising and like some others, she could talk under water with her mouth full of marbles.

It is what we get instead of news and proper investigative journalism.

Remember back when you could settle down on the weekend with a BLT (decent bun and with beetroot, mind), a long cup of percolator coffee (can't buy those Sunbeam percs anymore, now coffee is tied to marketing of expensive knick-knacks and product lines) and articles in the broadsheet newspaper? OK, so those days have gone.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Jane Caro's background is quite impressive.
As the following two links show.
She does appear to wear many hats.

Perhaps she was having an "off-night" on Monday?

http://wallmedia.com.au/jane-caro/

And -

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2514875.htm

Otb,

Whadaya mean those days have gone?...I'm sipping on a percolated coffee right now.

It's a silver Arcosteel.

I put in the water.

I put in the coffee.

I stick it on the hotplate...

And voila!

Yes, very functional, however the 240V Sunbeam bubbled away and changed setting to keep 'New Guinea Gold' coffee hot and ready.

Nothing like the expensive cockroach breeding houses* being marketed now as 'coffee machines'.

*so the pest guy was telling me and he would know.

Dear Poirot,

Now you're making me drool.

I have a Breville Cafe Cordfree Percolator - 12 cup.
That I use for dinner parties only.

I love percolated coffee - but unfortunately I'm not
allowed to drink it any more (increases my blood
pressure). It took me a while to get used to not
drinking coffee - but sadly for me those days are
gone.

Aha, Breville CMP12 Café Cordfree Percolator, thanks Foxy.

Stainless, simple, you beaut! Target located and off to shop tomorrow.

Illy Espresso Caffé Machinato. Check :)

Have more than adequate supplies of Vandermint (she) and port for 'ron. Will make a chocolate mint tart (to die for - double cream and creme de menthe) to celebrate Perc's first evening home.

Too easy.

Foxy, if coffee raises your blood pressure I don't know how you manage to survive the abuses sent your way on OLO. But I have noticed its a rare occasion your abusers get the last word ( - :

(oh Gawd - forgive us o sung wu for talking coffee...just one more comment from me:)

Foxy,

Yup....I start the day off with a tea, then have a couple of percolated coffees.

Sometimes a cup in the avo.

Notably before adopting percolated, I'd sometimes get palpitations from the instant kind...haven't had instant coffee in years - and haven't had palpitations either.

otb,

I must admit a device that keeps it warm sounds good!

Foxy, I saw last night's Q&A as well and I actually thought Jane Caro finally put forward a 'dangerous thought' worthy of discussion and when you think about it, seeing the airwaves, it seems to be so! Probably not so much today. Women are 'given away' by their fathers in marriage and the idea is that within the marriage contract it is expected that the man brings home the bacon and provides security, the woman takes care of the home and the children and her man. Bear in mind that until very recently there was no concept that rape within marriage was possible, that implies a wife had to submit to her husband at his pleasure.

Her comments were in response to prostitution and the question was initially directed to a woman who is stridently against prostitution, not agreeing this could be a woman's own choice, but always exploitative. This is as presumptive to my mind as is the notion that all marriages are, or were, exploitative.

Seeing the chatter everywhere, especially from some men, she has hit on a raw nerve. How many men complain they are not getting 'enough sex' once married? Why do some men think they are actually entitled to sex from their wife?

yvonne, "Why do some men think they are actually entitled to sex from their wife?"

The wording and emotional loadings around the whole topic are somewhat open to misrepresentation but I'll press ahead in the hope that aspects of that are something which might be worthy of discussion.

Not sure if entitled is the correct word, perhaps reasonable expectation fits better. Within our culture marriage in most cases comes with the expectation/demand that it be monogamous. That in my view carries with it a responsibility to try and meet the other parties sexual needs (within sane boundaries). I'm not talking extremes but I do think the question you ask legitimately carries with it the corresponding question, why do some women think they are actually entitled to demand abstenance from their husbands?

There are answers to both that are about valuing the relationship, caring for the other etc but if either question is an issue then those answers are not really fitting the context.

R0bert

LOL, ridiculous old boilers trying to be shocking.

All last Millenium and already decades out of date by the end of it.

Circus clown Germaine Greer, with her make-up and clothing awry (her dotage), emerges occasionally from her comfy residence in the English countryside to stir the possum. However Greer hasn't been seen as shocking(!,LOL) for many, many years and is unrecognisable by most, certainly by the many thousands of migrants and the younger generations. That is plural, generations, Greer is older than God.

Anyhow, the job of shocker, such as it is, is Ms Greer's. Is there a taxidermist in the house?

Good evening to you good people...

I must apologise for my appalling spelling of Ms Jane CARO'S name, inexcusable really ? I guess my original comments were essentially based on hearsay, from the many comments that emanated from a programme I'd heard, hosted by Chris SMITH, of radio 2GB Sydney.

I suppose I went off 'half cocked' (a symptom of a rapidly aging old man) without first obtaining all the facts or the actual words she employed to explain her position.

Further, I will admit (and I guess I'm a real 'square' to some of you) that of my two marriages, encompassing over a half century, there was never any occasion where our marital activities, were not completely mutual. When it happened, it was usually extemporaneous, rather than something that was planned, or demanded by either of us ?

I will say though, there was on many occasions, a great deal of 'hinting', 'intimation', or 'innuendo' when the right circumstances prevailed, and that proved terrific ! But the use of words like 'demands', 'rights' or 'ultimatum', were never part of our vocabulary, for to do so, would remove, invalidate, or annul, the magic of intimacy in my humble opinion.

I did hear Ms CARO being re-interviewed, where she sought to explain or qualify much of what she said in her original interview. And I must admit much of her later explanation did make some sense. So it would seem prima facie, that I shot off my mouth prematurely without actually hearing her original discussion. For this, I'm sorry if I've misquoted her in any respect ?

O Sung Wu, I didn't see the show last night, because when I checked out the panelists I thought they seemed boring!
I wish I had watched now.

In all my 27 years of marriage, neither me nor my husband ever 'demanded' anything of each other. It never occurred to me that there might be an 'expectation' of sex at all.

Maybe I am lucky I seemed to have married the right man?

Cheers,
Suse.

Suseonline, "In all my 27 years of marriage, .... It never occurred to me that there might be an 'expectation' of sex at all"

Gosh, you two were soooo PC Perfect. No 'expectation' of issue either, or were you expecting to do the Virgin Mary thing?

Garbage in, garbage out.

Once you've got the starting frame that the sexes are equal and the only differences in behaviour are due to what "society" says, then there's no other possibility than the confused, sexist, conflict-ridden, annoying garbage that we would expect coming from the ABC.

The only possibility is that one person pops up and say "'Society' thinks this." and another one pops up and says "No! 'Society' thinks that!" and away they go in a circle of endless arbitrary babble.

What no-one will explain is, if having sex of itself is not intrinsically abusive, and exchanging services for money is not intrinsically abusive, then why is it intrinsically abusive to exchange sex for money? If women who are being paid to have sex are being exploited, how can women who aren't being paid, be in any better position?

It is a universal fact of human society that women expect some kind of valuable consideration in exchange for sex, otherwise they'd just be having promiscuous sex as readily as men would like and the world's oldest profession - and perhaps much marriage - would not exist.

Marriage is just a sub-set of prostitution. All it means is that women's overall sexual strategy of getting something valuable in exchange for sex has two main types: either getting a jointure in all his income and capital for life, or getting money right now. Wives despise prostitutes as "cheap", even though they earn more per hour than almost all other female workers, because they see them as scab labour undermining the marriage pussy cartel.

As for the feminists pretending that sex never crossed their minds: who do you think you're fooling?

Always a hoot when we try and pin this and that onto one or the other gender.

The reality is that biologically and instinctively we're programmed to reproduce - to pass on our genes.

Biologically, that's the main game of the species and existence.

So men and women get together to do just that, in whichever mode renders survival of the offspring (noting that young humans are dependent on adult care for much longer than other species)

So whichever way you look at it, both genders "use" each other for the best outcome for reproduction and survival depending on the physical conditions abounding at any given epoch - (and the Zeitgeist)

(Of course, all that is slightly warped in the modern world where we can choose "not" to reproduce and still engage in sex)

What was the purpose of Jane Carro’s comment if not to draw attention to herself? She began by self-promoting her comments as ‘dangerous’. The audience should be the judge of that not her. Then yesterday there was another self-promotion where she held herself up to be a troublemaker as if that is something to be proud of. If as she claims her comments were a description of how things were in the past then what relevance did they have to the discussion at hand? The panel was discussing prostitution as it is today. Whether her observations of the past were true or not it was totally irrelevant. I have read that her comments were not entirely original and have been made by many feminists in the past. Was it just that she had nothing to offer the discussion and needed a way to gain attention by what she hoped would be controversial rather than valuable as arguments?

The other panellists all had interesting and stimulating points of view but she was not in the same league at all and should not have been on the panel. Q&A does itself no favours when it appeals to the populist demographic.

This disscussion has become interesting.
I'm glad to see us taking part in
some critical reflection.
I also am now beginning to take another
look at Jane Caro's remarks. I guess this
shows the importance of words in our language
and the way they can be misinterpreted by
many of us - whereas the intent may have been
totally different.

Dear O Sung Wu,

What a great person you are - and how big it
was of you to apologise. I think everyone is
impressed by that fact - and we all
appreciate it. We've all been there my friend.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

The forum does at times have a great effect on my
blood pressure, to be sure. And it's very
perceptive of you to remark on it.
But, it has an even greater effect
on my brain. It forces me to research topics, that
I wouldn't necessarily usually do,
to change my mindset at times, to take a look at my
own failings, and above all - to think. So its
worth it.

Dear Yvonne,

Thanks for that - and for giving me -
even more food for thought.

Robert, you are exactly right. And that was really the whole point. Sex is a very important part of a marriage. I would say that sexual issues within a marriage are the early alarm bells that something is going on within the marriage, not necessarily related to sex, but is a symptom of that. To put it bluntly, a discord between what is expected by both or one party in exchange for one or more of the benefits of a marriage. That's why I find the concept interesting that prostitution is intrinsically 'bad' and exploitative, yet there are clearly women, and men, stating that they exchange sex for money of their own free will.

To clarify my views. I'm a feminist. Think marriage is a fantastic and deeply satisfying institution- when it goes well to the mutual, MUTUAL, benefit of BOTH parties. Sex is just the best, most fun and also awesome way of expressing intimacy and love for another person. Almost makes me want to believe in a supernatural being! Just to nip stupid comments right in the bud.

Jardine, feminists have always had lots of sex on the brain. That's one of the reasons why they fought, and still fight, so hard for easy access to contraception. Feminists think women should be allowed to have sex with whomever they want without asking permission or approval from someone else. Feminists are not uptight about sex. On the contrary.

Phanto, you do know what the brief and the title of said Q&A programme was don't you? No, I didn't think so. It was a pun towards the whole title. Dreadful isn't it, uppity women drawing attention to themselves, especially when they are put into the spotlight. Should be slapped right down. I am being sarcastic in case that went over your head.

Yvonne –
Yes it is dreadful when women draw attention to themselves rather than to their ideas when the whole point of the panel is to exchange ideas.

Not only do you have to resort to sarcasm to try and put me down but you also have to try and belittle me as well by suggesting I do not have the intelligence to recognise sarcasm when I see it.

yvonne

So do you support a man's right to financial abortion?

Fascinating.

Jardine Squared dumps on 'the confused, sexist, conflict-ridden, annoying garbage that we would expect coming from the ABC'.

Then proceeds to agree with and expand on what Jane Caro said on the ABC!!

Garbage Squared indeed.

Phanto complains that Jane Caro’s was 'self-promoting her comments as ‘dangerous’.

Well, that was the actual title of the episode, from the "Festival of Dangerous Ideas'!

Garbage Tripled.

Hi o sung wu, how ya going mate?

I'm with you on this one mate. To me sex is an extension of love, I have never had much interest in the one night stand type of thing.

I can't believe the garbage in some women's magazines, suggesting a full seduction with flowers, dinner in a restaurant, lots of wine etc. if you want your lady to bequeath her favors upon you. I do that because we enjoy a night out together, not to use as a crowbar.

For me in a relationship, if she didn't come to me initiating sexual activity about as often as I go to her, I would assume she was not interested in our relationship, & go away.

I have never been quite sure if the joke that says "a man has more chance of catching a bit of sex, chasing it around the street, than around a double bead" was really a joke, or if for many it was true. It certainly does not sound like much fun too me.

I have occasionally wondered how many men marry, [or cohabitate today] to "have it handy" if any. It has always seemed to me that the good operators had no need to, & the less competent with the chat, were interested in something more than they could buy any night down at the red light district, a whole lot cheaper than having a live in lover.

I have also wondered if a large number of ladies have not just grabbed the best they could get, when they became clucky, with the seed being more important than the bloke it came from. In the early 60s among my acquaintances, about half the young men were heart breakers, playing the field, & the other half married the first young lady who took them to bed, nicely.

Continued.

Continued.

Most of these disappeared into suburbia, fenced in by kids & mortgages, rarely if ever to be seen again.

Some of these reappeared about 20 years later, looking rather dazed. She had shot through, or chucked him out, & he was wondering where & why his youth had gone.

He had not been unhappy, plodding along in suburbia. He could look at pretty pictures of Ferraris in a mans car magazine, & still be reasonably content with his Holden. He didn't bother to dream of the impossible. She on the other hand was seduced by the make believe glamorous lifestyles of the rich & famous. She actually believed the hype, & did dream. Perhaps the fact that he had never been exciting didn't help.

She had hit the "is this all there is" hurdle. The dream that had promised fulfillment & eternal happiness, had not produced as it was supposed to, so now she was looking for the fireworks.

If we could just ban all those women's magazines, suburbia would be a happier place.

Cossomby -

It was called the Festival of Dangerous Ideas we already knew that before she opened her mouth. I think she was trying to convince herself that she was capable of having a dangerous idea and therefore worthy to be on the panel with women who had far better credentials than she did. None of the other women were so insecure about their position that they felt the need to preface their remarks in this way.

Nothing is ever said without their being some reason for saying it and when there appears to be no logical reason then we can only assume an illogical one such as trying to convince yourself of your own credentials when you are insecure about them.

Hi there FOXY, POIROT, SUSEONLINE, HASBEEN, ONTHEBEACH, YVONNE, & the many others who've been interested enough to contribute to this topic.

I do agree absolutely, sex is an important element between a married couple, and if you 'DO' claim to love and respect your partner, with that sex, comes a bucket load of mutual respect. Without respect, there's no intimacy and without intimacy, there's very little romance, without romance, there's no love.

Without love, You've a relationship, an alliance between a male and a female for the purpose of engaging in a corporeal act, with the predictable results (for a man at least), an orgasm... A tremendous release of tension ! And then what---> a coffee, a beer, or watch the footy ?

Much of what Ms Caro said, she'd apparently retracted in later interviews, but somehow I don't believe she has shifted away from her earlier remarks or her beliefs. There again I could be wrong ? However, what I can't understand, exactly what it is that these feminists have against men, seemingly all men ? I can accept there are some men, who're are lower than a reptile, in the way they treat women. Not only physical but some really appalling mental cruelty, occasioned against women. I think most people on this Forum are well aware of the very savage views I harbour against men, who hurt women !

But these feminists ladies who are seeking to continually 'wound' the reputations of the entire male gender, by making these inflammatory statements similar to those originally attributed to that of Ms Caro, really worry me. Why do they wish to drive an even bigger wedge between the two genders, than what already exists there now, I don't know, I really don't know nor do I understand ?

Jardine, I'm sure in your mind your comment is relevant.

Phanto, and why is it dreadful for a woman to draw attention to herself? Especially if she is part of a panel where everyone is voicing ideas? And anyway, judging by all the chatter everywhere, the 'horror' is not about her 'flagging' she was going to give a contrary opinion, but on the content of what she said. And if you read what many male commenters have to say on the matter, for many men sex and marriage is about the money.

Hasbeen, how is it possible to be living with someone, and presumably sleep in the same bed with someone, for years on end, and end up 'looking dazed' and 'wondering' when a marriage ends? You really believe that's possible or is someone just playing dumb? All is sweetness and light and she, because it must be the ungrateful woman, ups and leaves? Wow.

Sung, I'm not going to let you get away with your last paragraph. Feminism is not a philosophy against the male gender. It just is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism is a general explanation. Feminists have fathers, sons, husbands, brothers, boy-friends and male friends. And no, they are not in a feminist's life and loved because they are homosexual or somehow lacking in 'manliness', they are just not afraid of articulate women, quite comfortable in their own skin and confident in their own abilities. Probably very like yourself.

o sung wu,

Sit back and enjoy a video or two by this woman,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XDb0nxSO4

I sense that some of what she says will click with you as a thinking person with the necessary curiosity to learn what makes things tick.

Good afternoon to you YVONNE and ONTHEBEACH...

Thank you both for your references, which I've read YVONNE, and watched, ONTHEBEACH.

Your friend on her Video made some interesting observations, as well as some challenging comments I thought ONTHEBEACH. To review everything she said would prove to be an immense amount of work, therefore I'll step aside from it for the moment.

YVONNE...You stated in your last paragraph '...I'm not going to let you get away with your last paragraph...' ? Get away with what, precisely ? I would with respect, ask that you identify exactly what I should 'not' get away with please, YVONNE ? I haven't the remotest idea what you mean, with your reference to 'homosexuals' and 'lacking in manliness' might be ? Therefore I'd be most grateful if you'd clarify your remark or statement, if you will.

Yvonne

“Jardine, I'm sure in your mind your comment is relevant.”

I used to think that feminism was about gender equality but now I recognise that it's simply factually historically incorrect that feminism is, or has ever been, about gender equality:
https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140630164746AApIVxY

You've just given a good example of the double standard. We're talking about marriage, sex and reproduction, and you tell us you support women's freedom this and women's freedom that, but when I talk about men's corresponding unfreedom, all of a sudden, that's not "relevant".

"Feminism is not a philosophy against the male gender."

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon

Lots more hate speech from leading feminist thinkers here:
http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html

How do you explain them?

Perhaps you should consider re-thinking your views?

Good evening to you JARDINE K JARDINE...

You've certainly raised some interesting points upon which many adherents of Feminism must surely scrutinize ? Nonetheless, experiential evidence, together with simple logic will prove insufficient in which to prevail upon the common sense of most of those ardent supporters of feminism.

I suppose when one's passion is aroused, pragmatism, logic and undeniable evidence will prove patently inadequate, in which to permute the views and opinions of those who are intractably opposed to the natural role of the male species.

Feminist/progressives say they are for choice but hate happily married women who voluntarily submit to their husbands and make great mothers. The insecurity and hate of this is very evident among feminist. Funny enough I rarely meet a feminist who is not bitter and twisted and yet met multitudes of happily married woman who loves doing what comes natural.

Runner, exactly how old are you?
Were you born before 1930?

'...voluntarily submit to their husbands.'!
I am sure Noah said that to his wife in the Ark.

Anyone who feels the need to voluntarily submit to their partner must surely not enjoy the act.
In any case, once the productive years are over, surely there is no more need for sex?

Thank goodness for feminism ladies....

Were most of last Millenium's feminists angry lapsed Roman Catholics? It certainly seems that way.

Suseonline, you might be surprised at the meaning of that word and phrase outside of the highly structured Roman Catholic Church. Mystical, and layers of meaning - which should be suggested to you by other, essential descriptions of a married couple, for instance as 'one body', and why such words were carefully crafted at the time.

Christianity was liberating for women and outside of your very narrow 'old RC' understanding of it, still is. Chalk and cheese when compared with Islam which is worryingly well supported by feminists. Why is that? Is it your enemy is my enemy - cut off your nose to spite your face? Irrational, mad feminists, any wonder that young women run screaming from them.

What you display Susie is that deep down you admire controlling woman. Execept for the emasculated men very few like them despite your rhetoric.Plenty of evidence of that back in old testament times also Susie.

Don't have to go far before feminists give up their pretensions to be about gender equality rather than double standards favouring women, do we?

OTB 'Christianity was liberating for women...'

Really?
Since when did you become the champion for Christianity?
Only when it suits your misogynistic views it seems.

The Catholic brand of Christianity doesn't allow contraception or female clergy, and still follows the often dubious advice of a book written by men, for men, 2000 years ago.

Give me feminism any day thanks.

Suseonline,

You are right, I am not a practicing member of any faith. Further, I am for the secular State as properly described by John Howard when he was PM.

However I do believe in religious tolerance. John Howard got the balance right IMHO.

Just to say that there is a lot of depth to those marriage vows and they cannot be understood in isolation. While it is easy to deliberately misinterpret to scoff, there is a definition of marriage therein that is very usable and liberating. It was clever wording by the Christians to liberate and protect women by making them one with the man, the same body, in marriage. It did not give the man any more than the woman, they were to be equal. That is enough from me.

Yes too, to those who will say that the different churches interpret differently and some, maybe many, nowhere near as broad in intent and historically correct as I might do. In fact my reading of it is sometimes diametrically opposed to the usage of some churches (that seems to suit the organisation more than the flock).

Deprive my husband of sex is something that
I could never do.
It would punish me too much!

Hi there FOXY...

A brilliant retort FOXY absolutely brilliant ! A lady with an immense intellect - I love it !

OTB, I believe we had marriage before Christianity.
They may well have written in the old book that women are 'one' with man, but actions speak louder than words.....

Foxy, I agree!
I don't know why women are so often depicted
as not being keen on doing the wild thing :)

Cheers,
Sue.

Hi (again) FOXY & SUSEONLINE...

I'm in complete accord with you both ! It take's 'two to tango' and 'two hands' to clap. It matters little who initiates the overture, as long as it's mutual and accompanied with respect. There must of course be an unqualified absence of 'command' or 'ultimatum'. Assuming this covenant or 'entente cordiale' prevails between the couple, then nature will take care of the rest.

Suseonline, "OTB, I believe we had marriage before Christianity"

I suppose so and there are modern 'progressive' hipsters and gay activists who limit the definition of marriage to 'love' too. Simplistic.

However I understand marriage and the marriage vows to be as traditionally and conventionally understood: deeper, more comprehensive and more complex. The sort of sharing commitment , we-are-as-one stuff that sustains husband and wife when both are dog-tired, the finances are a little strained and the children are suffering from a combination of tummy bugs and earache.

You are welcome to whatever bed and house you choose of course.

Hi,
about marriage: i'm looking for good artist in Mlb, could you recommend anybody?
Best regards

You are right of course OTB, marriage is more than just the conjugal rights, but it sure is the more enjoyable part of marriage!

I fully understand why some people desperately
want to get married. There is an innate part in
all of us that needs ritual and ceremony.
I'm happy that I did and I don't think anyone
should miss out on what is essentially a
beautiful day. But through my experience, I've come
to understand that the day after the wedding is just
the next day. It's a new day, and then the next day
is just the next day after that. And if that sounds
like an excuse not to work at the relationship,
it isn't. If anything it makes us work harder. I know
it isn't always easy to keep the flame burning.
People grow comfortable with each other, or they
become creatures of habit. And they're not always in
tune with their partners. Sometimes when you've
been in a relationship for a while, you get bogged
down with a lot of negativity and dullness, and you get
tired of dealing with all that stuff.

One thing that works for me is to imagine life without
my husband. For me - it is a very scary thing to ask
myself to do - and I see a huge void. Huge.

I do not believe in the power to diminish.
I've watched in happen in other homes.
If women continue to jab at what they view
as a man's weakness, they need to ask themselves - is this
what you want to end up with? A man who just says, "Yes,
dear," and falls asleep in the armchair every night?

I guess what I'm trying to say is - the key to all of this
is that one person may do all they can to keep the
relationship as healthy as it can be, but it's not enough
as you've all pointed out. No matter how healthy you become,
your partner has to be working alongside you. If he doesn't,
then as, O Sung Wu, stated, it's like one hand clapping.
It has to meet the other hand to make the sound of
applause.

Caro Q.& A. The Drum.The ABC
People still watching these? I am amazed
Unwiley will