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.