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.