Make a Difference

Day: April 28, 2009

Sex Therapist – Women Need To Say ‘Yes’ To Sex

It’s not quite as startling as it looks.

Bettina Arndt simply says what the Church has always said. That successful marriages are based on mutual respect, and consideration of each other’s needs.

When it comes to sex, this means that each partner must be conscious of and caring about the needs and desires of the other.

As time goes by in any marriage, one partner’s sexual desire will begin to wane before the other’s. Most often, but not always, the woman begins to feel less desire for sex before the man.

One of the achievements of the women’s movement has been a clear understanding that women always have the right to say no. What this has often meant in practice is that sex only happens when the woman wants it.

Some women say that as time goes by other aspects of the relationship become more important to them.

But Bettina points out that if they disregard their husband’s need for physical intimacy, or even worse, if they humiliate their husband by making him grovel for sex, or use their right to say no as a way to gain power in the relationship, then this will undermine care and respect to the point where there is neither trust nor affection, nor any meaningful intimacy of any sort.

Like any other aspect of a successful, respectful and caring marriage, the sexual relationship cannot be based on the desires and moods of only one partner. This means that both husband and wife need to be generous, considerate, and loving.

Here is an excerpt from Betttina Arndt’s article in the Canberra Times, based on her book The Sex Diaries:

It is quite possible for women and indeed for men to enjoy sex without desire. Research by Professor Rosemary Basson from British Columbia has shown many people can experience arousal and orgasm without prior desire. She explains that provided there’s a willingness to be receptive, the rest follows.

Once the canoe is in the water, everyone starts happily paddling. For couples to experience regular, pleasurable sex and sustain loving relationships women must get over that ideological roadblock of assumptions about desire and ”just do it”. The result will be both men and women will enjoy more, better sex.

The alternative is the status quo namely that the low-drive partner, usually the woman, controls the couple’s sexual frequency and meters out sexual favours only when it suits her. This leaves the man in the degrading situation of having to beg for sex, keeping her happy in the vague hope of getting some. But is that so different from the much maligned husband who controls the family purse strings, doling out pocket money to the little woman if and when it suits him?

Mutual respect and care, real communication and real partnership – in sex and in every other aspect of married life. Pretty much what the Church has always said:

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.
1 Corinthians 7:3-5

Contradictory Policy Statements From The US

Two oddly contradictory statements today. President Barack Obama says he wants to bring science to the forefront of US thinking, to make the US once again world leaders in scientific research and development.

OK. Excellent.

But how does that square with Hilary Clinton’s announcment that the US is ready to lead the fight against climate change?

There is no science whatever in anthropogenic global warming alarmism.

The simple question to ask is ‘Is there any correlation between human activity and changes in global climate?’

The simple answer is ‘No.’

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot be leaders in science, and then slavishly follow every new scare dreamed up by the media to sell papers, greedy polticians to make money, and unscrupulous researchers to get grants.

Science means looking at the evidence. Here’s an evidence-based introduction to the science of global warming.

Multi-culturalism, Anyone?

A ten year old girl was beheaded by her grandafther in India over the weekend. The man planned to mix her blood with seeds to encourage a good crop.

India has a centuries-old tradition of human sacrifices to appease deities, gain prosperity or ward off evil.

 Oh. Well. That’s all right then. It would be wrong for us to impose our values on anyone else.

This reminds me of the story of the English colonel who stopped a party of men from putting their dead friend’s still living wife on the funeral pyre with his body.

‘You can’t stop us,’ they said ‘Suttee is demanded by our culture.’

‘Fine,’ said the colonel. ‘You carry out your cultural obligation. Then I will carry out my cultural obligation. The one about hanging men who burn women alive.’

Prince Charles’ Massive Carbon Earprint

Charles and Camilla and ten staff headed off to Europe last weekend in a private jet to tell everyone else how they need to pull their belts in and stop emitting so much gas.

According to experts from the Carbon Managers company, which carries out environmental audits, the aircraft’s four European flights over 2,200 miles will leave a carbon footprint of 52.95 tons – nearly five times the average person’s 11-ton footprint for an entire year.

Fortunately for the world, Prince Charles’ profligacy has largely been offset by the generosity of Sydney residents and businesses, who this afternoon had another Earth Hour.

OK, so it was a power outage. Whatever. It’s still good for the planet, right?

Flu Pandemic Republicans’ Fault

There isn’t a swine flu pandemic, but if there were, it would have dire economic consequences, and it would all be the fault of those blasted right-wingers.

Or so says Nation nitwit Nicholls, in a blog post titled GOP KNow-Nothings Fought Pandemic Preparedness.

A real pandemic would indeed have dire economic consequences. The current epidemic is already having a serious effect on tourism to Mexico, and on world share markets.

But Republicans did not fight pandemic preparedness. In 2005 the Bush adminstration allocated $3.8 billion dollars to pandemic preparation. This was part of an overall $7.1 billion disease preparation budget.

This Bush administration budget included the development of plans to deal with any major disease threat. Those plans involved every level of government, and local, state and national health services. The actions and procedures set out in those plans are being used to counter the current threat.

The reason Republicans and Democrats opposed additional spending on pandemic preparedness in Obama’s stimulus proposals was that no one seemed to have any idea of how the money allocated in the stimulus package was to be spent, or even what further needs might exist. The proposed spending was simply padding – pork.

Speaking of the final stimulus package, Democrat New York Senator Charles Schumer said ‘All those little porky things that the House put in, the money for the [National] Mall or the sexually transmitted diseases or the flu pandemic, they’re all out.’ 

So it wasn’t just GOP know-nothings who opposed disease spending just for the sake of spending. Democrat know-nothings opposed it too.

But it was the Republicans who had already put large sums of money into pandemic preparation during the Bush administration, and whose plans are being used now to minimise both human and financial impacts of the current swine flu threat.

More detail on this from Legal Insurrection.

Federal MPs $90 Per Week Pay Rise

Except that it isn’t.

Nick Xenophon has called the increased allowance a back door pay rise, but he knows very well it is not. That is just popularist grandstanding.

It is an increase of 17% in their electorate allowance. MPs cannot use that money as disposable income. It must be used to meet the cost of providing services in their electorate. A large part of what (good) MPs do is provide an information and advocacy service to people in their area.

17% may sound a lot, but this is the first increase in the allowance since 2000. If it were a pay rise for teachers or dockers, I doubt their unions would consider this an adequate increase over the same period.

“Australians have two choices,” said Coalition spokesman on matters of state, Michael Ronaldson. “MPs either set their own terms and conditions or an independent umpire does. I suspect the community would be very much in favour of the latter.”

It’s just that the timing could have been better.

© 2023 Qohel