I've often felt that you can judge the quality of a man not only by the character of his friends but also by the character of his enemies. I generally operate on the assumption that if the Left hates you, then your likely to be alright till proven otherwise. With that in mind the hatred that the feminists directed towards the book The Sex Diaries by Bettina Arndt piqued my interest.It is a shame that Australia is such small blip on the world cultural radar, because sometimes we do produce individuals which deserve a wider audience and I feel that Ms Arndt deserves more airtime than she has been currently given.
It also needs to be understood that Ms Arndt is in no way a politically or culturally conservative, she was in the forefront of the sexual revolution here in Australia and I can remember as a child here name being bandied about derogatively by sexual conservatives and she was one of Australia's first sex therapists.
Her book The Sex Diaries was the result of her research looking into the sex lives of 98 Australian couples. It's an easily readable book, with excerpts from the diaries which the participants were asked to keep about their sex lives. While the research is anecdotal and has its flaws, I feel it has some merit and is an accurate gauge of state of marriage in Australia: It makes for depressing reading. In reality the book is not a book about sex, but a book about relationships, and the sad fact is that many relationships are clearly dysfunctional.
The biggest message that has come from the book is how sexually starved the majority of men are in their relationships and how totally uncaring many of their wives are. It needs to be noted that she also deals with sexually unsatisfied women and happy couples but as other reviewers have noted it's the sexually and emotionally starved man which makes the biggest impression.
As Arndt documents; in most cases the wife starts of with a high libido but over time her libido diminishes and her response to this is to shut of sex supply to her husband. What comes across as most disconcerting however is how just callously indifferent a lot (not all) of the women are to the husband's situation. Indeed what is really off putting is how so many men try so hard to please the woman with progressively diminishing returns.(Game advocates will recognise the fallacy of the approach)
What also seems to come across in Arndt's book is how our modern culture seems to have belittled men's sexual desire while at the same time inflating the importance of women's. Women have been taught by our feminist culture that having sex when you don't feel like it is wrong. Men have to learn to accept it: And men are. Apart from the callousness of the women what struck me was just how hard men were trying to keep the marriage going.
The book isn't all moans and groans and Arndt illustrates that some marriages are are full of sex. They also tend to be the most intimate and the partners seem the most "connected". What struck me about these relationship was that each of the partners were "other focused" while in the sexless marriages one or both of the partners was completely self-focused.
Ms Arndt is a intensely pragmatic woman who can actually empathise with the situation that the men are in. She also seems to go to pains to explain how sex is important to men on an emotional level and how men perceive sexual refusal as emotional refusal as well. Her solution to the problem of a woman with low libido is for her to " just do it" for the sake of the marriage.
Her rationale being, that even if a woman is uninterested initially, she will be interested and enjoying herself in the end.
The feminist response was as predictable. Ms Arndt was accused of being an apologist for rape, sexual assault and was denigrating women, blah, blah, blah: We've heard it all before.
Here are two book reviews that are worth a read. Link 1. Link 2
Also worth reading are some of the articles which can be found at her site. She has some very good articles on divorce and the law's current anti-male prejudice.
Ms Ardnt also talks about the diminishing female libido and how to treat it. Personally I found this the weakest part of the book, but then again Mrs Arndt has not heard about Game.
12 comments:
The declining interest in sex that some women experience is not necessarily because of anything that men do. Lesbian Bed Death has been a recognized phenomenon for decades.
Peter
Not sure if I agree with you. I just wonder if lesbian bed death occurs because the woman is not "subconsciously" stimulated by alpha male behaviour. She actually speaks about the phenomena (LBD) in her book.
One of the interesting things that I noted over at Bettina's site is that women who had years of low libido suddenly had it fire up when her partner looked like he was going to leave or when he appeared to the woman to be having an affair. If you can be bothered to read through the forums, the thing that stuck out to me was, that when men acted like they had a pair, the woman started becoming responsive.
Remember Bettina Arndt, hasn't heard about Game.
Reading through all the forums, I got the impression that a lot of the men were good beta providers. Perhaps their "betaness" turned off the passion.
Her solution to the problem of a woman with low libido is for her to " just do it" for the sake of the marriage.
I've never understood the logic behind that. If my wife isn't sexually interested, I have no right to magically demand that she have sex with me, and I have no desire to have sex with a woman that isn't interested and will fake orgasms. I'd rather jerk off with porn than engage in such a pointless task, and if the marriage remains sexless, I would refrain from cheating on her and opt for either a divorce if there are no children.
Perhaps their "betaness" turned off the passion.
I guess that's a sign for betas not to get married in the first place.
DA:
I've never understood the logic behind that.
Let's try a little thought experiment.
Let's say your wife asks you to run an errand. But you don't feel like doing it. What do you do?
I imagine that if my wife asked me for something which was reasonable, I'd do it, even though I don't feel like doing it. Part of being a grown up is recognising that you do have obligations to others. The love I have for my wife is greater than my own personal satisfaction, I want to make her happy.
The problem with many of the feminist cows is that they don't give a stuff about their husbands, and would not put out just to make them happy. You'd never see a woman say, my husband has a right to refuse to look after the child because he doesn't feel like it.
When grown up people marry they realise that from that point on, their partners happiness is integral to their own. Most normal people want to make the other partner happy and make a sacrifice for the other partner. With the fembots, it's all take, no give.
I've never understood the logic behind that. If my wife isn't sexually interested, I have no right to magically demand that she have sex with me
David, there are some wives who could go forever without sex. Not because it's hateful to them, but because they couldn't be bothered. What is the husband in such a marriage supposed to do? Accept a lifetime of celibacy?
If the husband wants his marriage to survive and to be happy, he's going to have to raise his wife's interest. And this is where he'll get a wrong message from the general culture. The culture will tell him to bring some flowers home, or do the vacuuming or be a better husband in some way.
But this is likely to be counterproductive. It means that the wife is using her sexual power to more closely control her husband by denying him sex. Everytime she says no, he tries to do more and she sees the benefits. Why should she change?
What husbands need to do if a wife goes on LSS (lazy sex strike) is to show that she is losing control of him. He should become less predictable in what he offers as a husband. He should start acting more for himself. He should demonstrate to his wife that by denying him a physical relationship she is losing sexual control over him.
(Yes, it's better all round if the wife is one of those women who provides her husband with sex out of love and care for him. But that's not always going to happen, particularly in a society in which women are taught to act for their own wants.)
Let's say your wife asks you to run an errand. But you don't feel like doing it. What do you do?
Depending on my mood, I'd do the errand for her or I'd simply tell her to do it herself.
Part of being a grown up is recognising that you do have obligations to others.
The problem is that sex isn't one of those obligations. We're not dealing with putting out the garbage or going to some friend's crappy wedding, but a basic human right and necessity. It may not be rape, but it's certainly degrading. Even from the male perspective, why would you want to have sex with somebody that isn't interested? It's boring and a waste of everybody's time, and if one wants an orgasm in such a situation, there's always the time honoured method of masturbation.
You'd never see a woman say, my husband has a right to refuse to look after the child because he doesn't feel like it.
The problem here is that if you don't watch the kids, you'll end up with property damage or a hurt or damaged child. If you don't have sex, nobody is going to get hurt.
Most normal people want to make the other partner happy and make a sacrifice for the other partner.
The problem is that having sex with somebody who isn't interested isn't a sacrifice that makes me happy. It just means that you're unhappy and potentially miserable in the marriage.
What is the husband in such a marriage supposed to do? Accept a lifetime of celibacy?
Three options are availble:
1) Stay celibate and married.
2) Use porn and masturbate.
3) Get a divorce.
I'd advocate for the second option if one has children, and opt for the third if there are no children in the marriage. As I've told my female friends, I don't need them for an orgasm. Sadly, most men are unaware of their options.
No David you are absolutely correct. No woman should be compelled to have sex with her husband. But I also believe that both parties have an obligation to the other and failure to provide for the other is a failure in maintaining the relationship.
Personally I'm in favour of the idea of the concept of "injuries against" the marriage or finding out which party failed in their duties toward the other. The guilty party pays the penalty.
Marriage is not just about mutual benefit, but mutual service. There are obligations to the other party.
The lusty fiancee intimates that she will be that way for the rest of her life. When a man commits to her, he commits on those terms. How many women would get married if they explicitly stated:
"look Honey, I'm hot and horny for you now but once we get married no more sex or importantly or only when I have the whim to have it?"
Still want to get married?
When choosing our marriage partner we make an assessment of their character as they are, not as potentially will be. The hot and horny fiancee is what the husband thinks he's getting, what he ends up with is the asexual shrew, it's a sort of deception. Yeah people change, but no feminist would think that the placid husband who turns into a wife beater is somehow entitled to his actions by virtue of the progress of time. It's time to bring back pro-fault divorce.
But I also believe that both parties have an obligation to the other and failure to provide for the other is a failure in maintaining the relationship.
I understand that you're focusing on the larger context of obligations in marriage, but my complaint with duty sex is that it's generally awful sex. In other words, even if a woman offers herself a de facto cum dumpster to please her husband, why should I make use of an option that leaves a man to fumble around a dry vagina and listen obviously faked orgasms when there is a perfectly sensible alternative outlet for one's sexual output with pornography-induced masturbation? Sex is useless if your partner is not sexually aroused.
Still want to get married?
Under that context no, but duty sex isn't appealing even to somebody of my low ranking.
It's time to bring back pro-fault divorce.
I'll defend no-fault divorce primarily because it allows for an easy escape route for either sex out of a marriage. I'd like to keep that option as a backup in case something goes wrong, and I'd prefer not to commit perjury in order to flee my marriage.
DA:
I'll defend no-fault divorce primarily because it allows for an easy escape route for either sex out of a marriage. I'd like to keep that option as a backup in case something goes wrong, and I'd prefer not to commit perjury in order to flee my marriage.
In other words you'll defend a system that allows you to break your promises.
Under that context no, but duty sex isn't appealing even to somebody of my low ranking.
It's not duty if it is done out of love.
Sorry Mark Richardson, but it appears I may have deleted your comment by accident.
I'll re post it here:
David Alexander,
You're not being realistic. Most men don't look on masturbation as constituting a relationship with a woman.
If it's really the case that a wife should follow her lazier inclinations and leave her husband without a physical relationship, then nearly all younger men will either divorce or find a mistress of some sort - and the mistress option is itself likely ultimately to lead to divorce.
So you're basically leaving men in that situation with the prospect of divorce - something harmful when children are involved.
The much better option is for a man not to let his marriage go in a resigned way, but to fight for it.
As I tried to explain earlier, it's possible to do this - to spark the instinct women have to draw in a man using her sexuality - if the husband begins to show signs of cutting loose of his wife's control and influence.
If the wife values her marriage, her instincts to recreate a sexual bond with her husband are likely to come into play in this situation.
In other words you'll defend a system that allows you to break your promises.
Yes, I'd like to maintain the option to flee if I become sick of her and have no desire to maintain promises. The only reason to stay in a miserable marriage is for the presence of children.
It's not duty if it is done out of love.
Who cares if it's done out of love if it's pathetic, lifeless sex? It seems that there's a whole contingent of males on the internet willing to have sex with uninterested women which strikes me as rather weird.
Most men don't look on masturbation as constituting a relationship with a woman.
If a woman isn't meeting my sexual needs, trying to guilt trip her into sex isn't going to be conducive to the relationship, and simply reinforces the notion of her being deadweight in my life.
So you're basically leaving men in that situation with the prospect of divorce - something harmful when children are involved.
I've generally preferred that men not cheat within their marriages and use masturbation as their sexual output, but if there are no children in a marriage, then a divorce is the best solution to fleeing a sexless life.
The much better option is for a man not to let his marriage go in a resigned way, but to fight for it.
Why put in so much effort for something that's failing miserably? I'm not going to pander to her shitty, inferior instincts so I can have a vagina to use given that one can induce orgasm on their own with no need to suffer to the whims of another person. Too many men restrict themselves to securing an orgasm from a woman out of pure ignorance, and it's saddening to see this when men can free themselves from women via proper masturbation.
Post a Comment