By ZOE KRUPKA
Bettina Arndt is at it again. In an opinion piece she wrote this week, she returns to her position on the secret to heterosexual married bliss.
Apparently “The truly lucky man is blessed with a sexually generous woman, one who believes in taking one for the team.”
I won’t even go there with the unfortunate associations that little analogy calls up.
Spruiking the new female Viagra, fetchingly labelled Lybrido or Lybridos, Arndt is urging us once again to throw our undies in the ring and do what we can in the bedroom to keep our men from suffering sexual frustration. Even if it means taking a little pink pill to up our sexual ante. Even if it means completely ignoring some of the reasons we may have lost interest in the first place.
According to Arndt, “For every woman keen for a solution to her lost libido, there are others who wouldn’t dream of popping a little pink pill to enhance sexual desire. There are plenty of women happy to shut up shop, simply refusing to have sex – and expecting their husbands to just suck it up.”
Again with the unfortunate language she’s letting us know that not wanting sex is just not okay.
I think we need to feel our hackles rise whenever a pleasurable activity becomes compulsory. Despite what Fred Nile would like us to believe, sex is meant to be fun. When we have sex, it should never be a chore, an offering or a sacrifice.
From my vantage point as a counsellor, I don’t see much good coming from women offering sex when they don’t feel like it, and I don’t see men who feel great when their partners offer them a mercy shag. The fact is we all want to be wanted and we all suffer in some way when sex becomes some kind of relationship duty. But Arndt assures us with her characteristic pragmatism that “It’s not as if making love is such a big ask – it’s not like cleaning an oven.” If that doesn’t get you going, I don’t know what will.
Top Comments
Thanks for calling her out, there's so much of that kind of rubbish being pushed in the dating crowd I'm surprised anyone gets together in the first place, they make being in a relationship sound about as appealing as a dip in a sewer.
Does Arndt do this in her relationship or is her advice just to all us convict commoners, since us Australian women are whores and our men self serving apes we're not capable of any better right Bettina? We couldn't possibly hold ourselves to a higher standard. The more idiots like Arndt keep pushing their loathing of women out there and calling it relationship advice the less appealing they make this whole partnership business sound. She might be from a generation where women were seen as property and expected to submit to men, or "lay back and think of England" but the world has grown up since then. My generation knows better than to disregard the emotional needs of women in a relationship (or their sexual needs for that matter since we do actually enjoy sex) and has an appreciation of how sweeping everything under the rug impacts upon relationships over the long run, the generation after mine is so far from her opinion on the subject it's like getting advice from their great grandmother with a touch of dementia.
Krupka overlooks some basic evolutionary biological differences between men and women and their roles in marriage. Monogamy is a recent invention, and part of a broader recent invention, civilization. However our DNA is still much the same as it was for the first 140,000 years or so. Men's libido is still programmed to attempt to fertilize as many females as he can. Women's libido is more selective, since she can become pregnant at most, every nine months, and has much more invested in that pregnancy. In a civil society, there are trade-offs. The dominant alpha-male doesn't get to fertilize the entire clan any more, and the other males get to have a mate. If a woman doesn't want her husband desiring other women then she needs to "take one for the team" more often than she feels like it. Not a big ask, when most men work a 40-hour week "for the team" whether they feel like it or not.