Showing posts sorted by relevance for query sex. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query sex. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Ask The Sexperts!

I only just found this piece by "sex expert" (as you like, I'm not bad myself) Dr Pam Spurr - it's a couple of months old. The feature in The Times claims that feminism "is killing sex" and - in their own words - that career women are risking their relationships by saying "no". Hmmm.

Now to start totally the wrong way about I should point out that her concluding paragraph I (almost) wholeheartedly agree with:

"Never be bullied into sexual activity that turns you off or be pressured into sex that doesn’t satisfy you. But always be prepared to discuss your feelings and desires and listen to his. Hopefully, that will improve your sex life and help to strengthen your relationship in other ways, too."

I just don't get why it's listen to HIS feelings and desires. Doesn't she mean YOUR PARTNER'S or is Dr Spurr's advice only for women?

Well evidently the article is about women and what we're doing wrong. Here are some choice extracts:

"With increasing frequency, women in their twenties, thirties and forties take a pragmatic, postfeminist view that sex is something over which they have no need to negotiate."

Surely negotiating is a pretty odd way of sorting out what you do in bed. How about doing all the things that both you and your partner enjoy and want to do. Negotiation implies some sort of compromise - doing things you don't really want to.

" When [case study woman] found that the stress of their differences diminished her sex drive, she felt completely justified in suggesting separate bedrooms. As she recounted to me – with bitter regret, after their divorce – sex had been the last thing on her mind. Her biggest mistake was not considering what was on his mind."

Weird - has anyone else on here ever moved into separate bedrooms from their partner without thinking this might have some impact on their sex life?

"too many women see the sexual side of their lives as something to be claimed completely and utterly as their own"

Yes, it is. Who the hell else "claims" my sex life?

"At the risk of being called ... antifeminist, I’d go so far as to say that for both partners sex could be considered a duty, if it is something that one partner knows would make the other happy."

Personally I think I would rather eat my own vomit than have sex with someone who was doing it out of duty. Also having sex out of a sense of duty when you don't really want to is more or less guaranteed to put you off wanting it again.

"Does he really want to go up on the roof to repair a leak on a Sunday afternoon? Does she really want to take out the rubbish in the pouring rain? No, but partners in relationships do such things because they know that it makes the other happy. Sex should be seen in the same light."

Sex should be seen in the same light as taking out the rubbish or repairing a leaky roof? How bad is your sex life Dr Spurr? And no they're not comparable because sex is an act of intimacy so it makes no sense to do it unless both partners actively want to.

"Why should the sexual area of a relationship be ringed by an emotional fence that makes it a no-go zone for discussion, while other areas are discussed openly, argued over and resolved?"

This Dr Spurr is only true in your world, everyone else I know talks about sex.

"I have spoken to a fair few thirty-something women who settle down with a “decent chap” knowing that he’ll make a good father. On producing babies, though, many such men find themselves left out in the cold when they still desire the sexual warmth that they initially enjoyed. "

Here's some advice for men feeling sexually frustrated after their wife has had a baby: put some more hours into taking care of the child, make sure your wife gets at least some good night's sleep and maybe she'll feel up to it again. Don't for crying out loud suggest it's her "duty" to put out after two days in labour and two hours sleep.

"[If you don't have much sex with your man] You may find ... that he will seek sexual satisfaction without you. I certainly don’t justify infidelity but I can often understand why it happens. In contrast, when a woman’s sexual needs are denied, Heaven help the man responsible."

So Dr Spurr can sort-of understand why men not getting much sex would go and have affairs but considers it outrageous for women in the same situation to complain about it. Remind me next time I'm seeking a relationship counselor not to call her.

"In other cases I have found an even more disturbing attitude: that it’s fine to use occasional sex in a cold-hearted and calculated way as a favour or bartering tool for jobs well done by the man."

So we should be negotiating about sex, and it is the same as household chores but we shouldn't be negotiating household chores in exchange for sex. Keep your story straight please!

And as if the story itself wasn't bad enough there are comments after it...

"All women treat sex as a weapon. Lower testosterone, lower needs. But they have the power to choose, something we men do not have. And so they use us. Over, and over, and over, and over...

Gerbil, Los Angeles, U.S.A."

Hmm... Gerbil (fitting rodent-based name by the way) if you don't have the power to choose whether or not you have sex, you should hand yourself as a potential sex offender.

And then this one which I think rather speaks for itself:

"I'm a 44 yr old man having twice a year sex.I am not a good husband ,i dont wash up,i empty the dishwasher;i dont do the laundry.I pay bill for the washer -dryer and iron my clothes and the childrens .When i come in from work i find at times the house is not clean to my standards ,so i get out the hoover i bought and sort it out.As mentioned by others my marital problems stem from money...having paid £108,000 in mortgage payments over the last 15 years my wife had to recently step in and make these payments for 5 to 6 months while i was unemployed(previously she had been through the same experience for over 12 months) strangely at that time our relationship did not change.But since my bad luck it has,i married a woman i felt i was compatible with;modern appliances take away her "tired" excuse...selfish control is what's occuring here..if i wanted a "companion" i should have bought a dog ...

derek, kingston, surrey"

Should really have added "I don't entirely speak comprehensible English" in there somewhere!

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

This Year In Sex

Alternet has published a list of their top sex-related stories of the year. Here's my take on them:

"Top 10 Sex and Relationships Stories of 2007

10. Is Open Marriage the Modern Couple's Answer to Infidelity?
By Joslyn Matthews, Sirens Magazine
Why does open marriage work for some married couples and destroy others? The answer could be that for it to work, you need to be in an extremely healthy relationship."

Do modern couples need an answer to infidelity? I know plenty of successfully monogamous couples. I think the answer to modern couple's infidelity is honesty - discussing what you want, what you feel relationship would benefit from. Do whatever you like, but do it honestly.

"9. Don't Look Gay: Why American Men Are Afraid of Intimacy With Each Other
By John Ibson, American Sexuality Magazine
Why do adolescent boys often leave empty seats between each other when they go to the movies? It's a product of the culture of male homophobia in America which pushes men to avoid intimacy and gay stereotypes."

Certainly true that in the UK too there is a real phobia for a lot of men about looking or acting "gay" or "girly". It's homophobia, misogyny and it's very much encouraged by the media and big companies who can use it to sell stuff.

"8. Why Men Should Be Included in Abortion Discussion
By Courtney E. Martin, AlterNet
Locking men out of conversations about abortion often comes at a great expense."

Men are involved in abortion discussions - when they have a good relationship with the woman in question. If they don't - why would you discuss what happens to your own body with someone who is hostile to you? We're not stupid.

"7. Is Monogomy Natural?
By Anneli Rufus, AlterNet
A lifetime of love versus a quick roll with a stranger. It's funny how we can have two seemingly opposite urges at the same time."

No it's not. It's clearly "natural" to have both a desire for a lasting relationship and an urge to have a lot of sex. More importantly however - does it matter if monogamy is "natural"? It's "natural" to cr*p in a ditch but I for one choose not to live with men who do so. Human are supposed to be civilised, so we can choose for ourselves how we behave and what we do, we are not slaves to our own "natural" urges.

"6. The Deeper Meaning in the Republican Sex Scandals
By Susie Bright, SusieBright.com
Another two gay-bashing, Klan-loving, pulpit-slurping Republicans have disgraced themselves. But there is much more we can learn from the improprieties of David Vitter and Bob Allen."

I think it's pretty obvious that the people shouting the loudest about the un-godliness of homosexual sex are the ones finding it hardest to repress that urge within themselves.

"5. Can Women Separate Love and Sex?
By Jennifer Armstrong, Sirens Magazine
Sex, like eating, is a biological drive, and you will lose your mind if you repress it for too long. But some women stave off the need much longer than others."

Of course many women have sex without falling in love. I know I have, I know I am not the only one. I also don't think you'll lose your mind if you don't have sex. Nor do I think sex is like eating - you'll die if you don't eat, if you don't have sex you'll just have to take up another hobby to fill the extra time. If the biological drive gets too much for you - I recommend masturbating.

(Note: within a week someone will have found this page by googling the phrase "I recommend masturbating"!)

"4. The Sexual Self-Interest of the Cuckolded Wife
By Susie Bright, SusieBright.com
How does Suzanne Craig, wife of the outed senator, stand next to her liar of a husband at a press conference and not hurl her guts?"

More generally why do women put up with men who mis-treat them? Well they figure on whatever misguided logic that the investment of time and effort they've put into the relationship is worth something and they don't want to throw it away rashly before they've looked at the options. Or they were only in the relationship for career reasons/money/etc to start with. Or they believe God wants them to "stand by their man". Or they've been taught by society that it is a woman's responsibility to make relationships work so they're blaming themselves and trying to make things right.

"3. Do Women Enjoy Chocolate More Than Sex?
By Danielle Egan, The Tyee
Author Joan Sewell says so in her new autobiography where she embraces her low libido. The media have hailed her book as "brilliant," but scientific literature disagrees with her theory."

Depends who makes the chocolate and who's having the sex. Mr Cru vs a couple of Quality Street - I'll take the former, some unattractive slimeball vs a nice big chunk of Lindt and Sprungli - I'll be switching to the latter. As for low libidos, I think the media these days does have a very "sex is all that matters" attitude so if you've a low libido and you're happy that way, good for you. Of course it could be a symptom of some other problem - physical or mental - so best to check, but if not then it's up to you whether you want to see it as a problem. The real issue is that while low libido for women is often not seen as a problem - a man who doesn't want much sex is swiftly dosed up with viagra. There's a real sense that for men libido is closely related to identity. And that's messed up.

"2. Is Pornography Really Harmful?
By Michael Bader and Vivian Dent, AlterNet
In response to Robert Jensen's controversial book, Getting Off, two clinical psychologists debate the intersection of violence and sexual fantasy."

Yes pornography really is harmful. Thousands of reports, all over the world, yes it's hamful. Why are we still having this debate?

"1. Pornography and the End of Masculinity
By Don Hazen, AlterNet
Mainstream porn has come up with more ways than ever to humiliate and degrade women. Why, then, is porn more popular? Includes an excerpt from Robert Jensen's new book, Getting Off."

Porn is more popular than ever because it comes up with ever more ways to humiliate and degrade women. That's what it's readers want. And that's why it's harmful.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Excuse Me While I Spit A Few Feathers!

I've just read the worst article I've read in years. Zoe Williams explains in the Guardian why hotels shouldn't stop offering pornography to guests. I think I'm going to have to do a full autopsy on the piece.

Firstly let me explain the news in the article: It's about Travelodge (cheap hotel chain) ceasing to offer pornography in their hotel rooms. They say they will lose some revenue in the short term but hope to attract more family visitors. Sounds like great news to me.

Starting with the title "The market beyond porn". Beyond porn. I don't really know what that means. Does that mean in a world where we no longer have porn? Clearly we live in no such world. Or a world where we have all accepted porn and stopped being concerned about it? Clearly if you read the feminist blog-o-sphere you will see that is not the case. Furthermore we can never disengage from discussing porn because there will always be an issue of how much we can show. I have spam e-mails in my inbox this morning with the title "real rapes - hidden cameras". It's not just feminists who are uncomfortable with that - it's everybody who doesn't deserve to be lined up and shot.

Quote one: "... Apparently it will cost the company millions in lost revenue, but it is thought to have weighed this against all the crystal meth, sorry, knitting patterns it'll flog to the new influx of mothers, and decided it was worth it."

That paints a portrait of mothers that I am not familiar with. Knitting and/or crystal meth? That's just insultory to mothers isn't it? Lets try the racism test - if "humourously" I wrote that a company was trying to appeal to the black community "in an effort to sell more crystal meth, sorry, knitting patterns" would the Guardian publish it? Nope! But as the Travelodge has clearly worked out, there are plenty of mothers (could even be some fathers too!) out there who are interested in taking their children on holiday and staying somewhere where those kids won't be exposed to porn. Great news.

Quote two "[on porn] Did lad culture make it funny? Does objecting to porn mean you have no sense of humour? At what point does it cease to be ironic? If the irony is in the mindset of the beholder, does that make it a thought crime (you are not appreciating it ironically enough), and if so, is protest dated, insanely authoritarian, to the point of being meaningless?"

Looking at Lad Mags I see the only joke seems to be how stupid they can make women appear and how insultory they can be to women in general. I'm not into homophobic or racist humour either. That's not because I lack a sense of humour - come see one of my shows - but there are plenty of funny things that aren't insultory to women/gay people/other ethnic groups. Just because its supposed to be funny, doesn't stop it being offensive. And nor does it make it somehow"insane" to protest against it.

Quote three "(1)Feminist remonstration has its own grey areas to wrestle over. The rhetoric of objectification relies on the idea that it's one-way traffic, that only men objectify, and only women are objectified. Before you even consider where this leaves homosexuality, (2) you can only accept this model if you take as a starting point that women have no physical imperative - or if they do, it's an imperative for cuddles - (3)and while there is an alarming number of people calling themselves feminists who persist with such ideas, this area is at least now open to debate."

(1) No - the point is that pornography normally only objectifies women. Everyone is capable of objectifying and being objectified. But the vast majority of porn is about women being made to look stupid and powerless. That objectifies them. I don't know many feminists who would argue with that.

(2) No-one is suggesting women don't have a "physical imperative" - which I think means sex drive. But we're being drawn in here to the idea that porn is about sex and it's not. Women like sex and so do men. If that sex drive is what generates porn, then we would have to assume women DON'T like sex because where is all the male porn? Demand for porn has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with misogyny.

(3) There are very few feminists who believe that women don't like sex. There are those that believe modern sexual standards - heavily influenced by porn - have standardised forms of sexual behaviour that are more centred on male pleasure than female. There are even super-extreme feminists who believe that the best way for women to escape male oppression is so give up sex or have only lesbian relationships. But no-one I know is saying women don't like sex, jeez it was us feminists who first explained to the world that women DO like sex. And we had a hard enough time getting out point across then!

Quote four: "(1)So, say women do objectify men to the same degree, on the same grounds as they themselves are objectified. How degrading is porn, then, and for whom? (2) Besides which, we can't ignore the way the mainstream has embraced pornographers themselves; the fact that the most despised aspect of a man like Richard Desmond is now his personality. (3) Suffice it to say, a discussion about the flaws of the business is mainly now about working conditions - are the participants willing, are they paid properly, does the taboo around the industry leave them unprotected by industrial standards? The discussions are no longer about the ethics of the business itself. That's where the cultural curve is now."

(1) The last paragraph suggested women could objectify men too. Now we are asked to assume that they do and that they do to the same degree as men objectify women. In any case it isn't men who objectify women - it's porn that objectifies women and that's why it's degrading. TO WOMEN. Doh!

(2) Richard Desmond bought his way into the mainstream. I can't really distinguish between hating the fact that he publishes a magazine called "Asian Babes" and hating the bloke himself. Everyone close their eyes and count to 100 and see if when you open them Zoe Williams has a brand spanking new column all of her own in The Daily Express ... two ... three ...

(3) Working conditions are awful, the participants often coerced, pay unreasonably low and protection for participants virtually non-existant. Those are all good reasons to add to the list of why Travelodge is quite right not to support the industry by selling on it's produce. Actually it's unlikely Travelodge could vet the pornography they circulate to the extent that they could guarantee none of those problems were present. Even if they could, the debate is still very much out there on how best to keep porn away from children. There was a motion in parliament only this time last year on the issue.

You would think the supposedly left-wing (at best centrist) Guardian would look for gender issues page contributors who had at least a cursory knowledge of basic feminism. Or who bothered to do any research.

Oh and well done Travelodge.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Lag Mags, US-Style

Often seems that it's only us UK-based feminists who have to contend with the propaganda disseminated by the so-called Lad Mag culture. My views on that sort of thing are well known, having featured even on the BBC. And of course all over this blog too. Now the misogyny-as-mainstream-youth-culture movement has apparently reared it's ugly head in the US too as witnessed by the headline "Is It OK To Demand Anal Sex?"...

... well ... firstly it's not ok to demand anything sexually. Obviously.

Secondly at several points in the article the guys interviewed express sentiments that are just horrifying. That they asked women for anal sex because of the bragging rights it gave them down the pub later. That they liked anal sex because the woman was in pain. That they found anal sex less difficult to deal with emotionally than vaginal sex.

Anything you do in bed because of what your mates will think, because you enjoy watching someone suffer or because you are afraid of cunts is a mistake.

But really what we are seeing is another cause/symptom of the pornification of society. Pornography, which gets more and more mainstream by the second always tends to focus on oral and anal sex. Evolution certainly didn't mean to pre-dispose us to like these things so really this can be seen as evidence that pornography is not about sexual desire. Porn is about power, and you're getting much more power out of a situation when the other party is likely to end up in pain (or choking in the case of the sort of oral sex these sites tend to show). It's pretty hard to hurt a woman through vaginal sex - however hard you do it. No pain = no power = no fun.

And women are not immune to culture. The more these things are normalised, the more they feel they need to live up to standards we are led to believe are now universal.

The weird thing is, much as the media normalise these attitudes, there is demnad out there from guys who already think like that. Long ago when I was a single blogger I tried an online dating service and one guy I emailed back and forth a few times casually mentioned that refusal to have anal sex was "a deal-breaker"! To which I swiftly replied that sexual "deal-breakers" were themselves a deal-breaker for me. And he was still mailing me weeks later saying intelligent things like "you might enjoy it" and very much missing the point that I only date people who aim to please me in bed, not tick off a list of obscure practices I can or can't be talked into.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Big rise in casual sex

There has been a big rise in the number of people opting for casual sex, figures suggest.

The British Association of the Rampantly Horny recorded 22,041 one night stands carried out by its members last year - up 34.6% from 2004.

The figures show that the majority of casual sex continues to be carried out on by heterosexual - 19,601 procedures in 2005.

However, homosexual men and women now make up 11% of the total - up from just 8% in 2004.

This was recently illustrated by figures showing casual sex has enjoyed a surge in popularity among office workers in the City of London.

MOST POPULAR POSITIONS
Missionary: 5,655 (up 51.4%)
Her on top: 3,415 (up 50.2%)
“Doggy” style: 2,700 (up 9.3%)
Up against the wall: 2,279 (up 42.1%)
Her on top, facing away: 2,268 (up 34.7%)
Sitting up: 1,869 (up 24.4%)
Wheelbarrow: 1,436 (up 24.9%)
Flattened “doggy”: 1,176 (up 28.1%)
Spoons: 663 (up 9.6%)
Scissors: 580 (up 34.8%)

The top position for heterosexuals was missionary, with 5,646 carried out - a 51% rise since 2004.

"Doggy" style - continues to be the top position for homosexuals.

Less conventional positions, such as wheelbarrow, spoons and scissors, also showed a considerable rise in popularity in the last year.

Ms Lucky Streeter (not her real porn name), a consultant sex therapist and BARH president, said: "These figures appear to represent a growing acceptance of casual sex, particularly in diversifying positions and the number of homosexuals choosing to engage in one night stands."

Qualified advice

However, Ms Streeter stressed it was important that her members promoted responsible practices.

Concern has been growing about the number of people who opt for casual sex without using effective barrier methods of contraception.

...ok I wrote that article. It's is a spoof of an article on the BBC website about cosmetic surgery. Read the original here. Now bear in mind that you're much more likely to die from cosmetic surgery than from casual sex. Plus casual sex is much more likely to sort out your self esteem problem in my opinion! And yet my article sounds so irresponsible. Well I think it's totally irresponsible for the BBC not to mention the risks of surgery. One in 476 patients die. Yes DIE! And that's at reputable hospitals and clinics, it's loads worse at dodgy, overseas and unregulated places.

And that is my real "porn name" for those who play that game (it's the name of your first pet, then your mother/grandmother's maiden name!). Any yes, those are all genuine sexual positions, I guess I'll do what I have to in the name of research!

Sunday, November 08, 2009

Catch-Up Post

So I haven't been blogging much lately and I know there are a number of big subjects I just haven't covered at all...

Firstly stuff I've been doing:

Some people are still talking about my plinthing (pictured), including the fabulous Daily (Maybe).

I hosted the 2009 Feminism in London conference which was awesome. The highlight for me was a speech by Rebecca Mott about her experiences of being a prostituted woman. You can read the transcript of what she said here. I didn't get to see much else of the conference because I was running about organising things although I was very touched to see the contribution from the London Pro-Feminist Men's Group - they were running the creche! There are hundreds of photos of the event here.

After the conference we held a cabaret party with an all-female line-up which again I hosted and which raised over £600 towards the cost of running next year's conference and was followed by a DJ and most of the conference organisers and me hitting the dancefloor to let our hair down!

Meanwhile Soho Comedy Club, where I am resident compere, has been expanding and now takes up two rooms on a Saturday night (if you want to see me - ask at the door which room I am compering and you'll be sent the right way). We've had several brilliant Swedish comedians on tour recently including Magnus Betner, Tobias Persson (his blog is in Swedish but you can use google-translate), Lasse Nielsen and last night Fredrik Anderssen. This coming Friday (13th) we host one of the most outspoken acts you will ever see - Norwegian Dag Soras. There are a few tickets left but if you want to come please book now at the Soho Comedy website.

And as things are going so well there I have moved my Comedy Manifesto show over to Soho Comedy Club's main venue. We're there now every Thursday. It's a (the UK most popular and most successful) live topical panel show. And since it's all been rolled into Soho Comedy Club again you can buy tickets in the same place - hope to see you there some time soon.

I also did two runs of my solo show (The New At Kate) from Edinburgh at two brilliant places - one at Goldsmith's College and one at a great monthly show in Camden called Better Living Through Comedy. Thanks to everyone who came along to those. The next performance I'm doing of that show is in Southport on Sat 21st Nov. It's at the Floral Hall and is a benefit for striking journalists. Support, I hear, will be brilliant all-female sketch group Ladygarden. I'm not sure where you can get tickets but if all else fails show up on the night and I reckon they'll let you in for a modest fee.

I've also been on a few radio shows. On Friday night I was on the Stephen Nolan show on BBC Radio Five Live, just before midnight. I was supposed to be talking about office Christmas parties [have yours at Soho Comedy Club...] but we got distracted and ended up talking about sex education at school and how important it is. The good news here is that the government is going to make sex education compulsory from the age of 15. So even those kids whose parents choose to opt them out will have to have one year of sex ed before they leave school at 16. The bad news is: 15 is very very late to find out how your body works. By that age kids will have heard about sex in the playground, seen pornpgraphy on the internet or in newsagents and many of them will have already had sex. Still it's a start.

And secondly what's been happening in politics:

Well there was some good news here. The House of Lords passed Clause 14 which will criminalise the buying of sex from a person who has been exploited. In other words "I didn't know" will no longer be an excuse for buying sex from a woman being prostituted against her will. And if you're thinking "Oh no, what about my right to buy women's bodies for sex?" then surprise - you don't have such a right... But women do have a right not to be exploited. The campaign continues here.

Less encouraging is the announced closure of the Karma Nirvana helpline for women at risk of forced marriage and so-called "honour" killing [by which I mean brutal and pointless murder]. The government has decided quite randomly to cut funding for services supporting such women. You can sign the petition to urge Gordon Brown to reverse this decision here. Of course Gordon Brown is probably too busy to worry about stuff like women getting murdered - he has to focus on issues of national importance like who's going to win X-Factor... no really.

Johann Hari had a great - if very frightening - piece about David Cameron's policies in the Indie. And rather than looking at how dreadfully his manifesto betrays Britain's poor or coming out in support of funding for the Karma Nirvana helpline, Cameron decided to spend his time announcing to the world that he's deeply religious.

A report out about gender-related bullying in the school playground makes for disturbing reading but all the more reason to get involved with the Pink Stinks campaign to promote exciting female role models to young children which I found out about through their stall at the Feminism in London conference.

And what's coming up:

Sadly (but also happily) I will be away doing my show for striking journalists on Sat 21st Nov but what I will be missing is this year's Reclaim The Night march in London. I cannot urge my female readers enough to go along and male readers to show up afterwards for the rally and party - it's just one of those things that make you feel great and inspires you to go out and start changing the world. Have a great time.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Holy crap - I did not think I could get any angrier.

I've made a point on here before about (1) why the Huffington Post has a special section on "divorce" and (2) how that section is full of very bad and ill-considered advice.  This latest piece however is offensive and incredibly dangerous so it's unsurprising to find it was written by Laura Doyle, author of "The Surrendered Wife" - a whole book about how to improve your relationship by shutting up and pretending you like it. Vom. Again vom. Hold it. Hold it. Ok one more. VOM!!!

This article has the charming 1950s-theme title "Women: Five Reasons Your Divorce Is Your Fault"* and here's every last appalling word shredded as hard as I damn well can. How dare she?


"I teach intimacy skills, but not to couples and not to men."

From the title of your piece I'm guessing your target audience is only allowed out on day release.

"I only teach them to women because we are the ones who have the power to make our relationships intimate."

Yes one person, on their own, can make a relationship intimate. That definitely works.

"When a woman learns intimacy skills, her relationship becomes passionate and peaceful in about two weeks."

Firstly - this reads like an advert. Secondly - if it is, it needs reporting to the advertising standards authority because it's bullshit.

"Clients often say, "I feel like I have a new husband.""

Ok listen up ladies. There is only one was to feel like you have a new husband. That is to get a new husband.

"But he's not the one who changed -- she did, and then he responds to her differently."

How irresponsible is this? Whatever he does, however cruel, violent, indifferent, dishonest, unpleasant... it's her fault. Vom. (There's gonna be a lot of vom I think.)

"That's how it always is when a woman has a good guy."

Oh a "good guy"? Remind me where the label is, I never can find it.

"Of course, not all guys are good guys."

Actually it is rude and offensive to men to imagine there are just "good guys" and "bad guys". In fact men are a bit more varied than that.

"If your husband is actively addicted to drugs, alcohol or gambling, or is physically abusive, or not capable of being faithful, yours is a divorce I endorse."

So physically abusive, I can leave but mentally abuse it's my fault. V... v...

"Safety comes first and you're not safe in those situations because his compulsion will always come before you."

I am honestly offended that she even pretends to have the safety of women at heart. Abuse takes many forms, it's not as simple as physical violence, addiction and infidelity. And even without abuse of any kind, if a relationship isn't working and you feel it's time to leave you can and you should. You do not need this evil woman to "endorse" your divorce. I endorse it. Go ahead.

"But if he doesn't fall into one of those categories, he's a good guy -- not a perfect guy, but one you can have a wonderful relationship with when you learn the skills that contribute to intimacy."

Yeah I mean if he just steals from you and calls you fat and stupid, he's one of the good guys. Yeah?

"Below are five ways that women unwittingly sabotage their marriages, along with the proven remedies for restoring the love and closeness you once shared."

Silly women, ruining their marriages, all on their own, with absolutely no help from their partners.

"1. Rejecting his efforts to make you happy"

Sorry where does it even say he makes efforts to make you happy?

"Husbands and wives bring different strengths and desires to marriage."

All men are alike and so are all women. Remember reading that in those science journals?! This is probably why it's impossible to have a relationship with two men or two women.

"For women, feeling cherished and desired is vital."

Ain't that right girlzzz?!! You know it...

"For a man, respect and sex are of utmost importance."

Hold up! I get cherished and desired and he gets respect and sex? I think I might be a man. And I also think that people have to earn respect and that you shouldn't have sex with anyone you don't want to.

"Men also have a powerful drive to make their wives happy -- it contributes to their feeling of success."

Some of them have a really funny way of showing it. Shouting, leaving all the housework to you, spending more time with their mates, for example.

"You might think that your husband is the exception -- that he doesn't care about delighting you -- but he may just be discouraged because he doesn't feel that he can please you."

Yes he may be. Or he may not.

"You have the power to transform your relationship by becoming pleasable, which means showing appreciation for his efforts instead of rejecting or dismissing them -- and by extension, him."

Whatever he does - act pleased. "Oh honey, I see you've left your dirty pants on the floor as a gift! You're so kind."

"When you reject his efforts because they aren't what you had in mind (e.g., a present that isn't what you want, cleaning that's not to your standards, or a compliment you don't agree with), there's nothing he can do to improve the situation, but there is something powerful you can do: receive graciously."

There's lots he can do to improve the situation. Exchange the gift, clean more thoroughly and be more thoughtful in what he says. And remind me, what exactly should I do if he doesn't bring me presents, clean or compliment me?  Oh that's right - blame myself, yes?

"Remedy: Try an experiment for the next two weeks: However small or imperfect his efforts, receive what your husband offers when he is trying to please or help you."

Within two weeks he'll have decided you're perfectly happy with shit all over the bathroom floor and box set of a series you don't like for your birthday. That'll make your relationship better eh?

"Thank him for his thoughtfulness."

Thoughtfulness would mean getting the present I actually wanted.

"Notice how quickly this creates more intimacy as you practice the skill of receiving graciously."

Ah yes, the vast improvement in intimacy that comes from lying through your teeth. Well known that.

"2. Taking the same approach at home as you do at work"

Well lets see, I'm a comedian. The usual way I interact with people at work I talk to them through a microphone, they sit in silence and laugh and if they interrupt me to talk I take the mickey out of them for doing so. All these years I've been coming home and replicating that. Was it a mistake?

"We women can create a gratifying culture of intimacy, if we know how."

Is she talking about starting a lesbian commune...? Interesting idea.

"If all we've ever been taught is how to get ahead in school and career, but not how to foster intimacy, it's pretty hard to change hats when the work day is done and we want a loving, supportive home."

Is that all women have been taught? Amazing the pay gap's still so big then eh?

"At work we have to manage projects and staff, move the bottom line and get that promotion."

No at work I have to tell jokes. Women. Not. All. Same. Capiche?

"At home the goals are different; we want to feel appreciated and wanted and get more help around the house."

Get more help around the house? Who says housework is a woman's job and the best she can hope for is for a guy to "help"? I don't want a guy to help. I want him to take responsibility for at least half of it. Hopefully more. I'm busy.

"But if you treat your husband like an employee, he will rebel."

You better hope he doesn't unionise. Also he's only an employee if you are the one who manages the home. And that doesn't have to be your job. If he acts like an employee, waiting to be told what to do - and then doing it badly - you have a problem.

"Respecting your husband by saying what you want instead of telling him what to do gives him the opportunity to make you happy in a way that no amount of managing ever will."

Great advice - be passive aggressive. Don't ask him to do things directly, just sit around dropping hints. "I really want that litter tray to no longer contain cat faeces." (roll eyes upwards, whistle)

"Remedy: For two weeks say what you want, but not what he should do or how he should do it."

For example say "I want a clean bathroom floor". But remember when he only wipes the taps you have to act thrilled even though the bin's overflowing and there's something that looks like shit on the floor.

"Be patient and allow him to find his own way of pleasing you."

Sit around in a relationship that doesn't work and pretend it does...?

"Remember, he wants to. Let him, and he will."

That's the big problem, eh? All these guys out there dying to be better husbands and us awful women just not letting them. Thank goodness Laura Doyle is on hand to set us straight. Ok, trying to resist but... Vom.

"3. Withholding sex"

Vom, vom, vom. If you don't want to have sex - don't.

"Most men need sex more than women to feel intimate."

Where's the science on this? The idea that men want more sex than women is not supported by science. It's a dangerous myth that leads to hyper-masculinised culture and feelings of shame and inadequacy on all sides.

"You are his only source for that vital form of connecting, and when you withhold -- whether to punish or because you're exhausted -- you miss a chance to receive the intimacy that you both crave."

What about if he's the one who doesn't want sex? Or does every relationship fit your brain-dead one-size-fits-all model? Because all men are horny all the time and all women are horrified by this, right?

"Remedy: Over the next two weeks as you start experiencing more intimacy, consider making yourself available for sex at least once a week in support of your mutual goal of connecting."

Has anyone EVER advised men to improve their relationship by "making themselves available for sex"? The whole phrase makes it sound like sex is something men do to women, who just lie there and put up with it. If this is how it works in your relationship - that is a problem.

"4. Initiating divorce when the problem isn't insurmountable"

If the other person doesn't want to address the problem - the problem is insurmountable. Unless you're in one of those one-person marriages.

"Women initiate between 66% and 90% of all divorces."

Thank you science. What does initiate mean in this context anyway? Maybe sometimes men initiate by being a pain in the backside and women relent and admit there's a problem. The evidence also shows at least 75% of women say they are happier one year after divorce, so on the whole women were right to initiate.

"You might think that's because men do things to make marriage untenable -- like cheat or hit them -- but I hear about women divorcing because he didn't help with the baby, he was emotionally unavailable, or because they grew apart."

Hands up everyone who wants to spend the rest of their life with an emotionally unavailable guy who doesn't help with the baby?  Also it's not "helping" with the baby - it's his kid too and his job too to take responsibility for the baby.

"Countless women tell me they divorced because their husbands weren't capable of meeting their needs."

And you tell them sorry, no bruises? Then this helpful counsellor can't endorse the divorce. You need to try pretending to be happy and having sex when you don't want to.

"When the women I work with learn intimacy skills, it changes the way they see a previous marriage."

Yes when you tell women their relationship problems are all their own fault it probably does make them feel like crap.

"Some women tell me that they realize they were married to a good guy, but divorced because they lacked the skills to have a happy relationship."

Some people believe your bullshit? What a shame.

"Sometimes it causes them enormous grief."

Then don't say such horrid untrue things if you know it's going to upset people. It's called bullying.

"It is heartbreaking to see marriages end because of a simple lack of skills."

It is and that's why home economics, cooking and cleaning should be on the national curriculum for both girls and boys.

"It's no different than seeing someone try to drive a car without a single lesson: A crash is inevitable, but it's preventable."

It's very different. Many people who have never even heard of your advice and indeed think it's utter bullcrap have happy and successful relationships. And I'd also bet some people do exactly what you say and it makes them really miserable.

"Remedy: Consider taking divorce off the table just for the next two weeks, keeping in mind that intimacy needs safety to thrive."

So to recap - you wanted to divorce this guy because he gets shit presents, doesn't do his share of the housework or the child care, says thoughtless things and demands sex all the time when you don't want it. And her advice is to pretend you don't want a divorce, not challenge him about the housework or child care, pretend you like the presents and the weird compliments and give him sex whenever he wants? Well I'm sure he'll love that but what exactly are you getting out of this? Aside from exhausted?

"In my experience, any woman who has a good guy can bring her marriage back from the brink of divorce and transform it into a happy, loving relationship by practicing the intimacy skills."

Pretending to be happy when you're not really shouldn't be called an intimacy skill. If anything it's an acting skill.

"You can do the same."

Yes you - you with the guy who steals your money. You with the guy who's just realised he's gay. You with the guy who screams at you and calls you a bitch. All you have to do is say "thank you for the compliment" and do all the housework yourself.  Even if this shit worked, at best it would create the fake appearance of a happy relationship. A good relationship means you get to ask for what you want.

"5. Waiting for him to improve"

So mistake number four is initiating a divorce and mistake number five is waiting? And doing either of these things make the relationship mess your fault? Of course!

"You might wonder why there's no article for men explaining what they can do to improve their marriages."

I think it's because you're a nasty evil misogynist Laura. Anyone else?

"Even if there was, you couldn't make your husband read it or do what it says. "


Are you in a relationship with a guy who would refuse to read a newspaper article if you told him it was important to you that he did?  I will not date this guy. He's a tosser.


"You can change yourself, and he will respond to you differently."

Yes - change yourself. Vom. Just be someone else. Someone who likes shit on the bathroom floor and crap presents.

"Remedy: Instead of pleading, criticizing or demanding that your husband change, try the remedies above for two weeks."

Yes don't try to change things by directly challenging problems or talking to him like an adult. Instead sneak around lying to him in the hope that you can manipulate him into changing.

"To learn how, get the free 17-page e-book Six Lessons for Lasting Love at LauraDoyle.org"

Yes this is a line in an ARTICLE on Huffington Post. They should admit they're no longer about journalism, they're just a blog for marketers. Creepy misogynist ones.

"If you want peace in your marriage, then let it begin with you."

If you want anything in your marriage then both of you have to have a frank talk about it and agree on a plan. If you don't do this fairly regularly anyway there's not much hope for you.

Bottom line is this - the message that "the problem is you" and "I'm just reacting to you" is EXACTLY what emotionally abusive partners say to retain control. And just because a guy isn't violent or on hard drugs doesn't mean he's a "good guy". In fact maybe this article is all a clever trick. Show it to your man, if he thinks it makes any good points, dump him - he's an emotional abuser.

To suggest that women and women alone are responsible for making relationships work, that housework and childcare are the woman's responsibility, that divorce is always a bad thing which must involve blame, that men are all the same and women all the same, that gender roles should be strictly adhered to. These are attitudes from a bygone era. And then, and now, they're bollocks.


PS Dear Laura, while I was writing this my boyfriend has cleaned out the cupboard under the sink of his own volition. I have no idea what my husband was doing, he hasn't lived here for nearly two years. Please remind me what I'm supposed to feel bad about, it's so confusing.

*Do not adjust your clock, it is still 2013. I know.

Friday, January 28, 2011

What is WRONG with Giles Coren?!!

I can only presume the Daily Male were advertising for a columnist and Giles Coren thought - fuck it, there's a recession on, I'll just put my sense of decency in this handy dustbin, I could sure use the money. Here's the line-by-line on a little piece called So why is it all right for women to be sexist about MEN?

"The two Sky Sports presenters who were caught on tape making disparaging remarks about women earlier this week are a pair of daft old duffers, and no mistake. It is important for me to say that first, before I get to the business in hand."

Well before I start let me say on behalf of women everywhere: thank you. Good to have you on our side for once.

"Andy Gray and Richard Keys are a couple of dull, flabby, middle-aged football bores and are just the sort of doddering old clowns you would expect to relax off camera by swapping ancient prejudices and poking fun at women — in this case a female linesman — for not understanding the offside rule."

I wasn't personally in favour of sacking them because of their age and weight. I'd call that ageism and sizeism. For me the problem was the whole sexism thing.

"You shouldn’t pass unflattering remarks about women behind their backs because it is not a well brought-up thing to do, and they needed to be told. I would never do it myself. Not because I am a feminist, but because I am a gentleman."

Oh so now it's classism? You don't believe women deserve equal rights and opportunities (that would be feminism), you believe working class people shouldn't have good jobs.

"But while Gray has now been sacked, I don’t expect that will be the end of the matter."

Lets hope not. Let's hope that the public consciousness on the matter has been raised far enough to wonder just briefly if we're really all ok with a 5.1% rape conviction rate or a pay gap the size of the rift valley.

"We will hear an endless shrieking to ‘kick sexism out of football’; a PE teacher will be fired for telling his goalkeeper to ‘stop crying like a girl’; and a hapless League One manager will be deported for describing a fight between players as ‘handbags at dawn’."

Wow - sexism in football getting the same treatment racism has had in the past. Yes that would really be going too far wouldn't it? And PE teachers (who by the way are all male) and League One managers should be allowed to be sexist if they like too.

"There will be the endless apologies, public soul-searching and self-flagellation. And as usual the rest of us men will be expected to atone as a sex for a couple of remarks by two fat, superannuated fools on the telly, and to grovel for forgiveness with every snivel and cringe of our waking lives."

How many times have you grovelled and snivelled about this one so far Giles? I've counted none. Nor have I so far asked any men I know ever to apologise for remarks made by other men. On the contrary the world of "other men" will be distinctly enhanced by the recent events in one obvious way: two of them are about to get jobs as commentators on Sky Sports...

"Not that that’s anything new. To be a man in this country is constantly to have to apologise for oneself and to be ever so very careful about every sentence we speak or write which contains any reference at all to members of the opposite sex."

If you have to be "ever so very careful" to avoid making overt sexist remarks Giles, then please go right ahead and be "ever so very careful". You would think you wouldn't need to worry though what with how frightfully well brought up you are and all that...

"While at the same time, and this is the shame of it, we ourselves are fair game for women. While sexism from men is the outstanding social crime of the modern world, women can say absolutely whatever they like about us."

Really? I said a few times on air this week that I thought it was right that Andy Gray was sacked (an opinion it appears you agree with though for odd and different reasons). Since then I've had the usual string of abusive messages on my blog, facebook and email. My work has been attacked on public forums by people who've clearly never seen it. And just for raising the issue I've been accused of "moaning" and told in no uncertain terms to get over it. I dread to imagine what would happen if I made an actual sexist remark against men.

"For make no mistake: sexism is alive and well in this country and applauded in all quarters — as long as it is practised by women. And they are allowed to say the most terrible, terrible things."

Hold on these are two very different things. Women are paid less, lack power, property and respect in every level of our society. Women (the oppressed group) are very much entitled to highlight their situation with humour and make comment on how to escape it. Men (the oppressing group) are not welcome to use humour to reinforce and perpetuate those negative attitudes and stereotypes.

"Only last week, for example, Jo Brand, the newly crowned Best Female TV Comic at the British Comedy Awards, was on Have I Got News For You and replied to the question ‘What’s your favourite kind of man, Jo?’ by saying: ‘A dead one.’ Oh, how the audience fell about. And the other contestants, all male, chortled away too."

On Tuesday night I watched a male comic say he had sex with his wife while she was asleep. Luckily, he remarked, she sleeps with her mouth open. Your go Giles.

"I’m not saying it wasn’t funny. I’m just saying we live in a world where the thorough-going awfulness, uselessness and superfluity of the male sex is such a given, that a frontline television comic can get big laughs by saying she’d prefer it if we were all dead."

We also live in a country where due to the violence experienced by women at the hands of their male partners and ex-partners two of us every week actually do end up dead. Hence why the other way round the joke doesn't really work.

"And I’m trying to imagine a world in which I am on that show and they say, ‘What kind of women do you like, Giles?’ and I reply: ‘Dead ones.’ I just don’t think it would get the same laughs, do you?"

Ah well let me explain the nature of humour Giles. Humour arises from the unexpected. There's nothing unexpected about a man killing or wanting to kill a woman. I get death threats fairly regularly from men who find an opinionated outspoken woman who believes in actual equality an unbearable possibility. Do you?

"Here’s another of Jo Brand’s (excellent) gags. ‘What’s the way to a man’s heart? Straight through the chest with a kitchen knife!’ Again, not unfunny. But predicated on the idea that killing men is hilarious. Whereas killing women, as we all know, is a very serious affair and not to be joked about."

Actually killing women, as I explained above, is a fact of life in the UK. And a fact of life that neither the government nor the police seem all that bothered about.

"It’s not just Brand, it’s all women. ‘What do you call the useless flap of skin attached to a penis?’ they joke. ‘A man!’ they all reply, and clink their chardonnay glasses and chortle till dawn. How on earth did this get to be OK?"

Well two things: (1) Earlier on you complained you and all other men were expected to take the blame for Andy Gray. Now you are blaming me and all women for remarks made by Jo Brand. Fuck off. (2) What parties do you go too?! Chardonnay? Did your parents spend all that money on your upbringing only for you to spend your evenings in Yate's wine lodge? I last heard that "joke" when I was about 16 and I don't remember it being funny or interesting then.

"I’ll tell you how. It is because pretty much from birth women are schooled by their mothers to deride men. They are sugar and spice, we are slugs and snails."

If only women were all well brought up like you eh? Shame your expensive prep school probably doesn't even take girls. What's the word for that? Oh that's it - discrimination!!

"They are reflective and sensitive, while we run around kicking balls and shouting. And then as girls push towards puberty their mothers take them aside and tell them: ‘Boys are only after one thing!’"

Firstly I'm not sure that is what parents do to girls any more. I think they're just a touch more nuanced than that though since you grew up in a Victorian novel perhaps you had it differently. But secondly if we "warn" girls that boys only want sex, we seem to be simultaneously warning girls that they don't (or shouldn't) want sex, that they won't (or shouldn't) like it and certainly shouldn't have it. All lies. We (if we do, I think a lot of modern parents are past this though) are effectively telling our girls that regardless of their personality, their academic achievements and physical strength, their true value lies in their virginity. That's a horrible hateful message that values women purely in their desirability to men.

"The great lie. All men want is sex. Not so. If anything, it is women who think only of having it off. Girls on average lose their virginity much younger than boys and have more sexual partners in youth."

Girls on average go through puberty earlier than men. And excluding the gay community men and women have to be having, overall, the same number of partners, if girls have more sexual partners in their youth (and you would think he would lay on some statistics here cos I'm not familiar with this "fact") men must be having more when they're older. Dirty fuckers...

"As a teenager, I was terribly shy about sex and yet girls were trying to do it with me all the time. I used to run, literally run, from their bedrooms when they tried it on. And yet women are allowed endlessly to harangue us with our supposed lechery."

As a teenager I never ever, not once, got as far as a boy's bedroom seeking sex and then had him run away. Not that there aren't sexually forward women and sexually inactive men, but I don't see any evidence to suggest your experience was typical Giles. And lechery is actually very different from wanting to have sex. If you want to have sex with someone, you can ask them out. There's no need to be lecherous. Lechery is stuff like overtly gawping at someone's body, making repeated sexual remarks, etc. The vast majority of lecherous people would jump out of their skin if the object of their attention turned round and said "ok, lets have sex".

"And the prejudice festers. Harriet Harman says that men caused the banking crisis, and the harridan legions nod their heads. ‘If women ruled the world,’ they cry, ‘there would be no wars.’ "

So name the women behind the banking crisis? Is Fred the Shred short for Frederica? And a minute ago you were saying you had to watch every word you said - now you are calling women harridans. Maybe you should add that word to your special dictionary of words to watch out for...

"What nonsense. Women are far meaner, more brutal, aggressive, small-minded, jealous, petty and venal than any man.
"

If women are so much more brutal, why do we commit so much less of the domestic violence, the street violence and the crime in this country?

"If women ruled the world countries would be invaded because ‘she’s always been jealous of my feet’ and because ‘she looks down on me for going out to work’."

Which women are these? Not the ones in my life. I've never known anyone look down on another person (male or female) for "going out to work". You really have to be super-super rich to fail to appreciate the necessity of earning a living in this world. You might as well look down on people for eating yogurt with a soup spoon. Peasants!!

"Millions would die, torture would increase. If women ruled the world there would be carnage."

Yes women who right now commit a tiny tiny fraction of the violence in the world would definitely get into power and decide to kick things off with a big old round of torture. Is your article based on anything but hate?

"And what sort of an insult is it anyway to suggest that most women don’t understand the offside rule? It’s true, for a start. Most women don’t. And most of them declare it proudly."

Erm, how badly are you not getting this. Andy Gray and Richard Keys were saying a female linesman - with a professional refereeing qualification - didn't understand the offside rule. That's like saying a dentist can't fix teeth because of her gender. It's rude and way out of line (pun intended).

"Most of them use football as an example of one of their favourite gags, the one about how men never grow up, about how we’re all just children — most often manifested in the one where a mother-of-two says ‘I’ve got three children’, you raise an eyebrow, and she nods towards her husband. Hilarious."

How awful it must be for these men to be looked after like a child - to have their food made for them, be exempted from housework and their clothes laid out every morning. If you don't want to be called a child - act like an adult.

"And nor are men, in this female narrative, merely puerile, aggressive and underdeveloped. They are hypochondriacs, too."

Amazing that in the face of all these inadequacies we've let so many into the cabinet isn't it? Not to mention the management of all the big companies...

"‘He’s got a touch of man flu,’ say the womenfolk and titter. But what nonsense is that? It is women who make a big fuss about mild discomfort, not men."

I even saw this one on Mythbusters and it was proved the other way - women had a much higher pain threshold than men. Also by the way "titter" is misogynist for "laugh".

"I have never had so much as a cold in my life, nor claimed to. I even suspect sometimes that the whole palaver about the pain of childbirth is a conspiracy to ride roughshod over men."

Seriously? We're making it up about childbirth? You deliver a watermelon through your penis and call me back on this one ok?

"My own mother, a consultant anaesthetist herself, has always claimed that giving birth was a breeze but that she pretended it had been painful to build bargaining chips with my father."

Yeah things that can help ease the pain of childbirth part one: being a consultant anaesthetist. And why the hell did she need to build up bargaining chips? Couldn't she just do what she wanted or did your father have to issue permission first?

"You look at shows like Loose Women and you wonder how on earth they get away with the terrible things they say about men. I went on once and it was horrific. I wanted to die."

Well you had a bad experience. You would hope you would come away from it with a sympathy for women who go through something similar every time they go to work. Imagine being a camerawoman on Top Gear. Or a female co-presenter with Andy Gray. He'd probably make lecherous remarks asking you to help him adjust his microphone cable in his trousers...

"No male-hosted show could treat women the way those outsized harpies treat men."

(1) As we've seen, they can, and do. (2) What has size got to do with it? (3) Another word for your "watch every word" dictionary: harpie, noun, derogatory term for women.

"I don’t especially want to throw my hat in with Dominic Raab, the slightly bonkers Tory MP who has called for an end to legislative discrimination against men, but there is no question that women today have it all."

Oh yes we sure do - last I heard there were almost as many women in the cabinet as there are Magdalen College Oxford graduates. We've clearly made it. Release the party poppers...

"They retire younger and live longer to such an extent that minor inequalities in pay levels are obliterated when you consider whose money pays for those 25 years of retirement. And it just isn’t fair that they are allowed to be so vile about us."

Of course female poverty in old age is another area of inequality we haven't even talked about. Also bear in mind that the gender life expectancy gap is actually mostly down to lifestyle - to the fact that men drink and smoke more and eat less healthy diets.

"I suppose, in a way, British men are like white people were in Nineties South Africa or young Germans after the Second World War."

That seems unfair - white South Africans and younger German people seemed on the whole at least willing to admit and learn from the mistakes of the past.

"We are expected to go through a period of atonement for the sins of our fathers. To be treated worse than we merit because of crimes previously committed in our name: in this case the crime of feeding, protecting, loving and nurturing women in accordance with our biological imperative."

Who knew that "feeding" would involve so little cooking, "protecting" so very much murder, "loving" so much rape and "nurturing" so much direct discriminatory behaviour? And biological imperative? Don't make me laugh. Go and read Cordelia Fine, and come back when your top notch education has actually taught you something worth knowing.

"They don’t want that any more. They want to be linesmen. And so we have to let them tell us endlessly how they wish we were all dead."

Oh whoops ladies - apparently we now have to choose whether we want to be loved and nurtured or whether we want to be linesmen. And I know, I know, earlier on he said we could have it all but of course he didn't actually mean IT ALL, he meant, y'know either a partner or a career. Or neither if you like!

"If that’s not off-side, I don’t know what is."

Oh well let me explain. Offside is when there are less than two members of the defending team between yourself and the goal line at the time that the ball is passed. It doesn't apply to free kicks, corners and goal kicks or when you're in your own half or not interfering with play. Let me know if I can help you with anything else. For instance looking for that sense of decency...

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Review: Jessica Valenti: Studs and Sluts and Virgins and Myths

Jessica Valenti, in an effort to make us all feel like we should get up earlier, has not one but two new books out. Both are released in the UK on May 7th (tomorrow).

He's a Stud, She's a Slut (And 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know) looks like one of those rather meaningless "gift books" that you buy for friends when you can't think of anything else they'd like or you've only just remembered that it's birthday drinks you're heading to when you get to the train station with two minutes to spare.

But we know Valenti better than to expect anything so simple. The "fluff" appearance of the book, no doubt soon to be appearing on every thinking woman's toilet shelf, is part of it's brilliance. You really could give it as a fun little inexpensive (£7.99 in the UK) gift to someone who'd never thought about women's rights before. Inside, chopped into sassy bite-sized chunks Valenti presents an overwhelmingly compelling case for the existence of a double standard for women in every branch of society.

The focus is on both the media and public attitudes, as she dissects why women politicians are so over-scrutinised for their appearance and why praise is heaped on men who make the slightest effort to involve themselves in the lives of their children while mothers doing the same are at best taken for granted and at worst left out of a job. The tone is witty and sassy and it comes with lashings of true stories from Valenti's own life from the toys she had as a child to her early relationships and recent media appearances.

The one place where the sass starts to grate for me is in the So... What To Do? sections which follow each mini-chapter. On the one hand I think it's admirable to offer practical suggestions for tackling sexism, on the other hand these become repetitive because what is there to do about sexist stereotyping and discriminatory media coverage? Make a point when you hear someone use it, write to your local paper and if you want to then do the things that society is telling you you're not supposed to. And I'm never one for advising people to shut up and ignore prejudice but if you really called out every time you heard one of the double standards in this book, you'd never get past the end of your road in the mornings!

Still for the uninitiated in matters of women's equality, this easy-to-read entertaining little book will serve as an eye-opener on the inherent injustice of attitudes we have all been brought up with and often ourselves accept unquestioningly. For the long term women's rights supporter of course the fun of the book is very different. Instinctively you find yourself trying to come up with more examples of double standards to add to Valenti's fifty. Here's the best three I could think of:

1) He's had unlucky with women, she goes for "bad guys". Have you heard this? A guy dates a string of women who dump him or stand him up and the reaction is "Women eh?", a woman gets beaten up by one guy, robbed by the next and emotionally abused by the third and the conclusion is "Why does she always go for bad guys?".

2) He's fit and healthy, she should go for regular tests. I'm not knocking a regular visit to the doctors for a check-up if you want to. However there does seem to be a whole pink-coloured industry devoted to letting women know that our bodies are weak and frail and liable to let us down at any moment. Of course there's no denying that it is us women getting the lion's share of the breast cancer and the cervical cancer and other specific womb-related issues. What seems to have been forgotten though is: women live considerably longer than men. Whatever it is that's killing us is doing it later, slower and less often than it does for you guys. There's nothing wrong with Ronan Keating releasing a fund-raising record in aid of breast cancer research in his mother's name but where is the female starlet belting out a teary ballad for sufferers of prostate cancer?

3) He's a lawyer, she's a female lawyer. Seems like certain jobs (good, well-paid jobs) belong to men so very specifically that any woman who dares do them will live forever with the unofficial job title FEMALE doctor, FEMALE MP and, in my line of work, FEMALE comedian. The only time the tables are turned of course is for lower-paid, lower-status jobs, MALE nurse, MALE secretary and MALE cleaner - who is probably given the better title janitor or caretaker and paid a fair bit more than the women doing the same job.

Feel free to add your own once you've checked out Valenti's list!

The Purity Myth (How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women) is a much more serious piece, though certainly not stodgy or academic. It's a systematic critique of the increasing obsession with purity and virginity in modern America and the impact this is having on young women the country over (Valenti even includes a specific section at the end on discussing the issues raised with young people - about as direct an attack on the abstinence schools programme as she could make). These groups have in recent years made minor inroads into the markedly more secular UK but their reach has so far been thankfully limited.

Nonetheless there is no doubt that we do as a nation continue to subscribe to some very old-fashioned notions of purity relating to young women's sexuality. Anyone with half an eye open recently will have seen the scandal involving Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross making unpleasant phone calls to the actor Andrew Sachs. The furore which exploded afterwards centred on the offense caused to Sachs. No-one seemed to be asking why exactly a man should be upset to discover that his own granddaughter, who is well over the age of consent and living her own independent life, has had sex. And no-one seemed to be wondering what exactly it was about said sex that somehow sullied the woman in question - Georgina Baillie - but didn't do anything to damage the reputation of Brand.

These are exactly the attitudes that this book does a wonderful job of myth-busting. Starting with the fact that virginity has no meaningful medical definition. Valenti addresses the sinister nature of the abstinence-only lobby in the US but also tackles the fallout from this for women who choose not to remain "daddy's little virgin" and are suddenly considered "immoral" and "fallen" women regardless of their hard work, their studies, their volunteer work, their political activism, their ability to care for others and countless other contributions they make to the world.

She also discusses how the attitude of contempt for women who choose to have sex hampers our ability to deal with real problems in society like teenage pregnancy, STIs, rape and the abuses that go on within the sex industry. So as long as our distinguishing line is between disgusting women who have sex and pure women who don't we cannot progress to seeing the nuances of what kind of sex women are having - is it satisfying, is it safe and is it consensual? And while we dismiss those who have sex as dirty it is also impossible to objectively tackle the abuse of women in the sex industry.

On this final point Valenti and I disagree somewhat. In fairness she doesn't reach a conclusion on the subject, she merely says that attention needs to be paid to the issue and suggests that in dealing with it it is important to listen to the voices of the women who work in the industry rather than marching in with ready-made solutions that may not fit the problems. On this I agree, but worry that the issue is more complicated than it may at first seem.

In Britain many groups exist claiming to speak for the thousands of women working as lap dancers, prostitutes, escorts, and so on. The problem is that many appear to be astroturf campaigns (i.e. grass roots campaigns, only fake) run by the club owners, agency managers and pimps promoting an agenda which largely ignores the horrors of the industry - rape, violence, abuse, addiction and human trafficking and instead demands only continued liberalisation in the hunt for ever-soaring profits. We need to be sure that we are hearing the real voices of women working in all areas of the sex industry. Maybe it is less of an issue in the US, but in the UK there is probably a need for a disclaimer on that chapter.

The rest though is bang on and will undoubtedly become compulsory reading for the next generation of pro-sex feminists.

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Diversity audit on music blog...

This blog post seems to have been doing the rounds today: 12 extremely disappointing facts about popular music. It's about how some acts of dubious quality hyped up by the music industry have outsold some "classic" acts. But check out the subliminal sexism...

Of the 12 examples:

Men who "shouldn't have been" more popular than other men: 3
Men who "shouldn't have been" more popular than mixed sex groups: 0
Men who "shouldn't have been" more popular than women: 0

Mixed sex groups who "shouldn't have been" more popular than men: 2
Mixed sex groups who "shouldn't have been" more popular than other mixed sex groups: 0
Mixed sex groups who "shouldn't have been" more popular than women: 0

Women who "shouldn't have been" more popular than men: 6
Women who "shouldn't have been" more popular than mixed sex groups: 0
Women who "shouldn't have been" more popular than other women: 0

And of course: jokes about Justin Beiber: 1

Including Beiber there are 12 acts who they are suggesting are over-rated, or deserved less success: 6 solo women, 2 mixed sex groups and 4 solo guys. And there are 15 acts who they are suggesting are under-rated, or deserved more success: 100% male.

Maybe the most disappointing fact about popular music is that in the 21st century brilliant female acts still find it incredibly difficult to be taken seriously.

Which is a miserable note to end on, so instead I'll leave you with proof that women have been rocking out pretty damn hard for a long long time... Sister Rosetta Tharpe, I particularly urge you to pay attention to the guitar solo she launches into about 1m20 in. But frankly the whole thing is a joy!


Monday, September 15, 2008

Sex and the Tories

Thanks very much to everyone who's been in touch since Saturday about my appearance on BBC Radio Five Live. For those who missed it - the subject up for debate was those dreadful "purity" and "virginity" cult spreading over here at the moment from the US. Of course there was mention of religion being pushed on school children, as well as the drive for abstinence-only education. What we ended up focusing on though was whether there is some objective "moral good"- regardless of religion - to holding off on sex until you are married. Well my point was that sex isn't dirty or disgusting or morally bankrupt - done right with the right person it's a lot of fun.

Well of course the phone lines started ringing saying I didn't know what I was talking about and that casual sex causes disease*(1), teen pregnancy*(1) and leads to emotional hurt when relationships break up*(2). So I said that I had had casual sex in my life so I did know what I was talking about, probably rather better than those arguing with me.

Anyway that was about the last word of reason on the show because the phone lines were going crazy with people ringing in to call me all sorts of names... I mean people were actually cut off because of the language they were using towards me! Too funny. One guy rang in to say I'd never get married now and that if Mr Cru had heard me on air he'd be gone before I got home (he was still there)...

And amazingly while healthy, safe, consensual sex between two adults is enough to have the general public screaming in outrage, it's considered so normal and commonplace for men to go out and pay women for sexual services that they hand out discount vouchers for it at the Tory party conference! How screwed up is that?

For some reason that picture of David Cameron, which I saw in the Daily Mail, seemed appropriate...

*(1) The evidence suggests the opposite - that the abstinence promotion organisations in the US and the UK have resulted in more STDs and teen pregnancies because young people are not taught the facts about their own bodies and not encouraged to carry condoms.

*(2) Weird - because you don't have to have sex in a relationship to be hurt when it's over. And who the hell goes through life without experiencing some emotional pain? Why would you even try to do that, regardless that it's pretty obviously not possible?

Friday, September 14, 2007

Will Shag For Laundry?

Feministing has picked up on this rather worrisome article on CBS apparently the author is advising men that doing more housework will get them laid more often.

Over on Feministing there's lots of discussion of what share of the housework is a fair share. I'm sure that 50% is the obvious answer assuming that both partners have a balanced relationship in other areas. And also on whether men should get extra praise for doing housework since it constitutes a break-out from traditional gender roles. Well I'm happy to give them extra praise but I want it right back for me when I get a job, wind up as primary breadwinner and manage to unscrew tight jar lids on my own.

What bugs me more though is the other end of the deal... the idea that women will (sub-consciously mind) trade sex for housework. This rather assumes:

1) The woman doesn't actually want sex.

2) The woman, despite not wanting sex, is prepared (sub-consciously anyway) to do it in return for other things.

3) The man wants sex all the time.

4) The man wants sex with the woman even if the woman doesn't want sex and presumably therefore even if the woman isn't enjoying it.

5) The man is comfortable (consciously to his mind) trading other things for sex.

If any one of those things was true of my relationship, I would be seriously worried.

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Why Does Jezebel Exist?

Obviously Jezebel and I have HISTORY. But I am not afraid to put my hand up when I agree with them on something.

This time however they've gone with really shocking story, followed by offensive coverage of that story. The story is some nasty people are selling a T-Shirt with the slogan "No Means No... well maybe if I'm drunk". Which is obviously a horrid thing to be saying and selling. And I understand that with pressure from Feministing, they have now stopped. Jezebel's response however features the following:

"You can probably blame a religious fetishization of virginity for the fact that a lot of girls say "no" to sex they actually want."

I'm not fan of religion, nor of virginity cults, but I'm pretty horrified by a supposedly pro-women site suggesting that when women say "no" they may "actually want" sex.

They are talking about women who find the guy in question attractive and are feeling aroused in some way and they're equating that with "wanting sex". Now I may not believe that Jesus needs me to stay pure for him but there are a ton of other perfectly valid reasons why women might not want to have sex with someone they fancy even though they are in the mood for sex. Like if they're committed to someone else, if they don't feel like they completely trust the person in question, if it's practically difficult to arrange (no condoms, early start in the morning, lives the other side of town), if they don't feel that it's right emotionally, if they don't want to affect a friendship or working relationship or if they're enjoying the idea of a little delayed gratification. Or a million other things. Or if they'd rather go for a slice of pizza and then watch late night rubbish on TV.

Which means when guys ask women out, even if they think they're really sexy, and even if they happen to be really horny, they often still say "no". And it's not OK to rape them then. Consent is about specific verbal permission, not best-guessing what a woman's hormones might be indicating. And no matter how much their hormones might be raging, if there's one thing women don't want - it's some guy forcing himself on them when they've already said "no".

It's like if you're feeling hungry but have decided to skip dessert because you want to lose weight, then some guy grabs you and physically forces you to eat cake. You don't enjoy the cake, do you? You feel violated and ill.

Virginity cults in any case don't seem to affect the amount of sex young people have - only the amount of access to advice and protection that they get. Members of virginity cults are perfectly capable of consenting, so if they don't that means they don't want sex

Did that all really need explaining? Here's what I'd like explained: Why does anyone read Jezebel?

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Good News, Badly Presented

Interesting report from the NY Times which has only just come to my attention. In short it turns out that young guys for the most part are pretty respectful of the women they date. Very few in the survey conducted by the Journal of Adolescence appeared to be obsessed with sex, the majority were interested in women because they liked them and wanted to get to know them better.

Now the NY Times seems surprised by this. I'm not, the vast majority of guys I know of all ages are nothing like the noxious stereotypes portrayed everywhere from the lad mags to "teen" films like American Pie. By the same token the number of young women I know who act like Clueless is, well, zero.

Now to start with they title the article "Inside the Mind of the Boy Dating Your Daughter", which plays straight into the idea that sex is some sort of predatory act perpetrated by evil men on innocent unsuspecting women. And then it goes on to say "The overall findings are contrary to cultural beliefs that boys are interested primarily in sex and not relationships." Cultural beliefs from the 19th century maybe but I don't know anyone who really believes that.

There is also a fairly undisguised SEX IS WRONG message hidden between the lines. "Let’s give boys more credit,'’ said study author Andrew Smiler, an assistant professor of psychology at the university. “Although some of them are just looking for sex, most boys are looking for a relationship."

But there's really nothing wrong with "just wanting sex" as long as you are open and honest about what you are doing. There are plenty of young women out there interested to learn about sex through experience, who may be comfortable doing so outside the confines of a relationship. And that's ok, in fact it's pretty healthy to feel that way and have that desire to learn. Even if you're somebody's daughter.

The report concludes that parents should talk to their sons as much about relationship-forming as they do their daughters. Which is a bit like stating the obvious - although I have to say I never had any advice off my parents about relationships (well unless you count thinly veiled hints that I shouldn't expect too much...). Mr Cru by contrast did, but I think that had more to do with the families we came from than any gender issues.

Saturday, November 26, 2005

The normalisation of cosmetic surgery

Seems these days cosmetic surgery is a normal part of life. More worryingly it's referred to repeatedly without the risks being highlighted. The latest strange move is that the NHS is offering staff a 10% discount on cosmetic treatments.

Now - just to try something really dramatic - compare and contrast having plastic surgery and having unprotected sex...

Plastic Surgery has a 0.21% (one in 476) mortality rate. That's based on data from St George's hospital, you can see it here.

The mortality rate from unprotected sex is basically related to the risk of catching HIV, since other STDs are generally considered to be manageable or curable. Unlike plastic surgery you might get another 20 years or more of life with HIV, but lets treat it as instantly fatal. The risk of catching HIV from unprotected heterosexual sex in the UK? 0.0006% (one in 1.7 million). The numbers I've worked on are below, with links to justify all my working...

So you're three and a half thousand times more likely to die during plastic surgery than to die from having unprotected sex. And actually thats a pretty conservative estimate as you can see from all the allowances I've made.
Now of course I'm not encouraging unprotected sex, of course not. But I don't think the NHS would want to encourage their staff to engage in it, do you? Why is it that cosmetic surgery can be talked about freely without mentioning the risks, while much less dangerous activities carry innumerable warnings?
What we need to address is why so many women (and it is almost always women) feel that they need plastic surgery. What is society doing to continually reinforce critical focus on their appearances? And isn't it irresponsible to do so without talking about less dangerous ways to improve self image? Such as ignoring media messages about idealised feminine forms?

And here are the HIV infection risk calculations:

There are approximately 58,300 people who are HIV positive in the UK. Here's the link. That's out of an overall population of 60,400,000. Of course we have to take into account the way in which HIV affects the population. So lets assume that it only affects people in the age range 20-49, there are 48,800,000 of them. Data here. And lets assume that 40% of them are, for religious or personal reasons, entirely celebate or at least monogamous throughout their lifetimes with one partner. So we'll exclude them from our numbers. Now on the other hand I think its fair to assume that two-thirds of HIV-positive people know their status and are careful to insist on precautions to avoid infecting others. So we have 19,400 HIV positive people who are at risk of passing it on, from a sexually active population of 29,300,000. Now of course one incident of unprotected sex with an infected person does not guarantee transmission of HIV. In fact it's estimated that the likelihood of transmission from one incident is 0.0009, or 0.09%. Data here. I'm ignoring the skew towards gay communities and intravenous drug-users in HIV infection, which would reduce the risk for women and those not involved with intravenous drug-use communities. Anyway we end up with a risk of 0.00006% per incident of unprotected heterosexual sex in the UK. (One in 1.7 million).