What makes a happy marriage? Just lie back and think of England!

Because I foolishly use a mac I seem to be unable to do various things on this blog including commenting on my own, and other people's blogs, and posting links to other sites. So I'm just going to have to tell you about and then you can google it if you're mad/sad/joyous enough.

The other day I read an article in the online addition of The Age which was provocatively and, as it turns out, inaccurately titled 'What makes a happy marriage? Sex!'(Curtin, J. 28/02/09). What is should really have said is: 'What makes a happy marriage? Rape!' because that's pretty much what the two auther's conclusion amounted to. The article claims that the main finding of sex therapist Bettina Arndt's new book (which is based on the 'sex diaries' of 98 couples) was a nation of 'women dreading bedtime and men hurting from rejection.'

Now, I can't judge the book because I haven't read it but the more I thought about the tone of this article the more it bothered me. I had to go back for a second read to see if it was really as bad as I remembered. And yup, it sure was.

Let's start with the opening paragraph shall we?

'Forty years after liberated women felt able to say "no" to their partners' demands for sex, they have been urged to say "yes" more often to keep their men happy.'

Forty years hey Curtin? Not in the eyes of the law. It is only in the last 20 years - 1985 in Australia, 1991 in England and 1993 in the USA (some states in both Aust and US earlier)- that 'marital exemption' laws were fully abolished and spousal rape made illegal. Seems like a bit of a flippant remark when you consider the continued instances of marital rape that go unreported and under-prosecuted. And that's without mentioning the numerous countries in which it is still not illegal.

Which brings us to women apparently 'dreading' bedtimes. Surely 'dreading' is a bit of strong word to use? What have women got to dread? Unless of course they are being asked to or even forced to submit to sex against their will - which would seem to be what Curtin and, she would have us believe Arndt, is advocating - in which case 'dreading' seems quite appropriate. Curtin and Arndt seem to place the fault with the women who are doing the 'dreading', suggesting as you will see below that they should instead just relax and enjoy it.

I don't mean to say that all men are rapists and that any of the people in the survey have experienced marital rape. It's the one-sidedness of Curtin's article that I object to. She quotes Arndt as saying that men 'listen to what women want, try to please them and … this need that is so important to them is totally ignored.'

We don't, however, get any details of HOW men are trying to please women or what THEY might need to do to solve the problem of, as Arndt insists on calling it,'mis-matched libidos'. Says Arndt, a partner with a low-libido (who Curtin helpfully points out are mainly women) 'needs to put sex on the "to-do list", even if they don't feel like doing it.'

Actually, screw not judging Arndt and her awful book. In closing she says:

"The notion that women have to want sex to enjoy it has been a really misguided idea that has caused havoc in relationships over the last 40 years.'

And Curtin then attempts to defuse this comment with Arndt's reassurance that 'with the right approach from a loving partner, if women were willing to be receptive "and allow themselves to relax … they would enjoy it"...

REALLY? With the right approach from a loving partner women are going to enjoy sex? I don't think any of us need a sex-therapist to tell us that!

Comments suggesting women should 'relax and enjoy it' sound dangerously like the candidate for the governor of Texas in 1990 quoted in Alisson&Wrightsman(1993) who commented 'Rainy weather is like a woman being raped; if it's inevitable just relax and enjoy it.'

Well I'm sorry, but for me the 'right approach' does not include being coerced or physically forced by anyone into having sex when I don't want to have it: is it possible that THIS behaviour (and accompanying societal attitudes that are complicit in condoning it) is what should be scrutinised for having 'caused havoc in relationships over the last 40 year', rather than women who inconveniently assert their human rights?



I realise that this post becomes increasingly hysterical as you read it but being up after 12am and reading 'Lifestyle' articles and self-help books that condone rape has that effect on me...