To funny. Though I may disagree that even though statistically (which isn't a complete picture just a reference point) the pressures on women in the household to hold the role as mother and also to hold the role of "second place" bread winner may give some wives a higher level of stress even if they work about the same hours as men. When your stressed/tired and feed up with these two different roles that you have taken on, would you feel the need to have sex? Though it might put you in a better mood and would probably be better, when I'm stressed sex is the last thing on my mind.
After reading this I was having a difficult time putting my thoughts regarding it in order. Then I heard this podcast from Margaret Warner about women in Afghanistan and their current situation, and it sort of put Arndt’s point in perspective.
It seems like ¬¬¬¬Arndt would propose that it is a wife’s duty to “put the canoe in the water” even if she doesn’t feel like paddling anywhere. At least, that’s the gist of the newspaper article, if not the book. But here’s a quote that seems to suggest itself as a synopsis: “Arndt is not suggesting women have sex against their will, but to heed new research that shows they may still enjoy sex even if they didn't crave it in the first place. Mismatched desire need not spell the end of a couple's sex life.”
I’ve been married for around six years, and have had lots of success by either my wife or I compromising about all sorts of things. How we manage our free time or our finances. What we do for the “holidays” or what plants we put in the garden. Undoubtedly, I often condone the strategy of intentionally modifying one’s own attitude to help maintain or improve a valuable relationship. After all, part of what makes these relationships so special is the fact that we can waive our own desires, at least temporarily, without relegating ourselves forever to a subservient role. Maybe even more so is the chance to get away from these sort of calculations altogether.
But you know, this may be a special topic. For one thing, it wasn’t too long ago that our own culture viewed women as being baby production machines, and fairly disposable ones at that. Seriously, less than 150 years ago many, many women died from complications during childbirth before they were thirty. Even if the delivery was non-fatal, it often produced conditions in mothers (think prolapsed uterus) that resulted in serious difficulties for the rest of their (often shortened) lives. We know that even today many cultures across the globe deny women access to birth control through legal and/or cultural restrictions. These women are not only obliged to have sex that can barley be called consensual, but also to have their children whenever the fickleness of nature should deem it.
Are these women really supposed to put their canoes in the water in some noble spirit of adventure, seeking to deepen the shared bliss and binding force of people sharing pleasures of the flesh? Or is Arndt only speaking to the members of the world’s liberal democracies? Perhaps what she is proposing is actually a very slippery slope. My gut-reaction is that she is cashing in on the media popularity of any polarizing subject, kind of like Ann Coulter, without thinking (or perhaps even caring) about the multiple impacts of this perspective.
Obviously, it would be great if two people could extend their shared happiness by obliging one another regardless of personal libido. But really. I hate to sound cynical, but I’m sure this strategy would more often produce dissatisfaction in both people involved. Perhaps rather than establishing some sort of middle-class guilt trip about where we put our genitals and how often we put them there, we should focus on having useful and productive lives. Or better yet, just being sweet to our sweeties, and see if that gets us laid more often.
To funny. Though I may disagree that even though statistically (which isn't a complete picture just a reference point) the pressures on women in the household to hold the role as mother and also to hold the role of "second place" bread winner may give some wives a higher level of stress even if they work about the same hours as men. When your stressed/tired and feed up with these two different roles that you have taken on, would you feel the need to have sex? Though it might put you in a better mood and would probably be better, when I'm stressed sex is the last thing on my mind.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this I was having a difficult time putting my thoughts regarding it in order. Then I heard this podcast from Margaret Warner about women in Afghanistan and their current situation, and it sort of put Arndt’s point in perspective.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june09/afghanwomen_03-20.html
It seems like ¬¬¬¬Arndt would propose that it is a wife’s duty to “put the canoe in the water” even if she doesn’t feel like paddling anywhere. At least, that’s the gist of the newspaper article, if not the book. But here’s a quote that seems to suggest itself as a synopsis: “Arndt is not suggesting women have sex against their will, but to heed new research that shows they may still enjoy sex even if they didn't crave it in the first place. Mismatched desire need not spell the end of a couple's sex life.”
I’ve been married for around six years, and have had lots of success by either my wife or I compromising about all sorts of things. How we manage our free time or our finances. What we do for the “holidays” or what plants we put in the garden. Undoubtedly, I often condone the strategy of intentionally modifying one’s own attitude to help maintain or improve a valuable relationship. After all, part of what makes these relationships so special is the fact that we can waive our own desires, at least temporarily, without relegating ourselves forever to a subservient role. Maybe even more so is the chance to get away from these sort of calculations altogether.
But you know, this may be a special topic. For one thing, it wasn’t too long ago that our own culture viewed women as being baby production machines, and fairly disposable ones at that. Seriously, less than 150 years ago many, many women died from complications during childbirth before they were thirty. Even if the delivery was non-fatal, it often produced conditions in mothers (think prolapsed uterus) that resulted in serious difficulties for the rest of their (often shortened) lives. We know that even today many cultures across the globe deny women access to birth control through legal and/or cultural restrictions. These women are not only obliged to have sex that can barley be called consensual, but also to have their children whenever the fickleness of nature should deem it.
Are these women really supposed to put their canoes in the water in some noble spirit of adventure, seeking to deepen the shared bliss and binding force of people sharing pleasures of the flesh? Or is Arndt only speaking to the members of the world’s liberal democracies? Perhaps what she is proposing is actually a very slippery slope. My gut-reaction is that she is cashing in on the media popularity of any polarizing subject, kind of like Ann Coulter, without thinking (or perhaps even caring) about the multiple impacts of this perspective.
Obviously, it would be great if two people could extend their shared happiness by obliging one another regardless of personal libido. But really. I hate to sound cynical, but I’m sure this strategy would more often produce dissatisfaction in both people involved. Perhaps rather than establishing some sort of middle-class guilt trip about where we put our genitals and how often we put them there, we should focus on having useful and productive lives. Or better yet, just being sweet to our sweeties, and see if that gets us laid more often.