Elizabeth Grattan - Latest Comments

Re: I’m A Mom. That’s Enough.

Babysbest — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:43:56 -0000

"Increased duration of breastfeeding confers significant health and developmental benefits for the child and the mother. There is no upper limit to the duration of breastfeeding and no evidence of psychological or developmental harm from breastfeeding into the third year of life or longer".

Re: Say Hello To My Son…

Malone Wade — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:17:46 -0000

Congrats. You will be a great Mom, he is a lucky little boy.

Re: woven into the internet

Mark Schroeder — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:06:04 -0000

You've reminded about a friend who lost her brother and grieved quite extensively (and I guess rather publicly) through Facebook. I can see the validity of social media in providing the comfort of sharing and airing feelings, and in a very non-threatening way too for all concerned I guess. And perhaps that's where i have a problem..it's all just a little easy. Easier than real initimacy, I suspect. Perhaps that sounds heartless, it's not meant to be. Anyway, as usual, it was a very thought-provoking piece and I thank you for it...you really are an exceptional writer.
cheers, Mark

Re: Venison.

elizabethgrattan — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:42:29 -0000

MG... perhaps you should spend more time watching paint dry. And thinking about logical replies.

No where in this piece do I advocate or condone rape. It's an absurd leap. One so absurd, I won't justify it with more than this reply.

Make a better point next time. Thanks.

Re: Venison.

MG — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:14:29 -0000

I was going to respond to your comment when I first read it back in October 2010 and I was really going to let you have it! But then, something must have been more interesting to me, like watching paint dry.

However, I received an e-mail alert from Forbes today regarding the article from October 19, 2010 on Lee Abrams and I came across your long-ass post again basically stating how women need to suck it up and grow up, so unlike you, I'll get right to the point:

If you think that you are being clever when you respond to some fool with the same amount of bullshit he is giving you, please remember your post when you're working late one night and he comes in your office, spreads you across your desk and rapes you. Please remember your post when you are making your report to the police and the fool that raped you says "well, you should hear the things she said to me, I didn't rape her, she wanted it."

Re: The Cost Of A Free Market

Mary-Lynn — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:46:39 -0000

Very interesting post, Elizabeth. I'll have to go visit the discussion. The excerpts you've included gave me enough feel to comment. I've also heard this discussion before. The fact is, in a "voice bank" setting you will compete on quality AND price. You are bidding for jobs from big companies and small. You have to set a price for your talent and stick with it. I've passed up jobs for that very reason. You have to ensure that your profile showcases why you charge what you do. If you aren't getting the price you want for your services in the "voice bank" environment...you may need to market your talent somewhere else. Are you reaching out to publishers, company executives, and radio VP's? I'm with you...No regulation is needed!! When you are competing for freelance jobs in a voice bank with thousands of freelancers who have a wide-range of experience, I don't know how anyone can expect there won't be price wars. After all...isn't that what the voice bank companies created the space for?

Re: Rush Limbaugh to listeners: “You guys are stupid!”

Dylan — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:53:13 -0000

lolz, Rush sounds like the wilford Brimley of the ewok world when he tries to speak Chinese (Japanese, or whatever the hell he thinks he's speaking)

Re: Rush Limbaugh to listeners: “You guys are stupid!”

Jenn — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:04:24 -0000

Great point. In so much that they are too stupid to recognize they are being insulted!

Re: The Book’s Cover

J. Christopher Dunn — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:55:12 -0000

Ted Williams has been given a priceless gift, the chance to get back into life and contribute as best he can. Who wouldn't want a do-over? There are a number of folks who think it unfair that Ted has been given this chance. Pointing out that dues have not been paid, problems with substance abuse and that he's not really a voice talent but an announcer tops the list. Meh! I wonder if these same people can identify attributes, characteristics or reasons why Ted is entitled to his second chance.

I'm sure that we all have things in our past that we would rather not have limit us in our success. I wish Ted Williams well and pray that he has a super team of folks to help him reintegrate back into society and guide him when necessary.

Re: The Book’s Cover

Erin Rodgers — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:18:01 -0000

I find it interesting that of the many homeless out there with a former resume that could put some "harder workers" to shame, those that be chose this one to thrust into the spotlight. I don't find it interesting because of who he is or what he has done. But, instead, because he was apparently in the right place at the right time. Isn't that how it works for any of us? Thousands of resumes go into companies daily in hopes for gaining a position. Yet, someone's brother's uncle knows a friend of the CEO of somewhere and he gets the job. Or at least gets to cut in line of all those resumes sitting in HR's incoming email. Networking...luck...whatever you call it, we all do it and we all hope that we are the lucky one to get noticed.

I, too, am looking for a job. And I must say, that I thought, "Wow, maybe I should go on Youtube and tell my sad story. Then maybe someone will hire me..." I believe that this is a story not just because we label, but because as a whole, we like happy endings and what better way to feel better about ourselves then to help our fellow homeless man.

Don't get me wrong, I wish Ted well and hope his new found success continues for many many years. People just need to realize there are many Teds of the world. I am happy that he was able to use the only network he had...kind of gives the rest of us hope. If Ted can do it with a piece of cardboard, I should be able to do it, too!

Re: The Book’s Cover

Elizabeth Grattan — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:05:05 -0000

Todd,

I don’t discount Ted’s talents. But his talent isn’t what got a video gain over 4 million hits in less than a day. It was the fascination with the story behind Ted. It wasn’t that he “happened to be homeless”. It was that he was homeless. If the guy at the Dispatch had just gone to a recording studio and asked one of the actors to read a line of copy and then posted that on youtube? Well, where would the fascination with that be…

Thanks for dropping by. :)

Re: The Book’s Cover

Todd Schick — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:42:26 -0000

Great article, Elizabeth!

In principle, your article has merit. But here, I can't help but feel that this is the point where you went a touch astray:

"Because the biggest aspect of this story is one most want to forget. Our own failings and shame in how we view those different than us. In how we like to label and laugh and group some as worth less. In how we see the homeless.

Ted’s story went viral not because of his talent or skill. But because an expectation was exceeded and it didn’t seem real. How could someone like that…possibly… I mean…."

Ted......has a great voice. He stood on the corner - I don't know how long. Every time he talked to someone - they were compelled to listen to him and his story by nature of his incredible voice. Word got around, as it tends to do quite quickly these days. Someone with a video camera got wind of it...and posted it on YouTube. All of it was staged and Ted delivered when buddy hit "record".

Next thing we know - go figure....Ted is on the Today show....and over my shoulder as I write this, I hear he's on ET tonight.

This is where I feel you are wrong. Ted's story went viral because he HAS a talent, Liz. A talent worthy enough for a post on You Tube...and.....bonus! A story American media can milk over the winter months.......including yourself.

Ted, you.....and the fella over there with the video camera who posts on YouTube 5 times a day are all........to a person - looking for their 15 minutes of fame. Ted happened to be homeless; all the more fodder for the media to spin.

Ted wins this round.....but to what end? That's the story I'm interested in hearing, because it'll be history - not speculation.

Regards,

Todd Schick

Re: Venison.

Chuck Lontine — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:47:49 -0000

Nice read!

Re: Venison.

elizabeth grattan — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:27:33 -0000

If you are referring to Michaels, I agree.

If you are referring to Abrams:

Good and bad are relative.

Not appreciating a potential reaction from people that actually chose to click on a link that was clearly labeled as potentially personally offensive could be called a good decision.

Depends.

Re: Venison.

TedE. — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:20:45 -0000

Managers are paid to make decisions. That's it. If they make bad ”little“ decisions, odds are they will also make bad big decisions that will cost a company millions.

Re: Episteme Agape.

elizabeth grattan — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:45:17 -0000

John,

Attempting to lump me into a liberal or conservative ideology because I made a well reasoned and logical decision to reduce spam on this page is just a bad idea.

I read both your replies to the posters above and they were just as I stated, unnecessarily graphic and irrelevant to the actual statements the others made. I did let readers know what your position was as defense. And you defend yourself here by saying you believe you do teach foreplay/romance to men. Your highly detailed graphic descriptions were unnecessary to your point and so was the plug for your book. They read like an excerpt from said book. Again, use your own personal means for that kind of publicity. I am more than willing to provide your more detailed accounts to those who may request them. But once again, I am not running a forum for your free publicity. You have a link to your own sites that appear when you post, and others can find your step by step tips if they wish.

As for censorship. Certainly I made a decision to censor spam. I'd hardly call that a violation of anything more than your pride.

You stated you were going to bail out of this discussion, and yet you didn't. You claim I am insistent on having a last word, but as I said, if you can refrain from pitching your product here, you are more than welcome to participate.

I have no distain for you John. I have distain for your arguments and beliefs that women are to be used for the singular pleasure of a man. I have distain for your lack of education regarding both men and women and relationship. I have distain for your hypocrisy and use of several logical fallacies. And I have distain for the stubborn nature that permeates your thinking that will not allow you to move beyond the advocation of abuse into a healthy perspective on human relationships.

It is my hope that you walk away from this experience having learned something. If you can not, or will not do that, so be it.

Re: Episteme Agape.

marriagecoach1 — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:42:59 -0000

You really disappoint me. Your blatant condescension I can take and your absolute disgust I get. I did not figure you for censorship however. Censorship is the bain of a liberals existence except when it comes to a conservative. Then it is okay, (situation ethics of course) to censor a conservative. I was not trying to promote my book which is not published yet, but to answer real critiques about my being one side and wondering if I teach men to provide foreplay and romance for their women.

You lost any respect that I might have had for you by censoring my comments instead of letting your readers decide for themselves. I get compliments from other women on my blog. I recognize your disdain for me, have it your way. I had previously stated that it was time to agree to disagree and I was going to bow out. You insisted on having the last word for which I did not respond to. I responded to a couple of your readers because I felt like they made legitimate points that I felt the need to defend myself.

John Wilder

Re: Episteme Agape.

elizabeth grattan — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:25:37 -0000

Thanks Heidi and Larisa for dropping by. I'd like to let you know that John did reply to your posts. The decision has been made to forego posting them as they were unnecessarily graphic and "spammy" - attempts to pitch his own blog and book - which he has already done several times in this discussion. I felt he really didn't need anymore free press from me regarding his own personal goals.

He basically again suggested that the mechanics were what mattered when it came to pleasing a woman in bed and seemed to think women like rose petals and hot baths more often than not. I'm not sure if John grasped that bit about women and porn... but alas.

Contrary to John's barbaric leanings regarding women being only valuable when they fulfill a man's greed, the research shows the exact opposite.

Men don't want her to just lay down and take it - time and time again men say they want intimacy, trust and loyalty from their mates and opt for that over fabricated foreplay.

Yes, research shows that based on the differences in drives and attractions to women, different things will turn different people on. But the key point to this article was to show that love is far more than sex. It is intimate connection that evolves from primitive drives of attraction in order for our species to form community - so that we survive and thrive.

Feel free to keep the conversation going. If John decides to cease his blatant self promotion, I'll consider posting his comments here again.

:)
e

Re: Episteme Agape.

Heidi — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:09:42 -0000

Dear John...

Is it possible to be more one sided? Do you not have any advice on how a man should court his wife, make her feel desired and wanted..why should it just be the wife's responsibility to give into her husbands needs? I would love to have the desire to please my husband, however it is very difficult to muster up desire on my own. Women also need to be reassured that they are desired not just a hole for their husbands to release their pent up sperm.(I'm sure that just about every married women has felt that at some point in their marriages) Maybe just maybe that is why women don't just lay there an take it...Thanks Elizabeth for your thoughts!

Re: Episteme Agape.

Larisa — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 18:03:34 -0000

Well, well, well.... I know one book I'm not going to be purchasing any time soon!

Are you serious here John? Firstly, once a week is not a "sex STARVATION diet". Once a month? Okay, then you could say "starvation"... maybe.... depending on the circumstances.

I have 3 children. One of them is a mere 2 months old. My sex drive is shot (and I'm someone who has been accused of trying to "kill via hydration" due to too much libido before). My nether regions are still bothering me, and I may have an infection. My man works a shift that doesn't start until noon, so he's home late. Then I have to get the kids to bed, cook dinner, TRY to get some amount of cleaning done, stay up ALL night with a baby who's restless... and so on. Sometimes, there just isn't time. And, a good man would understand that it's a temporary situation (kids get older before you know it), and that him being patient and loving and understanding and NOT trying to get guilt sex when his woman isn't in the mood (which builds resentment), he may actually get laid more often.

Now, he wants sex ALL the time. BUT, he's the kind of man that actually DOES understand, empathize, sympathize, etc. He will simply say, "You know I want you desperately, but you are worth the wait." Or, while rubbing my back, "there's more than one way to make love to a woman."

As a result, though I know it isn't always feasible, I actually WANT to have sex with him ALL the time.

My ex? He complained about getting too much sex, then complained about not getting enough. He bitched at all the wrong times (like when I was a week from having given birth and had stitches in my downstairs). As a result, I felt bad and he didn't get it nearly as often as he eventually wanted (women can't get in the mood if they don't feel sexy, wanted, cherished, loved...).

I can't count how many times I (or many females I've spoken to) have thought, "I can work with the fact that he's not all that great in the sack" or "I know I don't want to, but maybe I'll get into it after we start" only to be met with some kind of stupidity or indifference toward our needs and wants, or constant complaining about the lack of sex, which is counter-productive and leads to, "Screw him then!" or "well, now I feel so terrible, I'm just going to go cry myself to sleep instead of trying."

Hmmm..... maybe more men should.... I don't know..... stop bitching and start courting their wives??

Re: Episteme Agape.

elizabeth grattan — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:50:03 -0000

No, my argument isn't with Maslow. (you like those strawmen don't you?). Masturbation most certainly covers any build up that occurs. So your point about men needing to have this sex with their wives is not evidenced.

You can't hear your own contradictions. Men have stronger sex drives than women. And you want to try to suggest that women should not refrain from giving a man sex based on that alone even if she does not want or desire sex. That is forced against will sex. And again, all your blame is placed on a woman without acknowledging that it takes effort from a man that requires a lot more than stating he is ready or the basic default that he has a stronger drive.

By the way, the biblical text does not support or command that the party with the higher sex drive trumps the other. There is no way you can stretch that text with a proper hermeneutic and walk away believing that. As I already said, the context in teaching in the text is about mutual giving, not taking. And has nothing at all to do with having sex for the sake of sex just based on sex drive.

I'm also not sure why you keep attempting to cite this text as some sort of evidence for your position. It clearly is not applicable. Not only are you confusing its contents, it is completely irrelevant. It has no bearing at all on the facts regarding sex drive or how men and women's brains are wired in relationship. In effect, you might as well be following up your statements with "and that's what my Uncle Joe always said". Where I might give you grace in your appeal to it is that it represents changing mores and norms and is an accurate record of mindsets of ancient men. That's about it. And let's not forget, those mindsets included hypocrisy towards many things, including commands regarding sexuality and adultery - lest you forget how a group of men tossed a woman against a wall to prepare her for stoning according to the law and yet, forgot to grab the man who was under its penalty as well.

You say you are aware of the feminists movement, and yet you continue to misrepresent it entirely. I'm not sure what exactly you think "feminist" means, but by your statements, you seem to have been spoon fed a bit by some bad sources. And note, women are not the only ones who attach the label feminist to themselves. It appears you've got what one might call a biased sample based on your comments. Should we dive further into the movement's inception and then trace the history to help you better understand - because we can do that.

The cited authors do not agree with you. They state that spouses should take care of partners. They aren't blaming the wives and ignoring the husbands. They also are not suggesting that a woman spread her legs four times a week for a half an hour because a man wants to release some sperm. It's a reach to attempt to appeal to these sources when they in no way make the arguments you have.

The reason we are at an impasse has to do with your refusal to educate yourself on this matter and learn something. I'm sorry that you would rather pretend this is simply a matter of opinion. It isn't. I've often said that a person can be of the opinion that gravity is a farce, that's fine. In no way does that mean another should jump off the Empire State Building with them. Facts are facts. And ignoring them does little to further the goal of building relationships up.

You happened upon this page and wanted to share your opinions. I get that. You are welcome to. But that in no way means your opinions can be substantiated through an educated evaluation and critical thinking. Your arguments rely heavily on very subjective biases that have clouded your reasoning.

Again, as the original piece points out, attraction and chemistry are the foundation of all community. Love and marriage stem from very primitive wirings in our brain that allow us to further our species. The amazing benefit that comes from this is the experience. That pleasure is such an intense motivator is something to be glad for. It would be a shame to suggest that any human being, be a man or woman, exploit these facts rather than appreciating them.

I am a fan of sex. A fan of mutual consensual sex. A fan of companionship and the individual choice to enter into a partnership with another human being. Men and women can both learn from the evidence we have and they can work together to fulfill each other's desires. To suggest that one party should have an advantage over the other is again a sexist mindset that not only relegates women to dark ages, but also diminishes the man by implying he isn't full well capable of keeping it in his pants.

No one should ever have sex if they don't want to. Any argument suggesting otherwise is nothing short of abuse.

I strongly encourage you to reconsider your position as you are clearly advocating the victimization of women and men.

Re: Episteme Agape.

marriagecoach1 — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:49:34 -0000

Your argument is with Maslow about sex as a need. Men need sexual relief whether through masturbation or sex. The semen build up becomes intolerable and must be releived. Will the man die due to lack of sex, no. My starvation comment is metaphorical because from a man's point of view, that is what it feels like.

I am not suggesting that ANYONE BE FORCED TO HAVE SEX AGAINST THEIR WILL. I am suggesting that women routinely force their men to do without sex against their will. What I am suggesting is that if the person man or woman has th desire the one with the lesser libido, (there are certainly women with higher libidos than their maile partners)accoomodate the higher need partner which the bible also commands in 1 Cor 7 not just the old testament.

I am quite familiar with women viewing porn. I am also aware that feminsists as a main stream movement has become passe' as well. Their magazine, MS has long ago after going bankrupt given up trying to sell ads and have instead become a subscription based magazine with a paltry circulation of 200,000. The next magazine listed in Writer's Market is Redbook with 5 million circulation.

Your statement that the cited authors don't agree with me is just denial. They all suggest that women take better care of their husands sexual needs/wants.

I think that we are at an impasse. I think that it is time to agree to disagree.

Blessings on you and yours
John Wilder

Re: Episteme Agape.

elizabeth grattan — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:13:21 -0000

I'm not obfuscating the issue. You claimed that your points were echoed by these authors. They aren't. Your subjective experience with a niche movement and anecdotal research is nothing more than your opinion about a few men who stated why they thought they didn't have enough sex. And again, in no way is reflective of very accurate objective research that covers the way human beings relate. Again, that you enjoy these types of movements is your own, but to try to suggest that all the men of PK were honest and forthcoming and their wives just fall in line is again, blatant sexism. One more time I ask you to show me the actual evidence that the wives were to blame? And also address the very real parallel of other movements that were geared towards the women. As I said, if your methods of determination are correct, then it should have been a wash. It clearly wasn't.

Women should only have sex when they feel like it. The same goes for men. NO ONE should ever be forced into sex. Ever. And you are again building a strawman argument based on your confirmation bias and primitive ideals regarding men and women. We don't get clubbed over the head anymore John. It's called evolving to a species that communicates desires and needs and empowerment to not feel as if we won't survive if we don't simply appease. That goes for men and women. If you are proposing that women (or men) should ever have sex against their will, I suggest you take a step back and consider very carefully what you are advocating.

That women have been liberated and are free to choose when we want to have sex is not a threat to the male. Any man that thinks that way is still navigating the world with a child's brain. A woman's sexuality need not be intimidating. Ripping Dowd from context and refusing to acknowledge her brilliant satire is intellectually dishonest, at best. As for your suggestion to search google... once more... I ask you not be led on rabbit trails based on confirmation bias and get your facts from actual research and not internet blog posts.

Women and men are capable of working within and altering their brain chemistry. Of course. I addressed that in my original article. But you seem to put all the responsibility on the female, and that is just barbaric. My statements in no way suggest that women are victims. My statements are balanced to say that humans behave according to their make up and wiring and that while they can definitely adjust and modify, we can't pretend the reasons for behavior are something they aren't.

And most men don't "need sex at least twice a week." Men need air, water, food, shelter. Companionship and sexual drive are in the mix for survival of species, not survival of the individual human being. While the male sex drive is stronger than a females that doesn't mean sex is necessary. If anyone is attempting to make a human a victim of their chemistry and hormones it is the person arguing that a man's sex drive MUST be fulfilled simply because he has one. Men have stronger sex drives to ensure a better chance at offspring. Women clearly can't biologically afford to have as strong a drive from an evolutionary standpoint by the nature of hosting the fetus alone. It's a beautiful balance when it isn't twisted into a sexist cry of greed. Men also say they want more sexual partners as well. And again, not all men and women are predisposed for monogamy to begin with.

As for feminists decrying pornography... again, a false claim based on bad information and confirmation bias. Feminism deals with the empowerment and equality of women. There are many arguments from women (and men) that embrace pornography. Consenting adult sexual exploration being one of them. Let alone the fact that 1 of 3 visitors to porn sites online are women and 13 million American women visit porn sites online in a month (Nielsen). Women account for 56% of business at Hustler video store. And those numbers are rising. Again, that women are more liberated than they were ages ago when it comes to sex shouldn't be something that frightens. Suggesting that men should get the porn because women have the novels is again very primitive thinking, and totally incorrect. Maybe you don't know that women masturbate as well?

Your continued argument that feminists are telling women to deny men sex is just flat out wrong.

You have proven yourself as sexist. No where in any of my articles or statements here have I placed blame on men and made women victims. I won't grant you points when your arguments don't line up with the facts. When you are shown wrong, you should learn and adjust. But thus far, what you have been saying doesn't align with the evidence we have. You make broad generalizations and seem to not understand the feminist movement at all. The way to solve problems is through accurate correct information and critical thinking when it comes to formulating ideas and opinions.

The authors you cited have a lot of notions. You haven't yet shown where they have agreed with yours though. Taking care of a SPOUSE'S needs is important. But again, that doesn't mean confusing need with desire. And it certainly doesn't mean lack of understanding that one of the spouses might just need a night off from sex. If you are going to argue that the duty is to fulfill the desire or need of the spouse at all costs, then we've got an impasse, because if Joe doesn't want it and Mary does, someone has to give up. This is why it is called a partnership. A companionship. A relationship. And not a dictatorship.

Your math regarding a woman's priorities is simplistic at best. First of all, that you only think a woman would enjoy a half an hour of sex shows you know very little about the female body. Again, sex is a lot more than the mechanics. Also, how do you know that these women aren't having one night of ten hour sex with their mates? If this is the case, they just tore your average away and according to your argument have met the burden you require of them. That is how silly your hypothesis is.

Men get their self image through themselves. Relying on another human being for self image is a bad idea and the research doesn't support it as a healthy means of living. Of course men are emotionally fulfilled during intimacy. I said that in this original piece. (Did you even read it?). But that doesn't in any way justify your barbaric non evolved view of intimacy and sexuality and marriage.

And by the way... your view is not based on biblical teachings, unless you want to pull ancient mores of the Hebrews from context and insist Leviticus is the way.

The biblical text celebrates the MUTUAL fulfilling of desires through giving, not taking. This means that while the text advocates much sex, it is not sex for sex sake, but sex because a healthy adult relationship is being played out and each party is intent on thinking NOT of their personal needs but the other party's.

Perhaps your marriage coaching could use less selfish "me" and more "how about we" in its teachings to men and women.

Re: Episteme Agape.

marriagecoach1 — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:18:59 -0000

It would appear that you are trying to obfuscate the issue. I never said that Dr Laura stated that PK failed because sex was not forthcoming.

I was heavily involved in PK and was at the million man march in DC. In meeting after meeting with the men my research indicated that the men did not get more sex. Does it qualify as a governmental or university study, no, but it was the overwhelming sentiment of most guys in every meeting that I attended in churches around the country.

I have read article after artcle by feminists stating that women should only have sex when they feel like it and the man's wants and needs be damned. You have Maureen Dowd writing in the NY Times that the only reason for man's existence in today's society is for sperm donation. You might punch into your google search engine the word misandry and see all of the posts relevant to this subject.

I am not denying organic brain chemistry. I also went to nursing school. I am saying that women have the ability to overcome their chemistry and hormones as an act of will. Your statements would leave one to believe that women are entirely innocent victims of their hormones and brain chemistry. This is a premise that I reject out of hand.

I did not call twice a week, starvation, I called less than once a week starvation since most men need sex 3-4 times a week. The feminsts decry pornography and yet deny men sex. This leaves them to masturbate and pornography is simply a masturbation aid like romance novels are for women.

You claim that I am sexist and blame it all on women. I have already stated that women have legitimate complaints about men. You on the other hand from what I can determine feel that women are entirely innocent and it is the man's fault. You have failed to grant me one single point and seem bent on proving me wrong on every point. That is your choice but does not advance the discussion very well. I am trying to resolve problems not create new ones.

The authors I cited all have the same notion that women need to do a better job of taking care of their husband's sexual needs.

If you had sex 4 times a week at a half hour per sesion that amounts to two hours a week which represents a measly 1% of a woman's time. I say that if she can't devote 1% of her time to nurturing and loving her husband, then her priorities are messed up. There are women all over the country doing it, so don't say that it can't be done. It falls back to choice and a lot of women are choosing to starve their men.

Men get their self image through their wives as well as the bulk of their affectional needs through sex with their wives. The old cliche' about behind every great man is a woman would imply that she is taking care of his emotional and sexual needs, a thought reiterated in the Bible.

Blessings on you and yours
John Wilder

Re: Episteme Agape.

elizabeth grattan — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:10:44 -0000

Can you please direct me to where Dr. Laura states that PK failed because men did everything PK told them to do and yet wives still didn't have sex with them. Also, cite where she states that women cheat because they have a high sex drive. And that women are to blame if their husband cheats on them. Because *none* of what you just cited from those specific authors contradicts the evidence that oxytocin and prolactin increase after childbearing and that women's bodies go through very specific hormone changes after giving birth... in addition to the facts that initial levels of dopamine will decrease in any marriage, usually after three years the most significant notice is made. These are the reasons for changes in sex drive in the human body (in both men and women), in addition to a variety of other chemical changes in the brain and body.

And again, some humans are simply not wired for monogamy.

As to the feminist movement, I don't know what you have been told or what you have been exposed to personally, but the feminist movement is not about placing blame on men. Your premise starts out as wrong, so you are countering the wrong argument. In other words, it's a strawman.

Suggesting that women should put their partners before their offspring is a nice ideal, but it counters the survival mechanism for kin - especially in the early years of a child's development. Certainly that same mechanism is there to foster relationship and community with the mate - in order to ensure additional offspring, but you can't dismiss the need to feed, clothe and care for the child as so irrelevant and you certainly can't discount the reason. The male has a vested interest in maintaining the union as well, in addition to ensuring the survival of the child. There is a season in the relationship where the offspring must take priority. Just as you wouldn't neglect a starving baby because an orgasm was pending.

Suggesting that the lack of orgasm in a woman is due to a man being lousy at sex is also incorrect, since a woman's orgasm has little at all to do with the mechanics.

And again, you call twice a week a starvation diet and place blame on the woman. It is sexist. One could simply counter that the men aren't pursuing sex from their wives. Telling her to lay down and take it isn't foreplay.

As to psychology in the text. The psychology is based on mystery primarily. While man grew in his knowledge, some of the "guesses" turned out correct, some didn't. The reason you see parallels is because the human hasn't really changed all that much in the wiring of the brain since those times. So sure, you get someone speaking words of wisdom about how great it is when two people sacrifice for one another. That we now know why that's great and how that works is just evidence of progress. Just as we now know the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. It doesn't change that a person in ancient times could have acknowledged how bright that shining star was, it simply means that a modern man now knows exactly why it's bright.

For whatever reason you choose to look to ancient writings, they are your own. But please do not discount the evidence along the way.