In The New York Times, August 27, 2009, Chiara Volpato wrote from Milan. Chiara Volpato is a professor of social psychology at the University of Milan. Professor Volpato said, “Many outside Italy seem to assume that Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi gets away with his sexist behavior because Italian men condone it and the women at least tolerate it. But this is no longer true. Today there are two Italys: one Italy has soaked up Mr. Berlusconi’s ideology either out of self-interest or an inability to resist his enormous powers of persuasion; the other is fighting back.”

I think there has been for a very long time a misperception that women in Europe have a huge tolerance for cheating, sexist husbands. It is not true. I believe that this fantasy is created by the European men who enjoy having illicit affairs still keeping wives in their lives and perpetrated in this country by male journalists. It is what so many males all over the world dream about and many achieve.

There are many women willing to tolerate their husband’s cheating, and might even appear indifferent on the surface. But, I venture to say, most seethe inside whether they live in the U.S., France, England or Italy or other developed nations. I would love to see a study done on the long-term health of the women who stay in such marriages – whether they have a higher incidence of medical issues as compared to other populations of women. In my own small world, I have seen what I think are an inordinate number of women who stay in relationships where the male partner is an outlandish, in-your-face cheater develop cancer and other serious ailments. 

I have often seen the underlying anger of the women in these stressed relationships played out in social situations. Some women cling to the men who cheat and try to anticipate and watch for missteps 24/7. They are on the emotional draining lookout constantly. Other couples live totally separate lives and meet perhaps for weekends or vacations. Others stay together, maintaining the image of a traditional marriage, but run in different directions and activities whenever they can.

At a social event, you might see a woman who appears indifferent to her man or snipes at him. He might give a strong impression of being Mr. Nice Guy. That sets off gossip about how nasty the wife is to that nice husband of hers. Think of all the pent up anger and rage she harbors. She is aware others know about her husband’s cheating and is humiliated. Of course, she has chosen to stay. She can divorce, but so many women are terrified of the notion, image and implications.

But Italy seems to be more entrenched in maintaining a patriarchal culture than many other developed nations. In a country highly influenced by the Catholic Church and conservative ideology it is shocking that they have an unusually low birth rate. Volpato suggests “…Italian men have 80 more minutes of leisure time per day – the greatest in the 18 countries compared. This is probably explained by the additional time that women devote to unpaid work, like cleaning the house. It is no surprise, then, that many Italian women are unwilling to take on an additional burden of raising children. As a result, the country has an extraordinarily low birthrate.”

Isn’t it time we revived the Women’s Movement? Somehow the air had been knocked out the momentum started years ago. Maybe it’s because so many women work, either single or married, for survival. We have no groundswell occurring here in this country to demand more equality for women or to break and destroy the glass ceiling. But it seems to be happening in Italy.

Volpato says, “But what can Italian women actually do? An important step is to make  dissent known, a difficult task considering that true free speech is largely limited to only a few independent newspapers and, importantly, the Internet. We need to start working on a systematic documentation of incidents of discrimination against women.

“We also need better organization. Existing groups that would be the most naturally engaged in the emerging dissent (like the opposition Democratic Party, which seems distracted by internal fights) have not been sensitive to the many signs from below. Women will need to exert greater pressure on the opposition parties to represent their demands.

“But first of all, dissenting women (and men) must speak up with greater confidence. Our country, long defined by its old-fashioned attitudes toward women, is finally ready to rally.”

Women of the U.S., take heed. Listen to the wisdom of women in other countries. We can no longer buy into the misrepresentation that Europe women are tolerant toward philandering husbands. We must watch what Italian women (and men) do in making greater demands for equality among the sexes, and replicate it here. 

The sexyG                                                                     franuc@aol.com

 The Vatican is seeking to investigate U.S. nuns. Did I hear right? For umpteen years, pedophile priests, when exposed, were quietly moved to other parishes where the hierarchy of the church turned a blind eye as to whether they continued abusing children. More often, the offending priests continued their evil ways. The dismissals were few and far between until a public expose created a tsunami of outcry – and large sums of money went to pay off some of the victims.  

I have not heard of any such expose or widespread abuses by U.S. nuns. There are stories about corporeal punishment by a minority of nuns who taught in parochial schools many years ago. But then, some public school teachers rapped a few knuckles as well. That has nearly been abolished. Let’s not forget that for a long time nuns were more of less servants to priests. And, as I understand it, nuns are rarely allowed to retire, but priests are.

The New York Times had an article, U.S. Nuns Facing Vatican Scrutiny, July 2, 2009 by Laurie Goodstein. In it she said, “Nuns were the often-unsung workers who helped build the Roman Catholic Church in this country, planning schools and hospitals and keeping parishes humming. But for the last three decades, their numbers have been declining – to 60,000 from 180, 000 in 1965.

“While some nuns say they are grateful that the Vatican is finally paying attention to their dwindling communities, many fear that the real motivations is to reel in American nuns who have reinterpreted their calling for the modern world.”

It is suggested they want nuns back into habits. A friend of mine who went to parochial school during the era when nuns wore those hot, cumbersome head covers remembers some nuns having open sores around their cheeks and temples where the stiff, starched white material ringing their faces chaffed the skin. This tight face collar hid every hair on a nuns head.

Why is it when women are treated like territory by men they insist on hiding their hair; berkas for Muslim women, shaved heads and wigs for Orthodox Jewish women, nuns habits, etc. etc.

In the same article, Laurie Goodstein goes on to say, “In the last four decades since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, many American nuns stopped wearing religious habits, left convents to live independently and went into new lines of work: academia and other professions, social and political advocacy and grass-roots organizations that serve the poor or promote spirituality. A few nuns have also been active in organizations that advocate changes in the church like ordaining women and married men as priests.”

Somehow, with my limited biblical knowledge, I understand Jesus advocated the same “…political and grass-roots organizations that serve the poor or promote spirituality.” Wasn’t that his intent to help those in need? What else should religion be about if not that? The nuns have branched out, it seems to me, and are heeding the words of Jesus Christ.

I dare say, if Moses and Jesus returned to earth and saw the mess we’ve made of religion and what unspeakable horrors are committed in their names, they would be appalled. And if Moses presented the Ten Commandments to us and Jesus spoke his Sermon on the Mount today, these two most venerable, wise, truly spiritual prophets might be run out of town on a rail. What has religion come to? Are these corporate institutions nothing more than bricks and mortar and real estate, amassing wealth and attempting to keep women as second class citizens?

Women can’t become priests and those thin ranks of female Rabbis don’t get the choice congregations. They are usually second in command in well-heeled synagogues, if they even get in, or they are sent out to make the spiritual rounds of nursing homes and hospitals.

Contemporary nuns seem to have accomplished a great deal in reaching urban and rural communities and in academia. Is this what the Vatican wants to take away? Do they want to send nuns back to convents and rigidly enforce religious rules that seem to have nothing to do with the original intent of religion?

I am stunned by it all. Here is my doctrine; women unite! Fight the stifling, demoralizing mental and social imprisonment by religious leaders – practically all men. Go forth and protect children from all kinds of abuses, help the poor, feed the hungry and help those develop skills to find work.

Mother Teresa didn’t insulate herself in a convent 24/7, praying for the world to heal. She went out and did what she knew religious precepts to be all about. Why wasn’t she reigned in? Was it because she made for good publicity that made male leaders look good? Perhaps the nuns in the U.S. aren’t dramatic enough for good media drama. All they do is go out into the world and do good works. My sincerest thanks to nuns.

The sexy G                                                                          franuc@aol.com

Let’s look at some of the successful, mature men who have been felled by what I call SEXMANIA. Let’s start with the South Carolina governor, Mark Sanford. We all know about his Argentina fiasco – or his foray into making an extra-marital affair very public.

Then, of course, there’s Eliot Spitzer’s exposure with a prostitute. We can add to the list John Edwards, a once aspiring presidential candidate. Then, of late, we have Senator John Ensign who had a liaison with a campaign staffer and for a trip down memory lane, Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Then there are the numerous Hollywood celebrities who have been caught the same way, many who claim to be sex addicts.

There are those who refute the theory of sex addiction. Those critics attribute the lack of control to men who, rather than take personal responsibility, use addiction or a sickness as an excuse for their behavior. These men certainly have opportunity for sexual encounters because of their positions, looks and celebrity. Are they really sexually addicted or just in a position to have many women? The results are still out. In any case, the big question is why do these men, especially politicians who are in a much more morally precarious position, take such big risks?

Most times careers are ruined. Some in high positions preach family values and then get caught in extra-marital affairs. Questions: Do they not care about losing the trust of the public? Are they so emotionally immature they have no sense of danger? Have they never learned boundaries? Are they unable to reason, leaving themselves unable to project the consequences of rash actions? I really can’t say. Perhaps it’s all of the above.

In an online article from TimesOnline, The Times, entitled, “JFK, Russell Brand, and the myth of sex addiction, April 16, 2009, by Jed Mercurio, he said, “Russell Brand, Michael Douglas and, most recently, the actor David Duchovny (who checked into rehab in Arizona in 2008) have all claimed to have ‘sex addiction’. Do these rich and famous men really have an illness that renders them incapable of resisting temptation? Or are they just looking to shift the blame for behavior that’s more a result of abundant sexual opportunity?”

Let me give you some of my experiences as it concerns men out of control sexually. I’m still reeling because I can’t believe that these men of high intelligence could be so clueless. These examples are not on the level of national/international fame, but,  nonetheless, they are locally well-known and respected gentlemen, if you will.

Here’s the scenario: A blind date came to my house to pick me up, someone I had never been formally introduced to. A friend made the arrangement. This man is a prominent manufacturer, a multi-millionaire, very visible in local society and known for his philanthropy.

Because he is well known, and the introduction came from a friend, I felt quite safe. He had planned having dinner at an upscale restaurant and afterward, I had opera tickets. Before the appointed time, I received a gorgeous bouquet of flowers. Everything looked promising.

Dinner was lovely and all went well. When we were seated in the auditorium awaiting the curtain call, he leaned close to my ear and whispered: “Can I go down on you when we get back?”

I said, shocked beyond belief, “Are you kidding? We just met.” He said, undaunted, “I’m great on eating pussy. It’s the best you’ll ever have.” That might be the true, but I’ll never know. That ended that.

Okay. Now we have a well-known biologist who seemed very interested in me and wanted to move forward after a first causal date to see if something more serious could develop. He lives in an adjoining state west of Pennsylvania. He said work obligations kept him from traveling to see me and asked if I would go to his town. Although, I know he didn’t work weekends, I agreed.

There seemed to be a strong attraction for both of us and I was willing to meet him half way. I would travel to his home town (at my expense), but since we don’t know each other that well, I needed accommodations outside of his home.

His first response was to tell me to get a hotel myself. Now that darkened the lightheartedness of the first date. When I told him I had no idea which hotels were near his place, he said he’d do it, but I’d have to pay for the cost. The bluntness and blatant cheapness took the wind out me. That was it. 

The truth is, if he had set up the hotel, and we hit it off, with the next date I’d be happy to go to his home and stay in another bedroom. He had come highly recommended by a mutual acquaintance. Finally, if all things went well and romance developed as anticipated, we’d be ready to make the lovemaking leap. I’d even be happy to make dinners. If we cared for each other we didn’t need to go out every time. Well, the story doesn’t end here.

After I refused, he didn’t ask me to visit and, but made another offer. We didn’t really need to see each other if we did e-mail sex. My response was, “Without romance surrounding the relationship, doing e-mail sex is simply pornographic.”

He didn’t get it. He continued sending very graphic e-mails with little to no response from me. On these messages, he described his erections, fantasies and orgasms. No more invites to visit, nothing except porno e-mails.

Perhaps it is a money issue. Or he doesn’t want intimacy, but he does want the sex part even if he’s doing it with words and masturbation. That makes him the lone participant. How sad. To do phone sex or e-mail sex without the romance is simply not enough for me.

Here’s the funniest situation of all. I once had a date with a man, and we didn’t hit it off. It was mutual. Standing at my door at the end of the evening, we both decided it wouldn’t work. He then asked if he could touch my breasts before he left. He even held his hands up in the appropriate position for the grab. I slammed the door behind me as fast as I could.

There are those who say that sex addiction or promiscuity (some feel the two words are interchangeable), are the result of emotionally empty people or those with a poor self-images who need attention. They use sex to tell them they are wanted and desired. I’m not sure of the reasons, but it does sound plausible.

We all must look deeply into ourselves, smash into the bottom rocks of our souls to seek the rationale for our behavior. And to the guys who feel entitled to sexual instant gratification – you’ll have to learn to work harder. Sex isn’t an entitlement, it’s earned and it doesn’t take much to create a caring, loving relationship. If you do this, then watch out because the lovemaking will be dynamite.

The SexyG                                                                            franuc@aol.com

I think this generation of parents in the U.S. are raising children who have never before, in the history of mankind, had so much concentrated attention.

Compared to my generation couples hire baby sitters less often and don’t have as much alone time with each other. Parents bring children to restaurants more frequently. Hopefully, the kids are well behaved – but not always. Parents today try to reason with unruly kids. That rarely works. The kids get even more defiant. It seems that virtually all vacations include the entire family and are arranged around what children like to do. Parents plan, arrange and chose all the extra-curricular activities that are often designed to enhance intelligence. Children’s lives are certainly enriched but very regulated.  

The New York Times, February 5, 2009 had an article in the op-ed section called, Till Children Do Us Part, by Stephanie Coontz. She says:  “Parents today spend much more time with their children than they did 40 years ago. The sociologists Suzanne Bianchi, John Robinson and Melissa Milkie report that married mothers in 2000 spent 20 percent more time with their children than in n1965. Married fathers spent more than twice as much time.”

What has created this phenomenon? Is it because more women work and are home less and feel the need to spend every leisure waking moment with the kiddies? Are fathers forced to participate because their wives are working full-time? Perhaps now that religion is diminished in many contemporary lives, children become the source of worship. Are parental egos more acutely tuned into the success of their children because it increases their own self-worth? Or is it because there is a genuine devotion to children more than in any other generation since time began?  

Parents sacrifice most adult activities to be with their children. If there are invitations to dinner it seems to be expected that the children are invited. It’s part of the plan. Are baby sitters who are hired on a regular basis becoming obsolete?

Even when children want to play together there are arranged “play dates” by the parents. It seems contrived and children, I believe, do not learn spontaneity. It used to be that kids went out on the street where any number of playmates showed up and decided on the spot what games they’d play. 

Parental participation is intense today as it concerns focusing on scholastic achievement, after-school clubs and cultural enhancement on all levels as well as sports participation. Sometimes parents are involved in children’s endeavors to the detriment of everyone. For instance, the over-scheduling of academics and the competitiveness to excel at sports pressed by parents is frightening at times. 

Coontz continues “Couples found some of these extra hours by cutting back on time spent in activities where children were not present – when they were alone as a couple, visiting with friends and kin, or involved in clubs. But in the long run, shortchanging such adult-oriented activities for the sake of the children is not good for a marriage. Indeed, the researcher Ellen Galinsky has found that most children don’t want to spend as much time with their parents as parents assume; they just want their parents to be more relaxed when they are together.”

There is a greater move toward home-schooling where parents immerse themselves in the education of children due to a distrust of the educational system. This commitment to educate children is so encompassing that parents, usually the mother, has little to no leisure time for herself and quality interaction with a spouse is severely diminished.

In the scheme of things, this child-directed ideology does tend to give kids quality time and keen attention that creates a supportive world. The kids can develop a good sense of self. But the problem comes in when the child reaches adulthood, and the world does not give them the attention they grew up with. They may have become addicted to the childhood devotion and find the demands of society overwhelming. Some fall apart while others steam full speed ahead.  

And what happens to the couple who have dedicated most of their leisure time to their r their offspring and they leave home to develop independence?  Some find when they face each other that they only communicated about children and they’ve grown so far apart there is no room for conversation about other topics. The divorce rate at that particular time of life is high. There are many unanswered questions about child-centered lives and we have yet to see the results.

Coontz says:  “Couples need time alone to renew their relationship. They also need to sustain supportive networks of friends and family. Couples who don’t, investing too much in their children and not enough in their marriage, may find that when the demands of child-rearing cease to organize their lives, they cannot recover the relationship that made them want to have children together in the first place.”

There are certainly advantages to the child-oriented world, but I am a bit fearful of over-protecting, over-scheduling, and over-entertaining children. As distasteful as it sounds, this generation of parents needs to let go of some control in their children’s lives and cement the relationship between the spouses. There is as much of an advantage to children when couples feel connected to each other on other levels.

Sexy G                                                                                        franuc@aol.com