|
|
April 30, 2010
By the Sexy G.
To continue delving into the article, Reinventing Sex: New Technologies and Changing Attitudes, by Eric Garland, published in Integrative Spirituality 3/24/10, and I quote: “While a great deal of published research on sex today covers pregnancy, disease, and violence, comparatively little expert literature available deals with how sex will change in coming decades, according to a 2003 white paper by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. This makes sense, because these topics pose the greatest risks to health and society. Very little research shows positive trends in human interaction. Not enough understanding exists to show how the basic human function of sexual behavior will shift along with trends in society and technology.
“The mainstream media cover changes in divorce and dating, but the ways in which sexuality and attitudes toward sex will change in coming decades are topics that require more investigation. Indeed, the media will cover many of these shifts, leaving fewer people to feel isolated about their natural inclinations. Unfortunately, few sexuality topics are deemed appropriate to discuss forthrightly, despite the fact that so much regarding sex is changing right under our noses.”
Wow, that’s potent stuff, but what does it mean for us? We already are aware that many people both men and women 55+ are engaging and thinking about sex into their advanced years. How has television and the internet affected us and how will it continue to have impact? Of course, porn on the internet is rampant. Even people in the workplace spend hours a day downloading porn. We’ve seen a some exposes of this happening in breaking news recently.
To continue what Eric Garland said in his article: “One arbiter of loosening public attitudes toward sex is that censors are relaxing on television. Television has come a long way from the days when married characters shocked viewers by sleeping in the same double bed. Clearly, television censors now allow much more frank discussion of sexual behavior…On an episode of CBS’s popular detective show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, a murder victim is shown to be in a community of “plushies,” a group of people who enjoy sex while dressed up like stuffed animals. Never before has there been such an open discussion on the fetishes, proclivities, and preferences that are part of all human diversity. ”
I’ll never forget the first time I heard an ad for erectile dysfunction. I was kind of lackadaisical about it until I heard them say that a four hour erection could send a man to the ER. My first thought was that the man in that situation could hire himself out to several women for a period of time before heading to the ER.
But a world of revelation about sexuality and choices has emerged from the loosening of censorship which is a healthy thing I believe. Even sex toys have evolved into the electronic age (this for a later blog) for multiple and super orgasms.
Again Garland states: “Researchers are working hard to realize Woody Allen’s “orgasmatron” as visualized in his futuristic film Sleeper (1973). One U.S. surgeon has already patented a pacemaker-sized device implanted under the skin that triggers an orgasm, and begun a clinical trial approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.” (I wonder how that will work if you forget to turn it off during a job interview).
Hey, obviously from the blogs I’ve written I’m no prude and all of these new devices and changes are fine with me. But what does this say for the future? I’m looking for enhancement of the old-fashioned approach – one-on-one and person-to-person. Why isn’t there talk of improving and increasing personal intimacy? It all seems to be more in mechanical development where strides are being made. To me none of what I’m reading appears to improve actual relationships.
Why aren’t we talking about ways to minimize the different approaches as to how we socialize boys and girls? How can we make boys more sensitive and able to empathize, especially with a woman? Society encourages men to minimize or even demean emotion. Then when feelings are out of his realm of understanding we applaud that as he’s from Mars. Bull. It is so encoded in our rearing habits we don’t even notice when we do it to our children. There are unpleasant names for men who respond with emotion. This makes genders divisive and contributes to divorces.
I’m all for increasing sexual pleasure, but we have to be cognizant that we still want two humans involved. It reminds me of how frustrated we’ve become to being answered and helped by computers on the telephone. When we finally get a human voice on the line (if that’s even possible) it’s like a bright new world opening up and colors are much brighter. Same with good sex between two people.
The SexyG
Wild River Review is funded entirely by reader support and donations.
To support our mission and passion for good storytelling, please help support my work and make a tax-deductible donation by clicking here: Wild River Donation.
To join our mailing list and receive WRR Monthly, type your email address here.
March 3, 2010
By The Sexy G.
Why do we keep handing billions of dollars in aid to dictators and leaders of countries where the intent of sending the money seems to get lost. It is supposed to be used to raise people out of poverty. The figure appears to be in the vicinity of 44.5 billion dollars in official government and private assistance each year just from the U.S.
We have to wonder about the distribution of funds to foreign nations. Are they used be used inappropriately? Is it near impossible to reach the goal using money? How much is lost in giving the people a better quality of life? Although any suggestion of impropriety is pure speculation, why are we seeing so little improvement year after year? It’s time to question how that money is spent and how much actually actually enhances the lives of populations. If there is no accounting the people in need, I would think, are doomed.
This dilemma needs reevaluation. Additonally, to the observer like myself, whatever aid reaches the populace often is a band-aid and temporary. Little seems to happen that makes for permanent improvements in the lives of the destitute or there is a failure in teaching them how to help themselves.
I would love it if people all over the world were lifted from hunger and homelessness, but our foreign aid policy doesn’t appear to be working. It not only seems to have failed to stop poverty and lift large numbers of people out of dire straits but the level of poverty might have escalated.
Here’s what I think we need to do. Let’s stop the excessive handouts, and put that money to better use in a win-win situation. There’s a way we can really help large populations of people in a more humane and effective way. This concept serves a dual purpose – we actually help put people in our country to work, diminishing the huge unemployment numbers, and additionally, greatly aid people all over the world in need.
Why not offer the unemployed men and women in the United States the opportunity to go to foreign countries and use their expertise to permanently change the way people live? The money we save by not giving massive handouts in dollars that is possibly misused along with inefficient distribution can be put to better use by employing people in our own country to share their knowledge, train people and receive a good wage in return.
With the billions saved in not being sent without regard to accounting measures, and with greatly diminished unemployment payouts we can not only give those willing to join up good wages, but we’d even have enough money to pay for their transportation and housing overseas. Most importantly, the help desperately needed will be delivered in real goods and services, signaling the beginning of the end to the spiral of destitution.
Our workers can show unskilled people how to farm, build houses, improve sanitation, start small businesses, teach construction skills, reading and writing (where needed), teach high-tech (computer, etc.) skills, AIDS prevention, improve nutrition, teach electrical/plumbing, the rudiments of birth control (if they so wish), basic health habits to prevent disease and the list is endless. Sending monies year after year adds up in the trillions. If it’s not working why are we throwing good money after bad?
While we’re at it, what about the poverty and fixing the broken infrastructure in our own country? If we cut some funding to states meant for unemployment and even some government agencies notorious for waste – and there are many – we can enlist unemployed people to go to urban and rural areas to put their skills to use in the U.S.
If the pay is good, people will move or temporarily take such jobs. Once again, savings come from cutbacks to states and the rollback of unemployment costs. Wages will be taxed so that a good return on the investment will come back to government.
Examples of what they can do:
teach academics
repair the infrastructure such as highways and streets
build more public transportation/high speed trains
help develop alternative energy sources
repair schools
tutor children
teach accounting, bookkeeping, computer skills
setup workshops for children not going to college to learn skills such as electricity/plumbing/carpentry/construction, etc.
I could go on endlessly.
In this way, we’ll have partially solved our enormous unemployment problem and the massive waste of money.
Will we do it? You mean to say Congress isn’t listening to me? I guess they’ll go on adding patch after patch to a quilt that is falling apart.
SexyG
To support our mission and passion for good storytelling, please help support my work and make a tax-deductible donation by clicking here: Wild River Donation.
Join our mailing list and receive WRR Monthly.
February 22, 2010
By The Sexy G.
I voted for Obama and had high hopes, but in my opinion, he’s gotten off the track with how to fund this health bill. I very much would like to see health care reform, but he is looking to finance the program in all the wrong places. That might be why there has been such a turnaround in opinion, and why our middle and working classes seem to have turned against the program.
Firstly, what happened to transparency that was part of Obama’s campaign promise? Somewhere along the way, a deal was made with drug companies behind closed doors. This is not what the American public expected or was promised.
Secondly, and most importantly is how to finance the program. Reducing Medicare/Medicaid benefits is not the way to go. Neither is taxing people who have adequate or what politicos are calling “Cadillac Plans” a good approach. As a matter of fact, I find it outrageous. To my mind, there is no such thing as a luxurious medical plan.
It seems ludicrous to call expensive policies luxurious when costs are high. These people paying through the nose aren’t given spa vacations in those plans. It is simply full coverage which is just practical but expensive.
Families and individuals paying exorbitant prices for health coverage is common place. It is possible that after paying the steep premiums, people have little cash flow left. Why should responsible adults who wish have good medical coverage for themselves and their families be penalized? It is a protection against re-mortgaging homes or dipping into pension plans to pay huge medical bills. It is sound fiscal behavior so why should they have to assume the burden?
So, now we need to figure out where to get the money to finance this government program. I believe that is a piece of cake, but it is the ideal that probably will never be realized. There appear to be too many special interests that politicians serve that will keep it from ever happening.
An online commentary by Albert R. Hunt published by Bloomberg Business Week, February 22, 2010, entitled Obama Health Plan’s Success Rides on Cost Curbs: Albert R. Hunt, had this to say: “The best case for infringing on congressional prerogatives may be the way this bill has been written. The hospitals, drug companies, doctors, insurance industry and device makers all carved out their special provisions. Everyone is for curbing health-care costs; just don’t make cuts that affect powerful interests, which is almost every sector of the heath-care industry. History is clear: Congress will bow to those interests rather than make the tough decisions required to bend the cost curve.”
Indulge me my fantasies of a near perfect world as I offer my solutions. Why not put an excess profits tax on the financial “wizards” who put us in a recessionary hole and are taking billions in bonuses? They received huge amounts of tax dollars that came from the average American citizen’s back and are now rewarding themselves and partying on our dollar. What about applying excess profits taxes on extremely high incomes of oil tycoons and upper management of drug and insurance industry executives? Do these insurance companies need boxes at sports stadiums? Why not cut out items like $3000.00 hammers that the military buys without a second thought.
The list is endless. We can demand that each government agency’s budget be cut by 10%. Maybe that will force directors to cut out a tiny portion of the waste. There’s more we can do, but let’s go with what has been mentioned. After doing all of the above, we’ll have enough money not only for a national health insurance program, but maybe enough left over to fix the major portions of the broken infrastructure in this country.
President Obama, had you done that you would have had every American backing you up and cheering you on instead of feeling let down and disappointed. I think most Americans want to see everyone in this country covered medically, but you are taxing the wrong people. You are taxing the ones most vulnerable. Go after the fat cats.
And speaking of fat cats why not tax the magnificent medical policies held by Congress. As Whoopi Goldberg said it succinctly, and I’ll paraphrase, let’s ask Congress to give us the same medical policies that they enjoy. They are the true luxury policies so why not tax them.
Yes, I believe the government is in poor shape, and no one seems to want to fix it – certainly not the lawmakers. Here’s another suggestion. Instead of starting another inefficient government agency why not use the program that is functioning and in place? We have Medicare/Medicaid humming along and they do it for a lower cost than insurance companies. Just allow younger individuals into Medicare (for example: start with 55 to 65 year olds) who are income eligible and in two years lower the ages once again until everyone is covered. The foundation is already in place. Of course, more staff will be needed, but you don’t have to start from scratch.
Lasty, I hate when people call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement as though it is welfare. It is insurance paid in year after grueling year that took blood, sweat and tears by people in the workforce. Let the little people along for a change! Don’t deprive them of yet another service to finance a program that can easily be funded by those taking away huge bonuses. You people in Congress know where to get the money! Try doing the right thing.
SexyG franuc@aol.com
Wild River Review is funded entirely by reader support and donations.
To support our mission and passion for good storytelling, please help support my work and make a tax-deductible donation by clicking here: Wild River Donation.
To join our mailing list and receive WRR Monthly, type your email address here.
January 28, 2010
By The Sexy G.
At one time, women tended to marry up. Now it seems the opposite has occurred.
In a Pew Research Center Publication; a study was done by Richard Fry and D’vera Cohn, Pew Research Center, January 19, 2010. It is entitled, New Economics of Marriage: The Rise of Wives. The Executive Summary stated that “The institution of marriage has undergone significant changes in recent decades as women have outpaced men in education and earnings growth. These unequal gains have been accompanied by gender role reversals in both the spousal characteristics and the economic benefits of marriage.
“A larger share of men in 2007, compared with their 1970 counterparts, are married to women whose education and income exceed their own, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of demographic and economic trend data. A larger share of women are married to men with less education and income.”
This is startling news especially to an older generation. What happened to the earnings of men? How did women get into the lead when they still earn less income as compared to men in similar jobs? The Pew Report also states “…Women’s earnings grew 44% from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6% growth for men. That sharper growth has enabled women to narrow, but not close, the earnings gap with men. Median earning of full-year female workers in 2007 were 71% of earnings of comparable men, compared with 52% in 1970.”
The Pew Report continues, “Part of the reason for the superior gains of married adults is compositional in nature. Marriage rates have declined for all adults since 1970 and gone down most sharply for the least educated men and women. As a result, those with more education are far more likely than those with less education to be married, a gap that has widened since 1970. Because higher education tends to lead to higher earnings, these compositional changes have bolstered the economic gains from being married for both men and women.”
In an online article entitled Dime Crunch, Gwen Parkes discussed the Pew Research Center report by Richard Fry and D’Vera Cohn. What struck me is the last two paragraphs which she titled; Results. She refers to the writings of Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University. He wrote, “The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and Family in America Today, “It’s not that women are calling the shots. It’s that husbands and wives are sharing the decision-making power.”
According to Parkes, “Cherlin hit the nail on the head. Yes, there is a noticeable change that has occurred in marriages and gender roles within the last 30 years, and yes both men and women are benefiting from these changes, because it has become more of a shared partnership between the couple. After all, isn’t that the exact definition of a partnership and the purpose of a marriage? Obviously couples in the U.S. are getting better at working together toward common goals so that both partners can reap the benefits. Now if we could just get the divorce rate down then we would be the picture of marriage perfection.”
It seems to me that Parkes hit a hot button. So, now that there is a tendency towards more equality in relationships, why is the divorce rate so high? I think one very important factor is that women, despite earning more or working in more prestigious jobs, are still basically responsible for domestic issues whether it may be all of the home scene or in large part. When a woman is working as hard or harder than her spouse and still has to tend to most of the chores at home and the children’s activities, a good deal of resentment develops.
Rebecca S. Powers, is an assistant professor at East Carolina University. An online link called SpringerLink, quoted Powers’ article, Doing the daily grind: The effects of domestic labor on professional, managerial, and technical workers’ earnings, published in a journal called, Gender Issues, publisher is Springer New York, and dated June 25, 2004.
The abstract states: “Using two waves of data from the National Survey of Families and Households, I examined how domestic labor tasks including daily grind tasks, female-type and male-type tasks affected the earnings of workers in professional, managerial, and technical occupations in the short and long term. The results show that performing daily grind tasks reduces the earnings of college-educated workers in high prestige occupations immediately and over time. Further, domestic labor explained an additional 19 percent of the gap between the earnings of women and men in professional, managerial, and technical occupations. These results suggest that despite having jobs that offer higher pay and more autonomy, the time spent doing the daily grind, negatively affects earnings, especially for women in professional, managerial, and technical occupations.”
I find it ironic that women are in a better position economically now yet can’t close the gap in earnings for similar positions compared with men. Nor, for the most part, can they equalize the domestic responsibilities. Yes, men participate more these days but often it is to placate the spouse or it is minimal. Come on guys, just go the distance. Let’s get that divorce rate down. Remember, men who are truly equal partners are having more and better sex with their wives.
SexyG
To support WRR’s mission, and our commitment to good storytelling, please make a tax-deductible donation by clicking here: Wild River Donation.
January 14, 2010
By The Sexy G.
I have two grandsons and both are wonderful, brilliant children (of course). The other day the six-year-old sent an e-mail, thanking me profusely for giving him an Ipod for the holidays, and he used it to send me the message. He expressed how much he had wanted one and how wonderful that I answered his wish. He asked how I was and sent his love.
Then I received an e-mail from my eight-year-old grandson. He asked how I was feeling, and how I was getting along in the cold weather. He then told me he was having a great Sunday and asked me about my activities for the day. I told him it was too cold to go out so I stayed in and did my writing. He asked me what I was writing about. I responded and mentioned the concept of a short story that I was working on and about an interview I had done. He said that was cool!
Stay with me here. This is not merely about bragging rights. I have a point to make. These children were curious and sincerely interested. I won’t even say I received this kind treatment because I’m their grandmother. I’ve seen them show the same interest to their parents and friends.
Mind you, they are boys through and through. They play soccer, baseball, basketball, tennis, ski, swim, wrestle and fight with each other from time to time. They love music as well and play piano and guitar. At the same time they are being encouraged to allow a sensitive side to develop. Sports and a moderate amount of competition are quite compatible with nurturing skills.
The point I’m making is that the brief interlude, approximately fifteen minutes of back-and-forth messaging, demonstrated more interest, empathy and concern than ninety-five percent of the men I have dated over the last eight years, present beau excluded. They showed more curiosity and expressed more feelings in fifteen minutes than some of my dates did in five months or so of being involved in a relationship.
I don’t mean this for every male, but I have seen it in enough men to detect a pattern. So, here’s the generalization; the most glaring flaw in men, in my opinion, is an emotional disconnect that runs through so many. I try to dredge up reasons by looking at society’s attitudes and the blatant male entitlement that is rife from infancy to adulthood to old age.
What I see is that heavy duty competition is placed on males at an early age. Then on to Little League which appears to do the most damage. I don’t believe it is the sport itself but the intense desire of parents to see their children win – winning at all costs. The concept of team cooperation is excellent. But playing up the winning angle removes a big chunk of childhood. That time of life should be about fun, games and a time to foment creativity. They should be taught to play for fun, have consideration for kids of lesser ability and even care about the opposition. Rather I see all too often that the attitude is “kill” the competition as in warriors entering the arena to face the lions.
Then we have society telling males they must succeed – another intense component of competition. They must best others. Very little is said about compassion for mankind because that can become a hindrance to success. It is implied that giving an inch to someone means they will take a yard. It is considered sissy for men to be compassionate and nurturing. Yet, these are qualities that necessarily must be instilled at an early age or it becomes a grating issue in adult relationships. I don’t believe it can be learned later in life and if it can it has to be extremely difficult.
I don’t get it. We no longer live like cave people, vying for a limited amount of food. Why do we raise our male children and stifle their ability to develop a deep emotional capacity? Why do we discourage their sensitivity? When I discuss this with men, many times they insist they are sensitive. Yes, I agree. They are sensitive to their own needs and hurts. If they feel disrespected, humiliated or insulted then sensitive they are. But the ability to empathize that sensitivity to others seems lacking.
My fervent hope is that my grandkids never lose the compassion and concern for fellow humans that they show now. Yes, they will see the lack of these qualities in some of their contemporaries along the way. I hope it’s not catching. Men have to be very strong to not repress their emotional life. It is not a trait in men usually applauded in our society.
A good guy friend always tells me that life is only about bucks, fucks and adventures. Say it isn’t so.
The SexyG
January 8, 2010
By The Sexy G.
I’m going off the usual path on this blog based on personal experience. A friend of mine recently had serious back surgery at a well-known hospital. My expectations for service were high. Instead I found myself in a position of combative advocacy against, what I saw as, a staff hiding behind vague rules that contained little humanity or compassion – much to my dismay.
The first two days after an operation my friend was zonked out on pain medication and the effects anesthesia after major surgery. He could only utter a few words within three seconds before he conked out again. After searching for his nurse, I asked how long he’d be in the hospital and would he be sent to a rehab center. He had good insurance and his stay in a rehab would be covered. The answers were not only fuzzy but, to me, downright nonsensical.
I was already disconcerted because there was no approval prior to surgery for the rehab. It depended on his condition. How many people after major surgery are ready to go home? If he was discharged on the third day post surgery, as was suggested, he had to be home alone with no way to get food, shower, dress or tend to himself. The bathroom was down a flight of steps. He was not allowed to drive for at least 6 weeks and was required to wear a neck brace at all times during this period of time.
When I approached the nurse she told me they would question the patient on the third day post-surgery as to whether he felt he could go home by himself or not. I pointed to the patient who was totally unconscious. I know my friend. In his semi-comatose state, he’d woozily probably say sure he could go home. They’d have to carry him on a stretcher in order to get him into an ambulance. Then what? Drop him in bed and leave?
When I mentioned the home situation, she tried to blow me off. She insisted he could walk and even do stairs. How did she know this? I have no idea for the man only awakened in order to say hello and then immediately lapsed into a deep sleep again. He managed to inform me that they helped walk him to the bathroom which was six feet from his bed and more than that he could not do.
After much insistence she told me to talk to the case manager who didn’t show up in person. She called on the phone instead. Now comes my second awakening.
After the came manager repeated the same gibberish about talking to the barely-awake patient, I told her I was simply making a case about his home condition. He could not survive in those with no one there. That had to be taken into consideration. His son was in Reading and worked all day. I lived almost an hour away and work. If he fell, which seemed like a certainty, he was a dead man. And in less than 24 hours they wanted to discharge him with the possibility of no rehab.
In a somewhat haughty manner she told me it was, after all, elective surgery which I took to mean that he had to suffer the consequences for choosing to have this operation with no one at home to help. Elective? He’d gotten to a point where he was barely able to walk, with numb toes – hardly elective. In a short time he probably wouldn’t have been able to walk at all. He had counted on rehab to get him to a point where he could manage at home however ineffectively. The next thing she wanted to know was if I lived near him, implying I guess that I should become the caretaker. Due to a large geographic distance it wasn’t possible.
Then she informed me I didn’t have power of attorney and she’d speak to his son who was so designated. My friend’s son was working non-stop and unable to communicate with the hospital during the day. I insisted this was a situation that needed clearing up now. Then she informed me after this grueling conversation that I’d have to talk to the physical therapist as it was their decision in the final analysis. Why was I put through this grinder, having to make an urgent appeal for the health of this patient? I thought it was their job.
From my perspective she was making me the case manager. I said I had no idea who in PT had seen my friend and suspected I’d get another run-around if I finally did contact someone. I asked that since I wasn’t in the hospital 24/7 could she please inform them of his home situation. She reluctantly agreed.
I thought her questions of me were impertinent. Instead of saying she’d take the matter into consideration and handle it she insisted they’d have to question the patient prior to discharge – tomorrow, the third day following surgery, a man hardly awake. I could only imagine him falling down unable to get up for hours until someone came to visit – if they did that day.
I left the hospital without any firm commitment. The next day, the case manager informed my friend’s son he’d be in the hospital for another three days and then admitted to rehab for four days. No more questions. No more arguments. What happened? Were they afraid of a lawsuit in case my friend fell? Was it my persistence?
Maybe, just maybe there is a case for advocacy. I see the moral of this story as — don’t let yourself be pushed around. What about the patients who have no one to advocate for them? I hate to think about it.
I have to wonder what underlies this line of thinking. I know the insurance companies are demanding people be discharged from hospitals as quickly as possible, many times before it is safe. But I don’t get why they were so reluctant to send him to rehab. It doesn’t seem to me to be any skin off their teeth. If anyone out there knows, I’d be happy to listen.
The SexyG
Powered by WordPress
|
Archives
|
