|
|
September 1, 2011
From the beginning of time, women have been blamed for every conceivable sin including the ousting of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. It’s pretty well accepted that poor, unsuspecting Adam was duped by the undisciplined floozy, Eve. Eve supposedly enticed the lad into breaking God’s commandment. Bad girl, Eve. Adam, you’re off the hook.
Then there’s the ancient myth of the 3 seductresses who lured sailors into wrecking their ships with enchanting music. I dare say these tales were invented by men on the premise that men are not responsible for bad behavior. This precept is woven into the fabric of our society.
In this modern world of evolving culture, it appears, little has changed. To this day, general opinion and, worse, powerful people still hawk the theory that women are the seducers of evil.
Now we have the rattling of testosterone sabers, implying that women encourage rape by the way they dress. In the Philadelphia Weekly, June 21, 2011 Tara Murtha published a column referring to the editor’s letter that Dan Rottenberg wrote in Broad Street Review, an online arts mag:
“…A photograph of Lara Logan, the CBS and 60 Minutes news correspondent who was sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the Egyptian revolution in Tahrir Square in February, illustrates his column. Snapped in 2008 at the Gracie Allen awards, Logan’s smiling bright, wearing a pale gown that sets off her tan cleavage.
“Rottenberg’s column was a response to an earlier Broad Street Review essay by contributor Sara Kay Smullens, who also used the rape of Lara Logan as a jumping-off point to discuss sexual assault in the U.S. But Rottenberg had a different twist. ‘ “Smullens argues that women need to speak up and speak out when they’re victimized, as Lara Logan has done, and of course she is right,” ’ writes Rottenberg. ‘ “But having stumbled across a CBS publicity photo for Lara Logan, I can’t (help) thinking that women also need to take sensible precautions before they’re victimized…Earth to liberated women: When you display legs, thighs or cleavage, some liberated men will see it as a sign that you feel good about yourself and your sexuality. But most men will see it as a sign that you want to get laid.” ’
If someone suggests that a photograph from 2008 is the instigating factor in a sexual assault that occurred in 2011 then this how I picture the traumatic incident:
A screaming mob surrounds the victim who is a reporter wearing ordinary, unreavealing clothing. “Wait,” says one of the men to the rampaging men. “I think I have a picture of that woman.” Everyone stops, scratches their chins and waits. He pulls a stack of magazines and newspapers out of his camel-skin backpack and leafs through them. After half an hour he finds it. “Oh here it is.” He jabs the picture with his finger. “This is very provocative dressing. She must be looking for IT. We must rape her.”
Now here’s a dilemma. Not every man concentrates on boobs and cleavage. What about those who love other parts of women? If a woman is wearing a dress up to her neckline, but her arms are bare. Many men are attracted to the smooth skin of a naked arm, the crook of the elbow, the curve of the shoulder. How about the ankle, once a notable symbol of sexuality? If a woman exposes those parts of her body, is that a reason for rape?
Will a foot fetishist rape women who wear heels or bare their toes? Do we need to throw away our sandals? Should women cover their entire bodies? What about hair? That’s a big-time sexy turn on. As far as I’m concerned that’s one of the reasons why burkas, nun’s habits and shaving women’s heads were invented. In this way, a man declares his property and even if it defaces a woman he hopes to keep other men away from his property. Best of all, he can say he’s following religious rules – kind of like saying Eve made me eat the apple.
Let’s look at populations who are raped: Old women, young children, infants, toddlers, pre-adolescents, adolescents, teenagers, young women, mature women, blind women, women wearing heavy coats or dresses up to their necks, religious women, little boys, young boys wearing choir outfits, mature men, boy scouts, girl scouts, women in burkas, women hiding in huts, or under beds while hordes of invaders seek them out. Then there are the flat-chested women, homeless women, male and female prisoners and women caught in the throes of war. What about incest and pedophiles? And the list goes on.
Looks like every female in the spectrum and large numbers of males get raped. Obviously, cleavage is not a factor in the overwhelming number of the above mentioned victims. Rape is a violent, vile act whether against men or women – plain and simple.
Stu Bykofsky of the Daily News wrote on Monday, August 8, 2011 a response to “…a misguided cop from Toronto.”
The cop echoed Rottenberg’s sentiments. Bykofsky was clear, rational and eloquent (the article dealt mostly with the Slut Walk, a protest against the theory that scantily clad women invite rape).
In his response to Rottenberg’s column Bykofsky said; “…The wrongheaded column managed to blame victims, insinuate that all men are potential rapists and insanely connect the Cairo rape of CBS reporter Lara Logan with a sexy dress she had worn to an awards show in the States three years earlier.”
The people who blame the victim should stop and question the effects of widespread purchases of magazines that show naked, sexy women as well as porno magazines and internet sites that depict vicious sex acts. Why aren’t they taken into account? Could they possibly have a hand in instigating the epidemic of rapes in this country?
What about the men who enhance bulges in their crotches, wear flimsy and clinging pants to expose the outlines of genitals, men posing for sexy underwear ads, butt cracks showing in public, men shirtless, in spandex biking outfits, speedo bathing suits, magazines with naked men, men dirty dancing – is this a stimulus to rape?
This isn’t an anti-porn or male bashing. I’m trying to examine why someone in this day and age would suggest the victims of rape are the perpetrators. That kind of thinking is an insult to the intelligence of woman and most men! To the minority of gentlemen and ladies who buy into this concept, you should realize that it is a wrongheaded misconception. To me, such rhetoric demonstrates that an underlying (and often not subtle) demeaning attitude toward women still exists in our society. We must go more deeply into societal stereotyping – slut or Madonna. It’s time to see women as intelligent people with good minds as well as bodies. If she says no she means NO.
Fran Metzman
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.
Sign up with your email address below to join our mailing list and receiveWRR Monthly.
Comments Off
August 4, 2011
Here we go again, stressing over the old bugaboo of romantic chemistry. This has been going on for centuries. Poems, stories, novels, songs and whatnot have been dedicated to extolling praises of the undying love syndrome. There are many theories about romantic chemistry and falling in love. Some even think they can identify it through modern technology using diagnostic machines. Still, it remains an elusive mystery.
We all know how it works – we’re pulled into the vortex of romantic chemistry for a particular person. The hormones rage. We forget to eat, we can’t sleep, and we hang on that person’s every word. Carefully, we study each sentence they utter to look for clues as to how that person feels about the beginning courtship. We ask ourselves: Do I sense a cooling down? Have I become boring? Do I come across as intelligent? Do I still exude sensuality?
Once struck by cupid’s arrow, we perceive our environment in a different way. The world around us is much brighter, colors more vivid, honking horns sound like tinkling bells and everything, including rank sewers, smells like roses. The object of our desire can do no wrong. We are forgiving, lustful and madly in love.
Given these overt symptoms, I have to ask why so many relationships that started all starry-eyed and with great promise eventually breakup?
Let’s take a delve into romantic chemistry because so many of us depend on that spark and sizzle in order to hook up with an individual. Without that intense draw we would just walk away. Although we rely heavily on our emotions that revolve around love we need to question if this is the best way to select a mate. Despite all the signals and whistles going off in our heads when we meet that special person we must consult our brain as well. Lots of you will disagree, but I’ll spell out my reasoning.
Why, in the game of love, do some people to hit a home run and others strike out? Not only do they strike out, they continue to be attracted, over and over, to the same personality type that is toxic for them? We all know at least one person like that. I know several.
Okay. When you are very young, it is easy to make a mistake. How do you prevent that from happening again – and again – and again as we mature? Sometimes, what is a good romantic fit for one person is another’s poison. Why? If we do depend on our emotions to rule in that department, in my opinion, you had better be a very stable person. If you know that you have some unresolved issues, then the heart is not enough in making this momentous decision – the head must be involved as well.
Let’s take an in-depth look at what some experts in the field are saying. You might not believe the theories presented, but here goes. For one thing, we’ll look at opposites attracting, keeping in mind the adage that, opposites attract and then kill each other. It’s especially important that when opposites attract there has to be some plan in place for when the novelty of courtship wears off.
Tina B. Tessina, Ph.D, marriage counselor and psychotherapist, says online, “…I often see people drawn to their opposite – because it’s new and exciting. However, what’s exciting in the newness of romance often becomes unbearable in the constant contact of a long time relationship.
“…Although times are changing, most men and women are socialized differently as children, and these differences can trip us up in romantic relationships. Women’s and men’s brains, and therefore language processing and reasoning, are organized differently. Cultural anthropologists theorize that it’s because of the different survival skills they needed to learn. They maintain it takes different perception, ideation, cognition and communication skills to raise a baby versus hunting down a mammoth. Whatever the case, the differences can be bridged…women take a meandering mental route, full of emotional (and distracting for men) side trips, which are rich in meaning for the female. It is why research shows that women are so good at multitasking, cooperation and relationship-building, and less focused on reaching a specific goal.
“Men value competency and problem solving. Women value intimacy and emotional connection. Women you may think he’s focused entirely on time, power, or money, but what he’s really trying to do is create enough security that he can feel safe to let his guard down. Men, you might think she’s illogical or irrational, but she’s responding to emotional cues you haven’t been trained to see.”
It is these very issues that introduce the needed component of rational thinking. As the article suggests, not only is it imperative to delve into what makes each individual tick, but we must be aware of the societal impact on us as well.
I firmly believe that when we have had an unstable or dysfunctional upbringing we are more easily driven to choose the wrong person. You must be aware of the red flags flying in your face that tell you this is not a good match, despite the allure. There are almost always signs, but so many choose to ignore them because the adrenaline rush of new love can be addictive.
Now here is a fascinating theory that I believe is true. The emotional gaps we experienced in childhood come into play when we are aroused by someone who is very bad for us. This personality may stimulate buried problems that are unrecognizable on a conscious level. The object of our obsession might remind you of what was lacking in childhood because they have the same flaws as those people who raised you.
Sparks fly because another opportunity is presented to us to make right what was wrong in earlier years. For instance, if we grew up with an emotionally distant parent/s or guardian, then we are likely to select a similar personality in a mate to replay history and attempt to achieve what we missed. In all probability, the present person will not change into a devoted, giving soul, the very thing we are seeking. What we are actually doing is putting ourselves in the same emotionally deprived situation that eventually causes great distress. We’ve all heard it said that we are often attracted to someone who is like one or both parents.
Harville Hendrix, Ph.D., “is a Clinical Counselor and co-originator of Imago Relationship Therapy with his wife, Helen LaKelly Hunt. Dr. Hendrix frequently appears in the media to discuss his ground-breaking therapeutic work with couples, including the concept of “conscious partnership.” His groundbreaking approach to couples therapy has inspired many psychotherapists and received international recognition.
Dr. Harville Hendrix, Ph.D., is the co-author of several highly influential books on relationships, including the New York Times best-sellers Getting the Love You,Want: A Guide for Couples, which has been translated into more than 50 languages, and Keeping the Love You Find: A Personal Guide.
Dr. Harville Hendrix writes:
“Our unconscious need is to have our feelings of aliveness and wholeness restored by someone who reminds us of our caretakers. In other words, we look for someone with the same deficits of care and attention that hurt us in the first place.
So when we fall in love, when bells ring and the world seems altogether a better place, our old brain is telling us that we’ve found someone with whom we can finally get our needs met. Unfortunately, since we don’t understand what’s going on, we’re shocked when the awful truth of our beloved surfaces, and our first impulse is to run screaming in the opposite direction. (from Imago website).”
If these theories resonate with you, and given that few of us come from a perfectly healthy rearing, we have to be wary of following lethally-tinged, romantic chemistry. How do we do this? Again, I hark back to the need for self-examination. We must explore what it is that attracted us to the wrong person to begin with. Taken one step further, it might help to examine the reasons why we rejected the much nicer person and probably the one who was right.
I believe that by digging deeply into our psyches we can re-route our destructive chemistry into a healthier approach. Once we unearth the issues that have emotionally impoverished us as adults, we can develop the kind of understanding that will improve our mental health. Ask yourself what events helped form your behavior? If we take the answers and apply it to our lives perhaps disastrous relationship failures may be averted.
Blindly following that emotional yank of chemistry might push us off-track into an oncoming train. It is far better to walk away from a potentially bad relationship and avoid the bitterness of dissolution. Insights reaped and reinforced will give you a better chance to a happier ending. No one said the road to love and happiness would be easy! Even the white picket fence can rot through if not cared for.
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.
Sign up with your email address below to join our mailing list and receiveWRR Monthly.
Comments Off
June 29, 2011
Where have all the marriageable people gone? As we know by now, the statistics from the census found that there were more singles than “marrieds” in the USA. The percentage of households in the U.S. with a husband and wife dropped from 55% twenty years ago to 48% in 2010. This compares with the 1950 statistic where 78% of households were dominated by married people. The average age for men marrying is now 27 years-old.
There is another change that complicates the issue. There is a large increase in single parents, couples cohabitating or those living alone. Celebrities seemed to have set the pace in removing the sin factor of living together rather than marrying. Taking it one step further, they have legitimized having children without the state of wedded bliss.
The online article, As Marriage and Parenthood Drift Apart, Public Is Concerned about Social Impact; Generation Gap in Values, Behaviors from the Pew Research Center Publications, July 1, 2007. The findings are from a telephone survey conducted from February 16 through March 14, 2007.
In their executive summary they said: “A Generation Gap in Behaviors and Values. Younger adults attach far less moral stigma than do their elders to out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation without marriage. They engage in these behaviors at rates unprecedented in U.S. history. Nearly four-in-ten (36.8%) births in this country are to an unmarried woman. Nearly half (47%) of adults in their 30s and 40s have spent a portion of their lives in a cohabiting relationship.”
Okay, so people are marrying and having children later in life, if they have kids at all. They are also having more out-of-wedlock babies. Is this new morality good or bad for society? The more conservative element might tell you it is wrong and harmful for children. Some feel strongly that if you haven’t cemented your relationship by promising to love, honor and cherish with legal sanctification it isn’t a real or lasting commitment.
Some more liberal groups may feel that an atmosphere where the parents aren’t trapped by what they consider an outdated institution is much healthier and so children benefit. If things don’t work out the couple can split without huge legal costs – and still not desert the children.
There is also a belief that couples living together might be better behaved as opposed to those using the shield of marriage to be more verbal about frustrations. Knowing that divorce is so hard for people to endure, a spouse might criticize more within a marriage rather than they would in the courtship phase. The dirty laundry on the bedroom floor at one time didn’t incite anger but once married it may become fuel for contention.
Society appears to be polarized in how we feel about marriage. We really need to dig deeper to understand the undercurrents of these dramatic changes to what we thought was an unalterable tradition.
In some camps it’s felt that it’s the women, not the men, seeking marriage. The reasons given are that males can pretty much have sex on demand with little required in give-backs. Economics plays a part – so some men say. They want to be in better financial shape and even maybe own their own house before marriage. I find this reasoning curious. What happened to two can live as cheaply as one? Don’t working couples provide a household with more income?
On the flip side of the coin, some experts believe that women with demanding careers may be more responsible for putting off marriage than men. The average age for women getting married is now 25, and 27 for those college educated. Go one step further and we find that when a female goes to graduate school and/or becomes a professional the age jumps to 30ish.
Maybe women are no longer romanticizing marriages of yesteryear as much as they once did. Back in the day, marriage was vital for women, not always romantically charged. Overall, women in previous generations rarely had careers and marriage was simply a way to survive. They were dependent on husbands for everything – protection, supporting children and a lifestyle. In an unabashed patriarchal society, marriage was a means of survival. These women had little input into decision making. As a result, idealizing marriage has diminished greatly.
But now we have an interesting phenomenon that has made marriage unpalatable to many women. Even today, domestic responsibilities are still pretty much in a woman’s court. Add that to working a full-time job, as most women do, and it is not an appealing picture to many women. Marriage often means that a woman takes on two major careers – in and out of the home. Women may now be postponing marriage because so many more are able to support themselves and can make choices.
For some odd reason (for exploration in another article) marriage often changes the rules in a relationship. 50% plus of all marriages end in divorce, and that doesn’t take into account the large number of those who choose to remain together but are unhappy. Where once two people were carefree and madly in love during courtship, they find that marriage dampens the relationship with its prescribed rules and regulations.
I think that traditional marriages with its one-size fits all theory is outdated. The way the institution of marriage has been rigidly structured puts people in a box. Once that certificate is signed expectations may and often do change. For instance, no matter how modern we are, the old values of assigned male/female roles come into play because that is still how we are, to this very day, socialized. Without insight, we react to relationships in a traditional manner (granted it is more subtle) and wind up painting ourselves into a corner.
We have to look at marriage with a fresh, more realistic slant and get out-of-the-box. Also, it is not a panacea for curing all ills – past and present. Each individual must take on the responsibility of understanding where they are coming from on their own. If one is unwilling to self-examine, which takes lots of work, then watch out.
To have a healthy and successful relationship one must dissect their individual behavior. Each has to share tasks and make compromises. I believe these are key to keeping love and adoration alive. Unconditional love is not a password here. Everything is conditioned on what we bring to a relationship. Carefree doesn’t mean free. It takes lots of communication and work to achieve that state of mind. But the payoff is superb.
The direction I see for the more successful marriages is that couples have to make their own contract. And I am not referring to open marriages! We have to allow for changing boundaries so that couples can grow and deepen their love and commitment.
For example, if two people are offered jobs that they yearn for, but they are in different states, why does one have to sacrifice? True it is hard to make a long distance marriage work, but with frequently planned get-togethers it can be like a honeymoon. Who is to say geographic distance is not good for a relationship?
Communication is of the utmost importance – both before and after walking down the aisle. Know what you are getting into, what you are giving up and what the positive gains might be. This is especially true when it comes to having children. Many men are especially vulnerable to bad reactions when offspring arrive, probably because they are ill-informed about the emotional toll that being fruitful and multiplying takes. It isn’t for everyone and that includes some women.
Harmoniously working toward common goals can be a wonderfully exhilarating experience. A couple must understand their expectations and share them. Maturity is emotionally freeing. What is better than knowing that you and your beloved care and support each other? The impact of this will infuse every area of your lives – including the bedroom.
SexyG
Comments Off
June 7, 2011
 Generally speaking, the present generation of males is supposedly open, generous of spirit, sensitive and gender-blind. Right? Maybe not.
I suspect there is enough awareness to spout the correct verbiage in public that is very PC but there is a definite harboring of old, traditional concepts about women. I would have to say that there are cave men hiding deep inside the sophisticated male brain that frequently sees the world instantaneously through electronics, understands every hi-tech gadget, accepts challenges, and is non-racist. Why are so many men, liberal and conservative so unwilling to look at women as humans with needs as strong as theirs and brains that function on a par with the male population?
Maybe they are reluctant to give up the good, old-fashioned self-serving mores of women doing the dirty work since time began. If one feigns ignorance at where the cereal is kept, someone will jump up and get it – usually a woman. Even a bit of chiding might be welcomed for not remembering where the food pantry is hiding. After all, it’s a female secret.
It’s odd that a bachelor can be very self-sufficient in his own digs until he moves in with a woman and develops partial paralysis. But if he takes the big step of marriage he may very well become a domestic quadriplegic.
In a sea of subtle and not so subtle sexist undercurrents, let me point out just a few:
I was talking to a man who is in his early 40s. He’s single, heterosexual, handsome, intelligent, financially successful and has been around the dating scene a good deal. He is charming and funny. He brought up porno in a casual way because it fit into the conversation. I told him how dreadful I thought it was because it was abusive and brutal to women with undertones rape and sometimes the undertones have clearly moved to be in your face. Porno gives the impression that women loved having violent sex which is not true for most women. He gave me a shocked expression.
“Really?” he asked, mockingly. “What other kind of sex is there?”
A bit tongue in cheek to match his reaction but with sincerity, I proceeded to tell him there is erotica where there is a genuine good feeling between a couple, tenderness, gentle touching, and words of endearment. I said that most sex appeal comes through the mind. That is the most sensual part of the body. When there is open communication, caring, fun-loving teasing and trust – eroticism blossoms naturally.
The man put his chin on his chest and faked snoring. Yes, I know he was kidding, and maybe even defensive, but it says so much. For one thing, there is a great deal of truth in his gesture of humorous, feigned boredom that suggests how he really feels about love and the needs of women. He might very well agree with me, but for the sake of appearing masculine he had to take the macho stance. This is certainly ingrained in our society. If he echoed my words in the locker room the guys would have been all over him about what a sissy he was.
This kind of sexism exists in all generations of men, especially older ones. I see a lot of creative writing and rarely does a man write well about women. They are often either non-existent in a story, one-dimensional, saints or sluts, and when given a significant occupation, those very same female characters are asked to get coffee and donuts.
Recently, I was in a situation where I had a difference of opinion with an older gentleman. His response, rather than challenging me with his slant on the topic, he simply said, “Your opinion is based on being a woman.”
I interpret this as an insult that means a woman’s opinion is more frothy and inconsequential than one coming from a man. Now I know this might sound like an isolated situation where a clueless man didn’t realize how demeaning his statement was, but I have run into this kind of female deprecation often.
For instance, I attended a gathering where we were discussing the danger of the massive deficit. I remarked that before we cut services to medical programs, the poor, and the elderly that perhaps we can reduce the horrific government waste that was estimated at approximately 350 billion dollars some years ago (probably much more now since little has been done to contain that figure nor do we know the full story of the deficit as some parts of the budget are secret). That huge figure takes in money that is misallocated, stolen or falls through the cracks and the cracks can be huge.
A man who is a professional turned to me with a sarcastic smile and said, “Dear, you don’t mean billions. You mean millions.”
No sir, I MEANT BILLIONS. His misguided sexism figured a woman doesn’t know the difference between millions and billions.
Would he have said the same thing in the same way to a man? Hardly. I imagine he would have said… “Hmmm. Interesting.”
In an online video that deals with Disney characters and how they influence children, entitled, Sexism, Strength and Dominance: Masculinity in Disney Films, by sanjaynewton, the Disney male heroes tend to project images of men who are
physically strong with good looks and a willingness to engage in violence. Women appear to be feminine in the traditional sense of conceding to a man’s strength.
Dominance is a theme and violence prevalent in the stories that most of us are familiar with from early childhood. Even when there are female heroes they usually defer to men or wind up as the object of a man. There is little in the way to say a woman who is unattached romantically is worthy. Women, for the most part, appear to be treated as sex objects who are there “… for pleasure or to please men. And heroes are usually handsome, buff males.” – as stated in the same analysis of Disney characters.
There is no question that these images are harmful to girls and difficult for boys who might be made to feel defective because they don’t measure up to how males are depicted. This may cause a large emotional breach from women. From my perspective I see this as a huge division that impacts later in life with adult relationships. What are we doing to the young generation of boys and girls? This perpetuation of artificial and antiquated male/female images has to stop – and soon.
SexyG
Comments Off
May 1, 2011
By SexyG
What has happened to the institution of marriage? How has it changed and why? There seems to be a lot attention swirling around this mysterious bugaboo called marriage. We need to carefully examine what changes are taking place because it speaks to attitudes and philosophies among singles. The importance of knowing these types of trends gives us insight into this generation of single people, and in so doing might be a predictor as to what to expect in the near future. These issues impact economics, social security, birth rates and a multitude of other issues.
There is no question that within and around marriage something is brewing. For the first time in census history we have more singles than married. What does this statistic tell us? Upon further investigation we’ve learned that marriage is being put off and many people are not reacting to it in a traditional manner.
I want to make it clear that I am not demeaning the institution of marriage. It means a great deal to those who respect and revere it, and I offer no judgments. When it comes to having children I believe in marrying to make it socially acceptable. Although in today’s age it doesn’t matter for the most part if a child is born out-of-wedlock or not, but the underlying emphasis is on marriage as the better of the ways to go.
For many, marriage is being put off for various reasons; careers, limited means to meet singles, not feeling one has lived as yet, men who are reluctant to commit and fear of dating strangers. The average age of males marrying has upped to a median age of 27 years old (and older for college graduates), the highest age ever. Even though the overwhelming majority, approximately 93%, want to marry at some point in their lives they are holding off on marriage and simply dating or co-habituating. Of course, women marry older as well – 25 is the median. It was 22 in years past. Add to this phenomenon that the US is the most marrying country in the developed countries.
On the flip side, according to national statistics, marriages are failing at an alarming rate and men particularly, are reluctant to jump into the marital fray. Both sexes generally want to marry for love. Yet, when they do, at least 50% end in divorce. We are baffled even though we understand the many reasons. Why do so many marriages land in divorce court? The result of divorce creates havoc for a long period of time even if that is what was wanted. A bitter divorce can be traumatizing for a lifetime.
I want to address the pressures still existing in society that require people to marry, raise a family and move to a suburban house with a white picket fence. These expectations are much more prevalent with women than with men. Males have become more casual about marriage. Yet, this requirement to marry often comes from a society that has yet to pause and seriously examine why marriages are failing at such a high rate. A lot of marital pressure comes from parent who might not have a good marriage themselves – this ambivalence seems to emanate from demands what society deems is normal. That concept is rapidly being dismissed and changes are occurring at an even more rapid pace.
With more pressure placed on women, what is sometimes most ignored is: Are you suited for holy matrimony? Unfortunately, that is a question not asked often enough. Is it possible that 1 in 5 men are not marriage material as it has been observed? You must ask yourself, are you willing to compromise and bend somewhat or do you have requirements that are hard to live up to? What are your expectations? How do they intertwine with the personality of your intended? Are you on the same track or are you in denial that you have totally different goals and needs? These are questions that must be answered upfront.
When an unmarried, fortyish man is clearly heterosexual, in all probability he will be considered a stud, and for many men it is a preferable status that some want to continue as long as they can. In other words, being single and hitting around middle-age is not stigmatizing for a man as it is for a woman.
As far as the unspoken societal rules go, it’s okay for males to delay that magic moment. But an unmarried female is looked at as though she is a reject. If you take this unspoken (or shouted) perception to heart many women might be pushed to marry for the wrong reasons or feel unwanted. They are made to feel guilty as though they are deficient somehow.
Researchers in a study, the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University gave their results in the annual report, “The State of Our Unions” 2002. The study explored men’s attitudes on sex, dating, meeting women, living together, marrying a soul-mate, the timing of marriage, social pressures to marry, divorce, desire for children and about balancing a job and having a family.
The study was entitled, “Why Men Won’t Commit: Exploring Young Men’s Attitudes About Sex, Dating and Marriage.” The co-author, Barbara Defoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University founded in 1997, was featured on CBS, The Early Show . The study is based on 8 focus groups with 60 single men between the ages of 25 to 33 in four metropolitan areas; Northern New Jersey, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Houston.
It focused on men since it appears that they have often been excluded in this debate. Maybe it’s because they are essentially calling the shots when it comes to marriage and calling them a lot more slowly than ever before.
Here is how men responded: They had few social pressures to marry. “They are more willing to live together than marry. They can get sex more easily without marriage. They want to avoid the financial fallout of divorce. They are waiting for the perfect soul mate. They fear marriage will require too many changes and compromises. They want to delay having children. They are reluctant to marry a woman who already has children. They want to own a house before they get a wife. They want to enjoy single life as long as they can.”
Men, generally, are dragging their feet about walking down the aisle while women are still yielding to pressure. Societal traditions may be far more embedded than we can ever imagine and women might give in or compromise in order to play by the rules. Because of that women may become less cautious about their potential mate.
Women tend to avoid being forthcoming about changes they want a future spouse to make because they might chase him away. This grocery list of demands is presented after marriage. More than likely there will be resistance on the part of the male. Suppressing honesty can create misdirected anger that will ultimately rear its ugly head, probably in inappropriate ways. That is a fast track for divorce. I suspect that men sense this hidden agenda or see other couples who have wound up in explosive situations because of it. Men are therefore encouraged to remain in the single mode. If you fear that straight talking before the big day will make him walk then you might consider taking the risk.
Marrying for the right reasons, of course, makes perfectly good sense. You love each other, aren’t afraid to say what’s on your mind in a kind way, share some interests (not necessarily all) and understand where each of you is coming from.
My advice for women who are eager to marry yet can’t find a mate: You are not half a person because you have no partner. You must be your own best friend, learn to enjoy life and like yourself even if you are alone. Stand strong against the labels society brands you with.
Dig in now and deal with who you are. Hopefully, it will be a great journey for the rest of your life.
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.
Sign up with your email address below to join our mailing list and receiveWRR Monthly.
Comments Off
July 21, 2010
By the Sexy Gma
Recently, the tennis star, Venus Williams, got critically torn up in the press when she walked out on the court for the Australian Open dressed somewhat unconventionally in an unusually skimpy tennis outfit. Whenever she smacked the ball, the audience got a look at her flesh-colored panties. Personally, I thought it was really cute; she designed the outfit herself for her new line of clothing. What seemed to offend people, though, was that, supposedly, it looked like Venus wore nothing underneath her skirt.
Venus answered on Twitter: “I am wearing undershorts the same color as my skin, so it gives the slits in my dress the full effect.” Venus who has a fashion line called Eleven continued: “My dress for the Australian Open has been one of my best designs ever!”
So, if it was meant to look like she wasn’t wearing panties- So what? What’s new about looking at women’s butts during matches? Men have been watching women’s tennis to see cleavage, short skirts, and panty flashes for years. It seems to me, the camera men are waiting for those shots. Many of the photos taken during women’s matches seemed deliberately designed to capture the most anatomical parts.
I don’t hear complaints about men wearing speedos in swimming matches – much less clothing than Venus wore. Oh, right. The men get better speed in the water with those bikini-like swim trunks. Well, maybe skimpy tennis outfits make women more aerodynamic as well. No sleeves or skirts to get caught in the wind like a kite that might slow the star down or be distracting.
Venus was vilified for her immodesty. There were even some catcalls from the audience. This seems a bit hypocritical to me as the streets are full of women wearing postage stamp-sized dresses that are so clingy that I can sometimes see where women have moles that are in more private places. And the v-necks leave little to the imagination.
We’ve all heard the phrase that women who dress like that are looking for “it.” Listen up – these women are trying to attract men, not get raped. Usually, it works. Not long ago, I walked behind a couple – the woman wore a dress that ended and curve into the crease between thigh and buttocks. The man holding her hand was drawling into her cleavage. She certainly got his attention. I honestly thought it was a fine and found it amusing.
We have to ask the question: Are men who show their butt cracks looking to be raped, either by a man or woman? No, they are treated humorously and said to be “in” with the new styles. Who knows, maybe looking like a hard working plumber is all the rage.
Another example of over concentration on what women are wearing was exemplified in an article reported on msnbc.com, June 24, 2010, Woman: Bank fired me for being sexy. “…The single mom used to work for Citibank as a business banker at their branch inside the Chrysler building. She says her outfits for work were deemed “too distracting” by her male managers. They allegedly pointed to her rear and said her pants were too tight.”
It was said that she never showed cleavage, and after reporting the incident to human resources, management retaliated, giving her assignments with little preparation to perform the new tasks. Then she was fired.
Isn’t it incumbent on men to deal with female colleagues on a business level rather than look upon them as a sex symbol? Don’t males need to be in control of their behavior? Why does a woman have to be responsible for keeping the men she works with in line? Do we hear about men who are fired for wearing tight pants and leaving the top buttons undone on their shirts?
I once went to an art auction and the auctioneer wore sheer tight pants, no underwear and one could see, not only the outline of his penis, but the colors as well. His see-through pants didn’t bother me. I was just amazed that he had the guts to wear them, especially with a couple dozen people in the front row who couldn’t help but stare at his pubic area. Amazingly, no one reported him or made a fuss.
It’s a challenge for most women to find clothing today without plunging necklines or isn’t outrageously sexy. Remember, the fashion industry is dominated by men, trying for the combination that makes women’s clothing attractive to men like a bee to a flower.
On the flip side, we have another fashion dilemma. At Citibank the woman was approximately 5’ 6” and weighed 125 lbs. But in this new hullabaloo bigger women are caught in a controversy. In a Philadelphia Inquirer article by Maria Panaritis on June 4, 2010, entitled, Plus-Size Dustup, she said: “…A commercial featuring a plus-size model in slinky lingerie aired during American Idol in late April and May, but only after a full-blown dustup over whether the ad, with skin shots galore, should be edited.” It seems that plus size women have more cleavage, or so it was thought. I have to differ with that as implants have given small women large breasts.
Panaritis continues: “In the 20-second spot, a buxom woman is seen in Cacique brand bra and panties as she gussies for a lunch date with a man.” In my opinion, more skin shows when thinner women wear bikini bathing suits or underwear on TV than was shown by these ads.
It was reported that Fox at first refused to run the ad and then asked that all shots showing the upper torso be edited out. In the same Inquirer article they discussed how Lane Bryant, the store that features plus sizes, fought back. They used the internet for a marketing campaign that started a national debate as to whether “sexy skivvies” on a small-sized women is more acceptable than when put on a “bodaciously curvy Size 14?” This campaign was remarkably successful and drew 2.3 million online views at one point. We do have large numbers of women who qualify for being somewhat larger than what society deems is an appropriate size for women – namely skinny. Fox finally gave in and said they would run the unedited ad in the last 15 minutes of American Idol’s Wednesday night show, starting April 28 until May 19.
We never hear such a fuss being made when a beer ad on TV shows a pot-bellied man, lounging in an armchair in messy briefs. He might even scratch his butt as he calls for his woman to bring him refreshments. It draws laughs when, in fact, such images perpetuates male immaturity and disdain for women. But try to show a plus-sized woman in revealing clothing and editing is demanded and becomes a public issue.
We have so many sexy TV, movies, and ads with butts and breasts showing. There are even a series of ads with seemingly very young girls who pose in very seductive positions. But when a full-sized woman reveals skin there is a panic?
The saga continues. Whenever a woman is in the spotlight, no matter how esteemed her position, the focus is on her looks or size of her thighs or her hair style. And if she’s assertive and dressed conservatively she is often called a lesbian.
Come on people! Let’s not put the entire burden on women for their clothing choices, portraying them as bitches that lure men into dangerous situations by exposing tits and ass and promises of great sex. Concentrate on what’s below the skin line and under the skull. Then, when a good friendship is in place you will probably have a much better time. If done in that order, it might (or not) lead to hotter sex. Your chances are good.
Sexy Gma
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.
Sign up with your email address below to join our mailing list and receiveWRR Monthly.
May 21, 2010
By the Sexy Gma.
I have been further perusing Eric Garland’s article, Reinventing Sex: New Technologies and Changing Attitudes, published in the online publication, Integrative Spirituality, March 24, 2010 with great interest. The title says it all. So, let’s talk about future expectations of sex in our society.
Believing that Garland has reached the apex of predictions, I read on to find it only gets wilder. In the section labeled: “Pornography and Voyeurism,” he mentions, “Specifically, there will be more pornography everywhere. For the first time, everyone will be only a click away from explicit hard-core pornography, potentially from inexpensive handheld devices that most, if not all, consumers can afford.”
Just when you thought the market for porno was saturated and had no other place to go – a new horizon is seen. Before, I likened porno to creative writing in which there are only a certain amount of plots available; (revenge, lust, love, hero saves the earth, etc.). I thought sexual positions, too, had certain creative limitations. There are so many sexual positions, variations on dildos and all those accessories. Hasn’t it all been done and said? It seems not so.
Garland talks of voyeurism and how popular a theme it is in television programing. Look at the popularity of reality shows. Everyone wants to see how other people behave in certain environments and in their own homes. Perhaps people find it exciting to compare their own lives with others. Maybe they get off on watching people in difficult or dysfunctional roles.
This great interest in wanting to know how other people live brings to mind the flip side of the coin of voyeurism. Some people, including some celebrities, enjoy taping their sexual experiences. And somehow the videos hit the internet and the world watches these people in the sack. A world-wide market is created to peek into your boudoir. Why would anyone want such a beautiful, intimate act to be sent across the globe? Is it exhibitionism at its highest (or lowest) point? This tendency of humans to enjoy voyeurism and even exhibitionism will dovetail with the coming trends. In the future it seems that cyberspace will have the capability of duplicating reality, making one feel they are participating in sexual experiences.
For instance: Garland continues: “Physical toys could improve with materials science producing substances that feel more like skin and with greater viscosity. Pornographic movies, the most popular form of sexual entertainment will see technological improvements on two fronts: computer graphic displays and haptics or “telefeel” technology that stimulates the body to create a sensation offered by the software. Both of these approaches intend to create more-realistic simulations.”
I interpret Garland’s description of haptics (and telefeel) to mean that the computer will telegraph and stimulate the senses. Telecommunication in this sense will telegraph “…pressure, vibration, texture, and heat back to a person to simulate the physical sensations of real objects.”
Again Garland says, “Once eye-fooling graphics are combined with haptics that simulate virtual physical worlds, technicians will create software to better simulate people’s sexual fantasies, approaching the limit of fooling us into believing they are really happening.”
So, this will simulate a sexual experience. There is a far-reaching road to hoe (no pun intended) when following the future porno path to ecstasy. What is the downside?
We have to ask ourselves what the effect of this ever-closer link to porno means to adults as well as children. Mature adults know the good and bad associated with pornography and may choose to watch at certain moments, perhaps to sexually stimulate a stable relationship or at intermittent unattached times in their lives. But to use the videos, toys and graphics on a steady basis to avoid a real relationship is questionable at best. Children exposed to this might grow up encouraged to think it is perfectly fine to negate the emotional component and lack of human connection in sex.
There are already large numbers of people addicted to porno and with easier and more elaborate access we may see the numbers multiply greatly. That obsession can only be seen as very questionable for good mental health. Watching porno for hours upon hours can serve to isolate people into their own worlds, disdaining conversation and intimacy. As a matter of fact, any obsession can have a debilitating effect on those who are caught up in it. (But if you are a cleaning addict I might be able to help when you see my apartment J). Just kidding.
What about the life-size dolls that have skin-like feel? Just think- you are having sex with a doll/woman who has a model number, can’t speak or think and might cost $5000 to $8000 and be made in China at a factory. YIKES! Then again, some might really like the – can’t speak or think part.
I can see using these toys for practice, occasional fun, if there is no chance someone will ever have a partner or there is a neurological problem that limits someone’s social interaction abilities. But for those who appear to be engaged socially and/or have a mate, reliance on these stimulators for physical needs on a long-term basis seems to me to be flawed. The most important aspect of sex is the mind and the emotional connection with another human. Yes, I said a good, old-fashioned human.
Well, bring on the future with all the gadgets and we’ll see.
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.
Sign up with your email address below to join our mailing list and receiveWRR Monthly.
Comments Off
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.
Older Posts »
Powered by WordPress
|
Archives
|
