So many malls, so little time
This is so heartbreaking . It’s just so, so sad. I’m bedewing my keyboard with splashy tears. What happened? What’s her story? What went wrong? When did it begin? Why oh why can no one help her? Has she tried homeopathy? Has she tried going back to school to get a BSc in homeopathy and treating others in her tragic plight as well as herself? Has she tried forgetting all about it and doing something else? A hiking trip along the Cornish coast, working for Human Rights Watch, cooking?
I suppose what’s so terribly sad and heart-rending and especially poignant about it is that she looks so sexy in herself, if you know what I mean. She looks like the kind of woman that you look at her and think sex, or something closely related to that. So the fact that she is apparently in deep despair at her lack of sex drive is just – almost undendurably pitiful. That platinum hair, those made-up eyes, those pouty lips, those plucked brows, that pearly skin – all, all wasted because the poor lovely creature just doesn’t want to.
Or maybe that’s not it, maybe it’s that her malfunction is so intractable – that it’s been going on for at least four years. Four years!! Can you imagine? If not more. Four years this delicious pinkish glowing creature has not felt like shtupping. The agony! And all because she’s so busy. (I must say, she doesn’t look very busy, does she. Rather the opposite. She looks rather immobile – I suppose it’s the fact that she hasn’t changed her position or expression in four years that conveys that impression – along with the head leaning on the hand in good Romantic fashion, the downcast eyes, the sad lips. She doesn’t really look like a busy thrusting rushing harried multitasking woman who just doesn’t have time to lie down, does she. In fact she looks as if she’s lying down while sitting up.) The tragedy of modern life, you know? So much to do, so little time – humping just gets shoved to the bottom of the list, and the result is that women fall into despair and have to start popping Enhanced Sex Drive pills. I blame globalization.
Today’s women have less sex than their 1950s counterparts, say researchers. Experts in the United States believe the demands of modern life are to blame – leaving women with little time or energy. Fifty years ago, most women were stay-at-home mums with more free time. Few had jobs and television sets were rare.
Oh I know. I know, I know. Fifty years ago most lucky women stayed at home and had nothing to do, so they had sex all the time out of sheer boredom and lack of occupation. Does that sound great or what! How I wish I could live like that. Nothing to do, so plenty of time to eat, and drink, and sleep, and fuck. Almost as good as being a cow! The demands of modern life are indeed to blame if they’ve deprived us of all that.
Today, many women hold down jobs while also raising children. Any spare time is often spent shopping, working out in the gym or watching their favourite television programmes.
Well – duh. What else is there? Nothing! Obviously. Shopping, the gym, tv; that’s what life is about, isn’t it? You ‘hold down’ jobs and raise children so that they can grow up to ‘hold down’ jobs and in their spare time revel in the joys of shopping, the gym, and tv. So what’s the problem? (It’s that it’s supposed to go shopping, the gym, tv, sex, that’s what. Oh right, I forgot.)
“Couples are often weighted down by double careers and childcare, and by the time people have been to the shopping mall and watched all the television they want, there is not much time for sex. We live in an age where there is little unfilled leisure time. Sex used to fill that gap.”
Well – so what is the problem then? If couples find, after they have watched all the television they want, that it’s four in the morning and they’d rather sleep than hump, why is that something for researchers or the BBC or the hauntingly melancholy woman to fret about? Why isn’t that simply their choice as consumers and enjoyers of the illusion of free will? Why is platinum-hair sulking just because she watched ten hours of ‘Big Brother’ on DVD when she could have been having sex instead? Jeez, hon, just have the sex instead of watching tv next time, that’s all; lighten up! Dang – four years of pouting just because she can’t find the ‘Off’ button? That’s what I call a sulk.
Yeah, I saw that and did marvel at nice middle class aunty BBC fretting about ladies (presumably just the ones in couples) who just don’t feel like getting jiggy with it. The words ‘what’ and ‘so’ came to mind.
(And I thought haunting melancholia over not having sex was reserved for teenage male heavy metal fans anyways. Well, we all had to start somewhere…)
Well, there’s two things going on here, right? One’s the issue of early menopause – and if a little pill helps women to get more enjoyment out of sex in that situation, and that’s what they want, wonderful! Have at it! And then there’s the “modern life” issue. Which I’m not sympathetic towards if it implies and idealization of life in the 1950s but it’s a different thing if it’s taken to imply that many people – both men and women – are too busy either working or entertaining themselves by other things than each other. I note that the Kinsey institute referred towards the latter in what seems to me to be a nuanced reply to an unwarranted medicalization of the issue (“43% of women suffer from sexual dysfunction”).
There’s an issue in that our culture (at least over here) seems to emphasize being some kind of sexual athlete as the normal state of being, and anything less as potentially indicative of a “problem” (or, even, a “health problem”). Which is of course nonsense. I think there’s lots of both women and men who are not just that into it, but they’re hardly encouraged to accept themselves that way, things as they are.
Then again, compared to earlier views in which sex was admissable only for procreation, the thought that women has sexual desires of their own was outlandish, etc. etc. – we’re still better off.
Agreed the picture is silly.
“And I thought haunting melancholia over not having sex was reserved for teenage male heavy metal fans anyways.”
That is so below the belt ;-)
(though I must confess, some of the iconography
current for mentioned youth subculture scarcely admits of another analysis).
OB —
I don’t quite understand the point of all the huffing and puffing about this. I guess it’s sort of sad that most middle class women don’t have many hobbies besides hitting the gym and shopping — but are men faring much better? I have no idea. What’s wrong with wanting to want to have more sex? Sex is healthy — a mood booster, a better work-out than sitting around watching those Big Brother DVDs. Certainly more fun than being stuck in some stuffy gym, running on a treadmill like a hamster on a wheel. Sex can be an intensely rewarding and pleasurable activity — I don’t see why it’s so unnerving to you that it might be on a woman’s list of priorities.
“Well – duh. What else is there? Nothing! Obviously. Shopping, the gym, tv; that’s what life is about, isn’t it”?
Well, not exactly, but then again
How about Internet sex. Cyber shtupping, < [a new word on me] and WWW humping. It seems to be the in thing.
To elaborate.
A few days ago at the Internet cafe on the quays in Dublin, overlooking the Halfpenny Bridge. This young Polish person beside me diverted me as she was making weird and wonderful sounds. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! I inquisitively glanced in her bearing only to stumble on the fact that she had her hands coupled up to the corner of the web cam screen. I deliberated that it was a loving gesture; that she must be yearning for her loved one. That was until she sporadically removed them. Wow, was I not in for a whopping surprise as I could see in full view the lower anatomical testicles et al testimonials in all their powerful glory. She was yearning all right. And so too was the boyfriend on the web cam, and another one who was at the same time frantically beckoning from outside of the window of the premises for her to hurry. A few minutes later she went off over the bridge with a skip and a jump. I thought there is loyalty in all its www glory. The demands of modern life were not going to get in her way.
Merlijn, R.A. – hello? It was a joke? Sheesh.
“What’s wrong with wanting to want to have more sex?”
But the articles aren’t about wanting to have more sex, they’re about women not wanting to have more sex. And I didn’t say there was anything wrong with either one. But of those articles are kind of…how shall I put this…stupid.
“Sex can be an intensely rewarding and pleasurable activity”
Ohhhhhhh – really!?! That would explain a lot that has hitherto puzzled me. Thanks ever so.
“I don’t see why it’s so unnerving to you that it might be on a woman’s list of priorities.”
But both articles are fretting that it’s not on a woman’s list of priorities. And I’m not unnerved by that, I think it’s funny.
Though perhaps not as funny as Marie-Therese’s story…
One assumes the women are the ones complaining about their lack of libido and hence the development of the patch. They desire to feel desire, and that seems perfectly reasonable; that was my point. Anyway, if all the fussing was part of a joke, well, that was a long joke. I guess it’s sort of giggle-worthy if the idea was to write in the voice of a hopelessly neurotic Über-Prude.
“Huffing and puffing” about this?
Shomething worng here shurely?
Don’t you mean moaning and groaning?
YESSS!
Sense of humour failure all round, methinks. A medical story about a medical problem written up by the stupid media in a stupid fashion. If only THAT were news….
The *really* interesting question is how Ophelia managed to come up with an article on the BBC website from 20 January 2003 with exactly the same picture of the forlorn woman as the one on 26 March 2007.
Come clean, Ophelia!
Pretty obvious, Allen. There’s a link on the 26 March 2007 webpage to the article of 20 January 2003.
Dave, tsk, all the ‘responsible’ media’s science and medicine correspondents are thoroughly literate in PR. Er, no, hang on…
“Monday, 20 January, 2003,
‘No sex please, we’re too busy'”?
“Last “patch – botox work” Updated: Monday, 26 March 2007,
Patch ‘to boost female sex drive'”?
Fools glorious fools are we in the media’s minds eye. Why should it care? Is it not more revenue in their patchy trousers?
Maybe, if one looked back even further the snapshots could possibly go back another four years. Or, better still, perhaps in four more years time it will use same again.
The snapshot looks very much like that of Caprice. Incidentally, she has a Restaurant called after her, [it could be hers for that matter] – not too far away from the Halfpenny Bridge? The image she portrayed on B.B. 2005 while, shrewd, from a commercial perspective, was incontestably wretched in that it was apparent to all and sundry that she was specifically on the programme to sell the clothes she wore. The plasticity of it resembles these two articles. Give me Germaine Greer any day, who walked off the set because of her principles. SHE GAINED MY RESPECT. The media obviously think consumers are right eejits and will manipulate them, at all costs to sell their patches and other consumer products. People who have had hysterectomies are a prime target to aim in this respect. HUMAN BEINGS SEX LIVES DO NOT COME INTO THE EQUATION. PROFITEERING TACTICS RULE OK!
“Well, there’s two things going on here, right”
That’s correct.
I)A subliminal “a hard on” line of selling tactics?
2)Abuse of vulnerable Women to gain profits?………….Mental prostitution, in a sense.
“Anyway, if all the fussing was part of a joke, well, that was a long joke.”
True! Very true! Obviously much much too long, thus, R A, I owe you an abject apology for strapping you down and taping your eyes open and forcing you to read it, as well as for the whippings and electric shocks I threw in for good measure.
On a more ploddingly literal note –
“One assumes the women are the ones complaining about their lack of libido and hence the development of the patch.”
No, one doesn’t assume that, and that is exactly why those articles are so stupid. They nowhere say that in fact the women are the ones complaining. It’s a mistake to “assume” fundamental necessary facts and connections in order to do lazy journalism’s work for it. Sloppy journalism based on sloppy unargued unobvious assumptions is just that, and there’s no reason to rescue it by making unargued unobvious assumptions yourself. There’s even less reason to rebuke other people for criticizing or mocking the sloppy journalism. Sloppy lazy journalism is a bad thing and worth criticizing.
Yup, that was it, Allen – which is quite funny itself: the BBC provides the link that shows it uses the same mournful woman to illustrate libido-loss, four years apart. Did they hire her specifically for the purpose, one wonders? Is it in her contract? Did she audition? “You! You’re the one! Darling, you’re perfect for it; you look exactly like ‘woman in despair at absence of sexual appetite’.” Is that her job title at the Beeb? ‘No Libido Woman’?
“whippings and electric shocks….”
OB, *stop it*, you know we like it….
Eat that, uber-prudes!
[I feel so inferior, my browser doesn’t do umlauts…]
Well, I’m a kind and generous hopelessly neurotic Über-Prude, I like to give pleasure where I can.
“Ring central casting, and get me a pretty frump.”
Gah, if you hover the mouse over the picture to get its name, it just says “Woman”. And I was so hoping it would be “Tragically sex-free yet attractive lady no. 3 ARCHIVE REF 23A/62”.
I bet they’ve got a whole database full of useful poses – “Quick, we need someone outraged at the threat posed to their kids by high salt content in school meals to go with this Jamie Oliver story, have a scan through the ‘Think Of The Children!’ folder, see what we’ve got.”
“I bet they’ve got a whole database full of useful poses”
Well that’s just the puzzle, really – one would think they must have, but if they do, what is it about this Woman that shouts “Tragically sex-free yet attractive lady” while all their other useful poses of mournful women don’t? Is it that she is both more sexual-looking and more miserable-looking than any of their other useful poses? They have not one single other photo of a Sexual, Melancholy Woman? Or they have others but in all of them the woman is either only a bit sexual or only a bit melancholy?
The possibilities are endless.
OB –
“I owe you an abject apology for strapping you down and taping your eyes open and forcing you to read it”
I knock your style a little and this is your answer? Pff. Sometimes your bumbling, rambling, repetitive way of writing isn’t funny; it’s annoying. Just my opinion.
Re the article: You’re right, one shouldn’t assume the women are the ones demanding the patch. My bad. You’re right that the article is stupidly presented, but I still think the issue itself — women struggling with libidos lower than they (might) like — is an interesting one.
Anyway, rock on, Mega-Prig. I’ll keep reading even when it’s worse than Chinese water torture.
I imagine if they had more than one picture of a sexual yet melancholy woman, the Daily Mail would have them for wasting tax payers’ money on redundant photography.
Re: BETSY PRIG
“And how are we by this time?’ Mrs Gamp observed. ‘We looks charming.’
‘We looks a deal charminger than we are, then,’ returned Mrs Prig, a little chafed in her temper. ‘We got out of bed back’ards, I think, for we’re as cross as two sticks. I never see sich a man. He wouldn’t have been washed, if he’d had his own way.’
‘She put the soap in my mouth,’ said the unfortunate patient feebly.
‘Couldn’t you keep it shut then?’ retorted Mrs Prig. ‘Who do you think’s to wash one feater, and miss another, and wear one’s eyes out with all manner of fine work of that description, for half-a-crown a day! If you wants to be tittivated, you must pay accordin’.’
Die Schmetterlinge und Räder Uber prüder OB, herrschen OK.
R A –
“I knock your style a little and this is your answer? Pff.”
No, not exactly. You didn’t knock my style, you said ‘that was a long joke’. My reply was directed at your logic rather than at a mere style-knock. That’s because 1) I genuinely don’t get it and 2) I think it’s funny. If it’s too long – don’t read it. It seems so simple. What is the point of complaining about it? I can see the point of arguing with arguments, but I fail to see the point of complaining about length (or style).
I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but if I don’t like the length or style of posts, I just don’t read them, I don’t bother complaining to management. I suppose that’s because I don’t think of it as a consumer situation – I don’t think of myself as having a grievance if a particular site isn’t to my taste.
Why on earth will you ‘keep reading even when it’s worse than Chinese water torture’? Did a judge sentence you to this as an alternative to six months in prison, or what?
[laughing uproariously]
God, that’s apt, Marie-Therese! Makes my point exactly.
There’s a brilliant line somewhere in Martin Chuzz, about Pecksniff warming himself in front of the fire with such an air of benevolence it was as if he were warming someone else. Dickens often went on too long (hem hem) but at his best he was amazing.
“The Falun Gong have accused the Chinese government of using “water dungeons”. Terribly serious. R.A. has accused Betsy Prig of Chinese torture. WHAT A BIG LONG JOKE. Who next eh? I blame Caprice and her PATCHES for all this nonsense.
OB–WOULD THIS BE IT?
‘Who is with him now,’ ruminated Mr Pecksniff, warming his back (as he had warmed his hands) as if it were a widow’s back, or an orphan’s back, or an enemy’s back, or a back that any less excellent man would have suffered to be cold. ‘Oh dear me, dear me!’
‘At the same time I am bound to say, and I do say with all my heart,’ observed the hostess, earnestly, ‘that her looks and manner almost disarm suspicion.’
‘Your suspicion, Mrs Lupin,’ said Mr Pecksniff gravely, ‘is very natural.’
Heh! That’s either it, or a reference to it, Marie-Therese.
I’ll have to see if I can find it, now…
Got it – the hand-warming bit that the parenthesis refers to –
“‘And how,’ asked Mr Pecksniff, drawing off his gloves and warming his hands before the fire, as benevolently as if they were somebody else’s, not his; ‘and how is he now?'”
Chapter 3.
Brilliant line.
This is brilliant stuff, I like it, I do, what the Dickens indeed!
‘What are we?’ said Mr Pecksniff, ‘but coaches? Some of us are slow coaches’–
‘Goodness, Pa!’ cried Charity.
‘Some of us, I say,’ resumed her parent with increased emphasis, ‘are slow coaches; some of us are fast coaches. Our passions are the horses; and rampant animals too–!’
‘Really, Pa,’ cried both the daughters at once. ‘How very unpleasant.’
‘And rampant animals too’ repeated Mr Pecksniff with so much determination, that he may be said to have exhibited, at the moment a sort of moral rampancy himself;’–and Virtue is the drag. We start from The Mother’s Arms, and we run to The Dust Shovel.’
When he had said this, Mr Pecksniff, being exhausted, took some further refreshment. When he had done that, he corked the bottle tight, with the air of a man who had effectually corked the subject also; and went to sleep for three stages.
The tendency of mankind when it falls asleep in coaches, is to wake up cross; to find its legs in its way; and its corns an aggravation. Mr Pecksniff not being exempt from the common lot of humanity found himself, at the end of his nap, so decidedly the victim of these infirmities, that he had an irresistible inclination to visit them upon his daughters; which he had already begun to do in the shape of divers random kicks, and other unexpected motions of his shoes, when the coach stopped, and after a short delay the door was opened.
‘Now mind,’ said a thin sharp voice in the dark. ‘I and my son go inside, because the roof is full, but you agree only to charge us outside prices. It’s quite understood that we won’t pay more. Is it?’
Right, I know what I’ll be re-reading for awhile.
Little Dorritt is quite remarkable too.
Oh wow – you got to 32 comments on this, before I get to join in?
“Sense of humour failure all round, methinks. A medical story about a medical problem written up by the stupid media in a stupid fashion. If only THAT were news….” Dave, spot on!
Here it is – what the lifestyloe columns are all about. A pathetic editor grabbed a sex article off the science spike and made a ‘lifestyle copywriter’ fill some column inches and sell some advertising space next to them.
OB, your despair is SO justified. Maybe we could have a ‘sad blonde article’ writing contest, where everyone has to write a hundred powerful, haunting words to be illustrated by the same photo? Bad Hemingway, Sad Blonde? “It was a stark and dormy night…”
The “Betsy Prig Award” ChrisPer ?
Contest, good idea. Lotta possibilities. Sad blonde is sad because
She doesn’t spend enough quality time with her children.
She is not buffed enough.
She doesn’t watch enough tv.
Her carbon footprint is too big.
She doesn’t eat enough fruits and vegetables.
She doesn’t buy her fruits and vegetables locally enough.
She is afraid of the creation of a chimera.
She is not sex-positive enough.
She is too sex-positive.
Her silicion breast implants were not locally manufactured.
It will be available only on prescription? It will be available on prescription only for women who have had an early menopause? It will be available on prescription for only those women whose early menopause is due to surgery? It’s amazing what the positioning of only can do. But, then, the story was written by a journo. What do you expect?
It’s remarkable how much of my time as an editor is spent re-positioning the word ‘only’. Hardly anyone bothers to use it carefully – not even philosophers, which is surprising.
No, it’s only disappointing.
Disappointed but not surprised, the habitual attitude of the marker… and the copy-editor…
Especially the pensive-looking blonde ones…
“Today’s women have less sex than their 1950s counterparts”
That is true, judging by the amount of children families and others have these days. During the late fifties I went out on visits (from Goldenbridge) to a family. There were 15 members of it altogether. We had to sleep, four or five to one D.D.T bed. Women had no say whatsoever in sexual matters. The men, and yes, the priests were the bosses in that sphere.
If for example, a young married woman -afer one year, showed no “big belly” sign, the priest would arrive at her house and fully investigate the matter. It was not good for Catholic business that there was no wee bairn in sight. Some families had as many as 25 members.