I've been thinking a lot recently about the joys of taking things slow. I watched a movie the other night about a western man falling in love with a Japanese Geisha. The most sensuous scene was when the Geisha very slowly lifted her hands to her mouth and sipped from a china cup, she closed her eyes and you saw her lips become wet with the tea. Another beautiful scene was set in a bath. The man had his eyes covered by a cloth and the Geisha came up behind him and slowly dipped her hands into the water, and then dripped water over his face and arms, one droplet at a time...In some ways I think we've lost the appreciation for slow touch, slow love, slow tenderness.
My buddhist father has taught me that making time for contemplation is as crucial for your health as exercise. Taking time out to sit and think, to listen to your surroundings, to allow your thoughts to slow, can all be incredibly beneficial and rewarding.
The ability to walk was taken away from my mother seven years ago, and there's now a stillness about her, within herself, that I love, that was never there before. She whizzes around on her wheelchair, sure, but within herself there's a gentle stillness and acceptance that wasn't there before. She has had to learn to slow down, and whilst that is a tragedy there's also joy to be found in that, and a lesson about the human search for peace. Perhaps a peace that can only be grasped once we accept our lack of control.
So if you can, make time to be slow. Allow yourself that luxury and joy.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
When the rich are hurting, the poor suffers their losses too
When Aitken stated in 'From Heroes to zeros' (The Goodweekend magazine, November 29, 2008) that 'the last thing we want now is for entrepreneurial Australian's to lose their mojo' I nodded in agreeance. Whilst the broader public certainly won't cry for the down and out investment banker, we must remember that when the rich are hurting, the displaced minorities within our community will suffer their losses too. Entrepreneur's quite often become philanthropists, which fuels not for profit organisations that act as a crux of support for many. Whilst I agree with Rudd that risk takers have been rewarded illproportionately, we must not forget the important positive role that entrepreneur's play in our society. Whilst our economy flounders, we must ensure our support for ingenuity does not, especially at a time when 'out of the box' problem solving skills are needed the most.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Rudd's reforming government
My recent blog “‘Soft on terror? More like soft on democracy…” raised some interesting questions for me to consider in answer to Justin’s critical questions about the capacity of international law courts to monitor the world’s international concerns.
Justin was right in pointing out that there is currently a lack of an appropriate mechanism to facilitate such international discussions and he asked me to further explain my optimistic view in relation to the capacity of nations to engage in international dialogue to tackle international issues.
I’ve just finished reading Robert Manne’s essay in the Monthly title ‘What is Rudd’s Agenda?’. Manne states “since Gough Whitlam, no prime minister has arrived in office with a greater interest in foreign affairs than Kevin Rudd.” This has excited many a Y-Gen, a generation longing for change and upheaval. A generation of well-travelled tweens and adults, that have seen (from their very own privileged eyes) worlds different from their own, linguistically and culturally, and I feel that with the election of Obama, and Rudd’s commitment for Australia to become a key player in the international arena, we may just have a world leadership that could change the direction of international law as we know it.
Manne states that the Rudd government’s policy is three-fold; close relations with the United States, strong support for the United Nations and active engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. Under the Bush administration Howard was pushed into choosing between the US and the UN. With Obama’s commitment to end America’s involvement in the ‘war on terror’ the Rudd government won’t have to choose between the US and the UN, but will in fact be better placed to work alongside both towards common international goals.
Rudd’s commitment to increasing Australia’s involvement in the Asia-Pacific region will also go towards enhancing communication lines with some of the world’s biggest international players, such as China and Korea, two countries instrumental in bringing about change in the areas of disarmament and climate change. Manne writes that relations in the region are of particular importance because of the growing instability due to an accelerating arms race and because of new disputes over resources in a region of ‘steeply rising population and accelerating climate change’. It seems more critical than ever that our government is well placed to deal with these potential threats and tensions. I feel that Rudd’s ability to play the role of negotiator and mediator in the international arena will ensure stability for the Asia-Pacific region and will advantageously assist Australia’s strategic political position internationally.
When Rudd addressed the UN General Assembly he reiterated his commitment to his belief in the international arena. Rudd has put Australia right in the middle of the current international negotiations over the financial markets’ meltdown. He has specified that, for the first time, Australia will be a part of combating extreme international poverty, and he has consistently said that the biggest challenge for the next generation will be battling climate change (of which Obama this week supported).
Justin also asked me: Do you believe that domestic Courts should be given the power to determine whether an issue is connected to a matter of 'International Concern'? Or, do you believe that nations should act multilaterally to address these issues? To me, deciphering between domestic and international issues is becoming increasingly hard in the global community. It seems that all our issues are, or should be, of global concern. Terrorism transcends physical, political and moral boundaries. Climate change has shown the world how trouble in one region can be caused by the actions of a community on the other side of the world. And the ramifications of the failure of a country’s economic policies have proven to be globally devastating.
Perhaps education can be seen to be a domestic issue, but if Australia’s education system fails to meet international standards our children’s prospects and ability to move within the international job sector will suffer. Rudd appears to understand this. He has openly rejected the view that ‘society has no obligation to others unknown to us’ but instead stands by his traditional Christian values ‘that in giving you receive’.
So I have hope that Rudd’s values, and his commitment to further Australia’s international influence, will lead to great political change. To me, change is on its way. For instance, the US and Australia have the worst standards of maternity leave than any other country in the OECD. The Rudd government is changing this and policy reform will be seen within months.
Australia also has a horrible history of racial discrimination and an inability to go beyond ‘tolerance’ in the face of multiculturalism. The Rudd government is changing this. The Rudd government has said ‘sorry’ to the Indigenous people of our land, and has quietly dismantled Howard’s asylum-seeker policy. No more will people be detained inhumanely, an independent authority will monitor the short detainment of adults, and temporary-protection visas will no longer be issued.
As Manne states, the Rudd government is a ‘reforming government’. The major challenge for the Rudd government though is going to be the ability to bring about change in this economic climate, quickly enough to dim out the naysayers. Many have criticised Rudd of all speak and no action, and of using symbolism to hide a lack of reform, but I think this is unfair and I remain committed to the idea that knowledge is power. The utilisation of think tanks and inquiries makes perfect sense to me and I believe that the strength of symbolism and political rhetoric is not to be undermined. Whilst actions certainly speak louder than words, words fuel the battle and incite hope. This is why I’m optimistic. We’re heading into exciting times.
Justin was right in pointing out that there is currently a lack of an appropriate mechanism to facilitate such international discussions and he asked me to further explain my optimistic view in relation to the capacity of nations to engage in international dialogue to tackle international issues.
I’ve just finished reading Robert Manne’s essay in the Monthly title ‘What is Rudd’s Agenda?’. Manne states “since Gough Whitlam, no prime minister has arrived in office with a greater interest in foreign affairs than Kevin Rudd.” This has excited many a Y-Gen, a generation longing for change and upheaval. A generation of well-travelled tweens and adults, that have seen (from their very own privileged eyes) worlds different from their own, linguistically and culturally, and I feel that with the election of Obama, and Rudd’s commitment for Australia to become a key player in the international arena, we may just have a world leadership that could change the direction of international law as we know it.
Manne states that the Rudd government’s policy is three-fold; close relations with the United States, strong support for the United Nations and active engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. Under the Bush administration Howard was pushed into choosing between the US and the UN. With Obama’s commitment to end America’s involvement in the ‘war on terror’ the Rudd government won’t have to choose between the US and the UN, but will in fact be better placed to work alongside both towards common international goals.
Rudd’s commitment to increasing Australia’s involvement in the Asia-Pacific region will also go towards enhancing communication lines with some of the world’s biggest international players, such as China and Korea, two countries instrumental in bringing about change in the areas of disarmament and climate change. Manne writes that relations in the region are of particular importance because of the growing instability due to an accelerating arms race and because of new disputes over resources in a region of ‘steeply rising population and accelerating climate change’. It seems more critical than ever that our government is well placed to deal with these potential threats and tensions. I feel that Rudd’s ability to play the role of negotiator and mediator in the international arena will ensure stability for the Asia-Pacific region and will advantageously assist Australia’s strategic political position internationally.
When Rudd addressed the UN General Assembly he reiterated his commitment to his belief in the international arena. Rudd has put Australia right in the middle of the current international negotiations over the financial markets’ meltdown. He has specified that, for the first time, Australia will be a part of combating extreme international poverty, and he has consistently said that the biggest challenge for the next generation will be battling climate change (of which Obama this week supported).
Justin also asked me: Do you believe that domestic Courts should be given the power to determine whether an issue is connected to a matter of 'International Concern'? Or, do you believe that nations should act multilaterally to address these issues? To me, deciphering between domestic and international issues is becoming increasingly hard in the global community. It seems that all our issues are, or should be, of global concern. Terrorism transcends physical, political and moral boundaries. Climate change has shown the world how trouble in one region can be caused by the actions of a community on the other side of the world. And the ramifications of the failure of a country’s economic policies have proven to be globally devastating.
Perhaps education can be seen to be a domestic issue, but if Australia’s education system fails to meet international standards our children’s prospects and ability to move within the international job sector will suffer. Rudd appears to understand this. He has openly rejected the view that ‘society has no obligation to others unknown to us’ but instead stands by his traditional Christian values ‘that in giving you receive’.
So I have hope that Rudd’s values, and his commitment to further Australia’s international influence, will lead to great political change. To me, change is on its way. For instance, the US and Australia have the worst standards of maternity leave than any other country in the OECD. The Rudd government is changing this and policy reform will be seen within months.
Australia also has a horrible history of racial discrimination and an inability to go beyond ‘tolerance’ in the face of multiculturalism. The Rudd government is changing this. The Rudd government has said ‘sorry’ to the Indigenous people of our land, and has quietly dismantled Howard’s asylum-seeker policy. No more will people be detained inhumanely, an independent authority will monitor the short detainment of adults, and temporary-protection visas will no longer be issued.
As Manne states, the Rudd government is a ‘reforming government’. The major challenge for the Rudd government though is going to be the ability to bring about change in this economic climate, quickly enough to dim out the naysayers. Many have criticised Rudd of all speak and no action, and of using symbolism to hide a lack of reform, but I think this is unfair and I remain committed to the idea that knowledge is power. The utilisation of think tanks and inquiries makes perfect sense to me and I believe that the strength of symbolism and political rhetoric is not to be undermined. Whilst actions certainly speak louder than words, words fuel the battle and incite hope. This is why I’m optimistic. We’re heading into exciting times.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Soft on terror? More like soft on democracy...
Howard and the Liberals once claimed that Obama was 'soft on terror'. Now the Liberals have done a back flip. Shadow Attorney-General Senator the Hon George Brandis has stated that Australia "cannot allow extraordinary measures to become ordinary". Perhaps the minority party are making a bid for votes? Regardless, it seems times are a-changing. Obama is planning on closing Guantanamo Bay, our Government will this week receive a report into the shameful handling of Dr Haneef, David Hicks has served his time and has pleaded for a stop to his control order so he can move on with his life, and as Getup reported the Opposition has joined with the Greens in a call for an independent watchdog (something they didn't do when they were in power).
This week Getup pleaded with Australians to sign its petition against our 'Anti-terrible laws': "Sedition, preventative detention, control orders, evidence obtained by torture, extraordinary rendition - as the world moves on from the Bush-Howard era of draconian anti-terror laws, Australia can't be left behind."
The Howard Government created 44 new laws that directly dealt with counter-terrorism post September 11. Our existing criminal law, which covers criminal activity such as murder, violence and the destrictuion of property, was deemed insufficient by the Howard Government in dealing with terrorism. This led me to consider the use of domestic law for an international issue. If our domestic criminal law wasn't/isn't apt in dealing with the supposed 'global enemy insurgency' then why would we create new domestic laws? How would they be effective in dealing with this international problem? Well the answer is that they haven't been effective and won't be. International law was disregarded by Bush and Howard as an effective tool, but I don't think it should be ignored as a valid option in dealing with global issues in general. Why shouldn't the world leaders get together and create international laws, breaches of which are dealt with by the already existing international courts? Excuse me for being optimistic, but Obama's 'yes we can' speech has given me hope.
The most alarming aspect of the current counter-terrorism laws has been the expansion of the powers of ASIO. These new powers allow for the abandonment of three fundamental principles of the rule of law: they remove the right to silence, habeas corpus (the right to a fair trial) and they reverse the onus of proof (you are presumed guilty rather than innocent). They allow for forced confessions, undue police pressure and unfair convictions. Privacy rights have been impinged and the freedom of expression has also been hampered - by the way the laws proscribe the definitions of "seditious" and "radical" speech. The relatively low threat of a terrorist attack in Australia makes these laws all the more illogical and ill-proportionate.
To be safe, we have become willing to be less free, and this does nothing for the advancement of democracy and the way of life in Australia. Let's ensure we get our laws back in line with our democratic society and get on with life.
This week Getup pleaded with Australians to sign its petition against our 'Anti-terrible laws': "Sedition, preventative detention, control orders, evidence obtained by torture, extraordinary rendition - as the world moves on from the Bush-Howard era of draconian anti-terror laws, Australia can't be left behind."
The Howard Government created 44 new laws that directly dealt with counter-terrorism post September 11. Our existing criminal law, which covers criminal activity such as murder, violence and the destrictuion of property, was deemed insufficient by the Howard Government in dealing with terrorism. This led me to consider the use of domestic law for an international issue. If our domestic criminal law wasn't/isn't apt in dealing with the supposed 'global enemy insurgency' then why would we create new domestic laws? How would they be effective in dealing with this international problem? Well the answer is that they haven't been effective and won't be. International law was disregarded by Bush and Howard as an effective tool, but I don't think it should be ignored as a valid option in dealing with global issues in general. Why shouldn't the world leaders get together and create international laws, breaches of which are dealt with by the already existing international courts? Excuse me for being optimistic, but Obama's 'yes we can' speech has given me hope.
The most alarming aspect of the current counter-terrorism laws has been the expansion of the powers of ASIO. These new powers allow for the abandonment of three fundamental principles of the rule of law: they remove the right to silence, habeas corpus (the right to a fair trial) and they reverse the onus of proof (you are presumed guilty rather than innocent). They allow for forced confessions, undue police pressure and unfair convictions. Privacy rights have been impinged and the freedom of expression has also been hampered - by the way the laws proscribe the definitions of "seditious" and "radical" speech. The relatively low threat of a terrorist attack in Australia makes these laws all the more illogical and ill-proportionate.
To be safe, we have become willing to be less free, and this does nothing for the advancement of democracy and the way of life in Australia. Let's ensure we get our laws back in line with our democratic society and get on with life.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Y-Gen dealing with the economic crisis
You know you're a Y-Gen living in the current economic climate if:
1. You are devastated about your parents and or grandparents recent financial losses because
a) you were planning on asking them for another loan;
b) you were looking forward to your inheritance;
c) they've lost their super and may rely on you more;
d) all of the above.
2. You think twice before buying that second, third, fourth coffee/beer/wine - but you buy it anyway;
3. You learn a new concept called 'disposable income' and realise that you're not supposed to spend your entire weekly income;
4. You are mystified about the sudden concern of job losses (but start thinking about using the skills you were taught at uni just in case);
5. You are so glad that you got your parents to clear your credit card debt before the bubble burst;
6. You bless your cotton socks that you're single, child-less and that if you actually own any property your parents can or do cover the monthly payments.
1. You are devastated about your parents and or grandparents recent financial losses because
a) you were planning on asking them for another loan;
b) you were looking forward to your inheritance;
c) they've lost their super and may rely on you more;
d) all of the above.
2. You think twice before buying that second, third, fourth coffee/beer/wine - but you buy it anyway;
3. You learn a new concept called 'disposable income' and realise that you're not supposed to spend your entire weekly income;
4. You are mystified about the sudden concern of job losses (but start thinking about using the skills you were taught at uni just in case);
5. You are so glad that you got your parents to clear your credit card debt before the bubble burst;
6. You bless your cotton socks that you're single, child-less and that if you actually own any property your parents can or do cover the monthly payments.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Economics 101
Confused about the current crisis? Me too, but this link really helped me understand a little more. Check it out: http://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2008/world/economics101/index.html
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Paid Maternity Leave
EMILY’s List welcomes the Productivity Commissions recommendation of 18 weeks of leave for new mothers and calls on the Rudd Labor Government to introduce paid maternity leave in the next Federal Budget. “The provision of paid maternity leave is integral to fair and equitable workplaces and we believe that the model put forward in the draft report is a positive one. We were particularly pleased to see that the recommendations are well above the minimum standards suggested by the ILO” said EMILY’s List Victorian Convenor Moira Rayner.
“EMILY’s List was pleased with the Commission’s attention to the realities of working women’s lives, through the inclusion of part time, casual, contract and self-employed workers in the paid maternity leave proposal. We commend the Commission for acknowledging the diversity of contemporary Australian families by proposing leave entitlements for both heterosexual and same-sex partners” said Ms Rayner.
The model suggested by the Commission would help workers balance the competing demands of work and family life; promote lifelong workforce attachment for women and redress, to some extent, the barriers they face at work. Normalising employees caring responsibilities, has been, and will continue to be an important process in changing the culture of work to better respond to the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce. “The proposed model is not a perfect system. In particular, EMILY’s List would like to see employer top-ups over the tax-payer funded minimum wage rate incorporated into the paid parental leave scheme” said Ms Rayner.
”We hope to see the Rudd Government implement a publicly funded system which facilitates, supports and values women's contributions in the workplace and to the workforce. We encourage the Government to implement the scheme at the next Budget.” said Ms. Rayner
For more about Emily's List see www.emilyslist.org.au
“EMILY’s List was pleased with the Commission’s attention to the realities of working women’s lives, through the inclusion of part time, casual, contract and self-employed workers in the paid maternity leave proposal. We commend the Commission for acknowledging the diversity of contemporary Australian families by proposing leave entitlements for both heterosexual and same-sex partners” said Ms Rayner.
The model suggested by the Commission would help workers balance the competing demands of work and family life; promote lifelong workforce attachment for women and redress, to some extent, the barriers they face at work. Normalising employees caring responsibilities, has been, and will continue to be an important process in changing the culture of work to better respond to the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce. “The proposed model is not a perfect system. In particular, EMILY’s List would like to see employer top-ups over the tax-payer funded minimum wage rate incorporated into the paid parental leave scheme” said Ms Rayner.
”We hope to see the Rudd Government implement a publicly funded system which facilitates, supports and values women's contributions in the workplace and to the workforce. We encourage the Government to implement the scheme at the next Budget.” said Ms. Rayner
For more about Emily's List see www.emilyslist.org.au
Monday, September 29, 2008
'Sex may sell, but it doesn't pay'
The September 18-24 issue of the BRW reported that 'sex may sell, but it doesn't pay' with the average wage of the 21,060 workers in the sexual services sector being $33,610 per annum. I think many of us would be surprised by this low figure as the sex industry has been largely glamourised in the media, in film and television, and by those seeking to exploit women. We hear a lot about the high hourly rates earnt by high class prostitutes and strippers, and I think people, particularly men, try and use this high figure as a justification for the subjectification of women.
But I think this supply and demand economical argument fails when you try and put a price on someone's body. Who has the right to put a price on someone else's body? What price would you put on your body? What price would you put on your childs' body? And just because someone is willing to pay x amount and another is willing to provide a service for x amount does this make it ok? Certainly I accept the right of a sex worker to follow that profession, but we need to ensure that it is an informed choice, and like all workers, we need to protect those peoples safety at work. The problem with the sex industry is that participation in the legitimate side of the industry (of both workers and those paying for such services) will ultimately fuel a black-market for said services - of which obviously offers no protection to its workers and leads to the exploitation of someone's body.
But I think this supply and demand economical argument fails when you try and put a price on someone's body. Who has the right to put a price on someone else's body? What price would you put on your body? What price would you put on your childs' body? And just because someone is willing to pay x amount and another is willing to provide a service for x amount does this make it ok? Certainly I accept the right of a sex worker to follow that profession, but we need to ensure that it is an informed choice, and like all workers, we need to protect those peoples safety at work. The problem with the sex industry is that participation in the legitimate side of the industry (of both workers and those paying for such services) will ultimately fuel a black-market for said services - of which obviously offers no protection to its workers and leads to the exploitation of someone's body.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
This letter was written by my dear friend Celeste Harrison, and I know would be endorsed by our hero Catherine Deveny who has also made similar comments about the 'blokiness' of the footy show. You go Celeste!
The Executive Producer
The Footy Show – Melbourne
PO Box 27
Willoughby, NSW, 2068
26 September 2008
To the Executive Producer,
My mum and I have watched the Grand Final episode of the Footy Show every year without fail, and I usually find it very funny and entertaining. Last night however, I wasn’t entertained, I was appalled.
In years past the quality of the player review has really started to slide, but last nights review really takes the cake. After watching the half naked women parade around stage, I felt nothing short of dirty.
Why is it that producers of this show feel it necessary to denigrate women in the name of entertainment?
What sort of message is this sending to girls who love the game of football?
In my eyes what you’re saying to us is that our only role in football is as sexual objects.
That we are only as good as we look lying on the floor trusting our pelvis towards a footballer with his shirt off.
Is that how women in football should be portrayed? As slaves hero-worshipping men?
You have to start taking responsibility for how these things make women feel and the social culture it creates. The token efforts of celebrating women in football are not enough if this sort of thing continues.
Constantly the AFL is defending actions of players involved in lewd and sexual acts that are considered distasteful by society, and yet here, sprawled across our screen, is exactly that. It’s unnecessarily sexualising something that our country loves. You should be ashamed.
I’m 23, and hardly a prude or a radical feminist (which is what I now your boys would love to say in order to discredit my opinion), but after watching a girl straddle Brodie Holland’s face and a line of girls spreading their legs in front on the camera last night I was disgusted.
I hope you seriously consider these sentiments before producing a show so disgraceful in the future.
Regards,
Celeste Harrison
The Executive Producer
The Footy Show – Melbourne
PO Box 27
Willoughby, NSW, 2068
26 September 2008
To the Executive Producer,
My mum and I have watched the Grand Final episode of the Footy Show every year without fail, and I usually find it very funny and entertaining. Last night however, I wasn’t entertained, I was appalled.
In years past the quality of the player review has really started to slide, but last nights review really takes the cake. After watching the half naked women parade around stage, I felt nothing short of dirty.
Why is it that producers of this show feel it necessary to denigrate women in the name of entertainment?
What sort of message is this sending to girls who love the game of football?
In my eyes what you’re saying to us is that our only role in football is as sexual objects.
That we are only as good as we look lying on the floor trusting our pelvis towards a footballer with his shirt off.
Is that how women in football should be portrayed? As slaves hero-worshipping men?
You have to start taking responsibility for how these things make women feel and the social culture it creates. The token efforts of celebrating women in football are not enough if this sort of thing continues.
Constantly the AFL is defending actions of players involved in lewd and sexual acts that are considered distasteful by society, and yet here, sprawled across our screen, is exactly that. It’s unnecessarily sexualising something that our country loves. You should be ashamed.
I’m 23, and hardly a prude or a radical feminist (which is what I now your boys would love to say in order to discredit my opinion), but after watching a girl straddle Brodie Holland’s face and a line of girls spreading their legs in front on the camera last night I was disgusted.
I hope you seriously consider these sentiments before producing a show so disgraceful in the future.
Regards,
Celeste Harrison
Sex in mainstream culture
This blog was inspired by the following article:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/life--style-home/relationships/risque-business-sex-toy-parties-take-off/2008/09/24/1222217301423.html
Sex in the suburbs, sex in the city, sex in the bush, sex in popular culture, sex in mainstream culture...yes we use the word a lot, in advertising, marketing, reporting, television, radio and on and on. But how far have we really come in talking about sex, and accepting sex as a normal and healthy part of human behaviour?
When I think about sex in mainstream culture, the first two things that pop into my mind are, firstly Christina Aguilera's music clip where she wears crotchless pants, and secondly, porn. Now I've seen very little porn, and from what I've seen I'm not interested in seeing much more. It just seems so fake! I mean can you really believe that a woman is finding pleasure in being put upside down and poked and prodded aggressively? No...to me, those two things don't represent the healthy sex life that everyone deserves to have.
I've been raised in one of those hippy households were nudity is natural and sex is healthy. I'm the oldest of four children, and my parents were high-school sweethearts and are still very happily married. We were taught that sex shouldn't be a tabou topic, and shouldn't be a dirty secret. As teenagers we were encouraged to feel comfortable in bringing our boyfriends/girlfriends home with us (based on the argument that our parents would rather know we were safe when we were doing it!) and I was always encouranged to talk to doctors about my sex life to ensure optimum sexual health. To me, it makes sense that we should be able to talk about sex. We're all doing it, and if we're not getting any we want it, and if we are getting it we are experimenting with it, and you should feel comfortable talking about what you're doing, as this will ensure a safer equitable situation with your sexual partner.
Doctor Kinsey (if you haven't seen the movie 'The Kinsey Report' go out and get it to watch this weekend) was hugely instrumental in the 60s in bringing the topic of sex, and making people feel comfortable to talk about sex, into mainstream culture. His research helped many people understand their anatomy, their desires, and come to terms with their sexuality. Kinsey made such a difference, and bought about such great change, but I don't think we've really come as far as Kinsey would have hoped.
The recent sensationalist report that Lindsay Lohan is gay speaks for itself - why should we care? Why should it be a big deal? And look at our current legislation. The discrimination against unmarried homosexual partners is outrageous. We will now hopefully see these discrimanatory laws changed, thanks to the Labor government and the Law Reform Commission's thorough review (and hopefully Turnbull will show some guts in standing up against the draconian Liberal members still prevalent in that party).
But back to sex...
The article, 'risque business: sex toys parties take off' by Karen Pakula in The Age this week, discusses the current trend and use of sex toys in Australia. Apparently women do not want to utter the words 'masturbation', 'sex' or 'vibrator', but instead use the words 'love toy' and 'sensuality'! Whilst I'm all for encouraging whatever helps people learn more about their bodies, why are we still all so prudish when it comes to a sexual vocabulary? Sarah O'Hare recently stated that when she first started supporting the Breast Cancer Foundation the word 'breast' was tabou, so when it comes to medical terminology we seem to be making some headway, but why shouldn't we also be able to talk about sex and our sex lives?
Masturbation, for instance, is still a tabou topic within many a social circle. When canvassing my girlfriends (males are generally honest and open about masturbation, so why isn't it just as socially acceptable for women?) very few of them are willing to talk to me about masturbation, and a lot of them have blatantly stated that they just don't do it, and would be terrified or disgusted to try it. Perhaps if we were more willing to talk about it, more women would consider what turns them on? As Joan Suers argues (author of 'The Sex Lives of Australian Women') "if women can learn how to get themselves off, they can talk to their partners about what they like, which is what sex toys help them understand." Once I was told by a bit of a 'cad about town' that his best lovers were those women that masturbated, and he could tell straight away if a woman did masturbate, because she would always be able to guide him to help her orgasm. The upsides to talking about sex seem to me to be endless: better sex, better orgasms, healthier sex lives, and equity in the bedroom! And apart from anything else it can certainly help get you in the mood!
So now on to the interesting findings in this article on sex toys: apparently, the penis is deflating! Whilst women are increasingly making use of sex toys, the size of a penis shaped object is getting smaller. I think this might have something to do with scientists out there understanding how the female body works, how female's get turned on, and designing the technology based on that. Although having said that this article also states that '70 per cent of women can't climax with vaginal stimulation alone' - just another piece of evidence that women need to truly start getting 'in touch with themselves'!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/life--style-home/relationships/risque-business-sex-toy-parties-take-off/2008/09/24/1222217301423.html
Sex in the suburbs, sex in the city, sex in the bush, sex in popular culture, sex in mainstream culture...yes we use the word a lot, in advertising, marketing, reporting, television, radio and on and on. But how far have we really come in talking about sex, and accepting sex as a normal and healthy part of human behaviour?
When I think about sex in mainstream culture, the first two things that pop into my mind are, firstly Christina Aguilera's music clip where she wears crotchless pants, and secondly, porn. Now I've seen very little porn, and from what I've seen I'm not interested in seeing much more. It just seems so fake! I mean can you really believe that a woman is finding pleasure in being put upside down and poked and prodded aggressively? No...to me, those two things don't represent the healthy sex life that everyone deserves to have.
I've been raised in one of those hippy households were nudity is natural and sex is healthy. I'm the oldest of four children, and my parents were high-school sweethearts and are still very happily married. We were taught that sex shouldn't be a tabou topic, and shouldn't be a dirty secret. As teenagers we were encouraged to feel comfortable in bringing our boyfriends/girlfriends home with us (based on the argument that our parents would rather know we were safe when we were doing it!) and I was always encouranged to talk to doctors about my sex life to ensure optimum sexual health. To me, it makes sense that we should be able to talk about sex. We're all doing it, and if we're not getting any we want it, and if we are getting it we are experimenting with it, and you should feel comfortable talking about what you're doing, as this will ensure a safer equitable situation with your sexual partner.
Doctor Kinsey (if you haven't seen the movie 'The Kinsey Report' go out and get it to watch this weekend) was hugely instrumental in the 60s in bringing the topic of sex, and making people feel comfortable to talk about sex, into mainstream culture. His research helped many people understand their anatomy, their desires, and come to terms with their sexuality. Kinsey made such a difference, and bought about such great change, but I don't think we've really come as far as Kinsey would have hoped.
The recent sensationalist report that Lindsay Lohan is gay speaks for itself - why should we care? Why should it be a big deal? And look at our current legislation. The discrimination against unmarried homosexual partners is outrageous. We will now hopefully see these discrimanatory laws changed, thanks to the Labor government and the Law Reform Commission's thorough review (and hopefully Turnbull will show some guts in standing up against the draconian Liberal members still prevalent in that party).
But back to sex...
The article, 'risque business: sex toys parties take off' by Karen Pakula in The Age this week, discusses the current trend and use of sex toys in Australia. Apparently women do not want to utter the words 'masturbation', 'sex' or 'vibrator', but instead use the words 'love toy' and 'sensuality'! Whilst I'm all for encouraging whatever helps people learn more about their bodies, why are we still all so prudish when it comes to a sexual vocabulary? Sarah O'Hare recently stated that when she first started supporting the Breast Cancer Foundation the word 'breast' was tabou, so when it comes to medical terminology we seem to be making some headway, but why shouldn't we also be able to talk about sex and our sex lives?
Masturbation, for instance, is still a tabou topic within many a social circle. When canvassing my girlfriends (males are generally honest and open about masturbation, so why isn't it just as socially acceptable for women?) very few of them are willing to talk to me about masturbation, and a lot of them have blatantly stated that they just don't do it, and would be terrified or disgusted to try it. Perhaps if we were more willing to talk about it, more women would consider what turns them on? As Joan Suers argues (author of 'The Sex Lives of Australian Women') "if women can learn how to get themselves off, they can talk to their partners about what they like, which is what sex toys help them understand." Once I was told by a bit of a 'cad about town' that his best lovers were those women that masturbated, and he could tell straight away if a woman did masturbate, because she would always be able to guide him to help her orgasm. The upsides to talking about sex seem to me to be endless: better sex, better orgasms, healthier sex lives, and equity in the bedroom! And apart from anything else it can certainly help get you in the mood!
So now on to the interesting findings in this article on sex toys: apparently, the penis is deflating! Whilst women are increasingly making use of sex toys, the size of a penis shaped object is getting smaller. I think this might have something to do with scientists out there understanding how the female body works, how female's get turned on, and designing the technology based on that. Although having said that this article also states that '70 per cent of women can't climax with vaginal stimulation alone' - just another piece of evidence that women need to truly start getting 'in touch with themselves'!
Letter to the editor of BRW 25 September 2008
Business take note and Rudd take note, "we need to start thinking seriously about investing in human capital, that is, the people we have, and their productivity, education, health and age" ('It Doesn't Add Up' by Jeanne-Vida Douglas, BRW Sep 18-24 edition). Whilst this is of particular importance in a culture which has bred an obesity epidemic, we also need to think about the root causes as to why women are choosing not to have children in the first place. As a young female lawyer of the Y-Gen I certainly don't have, much to my mother's dismay, aspirations to juggle my career with children (are you kidding me, it's hard enough being a businesswoman as it is!) so I'm not going to go on about how business, and the government, should be making it easier for families (both partners) to look after their kids.
However, despite all that, I am concerned (yes, us Y-Gen's do have the capacity for compassion!) about ensuring that the young people that are and will be joining the workforce are doing so with adequate levels of literary, numeracy and problem solving. The last thing I want is to give up having children for a career and end up in a senior management role, stuck with the 8 per cent of the population over 65 still in the workforce (as they can't quit because there's not enough young people to support the services they need) and under-achieving youths! Let's support Labor's plan to boost the public education system, which will in turn lead to good employees for Australian businesses, provide the youths with an education and job prospects, and give the old codgers a break!
However, despite all that, I am concerned (yes, us Y-Gen's do have the capacity for compassion!) about ensuring that the young people that are and will be joining the workforce are doing so with adequate levels of literary, numeracy and problem solving. The last thing I want is to give up having children for a career and end up in a senior management role, stuck with the 8 per cent of the population over 65 still in the workforce (as they can't quit because there's not enough young people to support the services they need) and under-achieving youths! Let's support Labor's plan to boost the public education system, which will in turn lead to good employees for Australian businesses, provide the youths with an education and job prospects, and give the old codgers a break!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
