Don Ardell's Wellness Perspectives on Sex, Religion & Politics

Why America Should Support A Gay Agenda To Help China Resolve An Unprecedented Demographic Crisis

If we read in the annals of China that several thousand years ago, five thousand people were fed on one sandwich, and that several sandwiches were left over after the feast, there are few intelligent men who would credit the statement. But many intelligent people, reading a like story in Hebrew, or in Greek, or in a mistranslation from either of those languages, accept the story without a doubt.

Robert G. Ingersoll, Myth and Miracle, 1885

If we today exhibit the same skepticism toward news out of China as Ingersoll credited to the men and women of his time regarding a certain miracle account, we will readily dismiss a news item about China concerning gender imbalance. However, unlike the mind-boggling claims for multiplying  fish sandwiches from Hebrew and Greek sources, the tale I’m about to reveal is quite demonstrably true. After all, it appeared not as an urban legend e-mail, but as a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal!  (See Mei Fong, "It's Cold Cash, Not Cold Feet, Motivating Runaway Brides in China," Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2009, A1.)

Here is the basic story. According to Mr. Fong, an Asian sector reporter for the WSJ, there are 32 million more males under the age of 20 in China than females. A large number are in or near marrying age. The guys are looking around and finding slim pickings. The figures reported are based upon the 2005 China census, and were published in the May edition of the British Journal of Medicine. What this means is that a horny young male surplus approximately the size of Canada's entire population is getting mighty restless, and cold showers can only go so far in relieving tensions, if you get my drift. These people are thinking about their future and their families are adding to the pressure by asking questions, such as “Why don’t you find yourself a mate? Are you planning on living at home forever?”

In short, a gender crisis due to the country’s Draconian 30-year one-child policy has created a serious problem, one that adds to the nation’s many other problems. (These include but are not limited to an impending nationwide water shortage, high unemployment due to mass migrations from rural to urban centers, poor grain production, wide income gaps, excessive energy consumption, wasting of natural resources and environmental pollution—plus the fact that the government remains a totalitarian dictatorship blocking personal freedoms and abusing human rights.) The population control policy, combined with the fact that cultural norms in China highly valued male babies, created the disastrous social perturbation now tormenting young Chinese males.

So, what is China to do?

Before offering my gay agenda solution, I should mention that a new profession has opened up for ethically-challenged young women—that of bride for a week or so. It seems that the traditional dowry paid by the groom’s family has skyrocketed in value. The going rate for a bride is now about $5,500—that’s 38,000 yuan, enough to lure cartels of bride traders into existence to prey on the smitten husband marks.

The solution is to go around the predatory females. This is simple enough if the Chinese are willing to overcome their prejudice against homosexuality. All they have to do is embrace what the Family Research Council in this country has called “the hidden gay agenda” since 1992. Others, such as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (in a dissent in “Lawrence v. Texas”), call this nefarious conspiracy simply as “the homosexual agenda.” Either way or some other way (term), this entails (among other things) “eliminating the moral opprobrium traditionally associated with homosexual conduct.” Well, I’m all in favor of that—who needs opprobrium associated with anything involving people engaging in whatever it is they want to engage in that is no business of others, and that affects none other? That seems like a good thing to me. If the Chinese males can find happiness among themselves without any of that opprobrium nastiness following them around, well, who could object? Does China have a population of Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson/James Dobson/Rick Warren troglodyte types?

Other goals that our own Christian Right attribute to this nefarious agenda are universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies. I think all of these agenda items are highly desirable. Don’t Christian and other sectarian schools indoctrinate children? If the gays want to have a go at trying to do what religions have always and continue to do, well, that seems fair enough. I certainly favor an agenda, gay or otherwise, in this country, China and elsewhere, that seeks to
promote acceptance of any lifestyle one chooses—that’s the kind of thing you expect in a free society. I definitely favor discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality and I would love to muzzle violations of church/state separation by the clergy and Christian media. Finally, I want everyone to have the kind of equal rights that are enshrined in our own Constitution, including the young males (and those two-timing, absconding young females) in China. 

These supposed scary aspects of the boogeyman “gay agenda” sound pretty good to me, and I’m not even gay, not that there’s anything wrong with that, as we learned watching Seinfeld a few years ago.

So, my Well Infidel recommendation to Chinese youth: Consider switching teams. After a while, those inflated dowries will come down in cost and the brides may decide to stick around, if there are any young Chinese males still interested in them.

Be well.

Sex And Vegetarianism: Is PETA Pulling Our Chain Or What?

Do you think vegetarians have better sex than carnivores?  What if they did?  Would that be sufficient reason to give up steak, hamburger and pork, not to mention shrimp, scallop, lobster and every manner of creature that slithers, grazes, bounds or swims.

The assumption that many would switch teams seems to have motivated the good folks at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)  to craft a commercial for airing during the Super Bowl - at a cost of three million dollars a minute.  Unfortunately, CBS network executives previewed the ad, a dazzling piece of work that proclaimed "Studies show vegetarians have better sex," and told the PETA folks to forget about it. 

I've seen the ad (you can look, too - click on http://www.slate.com/id/2210092/) and I can't see what the NBC censors got so uptight about. But, I am a little less squeamish about explicit sexual imagery than most people, so I might have missed something offensive. I learned about the controversy at the Slate website in an article by Nina Shen Rastogi entitled, "Debbie Does Salad," dated January 29, 2009.  I suppose NBC might have viewed this title alone a bit much for prime time viewers. 

All this aside, let's get back to the basic question raised by the ad that never aired.  Do vegetarians have better sex than carnivores?  Even if they do, in what way is veggie sex better?  Most important, would the most amazing level of difference be sufficient to turn Super Bowl fans into carrot heads or broccoli munchers and the like?

I can tell you it would not do the trick for me.  If being a vegetarian absolutely guaranteed that I would live 100 years without a day of illness while enjoying daily multiple orgasms that made me and anyone in my vicinity happy as a loon (or whatever creature is the happiest of all living things), this fact would not motivate me to surrender my great pleasure in devouring all manner of sea inhabitants.  (Steak, hamburger and other forms of land beasts I could easily do without, but never seafood.) 

However, that's just me.  Maybe you are not so devoted to eating fish and their watery companions.  Would you have made the switch if "Debbie Does Salad" convinced you that vegetarians have better sex?

Before deciding, let me summarize the pros and cons, or at least a few of the claims made for the health benefits of being a vegetarian, versus not being so restrictive in your dietary choices. 

On the plus side, PETA and other advocates of a non-meat diet make the following claims:

*   Eating meat makes people "fat, sick, and boring in bed."

*   Vegetarians are, on average, fitter and slimmer than meat eaters."

*  Meat and dairy consumption is associated with, if indeed does not cause, impotence, heart disease and obesity.

*  Vegetarians and vegans tend to weigh less and have lower body-mass indexes and lower cholesterol levels than omnivores. (All of these assertions are found in the Slate story quoted above.) 

Wow.  If all that's true, then you have to really love meat and seafood (and maybe hate plants as well) to NOT become a vegetarian. 

But, on the negative side, opponents of this vegetarian perspective argue that the main reason vegetarians have better health status than meat eaters is likely due to the fact that they are more health-conscious.  They have higher quality lifestyles and statistically are composed of people with better educations, more money and circumstances more advantageous than the meat-eater crowd.

To complicate matters for those who want to believe the promise in the "Debbie Does Salad" ad, critics note that many vegetarians have zinc deficiencies, which is not something you want to have if your goal in life is to be a high performer in the boudoir, or wherever else you choose to perform, if you get my drift.  If you are a zinc-impaired male, you have low testosterone levels, which means a depressed sex drive.  Like Debbie, such veggie-disposed guys might have to favor salads for sexual partners, which does not have a lot of appeal for most.  Debbie herself is at risk of amenorrhea.

It's odd that PETA would suggest (or would have, save for the prudish execs at NBC) that sex is better for vegetarians, since a meat-foregoing diet is historically linked with chastity, not prolific indulgence and even licentiousness.  Remember Dr. Kellog and Sylvester Graham and the other anti-masturbation purity promoters who viewed meat eating as a sure path to the "degenerating habits of luxury, indolence, voluptuousness and sensuality?" (Source: Nina Shen Rastogi, "Debbie Does Salad," Slate as above.) 

Well, as I mentioned, even the ad is accurate and vegetarianism makes a fellow, even at age 70, a total stud-muffin, I'm going to enjoy my "Frutti de Mare" and other such delights. 

I asked my scientific advisor, Dr. David Randle, about sex and vegetarians.  He replied: I am willing to test sex with a vegetarian and a carnivore - and I'll tell you which is better."  A short while later, my editor (who also doubles as my wife) came into my office after reading the first draft and asked, "Is that really true? You'd stay with your silly seafood even if you could perform daily like some kind of stud muffin?"  She did not appear amused. 

I started to say something about literary license and was tempted to bring up the notion of metaphors, but decided against it and assured her that if the ad "Debbie Does Salad" proves accurate, I'll never eat seafood again.

A Good Man Is Hard To Find, As Is A Good Woman (For Marriage, That Is)

In the Sunday New York Times, Maureen Dowd reverently cites the wisdom of an 80 year-old priest, presumably a celibate guy and maybe even a virgin, concerning what women ought to look for in a mate. How does this guy get to be an expert of what women should look for or, more accurately, watch out for, in selecting a husband? (See "An Ideal Husband", NY Times, 7/6/08.) What does he know about women, and how did he gain such rare wisdom?

His expertise, at least expertise sufficient to impress Maureen Dowd, comes from decades of counseling couples who had miserable marriages. Therefore, he is actually an expert in how NOT to have a happy marriage. And, amazingly enough, he is parlaying these insights into a lecture series for young women on how NOT to pick a husband. He identifies traits to look for that signal big trouble. Avoid someone with these negative qualities and, hopefully those still standing will turn out. Sort of like believing that health is the absence of disease.

Why not offer advice about positive traits to look for? This might more directly lead to good husband prospects. How much fun can it be to search about for someone''s bad qualities that could lead to ruin? Maybe it''s all the same thing, I dunno. Seems an emphasis on the positive would be the better approach.

In any event, here are some things to avoid if you are a woman looking for a husband, according to the priest. All seem rather obvious - if you need a celibate priest who has never lived with a woman, let alone married one, to tell you this, you might be better off staying single. At least for a few more years as you gather up a requisite about of worldly wisdom.

* A guy who has no friends. Duh. Yes, and how about: "Be cautious about young men raised by wolves." (The howling at night can be very annoying to neighbors.)

* Avoid guys who squander money. Yep, that''s a good one. Who would have guessed?

* No cheapskates.

* Watch out for spineless pushovers. Doormats are soon boring company.

* No Mama''s boys. (They might take Mom along on the honeymoon.)

* If humorless, take a pass. This is toxic.

* Avoid guys who can''t or won''t communicate. (Who knew feelings were important and worthy of addressing?)

* Guys who have to be "changed" in some major way (e.g., alcoholics needing reform).

* Guys from dysfunctional or other problem families, like being part of the Mafia.

Dowd suggests this list tends to eliminate everyone, proving that life is unfair. While life is really neither fair nor unfair (that''s a human construct we use to express the obvious - that there are no guarantees in nature that humans and other life forms will invariably experience justice and fairness), mate selection is an immense challenge. The odds of successful marriages are, however, somewhat better than your chances to win big in the average state-sponsored lottery, but not by a lot. You can improve your odds by looking for certain positive traits rather than negative ones. Also, use common sense if seeking advice on marriage - don''t look to someone who has never experienced anything like it.

(Naturally, there is a possibility that the priest has had all kinds of experiences with woman (and/or men, boys and who-knows-what) but if that is the case it was done against social norms and the rules of the cult/order/organization to which he pledged not to do these things, so that would disqualify him to give advice in itself. It''s not as if such things have never happened.)

You want to find a mate? Whether you or the other person you''re looking for is male or female, here are the basics:

* Find someone you like a lot, who is fun and practices a healthy lifestyle, has good values (the common decencies are embraced because they enrich life, not because he/she was told that these rules were divinely ordained) and has promise of being able to carry his/her share of responsibilities.

* Make sure there are common interests and a few shared passions.

* Go for an extended test ride before buying. That is, try living together for a while before making things legal and thereby difficult and expensive to end. How long? That's kind of an individual thing but I suggest no less than five years.

* Don't look for someone to marry at all. A good match, when/if it happens, is a bit like happiness: It ensues from being out there being yourself, it does not often result from the pursuit of such.

Of course, it's good to get lots of advice from friends and others, even someone who has no experience at marriage, but you would not want to rely too much on the latter source. Especially if all the resulting advice is about the kind of person NOT to marry. After all, you're not looking for someone NOT to marry - they're everywhere. You want to identify candidates TO marry. For that, always look on the bright side.

Good luck.

The Thrill Of Sex In Public

I don't know what the norms and mores are where you live. Chances are, the prospects of your reading an article in YOUR major daily newspaper about "the thrill of sex in public are greater than in my town, St. Petersburg-by-the Bay in the Deep South of the US of A where the Christian Taliban have a lot of influence. In my town, a majority of school board members want creationism taught in the public schools so they would not take kindly to reading about some pervert's idea of such a public thrill.

In any event, I'm going to guess that even in YOUR community, you would not find a column given over to such a brazen blogger as the beautiful Katherine Feeney of Brisbane, Australia, known as CityKat. Ms. Feeney is a columnist/blogger for The Brisbane Times, a distinguished daily close to the Australian East Coast. Ms. Feeney is a part-time fashion model and a weekend hostess and promotions assistant for one of Brisbane's swanky riverside bars. Her blog is designed to tell you everything you need to know about Brisbane's dating scene.

In this context, the fetching Ms. Feeney recently wrote about a fantasy held dear by many a sexually active hero/heroine - the good ol' public shag. I have read nothing about this in St. Petersburg. Have you heard of such activities in YOUR community? If it were to occur, would it be widely covered by the local media? If the celebrants were discovered by authorities, would they be tried for a capital offense, as in the American South?

Just in case you're interested, the Aussie blogger on blue-ribbon public bonking suggests participants devote primary attention to location, location and location. She also favors secluded beaches swathed in sunshine and, I'm pleased to note, is contemptuous of such endeavors in dank nightclub toilet cubicles at the end of a messy evening with two equally messy hornbags. Such a mating smacks of low self-esteem, weak wills and minimal self control -and is further viewed as cheap, nasty and terribly cliched." According to CityKat, such an act "pretty much puts the shame in shameful.

CityKat writes that there is no reason to lose your dignity in such matters, a consideration that is very much at stake when such a thing is attempted. She concludes, But now hold up, before you sexually-loose readers get your knickers all knotted, hear me out: I'm not saying all public sex is nasty in a bad way. Bring on the fun-loving in the sun, but leave the immature, skanky-panky at the door.  The closed door.  Of your sex therapist.

You may wonder: What's this got to do with wellness? Well, the most interesting issues fall into politics, religion and sex, and just as our muscles require daily exercise, we should practice our freedom to discuss sex (and the other two topics) at every opportunity.

I wonder how many folks out there have had a life experience or two that might come under the heading of the thrill of sex in public? I had such a thrill at one time in my life, and it was a DBRU equivalent (dead bloated rhino underfoot) experience of an epic and triumphant degree.  It was the kind of life-enhancing golden moment that CityKat would surely endorse. My only regret, trying to look back on it approximately half a century later, is that I did not commit the details to paper. Today, I can't recall with whom I had public sex, or where we did it or when it happened. It might have been a dream. I can't be sure. Whatever, I'm glad I did it if I did and sorry I didn't if I didn't. At least I did not get caught.

A Wellness Perspective On Sex

This blog celebrates and promotes the idea that a wellness mindset (and lifestyle) is more interesting and appealing when connected with or related to things that really matter, such as politics, sex and religion. Thus, the issues of the day that fall in one or more of these dimensions are favorite topics for my essays and speeches on living well. There are plenty of commentaries at this blog on religion and politics; I just realized that I have been neglecting sex. This is an impertinence up with which you must not put, if I might take liberties with a famous phrase of Winston Churchill.

Just as the presidential candidates are taking positions on the topics that focus group studies show voters care about (e.g., Iraq, the economy, taxes, immigration and health care reform), so I will now state my position on sex (which the candidates have not so far, I might add). I think it's great and, though fraught with dangers and volatile as nitroglycerine, is a many-splendored thing. Sex, therefore, should be enjoyed as often as can be managed, if done artfully and without causing too many complications and vexations personally and with others.

Unfortunately, sex is astoundingly complex and attitudes about it are amazingly varied, in good part because of centuries of dysfunctional, mind-numbing toxic religious proscriptions about it and because of widespread ignorance associated with human sexuality. Other than that, sex is great and should be celebrated throughout the day, or as often as time and opportunities permit.

As with politics and religion, nobody can begin to address so much as a fraction of the important issues that deserve attention in a single book, a movie, a college course or even entire encyclopedias - and so it is with sex. Thus, for this blog, I will offer only a very short overview of a few notions of what I believe are elements of a wellness perspective on sex.

I defend the statement as wellness in nature because my opinions seem consistent with scientific insights into positive sexuality, as well as being tolerant of diverse perspectives and preferences, and also respect everyone's rights, choices and freedoms. My view is also wellness-friendly because it allows for a good time as often as possible. So, bottom line: Sex should be promoted and celebrated. This is best done with attitudes that are:

*  Inclusive/nonjugmental/respectful/confidential.

*  Tolerant -- pro-choice. Gay and lesbian, bisexual, trans-gendered and so on are as healthy and good as the more popular heterosexual forms of sexuality (e.g., church-directed male on top of female to whom married but not enjoying it TOO much and only if not using birth control devices while attempting to procreate), unless it is during a time of procreation while married - and monogamous, of course - and no witnesses.

*  Knowledge-based and committed to safe sex practices.

I probably overlooked something. Please send a comment. I'd love to hear from you.

Why Can't They Be Like We Were, Perfect In Every Way, What's The Matter With Men, Today?

Researchers at the Indiana University-based Kinsey Institute report that contemporary women have less sex than their 1950s counterparts.  This is said to be due to the demands of modern life.  Don't believe it - the Kinsey folks either are not coming clean with the REAL reason, or they simply can't explain the drop off in sexual activity.  I think it's the latter, so I'll give you the REAL reason:  Guys today are just not as good looking, suave, hip and fast-talking as we were in the fifties.

The Kinsey folks noted that, "fifty years ago, most women were stay-at-home moms with more free time. Few had jobs and television sets were rare. 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 favorite television programs." 

The Kinsey data were gathered in a random telephone survey of women who had been in a heterosexual relationship for at least six months. 

In my view, shopping, working out and watching TV are all more interesting for young women today than going out with yuppie guys who are not, like as we were half a century ago and remain today, fascinating, urbane, amazingly sensual and unfailingly witty.  (Proof: A few of my favorite lines called upon for first encounters with attractive female strangers were:

* Can I have your picture so I can show Santa what I want for Christmas?

* If I had a nickel for every time I saw a woman as beautiful as you, I'd have five cents.

* Damn! And I thought I was good looking! 

You get the idea.  Like me, most Fifty-era guys were clever.  They just knew, intuitively, that somehow we were destined for, well, some kind of destiny that would be really something and so treated women in special ways. 

The Kinsey researchers surveyed 853 women between the ages of 20 and 65.  They concluded that almost half of all women suffered from a lack of interest in sex.  Yes, that's what the scientists said - "suffered from" this sad and terrible sexual malaise.

The Kinsley Institute team, in a report published in the June issue of the "Archives of Sexual Behavior," noted that women's "sexual satisfaction, general emotional well-being and emotional relationship with partners" are important factors.  The lead investigator went so far as to say, "This study emphasizes the importance of non-physiological components of sexuality."  Well, we Fifty-era guys held these truths to be self-evident, and acted accordingly, and not only in terms of our great opening lines.  We needed no fancy Kinsey study to know that women were from Venus or some place other than Mars.  We knew they liked candy, flowers, flattery (sincere, of course), and doors opened and written notes of affection. 

I'll bet you never read of studies in the old days about women suffering from a lack of interest in sex.  We kept our women happy and they, in turn, kept us happy, if you get my drift. 

I can't speak for all the Fifties-era men, but I stand ready even today to help my fellow humans get their needs met, in any way I can, be it promoting wellness lifestyles or whatever.

Be well.

Why Is Sex Such A Hangup For Almost Everybody?

A good sex life is, in my opinion, an important part of wellness. Certain things about sexuality seem rather obvious to me and emminently sensible, yet I've no doubt that there are legions of folks who would (and will) take exception to one or more of the assertions I'm about to put forth as principles of healthy sexuality. However, since nobody wants to read a dull blog, I'm going to delve right on into the pit of perdition by stating a few of my ideas about sex, wellness style.

OK, there is no such thing as sex, wellness style. By sex wellness style, I mean attitudes, beliefs or principles that a sensible person pursuing a wellness lifestyle might embrace that are consistent with REAL wellness, as I have described it, which includes a strong sense of personal responsibility and adherance to all of the common decencies.

Actually, describing in a public way what one believes about sex is in itself highly controversial, for many, as sex is usually seen as extremely personal, private and off limits. But, should it be? I think not.

So, here are a few off-the-top perspectives about sex, wellness style:

• If you don't want to be private about your sexuality, don't be secretive about it. At least not when you are around people whom you know can deal with frank talk about the subject, such as who you are having sex with, what kind of sex you enjoy, how many others you like to include in different kinds of sexual activity and what kinds of equipment you find helpful in embellishing and otherwise keeping things interesting.
• If you are deeply religious, a devout believer in a major faith tradition, it's almost certain that you have strong opinions about what other people should or should not believe regarding sexual matters. Try to focus your energies on doing or not doing what your religion approves or condemns, but refrain from any attempts to restrict the freedom of others to do as they like. Resist the temptation to make judgments about the sexual ideas and practices of others. This posture will avoid lots of stress.
• Evaluate your sexual desires on conscious criteria, such as whether said desires can be satisfied in legal ways that do not risk ruin of your career and/or reputation or otherwise cause harm to persons likely to be embarassed by your behaviors (e.g., your spouse and other family members--or the Republicans who elected you to the Senate back in Idaho).

Wellness sexuality should be guilt-free and responsible, consistent or at least not so flagrantly in contempt of community norms (if you live in Iran and want to be sexually liberated, move!), considerate of others, honest and based on kindness and affection. It should also be a lot of fun.

What do YOU think are some guides for wellness sexuality?