Restrained by culture

An article in the Sun-Herald earlier this month said that women desire sexual intercourse more than how they let on.

The article featured Daniel Bergner, who wrote about experiments done by Meredith Chivers on human arousal.  Subjects watched different kinds of pornography as their genitals were measured to see how aroused they were.  Subjects noted how aroused they felt as these measurements were taken.

Bergner and Chivers concluded that men and women were similarly aroused sexually, but women are less likely to admit it.  It is as though it is culturally taboo for women to feel aroused in some situations, so they feel the need to hide their shame.  Culture allows men to be less restrained in this aspect.  They promote the idea that when the society's expectations allow it more, then women express their sexual desires more openly.

Do you believe them?  Is this really true?  Are we sexually inhibited by cultural expectations?  Is this a "good" thing or a "bad" thing?  What do you think?

Is the intensity of women's sexual arousal related to their ovulation cycles/

Should we be more honest about our sexuality, or should we be less open about it?  Why?

Would more openness lead to a higher rate of rape, unwanted pregnancies and other undesirable sex-related crimes?  Really?

What is appropriate expectation and behaviour with regards to the sexual aspect of our lives?  What should the expectation of society and culture be?

What does God say about this?  Does it matter what God says?

Is it fair or sexist or neither?

Tony Abbott, the new Prime Minister of Australia, has chosen who he wants to be on his front-bench team in Parliament.  Many have noticed that he only has one woman on that team, and commented on it.

Some seem to think of him as sexist and old-school, to have so few women on the team.

I see the opposite, though.  Isn't it that those who think so the sexist ones?

I mean, Mr Abbott may have chosen his team based on the merit or reputation or credibility of those people.  As the Prime Minister, he would want people that he trusts in those positions.  He shouldn't be forced to think about the gender of his team-mates in the course of choosing his team, should he?  That the team-member is a man or a woman should be a minor detail - rather who they are and what they can do are the important aspects.

Maybe it is those who think in terms of the gender who are the sexist ones.

Maybe, if Tony were less sexist, more women would end up on his team since he regards these people as the ones with the merit, reputation and credibility.  Maybe not.  I am not saying that women are not trustworthy for these roles.  Just understanding that only one woman was chosen this time.  And that Tony should be allowed to make this choice without having it based on gender.

What do you think?  Is it sexual discrimination, or lack of sexual discrimination, that the ratio of men:women on the front bench ended up being what it is?  Does it matter?  Why or why not?