Kumble slays Prince; India to taste South African blood

By John Cheeran
The agonising wait of a billion people is about to end with Indian cricketers almost completing their hunt, led by a unflappable Rahul Dravid.
Anil Kumble has sent back a defiant Prince for 97 and captain Dravid is nearing a historic moment in Indian cricket history. India's first Test triumph on South African soil.
It is no surprise that the same man - who else but Rahul Dravid -- who master minded India's first Test win in Pakistan has also crossed the Rubicon in South Africa.
After the brickbats of the last three months and relentless sniping from a desperate Bengali Broherhood, this must be the sweetest moment in Dravid's cricketing life.
Dravid has achieved what the media darling Sourav Ganguly failed to achieve in his five-year reign.
Finally, Indian cricketers have proved that they are not Wanderers but fighters on the cricket field. And most importantly, and you don't have to be snooty and ugly and strip your shirt to defeat rivals.
Credit goes to the entire team and coach Greg Chappell and captain Dravid.
And who can forget Shantakumaran Sreesanth's heroics with bat and ball. You must remember not just Sreesanth's eight wickets but the mighty sixer he blasted off Andre Nel.

My dream team: Bob Willis

Bob Willis picks his XI from those he has played with and against
Opening batsman:
Barry Richards (South Africa)
Played only fourTests, because of apartheid in South Africa, and it was such a loss to the gameof cricket. I would rate him among the top 10 players of all time. Anoutstanding talent, he was one of the best I bowled against. I will not forgetthe 240 he scored for Hampshire against Warwickshire in 1973. Richards had aunique ability to hit every bad ball for four. Second only to his namesake fromthe West Indies in the way he took apart a bowling attack.
Opening batsman:Sunil Gavaskar (India)
Gavaskar stands out more than other celebrated batsmen ofmy era because he scored runs against all Test nations, both at home and abroad,especially in the Caribbean when West Indies were the greatest force in worldcricket. In his obdurate mood, it was like bowling at a brick wall. Gavaskartook few risks and had masterful concentration at the crease. If he was not outwithin the first 45 minutes of an innings, you knew you were in for a long day.
Number three: Sir Viv Richards (West Indies)
I never saw Sir Donald Bradman play, but if he was better than Richards, then he must have been some player. More destructive and intimidating than Brian Lara, Richards at times played with the bowlers.
His secret was his extraordinary eye: he could pick up the line andlength of the incoming ball that fraction of a second quicker than anybody else.Rarely did I get the better of him.
Number four: Greg Chappell (Australia)
An awesome opponent. His strength was his driving: if you slightly overpitched theball, he moved into position to attack so quickly. Plenty of batsmen flourish onflat pitches when the sun is beating down and everything is in their favour, butChappell loved a challenge and had the technique and patience to battle when thegoing was tough.
Number five: Javed Miandad (Pakistan)
I chose Miandad aheadof Clive Lloyd and Allan Border because he was an irritatingly difficult batsmanto dislodge. Miandad was your typical subcontinent player: remarkably talentedand a tough competitor. Pakistan owe him so much. Along with Imran Khan, hechanged the mentality of the country's cricketers, turning them into asuccessful Test-playing nation. Allrounder: Sir Garfield Sobers (West Indies)
The most complete cricketer. In my second County Championship match for Surrey,he came in to bat with the score 26 for four and smacked me all around TrentBridge. Four years later, at Lord's, he scored 150 not out against England,despite having diarrhoea and going off the field. However, my best memory wasgetting him out for a duck in his last Test at Bridgetown, Barbados, his homeground, thanks to a fantastic catch from Tony Greig. Sobers was also, remember,a brilliant and destructive new-ball bowler - just ask Geoffrey Boycott aboutthat! Remarkably, he began his Test career at No 9 before working his way up theorder.
Allrounder: Ian Botham (England)
Throughout history the greatest bowlers havehunted in pairs. The best part of Ian's career and mine came when we werebowling together for England. Beefy is a real character: ebullient, generous, aconstant mickey-taker, gets bored easily, needs entertaining and attention allthe time. Has he changed much over the years? Not really. He still treats thecommentary box like a dressing room. You would not want too many characters likehim off the pitch - it would be quite wearing.
Wicketkeeper: Alan Knott (England)
He averaged 32.8 with the bat in his Test career; he was a properbatsman who could score hundreds when required to do so. I was fortunate to havehim and Bob Taylor behind the stumps for most of my career. During my first tourof Australia, after Knotty made his one and only mistake, our captain, RayIllingworth, said: "At least we know you are human now." That summed up Knotty;he was the complete perfectionist, and in my view, a better wicketkeeper/batsmanthan Rodney Marsh.
Fast bowler: Malcolm Marshall (West Indies) Of all theamazing pace men that West Indies have produced, Marshall was the most completebowler on any surface. He could swing the ball, seam the ball, bowl electrifyingbouncers or yorkers. It was tragic that he died so young, from cancer, at theage of 41. It is also sad that West Indians, such lively supporters in the past,do not have players such as Marshall to look up to any more.
Fast bowler:Dennis Lillee (Australia)
On a flat Adelaide pitch towards the end of the1970-71 Ashes series, we knew that a special talent had arrived. In the days ofeight-ball overs, John Hampshire, an accomplished batsman, played and missedfive of the eight bowled by a youngster called Lillee. If Jeff Thomson was thequickest bowler I faced, Lillee was the greatest, although it did not take muchof their skill to dismiss me.
Spin bowler: Derek Underwood (England)
Every team needs a front-line spin bowler. Underwood could bowl on any surface, and ifhe was not taking wickets, he would keep the batsman quiet. With 297 Testwickets in total, England have not had a spinner like him since. I do notremember him bowling a bad spell. He was an old-fashioned type of cricketer, whowould not have enjoyed the modern game, diving round the outfield to catch theball.

Play it again..All about foreplay..

We've been married for 20 years and my husband hasstopped bothering with foreplay. Any tips to make pre-penetrational play more exciting?
DR THOMAS STUTTAFORD says:
More than ten years ago a randomly selected group of women were asked how many men they thought were good lovers.
Most men would have been depressed by the answer. None of the women thought thatmore than one in three men could be described as good in bed. Some of them, who might be described as more than averagely sexually experienced, concluded that about only one man in ten was a good lover.
There was agreement that the marking was subjective. What one woman regarded as the ideal qualities for a lover could leave another cold.
One example of this is the differing opinions expressedabout the capabilities as a lover of a man who is figuring in the latestkiss-and-tell celebrity sex scandal. One newspaper will find a woman who willsay that the disgraced celebrity was the greatest lover since Casanova, whereasanother woman, who has sold her story to another paper, swears that he wasvirtually impotent and incapable of empathising with women.
Unfortunately, menhave been brought up to believe that women are not interested in sex. Women areas interested as men in sex, even if more women describe themselves as beinguninterested and not attracted to either men or women. Now that most of thetaboos and constraints on talking about sex have been relaxed, women are asfrank, if not franker, than men when talking about sex to each other, and abouttheir partner's performance.
Because men don't chatter about sexual performancebetween themselves, some women believe that they don't learn what women wantwhen making love. One reason why men may not talk about the mechanics andsubtleties of lovemaking is that it is relatively easy for a man to have an orgasm.
This ease of reaching a climax can result in sexual intercourse for menlapsing into an activity that is devoid of romance and outward signs ofaffection, so that it becomes more a form of masturbation. Although too manywomen feel, and probably are, neglected and would dearly love more foreplay,there are others, perhaps a minority, who prefer a quickie.
Equally, theconverse is true. Some women prefer prolonged foreplay and manual stimulation topenetration. A study two or three years ago showed that this was to someextent a matter of age. Up to the age of 30 the majority of women would opt forforeplay, but not more than say for about ten minutes before relying on penilepenetration to reach orgasm.
When they were a bit older an increasing number soenjoyed the chat and foreplay that they, secretly or obviously, encouraged it tothe point of orgasm. They would rather not rely on penetrative genital sex thatcould leave the man satisfied but soon fast asleep, while the woman was stilltense with sexual frustration.
It sounds as if your husband, as much as he nodoubt loves and obviously still desires you, is using you sexually as if youwere a blow-up doll, the female equivalent of a dildo or vibrator. What to doabout it? Scatter a few good sex manuals around the house that extol the virtuesand variations of the different types of foreplay, lash out on a comfortablehotel, pack some massage oil and head for Paris, Rome, Amsterdam or Venice.
Once there, enjoy a long, romantic meal. When home again, keep the romantic spiritalive by varying the pattern and place for your lovemaking.
SUZI GODSON says:
Pre-penetrational is such a horrible expression. It suggests a swift appetiser of the half-grapefruit variety, rapidly followed by a main course of dried-outgreying meat and gravy. It sounds institutional, medical, enormously unappealingand, in all honesty, I can't suggest any way of "making it more exciting".
Icould, I suppose, suggest that you insist on cunnilingus and kissing beforeprogressing to penile stimulation, but quite frankly, foreplay is about so muchmore than the mechanics of licking and poking. In fairness to you both, 20years of marriage doesn't do much for anyone's sex life and the fact that thetwo of you are still having any at all bodes well for your relationship.
However, when it gets to the point where sex constitutes a brief and infrequentact of intercourse, you are both getting so little out of the exchange that itis probably safe to predict that in another ten years you won't have to worryabout pre-penetrative play anyway.
To halt this inexorable slide towards alife of complacent celibacy you need to stop thinking about adding forced playto your already lethargic lovemaking and start getting some real intimacy andconnection and creativity back into your sexual relationship.
Because abstinence makes the heart, and various other organs, grow fonder, I think thefirst thing you both need to do is to stop having sex. Radical may be. But you need to create some sexual tension and implementing a ban is the easiest way toachieve this.
Obviously, you will need to get your husband to agree, andconvincing him will mean presenting the concept in a positive and intriguingway. Don't criticise his performance or whinge about not getting enoughforeplay. And don' t tell him what you are up to. Just explain that you intendto give your sex life a makeover and that he simply has to trust you and followyour instructions.
Men so rarely get the opportunity to surrender themselvesto sexual directions that he will probably jump at the chance. And if hedoesn't, don't worry. He will understand everything in due course.
To begin,you will need some props: a pen, ten sheets of paper and ten stamped envelopes,five addressed to you and five addressed to him. On the top of each of the firstfive sheets of paper write one of the following headings: five things I loveabout you; five things I love about having sex with you; five things I want usto do together before we die; five things I want us to do in bed together; andfinally, five things I fantasise about but have never told you.
Copy thoseheadings on to the other five sheets of paper and then put each sheet in anenvelope. Take your husband out to dinner (being in a public place heightensthe sense of anticipation).
During the meal hand him the five envelopes that areaddressed to you and ask him to look at what is written on each sheet. Explainto him that you will fill in an identical set of letters and post one to himeach week.
And ask him to do the same for you. You may want to discuss what youmight say to each other. You may not. One thing is for sure, though, if you bothmake an effort to be honest and imaginative, over the next five weeks not onlywill you learn something about each other, and create an incredible state ofanticipation, you will seduce each other intellectually. Now that's what I call foreplay.

Mirroring your sexual self

Q: My partner loves to watch himself penetrate me in a mirror.
How can I get him to stop concentrating on himself and to think aboutme?
DR THOMAS STUTTAFORD
A: Narcissist? Voyeur? Or a perfectly normal manwho likes a minor variation from the usual bedroom routine to spice up hisperformance? Who knows?
If I remember classical mythology correctly, Narcissus,the adolescent son of Cephisus, was passing a fountain when he caught sight ofhis reflection on the surface of the water. He was so overcome by the beauty ofthe young person he saw that he thought it was a nymph. Intrigued, excitedand, some say, in love with his own reflection, he jumped into the fountain anddrowned. Real nymphs recovered his body so that they might give him a decentfuneral, but when the time came for this, all that remained of him was a flower.The description narcissist is derived from this. When looking for a new house,and doing the round of estate agents' properties, the number of master bedroomsin which there are either mirrors let into the ceiling or incorporated into thewall opposite the bed, is revealing. French interior designers were famed fortheir ability to arrange bedroom mirrors so that the same scene could be seenmany times over and from different angles by those on the bed. Once, inBerlin, a colleague and I were invited to tea with a gay couple. While they wereout preparing the apple strudel my colleague, who had visited the house before,whispered that I should take a peek into the master bedroom. Her nights had beendisturbed by yelps, but it was only when she had the opportunity to look intothe bedroom that she found the explanation, a splendidly draped 19th-centurymirror, with whips leaning against the glass. The standard advice is that anyform of sex play is permissible, so long as it is acceptable to both partnersand doesn't become an end in itself; or if sexual excitement and orgasm areimpossible without it. The mirror antics should ideally cause you distress onlyif your partner is watching himself, and if he couldn't achieve an erection ororgasm without it. You suspect that your partner's interest in the mirror isentirely narcissistic. This may be so, but as you are both part of the image itmay well be your body that accounts for his fascination. Some men enjoy sex infront of a mirror in the same way that they would a pornographic film, but withthem in the starring role. Conversely, many women dislike anything that hints atsexual exhibitionism. Your partner's interest may indeed be narcissisticrather than voyeuristic. Dr Anthony Storr, the Oxford psychiatrist, wrote thatmost men, however civilised, believed that a display of their masculinity shouldnot only delight them but also their partners. He thought that this was asnatural in the human male as was the spread of his tail in a peacock. Therecan be few men, to quote Dr Storr's opinion, who are innocent of any wish toexhibit evidence of their virility. He suggests that they are wasting their timeif they hope to impress their partners. For although it may be natural for themto think that a woman should be as impressed as they are by what they regard astheir splendidly large genitals, in fact, most women regard a penis as havingneither aesthetic appeal nor interest, other than as a functional organ. Thesuggestion is that male narcissism is often a means of sustaining a man'sself-esteem, especially if he hasn't much else on which it can be based. SUZIGODSON A:
I blame Ikea. Though the sliding wardrobe was originally designed to"make the bedroom look more spacious", Ingmar Kamprad, Ikea's founder, would behorrified to know what this product is really being used for. Truth is, mostcouples have a go in front of the mirror at some stage. And why not? Mirrorsgive sex a whole new perspective, but there is a big difference between usingthem as a prop to make sex more exciting and allowing the reflected image tobecome more significant than the actual experience.
It sounds as if yourpartner has gone off on his own rather peculiar sexual trip. And he has leftyou, and intimacy, behind. It is not an excuse, but his behaviour could bedescribed as somewhat gender typical. Men seem to be better at divorcing sexfrom emotion. In Masculinity Reconstructed: Changing the Rules of Manhood atWork, in Relationships, and in Family Life, by the psychology professor DrRonald F. Levant, "restricted emotions" and "sex disconnected from intimacy" aredescribed as two of the "traditional masculine norms". And in studies ofaddictive sexual behaviour, it has been observed that men tend to engage inbehavioural excesses that require little or no emotional involvement(voyeuristic sex, paying for sex, anonymous sex and exploitative sex), whereaswomen tend towards behaviours that distort power, either in gaining control overothers or being a victim (fantasy sex, seductive role sex, trading sex, and painexchange).
Men are also more likely to be sexually narcissistic. A whopping 75per cent of people with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) are male. Thesymptoms are infatuation and obsession with one's self to the exclusion of allothers and the egotistic and ruthless pursuit of one's gratification, dominanceand ambition. Narcissists are classified in two ways. Either they are"cerebral", which means that they "derive their narcissistic supply from theirintelligence or academic achievements", or they are "somatic", which means thatthey "derive their narcissistic supply from their physique, exercise, physicalor sexual prowess and conquests". (Sound familiar?) One thing that is common toboth is that they are devoid of empathy and unable or unwilling to identify withor to acknowledge the feelings and needs of others. While I am not suggestingthat your partner has narcissistic personality disorder - he may just be aselfish, insensitive tosser - it is worth bearing in mind that you may be tryingto communicate with him on a level that he simply does not understand. For yourown sake, I would suggest that you try to write down what it is that you arefeeling and how you would like things to change in the relationship.
Writing serves several purposes. It helps you to clarify your thoughts and to distilwhat it is that you would like to express to your partner more precisely.
And itgives you an opportunity to get everything off your chest in the kind oflanguage you might normally reserve for speed cameras or Ken Livingston withoutdoing any damage to your relationship.
When you feel you can edit your thoughtsdown to one or two clear sentences, I suggest that you try speaking to him inhis own language. Take a pot of paint and a paintbrush and transfer yoursentiments directly on to his favourite mirror. And see if he gets the message.

Lack of sexual drive..

Stuttaford and Suzi Godson
Since I had a baby eight months ago I have been tootired to make love to my husband. How can we get our sex life back on track?
DR THOMAS STUTTAFORD
Your present lack of sexual drive is normal and had itsorigins in the physical changes that started as soon as you conceived. Duringthe first three months, a woman's libido is usually, but not always, reduced.
Nearly all women have some nausea and feeling sick is not conducive to either arelaxed or frenzied sex life. Urinary problems, often including urinary tractinfections, are common and intercourse may make these worse or perpetuate thesymptoms. The hormonal surge of pregnancy is to monthly PMS what a Caribbean hurricane is to a Norfolk gale.
It is bad enough that the breasts, instead ofbeing an erotic zone, may be so painful that someone touching them, instead ofturning the woman on, turns her off. The mood comes and goes; some women are soexcited by pregnancy that all is well and they are elated, others areapprehensive and volatile. In the second three months of pregnancy most womennot only become accustomed to the hormonal changes and to the idea of motherhoodbut many find a great surge in sexual interest.
This is stimulated by changes inthe pelvic circulation that lead to engorge- ment of the genitalia that mayincrease sexual response. In the last three months many women feel ungainlyand unattractive. It is not surprising that sex is not foremost in their mindsand that they deflect their husband's advances with assurances that all willreturn to normal after the baby is born. How little do they know.
The dynamicsof the family have changed for ever. A close partnership of two has become apotentially difficult triangle in which the woman, so recently only a wife, isnow both a wife and a mother. Her all- engrossing love for her child and herworries about it have to be concealed if she is not to exclude her husband.
Despite her desire to express the love she feels for her husband, you, like mostwomen, feel too tired, exhausted and preoccupied to make love. You may haveexpected your body to have returned immediately to its old shape, but this cantake months. Although many women derive huge pleasure from breast-feeding, onehormone, called prolactin, is maintained at a high level while you arelactating.
And high levels of prolactin depress ovarian function and reducelibido. It is said that having a baby is nature's method of birth control. Infact, it is regular breast-feeding, at under four-hour intervals, that maintainsprolactin levels and reduces libido rather than the actual birth. The birth,too, may have caused some scarring that can be tender to touch. Lubrication isalso reduced, another feature of high prolactin levels. After eight months youwill soon be finding that your libido is stirring.
When you re-start sexualrelations, initially find ways of making love, short of penetration, if thatremains a step too far. Once sex play is established, extend it to penetrativesex, but use plenty of lubricant and support your bottom on pillows so that yourpelvis is raised and your back is less likely to suffer. If you arebreast-feeding, warn your husband if fondling is uncomfortable. You shouldalso forewarn him that for a time changes to your vagina may have made painfulsome of the actions that have been part of your ritual since you married.
SUZI GODSON
Most pregnancy literature advises pregnant women to wait until six weeksafter the birth of their baby to resume sexual intercourse. Which is amusingreally. Because although most new parents will, out of a subconscious sense ofduty to the abstract concept of siblings, check that everything down below isstill functioning, the words post-natal and sex just don't belong together.
More couples than are willing to admit it find that sex drops right off the radar forsix to 12 months after the birth. And here's why. Total exhaustion is sodebilitating that it is used as a form of torture in less civilised societies.Breast-feeding plays havoc with hormones and floods women with oxytocin, achemical that predisposes them to knitting, rather than shaking, their booties.It also creates an exclusive intimate bond between mum and baby that can be intimidating for dad.
On top of that there is the issue of body image; 15lb ofbaby weight that refuses to shift can strangle the most robust libido. Even thepneumatic glamour model Jordan admits that since the birth of Junior Andre, sheand Peter have been too knackered and busy to make out with each other. Babiesare a 24/7 commitment and it's easy to forget about yourself and yourrelationship.
Not surprisingly, this can take its toll on you, your partner andyour sex life. Recent research from John Gottmann, who is best known for hiswork on marital stability and divorce prediction, indicates that 40 to 70 percent of couples experience "stress, profound conflict and drops in maritalsatisfaction" after the birth. He is trying to develop a programme for expectantparents to help them to understand the changes they will experience as theybecome parents, and to discover ways to make the transition with greater easeand success. Gottmann, a mathematician, is also investigating the significanceof sex in relationships. He says: "We have no clue about how sex works inrelationships, how it fits into everyday interaction, what good sex really islike, what great sex really is, what everyday sex is, how it all works or fails.We have no descriptive data."
Sexual expectations - the sense that you oughtto be having sex when you are not - can be demoralising. Yet although obligationis deeply unsexy, it is true that the longer you leave your love life on ice,the harder it is to get it back on track. Unless you create baby-free space, youand your husband will not have the energy, the opportunity or the inclination toresume your sex life. In the short term, a willing relative might give you anight off, so you could check in to a hotel. But you need to establish long-termsolutions and that means getting your baby into a routine so that you can plan aregular sex life (even if it is confined to baby's Saturday or Sunday morningnap).
Solving Children's Sleep Problems (Beckett Karlson Ltd, £12.99), by LynQuine, professor of health psychology at the University of Kent at Canterbury,offers advice on sleep routines.
If that doesn't help, try Night Nannies(www.night-nannies.com).
For the price of a room at the Ritz, a specialist sleepcoach comes to your home and helps your baby to sleep through the night.Alternatively, for the price of a room at Travelodge, the Mill Pond sleep clinic(www.mill-pond.co.uk) will give you two consultations, phone support for as longas you need it and an all-day programme geared towards a happier bedtime. For everyone.

Frightened of my first night....

By Dr Thomas Stuttaford and Suzi Godson
My fiancée and I are virgins and my friends tell me that sex will be very painful for her as I will have to break her hymen.
Any wedding night tips?
Dr Thomas Stuttaford says: Horror stories based on myths about the deflowering of virgins, the problems that honeymooners experienced when the hymen was ruptured, and the embarrassment of blood-soaked hotel sheets belong to the age of crinolines and bustles.
Long before the permissive society it was accepted that, in many, if not the majority, of women,their hymens had ruptured before they first had penetrative sex. Some hymens hadruptured because of physical exercise, some because of tampons and others as theresult of masturbation. In most cases a woman is unaware when her hymenruptures, or even if there was a spot or two of blood when it happened. If therewas any bleeding it was likely to have escaped notice or be confused with anirregular period. As Dr Ruth Skrine suggests in her book Blocks and Freedomsin Sexual Life (Radcliffe Publishing, £21.95), the fantasies about the hymendate from the days of bodice-ripping romantic novels. There is no doubt that thebelief about the problems women suffer when they lose their virginity was oncecurrent at all levels of society. When I joined the Army, we handed in ourcivilian clothes before being issued with recruits' overalls as we weren'tconsidered fit to wear the Queen's uniform until we looked more like soldiers.Our civvies were hung in a cupboard. The troop sergeant was going out on thetown one night but his trousers hadn't come back from the cleaners. He lookedthrough the recruits' cupboard for a replacement pair and chanced on mine. Heput them on, looked himself up and down, smiled contentedly, but then took themoff in a fury. There was blood on the knees. "Effing hell, Stuttaford. I can'twear these. There's blood on the legs. They'll all think in the pub tonight thatI'm the sort of man who f**** virgins." The sergeant needn't have worried (theblood came from a harmless graze on my knees) and nor need either you or yourfiancée. Even if the hymen hasn't been torn before first intercourse it isunlikely that the loss of virginity will cause any marked signs or symptoms. The intact hymen is a thin fold of mucous membrane that has holes in it before agirl's periods start. Without these perforations, as is very occasionally thecase, menstrual blood gathers above the hymen and it balloons downwards. Doctorscan easily snip a hole in it to drain the blood without difficulty or pain tothe patient. After the hymen ruptures the remnants of it retract and all that isleft is are some tags called the carunculae myrtiformes. Despite Victoriandramatisation of the loss of the maidenhead, a penis will slide readily into thevagina, an organ elastic enough to take a baby's head. Even so, liberalapplications of KY jelly, or other lubricants, are helpful. The vagina will bemore relaxed if your fiancée rests her bottom on a couple of pillows so that thepelvis is tilted upwards. With the pelvis in this position, the muscles alongthe inside of the thighs and those of the pelvic floor relax.
Although alarming stories of searing pain and blood-soaked sheets are nonsense, a goodbottle of wine with dinner helps, but not too much alcohol, as this can causeproblems with your fiancée's lubrication and won't improve your erection. Takeit easy, indulge in plenty of foreplay and don't be in a hurry, for you have 60years of married life ahead.Suzi Godson says:I wouldn't listen to yourfriends because it doesn't sound as if they have any more sexual experience thanyou have. Anyone who has ever had consensual sex knows that when it comes tobreaking the hymen (the thin, flexible membrane that partially covers theopening of the vagina), the pleasure-pain principle applies.
There are fewnerve endings inside the vagina so most women don't feel any pain but, ifpenetration does cause your fiancée any minor discomfort (usually caused by lackof lubrication and premature penetration), it is more than offset by theexcitement of the occasion. And since getting married before you have sex forthe first time is probably the ultimate in foreplay, I really don't think youneed to worry. Besides, it being the 21st century and all, by the time mostwomen are of marriageable age there is a good chance that they have alreadydestroyed their hymen by using tampons, or playing sport, or riding horses, oreven, dare I say it, by carrying out their own internal explorations. So if youfind no tangible evidence of her hymen on your wedding night, don't be surprisedor, indeed, suspicious.
The widely held but misguided belief that the hymen isa completely intact barrier that is broken during first sex has caused womenendless problems through the ages. Named after Hymen, the Greek god of marriage,this little flap of tissue has been a marker of virginity since the Stone Age.In some cultures those who lost their "maidenhead" before marriage were shamed,ostracised, and even put to death, so there has always been a percentage ofwomen who have resorted to backstreet hymen repair. Some have found innovativeways of capitalising on the obsession with virginity. In Victorian England itwas thought that venereal disease could be cured by "sex with a virgin". Oneparticular English brothel turned this to its advantage by supplying so calledvirgins that came complete with a medical certificate.
The girls inserted ablood-soaked sponge into their vagina before penetration and pressure on thesponge during sex released the fluid. In the 1950s, US doctors performed asurgical procedure known as the "lover's knot", which involved stitching thelabia of young women who were engaged but deflowered. This technique hasbecome more sophisticated in recent years. Hymenoplasty, a cosmetic operation torepair the remaining fragments of the hymen, is now popular. Women fly to the USto have the procedure two months before their wedding night. Under generalanaesthetic, the tissue of the broken hymen is pulled together and stitched,leaving only the small vaginal opening associated with virginity.
The operationcosts more than £1,000, takes one hour and the result lasts just a couple ofseconds but, apparently, women with more money than sense are paying toreinstate their hymens just so that they can relive the experience of losingtheir virginity. Which is, of course, impossible because virginity is notabout a piece of tissue, it is about inexperience. It is the fear of the unknownthat makes first sex such an important event, and no one forgets their firsttime. However, like anything else in life, only practice makes perfect, so,don't expect the earth to move the first time. Or even second time. And if itall goes tits up, try to see the funny side. Good luck.

The tyranny of female orgasm

Faking it? The tyranny of the female orgasm
Yes, yes - well, no.
Germaine Greer, who's in a film about vibrators, cuts the Big O down to size Female orgasms wander through the news media like the Loch Ness monster,glimpsed now and then, but never quite surfacing. Now we have two moresightings, thanks to the latest book by Fay Weldon and a new film about theRabbit vibrator. In What Makes Women Happy? Weldon recommends that a good womanshould fake her orgasms "and then leap out of bed and pour him champagne,telling him: 'You are so clever'. " Meanwhile, the new film, Rabbit Fever (inwhich I make a cameo appearance), launches next week, purporting to tell thestory of the sex toy's rise and its tendency to create orgasm addicts. What isit about the female orgasm nowadays? The O-word itself is horrid and its meaningis confused; the root is the Greek word for tumescence or engorgement, not forthe spasm that invariably accompanies ejaculation in the male, of whichsomething similar can be produced in the female, but less reliably and withrather more effort. Candles and carrots used to be credited with more potency intriggering female orgasm than the male member but the march of technology hasproduced a purpose-made pleasure-tool, namely the vibrator, of which the marketleader is the Rabbit. For a mere £30, any woman can acquire a "good-sizedRabbit vibrator with an extra: the beads can move up and down for pure pleasurewhilst the rabbit is teasing your cl*t", according to the advert. The rabbit isa two-eared projection on the upper side of the shaft of the instrument. Andthere's more: "The shaft has a number of pleasure beads and the touch controlallows you to choose between vibrate, pulse, escalate or multi-speed", allaccompanied by the kind of droning buzz you associate with a cordlesshedge-clipper. You can get silent Rabbits, but they cost more and they're moreof the squirmy type. Eventually men will have penile inserts that give them asimilar range of extras, vibrating eggs in the penis head, jelly spikes,rotating beads. But a man takes more looking after than a Rabbit and today'swomen don't have the time. In modern consumer society the name of the game isinstant gratification and the paradigm of all pleasure is solitary. Sole usersguarantee the widest volume of sales of any appliances, hence the iPod and theRabbit. Apparently Fay Weldon did not watch Sex and the City, which is whatlaunched the Rabbit into every boudoir in the Western world. Women no longerexpect men to supply orgasms, if they ever did. It's only the men who expect tosupply orgasms; their penis gives them so much pleasure that they can't imagineit not doing the same for their sexual partner. Most of us do fake orgasm,often, but we could do without Weldon betraying our little secret. In every pornvideo the whores are whimpering, snorting and panting from the git-go, at themerest touch in vaguely the right area from a even the rubberiest of maleorgans. Faking it is de rigueur. Most women do it because given their workloadthey need to get the sex over with in the nicest way and get some sleep. It'scalled "keeping everyone (but yourself) happy". That principle is a chiefmechanism in women's oppression and I am saddened but not surprised to hearWeldon upholding it. If you're Paris Hilton - hugely rich, entirelyself-willed and don't give a damn whether the people around you are happy or not- you can skip the whole performance. In a porn video made by some hustler whenHilton was only 18, he crouches head-down between her thighs, snuffling like atrufflehound, while she lies back, staring expressionlessly at the ceiling. The sequence lasts about 20 minutes. I almost expected her to ask the famousquestion from Deep Throat: "Do you mind if I smoke while you eat?" But sheremains mute and motionless throughout. She could be asleep. Attagirl. Therest of us wouldn't dare to be so disobliging. We moan and groan to make our manfeel good, much as a man will tell his date that she's the prettiest girl in theroom. It's just good manners. And as for telling him how clever he is aftersex and pouring him a rewarding glass of champagne, it's hard to do that if he'sflat on his back snoring. Most of us are too insecure to be upfront about ourfailure to respond. Weldon is wrong: men are not expected to supply women'sorgasms. These days women are expected to produce orgasms on demand. Regardlessof age or fitness or the tedium of the relationship, we're all supposed to behot, up for it, in all circumstances, at all times. The insertion of the penisis tantamount to lighting the blue touchpaper. If we don't go off like afire-cracker, it's not the man's fault but ours. The most potent cause of somuch faking it is fear of appearing frigid, of being a "dud bash". Mid-20th-century marriage manuals encouraged men to be patient, to stimulatetheir partners in a host of different ways, and to delay their own gratificationas long as possible. The woman was to be the violin; the man the virtuoso. Witha man who knew what he was doing, a woman could experience multiple orgasms,remaining in an orgastic state for many minutes. Alas, the multiple orgasm has proved even more elusive than the mutual orgasm.
Sexualities have many forms of expression and those forms are continually changing. From 1927, when Wilhelm Reich first published The Function of the Orgasm, orgasms have been represented as essential to mental health.
In the beginning these weren't just any orgasms;the essential orgasms were those that eliminated tensions, leaving theindividual in a state of equilibrium, self-regulating and therefore capable of freedom. Oppressive political systems, it was claimed, induced mindlessservility and impotence by censoring free sexual expression. Unfulfilledsubjects sublimated their frustrations in militarism, racism and genocide. IfHitler had had the right orgasms the Holocaust would never have happened. "Rightsex" was a purifying ritual; masturbation was discouraged. For women, theright orgasm was vaginal; orgasms deriving from stimulation of the clitoris werethought to be superficial, inferior, typical of the narcissistic immaturepersonality. Better understanding of female anatomy brought the awareness thatthere were few nerve ends in the vagina, despite the myth of the G-spot. Properstudy of the ramifications of the clitoris revealed that it was not so much alocalised button as the outcropping head of a deep neural network involving thewhole pelvis, including the vagina. The truth was out: women did not need men'shelp to reach orgasm. Indeed, men could get in the way. The more they fiddledand twiddled, the more in the way they were. Body&soulFaking it? The tyranny of the female orgasmYes, yes - well, no.Germaine Greer, who's in a film about vibrators, cuts the Big O down to size Female orgasms wander through the news media like the Loch Ness monster,glimpsed now and then, but never quite surfacing. Now we have two moresightings, thanks to the latest book by Fay Weldon and a new film about theRabbit vibrator. In What Makes Women Happy? Weldon recommends that a good womanshould fake her orgasms "and then leap out of bed and pour him champagne,telling him: 'You are so clever'. " Meanwhile, the new film, Rabbit Fever (inwhich I make a cameo appearance), launches next week, purporting to tell thestory of the sex toy's rise and its tendency to create orgasm addicts. What isit about the female orgasm nowadays? The O-word itself is horrid and its meaningis confused; the root is the Greek word for tumescence or engorgement, not forthe spasm that invariably accompanies ejaculation in the male, of whichsomething similar can be produced in the female, but less reliably and withrather more effort. Candles and carrots used to be credited with more potency intriggering female orgasm than the male member but the march of technology hasproduced a purpose-made pleasure-tool, namely the vibrator, of which the marketleader is the Rabbit. For a mere £30, any woman can acquire a "good-sizedRabbit vibrator with an extra: the beads can move up and down for pure pleasurewhilst the rabbit is teasing your cl*t", according to the advert. The rabbit isa two-eared projection on the upper side of the shaft of the instrument. Andthere's more: "The shaft has a number of pleasure beads and the touch controlallows you to choose between vibrate, pulse, escalate or multi-speed", allaccompanied by the kind of droning buzz you associate with a cordlesshedge-clipper. You can get silent Rabbits, but they cost more and they're moreof the squirmy type. Eventually men will have penile inserts that give them asimilar range of extras, vibrating eggs in the penis head, jelly spikes,rotating beads. But a man takes more looking after than a Rabbit and today'swomen don't have the time. In modern consumer society the name of the game isinstant gratification and the paradigm of all pleasure is solitary. Sole usersguarantee the widest volume of sales of any appliances, hence the iPod and theRabbit. Apparently Fay Weldon did not watch Sex and the City, which is whatlaunched the Rabbit into every boudoir in the Western world. Women no longerexpect men to supply orgasms, if they ever did. It's only the men who expect tosupply orgasms; their penis gives them so much pleasure that they can't imagineit not doing the same for their sexual partner. Most of us do fake orgasm,often, but we could do without Weldon betraying our little secret. In every pornvideo the whores are whimpering, snorting and panting from the git-go, at themerest touch in vaguely the right area from a even the rubberiest of maleorgans. Faking it is de rigueur. Most women do it because given their workloadthey need to get the sex over with in the nicest way and get some sleep. It'scalled "keeping everyone (but yourself) happy". That principle is a chiefmechanism in women's oppression and I am saddened but not surprised to hearWeldon upholding it. If you're Paris Hilton - hugely rich, entirelyself-willed and don't give a damn whether the people around you are happy or not- you can skip the whole performance. In a porn video made by some hustler whenHilton was only 18, he crouches head-down between her thighs, snuffling like atrufflehound, while she lies back, staring expressionlessly at the ceiling. The sequence lasts about 20 minutes. I almost expected her to ask the famousquestion from Deep Throat: "Do you mind if I smoke while you eat?" But sheremains mute and motionless throughout. She could be asleep. Attagirl. Therest of us wouldn't dare to be so disobliging. We moan and groan to make our manfeel good, much as a man will tell his date that she's the prettiest girl in theroom. It's just good manners. And as for telling him how clever he is aftersex and pouring him a rewarding glass of champagne, it's hard to do that if he'sflat on his back snoring. Most of us are too insecure to be upfront about ourfailure to respond. Weldon is wrong: men are not expected to supply women'sorgasms. These days women are expected to produce orgasms on demand. Regardlessof age or fitness or the tedium of the relationship, we're all supposed to behot, up for it, in all circumstances, at all times. The insertion of the penisis tantamount to lighting the blue touchpaper. If we don't go off like afire-cracker, it's not the man's fault but ours. The most potent cause of somuch faking it is fear of appearing frigid, of being a "dud bash". Mid-20th-century marriage manuals encouraged men to be patient, to stimulatetheir partners in a host of different ways, and to delay their own gratificationas long as possible. The woman was to be the violin; the man the virtuoso. Witha man who knew what he was doing, a woman could experience multiple orgasms,remaining in an orgastic state for many minutes. Alas, the multiple orgasm hasproved even more elusive than the mutual orgasm. Sexualities have many formsof expression and those forms are continually changing. From 1927, when WilhelmReich first published The Function of the Orgasm, orgasms have been representedas essential to mental health. In the beginning these weren't just any orgasms;the essential orgasms were those that eliminated tensions, leaving theindividual in a state of equilibrium, self-regulating and therefore capable offreedom. Oppressive political systems, it was claimed, induced mindlessservility and impotence by censoring free sexual expression. Unfulfilledsubjects sublimated their frustrations in militarism, racism and genocide. IfHitler had had the right orgasms the Holocaust would never have happened. "Rightsex" was a purifying ritual; masturbation was discouraged. For women, theright orgasm was vaginal; orgasms deriving from stimulation of the clitoris werethought to be superficial, inferior, typical of the narcissistic immaturepersonality. Better understanding of female anatomy brought the awareness thatthere were few nerve ends in the vagina, despite the myth of the G-spot. Properstudy of the ramifications of the clitoris revealed that it was not so much alocalised button as the outcropping head of a deep neural network involving thewhole pelvis, including the vagina. The truth was out: women did not need men'shelp to reach orgasm. Indeed, men could get in the way. The more they fiddledand twiddled, the more in the way they were.

An interview with Tendulkar

RAJKOT, India, Nov 8 (Reuters), 2005
Sachin Tendulkar says he willcontinue to bat aggressively despite a spate of wear and tear injuries in thelast few years.India's premier batsman has made another successful comebackafter six months out following elbow surgery, top-scoring with 93 and 67 not outin the current one-day series against Sri Lanka."If I see it, I hit it,"Tendulkar told Reuters before the sixth match of the series. "I try and keepeverything simple."Tendulkar said he never had concerns about returning to thenational side."I've been around long enough. I was pretty confident of mybatting obviously, that is where my strength lies," he said.The 32-year-oldMumbai batsman, speaking as he fixed cracks in his bat with glue, said it wasinitially difficult on his return in the first game in Nagpur, where he sufferedcramp."It was a little tough on my body because I hadn't played a match insix-and-a-half months," he said. "To straightaway get into a match where therewas a lot of running around involved."MENTALLY TOUGHTendulkar said theinjury also demanded a lot of patience."In between it was tough, extremelytough mentally and physically. Mentally probably more because I wanted to getback in action and had to somehow stay away from the action and build all themuscles properly."Tendulkar burst on to the international scene as a16-year-old in 1989 and has set scored more than 13,000 one-day internationalruns and 38 centuries, both records.He also jointly holds the record for mosttest centuries (34) with compatriot Sunil Gavaskar and is one of only fivebatsmen to score more than 10,000 test runs.His feats have taken a heavy tollon his body, however, and he has suffered hand, foot, ankle and finger injuries."I'm quite happy that for the first 10 years I didn't miss a single game becauseof injuries," he said. "That, I feel, is a positive thing to have happened tome."Sometimes things can be very unfortunate. Not because of your fitness, butdue to some freakish reasons and you just get injured."TEAM MENTORTendulkar,a former captain of India who has been asked by coach Greg Chappell to be theteam's mentor, said he relished helping other players."I don't change myapproach, whether someone is 15 years junior to me or five or 10 years," hesaid. "The basic idea is to share one's experiences and thoughts, and I havealways done that."I've always believed everyone is a student of this game andthat nobody can put up his hand and say 'I know everything about this game.'"Tendulkar's comeback has inspired India, who ended a poor run of one-day form bynotching four victories in a row to clinch the seven-match series against SriLanka.He attributed the turnaround to a positive approach by the players."It'sa wheel, once you push it, it rolls on its own and gathers momentum, which waswhat was missing, he said, adding that Chappell's presence was making adifference."He is among the top players to have played this game. Obviously histhinking is different, it has influenced the way the team approaches the game."It is not only about technique, not only about practical things, but thetheories, which, sitting back in the room you can visualise so many things andstart thinking differently."Tendulkar hopes the team can maintain the momentumuntil the 2007 World Cup, but said it would be one step at a time for himself."I think it is important to focus more on the near future. It's like a cameralens. The moment you start focusing on things which are far off, you lose focusof things close to you."India have a busy season ahead. They play five homeone-dayers against South Africa later this month before Sri Lanka return to playthree tests. They tour Pakistan in January and host England in March-April.

Welcome home Ganguly!

Mid-day Report
New Delhi: It was a homecoming Sourav Ganguly would want to erase from memoryreal quick. Dropped by the selectors for the third Test in Ahmedabad, SouravGanguly left New Delhi with a heavy heart. But in his hour of crisis, he was notalone. Wife Dona and daughter Sana, who had come to keep him company in Delhiwere by his side as he boarded the 19.55 flight from the capital. Sana and Donawere to accompany him to Ahmedabad too but Kiran More & Co crushed their plans.Normally, Ganguly moves around in the aircraft and talks to people on flight.But yesterday stuck to his seat. He appeared dismayed and shattered. The formerIndia skipper refrained from speaking to the media. He did not utter a word buthis silence spoke volumes of his dejection. India's most successful captain hadyet another taste of life's down side.A report in telegraphNew Delhi: The Sourav Ganguly-Yuvraj Singh story proved to be a classic tale ofirony on Wednesday when one player had to keep his place in the team at theexpense of other, who was his saviour not many days ago. Sourav - after havingbeen stripped of captaincy and a place in the ODI squad - was in a 'battle' withYuvraj for the middle-order slot in Tests. But the selectors decided to favourthe latter because of the age factor. When The Telegraph caught Yuvraj at thetime of his checking out of the team hotel - following a thumping 188-run winover Sri Lanka at the Kotla - he said the former captain's exclusion was a "sad"incident. ''Yes, it is sad. He is a senior player and a former captain. But Ican't say more than this, please," the Punjab batsman, who will play at No. 6batsman in the third Test, said. Sachin Tendulkar, however, was in no mood toentertain any query on Sourav's sudden omission from the squad. "We have won aTest match and it's a hugely satisfying moment... let's concentrate on it," hesaid, before leaving for Mumbai.

Ganguly cried on being dropped

A report carried by rediff.com

Former Indian cricket team captain Sourav Gangluy, who was dropped by theselectors from the team for the third and final Test match against Sri Lanka tobe played in Ahmedabad from December 18, was so upset with the decision that hecould not stop tears rolling down his cheeks, said a close friend of Souravspeaking to rediff.com."He gave the news to his wife, Dona, who was at thetime out shopping with their daughter. The two immediately rushed back to him,"the source said.When this correspondent asked Dona Ganguly if the decision todrop had been too harsh, she just said: "Yeah."Although Ganguly did not giveinterviews to the media, he is said to have met some sports journalists whoexpressed solidarity with him and patted him for his performance in the DelhiTest."He had done a splendid job in both the innings. He scored 121 runs alongwith Sachin Tendulkar, contributing 40 runs, in the first innings, and alsoscored 39 in the second essay. After the team won the match, it is unfair todrop him," said a senior sports journalist from a leading television newschannel.When Sourav finally came out of his room after the team for the thirdTest was announced, he found that he was alone as no senior or junior playercame down with him.He carried his little daughter Sana in his arms.
But asbattery of television cameras focussed on him, he handed over his daughter towife and jostled his way into the waiting car.A little later Dona and Sanajoined Ganguly in the car and the three sped away to the airport to catch theirflight to Kolkata.Although heartbroken, Ganguly kept smiling at themediapersons, who said this indicated that all is not lost and he might yet makea come back to the Indian team.

Street fight for Ganguly's inclusion

Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly on Thursday blocked main roads and burnedeffigies of Indian cricket officials in the eastern city of Calcutta, a dayafter the allrounder was dropped from the national team.Around 300 peopleblocked a busy highway near Ganguly's house and shouted slogans demanding he bereinstated for the third and final test against Sri Lanka starting Dec. 18 inAhmadabad.Protesters burned effigies of India cricket coach, Greg Chappell, andteam selector, Kiran More, holding the two responsible for Ganguly's exclusionfrom the team."A great injustice has been done to Ganguly and we are burningthe effigies of Chappell and More to protest against this injustice," said AnjanNag, secretary of the Maidan Sports Welfare Association, which organized theprotest.In the Kankinara suburb of Calcutta, irate Ganguly fans conductedfuneral rituals for former Australian test captain Chappell and More.Nag said apetition calling for Ganguly's inclusion would be sent to Prime MinisterManmohan Singh.Indian selectors on Wednesday retained Rahul Dravid as captainfor the tour of Pakistan in January and the home series against England inMarch.Rahul replaced Ganguly as captain of the Indian team after the latter'spublic spat with Chappell during a tour of Zimbabwe earlier this year.Ganguly,whose reign as national skipper lasted five years, holds the Indian record forthe most victories in tests and one-dayers.Under Ganguly's captaincy, India won21 tests and 76 limited-overs internationals, but his leadership came under acloud due to poor batting form and the public dispute with the new coach. Thesituation worsened after Chappell's critical report regarding Ganguly to theIndian cricket board was leaked to the media .

Report from India's tour to Windies

Gros Islet, St. Lucia (AFP)
Brian Lara collected his 32nd Test hundred to earnWest Indies a hard-fought draw in the rain-marred second Test against India onWednesday at the Beausejour Cricket Ground.The 37-year-old Lara hit 120-onlyhis second Test hundred against the Indians-as West Indies, following on 373runs behind of first innings, finished on 294 for seven in their second inningsto leave the four-Test series level at 0-0.Lara reached his hundred when hesquare drove Irfan Pathan for the ninth of his 10 boundaries and drew level withformer Australia captain Steve Waugh for the third highest number of Testhundreds.India's Sachin Tendulkar, who was prevented from making this trip byinjury, heads the list with 35 Test hundreds. Compatriot Sunil Gavaskar issecond on the list with 34, and Lara and Waugh follow.The West Indies captainbattled away for a little over 6-1/2 hours and faced 307 balls to give WestIndies their lifeline.He added 129 for the fourth wicket with his predecessorShivnarine Chanderpaul, who scored 54, and put on 71 for the fifth wicket withcompatriot Dwayne Bravo, who made 47.Anil Kumble was the most successful Indianbowler with three wickets for 98 runs from 42 overs, and Munaf Patel took twofor 50 from 21 overs.Virender Sehwag, who scored 180 in India's mammoth firstinnings total of 588 for eight declared and snared four wickets in the Test, wonthe Man-of-the-Match award.West Indies continued from their bedtime total onthe third day of 43 for one, after a complete washout of the entire fourth day,and suffered two setbacks in the first half-hour.No strokeKumble, who becameTest cricket's fourth highest wicket-taker, completely bamboozled Daren Gangawith a googly and bowled him for 26 offering no stroke.Sarwan, the West Indiesvice captain, whose batting helped the home team clinch the precedinglimited-overs series, again failed, when he was caught behind for one off awell-pitched out-swinger from Patel to leave West Indies 52 for three.Lara andChanderpaul showed level heads however, to defy the Indian attack for the restof the morning, and carried West Indies to 130 for three at lunch.Lara hadinside-edged a drive at a flighted delivery outside the off-stump from Kumblefor two to the fine leg region to bring up his 50.After the interval, Lara andChanderpaul, easily West Indies' two most experienced batsman, continued merrilyalong their way.Chanderpaul swung Anil Kumble behind square for his sixth fourto reach his 50, but trying to hit a full toss from the leg-spin bowler overmid-wicket he was caught at mid-on for 54. He struck half-dozen boundaries from113 balls in just under three hours.Lara continued to bat with grit and arrivedat his landmark. He looked set for a much larger innings, when the umpire AsadRauf dubiously adjudged him lbw to Sehwag to a ball that television replaysclearly showed pitched outside off-stump and spun away.His departure energisedIndia, and bearing in mind West Indies' capitulation in their second innings ofthe first Test, the visitors moved in for the kill. Bravo had shown greatapplication for close 2-1/2 hours in which he struck three fours and one sixfrom 124 balls before he was caught at short leg turning a ball from Kumble intothe hands of the fielder.West Indies were 277 for six, and 19 overs stillremained, when Ian Bradshaw sauntered to the wicket.He spent 40 minutes and 40balls over one run before he was adjudged lbw to Patel in a final burst, butmost importantly, he had exhausted enough time to save West Indies from blushes.The first Test at the Antigua Recreation Ground ended in a tense draw, with theWest Indies' last wicket pair of Edwards and Collymore surviving the last 19balls of the match. The series concludes with Tests at Basseterre (June 22-26),and Kingston (June 30-July 4).

Chomsky, the hypocrite!

"Which leads to a question: is that really what you see, Mr Chomsky, from thewindow of your library at MIT?
Is it the stench of the gulag wafting over the Charles River?
Do you walk in fear of persecution and murder for expressing yourdissident views? Or do you make a damn good living out of it?
The faults of theBush administration will not be changed by books such as Failed States. Theywill be swept away by ordinary, decent Americans in the world's greatest - ifflawed and selfish - democracy going to the polls."I have borrowed these impassioned lines from the brilliant review of NoamChomsky's new book Failed State: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy(published by Hamish Hamilton) by by Peter Beaumont, Foreign Affairs Editor,Observer newspaper, London.Noam Chomsky is the unabashed flag bearer of anti-United States rehtoric. AnFidel Castro among the intellectuals, if you like it that way.Disgruntled lefties and so called liberals all over the world, and Indianacademia and Left is no exception, have considered Chomsky as the messiahpointing his accusing fingers at the Great Satan.In India, the left and fellow travellers have lapped up his view points, and intheir opinion, Chomsky's arguments are infallible. Chomsky represents the good against the evil of the United States.As it happens, in the liberal Indian media Chomsky has never been approachedwith a critical eye; leave alone interrogated.Now I chanced upon Beaumont brilliant review. Beaumont has displayed the patience and perseverance in ample measure to nailChomsky's noxious lies. Beaumont points out that Chomsky's angst is similar to that of the water thatrails against the cup that holds it.Read the charge against ChomskyI will admit one thing from the start. When I read Noam Chomsky, the voice Ihear is that of Chloe, the terrier-like computer geek in 24. This is not withoutreason. I met Chomsky once at a New Statesman lunch and that nagging, bullying,wheedling voice has stuck with me since. It is a voice that brooks no dissentfrom his dissident view. 'You'll know ... ' was his opening line on beingintroduced to two of us who covered the war in Kosovo, before launching into oneof his favourite rants - that it really wasn't the poor Serbs what done it, butnasty Nato.What is most troubling about all this is that there is much thatChomsky and I should agree on. Like him, I was opposed to what I believed was anillegal war in Iraq. In my travels in that country, I, too, have been troubledby the consequences of occupation. Where I differ from him, however, is that Ireject Chomsky's view that American misdeeds are printed through history likethe lettering in a stick of rock. Instead, the conclusions I have drawn frommore than a decade of reporting wars on the ground is that motivations arecomplex, messy and contradictory, that the best intentions can spawn the worstoutcomes and, occasionally, vice versa.But you've got to admire him for theverbal speed with which he comes out from his corner, if not for his grasp onreality. He hits you with five facts before you have had time to digest thefirst. Chomsky is an intellectual bruiser. Bang, bang, bang, he goes, and allthat is left for slower-witted mortals is to hang on, 'rope-a-dope', likeMuhammad Ali and try to survive until the round is over. Except it doesn't workquite so well in his written prose.Reading Failed States, I had an epiphany:that by applying a Chomskian analysis to his own writing, you discover exactlythe same subtle textual biases, evasions and elisions of meaning as used bythose he calls 'the doctrinal managers' of the 'powerful elites'. The mightyChomsky, the world's greatest public intellectual, is prone to playing fast andloose.It is important to recognise this fact because the Chomskian analysishas become the defining dissident voice of the blogosphere and a certain kind offar-left academia. So a sense of its integrity is crucial. It is obsessivelywell-read, but rather famished in original research, except when it is countinghow often the liberal media say this or that in their search for hidden, andsometimes not-so-hidden, bias. Crucially, it is not interested in debate,because balance is a ruse of the liberal media elites used to con the dumbmasses. Chomsky is essential to save you, dear reader, from the lies we peddle.And, boy, is it a big lie this time. What Chomsky is taking on now is America'sclaim to be the world's greatest democracy. Failed States posits, tendentiously,that the US has become the ultimate 'failed state', a term usually reserved forplaces like Somalia. It is a terrorist state and a rogue state, a country thathas brought us to the brink of annihilating darkness. These big claims arebolstered by his familiar arsenal of exaggeration, sarcasm and allusion.Thisis a shame, because the issues Chomsky addresses in this book are crucial. Thepresent US administration has presided over one of the most venal periods in thecountry's recent history at home and abroad. Through a tricksy application oflaws never intended for those purposes, George W Bush's lawyers have dismantledconstitutional balances between the executive, legislative and judicial branchesof US governance to accumulate the exclusive power to interpret law in thepresidential office, while on the international stage, citing the same necessityof protecting the homeland, American officials have stormed their way around theglobe, kidnapping, torturing and killing.These are all serious matters, butChomsky chooses to deal with America's growing democratic deficit not by puttingit under a microscope, but by reaching for hyperbole. He suggests an America inthe grip of a 'demonic messianism' comparable to that of Hitler's NationalSocialism. Except that it isn't. Conveniently missing from Chomsky's account isthe fact that the failure and overreach of George W Bush's policies, both on thedomestic and the international front, has had serious consequences for his brandof neo-conservatism: disastrously collapsing public-approval ratings.But thenthere is an awful lot conveniently missing from Chomsky's account of the crimesof his own country. In attempting to create a consistent argument for America asmurderous bully, going back to the Seminole Wars, he edits out anything thatcould be put on the other side of the balance sheet. I could find no mention ofthe Marshall Plan, although there is enough about American crimes in Guatemala,to which he returns repeatedly. He can find enough to say about America'smisdemeanours during the Cold War; but nothing about the genuine fear of theSoviet Union, one of the most brutally efficient human-rights-abusing states inhistory.These are small matters in comparison with some of Chomsky's otherrhetorical stunts. There are the long riffs on ideas extracted out of singlesentences from journalistic articles or academic papers, sometimes bynow-discredited figures, employed to explain whole policies and strands ofhistory to his satisfaction. At other times, he elides rumour with quotes takenout of context, for example where he refers to: 'A Jordanian journalist [who]was informed by officials in charge of the Jordanian-Iraqi border after US andUK forces took over that radioactive materials were detected in one of everyeight trucks crossing into Jordan destination unknown. "Stuff happens," inRumsfeld's words.'That's all pretty puzzling - as four pages earlier, Chomskygives the impression that the weapons of mass destruction thing was all adeception. It is not only that his desire to wallop the US at any cost hasallowed inconsistencies to creep in; there is also plain sloppiness. Betweenpages 60 and 62, for instance, he cannot decide whether an alleged bribe paid toUN official is $150,000 or $160,000. Maybe it's a typo. Maybe not.If all thissounds entirely negative, I do concede that there are areas where Chomsky landssome crunching punches. His analysis of US double standards on issues from thepromotion of democracy abroad, to the World Court, Kyoto, US support for Israel,nuclear proliferation and trade is spot-on - but far from novel areas ofconcern, and Chomsky doesn't like to settle on them. In themselves, they are notenough for the professor. The case that he wants to make is that the US isuniquely awful.In setting about this task quite so selectively, he allieshimself with some obnoxious characters. While Chomsky was righteously indignantover suggestions in a recent Guardian interview that he defended Srebrenica, hedoes portray a certain sympathy for Slobodan Milosevic. Kosovo, in his reading,began in 1999 with Nato bombers, not in 1998 with Serbian police actions thatcleared villages, towns and valleys of their populations. (I know this, MrChomsky, because I saw them do it.)But what I find most noxious aboutChomsky's argument is his desire to create a moral - or rather immoral -equivalence between the US and the greatest criminals in history. Thus on page129, comparing a somewhat belated US conversion to the case for democracy inIraq after the failure to find WMD, Chomsky claims: 'Professions of benignintent by leaders should be dismissed by any rational observer. They are nearuniversal and predictable, and hence carry virtually no information. The worstmonsters - Hitler, Stalin, Japanese fascists, Suharto, Saddam Hussein and manyothers - have produced moving flights of rhetoric about their nobility ofpurpose.'Which leads to a question: is that really what you see, Mr Chomsky,from the window of your library at MIT? Is it the stench of the gulag waftingover the Charles River? Do you walk in fear of persecution and murder forexpressing your dissident views? Or do you make a damn good living out of it?The faults of the Bush administration will not be changed by books such asFailed States. They will be swept away by ordinary, decent Americans in theworld's greatest - if flawed and selfish - democracy going to the polls.

Sathyan's story

KANNUR: Former India football captain V.P. Sathyan checked successfully many sharp and surging forwards. But when it came to real life, he could not fightpoverty and committed suicide to the surprise of many of his admirers. A careerthat began in 1985, and during which he helped bring many laurels to thecountry, lasted a decade. On Tuesday and Wednesday, friends and formerteammates arrived in large numbers at his home in Tellicherry, Kannur district,in a state of shock. Suicide was the last thing they expected from Sathyan, astrong defender, who was a thorn to many forwards on the field. Sathyan, 42,committed suicide Tuesday by jumping in front of the Kanyakumari-Chennai Expressnear Pallavaram on the outskirts of Chennai.The police found two notes from hispocket. The first said he was ending his life due to financial problems,aggravated by his gambling and drinking habits. The second one requested themedia not to play up his death. His sudden demise has left the country'sfootball fraternity in shock. "I first saw this boy way back in 1980 when heused to come to the Kannur police grounds and practice alone daily. This was aregular feature for a long time," said K. Kunhiraman, a resident of Kannur whoused to train youths at the same ground.Sathyan, the son of a policeman inTellicherry, was fascinated by football as a teenager. Sathyan's journey intothe world of football began at the age of 17 when he played his first match forLucky Star Kannur, a local club, after which there was no looking back.He movedfrom the Kannur district team to the Kerala Police team in 1983, a year after itwas formed. The next step was the Kerala team and Sathyan was part of thewinning Santosh Trophy team on two occasions. The crowning glory came when hewore the captain's armband for India.Sathyan led the Indian team in the 1986Merdeka Tournament, scoring the crucial goal to help beat Korea 4-3. He was alsomember of the team that took part in the Seoul Asian Games in 1986 and SouthAsian Federation Games in 1989. He played at the senior level for 12 years.While with Mohun Bagan club, he was awarded the All India Football Federation(AIFF) Player of the Year award in 1995. After resigning from the post ofdeputy superintendent of police in Kerala, he joined the Indian Bank at Chennaiand played for them. Later, he became an assistant manager and its footballcoach. Sathyan was coach of the Indian Bank team since 2002 and the teamqualified for the National Football League in 2002 and 2003. He was also memberof the AIFF selection committee in 2002-03. Reacting to the demise, former AIFFsecretary P.P. Lakshman said the footballer had called him up not very long backto discuss certain things."At that point of time, I felt he wanted to discussaspects of football and now I think he wanted to discuss something completelydifferent. No doubt he is one of the greatest footballers from Kerala," saidLakhsman. Sathyan's body was received at Palakkad early Wednesday by a largenumber of his fans. Enroute to Tellicherry, the body would be placed atMalappuram and Kozhikode districts for people to pay their last respects. Kerala chief minister V.S. Achuthanandan said Sathyan would be given a statefuneral. His hometown Tellicherry is all geared up to give a fitting funerallater Wednesday and bid a tearful adieu to one of its favourite sons. Sathyanis survived by his mother, wife and daughter.

Bringing Glamour to Indian cricket

AHMEDABAD (Reuters) - Indian cricket officials say they are keen to bring inforeign players in order to add a touch of glamour to otherwise dull domestictournaments.> > While cricket-mad India is the game's commercial hub, domestic matches drawfew spectators or additional sponsorship in contrast to international matches.> > Interest has also waned as top draws such as Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkarrarely play domestic cricket due to a busy international schedule.> > "The board is open to the idea," says board secretary Niranjan Shah. "The ruleis already there but nobody has used it so far."> > Shah says regulations allow teams to include up to three players from outsidea state, but there are no restrictions on how many of the three can beforeigners.> > "If some big players from abroad come then people will come and see thesematches," says Shah, adding that he did not anticipate much opposition fromlocal players.> > "If our players can go and play in the English county then we should also beready to bring in outside players."> > Officials also hope that tempting some of cricket's biggest names to Indiawould boost television viewer figures.> > The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) signed a four-year TV rightsdeal in February worth $612 million that requires 70 days live telecast ofdomestic games.> > "We took a decision last year to shop for foreign players, preferably a starcommodity," says Ajay Shirke, president of the Maharashtra Cricket Association.> > > HUGE FUNDS> > State sides can draw on huge funds at their disposal thanks to a grant fromthe world's richest national cricket board, which signed rights deals worth over$1 billion this year.> > State associations are set to receive as much as 80 million rupees ($1.7million) this year, says Shah.> > Maharashtra have already appointed Australian coach Darren Holder, who tookthe team to fifth in Ranji Trophy last season. Former Pakistan player IntikhabAlam coaches the Punjab team.> > Shirke says foreign players could earn between $30,000 to $40,000 a season ifa team went all the way in the tournament. The match fee for a Ranji game is100,000 Indian rupees.> > "Also remember, if we hire a star we can attract sponsors," he says. "I don'tthink money is an issue at all."> > Wider endorsement of such a move could bring many big names to domestic Indiancricket, especially after England's board recently announced counties would onlybe allowed to field one overseas player from 2008.> > Foreign players are not new to Indian cricket.> > India invited West Indian fast bowlers Roy Gilchrist, Chester Watson, CharlieStayers and Lester King to play in the 1960's to help their batsmen adapt topace and foster their own seam bowlers>

Ganguly sought Wright's apology - Shukla

PTI August 15, 2006
A sobbingVirender Sehwag, an incensed Indian team and an angry Sourav Ganguly, thecaptain, demanding an apology from coach John Wright. This was the tense scenein the Indian dressing-room at The Oval in 2002 after Wright hd held Sehwag bythe collar and "barked" at him for throwing away his wicket in a NatWest Trophymatch against Sri Lanka in England. The former New Zealand skipper has gonepublic with this sensational incident in his just-published book John Wright'sIndian Summers and more details of what happened emerged today from the thenmanager of the Indian team Rajiv Shukla, now a senior office-bearer of theIndian board. Asked about Wright's revelation, a reluctant Shukla told PTI thathe had kept the incident under wraps all these years because what happens insidethe dressing-room is not supposed to be divulged. However, this no longerapplied as Wright had spilled the beans, he said. "We were sitting in thebalcony outside the dressing room at The Oval. Sehwag had just got out and goneinto the dressing-room. Suddenly an agitated captain Ganguly came out from theroom and complained to me that the coach had slapped Sehwag who was sobbing,"Shukla recalled. "I rushed to the dressing-room and found that Sehwag was indeedsobbing. He told me that Wright had pushed him. I patted him and controlledhim." Shukla then went looking for the coach. "He was not in the dressing-roombut after some effort I found him in a small room adjacent to it. He was all byhimself, tensed up and smoking as he usually did whenever he was in tension," hesaid. Shukla said he had told Wright that he should not have treated Sehwag inthis manner and that the opening batsman was justifiably upset. "Wrightimmediately accepted his mistake. My own view is that the coach wanted Sehwag toscore more runs and when the batsman had got out he could not control his angerbecause of which he had got hold of Sehwag's collar and pushed him. "I knewthat Wright had affection for Sehwag and had reacted to his getting out like aguru reacting to the failure of a disciple. He always used to urge Sehwag not tolift the ball because he often lost his wicket that way." An angry Gangulydemanded that Wright should apologise to the entire team and this, says Shukla,put him in a difficult position. He immediately consulted Sachin Tendulkar andthe team's media manager Amrit Mathur. "The advice I got was that in case Wrightapologised to the whole team, his authority will be eroded. I thought this was avalid point," Shukla said. "I persuaded Sehwag not to seek an apology from thecoach in front of the entire team. Wright was also persuaded to speak to Sehwagand assuage his feelings when the team returned to the hotel. Both agreed tothis. Wright spoke to Sehwag and admitted his mistake." A potentially explosivesituation was thus resolved and did not become public despite so many Indian andBritish journalists orbiting the teams.

A fakers' guide to mastering office politics

Forget hard work. Playing thepeople game is often the fastest way to climb the greasy pole, writes Mary Braid WHEN it comes to career progression, there is no shortage of advice about timemanagement, presentation skills and sheer hard graft. However, the singlebiggest factor determining how far we climb up the ladder, according to businesspsychologist Rob Yeung, is "other people". Yeung argues that however much wemight want to deny it, the reality is that colleagues have a far greater impacton our careers than how hard we work or how talented we are. "A lot of peoplelike to think that their organisations are not political and that they can geton without being political. But the fact is that the most hard-working people donot make it to the top - it's the politically savvy that get there," he says. "You have to learn to look at colleagues and consider what is driving theirbehaviour. You have to understand their professional and personal agendas." According to Yeung's new book, The Rules of Office Politics, colleagues havenever been trickier to deal with because of the pressures that organisationalchange, mergers, downsizing, outsourcing and globalisation have brought to boththe private and public sectors. These pressures have turned the workplace into"a minefield of treacherous personalities, unexploded resentments and tickingegos", and understanding office politics and what makes colleagues tick hasnever been more important. The trick, Yeung suggests, is to discover whatcolleagues' "little hot buttons are" and then press them. He offers a host oftips for handling other people, and claims colleagues can be divided into fourtypes - bigwigs, rising stars, no-hopers and has-beens - depending on theirlevel of influence and seniority in an organisation. He suggests the ambitiousshould cultivate relationships with influential bigwigs and rising stars, butwaste no time on no-hopers and has-beens. Understanding the politicallandscape of an organisation is crucial, he says, and when gatheringintelligence - about who likes or hates who, who is on the up or on the skidsand so on - Yeung recommends that the ambitious work on showing a genuineinterest in people. He also suggests they encourage colleagues to divulge theirinnermost thoughts, particularly when their guards are down - when workmates aredrunk, tired or emotional. Yeung believes that attentiveness is the way tobecoming a targeted colleague's best friend. He even offers tips on how to fakeit. "You probably aren't really interested in their diet/new curtains/recentyoga retreat/groin operation," said Yeung. "But if you aren't interested, atleast pretend by using 'active listening' cues. Lift your eyebrows and 'flash'your eyes occasionally to signify that you understand what is being said. Nodintermittently to encourage them to continue ... use verbal cues such as'uh-huh', 'mmm' and 'yes' to reassure them you are hanging on their every word." For those who might recognise the dog-eat-dog workplace that Yeung describes butfeel a touch queasy about blatant politicking, Yeung says he is offering adviceabout how to succeed in the real, not the ideal, world. And he does not thinkthat the public sector is any less dominated by office politics than theprivate. "Public-sector organisations can actually be even more political,"says Yeung. "In the private sector there are clearer measures of performance. Inthe public sector, the lack of clarity in performance measures creates moretensions, and decisions are seen as political more often. I've found the publicsector as much of a political minefield as the private." For those who do notrecognise the world he describes, Yeung says "wake up and smell the coffee".Bosses, he says, always have favourites, organisations do not care aboutemployees and the only person with responsibility for your career is you, so putyour own interests first. AppointmentsPage 1 Page 2 Yeung says his book is a manual for dealingwith reality. "I'm not saying that the rules of office politics are right orwrong," he says. "I'm just saying that's the way the world is. The politicalgame doesn't disappear just because you refuse to play it. "I'm sayingbitching, sniping and complaining about other people is not productive and thatpeople should instead observe colleagues' behaviour and do something about it." Isn't it bleak, though, to suggest that the only way to get to the top is toaccept the rules as they are and play by them? Without challenging the existingculture, how will workplaces ever change? And doesn't acceptance of the existingrules allow organisations to escape their obligation to create fairer workplaceswhere what you know might come to matter more than who you know? In his book,Yeung admits to instances where he put his own career before principle. He talksof two former bosses - Alistair and Sean - and how he adapted to suit their"styles" even though those were objectionable. Alistair swore a lot and so whenhe was with him, Yeung would swear more too. Sean had a fixation with women'sbreasts, so Yeung says a breast joke never went amiss when Sean was around. "Thekey to office politics is that people like people much like themselves," saysYeung. So how does Yeung personally square the reality of the workplace andhis own career now? Interestingly, he chooses to work for himself. "The reasonI run my own business is because I no longer want to play the political game,"he says. It seems ironic that the author who advocates the ambitious play bythe rules rather than try to change them has himself walked away from theoffice.