Dear Amanda,

I’ve been happily married for 14 years, but lately my husband has completely lost interest in sex, and I’m at my wit’s end.

He works at a bank, comes home, switches on the news, and seems to shut down before falling asleep as soon as his head hits the pillow. He no longer tries to touch me, and the rejection is destroying my confidence. I’ve even tried wearing sexy lingerie, but he simply turns over, leaving me feeling unattractive and frumpy.

To make matters worse, my friends are constantly complaining that their husbands make advances when they’re tired or not in the mood.

When I raised the subject with my husband, he became defensive and insisted that having less sex is normal at our age. That doesn’t seem to be true for my friends, at least when it comes to their husbands’ desire. His response left me feeling mortified.

What should I do?

We’re both in our forties, and I don’t want our sex life to be over.

Not Getting Any

Dear Not Getting Any,

You’ve certainly challenged the outdated idea that women automatically lose interest in sex after turning 40.

After 14 years together, it’s completely understandable that you still want your husband. Many married couples become less physically affectionate over time, and some even choose separate bedrooms because of snoring or other habits. Your continued desire is nothing to feel embarrassed about—in fact, it’s refreshing.

I understand why his lack of interest has damaged your confidence; I’ve experienced that feeling myself. I once dated a man who seemed more interested in pornography than in me, so I replaced the baby lotion he kept beside his computer with fake tan. The relationship did not last—and neither did the fake tan—but his rejection was painful. It was difficult not to question my body and my desirability.

You say you’ve already spoken to him, but would you consider seeing a therapist together? Relationships change, and this may be a difficult phase that can be addressed through honest communication. A hotel stay or weekend away might help you reconnect, but he also has to be willing to work on the problem.

You deserve intimacy and a fulfilling sex life. I wouldn’t advise looking for sex elsewhere, as that would create further complications, but you are entitled to feel wanted, valued, and desirable within your relationship.

You say this has continued for several years. Have you asked him directly whether he is finding sexual release elsewhere? I’m not suggesting that he is, but it is a question worth addressing rather than leaving you to guess.

It may be that masturbation, the shower, or pornography have become his main sources of sexual satisfaction. If he is honest that his feelings have changed and shows no interest in rebuilding intimacy, you may need to consider whether the relationship can continue in its current form.

You did not marry him simply to share a home as flatmates, and you are still young. Some people need a wake-up call before they recognise what is at risk. My advice is to attend therapy together, have a frank conversation, and make sure he understands that a sexual relationship is important to you—ideally one that you share with him.

If that fails to create any urgency or willingness to keep the relationship alive, I would pack up the sexy lingerie and consider moving on.

Dear Amanda,

RELATED: Republican Billionaire Rick Jackson Walks a Trump Tightrope in Georgia

When I was six months pregnant, I discovered my husband had been having ‘happy endings’ at a massage parlour.

I was devastated, and when I started digging, I found out he had spent thousands in just four months.

He went to therapy and said he was ‘cured’ of his ‘addiction’, but I suspect he’s back at it again. He says I am overreacting, and that it wasn’t cheating anyway, but I am finding it hard to get over.

Our baby is now 11 months old, and I’m still hurt and angry.

Should I move on, or is it true – once a cheater, always a cheater?

Not So Happy Ending.

Dear Not So Happy Ending,

Ah, the old ‘happy endings’ – though there couldn’t be a less fitting phrase, as it’s certainly not a happy ending for you, is it?

Look, I’ve always said men seek sexual relief the way women crave a good foundation. I’m not saying it’s right, easier to swallow (pun unintended), or ever justifiable to cheat, but let me tell you from my experience as Samantha X: there is rarely emotion involved for men during these encounters, if that’s your main concern.

He isn’t about to run off with his massage therapist. His 15 minutes of relief has nothing to do with his feelings for you, nor does it mean he loves you any less.

You say your husband went to therapy and was ‘cured’? I’m sorry, but that’s wishful thinking. I’ve sat in enough recovery meetings to know addictions are not that easy to ‘cure’.

Will he change? You may not like my answer, but no, I don’t think he will. Perhaps he’ll stop for a month, a year, while your baby is a toddler – even a teen – but when the opportunity arises, he’s likely to return to old habits.

You haven’t mentioned your sex life, but I can only assume he wants it more than you do. Don’t blame yourself – many men stray even when they have healthy sex lives.

For some, variety is the spice of life; others are simply opportunistic. Do you really want to live in anxious anticipation every time he leaves the house? Not to mention the money he’s spending.

In my eyes, you have two choices: leave, or do what many wives do – turn a blind eye and tolerate the occasional ‘happy ending’.

It’s not a reflection of his love for you. I once spoke to a wife in a similar situation: her husband swore he’d stop seeing sex workers, and she asked if she should believe him. My answer? No.

In my experience, men like this get caught, promise with tears never to do it again, and as soon as the dust settles, they’re back. They always come back. This is a classic case of ‘knowledge is power’ or ‘ignorance is bliss’.

Is it worth leaving over a few massages? Only you can answer that. Will he change? Absolutely not. Is it cheating? In my opinion, yes – though it’s not the worst thing that can happen in a marriage.

Good luck. I hope you find your own happy ending. 

A transgender doctor who left Scotland for a new role at a sun-drenched Australian coastal hospital following a high-profile tribunal has become embroiled in another dispute over gender and patient care.

The Scottish Mail on Sunday understands that Dr Beth Upton, who now uses the name Lis, has been linked to an alleged incident at a New South Wales hospital in which a woman reportedly declined treatment from the doctor, who was born male.

The woman’s family reportedly feared she could be ‘bullied’ into accepting the 6ft doctor as female, and her husband is said to have remained at her bedside. Under Australia’s self-identification laws, transgender doctors are not legally or professionally required to disclose their gender history or trans status to patients.

During an employment tribunal in Dundee last year, brought by NHS Fife nurse Sandie Peggie, Dr Upton denied being male, described biological sex as a ‘nebulous dog whistle’ and said the doctor would treat a woman who requested a female doctor.

The 31-year-old began working in the emergency department at Port Macquarie Base Hospital in April, four months after leaving the NHS.

The alleged incident is understood to have involved a middle-aged woman who became concerned after recognising the doctor as male and raising the issue. Other members of staff then reportedly became involved.

A friend claimed: ‘Her husband stayed the whole time she was in to make sure they didn’t bully her into accepting treatment.’

Australian women’s rights campaigners have called for a government investigation. They had previously raised concerns after the country’s health regulator recorded Upton’s sex as female.

Rachael Wong, chief executive of Women’s Forum Australia, said: ‘A woman in hospital should not have to defend her boundaries from the very people entrusted with her care.

‘The New South Wales health minister must urgently investigate why a vulnerable woman seeking emergency care felt she needed her husband’s protection to ensure her request to be treated by a female doctor was respected.

‘The minister and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority [AHPRA] must also explain what assessment was made of Upton’s assertion, given under oath, that the doctor would treat women who had specifically requested a female doctor. They must also clarify what safeguards were in place to protect the dignity, wellbeing and consent of female patients.

‘In April, we warned that AHPRA’s registration of Upton as a female doctor raised serious questions about whether women’s boundaries and consent would be respected in Australian hospitals. This allegation brings those concerns into sharp focus.’

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Landman Season 3: Will the Hit Series Return to TV in 2026?

Sall Grover, a Queensland businesswoman who lost a legal case after refusing to allow a man who identifies as a woman to use her female-only social media platform, said: ‘A doctor who refuses to acknowledge the reality of biological sex is putting themselves and their patients in a precarious position.

‘If it is being done to validate the doctor’s own identity, it makes the situation even more sinister.’

One hospital staff member said: ‘It should now be very clear why Dr Upton wanted to come to work in Australia. Our laws, as they stand, mean the doctor is regarded as a woman here.

‘But it was always only a matter of time before an allegation like this was made.’

Other colleagues at the 228-bed hospital have welcomed the transgender doctor. One nurse said: ‘Lis is lovely. Everyone loves her.’ The Dundee University medical graduate is living in the middle-class coastal community, where the average property costs about $900,000 (£473,000).

The doctor, along with wife Zoe, has moved into a rented home in the resort, which has a burgeoning LGBTQIA+ scene.

Dr Upton, a field hockey goalkeeper, has also landed a second job umpiring games for Port Macquarie Hastings Hockey Association, earning around $50 a match.

The medic was given help by the hospital to secure a visa after landing the $110,000-a-year post.

Meanwhile, Mrs Peggie, 56, faces losing her income in three months.

She has been off sick as she continues an appeal against NHS Fife following her partial tribunal win. It is understood that her sick pay will run out in January.

The tribunal ruled the health board, which spent around £220,000 defending both Upton and itself, had harassed Mrs Peggie by allowing the trans doctor to use the female-only changing room at Kirkcaldy’s Victoria Hospital.

Unlike UK law, clarified by the Supreme Court in the For Women Scotland ruling last year, Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation allows biological men who identify as women into female-only spaces.

The health authority which oversees Port Macquarie Base Hospital said: ‘Mid Northern Coast Local Health District does not comment on matters relating to individual staff members.’ 

Mrs Peggie’s lawyer, Margaret Gribbon, also declined to comment.

How little does Anthony Albanese think Australians notice—and how much accountability does he believe his office owes them?

Those questions are increasingly difficult to dismiss after the Prime Minister’s extraordinary effort to portray a document casting doubt on Helen Haines’s integrity as something akin to a compliment.

As Haines remains in hospital after losing both legs in the horrific incident outside her electorate office, Albanese has opted to defend what critics regard as indefensible conduct.

Earlier this week, I reported that the Prime Minister’s office had circulated a briefing document about Haines to journalists last month, after the independent MP questioned a $6 million grant to Albanese’s local golf club. The document raised suggestions about undeclared gifts and private interests, yet offered no evidence to substantiate those insinuations.

Haines is widely regarded as an MP of strong personal integrity. That, however, did not prevent the Albanese team from attempting to undermine her.

When the story emerged, Albanese’s office had several opportunities to acknowledge an error, apologise and explain what the Prime Minister knew—or planned to do—to address the culture within his team.

Instead, the public received this explanation:

‘It’s a list of funding asks from Helen Haines, just showing that people of integrity stand up for their electorate,’ Albanese told ABC Radio.

The Prime Minister then made the remarkable claim that the document contained “no personal criticism of Helen”.

Really?

Sky News journalist Trudy McIntosh, who received the briefing when it was circulated, challenged that version of events on Thursday.

‘That’s not how it was handed around to journalists like myself at the time by members of the Prime Minister’s office,’ she said.

Are questions about whether an MP accepted undeclared gifts not personal? Do suggestions about private interests in projects for which she sought public funding not invite readers to question her integrity?

What, exactly, would constitute a personal criticism, Prime Minister? The attempt to redefine the document looks like gaslighting on an extraordinary scale.

Others who saw the briefing have reached much the same conclusion. It was not presented as a tribute to an MP of integrity standing up for her electorate, despite the way Albanese is now seeking to portray it.

The document went beyond listing Haines’s funding requests. Without offering supporting evidence, it questioned whether she had received undeclared gifts or maintained private interests in projects she wanted funded. In effect, it recast legitimate advocacy for her electorate as potential self-interest. That is hardly a tribute to her integrity.

Adding a question mark does not transform an insinuation into responsible public scrutiny. Nor does placing legitimate funding requests beside those suggestions erase the impression they were designed to create.

It supplies the scaffolding on which suspicion can be built, which was exactly what his office was trying to achieve.

Haines, incidentally, is an MP who gave up her Qantas Chairman’s Lounge membership. She was among the comparatively small group of parliamentarians prepared to surrender that particular perk.

Yet the Prime Minister’s office invited journalists to investigate whether her advocacy concealed private benefits. How grubby is that?

Now Albo wants Australians to believe his staff were effectively celebrating her commitment to her constituents.

How thoughtful.

What an unfortunate coincidence that this sudden enthusiasm for celebrating Haines’s integrity emerged right after she described the $6million grant to his local Marrickville Golf Club as ‘pork-barrelling by design’.

Her objection was that the invitation-only scheme let his local golf club collect millions while clubs in her electorate couldn’t even apply. Rather than explain why some communities got a cheque and others couldn’t get through the door, Albo’s office went digging in the mud.

And now we’re supposed to believe the dirt sheet was meant as a compliment? How utterly ridiculous.

Even if we play along with the PM’s fallacy, does his office routinely distribute supposedly flattering profiles of independent MPs? Where are the equivalent documents recognising their integrity and applauding their funding requests if that’s how the PM’s office operates?

And do those tributes also come with questions designed to sully reputations?

Independent senator David Pocock isn’t buying the Prime Minister’s insulting reinvention of events either.

‘Trying to explain this away rather than acknowledging what happened, taking responsibility and apologising is not good enough,’ he said.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Father Who Killed Bend School Shooter Speaks Publicly for First Time

‘Whether or not this behaviour was authorised, it was wrong, and there should be accountability.’

Precisely.

There is more to this affair than an offensive document and an implausible defence that reflects Albo’s tendency to gaslight.

Sources with knowledge of the incident tell me deputy director of communications Joshua Lloyd produced the document after a morning communications meeting, having been directed to do so.

It places the question of who commissioned the document squarely alongside the question of who prepared it.

I haven’t established who specifically gave that direction. But Lloyd is a deputy head of communications in the Prime Minister’s office. The number of people occupying positions of authority above him is hardly limitless.

His communications boss is Fiona Sugden. The chief of staff is Tim Gartrell. Another senior figure in the office is principal private secretary David Epstein. Above the office sits the Prime Minister himself. That’s about it.

It does not establish which, if any, of these individuals (including the PM himself) commissioned or approved this document. But it certainly makes the refusal to explain the chain of responsibility all the more unacceptable, and concerning.

Epstein’s presence also supplies some historical context worthy of special mention.

During the Hawke and Keating years, he ran the National Media Liaison Service, known in Canberra as the ‘Animals’ and notorious for its political dirt-digging. I’ve researched and written extensively about it as a political science academic.

Epstein’s experience in the government’s media operation is well-documented, and its reputation long predates this particular controversy.

That history doesn’t establish that he had any involvement in the Haines document. But it does mean this is an office with ample institutional knowledge of how political attack operations work.

It should therefore be capable of explaining this one. I gave its senior staff every opportunity to do just that.

First I sent four straightforward questions to Sugden. When she didn’t respond, I forwarded them to Gartrell.

• Did Lloyd prepare the document and who authorised its distribution?
• Did the Prime Minister know about or approve it?
• What evidence supported its questions about possible undeclared gifts and personal interests?
• And how did the office reconcile the document with Albanese’s praise of Haines’s integrity and his call to avoid unjustified questioning of politicians’ motives?

Neither of Albo’s lieutenants have bothered to reply. Four questions. No response. These are taxpayer-funded staffers, by the way, including Lloyd, who created the dirt file and was the last person to edit it, according to the metadata.

Your tax dollars hard at work.

An office willing to circulate questions about somebody else’s integrity should at least be willing to answer a few simple questions about its own conduct, surely?

Apparently that standard is too demanding for Albo’s prime ministerial office.

There is a further question he should answer: did Haines raise the document with him after she became aware of it last month?

If so, what did she say, and how did he respond? Establishing whether he was told about the document at the time is central to understanding what he knew before this week’s evasions.

It might even help us understand why he’s being so evasive. Think about it.

There is a familiarity to Albo’s gaslighting this week. After the controversy over his ‘melons’ comments (replete with hand gestures) concerning Japan’s first female prime minister, Albo insisted the interpretation placed on the exchange was incorrect.

People’s eyes and ears were deceiving then.

Now a document inviting suspicion about Haines’s integrity is presented as evidence of respect for it. The gall of it all is off the charts!

The circumstances make this episode especially ugly. Haines is facing a recovery and a changed life that most of us can scarcely comprehend. Surely this was a moment to put aside the stubborn determination to concede nothing.

Albo could have acknowledged that insinuations unsupported by evidence should never have been circulated by his office.

If he didn’t know about the document, he could have said so. If staff acted improperly, he could have told us they have been counselled to do better.

But accepting responsibility for the standards of his office requires leadership. Enough humility to acknowledge that the conduct fell short.

Instead of doing that, Albo has chosen to gaslight everyone, including Haines. She deserved better when the dirt sheet was circulated in the first place, and she certainly deserves better now.

The PM used a radio interview during the week to declare that he considers Helen Haines a friend. With friends like Albo, who needs enemies.