Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Working on the “driving” part of the “drinking and driving” equation Previous entry: Bamboo Review: The Ineffable Drakeness Of Drake

How I Stopped Being A Slut, And Learned To Cash Massive Book Advances

Sex

Another day, another sweet book deal for a woman who lambasts her former slutty self as unloveable, and renounces sex (because men don’t love women they stick it to).  Reading this interview with Hephzibah Anderson, the author of Chastened, I realized something about the women trotting out the “no one will marry sluts” line—-they are the flip side of the “pick-up artist” world. 

At first, this seems like a weird thing to say.  PUAs are all about the casual sex, right?  But if you look a little deeper, you see the born-again non-sluts and the PUAs are singing the same tune.  David Wong at Cracked describes the PUAs this way:

They believe the male/female relationship is adversarial in nature, and that sex is a way of conquering you.

Agreed.  And that is exactly the attitude taken by the champions of chastity:

Did you pinpoint what changed in a relationship after sex? Was it a perceived shift in the power dynamic, was it one-sided or mutual?

Yes, I felt that I needed so much more from them. And, to me, it felt like I needed much more than my right. At the end of the year, I would be able to say, “Well, that’s ridiculous.” I think we’ve lost any sense of healthy emotional entitlement. I think if you go to bed with somebody, it is a kind of bond; it’s not nothing, however much we try to say it’s nothing. Whether you’re a man or woman, you’re absolutely in your rights to expect there to be some kind of emotional gain.

In both cases, the relationship between men and women is basically seen as a game of Capture The Flag, or in this case, Capture The Pussy.  Of course, in this weird game, once a man touches the pussy with his weiner, then he basically wins possession, and has All The Power.  Of course, men don’t like women—-who would?, since women are fundamentally unlikeable in this misogynist worldview—-so when men have all the power, they choose to use it by abandoning women.  So the only way women win the affection of these cold-hearted men (which we’re supposed to want, because they’re our social superiors and merely being in their presence should be good enough for us) is to hold out on the pussy.  In this case, she trots out examples of guys she’s dated who married other women, and I think we’re supposed to assume those women were better defenders of the Pussy Flag.  I think that’s about right, though I may be hazy on the rules of Capture The Flag.  But I absolutely understand the perceived rules of Capture The Pussy.  I also understand how much fucking money is flying around for women who are willing to play the fallen woman who has learned her lesson in public. 

Well, I like money, so I’ve been thinking that maybe it’s time to write a book about how I put my vagina on lockdown and found love and the kind of self-respect that only comes from self-flagellation and ring-hungry desperation in the process.  I envy the title “Chastened”, which makes literal the subtext of all these books.  So, I thought I’d call my book “Bitch-Slapped: How Locking Up My Vagina Brought Me Success, Love, And Perfect Teeth”.


There are some obstacles to overcome.  The largest is obviously my boyfriend, who is all about me getting lucrative book deals, but is concerned that the necessary thesis—-that my wanton feminist ways have left me loveless and manless—-could be construed as insulting to him.  I’ve tossed around the idea of kicking him out and only seeing him on the sly, but the cats have raised objections to this, having grown quite fond of him after living with him for most of their lives. 

Perhaps I’m overthinking this.  After all, reality has never been an obstacle when it comes to the argument that men can love you or fuck you but they can’t do both.  These books are all sold on the premise that you can un-fuck yourself into a wedding gown, but the writers neglect to produce husbands, fiances, or long-term boyfriends as material evidence that their strategy worked.  This should probably be troubling from a marketing perspective, but it ends up being more of a ha-ha sort of thing.

I joked to a friend a couple months ago, “Oh, God, this book’s coming out again. Maybe I should just hire somebody. Even my male friends took on the part of fiancé for that happy ending, however cynical we are, we still…But I think in a way it makes it more informative, and makes it more the experiment I was thinking of, because I’m implementing these lessons that I’ve learned. And I’m actually quite happy, actually quite content. There’s been a lot less sex, but more romance. And a lot more emotional closeness.

Sorry, but that’s unsatisfying.  When you start off with, “I quit having sex because I kept seeing all these dudes marry women that weren’t me, so I changed strategies,” people are going to expect some results beyond a vague claim of “emotional closeness”.  You know how phony baloney diet books are sold with a picture of the author contrasting their old pants with their new tight-fitting jeans?  For the sex diet books, I feel that a husband standing next to you is the equivalent of your new blue jeans. Dawn Eden is in the same sad situation, after her book The Thrill of the Chaste

Since the sex diet genre books don’t even reach this level of pseudo-proof, there’s probably no reason for me to give up my boyfriend or sex to write a book about how giving up sex made men quit running screaming away from me.  Hell, I probably don’t even need to work that hard, just copy/paste large portions from other books and change a couple of details.  And then watch the money roll in. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 01:37 PM • (129) Comments

Word.

And of course you could make some cash with a hastily-written bitch-slapped memoir - but I suspect there’s also a dissertation in here somewhere.  Or several.

The lack of self respect and self direction these women evidence in public (for profit) is indeed disturbing.

Comment #1: StellaTex  on  06/24  at  01:54 PM

I facepalmed at “chastened.”

In my experience, men don’t want to be with women who are ring hungry and desperate for companionship. The dudes that I have dated have made it clear they don’t want to be with women who don’t have a life of their own. My current boyfriend, for instance, stresses how important it is to him that I work on my career. Not because of the space issue, but because like most men he enjoys the company of another intelligent human being. He wants a partner, not a servant.

I think you need MORE to offer than sex before a dude will hang around.

Comment #2: Cola82  on  06/24  at  02:04 PM

The reigning irony here is that the author is getting paid for subordinating her sexuality. She is, essentially, making her capacity for sex into a profitable object. What is that, if not a form of prostitution?

Comment #3: Alyson Miers  on  06/24  at  02:05 PM

The problem is even starting the conversation from the premise that women’s choices should be dictated by men’s preferences in who they want to partner with.  I mean, there’s a reasonable amount of self-reflection based on what you want out of relationships that everyone should probably engage in, but this is entirely a one-way discussion: Men set the standards, women comply or die alone.  So then someone says, “Men only marry women who withhold sex!” and then someone else says, “Men only want women who are self-directed, etc.!” and there’s no discussion about whether or not it’s exactly right for men to have the arbitrary power to tell women how to be in the world without having to adjust themselves in any way. 

Perhaps a more realistic view is, “When men have all the power, they’ll drift towards an unfair system where they women they marry have to be virginal because they can’t be bothered with jealousy.  But we can demand more of men, perhaps expecting them to treat women like equal human beings.  If they expect women to be generous and understanding that they have a life before them, then they should extend that respect.”

Comment #4: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/24  at  02:18 PM

Following on #4:

With this issue - and very similarly with discussions of body type - someone makes news describing how all men like X (skinny women! sexless women!  blondes!) and then people are sure to challenge the premise (Men don’t like X, they like Y! or “I don’t like X, I like Y” or more extremely “X? You’d have to be a moron to like X) and we don’t really change anything.  Sexuality is at least sort of non-arbitrary in this regard, and certain cultural prescriptions have distinct problems from others. 

But if beauty standards fixated on any other arbitrary characteristic, the “Men only like Y” argument turns exactly into the “Men only like X” argument - we read about the products and patterns that pressure women to have lighter skin (especially in Asia), and get rebutted by men claiming that they like swarthier women - while discussions about tanning happen exactly in the reverse and maintain the premise.

Comment #5: Loch Ness Monster  on  06/24  at  02:30 PM

After dating choads who treat sex as a powerplay and disrespect her for “giving it up”, she comes to the conclusion that she needs to withold sex and not that she’s been dating choads.

/facepalm

Comment #6: Entomologista  on  06/24  at  02:31 PM

What I don’t really get about all this is that, nowadays, relationships are about sex.  I have plenty of male friends who I do not have sex with.  Those guys are not considered my “boyfriend”.  On the other hand, in order to be elevated to that status, we pretty much have to have sex.  Or do other stuff that is sexual in nature*, like kiss, or snuggle or otherwise share some sort of physical affection.  Otherwise, you’re just a dude I enjoy drinking beers with and pwning at trivial pursuit.  You’re not my boyfriend.  And I don’t think I’m alone in this concept of what a romantic relationship entails circa 2010. 

So, ummm, yeah.  I don’t really understand how avoiding romantic relationships is necessarily going to lead one to get married sooner. 

*I’m guessing this is where it’s at for Hephzibah (!!!) - though it seems pretty illogical to me.  If some dude is really into you, and wants to have sex, but you only want to kiss or whatever, where does the Put A Ring On It come in?  Isn’t he just going to surmise that you’re not sexually compatible?  Unless maybe you are looking to marry an asexual person?  Color me confused.

Comment #7: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  02:37 PM

Entomologista wins the thread.

The so-called “problem” of guys who leave Hepzibah after she’s been intimate with them is not her problem.  It’s the guys’ problem. 

She didn’t need them in the first place, and she dodged a bullet by them leaving, thereby insuring she wouldn’t have to expend any more precious energy pursuing a relationship with them.

The only guys worth having are the ones who want to be with that particular woman.  If he’s ambivalent, or has the wandering eye, or just isn’t certain he wants to be with her, the answer is to let him go.  This is the whole premise behind “Why Men Love Bitches.”  Women who keep busy with their own lives, careers, projects and friends don’t need men who don’t want to be with them.  They only settle with guys who are crazy about them because they have lots of other things to do.  And yes, that includes casual sex with dudes they find interesting when they feel like it.

Comment #8: Mezosub  on  06/24  at  02:37 PM

They believe the male/female relationship is adversarial in nature, and that sex is a way of conquering you.

Flashback to my self, circa 1990, slowly ekeing my way through Camille Paglia’s “Sexual Personae”. This is basically the thesis of her book, to the extent that any coherent thesis can be discovered. That meagre discovery took about two hundred hours of sifting through her lousy writing, tendentious arguments, and non-sequitir reasoning.

Comment #9: atheist  on  06/24  at  02:37 PM

I played a fair bit of capture the flag in my days and many variations thereof.

It should be noted that, if member of one team is “captured” by the other team (through “touching”), they are carted off to the other team’s jail and are taken out of commission for the rest of the game. While it is not a strict flag analogy, the person can re-enter the game if they can be touched by a member of their own team.

So despair not ladies who fear they have lost the game, there is a very easy way to win back your pre-fucked personal worth.

Lesbianism!

Comment #10: Mighty Ponygirl  on  06/24  at  02:39 PM

While the Atlantic has a horrible record with printing all sorts of anti-feminist gagas, I found this interview not at all offensive.  In fact, I understood the book as an assertion of her right to say NO.  If anything, it’s a criticism of Raunch culture (a la Ariel Levy).

First of all, she’s hardly C Flanagan.  When asked about hook ups, she says:
“I think it certainly works for a percentage of women out there, and that’s great and it’s wonderful that we all have that option. And I’m in no way advocating for the clock to be turned back, but I think that a lot of women know that they have the right to say no, but actually feeling like they have the right to say no in certain situations is a quite different thing.”

The point isn’t that she was stopping doing something that felt good for religious or whatever reasons, but that she stopped forcing herself to cop to the social pressue to do things she didn’t want to/wasn’t ready for in the context of a relationship.  Another quote:
“And I was forced to see things about myself that I hadn’t liked to think of myself being—you know, passive and always going along with things because that was always sort of what was expected. “

She also mentions the double standard for men:  “But I think certainly if some women have a hard time feeling they have the right to say no, men—it’s just considered really freakish if they say decide to say, “Let’s wait.”

Let’s face it, in some circles there is as much pressure on women to ‘put out’ as there is pressure to be celibate in, say, rural South Carolina.  Neither pressure is about what the women themselves actually want.

Honestly, this has been my experience.  There is SO SO much pressure on women

Comment #11: Lurker  on  06/24  at  02:47 PM

# 7 Opoponax

What about intimacy?  I would say that what distinguishes friendships from relationships for me is a certain intimacy level and need to be with eachother all the time.  That’s all.

Comment #12: Lurker  on  06/24  at  02:52 PM

After dating choads who treat sex as a powerplay and disrespect her for “giving it up”, she comes to the conclusion that she needs to withold sex and not that she’s been dating choads.

It’s also entirely possible that these are just normal guys who broke up with her for reasons entirely unrelated to sex. 

I’m going through a breakup right now.  Every day I have a new stupid theory on Why It Didn’t Work.  They get progressively stupider the more sorry I’m feeling for myself.  For instance, the other day I decided that he dumped me because he doesn’t think I’m a good writer.  Which makes not a fucking lick of sense, for a variety of reasons.  I’m finding it really hard to stick to the reality on why my relationship failed, which is that we weren’t compatible in a lot of big ways which weren’t apparent at first

I can easily see a woman who, after one too many episodes of Sex And The City, thinks that all her relationships have failed because she’s not virginal enough.  Rather than for all the reasons relationships usually don’t work out in the complicated world of real life where things don’t get resolved in 22 minutes and a snappy “deep thought” for Carrie’s column.

Comment #13: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  02:53 PM

Amanda said: “The problem is even starting the conversation from the premise that women’s choices should be dictated by men’s preferences in who they want to partner with.  ....  So then someone says, “Men only marry women who withhold sex!” and then someone else says, “Men only want women who are self-directed, etc.!” and there’s no discussion about whether or not it’s exactly right for men to have the arbitrary power to tell women how to be in the world without having to adjust themselves in any way.  “

See, that I 100% agree with.  I just think that’s what the writer herself was arguing, the Atlantic’s misogynistic bend notwithstanding.

Comment #14: Lurker  on  06/24  at  02:56 PM

I would say that what distinguishes friendships from relationships for me is a certain intimacy level and need to be with eachother all the time.

I have a lot of friends who I have very emotionally intimate relationships with, even though we don’t have sex.  Maybe this is easier for me to see because I’m bi, and just because I have a close female friend who I tell all my secrets and fears to, and we hang out a lot, that doesn’t make her my girlfriend.  Because I’m not attracted to her and we’re not having sex.  Similarly, guys.  My best friend is a dude.  We are so close, emotionally, that we’ve cried together.  On multiple occasions.  But we’re not having sex*, so therefore he is in no danger of secretly being my boyfriend. 

In terms of the time commitment, for me that’s just something that comes with a relationship, largely out of social expectations.  I wouldn’t consider whichever friend I spent the most time with my girlfriend or boyfriend by default.

*And he hasn’t even asked me to marry him!

Comment #15: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  03:01 PM

I think that a lot of women know that they have the right to say no, but actually feeling like they have the right to say no in certain situations is a quite different thing.

Isn’t this basically reducing “hook up culture” to institutionalized date rape?

I have MAJOR issues with that.

As well as her assumption that women don’t like sex, we just pretend to because we feel like that’s what we’re supposed to do.

I’m a woman.  I like sex.  I’m not pretending.  I’m not just saying that because I feel I have no right not to engage in sex if I don’t want to. 

Actually, this quote begs the question of whether the author abstained from sex because she doesn’t enjoy sex, not as some kind of bizarre morality experiment.

Comment #16: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  03:05 PM

#13

I’m going through a breakup right now.  Every day I have a new stupid theory on Why It Didn’t Work.  They get progressively stupider the more sorry I’m feeling for myself.  For instance, the other day I decided that he dumped me because he doesn’t think I’m a good writer.  Which makes not a fucking lick of sense, for a variety of reasons.  I’m finding it really hard to stick to the reality on why my relationship failed, which is that we weren’t compatible in a lot of big ways which weren’t apparent at first.

I did this too, during my last break-up. I kept asking why, and finding reasons, as if this would somehow solve the problem. I even decided on a set of reasons we were incompatible. Like all reasons found for things that happen in your life, it made me feel better as long as I didn’t think about it too hard.

Comment #17: atheist  on  06/24  at  03:07 PM

Atheist - exactly.  I’m really enjoying feeling like the wronged party here, and coming up with exotic reasons that I was wronged. 

How can I work this into some sort of book deal?

I’m thinking—You DID Meet Someone Else, Didn’t You?!!!?!??!!!! DIDN’T YOU????? : Interpreting Everything He Said (Or Didn’t Say!) Last Time You Talked  $29.95 in a Self Helf section near you!

Comment #18: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  03:12 PM

So despair not ladies who fear they have lost the game, there is a very easy way to win back your pre-fucked personal worth.

Lesbianism!

But…but that might lead to feminism! And everyone knows feminists are un-bone-able man haters!

Actually, this quote begs the question of whether the author abstained from sex because she doesn’t enjoy sex, not as some kind of bizarre morality experiment.

Y’see, I think that’s an interesting thing. It seems like a decent number of (young) women/girls are a little bit nervous about sex, or don’t enjoy it, or don’t like their options for who to have it with, or whatever. And then some number of those girls and women find this lovely “purity” justification and go on and on about how virginal and moral and clean they are, and wind up buying into a belief system that probably makes them more nervous and their potential partners more assholish. It would be so much easier and healthier to have a place for these women to just be like “yanno what, I’m not really liking the whole sex thing right now, maybe I’ll give it a pass” rather than look for some kind of creepy patriarchal excuse for their feelings.

Girls and women! We don’t need permission from guys to not have sex! No really! And your issues with it, if any, might be better addressed by a therapist than a book deal + public self-flagellation! :p

Comment #19: Bagelsan  on  06/24  at  03:17 PM

And then some number of those girls and women find this lovely “purity” justification and go on and on about how virginal and moral and clean they are, and wind up buying into a belief system…

Exactly.  If you are SO brave for Taking Sexless Back or whatever, why do you need a patriarchally-aligned movement to do it?

Comment #20: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  03:22 PM

Opoponax - Let me try to explain again what I mean.  A culture that tells all women to do A is bad for women because while some women like A, a lot of women actually like B instead.  Similarly, a culture that tells all women to do B is bad for women because while some women like B, a lot of women actually like A instead.

So just because you like A doesn’t mean that we should advocate for a culture that only approves of doing A, but instead let women make their own choices. 

As for what constitutes a romantic relationship, how about we let couples define for themselves what it means to them?  Sure, maybe you personally feel like it’s not a real relationship if there’s no sex, but people are different and have different needs.

You obviously don’t experience this, but you have to trust me on this.  Living in a large liberal city, there’s a lot of pressure on me to do things I’m not comfortable with, and when I refuse I get told I’m not really liberal, I’m a prude, whatever.  That’s the problem with ‘hook-up’ culture.

Comment #21: Lurker  on  06/24  at  03:23 PM

ou know how phony baloney diet books are sold with a picture of the author contrasting their old pants with their new tight-fitting jeans?  For the sex diet books, I feel that a husband standing next to you is the equivalent of your new blue jeans.

Exactly, and I’m not getting that they are really selling books with this stuff - as opposed to getting fifteen minutes of fame from the usual chattering-class outlets. They can’t possibly be self-help books for women wanting to Get That Man, because unlike equally shudder-inducing things like The Rules, there is no success story. You’ll still be alone and manless, ladies, only now you won’t be having sex!

Comment #22: mythago  on  06/24  at  03:23 PM

I have, off-and-on, been in that state for the last fifteen years, Opoponax. It destroyed any enjoyment I had about my writing and to this day I can’t stand to look at my work, and developed a phobia of others reading something I wrote. It’s not a good thing, and if you can get past it, try to do it as soon as possible.

Comment #23: Mark Temporis  on  06/24  at  03:23 PM

“Bitch-Slapped: How Locking Up My Vagina Brought Me Success, Love, And Perfect Teeth”
This reminds me that my sister recently gifted my wife with a DVD called “Teeth” (2007) about a girl in an abstinence program who develops <i>vagina dentata<i>.  How soon will your exploitation text be published?

Comment #24: Jay Schiavone  on  06/24  at  03:25 PM

Someday I’m going to write a book about how I broke all the rules and still got married just by being myself and finding someone who was being his self and by not playing games. I had premarital sex, I had three premarital babies (twins by choice via donor insemination, and a bonus “surprise” via my now husband) so I was even the dreaded single mom and still managed to have an honest intimate relationship. I had a career and still have one. I didn’t change my name. I waited till I was (God Forbid!) nearly 40 to even think about marriage. Oh, and had even more premarital sex. As I fessed up to in a post here two or three topics back, I even spent a brief part of my youth as a stripper…and yet the slutty slut slut ness of all of these horrible things still didn’t render me loveless for life.

My secret? Being a human being who is sincere and doesn’t play games and finding a partner who is also sincere and doesn’t play games. We just treat each other as humans.
Is that like, so hard?

Comment #25: Lexie  on  06/24  at  03:30 PM

Opoponax “As well as her assumption that women don’t like sex, we just pretend to because we feel like that’s what we’re supposed to do. “
Where did she say that?

“Isn’t this basically reducing “hook up culture” to institutionalized date rape?”
That’s how I experienced it and other women I know did.  It doesn’t of course mean that’s all there is to it, and that others - like you - didn’t gain from it.  It just means that there’s no one thing fits all.

Comment #26: Lurker  on  06/24  at  03:32 PM

Isn’t this basically reducing “hook up culture” to institutionalized date rape?

I have MAJOR issues with that.

As well as her assumption that women don’t like sex, we just pretend to because we feel like that’s what we’re supposed to do.

Are you seriously trying to claim that NO women hook up because that’s what’s expected of them?

I’ve gone out with men who clearly had never experienced relationships with women outside of the hook up culture.  To them, my agreeing to go out with them meant that I was going to have sex with them, period.  If I didn’t have a decent grasp of what I do or don’t want, I likely would have just gone along with it, and I know many women who have done that/still do that.

Comment #27: keshmeshi  on  06/24  at  03:33 PM

Ok, I might be in the minority here, but honestly, Capture the Pussy was, bar none, the worst Quake mod out there.

Although my friend Sarah was really into it, now that I think about it.

No wonder she wouldn’t go out with me.

Comment #28: Byronic Commando  on  06/24  at  03:35 PM

There are also some women, myself included, who have a hard time enjoying sex with someone who’s practically a stranger.  Are you also trying to claim that no women put that discomfort aside to please men, go with the flow, or avoid being called a prude?

Comment #29: keshmeshi  on  06/24  at  03:35 PM

It seems to me that she took a year to grow a spine.  She made some bad choices when she was younger, and in order to stop doing that, she decided to spend time figuring herself out.  I’m totally down with that, having done it a time or two.  But it wasn’t having sex that made the choices bad; it was having sex because she felt obligated to do so, or having sex with people who didn’t respect her as a human being.  That would explain the lack of intimacy.  Perhaps she should have tried having sex with friends, instead.

There is also something very strange about thinking that your college boyfriend finding a woman he wants to marry - quite a number of years after college - has anything to do with you.  One assumes there was a maturation process in the years between college and when she saw him buying a ring.  One also assumes that they stopped dating for a reason.  For all I know, the book covers that, but from the interview, it seems she’s a bit shallow and self-centered.  Perhaps she can take a year to figure out how to get over that, too.

Comment #30: Reba  on  06/24  at  03:36 PM

A culture that tells all women to do A is bad for women because while some women like A, a lot of women actually like B instead. 

I guess I just disagree that “culture tells all women to compulsively fuck all comers”. 

I remember back 5-10 years ago when it was considered somewhat rebellious for feminists to insist that we women actually have been known to enjoy a good lay from time to time. 

Everywhere I turn, I see culture telling me that I’m supposed to hate sex.  That it’s a chore I do only to appease men, that it’s something I use as a commodity to trade for what I really want (diamonds!  no: shoes! no: CHOCOLATE!!!!). That I dislike sex so much, I have to be duped into it by callous choads who “only think of one thing, ladies!”  That I say yes when I really mean no because of this scary Hookup Culture I’m stuck in.  That I’m too stupid to know what I really like and how to express that.  That, once I successfully lure a man with my oh so liberated sexy wiles, I will revert to my true sexless shrew nature. 

So, no, sorry, I refuse to believe that it’s some kind of feminist axiom that all women are coerced into having sex all the time because we can’t possibly actually enjoy it.

Comment #31: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  03:36 PM

“The problem is even starting the conversation from the premise that women’s choices should be dictated by men’s preferences in who they want to partner with.  I mean, there’s a reasonable amount of self-reflection based on what you want out of relationships that everyone should probably engage in, but this is entirely a one-way discussion: Men set the standards, women comply or die alone.”

This occurs because of the fundamental cultural assumption that women require marriage for self-fulfillment and men do not.  In popular culture, men describe their wives as “the old ball-and-chain” more often than “my better half”, and women who don’t marry are seen as spinsters and somehow outcast and wrong.  This creates the (untrue) perception that women need marriage more than men, and thus men are seen as holding the upper hand in courtship (because they can always walk away and bang 22-year-olds or something).  Until that root perception changes, the discussion will always be one-sided.

Comment #32: ZachPruckowski  on  06/24  at  03:38 PM

Are you also trying to claim that no women put that discomfort aside to please men, go with the flow, or avoid being called a prude?

This is totally anecdotal, of course, but, even living my liberated feminazi life in the big scary city, I don’t feel pressured to have casual sex.  None of my female friends have ever talked about it, either.  If anything, my girlfriends and I struggle with the notion that we’re all prudes by nature, and any sexual impulse we express has to somehow revolve around men and can’t possibly be how we really feel.

Do I think that men pressure women into having sex we don’t want to have?  Sure.  But I’m suspicious of making that some sort of larger statement about The Kids These Days, or whatever.

Comment #33: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  03:40 PM

I can see one way in which eschewing—not withholding—casual-ish sex would get you closer to marriage and family if that’s your thing, but it’s kinda diametrically opposed to the power-play thesis. If you don’t sleep with anyone you don’t think you might be able to make a permanent relationship with, you go through a lot fewer relationships that are OK but ultimately just marking time. So in effect you get to evaluate more candidates in less time by avoiding multiple interviews with the ones you know you’re not going to hire.

Of course it also makes the decision on whether to have sex much more fraught, because you’ve a priori decided that your bed partner is marriage material, and you’ll likely be pushing in that direction whether it’s a good idea or not.

Comment #34: paul  on  06/24  at  03:42 PM

Are you seriously trying to claim that NO women hook up because that’s what’s expected of them?

Well, I think that women are entitled to feel how they feel, and if they feel coerced, OK.  And if for some reason they attach that coercion to the culture at large rather than some specific dude making them feel like shit, well, OK.  I disagree, but that’s philosophical, not a personal judgment.

Do I think that the wider culture coerces young women into fucking people they don’t want to fuck?  No.  And I think anyone who seriously thinks that has been watching too many panicky Nightline reports about sexting.

Comment #35: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  03:45 PM

What if we in fact have a culture that both coerces women into having sex when they don’t want to and also judges them as sluts when they give in? This would tie both the major theories du thread together.

Comment #36: atheist  on  06/24  at  03:47 PM

To them, my agreeing to go out with them meant that I was going to have sex with them, period.

Do you mean “agreeing to go out on a date with them” or “agreeing to be in a relationship with them”.

If it’s the former, I would blame the choady dudes you’ve been dating, not “Hookup Culture”. 

If it’s the latter, well, yes.  Welcome to life as an adult since about 1915.

Comment #37: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  03:48 PM

It seems to me that she took a year to grow a spine.  She made some bad choices when she was younger, and in order to stop doing that, she decided to spend time figuring herself out.  I’m totally down with that, having done it a time or two.

There really ought to be an age limit on who gets book deals to write about this sort of thing.  Some kind of “you must be this tall to ride” clown pointing at a line on the wall.  You should have to be at least 55, and you should need a certain amount of lived experience.  And preferably a few degrees in a relevant field and a nice long history of publications that are not Slate and the Style section of the NYT.

Comment #38: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  03:53 PM

“So, no, sorry, I refuse to believe that it’s some kind of feminist axiom that all women are coerced into having sex all the time because we can’t possibly actually enjoy it. “

Who’s saying that?  Not me, not Keshmeshi.  All I say that in some places, the places I frequent, that culture exists.  It’s not really open to argument -  I’ve been called a prude too many times to count.

And OF COURSE at the same time there are places where there’s a lot of shaming of women for having sex.  That’s the other side of the coin.  I see that too (though usually not from the same people).

Honestly, I think that since being a prude is not a problem for you, you are just not sensitive to the negative messages I’m sensitive to.  That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, you know?

Comment #39: Lurker  on  06/24  at  03:53 PM

Atheist -
“What if we in fact have a culture that both coerces women into having sex when they don’t want to and also judges them as sluts when they give in? This would tie both the major theories du thread together. “

Exactly.  That’s just where I am coming from.

Comment #40: Lurker  on  06/24  at  03:55 PM

Are you seriously trying to claim that NO women hook up because that’s what’s expected of them?

I did that.  Once.  But here’s the thing.  It was my decision to do that.  I remember making the decision.  If I’d said no, he would have gotten pissy, but he wouldn’t have raped me.  We’d known each other long enough for him to realize I’d fuck up his entire life, quickly, if he even considered it.  At that point in my life, I didn’t want a relationship, and I figured there was no harm in finding out if we were sexually compatible.  We so weren’t, but I suspect if it had been a night of wild passion that blew my socks off, I might have gone out with him again.  As it stood, not even dinner at a fancy restaurant, a superb play, drinks overlooking the river, and a luxury suite at the Hilton would have made it worth going through the motions again.  It seems I am not a prostitute.  I made that decision, too.

Comment #41: Reba  on  06/24  at  04:00 PM

Lurker, the problem is that it’s logically inconsistent to simultaneously claim that everyone should get to have her own personal perception of this stuff, AND that there’s some kind of cultural hegemony FORCING all women to pretend we’re total horndogs (up to and including actually coercing women into sex they openly don’t want to have).  That runs contrary to the meaning of the word hegemony. 

I mean, do I agree that you feel that way?  And that others feel that way?  Sure.  Do I agree that maybe some people said things to you that were hurtful, or made you feel bad about yourself for manipulative reasons?  Sure.  But I don’t believe that’s the universal message of modern American culture, or that it’s somehow revolutionary to pretend that, by and large, women are sexless drones waiting chastely for their knight in shining armor.  It’s just too convenient, and it reeks of backlash.

Comment #42: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  04:01 PM

The Opoponax - I don’t have a TV.  I get pretty much all of my news from liberal websites.  I got my sense that “the wider culture coerces young women into fucking people they don’t want to fuck?” from my own life experiences.

I really don’t understand why you’re so eager to deny the lived experience of real women.

Seriously, the more I’m thinking about it, are you kidding?  Haven’t you heard about the dismally low reporting and conviction rates of sexual abuse?  Haven’t you heard of victim blaming?  Saying that the wider culture doesn’t coerce young women into things is kind of MRA.

I’m done arguing with you.  I was hoping you’d see another point of view but you’re obviously not interested.

Comment #43: Lurker  on  06/24  at  04:01 PM

Do you mean “agreeing to go out on a date with them” or “agreeing to be in a relationship with them”.

If it’s the former, I would blame the choady dudes you’ve been dating, not “Hookup Culture”.

If it’s the latter, well, yes.  Welcome to life as an adult since about 1915.

Okay, now you’re just confusing me. Did people in relationships only start having sex in 1915? Do you start being obligated to provide sex as an adult but not as a teenager? Does being in a relationship entitle the other party to sex? Do asexuals not exist anymore?

*puzzled*

Comment #44: Bagelsan  on  06/24  at  04:01 PM

The Opoponax - I don’t have a TV.  I get pretty much all of my news from liberal websites.  I got my sense that “the wider culture coerces young women into fucking people they don’t want to fuck?” from my own life experiences.

Cosign a lot of this. My wider “culture” is American, but more narrowly it is liberal/feminist/etc. Because (like everyone) I am embedded in multiple “cultures” I get conflicting messages. From the American culture it trends a little more “don’t be a slut, women don’t even like sex” and from the feminist culture it often swings too far the other way with messages like “women have tons of sex and they love it. That is just the way women are.”

Neither of these messages is terribly helpful to me. And yeah, in some circles there absolutely is “cultural” pressure to hook up, have sex, talk about sex and love it, yadda yadda. Virginity and sex are totally politicized by both camps and both camps seem to do their darndest to have perfectly opposite messages.

Comment #45: Bagelsan  on  06/24  at  04:08 PM

Ariel Levy:
http://www.amazon.com/Female-Chauvinist-Pigs-Raunch-Culture/dp/0743249895

It’s a she, and she’s gay and gay-married, before anyone decries her for being some sort of Christian fundamentalist.

Comment #46: Lurker  on  06/24  at  04:09 PM

Bagelsan - I was being a little snarky, but I picked that date because it seems like a good rough pick for the time when dating and relationships started to evolve to where they are now.

And, yeah, I do think that, in our culture, it is assumed that adults who are in romantic relationships are going to be sexually active (something that was generally NOT assumed in the 19th century).  Honestly it’s bugging me that even on this blog there’s all this handwaving about that.

Comment #47: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  04:15 PM

I got my sense that “the wider culture coerces young women into fucking people they don’t want to fuck?” from my own life experiences.

Well, sure.  Anyone can decide that it’s really “the wider culture” that is pulling the strings, as opposed to the dynamics of their particular social circle or whatever.

If you don’t have access to the media at all, how do you know what its messages are?

Comment #48: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  04:18 PM

Seriously, the more I’m thinking about it, are you kidding?  Haven’t you heard about the dismally low reporting and conviction rates of sexual abuse?  Haven’t you heard of victim blaming?  Saying that the wider culture doesn’t coerce young women into things is kind of MRA.

Are you conflating sexual assault with consensual sex?  Because that’s a whole different arena.  Take it from a survivor: feeling pressured to consent to sex is not the same thing as being sexually abused.  Consensual sex does not have a victim.  If you are agreeing to have sex with someone because you feel like it’s expected of you, you are still agreeing to have sex.  If you do not consent, and are forcibly attacked, that is rape.  If you cannot differentiate between the two, I strongly suggest you seek counseling right away.  Or, you know, stop setting up straw victims just so you can knock them down.

What I got from Opoponax’s comments was that there is no monolithic culture dictating what a woman must do in regards to sex.  I don’t think that discounts the pressures people feel to fit in, though you may want to consider the kind of places you hang out, if that’s what’s being expected of you. 

The coercion to have sex because someone wants to have sex with you is not new.  It had many names before “hook up culture” tried to make it something new.  In fact, if you want to see an early example, read Andreas Cappellanus, The Art of Courtly Love - which is advice for women on how to turn aside the pleading of besotted men.  It was written in the 12th Century.  Or, if you prefer later, The Treasure of the City of Ladies by Christine de Pisan, which gave advice from courtship through marriage and, at the end, a section directed at prostitutes which can be summed up as “Don’t do this.”  Advice, one notes, that is still given to women today regarding sex, whether it’s their profession or not. 

So, there is and has been as large a cultural movement cautioning you to not have sex as there is pressuring you to have it.  The choice, ultimately, is yours, but you’re free to blame “culture” for whichever decision you make, if that makes it easier on you.

Comment #49: Reba  on  06/24  at  04:21 PM

So the only way women win the affection of these cold-hearted men (which we’re supposed to want, because they’re our social superiors and merely being in their presence should be good enough for us) is to hold out on the pussy.  In this case, she trots out examples of guys she’s dated who married other women, and I think we’re supposed to assume those women were better defenders of the Pussy Flag.

Listen, boy—
A girl who trades on all that purity
Merely wants to trade my independence for her security.
The only affirmative she will file
Refers to marching down the aisle.

Comment #50: kristin  on  06/24  at  04:22 PM

@37:  yeah, I have to pile on here, too.  Even if you are in a relationship with someone, or that person is your agreed-upon boyfriend/girlfriend, you’re not obliged to provide that person with a sexual outlet.  No one is ever entitled.  Not your boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse of fifty years/what have you.  Yay autonomy!

Comment #51: dillene  on  06/24  at  04:24 PM

The mind boggles at the market for these books.
They are fundamentally self-defeating, in a broad sense, so how is it they keep getting sold to us (the mainstream book-buying customer) so that we buy them and they don’t have to be funded by the, well, who is funding them anyways?
Sheesh.

Comment #52: dustbunny44  on  06/24  at  04:25 PM

Because I went to college?  Because I hear what people around me (not my friends, obviously, I chose them too carefully) say?  Because shit happened to people I know?  There are a lot of ways of keeping in touch with what happens to people my age without listening to Christian Conservative propaganda.

And seriously, you, it seems, are part of the problem.  You are dismissing romantic relationships that don’t include sex, and suggesting that if you don’t want to have sex you shouldn’t seek a relationship like in your response to Keshmeshi.  You are both ignoring the fact that there is human variety and putting pressure on people to do things they don’t want to but obviously you are too stubborn to see that.

Comment #53: Lurker  on  06/24  at  04:25 PM

Do I think that the wider culture coerces young women into fucking people they don’t want to fuck?  No.

This puzzles me. “What’s the matter, baby, you uptight?” was not invented in the 1960s, but didn’t stop then, either. And surely I can’t be the only person who’s ever run into a guy who derided a woman for willingly having sex with him as “too easy”.

Like Lurker, I’m not understanding the problem with recognizing that a patriarchal culture treating women’s bodies as men’s property means women have no right to make their own decisions.

Where the pearl-clutchers fall down the rabbit hole is their assumption that, in a culture where women are pressured to say “yes”, the only proper response is to always say “no”.

Comment #54: mythago  on  06/24  at  04:26 PM

I really don’t understand why you’re so eager to deny the lived experience of real women.

I haven’t.  Over and over I have said that everyone has a right to feel the way they feel, and to express that as they see fit.  I have said that I agree that we all have different lived experiences, and nobody’s experience is any more or less legitimate than anyone else’s.  Which goes for both personal sexuality and the influences one feels and how they categorize those influences.

However, you can either say “oh, well, la di da, everyone gets to have their own unique lived experiences, and nobody can invalidate that”, OR you can assert that the wider culture inexorably asserts a specific influence on people.  Either it’s a hegemony, or it’s a pluralistic wonderland where everyone gets to be right.  You can’t really argue it both ways.

Haven’t you heard about the dismally low reporting and conviction rates of sexual abuse?  Haven’t you heard of victim blaming?

Look, I’m a survivor of rape and sexual abuse.  I’ve been through all that shit.  Do I think it exists?  It’s not a matter of belief for me but of “lived experience”.  But I know who coerced me into sex, and it was not my cell phone, or Facebook, or my university, or “hook up culture” (or any of the MANY social trends and technologies that have been forced to play that role by past reactionaries).  It was a PERSON.  Whose coercion took the form of threatening bodily harm and death - not thinking less of me or calling me a name. 

My experience as a survivor is part of why I roll my eyes a bit at all this “OMG Teh Evil Hook Up Culture Is Raping Our Wimminz!” garbage, to be perfectly honest.

Comment #55: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  04:29 PM

“Are you conflating sexual assault with consensual sex?  Because that’s a whole different arena.  Take it from a survivor: feeling pressured to consent to sex is not the same thing as being sexually abused.  Consensual sex does not have a victim.  If you are agreeing to have sex with someone because you feel like it’s expected of you, you are still agreeing to have sex.  If you do not consent, and are forcibly attacked, that is rape.  If you cannot differentiate between the two, I strongly suggest you seek counseling right away.  Or, you know, stop setting up straw victims just so you can knock them down.”

Reba - I don’t do anything I don’t really, really want to so no need to worry about me.  But in my experience, this pressure can lead to all sorts of things - doing things you regret, but also deciding to withdraw consent, getting abused, and then being unable to identify what happened to you because even when you do consent to sex, you’re not actually motivated by your own needs.  It’s a continuum, and when you are young and susceptible to pressure it’s hard to distinguish the two.

Comment #56: Lurker  on  06/24  at  04:34 PM

you’re not obliged to provide that person with a sexual outlet.

I never said one was.

I said that it is generally assumed that, if two adults are said to be “dating” in 2012, there is most likely a sexual element to their relationship.

And I think it’s highly disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Comment #57: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  04:34 PM

Opoponax, it’s also generally assumed that men want to date women and vice a versa.  So?

Comment #58: Lurker  on  06/24  at  04:35 PM

What I got from Opoponax’s comments was that there is no monolithic culture dictating what a woman must do in regards to sex.

Exactly.  And, to the extent that such a culture can be observed to exist, the messages sent are FAR more likely to be that proper respectable women mustn’t show an interest in sex.  And that, if one must show such an interest, it is to be expressed primarily in a passive, decorative sense, and ONLY in the interest of ensnaring a man.  Once said man is properly ensnared, chastity should again rule the day.

Comment #59: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  04:38 PM

“It’s generally assumed” in the context of people’s personal choices and behavior is the exact opposite of what a truly liberal, open, live-and-let-live society should be.

Comment #60: Lurker  on  06/24  at  04:39 PM

I agree atheist, we DO seem to have a culture that both coerces (especially young)women into having having sex when they don’t want to, and then judges them as sluts when they give in.

Ya can’t win for losing.

It sometimes takes a while for young women to discover what they want sexually (and in a relationship), which also may change several times over a lifetime.

Comment #61: judybrowni  on  06/24  at  04:43 PM

Lurker, come ON.

You cannot honestly argue (with a straight face, at least) that sex is NOT assumed to be a part of modern romantic relationships between consenting adults?

The only people I have ever met, beyond the age of about 21, who did not expect there to be a sexual element to their romantic relationships, were fundamentalist Christians.  And most of them were lying, anyway.

Comment #62: The Opoponax  on  06/24  at  04:46 PM

Wow for spectacularly missing the point.  You are just affirming the very thing you just spent the whole thread denying.  I’m not arguing that it’s not the rule, I’m arguing that the fact that it is the rule, that it is ‘expected’, typically withing 3 dates, negates a culture where people are allowed to chose what they want.  I routinely peer advise survivors, and I can’t tell you how many of them, mostly women but sometimes men, struggle with the fact that they are expecated to put out on a schedule.  (I’m using ‘put-out’ because we’re not talking about something that’s coming from a good place in this case).  I have also seen women feeling guilty about having a sexuality, though in my experience it’s less of a problem with them.

Comment #63: Lurker  on  06/24  at  04:55 PM

Amanda: I certainly don’t mean to suggest that now women should give a shit about having interests and desires of their own just to please men  (although I fail to see how that’s ever a bad thing by itself). Just pointing out that many men view women, even casual hookups, as potential partners, and expect them to talk about something sometimes, and if one wants to be with a man, they should consider having a life from which to draw potential subjects of conversation.

Comment #64: Cola82  on  06/24  at  04:59 PM

this pressure can lead to all sorts of things - doing things you regret, but also deciding to withdraw consent, getting abused, and then being unable to identify what happened to you because even when you do consent to sex, you’re not actually motivated by your own needs.  It’s a continuum, and when you are young and susceptible to pressure it’s hard to distinguish the two.

Anyone doing this is in an abusive situation, and I advise counseling, because that is a terrible downward spiral which frequently has tragic consequences.

The larger point is that there is as much pressure to NOT hook up as there is to do so, which means there is no monolithic culture telling people what the MUST do.  There are, however, conflicting messages telling you what you SHOULD do, all of which you are free to ignore.  It really does come down to a matter of choosing the places you spend time and with whom.

Comment #65: Reba  on  06/24  at  05:00 PM

#65

The larger point is that there is as much pressure to NOT hook up as there is to do so, which means there is no monolithic culture telling people what the MUST do.

Oh, there’s a monolithic culture all right. It’s just that this monolith has no interest in consistency. If women don’t have sex, they’re prudes. If women do have sex, they’re sluts.

Comment #66: atheist  on  06/24  at  05:04 PM

“There are, however, conflicting messages telling you what you SHOULD do, all of which you are free to ignore.  It really does come down to a matter of choosing the places you spend time and with whom. “

That’s exactly what I’m saying.  Various people, for various reasons, experience different aspects of it in different levels.  I will say though that in my experience it’s hard to find people who are truly open to you chosing your choice.  Even some of my awesome friends mocked someone for being a prude.  Being awesome they understood when I told them and took it back.  But it takes a lot of work to come to a place where you don’t judge people for making choices that are different than your own, especially if you still feel some sort of lingering bad about your own choices.

Comment #67: Lurker  on  06/24  at  05:07 PM

Lurker, what point are you taking from Levy’s book?  It’s been a while since I read it, but I remember finding it problematic in multiple ways.

Comment #68: bomberE  on  06/24  at  05:14 PM

@57- no ma’am,  your response to keshimeshi (in message #37) carries the distinct whiff of sexual obligation in a relationship.  No dice.  What society assumes is not the issue here.

Comment #69: dillene  on  06/24  at  05:17 PM

#69

It’s not perfect, but the point I took from it was a culture which set up a fake, straight-man-pleasing (supposedly) sexuality for young women to strive for instead of discovering their own sexuality, whatever that is.

Comment #70: Lurker  on  06/24  at  05:19 PM

#62: You cannot honestly argue (with a straight face, at least) that sex is NOT assumed to be a part of modern romantic relationships between consenting adults?

Well, maybe I’m an old fart with a birthday today, but I thought the whole point of the sex-positive movement was that we shouldn’t assume, but instead, engage in explicit negotiation about potential mutual needs and desires, preferably as dirty talk over tea, wine, beer, or coffee.

#65: There are, however, conflicting messages telling you what you SHOULD do, all of which you are free to ignore.

Or critique them as the case may be. But for some reason, critiquing the notion that we’re doing something wrong (implied by a should statement) if our sexuality does not match an arbitrary standard seems to draw a lot of wank.

Comment #71: CBrachyrhynchos  on  06/24  at  05:20 PM

71 - “Well, maybe I’m an old fart with a birthday today, but I thought the whole point of the sex-positive movement was that we shouldn’t assume, but instead, engage in explicit negotiation about potential mutual needs and desires, preferably as dirty talk over tea, wine, beer, or coffee.”

Thank you, thank you, thank you.  You are helping me articluate my incredible discomfort with those comments.

Comment #72: Lurker  on  06/24  at  05:27 PM

Oh and happy birthday,  CBrachyrhynchos!!!

Comment #73: Lurker  on  06/24  at  05:30 PM

@70 Hm.  Okay.  Not really my take, but I do think that what’s the author was shooting for.  Thanks.

Comment #74: bomberE  on  06/24  at  05:36 PM

But for some reason, critiquing the notion that we’re doing something wrong (implied by a should statement) if our sexuality does not match an arbitrary standard seems to draw a lot of wank.

Doesn’t it just?  When I was a teen, I was given grief for my decision to not have sex because it seemed a huge morass of conflicting emotions, and I was already messed up enough by my hormones and neuroses, so I didn’t think it wise to exacerbate all that.  It probably helps that I watched two sisters and a brother go through puberty before me, which convinced me that the entire thing was a deadly swamp and the path of least resistance involved reading a lot instead of dating/partying, etc.

Of course, when I finally decided to check it out, I found that making love to someone you cared for deeply is quite delightful.  When he went away (as I’d known he must), I chose to not see anyone else, once again confounding the expectations and receiving more peer criticism that I similarly ignored (though I did jettison some “friends”).  So perhaps I’ve just not given a damn what other people think about my choices, especially ones that happen inside my own body, for so long that I have a hard time understanding why it seems so difficult for others to do the same.  I will admit to a serious blind spot there.

Who knew being raised a hippie feminist would be so darned handy?  Oh, wait.  My mom did!  Thanks, mom!

Comment #75: Reba  on  06/24  at  05:39 PM

I feel like a lot of this conversation is a) talking at cross-purposes and b) tangential to Amanda’s point.

Amanda is critiquing the cynical ploy of a woman displaying her chastity as a means of making money by shaming women about their sexual choices. And the critique is that such displays play into the societal message that sex is something that men do to women that somehow damages women and thus decreases their chances at finding desireable, long-term, monogomous partners. Amanda’s point is that rediscovering chastity as a way to “fix” past promiscuity is fundamentally flawed since it a) won’t work and b) it relies on the same “men take” model of sex that underlies societal pressure to have sex to please/keep men.

Women who chose not to have sex for their own reasons (lack of interest, time, opportunity, health, etc.) aren’t part of this discussion. A woman making sexual choices based entirely on her own desires is the ultimate rebel against society’s conflicting pressures.

Comment #76: rivki  on  06/24  at  05:39 PM

#72: The problem is, and this is about where the sex-positive movement started going off the rails, is that explicit negotiation could easily include, “I don’t do that,” or “I won’t do that yet,” or “I won’t do that unless X, Y, and Z.”  Somehow that got trumped by “good, giving, and game” which suggests that we sacrifice our liberal and loving bona fides and are bad and greedy people by having such limits.

Comment #77: CBrachyrhynchos  on  06/24  at  05:40 PM

I have no idea what Ms Andersen’s issues were, but I am guessing that it wasn’t that she was sleeping with men she liked.  Maybe she was just very bad at it.  I mean, it’s possible, isn’t it?  Is that wrong to say, or anti-feminist?

There are plenty of men who are awful in bed, I’m guessing, and women are probably passing those men up because of it as well.  Who wants to make a commitment to someone when the sex is going to be bad?  Okay, so there’s all that, “I can teach him/her to do better”, but if the sex is bad and you’re not otherwise getting any real tingle from the relationship generally, why make a bigger investment in the hope that maybe you’ll develop a tingle?

Maybe I am all wrong about this, and I feel confident that someone will tell me if I am, but this seems an Occam’s Razor sort of thing.  If Andersen is bad at sex, it might explain why she was only able to get what she wanted from a relationship when she stopped providing sex.

Comment #78: DBK  on  06/24  at  05:41 PM

#76
And I’m critiquing Amanda’s choice to use this particular article as an example of that, because given my experiences the interview strikes me as genuine.

Comment #79: Lurker  on  06/24  at  05:43 PM

#75 see I wasn’t raised in hippie feminist family.  The exact opposite.  You make me jealous.  It took me a long time to learn I could say No.

Comment #80: Lurker  on  06/24  at  05:45 PM

#78 - it’s hard to be good at something when you’re not really into it, you know what I mean?

Comment #81: Lurker  on  06/24  at  05:47 PM

And the critique is that such displays play into the societal message that sex is something that men do to women that somehow damages women and thus decreases their chances at finding desireable, long-term, monogomous partners.

Which is where the conversations about being pressured to have sex/being slut shamed for having sex came from, I believe.  That doesn’t take into consideration the model that proposes abstaining from sex will somehow magically result in long-term relationships or that withholding sex until “rewarded” for it (by a ring, commitment, etc) is somehow a female positive thing to do.  I suppose it could be a positive thing for the authors if they can make money off of their books, but even that is highly unlikely and still results in perpetrating the idea that sex is not something women might want simply because some women like sex.

Comment #82: Reba  on  06/24  at  05:49 PM

#78: I took it at face value that Ms. Andersen took a break from dating because she was dissatisfied with the results and needed some personal space to figure out just what she wanted from a relationship.

Which I sympathize with because I did the same thing once upon a time. In fact, I’m fairly comfortable in saying that were something terrible to happen with my current partner, it would require a pretty high level of trust and comfort to consider being sexual with someone else.

Comment #83: CBrachyrhynchos  on  06/24  at  05:51 PM

#76
“Women who chose not to have sex for their own reasons (lack of interest, time, opportunity, health, etc.) aren’t part of this discussion.”

But I believe Amanda misclassified the author of that book and that she falls into that group, the Atlantic spin nonewithstanding.  She stopped doing something that wasn’t good for her and developed a better sense of what she really wanted.  What’s not to like?

Comment #84: Lurker  on  06/24  at  05:53 PM

#83:  Me too, in all cases. 

Which leads me to another point:  I am actually not bothered by her not having found a relationship by the end of the book, because that still presents the model of Choice B = rewarded with true love.  Her saying she’s okay NOT being in a relationship might indicate a personal triumph.  After a string of bad relationships, I was very, very happy to spend time alone.  She does say that she used the time to look at herself and change what she didn’t like, which is a very good step toward personal happiness.  And it does appear that people who like themselves have better and more stable relationships, so maybe she is on the right track.

I still hate the tone of the article and the name of her book.

Comment #85: Reba  on  06/24  at  05:56 PM

Reba - 85 -

Yeah, exactly.  But the tone of the article is dictated as much by the Atlantic as by her, and the title - yeah, I can see why it’s problematic, but she can feel that she was ‘chastened’ without applying that to other women.  And seeing that she takes pains to say that women are different, I don’t think Amanda was right to tag her in the Caitlin Flanagan camp.

Comment #86: Lurker  on  06/24  at  06:00 PM

And I’m critiquing Amanda’s choice to use this particular article as an example of that, because given my experiences the interview strikes me as genuine.

But the writer isn’t saying that she was being pressured to have sex when she didn’t want to. She just says that she hadn’t gotten married yet, and she’d been dumped by a guy she liked and she assumes that her active sex life is responsible for that. The entire article (and seemingly her book) is framed around seeing her old boyfriend getting engaged, and jumping from that to assuming that if she just gave up sex she could get married too.

When she talks about regrets from her 20s she doesn’t say that she should have refused sex she didn’t want, she says that she should have insisted on more romance.

I’m particularly doubtful about her motivations because this book feeds so perfectly into the societal narrative that women should withhold sex in order to coerce emotion intimacy and commitment from men. There’s a lucrative market for stuff like that (take a look at how much Bristol Palin pulls in talking about abstinence).

Comment #87: rivki  on  06/24  at  06:01 PM

Recently dumped spinster chiming in here. This mindset presented in these books is up there on the “please gawd, don’t ever let me think like that.” My whole self-esteem has just taken a massive blow, but I can’t imagine it has fuck-all to do with the fact that I am a grown-ass woman who likes sex with people who are not, and will most likely never be, her partner in marriage. I would imagine, however, it is this kind of sorry tripe that contributes to the problem of some women’s self-worth vanishing upon rejection by a male partner. BULLSHIIIIIT!

Comment #88: SweetT  on  06/24  at  06:13 PM

87 Rivki - I didn’t read it quite like that.  For one thing, I think it’s okay for her to feel regret when seeing her ex getting married.  That’s just human, and it’s normal to reasses things periodically.  And it’s not that she then says, oh I slept with him too soon and that’s why he didn’t marry me.  She says that he’s the only one she had a meaningful relationship with, and wonders why and then decides that maybe she was moving too quickly with sex without ensuring that the other elements she needed were also there. 

As for the whole motivation thing - I certainly agree that’s why The Atlantic published her but she’s a British writer in a UK context.  I seriously don’t know if that debate has the same resonance there, but in my observation it’s different there.  There’s a conservative prime minister who supports gay marriage, for example.  Additionally, she’s Jewish, and there’s just a lot less guilt about sex in Judaism compared to Christianity.  So I’m not sure that she fits in so neatly into that particular narrative.  That Dawn person, for example, was originally Jewish, but a convert…

Comment #89: Lurker  on  06/24  at  06:14 PM

I’m particularly doubtful about her motivations because this book feeds so perfectly into the societal narrative that women should withhold sex in order to coerce emotion intimacy and commitment from men.

Which is sexist from every angle.  I despise the assumption that men have to be bullied into emotional intimacy (or honesty or exhibiting any emotions at all) because the adversarial relationship between men and women denies both genders their humanity.  It’s also so easily disproved that I am baffled at how readily people accept this message.  If a man is not willing to indicate or discuss how he feels, he’s probably emotionally unavailable, and it’s a good idea for all involved to move on.

I still have a hard time understanding how someone she used to date getting married has anything at all to do with her.  I also don’t understand how she gets from point A: ex is getting married and I’m not to point B: it must be because I had sex in my 20s.  Now, she may explain all that in the book, but I still think it makes her seem sort of shallow for assuming that it was the sex, and not the fundamental problem of not liking who she had become that she confronts whilst celibate.  I appreciate that journey, but I think she’s equating correlation with causation, and that rarely proves true.

Comment #90: Reba  on  06/24  at  06:15 PM

#90: Reba

But there’s a difference between saying that not everything about her analysis is entirely logical and consistent (to the extent that you can determine from a brief interview) and between saying that she’s an anti-feminist who’s writing this to please social conservatives.

Comment #91: Lurker  on  06/24  at  06:20 PM

Additionally, she’s Jewish, and there’s just a lot less guilt about sex in Judaism compared to Christianity.  So I’m not sure that she fits in so neatly into that particular narrative.

Uh. No. Really, no. I mean, there are no worries about burning in hell (what with Judaism not having one) but Jews are just as susceptible to societal slut-shaming as a Christians.

Comment #92: rivki  on  06/24  at  06:26 PM

“Uh. No. Really, no. I mean, there are no worries about burning in hell (what with Judaism not having one) but Jews are just as susceptible to societal slut-shaming as a Christians.”

Oh man, my Jewish side of the family would so disagree.  As would my Judaism history college professor… Sure, there’s a lot of that, but it’s just not even slightly as bad as Christianity.  Just compare early Christians to Jewish rabbis - it’s just not the same attitude at all.

Comment #93: Lurker  on  06/24  at  06:34 PM

#91: Lurker

I don’t assume she wrote it to please a particular demographic, but that does not change the fact that it will be used by those people who want to perpetrate the idea that women who have sex are less likely to end up getting married, that having sex is demeaning for women, and that men won’t commit unless forced into it because they just want the pussy (though it won’t be phrased this baldly, the message will be clear). 

An educated guess says the book got published because it fits in the “oh noes!  hook up culture is destroying marriage/women’s happines!!” niche quite well.  If it was the celebration of celibacy as one woman’s journey into finding herself and becoming happy alone, the Atlantic wouldn’t have touched it, and the article wouldn’t be slanted the way it was.  Once a book is published, the author no longer has any say in how that book is used by the people who read it.  This is one of the hardest things about being a writer.  After it leaves your protective custody, your story can be interpreted any way a reader chooses to interpret it.

Comment #94: Reba  on  06/24  at  06:34 PM

‘This is one of the hardest things about being a writer.  After it leaves your protective custody, your story can be interpreted any way a reader chooses to interpret it.’

Which is exactly why I object to slamming into her as a knee-jerk reaction.

Comment #95: Lurker  on  06/24  at  06:36 PM

Oh man, my Jewish side of the family would so disagree.  As would my Judaism history college professor… Sure, there’s a lot of that, but it’s just not even slightly as bad as Christianity.  Just compare early Christians to Jewish rabbis - it’s just not the same attitude at all.

This is seriously tangential, but secular society gets plenty of virgin-whore messages and being Jewish does very little to immunize you from them. And the more orthodox strains of Judaism are certainly steeped in the chastity until marriage mindset.

Comment #96: rivki  on  06/24  at  06:50 PM

96 - rivki - I don’t disagree on that.  I think we just disagree on the extent theology influences culture and day-to-day life.

Comment #97: Lurker  on  06/24  at  07:07 PM

Some people have sex to have sex.  That makes them happy.

I don’t happen to be one of those people, as I learned through experimentation.  Casual sex doesn’t ring my bell.

However, I acknowledge and understand that some people like to keep it strictly casual.  That ain’t my business, and it isn’t mine to condemn such if it works for them.  I don’t think that there are enough such people in the population at any given time to make it a society changing event.  I don’t go around writing books about how I tried it and didn’t like it so nobody should do it ever.  That’s just stupid.

Comment #98: Ms Kate  on  06/24  at  08:58 PM

Dammit, my own comment got eaten. 

Let me put it this way—-whether or not some women feel pushed to have sex they don’t want to have I don’t doubt.  That is completely irrelevant to this post.

The woman didn’t hide that she was shocked into chastity by running into her college boyfriend, the last man who said he loved her, and he was marrying someone else.  Her conclusion was that her slatternly ways were preventing her from getting that kind of marriage.  This presumes, incorrectly, that men are robots that you can input a certain amount of cock-teasing into and get a certain amount of ring-wielding out of it.

Reality: How soon you sleep with a guy has pretty much no bearing on if he’s going to love you or not.  A lot of long-term couples fell into bed on the first date.  A lot of people went into NSA-type situations and emerged in love.  A lot of women get dumped after not fucking a guy.  A lot of women are huge sluts and have men following them around with giant puppy dog eyes.  The only men who are turned off by how quickly you sleep with them are ginormous assholes.  If you make them wait and they fall for you because of it, congrats, you won yourself a ginormous asshole. 

And one who has a Madonna/whore complex, to boot.  You really don’t want to get with the guys with Madonna/whore complexes.  I’d say they account for about 75% of men who cheat.  They can’t be sexually satisfied by the Madonna they married and who they put on a pedestal, so they will go out and find some loose women to sleep with on the side.

Comment #99: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/24  at  10:22 PM

I’ll add that on the very rare occasion a romantic relationship is asexual and everyone is completely consenting, I have no problem with it.  But as there is pressure to have sex sometimes, there is also a lot of guilt-tripping of people who want to have sex in a relationship—-if their partner cuts them off and they don’t like it, they’re often made to feel bad.  You shouldn’t have sex without your enthusiastic consent.  Nor should you be in a relationship.  If a man or a woman dumps someone because they won’t fuck them, then I have no problem with that.  These “chastity will make him love you” tomes neglect to remember that many men—-and women—-say no to chastity and prefer to date people who fuck them.

Comment #100: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/24  at  10:57 PM

I’m not arguing that it’s not the rule, I’m arguing that the fact that it is the rule, that it is ‘expected’, typically withing 3 dates, negates a culture where people are allowed to chose what they want. 

I think that depends.  “Come on, baby, don’t be uptight,” is unfair on date 3.  But if you get to 3 dates and that’s too long for you to wait, you’re well within your rights to not call them again.  The enthusiastic consent culture I advocate is one where sex only happens if everyone’s happy with it.  If young women feel pressured because they can’t make men wait for them, then that is also unfair.  No one is obliged to wait for you.

Comment #101: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/24  at  11:02 PM

Somehow that got trumped by “good, giving, and game” which suggests that we sacrifice our liberal and loving bona fides and are bad and greedy people by having such limits.

“Good, giving, and game” is advice on how to maintain a happy relationship.  It’s based, I believe, on the principles of enthusiastic consent, in that it acknowledges a person’s right not to be in a sexually unhappy relationship.  It’s simply good advice to be giving in a relationship, and to be up for adventures.  Guilt tripping someone into staying with you even though you find their sexual desires repulsive is a form of sexual coercion.

I don’t really think Dan Savage meant that women are obligated to hand it out to all askers.  He meant that relationships fall apart sexually if the people involved aren’t interested in meeting each other’s needs, but use social pressure to keep the unhappy person from walking and finding a consenting relationship.

Comment #102: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/24  at  11:08 PM

Reality: How soon you sleep with a guy has pretty much no bearing on if he’s going to love you or not.

Well, sorta. If you sleep with the ginormous asshole described in the rest of your post then, yep, when you give up the Pussy Flag is going to affect his feelings for you but, of course, the solution to this bozo is that you don’t want to sleep with him, much less get stuck in a relationship with him. How soon you sleep with a decent guy is not going to affect his willingness to marry you in the slightest.

It’s a little fuzzy and lost in the mists of time, but I’m pretty sure that I slept with Mr. Mythago, he of the 15-year marriage and three kids and house in the ‘burbs, on our first formal date.  Maybe I should write a self-help book advising the anxious readers of people like Dawn Eden that being a big old slut is the key to getting that ring.

Comment #103: mythago  on  06/24  at  11:11 PM

I really like the phrase ‘sex diet’, Amanda. The locking-it-up until the goal is reached really is analogous to, or maybe a facet of, womens’ battle to whip themselves into lovable shape. My anecdotal experience of peers who “can’t” date until they lose 10 (or 20 or 30) pounds, or get rid of their cellulite, or do 200 crunches a day for 90 days, et al, frustrates me to no end on their behalf. The need to meet a mate when they’re at their absolute ‘best’, whatever that is, keeps them closed-off and unwilling to take the (usually) fun-type risks associated with meeting and/or dating people: flirting, making a dating profile, saying yes to invitations within a group of friends. These arent women who don’t want sex/love/dates/companionship, they’re women who truly believe they aren’t worthy yet.

I appreciate anyone’s need for taking a break from dating, or anyone’s desire to never ever date. But self-flaggelation and -denial in the name of being good enough for some random that one hasn’t even met yet just stinks of the same old Women Are Shitty trope.

Comment #104: mir  on  06/24  at  11:56 PM

Amanda Marcotte: “Good, giving, and game” is advice on how to maintain a happy relationship. It’s based, I believe, on the principles of enthusiastic consent, in that it acknowledges a person’s right not to be in a sexually unhappy relationship.  It’s simply good advice to be giving in a relationship, and to be up for adventures.

Yes, because guilt-tripping people into doing things they don’t want to do or are not ready for makes for wonderfully healthy relationships.

You can’t have both enthusiastic consent and a value judgement that people who are not sufficiently adventurous are at fault in a relationship. This is one of the reasons I had to run screaming away from the BDSM community I was deeply involved in. I found it practically impossible to reconcile both the value that a good submissive sets clear limits, and the value that a good submissive actively works to move beyond those limits. There was plenty of room to say, “I’m curious about ...” but very little room to say, “I won’t ...”

In the end, compromising my needs early in the relationship made it impossible to establish limits later in the relationship. Which is a shame because I think it could have been a wonderful relationship followed by a wonderful friendship had the boundaries been established and maintained early.

I don’t really think Dan Savage meant that women are obligated to hand it out to all askers.

Except that it is, as GGG is defined as including an expectation that straight women will perform fellatio, except in cases of severe PTSD, when he gives a rare indulgence. It’s also interesting to note that his own sense of adventure doesn’t appear to extend to men who have sex with women, which suggests a significant “do as I say, but not as I do” standard.

Which is another big problem here in that GGG only applies to those things that Dan Savage is open-minded about. The rest of us should carefully practice self-segregation well away from him, as unfit for dating in the general population.  It also contradicts his own repeated advice that your partner likely isn’t going to satisfy every wish, need, or desire.

Because, gawsh, heaven forbid that two people with discordant sexualities might come to a compromise based on the things they do share a passion for. I’m more than comfortable with the possibility I might never suck dick again as long as I have the liberty of my own fantasies.

Comment #105: CBrachyrhynchos  on  06/25  at  12:35 AM

Really, GG&G;is pretty explicitly centered around putting out. No one says that a person should be game for a relationship built entirely around mutual masturbation and oral sex, and it’s the person who doesn’t want to have penetrative sex for reasons of politics, religion, safety, or preference who needs to consider “giving” and “being game.” But my relationships where a partner said from the start, “I don’t do penetration” have been both beautiful and hot.

It strikes me as an amazing blind spot for Savage because the whole thing is built around the assumption that heterosexual relationships are built around PiV fucking and need some occasional kink to make them less tedious. And it astounds me because it’s clearly in conflict with his other statements that there’s no such thing as a standard queer sex leading to more negotiation about what that means.

Did we, um, forget the entire sex positive and safer sex movement which pointed out that sexual standards may not be the best way to get each other off?

Comment #106: CBrachyrhynchos  on  06/25  at  01:18 AM

Amanda, do you really find it impossible to conceptualize having sex when you want to, not before, and maybe not ever as anything but “making men wait for you”? What I mean is, when you have sex right away, do you think it would be fair to describe that as “making men get ready for you?”

You’re quick enough to notice misogynist language when it’s put in service of slut-baiting, it’s not like you don’t believe persistent rhetorical tropes mean something.  Why can you not see that other women’s sexual choices are about them and their desires, the way yours are for you? 

but use social pressure to keep the unhappy person from walking and finding a consenting relationship.

If you believe that there’s only one unhappy person in a relationship like that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Comment #107: sophonisba  on  06/25  at  01:43 AM

I haven’t read the whole thread, but I think we’re missing option #3.  Perhaps Hepzibah does some terrifying shit while having sex, like calling the poor dudes “daddy” or drawing blood or chanting “Criss Cross Applesauce” while riding cowgirl?  You can’t just assume the guys where choads.  Maybe they were rightfully scared.   

@#107:
Obviously if you want to have sex, but are declining because you like the tension, then you are just enjoying making the dude (or the girl) wait.  It’s a kind of bondage play, making the other wait.  Then again, if you don’t want to have sex, then you will be fine if you don’t date the guy again, right?  I don’t see where there could be an intersection between “Don’t wanna sleep with you” and “Mad because you didn’t call again”.

Comment #108: raspberryjamba  on  06/25  at  03:34 AM

Wow @#21 is that what we call ‘mansplaining’ here?  I’d heard the term but so far had never seen it happen where it needed its own verb.

Comment #109: raspberryjamba  on  06/25  at  03:48 AM

raspberryjamba: I don’t see where there could be an intersection between “Don’t wanna sleep with you” and “Mad because you didn’t call again”.

That intersection is called “Don’t want to sleep with you yet. Meanwhile, let’s do a ton of fun stuff together until I am comfortable having sex with you.” I’m no longer comfortable having sex with people without a high degree of both trust and fun that can’t always be assessed at the first date, and even then I’m not likely to do certain forms of sexual activity without even more trust and negotiation.

Now if a person doesn’t find hanging out and dating intrinsically fun because I’m a person they like and want to spend time with, well, clearly we’re not sexually compatible. But I’m not willing to shoulder the burden of being the asshole in the relationship because I’ve said up-front that I need a high level of trust and intimacy before I’ll do that.

Comment #110: CBrachyrhynchos  on  06/25  at  09:28 AM

Obviously if you want to have sex, but are declining because you like the tension, then you are just enjoying making the dude (or the girl) wait.  It’s a kind of bondage play, making the other wait.

Obviously if you want to have sex and proceed to have sex right away because you like the way it feels, then you are just enjoying making the dude (or the girl) orgasm.  It’s a kind of charity, offering pleasure like some kind of goddamn sex-Mother-Teresa.

For fuck’s sake listen to yourself.  If you’re declining because YOU like the tension, then you are just doing it for the effect it has on THE MAN?  Really?  Really?  Although if this is just about making up tautologies and feeling smug about them, then yeah, women who like to torture men certainly do like to torture men, can’t argue with that. 

But I would be careful about describing a slow pace as a kink, because once we establish a deviant sex practice as a respectable kink, it’s up to the other partner to be the GGG one, and that means it’s the slower partner who gets to feel self-righteous and put-upon and emotionally coerced by any asshole who won’t indulge them.

Comment #111: sophonisba  on  06/25  at  09:35 AM

Why are we giving anyone the privilege of being self-righteous and put-upon?

Which is the problem I see with this whole perpetual argument. It’s based on the assumption of bad faith, or at least inhibition on the part of the “slower” partner, rather than the strong possibility that the “slower” partner 1) has some emotional and/or sexual needs that need to be met before it gets on the table or 2) has a bona fide turnoff. And you can’t have enthusiastic consent with the assumption that your partner needs to be talked into something for the good of the relationship.

Again, my blatant bias here comes from having that shit thrown in my face in the context of a poly BDSM relationship by a person who eventually had problems with “no, I can’t be in a relationship with you if you can’t trust my other partner” and “no, I can’t be friends with you if you repeatedly ignore my boundaries.” 

The whole point of enthusiastic consent as developed by the sex-positive movement isn’t that these needs and boundaries constitute an automatic non-negotiable point of failure in the relationship (before it went off the rails in elevating the lack of boundaries to a virtue). The odds of finding someone who’s perfectly sexually compatible are slim to none. The whole point is to approach these issues as a creative challenge to find a solution in which the people you care about come away joyful and happy.

Comment #112: CBrachyrhynchos  on  06/25  at  11:07 AM

I guess that my problem with that is that it supposes that the other person is “bad” for not waiting around, when I think they have every right to end a relationship that doesn’t progress in the way that they had hoped, they are not obliged to stay around any more than you are obliged to have sex with them.

Comment #113: Leah Jaclyn  on  06/25  at  11:50 AM

@113: I guess that my problem with that is that it supposes that the other person is “bad” for not waiting around, when I think they have every right to end a relationship that doesn’t progress in the way that they had hoped, they are not obliged to stay around any more than you are obliged to have sex with them.

Of course you can walk away from a relationship if you don’t feel it’s not meeting your needs. But you don’t get the privilege of resenting the other person because they didn’t compromise their needs, limits, or values to satisfy yours. That is a profoundly assholish move.

Comment #114: CBrachyrhynchos  on  06/25  at  12:08 PM

CBrchyrynchos: 
I get that, but I still think it’s not fair to expect one of the partners to stick around as long as it takes for the other to feel comfortable if they don’t want to, without immediately being in the choad category.  I think it’s perfectly reasonable to bail if you felt that you were mutually ready for sex and the other partner didn’t.  It doesn’t make the hornier half an awful person, right?  I mean, while that happens,is the hornier person supposed to be going on other dates and having sex? 

Sophonisba:
“Obviously if you want to have sex, but are declining because you like the tension, then you are just enjoying making the dude (or the girl) wait.  It’s a kind of bondage play, making the other wait.
Obviously if you want to have sex and proceed to have sex right away because you like the way it feels, then you are just enjoying making the dude (or the girl) orgasm.  It’s a kind of charity, offering pleasure like some kind of goddamn sex-Mother-Teresa.”

These are not equivalent.  Making the other wait is a legit BDSM technique, I didn’t mean that as a joke.  And yes, if you give it up right away, you obviously enjoy making your partner orgasm!  I think we can all agree on that.  smile

Comment #115: raspberryjamba  on  06/25  at  12:31 PM

Oops, sorry CB, I guess you already answered that.  I should refresh this thing more often.

Comment #116: raspberryjamba  on  06/25  at  12:32 PM

I’m thinking—You DID Meet Someone Else, Didn’t You?!!!?!??!!!! DIDN’T YOU????? : Interpreting Everything He Said (Or Didn’t Say!) Last Time You Talked $29.95 in a Self Helf section near you!

I will take a copy for my home and one for my office please.

Comment #117: Kyso K  on  06/25  at  12:54 PM

CBrachyrhynchos: ideally, GGG is the concept of mutual willingness to accomodate one another and to give things that are “meh” for one person but “OMG DO WANT” for the other a shot; not erasing boundaries, or requiring one partner to try anything and everything the other partner wants.

Of course, Savage is also a fatphobic misogynist, so that rather needs to be taken into account in his interpretation of whether somebody is being GGG.

Comment #118: mythago  on  06/25  at  02:02 PM

Apropos of nothing, gotta say that’s one scary vagina dentata up at the top

Comment #119: atheist  on  06/25  at  02:43 PM

I’m with CBrachyrhynchos on most of this, I think. As mythago says, GGG is ideally mutual, but I feel it gets used as a weapon far too often. (At least in some kink and poly communities I could name.)  I actually think for some people it turns into a self-editing aspect where they shut down their defense of boundaries that are important to them because it would make them “bad poly people” or “bad kinksters”. 

I think I have definitely been guilty of it, and not establishing certain boundaries I should have, due to some need to not appear “difficult”.  I’ve seen it from the other side as well, where despite my efforts to convince someone they didn’t have to accommodate me, they proceeded to do things they thought were important to me, even though they weren’t into them, which gradually led to serious (and understandable resentment). All, of course, without asking if that was really something that was important enough to me that it was a big deal whether or not it happened.

Comment #120: LC  on  06/25  at  03:24 PM

Lurker,Ariel Levy is more than simply “problematic,” as Emmett put it. She is a transphobic, hand-wringing radfem asshole.

I seem to remember, and I plead forgiveness if this is presumptuous or callous on my part, that you have written in comments before about serious sexual trauma in your past coloring how you view sexual relationships. I honestly do think that, as Reba suggested upthread, you are conflating sexual assault with consensual sex, possibly because you had an experience to which you did not fully consent, but which was not legally construable as rape. If that is true, I’m sorry that happened to you, and I don’t blame you for feeling touchy about this subject, but I think you might be able to see how comments saying that you experienced hookup culture like “institutionalized date rape” might infuriate women who have had positive experiences with it.

I certainly agree that sex-positivity has some truly abysmal spokespeople. CBrachyrhynchos is absolutely right about Dan Savage, who ASS-umes that boinking should always be the highest priority in any relationship (and has a lot of skeevy privilege issues, to boot).

OTOH I think you give the chastity peddlers far too much benefit of the doubt; I’m inclined to agree with Reba, Rivki, and SweetT instead. And while Judaism in general is more sex-positive than Christianity, there are plenty of wingnut Jews, mostly Orthodox, who take their sexual cues from the fundie xtian world. And that’s on top of the secular cultural messages Rivki has mentioned.

Opo, your comment at #62 is ignoring asexuals. Who exist, unless you’d like to tell Bagelsan here that she’s a figment of our imagination.

RaspberryJamba: What do you have against chanting “Criss Cross Applesauce” while riding cowgirl? You close-minded prude, you.

(Seriously… some people really get into the “Daddy” thing, especially in the kink world. To each their own, but a guy wanting me to call him that would be a serious dealbreaker.)

But Lurker is a woman, so she’s not “mansplaining” anything.

Comment #121: Nobody in Particular  on  06/25  at  03:50 PM

Sorry for being drivebyish here, but some psych research that might help the conversation:

Self Determination Theory is a large and empirically well-researched field that suggests, among other things, there is a continuum of motivation from:

Extrinsic: Someone is standing there making you do X
Introjected: An external pressure that you’ve internalized. You make yourself do X, and would feel guilty if you didn’t.
Identified: Maybe not enjoyable, but it’s important to your values - e.g., changing your kid’s diaper.
Intrinsic: It’s just fun and engaging and enjoyable for you.

In present context GGG can be identified (i.e., it doesn’t float your boat per se, but giving your partner that huge kick does), it can be introjected (i.e., you’ve been guilted into it or have guilted yourself - or you’re just trying to do it to prop up your self-esteem), or it can be extrinsic (i.e., rape).

The research shows that doing things for intrinsic and identified reasons is rewarding and associated with well-being, vitality and happiness. Doing things for extrinsic and introjected reasons is not. So GGG is a very good idea, but only if you’re doing it for the right reasons.

And yes, social pressure can be enormously powerful in making people “consent” to things. Just google the standford prison experiment, or Milgram’s one giving people electric shocks… We’ve known this for decades now. You can even coerce people into doing things they would otherwise want to do (such as bribing kids to play with markers), and EVEN THIS tends to undermine intrinsic motivation.

Comment #122: 3... 2...  on  06/25  at  04:29 PM

@115: I mean, while that happens,is the hornier person supposed to be going on other dates and having sex?

Well, I guess I’m a bit of an odd duck in that I’m not certain I’d expect a monogamous commitment very early in the relationship either. I’ll also say that I’ve had much better luck dating people I already knew in my larger circle of friends than actually meeting someone on the first date.

The problem is, here again, what the heck do you mean by “having sex?” If the need is for full-bore penetrative fucking early in the relationship, likely that person and I are not very compatible and merry meet, merry part, and merry meet again. If that need can be satisfied by other forms of sexual intimacy and affection, we might be able to find creative ways to reach a mutual accommodation.

Which, as I implied above, it’s not about who’s hornier. People can have high sex drives and tight sexual limits. People can have tight sexual limits and have mind-blowing, mutually-satisfying, hours-long, multiply-orgasmic sex. Walking into those relationships with the idea that they’re not properly “game” because they don’t do ___ is ratpoison to those relationships.

Comment #123: CBrachyrhynchos  on  06/25  at  06:55 PM

I don’t understand why Lurker’s comments are so controversial.  A lot of what she’s writing about reminds me of what Gavin de Becker has written about women’s programmed niceness, and how it makes them vulnerable, and some sexual experiences that I and other women I know have had.

Reba’s getting into some interesting issues of individuality vs. cultural pressure, but I think, Reba, you’re being a bit simplistic.  If you’re resisting a pressure, a pressure must be there for you to resist.  Whether you are successful at resisting a given pressure or not, it exists, and not everyone can resist everything.  We don’t make up behavior, it is socially constructed, and most behavior fits somewhere within a socially constructed range.

There are all kinds of factors coming from all different sources.  And it depends on how you have internalized those factors, which ones appeal to you, and how you act on them with another person.  Women are encouraged to be caretakers, to be polite, to subordinate their needs to others.  Does that mean that all women have taken the lesson?  No.  Does that mean that all women are taught that lesson by their family/teachers?  No.  But a lot are.  The kind of conformist, not thinking for themselves behavior that I’ve seen some conservative religious indoctrinate their kids with really backfires when it comes to sexuality.  Because sometimes the kids keep following their parents when they grow up, but other times they completely subordinate themselves to a new boss—the popular kid or the boyfriend who wants sex on demand.  This doesn’t mean that women who come from that background can’t freely choose sex.  It does mean that many won’t have experience asserting themselves—so, oopsies.

There is a lot of pressure for sex to be performative.  It wasn’t even clear to me how much I’d internalized that until I was with a partner who thought lingerie was stupid, and women were sexy.  The idea of women wearing some sort of costume—well, he pointed out just how weird that was, how sex was supposed to be a cooperative endeavor, not some kind of performative act.

So, yeah, some women can be pressured not to, and there is good-girl ism out there saying if we’d only just stop having sex, everything would be great.  But men also get messages (again, not all men take ‘em in) that they should ask for sex and if she says no, it’s never not now, it is never. 

So I would agree with Lurker that women can be and are subjected to societal pressures to have sex with men when they’re still at the not yet phase.  And that not yet may turn into a “never” or a resounding yes, but I’m surprised that it is being treated as made up or an individual fluke.

This could still be a lousy book.

Comment #124: Ismone  on  06/25  at  09:07 PM

3..2..@122

Thanks! That’s really useful terminology and very helpful. (Well, *I* found it helpful, I can’t speak for everyone else.)

Comment #125: LC  on  06/25  at  10:22 PM

Maybe we asexuals are just more in tune with the hostility in our culture toward women who don’t have sex.  If you think there’s no societal or cultural pressure to have sex, I’d like to show you the time my mom screamed at me for 30 minutes after I told her I was asexual and therefore would not have sex with a man “even if he was my husband” and “even if he wanted to.” 

Those quotes were hers.  “Even if he wanted you to???”  Yes, even then I wouldn’t.  Jesus Christ.

And I’ve known plenty of ladyfolk who had sex they didn’t really want, because a guy coerced them into it.  Who was it who was saying that coercion until one party gave in was still consent??  Ummm ... errr ... no it isn’t.  Nagging someone until they have sex with you is not consent.  Giving in to make someone shut up or to go to sleep or to keep a relationship is not consent.  Didn’t think I would read that kind of shit here of all places.  “Have sex with me or I’ll break up with you” can be a really strong threat to someone who is taught that their value lies in having a boyfriend.  I would say that a great deal of the girls I knew in school had to deal with this at one time or another.  One of my friends in high school was a serial dater because she was waiting til marriage and guys kept giving her this ultimatum.  She didn’t give in, but I knew girls who did.  And the relationship always fell to pieces anyway, because frankly, any guy who demands sex or a breakup when you’re 16 and there are 20 or 30 pregnant girls walking around in any given year ... yeah, he’s probably not worth it. 

(Implying that the 20 or 30 girls should send a message that maybe you should at least wait til college to risk fucking up your life.  Yes, I’m implying that having a baby at 15 fucks up your life.  I’m sure someone will tell me this is way more offensive than the person who said that coercion isn’t rape.)

Comment #126: BonAppetit  on  06/26  at  05:31 AM

As someone who identified as asexual until quite recently (and only because “OH MY GOD, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LEAVE ME ALONE ALREADY, YOU NOSY, NEEDY PIECE OF SHIT” apparently isn’t considered a sexual orientation), what BonAppetit said @126.

Have I ever actually caved to the pressure to have sex I didn’t want to? No. Did I spend years being treated like some sort of alien, being compared to Christianist evangelicals, being told I wasn’t a good feminist, I wasn’t a good liberal, I wasn’t a good Goth, being flat-out laughed at, dismissed, and contradicted every time I wasn’t sufficiently ~into~ whoever everyone else was drooling over, getting told my preferences (or lack of preferences ) “doesn’t work!!!”, being shamed and scolded like any time *I * didn’t want to jump into bed with someone, I was personally insulting anyone who *did*? Yes. And it sucked. And after several years of carefully pruning my social circle and waiting for people to grow up a bit, I ended up in a place where I didn’t have to listen to that sort of shit or be alone in my room reading children’s books, but this doesn’t mean there isn’t any social pressure anymore—just that I’m better at telling people to go fuck themselves because I’m not going to before I wind up being particularly “good” friends with them (and I no longer own a TV, so I no longer can even accidentally watch any show that hasn’t already been pre-approved by at least two people I trust not to be insecure brats about sexuality). It took me years to be able to carve out enough of my own headspace to even begin to think about dating someone as something I could want to do for myself, instead of as a social obligation, a chore to shut up the yammering masses that made me want to fall down and die every time I heard the word “sex” because this couldn’t POSSIBLY be going anywhere good.

“Hook-up culture” as practiced by entitled, binary-thinking, insecure douchewagons (raunch culture or porn culture or whatever we’re calling it) doesn’t “FORCE” women to have sex they don’t want any more than Christianist fundagelical culture FORCIBLY PREVENTS people from having sex (which, as the teen pregnancy rates in AOSE districts show us, is not at all), but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a problem.

Comment #127: thecynicalromantic  on  06/26  at  10:46 AM

Opo, your comment at #62 is ignoring asexuals. Who exist, unless you’d like to tell Bagelsan here that she’s a figment of our imagination.

Eh, I don’t want to speak for anyone, though. I’m still pretty much undecided on, well, everything so it’s currently useless for me to try and self-identify in any meaningful way at the moment. But I can say that I’m, at the moment, celibate in practice… for whatever that’s worth. :p

But I suppose I can say with some certainty that there are lots of reasons for people, including women, not to have sex. In fact, I’ve had about 5 different (perfectly legitimate) reasons at various times in my life. And not a one of those has been some sort of religious/flower-of-virginity/chastity kick. I think it would be valuable to talk about those reasons in the feminist community with a little more nuance, rather than forcing the vast array of reasons to not have sex to boil down to “prude” (unacceptable for a feminist!) or “asexual” (grudgingly acceptable for a feminist!)

Comment #128: Bagelsan  on  06/27  at  09:06 PM

and only because “OH MY GOD, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LEAVE ME ALONE ALREADY, YOU NOSY, NEEDY PIECE OF SHIT” apparently isn’t considered a sexual orientation

Only because LGBQTOMGSTFUALMAAYNNPOS is too long…

Though interestingly, that particular “sexuality” is what my most recent rejection of a certain dude’s advances boiled down to, in the end. Along with a bit of SERIOUSLY YOU ARE ALMOST 30 HOW DO YOU NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO BESIDES MAKE DOLEFUL EYES AT ME GROW A FUCKING SPINE AND FIND A HOBBY. But I phrased it more delicately. ^^

Comment #129: Bagelsan  on  06/27  at  09:12 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.