Next entry: Announcing The New Tea Party Mascot: Slow Moe, The Tired Randian Squirrel
Previous entry: Stop Believing In Your Conspiracies. Start Believing In My Conspiracies.
Rachel Simmons wrote yet another piece expressing concern that “hook-up culture” is damaging to girls, and this time, it’s actually getting taken seriously by feminist bloggers. The reason is that, unlike someone like Laura Sessions Stepp who is clearly acting out of prudery and a general disdain for the intelligence of young women, Simmons is responding to the pain she sees in the letters she gets from college aged women as an advice columnist for Teen Vogue. Simmons also has feminist values, and struggles with what she perceives as a genuine gap between her feminist ideal that states that men and women are both sexual and emotional creatures, and a torrent of mail from young women who are having sex with guys in an attempt to win them over, only to find themselves kept on a string. And more in sorrow than in anger, she concludes that commitment does happen for young women because they withhold sexual favors and only dole them out in exchange for this commitment, and that “old ways"---while completely sexist, because they purported that men want sex and women want commitment, and there’s a tense exchange between the two, and that love is functionally transactional---at least gave girls a card to play.
I enjoyed Kate Harding’s impassioned response, but I’m going to attack the power struggle issue that Simmons identifies with a different tactic, by talking about power itself and what creates it. I fully accept that Simmons might be perceiving a real struggle on college campuses, where many young women want boyfriends, but most young men want to keep their options open while still getting laid, and this is causing a lot of pain for young women, because they don’t get what they want, but guys get what they want. But I reject the sex-obsessed interpretation of how this struggle came to be. (Which is that young women are not sexually motivated, so they can use sex as a weapon to force commitment.) When I see such a large scale power struggle between men and women, I tend to think the reason is rarely biology, and usually socially constructed sexism. Experimenting with this starting point, I think I have a much better explanation for what’s going on: Boys have power over girls in the “hook-up culture” because boys have power over girls in a male-dominated society. And that this is true in any sexual milieu, and that Simmons commits the error of nostalgia, even when she’s trying not to, when she thinks women had more power over men in the past because they withheld sex (under duress).
Let’s start with the past and work up to the present. She leans on Kathleen Bogle, who wrote a book that is more scientific than other hook-up panic books, and much more calm, and so has been given a pass by feminists. She quotes Bogle:
Bogle opens with some downright cool history: In the first decade of the twentieth century, a young man could only see a woman of interest if she and her mother permitted him to “call” on them together. In other words, the women controlled the event.
Cut to a hundred years later: in today’s hook up culture, physical appearance, status and gender conformity determine who gets called on, and Jack, a sophomore, tells Bogle about party life at school: “Well, talking amongst my friends, we decided that girls travel in threes: there’s the hot one, there’s the fat one, and there’s the one that’s just there.” Er, we’ve come a long way, baby.
Actually, women did not control the event, as anyone who has read even a single piece of literature from the actual era of calling could tell you. The woman still had the symbolic power women have always had, which is the technical right to say no, but they had no initiation power. And men didn’t spread around courting in some socialist fashion. Just as now, back then men had the sole power to determine how much social status a single woman had by choosing whether or not to court her. Not every woman was Scarlett O’Hara, with a dozen suitors hanging off the front porch. Even then, there were “fat” ones, “hot” ones, and ones that are “just there”, and the hot ones got all the social status and all the suitors. Men controlled the social validation of women then, in a way that’s far more complete than now, because back then, being unchosen long enough meant you were left a spinster, which was even more toxic than it is now. So really, the only women with the full right to say no where the ones pre-chosen by men to have lots of options. Nowadays, women at least have the right to turn their nose up to men who have no charms, because we’re not forced to marry men we don’t like to avoid spinsterhood.
But courtship then faded into dating.
According to Bogle, in the “dating era” (just the use of the word “era” tells you where college dating has gone), men asked women on dates with the hope that something sexual might happen at the end.
This is where we start to see the strand that connects these eras. In the dating era, women were able to dangle the promise of sex to get what they needed from men, which was, say it with me now, social validation. If you read original sources, it seems in some social circles, getting dates was basically the end-all, be-all of a woman’s social life. Certainly, for my generation that was already moving into the casual column, there were remnants of this old order, such as school dances you couldn’t attend without a date. (A rule that people with mixed-gender friends have always subverted by having platonic “dates”.) Men therefore controlled women’s social value completely, yet again. A woman who couldn’t get dates was a common and tragic circumstances, as her social life was severely limited. As usual, there were the “fat” ones, the “hot” ones, and the ones that are “just there”, and your status in your community depended largely on how much attention and validation you got from men.
Cue the “hook-up culture”. The strand continues---men’s social status comes from men, and women’s social status comes from men. When people concern troll the hook-up culture, they rarely talk about how young women might want a commitment for reasons outside of Twu Wuv, but as someone who does remember college pretty well as it drifted into this hook-up culture, I can say firmly that getting a capital-B boyfriend was a huge source of social validation and status. But for men doing the validating, there’s not actually much value in monogamy (outside of Twu Wuv). They give something---validation---and instead of getting anything for it, they end up having to pay the price of not having their options open. Who wants that? Plus, power corrupts, as I can tell you from my own ugly college dating experiences and the ones I saw around me. The aching need that women have for validation can make them easy to manipulate, and sadly, quite a few men enjoy doing that. But I submit to you, dear reader, that as sexist as all this is, it’s still better than in the past. At least nowadays young women are able to leave their houses without male accompaniment. Parties and dances not only don’t require dates, according to the hand-wringers, dates are almost verboten. So you can be the “fat” one, the “hot” one”, or the one that’s “just there”, and you still get to have fun. We have a long way to go, but feminism did achieve that quiet, small victory.
Critics of the “hook-up culture” quietly tend to accept that while these dynamics dominate the college years, even most of them accept that something shifts when people hit their 20s, and suddenly dating and commitment become the norm. Of course, the fact that it all evens out in the end isn’t going to stop the critics---those from the religious right figure that since women aren’t virgins, they’re spoiled, and the less conservative (but still pretty conservative) ones like Laura Sessions Stepp have some vague concerns that you don’t know how to date if your career in monogamy starts at 21 instead of 17. But while I think those concerns are silly, I have to wonder why no one stops to think about what kind of changes bring these other changes. If you think the power imbalance is due to women selling out sex, this power imbalance should continue into infinity, right? It’s not like single women quit fucking when they turn 21. So what changes?
If you look at it from my perspective, however, the change is really obvious---as you drift from adolescence to adulthood, the severe power imbalance on the social scene between men and women evens out more. As we mature, we gain jobs and homes of our own, and become more sure in our tastes and our friendships. For women, this is an enormous power grab. The amount of our social value derived from male attention shrinks as more of our social value comes from our jobs and the image we project in the world. You can see this just from the difference in how women dress, honestly---very few women over 21 are going to stand around in microminis, shivering in the cold in order to grab some of that precious male attention. Even as the world continues to be sexist, women start to learn to self-validate more, and they need less from men.
In the meantime, men lose a lot of their homosocial support system. Even men who are the best at maintaining friendships outside of college, where you have roommates and endless hours to sit around drinking and playing video games, still find that they have less time to devote to each other. Misogynist displays of power over women start to lose their allure with maturity; men who come into themselves have less need to dominate women to get that buzz of self-esteem. Getting a girlfriend starts to look more appealing as that would both replenish emotional support, and because the stigma of being “pussy whipped” by the mere fact of showing enough esteem for a woman to socially validate her fades away. And as soon as one guy abandons the immature “girls and dating are GROSS” thing, the stigma loses its grip and they start to fall like dominoes. The possibility of cohabitation and marriage adds to women’s value to men, as well. (Even if men did half the housework, the benefits of living with someone usually outweigh the drawbacks enough to keep that value in place, except for loners.) Men also start to find more validation from career and interests, and need less support from other men, which reduces the incentives to engage in homosocial misogynist joking and displays.
And once the dynamic starts to shift, it creates a feedback loop. As both men and women get better at internally-directed self-esteem, they become legitimately more attractive, and real love between partners becomes more of a possibility. Dating and falling in love for its own sake becomes more attractive, and so that becomes more of a priority for both men and women.
Of course, that doesn’t do much for young women in the here and now who are suffering from their extreme need for male validation that young men are exploiting. What do we do for them? I’m not really sure that telling them to quit fucking is going to get the job done, because it doesn’t address the underlying issue. If you’re the sole individual, you get no benefit from that, since the guys will just take their validating attention to others who are willing to play ball. If women come together collectively to withhold sex, I still don’t think that’s going to work out, because the underlying issue---that men get to define women in these youth cultures---hasn’t been addressed at all, and you’re still going to have women sobbing into their pillows because lack of male validation is leaving them as social pariahs.
Honestly, I think we’re already on the right path, if we’re not at the destination. We’re moving towards giving girls ways to define themselves outside of male attention---sports, academics, non-sexual friendships, even their LiveJournals. That they can go out in groups and then perhaps hook up is already better than a system where they have to be selected by a man to even go out. The girls are lurching in the right direction, but what needs to happen now is more attention paid to the boys. How can we discourage young men from validating each other based on displays of misogyny? How can we get boys to appreciate girls more as human beings? How can we dismantle a system where social status in youth cultures is controlled strictly by young men? These are the questions we need to be asking.
------
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 10:25 AM •
Permalink
The thing that bothers me is that Rachel Simmons doesn’t seem to acknowledge that, as an advice columnist, she’s necessarily only hearing from the young women who are unhappy. No one writes an advice columnist to say, “I had a one night stand last night and it was awesome and I feel no guilt!” I agree that she addresses the “problem” with a little more feminism than others, but I still feel like she’s helping to make up the problem.
Isn’t that like saying “She’s a doctor, so all she sees is sick people, so there’s no [health] problem”?
That was definitely Kate’s point. I’d go a step further and say I see young women who see the game for what it is and decide to get zen about it. Release the desire to have a boyfriend validate you and concentrate on other things. Easier said than done, but also easier than trying to manipulate someone with more power.
No, Eric. If you have a high fever or a disease, that’s a problem; we all agree. If you’re unhappy, that’s a problem too. But what Simmons laments isn’t unhappiness or a disease: it’s hook-up culture. She says it makes some girls miserable. Av0gadro said it probably delights other girls. Simmons has much less access to the happy ones and so the picture she sees is distorted.
A better analogy might be marijuana or alcohol, which makes some people happy and others unhappy.
Yet again, I seem to be reminded that my college age experience is so far outside the mainstream to be alien. I never experienced the “hook up culture” as described by those above- going to bars, meeting a guy, going back and getting laid. I have no desire to degenerate that experience- do what ya gotta do to get laid.
But, my college years were marked by lots of mixed gendered friends that didn’t really do the bar scene. I “hooked up” more than once, in the sense that I had sex with some of my friends every once in awhile, but for the most part, I had boyfriends (without looking for them, really, I might add and being the “fat one").
So, I think part of the solution of getting rid of the need for male validation is part of what eventually becomes the solution- find other ways of getting validated. Focus on your academics, your athletics, your whatever your bliss is (mine was Dungeons and Dragons* and other various geeky pastimes). College I think is great for this- even small universities have hundreds of people that you can find a social circle in.
*Note: If female and doing a D & D games, you MAY find guys who have the social graces of a tree slug. Verbally beat them down every time they do something inappropriate, or find another friend who will do it for you. Otherwise, they never get better and you won’t be able to appreciate the game. Actually, I generally think this is good advice for everyone, but nerd-boys tend to be doing it out of lack of socialization or poor socialization as opposed to frat boy culture, where bad behavior IS the social grace.
I agree that her perspective on earlier eras seems flawed, but I absolutely do not think she’s making up the problem. Every time you push a single relationship model on a large group of people, you’re going to get a significant number who absolutely hate it and feel trapped by it. And ISTR that young women who have one-night stands frequently don’t enjoy the sex all that much; which is not to say that no one should have one-night stands, just that some people are clearly having them even though they don’t personally enjoy them, and that’s messed up.
One problem, as I see it, is that young women are simultaneously taught that getting a boyfriend is really important and that openly wanting that kind of relationship is pathetic, stupid, and won’t get you a boyfriend. What I see missing in these discussions, again and again, is an acknowledgement that it’s okay to want a boyfriend, and even to feel sad occasionally if you don’t have a boyfriend, and that that doesn’t automatically put you in the “desperate and needy” column. When people can’t be honest about what they really want, they make bad decisions.
I see this as an endless cycle of slut-shaming and counter-shaming. We would do better with less shaming all around.
young women are simultaneously taught that getting a boyfriend is really important and that openly wanting that kind of relationship is pathetic, stupid, and won’t get you a boyfriend.
That’s how it looks to me too. The second set of orders is the main difference between the past and the present: another set of pressures. You have to want a boyfriend, and you have to land one, and you’re a loser if you don’t land one, and--this is the new part--you’re also a loser if you want one. Back in the old days there was plenty of “advice” about not appearing desperate, but it didn’t deny the validity of the goal. We’ve reached to a new level of mind-fucking by telling girls that they have to feel desire and anti-desire at the same time.
killjoy - have you read Kate Harding’s column? That’s pretty much what she talks about.
We’re moving towards giving girls ways to define themselves outside of male attention---sports, academics, non-sexual friendships, even their LiveJournals.
Heh. As someone with an lj account, and who has made friends on lj that I may actually be meeting irl in a couple of weeks, I found thatlast bit both really funny and very true.
This is sort of off topic given the post, but the advice columnist never addresses the fact that sex and love are not the same thing and if you expect someone to come to love you just because theyhave slept with you, you will get hurt. Even if we were magically to go back to the begining of dating, the young girls in question would still just be getting used for sex only in a monogamous fashion. Sex still did not provide a failproof path to love.
My recent college experience sort of jives with Antigone’s, that outside of the high-status fraternity, etc circles, dating is a lot better, especially for women.
A better analogy might be marijuana or alcohol, which makes some people happy and others unhappy.
But to me that reinforces Eric’s point. We don’t claim, because lots of people enjoy having a few drinks now and again and suffer no ill effects, that people who write about alcoholism are “making up the problem.”
Yeah, this romanticizing the 50s or whatever doesn’t sound very feminist (or very smart!) to me. I WAY prefer to be a woman in my 30s today, and I am one of those who HATE modern dating.
Killjoy - #6 -"Every time you push a single relationship model on a large group of people, you’re going to get a significant number who absolutely hate it and feel trapped by it.”
That’s the real problem, I think. The only way around that is to teach people to identify what they want to do and then do it. We are not all the same.
I should also add that I had a completely different experience than Amanda. In college, I had the opportunity to slowly get to know guys, and they always treated me with respect, and as both a friend and a potential romantic partner.
Now that I’m older and I don’t meet men the way I did in college, there’s a very rigid ritual that I invariably fail at since I won’t sleep with them at date # 3 (I live in NYC) and dating is WAY WAY harder. I miss the good old days when we were all human beings to each other.
We’ve reached to a new level of mind-fucking by telling girls that they have to feel desire and anti-desire at the same time.
Exactly.
And honestly—I remember being an unpopular teenager dealing with lot of intense romantic longings, and the “just forget about it and focus on school and hobbies” advice? Not that helpful. It just fed into the old, old narrative: don’t acknowledge your real desires, or you’re a loser (in this case, a bimbo).
killjoy - have you read Kate Harding’s column? That’s pretty much what she talks about.
It is. However, I don’t think she quite addressed the shaming that goes on for even being interested—the pressure to pretend one doesn’t even have the feelings that would prompt one to read 15 Tips To Make Every Man Want You.
This is sort of off topic given the post, but the advice columnist never addresses the fact that sex and love are not the same thing and if you expect someone to come to love you just because theyhave slept with you, you will get hurt.
You know, I think most people can rattle that one off. And I also don’t think it really helps to keep that in mind, especially if all you do is use it to beat yourself up for falling for that guy who wanted to keep things casual. If you want a relationship and you feel like your choices are either no-strings hookups (that will maybe turn into something more serious and maybe just end up with you feeling used and crappy) or romantic and sexual nonexistence, what do you do?
Mm, I think that misses the real problem slightly. The real “problem” is indeed sexism, but it’s more that women are still not fully expected nor desired to focus on their own sexuality and figure it out for themselves. They are bombarded with various messages of what they need for external validation and to meet male needs and male desires and don’t spend enough time figuring out what they need, what relationship structure works for them or that to the contrary, you’re not really going to get screwed out of what you want if you refuse to play the game (whether that’s hook-up culture or anti-hook-up culture).
I think the hook-up culture is great and I say this an asexual who was as removed as possible from it and the most at war with expectations, because it gets women to consider their sexuality and start to figure it out for themselves, more so than the “dating only” model or the “parent’s permission” model before that.
And the problems you outline I mostly saw attacking and screwing over those who didn’t play the “hook-up culture” game. It was the serially monogamous who seemed to get screwed over by boyfriends who demanded porn star expectations and felt pressure to asshole it up because their friends were calling them less of a man being “whipped” by daring to want to date or enjoy the company of women.
The problem of unhappiness is definitely the toxic masculinity that makes an unfortunate number of men borderline rapists and generally abusive assholes, but giving women more options not less and more sexual freedoms, not less are the solutions.
@Killjoy--Yeah I guess it was sort of stating the obvious and I know it wouldn’t make anyone feel better, but my point was that the old-fashioned type dating might “attach some strings” so to speak, but if your desire is to be appreciated as a person, to fall in love, etc you will still be getting used for sex under the old rules so the solution isn’t there either.
Also part of the problem:
The notion a lot of women get hit with that their worth is in their sexual ability to get off men. Thus, the real reason a lot of women are emailing her about one-night stands gone wrong is more the idea a lot of women get hit with that the man leaving or being disinterested afterwards is a sign that you were “bad at sex” which also means you were a worthless person who fails at being a woman.
Basically a problem is stemming from women still placing too much self-esteem on performative sexuality rather than their own sexuality.
The solution isn’t to cut off sexual options, it’s to give women more self-esteem and have more public acceptance and airing of female sexuality on its own terms so that fewer and fewer women have to drag themselves out of that sewer to actually value their own orgasms and deal at least realistically with the sexual world society greatly leaves them unprepared for because of assumptions about it not being as important for women compared to the mythical trap that “commitment” often hides (patriarchal monogamous relationships of male-dominance and female-submission of desires and personality).
I also think that some of Ariel Levy’s ideas play a role here.
In my college experience, the girls who hooked up with guys because that was the thing you were supposed to do and then pined for boyfriends, the girls who were kept on hoping that guy would call them back, were the LEAST empowered, the LEAST feminist. They didn’t hook up (primarily) because they were horny, but because they bought into all sorts of raunch culture ideas. So suggesting that this misery is a result of feminism is misguided, I think.
There were of course plenty of girls who hooked up and were fine - but (again, in my experience) they were the more confident and empowered ones.
I think you make good points about certain social dynamics in play and also women are not even remotely as sex-driven as men.
On the one hand, I’m a gay man so what do I know?
On the other, *there is (virtually) no porn for women.*
The porn industry does not leave money on the table; if women craved visual/tactile purely sexual stimulation, a billion would have sprung up to cater to their desire, yet none has. To me it’s a massive, watertight scientific study done annually with consistent results.
Here’s a outsider’s question, though: So what? I read these pieces and there’s often an underlying defensiveness about the issue—we *are so!* into sex too. Which on some level plays into the ancient sexist trope that smart women are “iceboxes” or whatever.
It’s funny—often mainstream society views homosexuals as being emotionally the opposite sex. Lesbians are butch; gays are sissies. In fact each is their own gender, distilled: The men are prone to constant new sexual conquests, and the women on the main settle into long term emotionally rich relationships. Neither feels the need to pretend otherwise, either (the way straight men sometimes try to exaggerate their sensitivity.)
What’s wrong with straight men taking the position “that’s right, we aren’t horned up all the time like you—deal with it.” (?)
Just curious.
I meant straight *women* at the end there.
And left out “dollar industry” after “billion,” earlier.
As you were
Cerberus - I have a question for you and I hope it doesn’t come out wrong or adversarial. I am genuinely curious - do you think that you would find the hook up culture that great if you were an asexual FEMALE and not male? At least, I’m under the impression you are male, I may be wrong!
As a female - not asexual, but more sexually reticent than most - I HATE hook-up culture, because I feel invalidated and pressured to be something I’m not on a regular basis. I interpret this culture around me that tells me ‘you need to be sexual and figure out your sexuality otherwise you’re not a self actualized person’ as not different really than the long number of men who forced me into sex. It makes it hard for me to figure out - do I want to figure out who I am sexually because that’s what a self-actualized woman does or because I, Lurker, want to have sex?
I get regularly made fun of (nicely) by my (feminist) female friends (those who aren’t very close to me) for not being as horny as they are. I get that they are joking but at the same time, like I said, so many people forced sex on my, why are my enlightened feminist girlfriends trying to do the same? That’s all sorts of fucked up.
killjoy, you’re attacking a Straw Amanda. I did not say Simmons was “making it up”, and nor will putting that in quotes make it true. I agree these girls are suffering. But I think their suffering is due to sexism, not casual sex.
What I see missing in these discussions, again and again, is an acknowledgement that it’s okay to want a boyfriend, and even to feel sad occasionally if you don’t have a boyfriend, and that that doesn’t automatically put you in the “desperate and needy” column.
Meh. Maybe not, but that’s a very fine distinction, isn’t it?
Here is the issue I have with your impressive anger at people who are genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the desire to have a boyfriend is a desire to be released: As a goal, that’s creepy. It just is. It involves another, actual human being with a will and needs of his own. And if potential boyfriends don’t want to be boyfriends, your “goal” is interfering with your obligation to treat all other humans with full respect.
I see falling in love like having a sunny day. Sunny days are wonderful, and it’s okay to like them! Everyone likes sunny days. You can do things to improve the chances that your days are sunny. You can move somewhere sunny, for instance. But if you get desirous enough of sun on rainy days that you get angry if someone suggests that perhaps you should accept that the weather is not under your control, then that’s worrisome.
The problem is not girls wanting boyfriends. The problem is girls wanting boys that don’t want to be their boyfriends to be their boyfriends. Wanting someone to be your boyfriend who does not want to be your boyfriend is something that no good can come of.
And I realize that it seems unfair that neediness and desperation drives off the (good) men. (To be fair, neediness attracts abusers like nobody’s business.) But it only seems oppressive if you forget that potential boyfriends have the same rights as you, and that includes the right to want what they want. And healthy, happy people aren’t attracted to neediness for a good reason. It’s insulting (because it implies they want someone to fill this validating role, instead of they want you for yourself) and it’s headachy (because filling someone’s need for validation is less fun than just being). People who are self-assured are more attractive.
The problem is the desire for a boyfriend turns into this industry of finding ways to manipulate men out of their stated desire not to date you into becoming someone who wants to date you. Better to let go of that desire. It’s creepy when men talk about turning women’s nos into yeses, and it’s creepy the other way around.
Needing validation from others is and always has been considered pathetic. Men who want a girlfriend on their arm and don’t feel complete without one are under pressure in the same way as the women who want a “real” boyfriend but he never calls back. The main difference is that women are more likely to ask for advice while such men are more likely to keep their shame hidden and become those passive-aggressive lashing-out assholes who call women bitches when they won’t date them. Yes, there’s certainly a load of privilege in that (not universal) male response, but the underlying problem isn’t going to go away even in a feminist utopia. Insecurity isn’t solved by outlook so much as gained by experience. Until someone has broken up with someone and NOT been devastated, they haven’t figured out life.
High school and college aged people have a very limited view of who’s available and who isn’t, as it’s limited by schedules and age-related limitations. Dating while older is definitely better, not just because the desperation isn’t as close under the surface, but also because most people my age have lives of their own. I wouldn’t want to go back to the 50s or 30s or Medieval days when I’d be expected to control everything and the woman will be sold off to typing school or a nunnery if she wasn’t chosen by 20. Nor do I want a You Break It You Bought It rule for hymens. This nonsensical decrying of the modern era really needs to face the reality that is dating: it’s always painful, filled with doubt, stuffed to the gills with heartache, peopled by idiots and liars, and also the best way there is to find someone.
matthew, if you think there’s no porn for women, you’ve spent virtually no time in the world of mass market paperbacks. You mean, not much filmed porn for women. But romance novels sell like hotcakes, as do other masturbatory products.
No, real scientific research shows no real difference between the sex drives of men and women. What slight one there is is often the result of shaming of female sexuality. Once women feel empowered to have orgasms, they tend to enjoy it quite a bit.
She’s an advice columnist so she only hears from women who didn’t get what they wanted. That’s pretty endemic in this life, especially when you’re young and unsure about what you want and how to go about getting it. She writes for a women’s magazine, so I doubt she gets many letters from college boys at all. She’s probably underestimating the percentage of boys who are open to relationships and overestimating the percentage of girls who want to date seriously.
She doesn’t hear from the women who like hooking up just fine. Nor from women who hooked up with guys and ended up dating them.
You can’t argue that just because a certain percentage of college students are heartbroken on any given day that their culture must be broken. A certain percentage of college students will be heartbroken on any given day, no matter what. College culture has its flaws, but like Amanda says, the flaws have more to do with background sexism than the idea that you can have casual sex if you feel like it.
Also, I learned this the hard way, hanging in around men who are ambivalent, etc. I realized that it made me very sad, very very sad, and so when I decided that my rule was, “He’s either screaming YES I WANT YOU from the top of his lungs or he’s not for me,” life got so much easier. And the time! Oh my god, the time you get back for yourself. It’s glorious, to lay around and love yourself and enjoy your interests instead of hating yourself for wanting a man who’s like, “Well, I love you, but blegh, I want to fuck you and then go hang out with my friends who think women are a drag.”
In the pool of college age people, there are women and men who are interested only in sex and men and women interested mostly in romance, but strangely, men and women interested mostly in romance are playing from the sex only playbook....
Amanda, you always talk about being needy as being bad - and I think I understand what you are saying - but can you define needy?
On a very basic level, needy means having needs. And if you have certain emotional needs (say, a need for intimacy) it’s because you are not getting it from another source. And if you are a young person, and you are needy, it’s probably because you don’t come from a background where you had the emotional support you require. Conversely, if you are not needy, it’s probably because you came from a stable strong family, and therefore don’t NEED other people, and can focus on only allowing people into your life that add value.
This is not just a theoretical construct I created here. This is something that I see in real life and certainly applies to me.
What I am trying to say is - not being needy can be constructed as a form of privilege. Can you really tell someone who, say, grew up in a foster home “stop being so fucking needy or no one will want to be near you”? That just seems cruel to me.
I don’t know, I don’t have any solutions. But I’m a little troubled by how being ‘needy’ is vilified when those needs are completely legitimate.
“I gave you sex and now you owe me affection” sounds a lot like “I gave you affection and now you owe me sex” to me.
“We don’t claim, because lots of people enjoy having a few drinks now and again and suffer no ill effects, that people who write about alcoholism are “making up the problem.” “
But we do point out that people who spend all day doing nothing but trying to helping alcoholics get clean or stay clean and then conclude that nobody can enjoy alcohol without fucking up their life that they are seeing a skewed representation of how people interact with alcohol which is then leading them to assign causation to the wrong thing. The problem isn’t that there is no problem and people are making one up, but that they’re exaggerating the problem and then pinning the blame for it on something that’s not really a motivator.
Needy, in this context, is defined as putting your desire for a specific relationship or set of circumstance that rely on someone else’s enthusiastic consent to go in front of enjoying them for themselves. Even if you have a generic desire for “a boyfriend”, in order to not be needy, that has to go out the window the second you meet someone whose individual wonderfulness erases that fantasy from your mind.
It’s like your friends. You may want “friends”, but your actual friends and idiosyncratic relationship to them tends to matter more than their friend-ness.
Neediness is a serious problem. It’s not one that will be fixed by being angry that potential romantic partners give up their right not to be with someone who isn’t needy. The drive to have sex is powerful, but no one (here, at least) would argue men have a right to put that in front of a woman’s desire to have it happen on her terms.
mattheww, part of the proof against your assertion regarding porn for women not existing (hah!) is that most women, for the first time in recorded history, are able to get access to porn anonymously. And being practical, they can do it easily using this thing called a computer. And so much of it is free, the porn industry is having a hard time competing with the DIY culture. Your admission that you are a gay man excuses some of your ignorance, but you really do not see the same world as I do if you think that mainstream porn is all there is. Check out indienudes.com and see that although the target audience is still mostly men, the amount made by and commented on by women is getting larger every year. The stigma of enjoying a naked body is very much gone from the reality of many women, while the same old sexism demands that some women apologize for their “youthful indiscretions”. We aren’t at the stage where a starlet’s topless photo or sex tape is shrugged off as unimportant, but we’re moving in that direction.
matthew, if you think there’s no porn for women, you’ve spent virtually no time in the world of mass market paperbacks
Or Yaoi manga. Or furry porn, frankly.
Personally, I think furry porn is unisex >_<;
“But romance novels sell like hotcakes, as do other masturbatory products.”
Lady-porn books are pretty much solely responsible for the fact that there are still paperback exchanges. I never understood how women could come into those places with copy paper boxes full of paperback and leave with the same number of different titles once a month until I was old enough to realize that they were porn, at which point the thought was “Damn, that is a lot of porn.”.
I’ll add that there’s a way around this conundrum of “I want him to do what I want, but I want him to really mean it”. You can abandon the idea of romantic love. It’s hardly unheard of for matches to exist like business partnerships, where passion is second to fulfilling the goal of having a partner. But then you might end up like Mark Sanford 30 years later, when you do fall in love with someone not your spouse.
It was the serially monogamous who seemed to get screwed over by boyfriends who demanded porn star expectations and felt pressure to asshole it up because their friends were calling them less of a man being “whipped” by daring to want to date or enjoy the company of women.
Well, okay, but I don’t think the answer to that is that the serially monogamous should stop being that way. People who consciously reject the hook-up lifestyle as not for them, or not for them right now, are in a different position from people who get into sexually monogamous relationships and then resent not being able to hook up whenever they want. And there’s a lot of crap aimed at young het men that suggests that having a girlfriend is, by definition, a terrible burden, and you’re “whipped” if you feel otherwise.
Yeah I guess it was sort of stating the obvious and I know it wouldn’t make anyone feel better, but my point was that the old-fashioned type dating might “attach some strings” so to speak
Oh, it absolutely can. While this sounds close to endorsing a transactional view of relationships (men “buy” sex with attention and validation), I don’t think that is necessarily fair. If I know that I don’t want NSA sex, I want a relationship that includes both sex and non-sexual hanging out, getting to know each other, going places together, etc., dating is one possible way to screen out the people who want NSA sex. Although nothing is foolproof, of course.
I’m also used to seeing the “sex is not love” lecture given to pile on people who are hurting because they developed unexpected feelings after a hookup or got confused by mixed messages, as a way of shaming them for feeling hurt, so I probably overreacted a tad.
Amanda - understood but (and here I should add that I peer-counsel women who were sexually abused by their dads, and am a survivor myself so obviously it colors my views) doesn’t society owe something to the under-privileged?
And in this case, if someone is severely emotionally handicapped by an adversed childhood, shouldn’t we try to make up to it (the same way there’s welfare and food stamps etc)? Yeah, I totally understand that it’s not one person’s responsibility to get close to any person they don’t want to, but on a societal level, what’s the solution?
What do you say to a woman (or a man) that was rejected so many times, that doesn’t have family support because her father sexually abused her, that doesn’t have lots of friends because she smelled funny and was weird so people stayed away from her who wants some intimacy and love in her life? I really never know what to say. It’s very hard to develop internal emotional resources without some external love.
I guess what I’m saying I’m not content in saying that neediness is bad and leave it like that. I mean, poor health is bad but it still exists so that’s why we’re fighting for universal health care.
Now that I think about that, the Sanford situation shows the ethical dilemma even in that. It’s only fair to have a no-passion marriage if both people involved are up front about it. Jenny Sanford was in an aristocratic “all business” marriage, but according to her, she had no idea, and thought she was in a love match. So, that’s a violation of her rights, if true.
killjoy, you’re attacking a Straw Amanda. I did not say Simmons was “making it up”, and nor will putting that in quotes make it true.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA. I wasn’t responding to you AT ALL, Amanda. I was responding to the first comment, from Avogadro, in which he or she DID say Simmons was “making up the problem.” Verbatim. Check it.
Very interesting historical analysis, Amanda.
Or, I apologize, “helping to make up the problem.”
If a certain number of women are unhappy, that’s not a made-up problem.
Owe them what, Lurker? How do you propose fixing the issue?
And there’s a lot of crap aimed at young het men that suggests that having a girlfriend is, by definition, a terrible burden, and you’re “whipped” if you feel otherwise.
I fully agree. But young women are not helped by being told that they can somehow manipulate young men who believe these messages into being young men who love them anyway. I promise you this. Withholding sex doesn’t turn a misogynist into a non-misogynist. The getting to know you phase can totally be a sexual preference---a lot of people don’t find it hot if there’s no connection---but as a dating strategy to get around misogyny, it’s not really effective. Believe me, tried that. They still pick their bros, and only pretend to be your boyfriend. But they’re not really your boyfriend. Real boyfriends are kind and truly committed.
Ah, sorry killjoy. Apologies.
I do think one issue that isn’t on the table is what can happen if a girl manages to get a guy to make some nominal commitment through sex withholding or other advice columnist strategies, but he’s still the same ambivalent guy. A lot of the time, you get cheating from him, in my experience.
I’m always baffled by all of these discussions. I graduated from college 15 years ago and heard about plenty of drunken escapades, some enjoyed and many regretted; I met someone early and we’ve been together ever since, so I have no personal experience of any of these things. I guess I’m still unclear on how “hook-up culture” is different from every other form of interaction on the sexual continuum, at least since chaperons stopped being expected. Is it primarily that having sex happens a lot sooner?
Lurker @20
I am a woman.
Furthermore, I am a strong critic as are most asexuals of both cultures of cultural expectations of sexuality often pressured with little care or attention to the sexualities of both partners and an honest communication therein. I’ve also counseled a good number of asexual women who by cultural expectations were trying to force themselves into sexual encounters (more like rape) because it was expected or because a partner was demanding sex as proof of love (a sick rapist notion if I’ve ever heard one).
As an expectation, the hook-up culture is not a great thing. But as an expansion of options and something that allows a little more honesty in sexual dealings, I cheer it. I cheer it, because it’s a step closer to asking a woman what she wants and respecting that and allowing her greater freedom to initiate and thus lower cultural memes that “man pursues, woman fends off” that gets a lot of women, sexual and asexual, raped by their partners.
It’s also not hook-up culture that causes these pressures, but cultural notions of performative sexuality being more important than actual sexuality (which doesn’t just include what they want, but what they don’t want or what they’re not ready for). My actual sexuality is none as such I have clear boundaries in regards to myself and sex and anything that moves us as a culture closer to accepting that off the bat rather than trying to manipulate it up or down (grr, you’re a slut, c’mon stop being a prude) is a damn good thing.
In short, the path to freedom from this bullshit is in allowing more options. Everyone should feel free to pursue the relationship structure that works best for them rather than being pressured into cultural notions.
Here is the issue I have with your impressive anger at people who are genuinely trying to help by suggesting that the desire to have a boyfriend is a desire to be released: As a goal, that’s creepy. It just is. It involves another, actual human being with a will and needs of his own. And if potential boyfriends don’t want to be boyfriends, your “goal” is interfering with your obligation to treat all other humans with full respect.
I’m not aware of this “impressive anger.”
Wanting to find someone with whom you could have a happy relationship is *not* the same thing as trying to learn to manipulate other people into having a relationship with you, any more than being horny is the same thing as sexually harassing people. And if I feel a little down because it’s gloomy out, that doesn’t mean I’m stomping around making other people miserable because I want it to be sunny, or halting my whole life until the sun comes out again. I can just acknowledge the wish without beating myself up for it and continue what I was doing.
Is it primarily that having sex happens a lot sooner?
It’s that the sex happens sooner and affection is not a given, nor is a follow-up phone call.
killjoy @36
Huh. When I hear “sex is not love”, I often translate that to “lust is not love” and “neither love nor lust are relationships”. I suppose it’s because I’ve always really hated how people basically lump everything together in one big mess because of cultural expectations and our puritan culture and the fact that I’m an asexual so I rather directly know how love and lust are two separate things.
I think the problem with the sex thing is that it keeps getting sold in the old “game” of withholding or granting sexual privileges in order to get relationships and stability (which was always a bad system that fucked over women on multiple levels) and so people keep overstating love to “forgive” indulging lust or mixing jumbled combinations together or assuming that love must end in relationships or that you should be in love in a relationship so if you fall out of love or shacked up in lustful NRE then you need to force yourself to be in love. Or “prove” your love by doing sexual things you might not want.
In short, cultural expectations suck.
I fully agree. But young women are not helped by being told that they can somehow manipulate young men who believe these messages into being young men who love them anyway.
I 100% agree.
I think I may have misunderstood what you meant by being Zen. If it’s saying “this set-up sucks and I don’t want to participate, I’m going to go do something else until it gets better,” I 100% agree it’s a good idea. It’s pretty much what I’ve done in my own life; I put up with longish periods of total singleness/celibacy because I’d rather do that than participate in a scene that makes me uncomfortable. I’m not even all that comfortable with dating; I’ve been happiest getting into relationships with men who were purely platonic friends first (like my current boyfriend).
I guess I’ve just personally, in my own life, seen way too many occurrences in which young women’s frustration with the sexism in much of the hookup culture was treated as if it was totally illegitimate, in which the girl was basically told she was stupid for even caring. YMMV.
I’m not quite sure how women are supposed to figure out their sexuality from hook up culture when 80 percent of women who have one-night stands don’t orgasm and when so many straight men still regard sex as nothing more than groping and pumping. A long-term sexual relationship (even if it’s not romantic) is essential for figuring out what one likes in bed, no matter what your gender is. I still fear that, with hooking up, many young women simply take away the lesson of laying back and relaxing their vaginal muscles so that their crappy sex with selfish lovers is at least not painful.
I think it’s also worth pointing out that the “hook-up culture” isn’t exactly as the media portrays it. I went to college through the “hook-up culture”. I’m currently living in a country with a much stronger “hook-up culture” than America has, and well…
There’s still a shit-ton of serially monogamous people. Most people end up in couples or other forms of formalized relationship. The new words, the new relationship structures? They’re for the most part new options. And well...like with all options, they won’t fit everyone and some people will try it out (especially if they have no idea what they’re doing) and it’ll go really poorly for them.
But the old structures, some of those were always bad for some people, didn’t fit their needs or desires in the slightest and protecting some from the freedom of more choices is always stupid.
While Devo was right about what we seem to want, they are also right about what we got and really what we need. Freedom of choice is a good thing and while we seem to think that if we just simplify it down to one path, it’ll all be good, that just maximizes the number of people who are miserable long-term, rather than short-term.
The hook-up culture won’t work for everyone, but given that people are still human, there are a good number of abstainers to date in a more traditional serial monogamous style even in the “wild and crazy” atmosphere on college campuses.
keshmeshi, do you know what the stats are for women’s orgasms in long-term relationships? Just curious. I expect it still falls pretty short of 100%, especially for very young women.
It’s that the sex happens sooner and affection is not a given, nor is a follow-up phone call.
Oh, OK. I was still thinking of it as sex-without-relationship. But sex-without-affection is a different category.
#4 unree: thanks for that response, I see your point. Without actually polling a representative sample, there’s no way to know if the hookup culture is an overall win or loss.
@50
And what do you think the difference is when you date the grope and pump boyfriend long term? Or date in slow serial monogamy style until you stop believing in your ability to really orgasm any more and blame yourself?
I’ve seen a lot more people fucked up by dating selfish lovers for months on end than by sleeping with a handful.
The hook-up culture people go “meh, this sucks” and learn an important lesson about selfish lovers. The serially monogamous people start wondering if selfish lovers are “normal” and that they’re weird and slutty for wanting more or something different.
The solution for both of course isn’t one method or the other, but a nationwide “what the fuck is wrong with you” campaign targeted at men to actually make them value and support their partner’s desires and to regularly check in and value women’s sexuality in heterosexual relationships.
Which is why the real problem is more tangental to the “style of relationship” debate.
More options is great, but for heterosexuals, the deck is often stacked with douchebags no matter how you approach them and learning to deal with that without internalizing shame is one of the hardest and most unfortunate battle facing women who date men these days.
But killjoy, if it’s not, then I don’t really see your point. When people “shame” women for wanting boyfriends, what they’re doing is discouraging that as a goal, because goals that involve the enthusiastic consent of others can’t be tackled like goals like getting an A.
The advice to release the desire for something that’s out of your control is pretty good advice. It creates mental habits that prevent destructive behavior. For instance, superstition. Superstitious behavior evolves in situations where the desire for something is so overwhelming that you take ineffectual and sometimes counter-productive measures to control the situation. For instance, sports fans can’t control their teams’ performance, so they wear jerseys and engage in other superstitions. Sometimes this can be destructive. Praying is a superstitious behavior that encourages religion’s power over people.
Wanting a boyfriend in an environment where dudes don’t want girlfriends is something that can be controlled in theory, but in practice, it tends to lead to behaviors designed to encourage men to reject cultural values they believe in (being “pussy whipped) and date someone.....usually ambivalently. Until he completely rejects that cultural narrative, a man is undateable. What you see as shaming is often people’s attempts to encourage young women to reject a system that disempowers them by making them want/need something men simply refuse to give.
I’m sad that things are the way they are, and I just think they’ve always been that way. Sex is a red herring. I worry that the distinction between “this is my personal preference” and “I think this dating strategy will work to get guys who really don’t want girlfriends to change their minds” is what’s fuzzy here.
Sadness at being along is real, for sure. Here’s how I’ve seen women successfully cope when the commitment-worthy menfolk seem few and far between. Start with making a list of what a partner gets you. Here’s mine:
*Emotional intimacy
*Sex
*Shared finances
*Someone to do fun stuff with
*Cuddling
Instead of being sad, a better coping mechanism is to ask how much of that you can get without a boyfriend, and engage in creative thinking about the rest. Using this strategy, I’ve seen women decide to recommit to a hobby, spend more time with non-partner loved ones, and learn that you don’t need a man on your arm to see a movie. I would add that enjoying dating for its own sake, without necessarily being all business.
In other words, they do exactly what the advice you perceive as shaming advice does---encourages you to take comfort in having a full life, and in fact build that full life. The thing is, if you take it to heart, it’s effective advice. Also, it often has the side benefit of making you the kind of person that’s easier to fall in love with, because you bring so much to the table.
Of course, I have to point out that for most men I’ve known, this “live for myself” philosophy of being single comes naturally, because they’re not needing validation from romance to nearly the same degree.
Flip, where it gets really screwed up for young women is that they’ll sometimes experience affection in private from young men who won’t own it in public, because of the “pussy whipped” thing. So they write these sad ass letters. What they need to do is cut him off and bide their time until someone’s affection is the same in or out of the bedroom.
I think sex ed really needs to start including portions that go “It’s okay to masturbate. Really. If you want to, go ahead. If you want to, it doesn’t make you a pervert or a freak. If you don’t want to, there’s still nothing wrong with you.” I think if more women started masturbating it may be easier for them to go “I need you to touch me here, and here, and lick HERE” during sex. Selfish lovers suck on so many levels, but for the most part, I think it’s because neither party has any idea of what to do.
FlipYrWhig—Hookup culture = one night stands.
Some real pigs can be good in bed. I think the focus on sex is distracting, for that reason. (Though I’ll bet more than a few women have been sucked into loving someone who doesn’t give a shit but gave good head.) I think the larger problem is that the girls want someone who is nice to them and signals to their people that they’re the kind of girls who have boyfriends, i.e. validated.
Cerberus - thanks for answering. So you’re a woman! Not sure why I had that impression for a while. I’m guessing we come from a different place.
I guess it’s hard for me to see hookup culture as an expansion of options precisely BECAUSE it feels mandatory. Just another way to get women to do sexually what men want. I guess I don’t really see where is that space for women to discover their sexuality. To buy 4 expensive vibrators and use them for years just to discover I can’t have orgasms? Sure, it’s better than the previous arrangement for those women who are very sexual or who’s sexuality wasn’t impeded in any way.
But I would argue that if you would simply create a hook up culture in victorian England, what you would get is not sexually empowered women but another version of rape culture, except women would be more likely to be raped in pubs than at home by their husband. It’s not hookup culture that gives women more room to explore their sexuality - it’s feminism. And hookup culture is just another one-fits-all model that oppresses, even if it doesn’t intend to.
@59
And this.
I often maintain that we need real sex education in this country in a bad way. Not just mechanics of condom usage, but genuine heart to heart talks about how to discover your own sexuality on your own terms and communicate desires, boundaries, fantasies, etc… with potential partners.
Right now if we give anything, we give the slightest amount of catastrophic protection and education about the dangers and the need for basic protections and let the rest get taught by well… “erotic culture” which gets dominated by the unrealistic bullshit of the porno industry or the regressive “a relationship cures all” craptacularity of romantic comedies and romance novels.
And no one’s telling kids about sex as is and that they have a right to determine their own wants and desires, explore it on their own terms and demand a partner that at least respects them and their desires and treat sex in general as something that is communicated without coercion and with full respect to boundaries and fears.
We need education about sex, not just sexual health.
Here’s the thing: whether you have one option for contact or twelve, it doesn’t change the fundamental problem, which is that young men are encouraged to be misogynists. Married men are perfectly capable of putting bros before hos. In traditional dating, women are still expected to be compliant and submissive. The belief that getting out of “hooking up” means stepping in to a better situation is a delusion. It worries me, having had a few “boyfriends” whose antagonism at really treating me like an equal meant that I was in the same “no phone call” boat as a girl who keeps hooking up with a guy she loves who won’t give her the time of day in front of his friends.
@62 Lurker-
Yes, as a one-fits-all model hook-up cultures suck, as anything sucks in a one-fits-all model especially without feminism.
But as an expansion of options above the serial monogamy model which is still today the dominant model? I love it.
Feminism is indeed the cure-all as most of the problems in all the models come from the fact that too many men still suck because of toxic masculinity and too many women are tearing themselves up and internalizing bad messages because of cultural sexism, but the world it’s moving us towards is one of greater options. Women allowed the job and cultural options available to men. Men allowed the emotional ranges denied to them (for fear of being women by virtue of expressing them). People in general allowed all sorts of relationship and lifestyle choices previously denied by essentialism and cultural bullshit.
I see the hook-up culture as an imperfect part of that, moving away from less options, towards more options and towards a more honest acceptance of sexuality as is.
The key word in that sentence is towards. As is practiced is self-evidently marred by growing pains and the long shadow of sexism, cultural messaging, and general crap, but there’s something there that’s definitely closer than the “women’s consent and desires are wholly measured by how well she can resist carefully planned out rape (or as they called it “seduction")" we used to have to accept.
There’s more of a vocabulary to communicate with a partner and a growing discontentment with those who refuse to communicate before or during sex with their partner and these are good cultural trends though the battle to true equality and true sexual freedom is long and fraught.
And I say this all even as an asexual woman who has been sexually assaulted dating a woman who was raped multiple times.
@64 Amanda-
Well yeah, the problem is definitely sexism, but sexism thrives on nice clear dualities. When canadian hockey players can guzzle beers and smoke cigars and women can talk on the TV about their orgasms without shame, it gets much harder to sell the type of narrow world-views necessary to perpetuate sexism.
But it’s sort of moot, because you don’t tend to get meaningful options without feminist victories and feminist victories often express themselves in increased options (with the patriarchy then trying to corrupt those options as much as possible to prevent them from being as game-changing as they could be).
Obviously the solution is to be a rabid feminist and rally for greater options and less bullshit as sort of a combined thing.
I don’t disagree, but I suppose for me it’s an issue of focus. “More options” follows empowering women and discouraging and shaming misogyny. When people see each other as equals, the ways to interact explode exponentially, because it’s up to any individual relating to another.
Amanda -
Well, to be clear, I don’t propose manipulating anyone.
But how to fix it? I was kind of curious what your solution was. What would you say to a friend who you diagnose as needy? How would you want them to stop being needy?
I personally don’t mind needy people. I find that people who show vulnerability and imperfection are often kinder and more giving. And no, not because they are pushovers, but because they are attuned to other people’s needs as well as their own. It becomes a give-give relationship right from the beginning. I think there are other people like me. I guess what I am saying ultimately is that people want and need different things - just because YOU don’t find needy people appealing doesn’t mean others don’t, and not because they want to abuse them.
On a societal level, we need to get over our collective discomfort of talking about abuse and its consequences. This would have an effect on an individual level; people would act needy a lot less if instead they could simply say ‘I’m lonely’ without being penalized. And in general we need to talk about emotional vulnerability more - that it’s OK to be vulnerable. For men too!!!
I think we need to acknowledge that just like the poor, the sick, people of color (I count myself as the last two and while not poor, not middle class either) deserve certain things from society, so do many abuse survivors. Hell, the poor, the sick, people of color even have a major political party that purports to represent them.
Part of that acknowledgement needs to be by de-stigmatizing mental health issues and making therapy and mental health treatment WAY more accessible.
Amanda - I wrote all this other stuff and then read your comment # 67
“When people see each other as equals, the ways to interact explode exponentially, because it’s up to any individual relating to another.”
That’s exactly what I was trying to get at, except I would add that to me seeing someone as equal involves admitting you both have vulnerabilities.
I respect that there are people who find the expectations of “hook-up culture” harmful, painful, and counter to their individual needs. I would never try to take that from anyone. I will argue against claims that “hook-up culture” on it’s own neutral standing “oppresses” women, because that isn’t universally true.
I’m married now and have been monogamous with my partner for the last 4 years, pretty much since we met, but before we were together I had sex with a lot of gorgeous men, to the point where I lost count. I loved it. I am the “fat one” as well as a childhood sexual abuse survivor and I absolutely loved the power I had in “hook-up culture” to pursue sex with gorgeous men on my own terms.
Fat girls aren’t supposed to get to have sex with gorgeous men, and back in the day when culture dictated we all sit and wait to be picked by a nice fella fat girls probably had far less chance to have sex, especially with incredibly hot guys. Childhood sexual abuse meant I had a hard time learning to assert myself sexually and to pursue my own desires in the context of monogamous relationships. “Hook-up culture” meant I was in charge, to be the one who pursues instead of being pursued, to say “yes”, and if I wanted to, to say “no”.
“Hook-up culture” meant I could dictate my own sexuality in a way previous models never would have allowed. I hooked up with men, and a few women. I explored what I liked and didn’t like. I loved the adrenaline rush, the kisses, the bodies, the sex itself. I even loved the bad “dates” that gave me hilarious stories to share with my friends.
I slept around with whomever I pleased for around a decade before I met my now husband, and I had a great time. My experiences don’t mean this model will work for everyone, but they fly in direct opposition to the idea that “hook-up culture” is damaging to all women.
What do you say to a woman (or a man) that was rejected so many times, that doesn’t have family support because her father sexually abused her, that doesn’t have lots of friends because she smelled funny and was weird so people stayed away from her who wants some intimacy and love in her life?
That people who like themselves are usually more attractive and better suited to start a relationship than someone who feels that validation can only be real if it comes from outside because they’ve been taught that so long by the environment and the society they exist in.
Also, they probably need professional counseling, a wise person knows their limitations and acts accordingly for the best outcome for everyone involved.
To quote the protagonist of the Ibsen play An Enemy of the People:
“Mightiest is he who stands alone.”
Amanda wrote, in the original article:
A woman who couldn’t get dates was a common and tragic circumstances, as her social life was severely limited. As usual, there were the “fat” ones, the “hot” ones, and the ones that are “just there”, and your status in your community depended largely on how much attention and validation you got from men.
You write as though there are no men who can’t get dates. The guys who can’t get dates (for whatever reasons: too ugly, too fat, too socially inept, or just too plain scared to ask a woman out) are going to suffer the same social limitations and their status among their peers will be similarly stunted.
I’ve made this point before, but the “hook-up” culture is not new. I remember 1986-87 very clearly, and I’m quite certain I wasn’t the only college woman enjoying casual sex. In fact, of all my girlfriends from college, only 2 had serious boyfriends. The majority of us had groups of male and female friends who occasionally had sex. I cannot say that this culture of casual sex left any scars.
Of course, it did not protect from tears or broken hearts. Nothing does. My worst experience involved hooking up with a boy I’d had a huge crush on for ages. It was awful because I wanted love, and he wanted sex, and he turned out to be an asshole with a madonna/whore complex. But the pain was the result of a rejection by & disillusionment about a crush mixed with horrible misogynistic attitudes, not a problem with the culture of casual sex.
I don’t regret anything about those years of casual sex. They were fun, and I was learning about myself. (It helped that it was the midwest in the ‘80s, and birth control was cheap & available, and no one was too terrified of STDs yet.) Now I’m the poster child for monogamy, and that’s fine, too. Needs and tastes change. There are a lot of things I did in college (excessive drinking, all-nighters, spur-of-the-moment roadtrips) that I don’t enjoy now, but that I don’t regret.
One of the things that jumped out at me was the picture used to illustrate the article. Young, smiling, good-looking white guys and girls, having a good time, presumably in a club or some such place. Amanda, we’ve all seen your picture, and unless you’ve lost a lot of weight since college or you just photograph a lot better than you look, you were one of the women in college who could have been cast in that photo. At least from your pictures and your writing—from which I assume you were able to mix well socially—you were one of the women who had plenty of choices.
I’m lucky: I’ve never been desperate (at least: not since I got out of high school; in high school I was just totally inept!) But I’ve had a couple of friends who were just totally, totally unable to have any kind of relationship with women that wasn’t unbelievably tense, because they were just so fornicating desperate. And I’ve known women who were just as lonely and just as desperate as the guys. There are times—and not just in this article—that it has occurred to me that you might not really understand the people who just don’t seem to have the social options you’ve probably had.
I dunno about anybody else, but the reason I prefer relationships over hooking up is it just feels so much safer. I don’t feel like dudes are preying on me, or just trying to get me into the sack. I know that my bf is a genuinely good dude that doesn’t want to hurt me, even though he certainly has the power to, physically and emotionally.
My antidepressants leave me without a sex drive, so hooking up isn’t really an option anyway.
Dark Avenger at 71-
I like that Ibsen quote. That’s what I try to tell the women I work with, and for the most part I think it’s true, but unfortunately we still live in a society, and most people need SOME validation from others. I try to create an environment where survivors support each other, and that works pretty well - but there are logistics problems.
But the survivors I know, and I myself, don’t struggle with am I pretty enough/smart enough/successful enough/skinny enough - after years of struggle, we’ve all reached this point where WE KNOW we can manage on our own, that we can take care of ourselves, etc. It’s more that, after taking care of yourself on your own for so long, getting others to take care of you can be very confounding. It’s a problem of socialization, to a certain extent.
Another point is that all this hand-wringing about the “hook-up” culture tends to be a focused on a pretty narrow socioeconomic group. For the most part, it’s all about white girls from middle- to upper-class backgrounds who are having the traditional 4-year college experience with lots of partying time. That’s hardly representative of young people as a whole, and it’s becoming ever less common.
Hookup culture = one night stands.
OK, but that’s nothing new. I’m blundering around trying to figure out what’s new about it to make it a “culture.” And so far it seems like the newness of the phenomenon might be that there’s been a sort of race to the bottom (um) where one-night stands have become a norm, such that not participating in one-night stands marks you as uncool or uptight, and, perhaps more importantly, that if you want to be in a relationship, you have to be willing to hook up first, and then hope for the best. The idea of having sex without even being able to count on _affection_, much less a relationship, makes it seem much more poignant to me.
But the idea of fucking for the sake of fucking, in a way that’s _meant_ to be momentary and not leading to anything… I’ve never been able to comprehend that. I’m a straight guy with an insecure and nerdy youth and a longstanding liberal-feminist sensibility. It has never sounded appealing for any of the parties involved. I’m not saying that to shame or fault; I want everyone to set their own terms for what gives them pleasure and makes them happy. It’s just very hard for me as me to comprehend.
but unfortunately we still live in a society, and most people need SOME validation from others
That’s true, and my own idea would be for them to pursue some objective in and of itself where they are doing something they like and are good at for it’s own sake,not because they’re expected to or as a way of meeting a potential partner.
Like what? Music, writing, painting, getting an education, whatever. Pursue an interest in something one has talent in, and see where it leads you. That can lead to self-validation, as in “I am good at A,B,C, etc.”
Another difficulty is objectivity, that’s why I would recommend meditation with an experienced practitioner, as it can help in getting one comfortable in ones’ own skin, which helps reduce the ‘neediness’ vibe as well.
It’s a problem of socialization, to a certain extent.
Yes, it’s like being in bed for years, and then you’re expected to take a walking tour of San Francisco next week.
One of my late sister’s favorite sayings is the end of the Stuart Smalley’s Daily Affirmation : “I’m Good Enough, I’m Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!”
How one gets there is the problem.
As Homer Simpson once reminded his family:
“Remember, as far as anyone knows, we’re a nice, normal family.”
As a goal, that’s creepy. It just is. It involves another, actual human being with a will and needs of his own. And if potential boyfriends don’t want to be boyfriends, your “goal” is interfering with your obligation to treat all other humans with full respect.
I disagree it’s creepy. People get into romantic relationships because they want to be in a romantic relationship, and in my experience they tend to succeed in that when they find other people who also want a romantic relationship, and there are going to be people who actively want a boyfriend/girlfriend, and people who either don’t want that at a given moment or don’t really care. Certainly what’s creepy is the desperation to try to get a specific individual to be romantically involved with you when that person doesn’t want you (or anyone). However, the fact that you want a boyfriend/girlfriend and are going to make efforts to have one isn’t “creepy"-- it’s actually part of life and the desire of lots and lots of people to be “coupled.” You can say that this isn’t a valid desire to have or pursue, but lots of people are going to disagree with you there.
There should be a variation of Godwins law that says something like any discussion of sex will eventually mention “furries”
Wanting to have a bf/gf is understandable, but for success, the other person has to reciprocate your feelings. You can’t force something that isn’t there.
What I’m wondering: Can young women have NSA sex with guys in their circle of acquaintance without worrying about feeling awkward later? In my experience, NSA sex was more likely to occur with total strangers, when young women were on vacation, taking a long weekend, etc. Maybe that’s the difference with today’s hookup culture: you can randomly have sex with any of your pals.
because a partner was demanding sex as proof of love (a sick rapist notion if I’ve ever heard one)
“Partnership” implies intimacy which one would naturally expect to include sexual intimacy. “Partnership” without intimacy sounds oxymoronic.
I am a strong critic as are most asexuals of both cultures of cultural expectations of sexuality often pressured with little care or attention to the sexualities of both partners and an honest communication therein. I’ve also counseled a good number of asexual women who by cultural expectations were trying to force themselves into sexual encounters (more like rape) because it was expected or because a partner was demanding sex as proof of love
This is where you should heed Amanda’s ideas about “enthusiastic consent"-- if the two partners in a relationship have vastly different expectations of what kind of romantic intimacy is to be expected, then they should not be in that relationship, rather than trying to trick themselves into accepting something they don’t really want in a relationship. If you don’t think that sex should be part of a relationship and your partner does, then it’s wiser to convince both parties to find other relationships more in line with what they want rather than trying to convince one partner that wanting sex is wrong or the other partner than not wanting sex is wrong. Rather, you lay the situation on the table and say, ”If you want X,Y, and Z in a relationship, then your desires are not going to be fulfilled with person A, but you may find what you’re looking for elsewhere, though it may be more difficult.” There is really no reason why an asexual person should expect a sexual person to maintain a romantic relationship with him or her, and vice versa.
Lurker - I hate that so called “3 date rule”! Who on earth ever came up with that one? I defintely never followed it.
Someone way up top, I forgot the name now, mentioned having a large circle of both male and female friends during college. That’s exactly what I had, and even later, into my 20’s. And we all slept with each other over the years. I don’t know if there two of us who didn’t end up having sex by the time we all fell out of touch. And there was very little drama surrounding that, for some reason. I am still very close with two of the women in that group. The rest of us have fallen out of touch.
But I’m very grateful to have had that. I did not experience any of the things that I am reading about here and in the links. My male friends weren’t assholes. Our biggest arguments revolved around which movie better fitted our group, Saint Elmo’s Fire or The Big Chill.
I don’t have any advice for those young women, because I just don’t know that world. Maybe forming groups of friends of both genders might be a place to begin. I’m not sure though. You know, the culture is more pornified now than it was in the late 80’s and early 90’s, the period I am talking about. Hard core pornified from degrading internet porn. As for “fat”, take a look at the Supermodels from that period, Cindy Crawford, and put her body up against any of them today. Not only have women been more pornified, they’ve been shrunk.
I feel for them. I am so glad I already know who I am. I can definitely see how easy it must be to feel like shit among all that.
Thank you Amanda and 3letterjon—I’m learning a lot and I’ll never be able to use any of it! Oh well.
I absolutely misspoke when I said there was no porn for women. Of course there is; even I was aware of some, and I’m glad to hear there’s more out there.
Still there’s something in what’s left standing of my point I still wonder about:
Romance novels to my (male?) mind aren’t porn. If women use them as that to me it sort of helps the point Rachel Simmons was working in her piece—women are looking for a deeper richer connection than men. To men porn is barely even about whole people—just hot body parts.
And the fact that porn for women is not on my radar to a huge extent says something about more than just me—sex stores and sites have huge straight and gay male presences and to dabble in the stuff is to be constantly made aware of all of it by the relentlessly mercantile industry.
If women want sex to the same degree (and meaning the same thing by “sex") as men, it just seems like the world’s profiteers would be all over that.
Maybe it is just that women have been shamed into not pursuing it. Maybe women are pursuing it now in ways that are invisible to me. I have no idea, of course. It just feels unlikely that that could account for the entire discrepancy.
Then again I’ve got two of you saying I’m wrong about the point the porn argument served, so it really doesn’t matter either way.
Thanks for your time.
AnglScarlett
I think a lot of them end up turning to the church. It offers a home that they never had. It also offers a culture that doesn’t emphasize sex - which can be a blessing for an abuse survivor. There are a lot of churches that don’t victim-blame, and if there is misogyny, it’s well veiled.
It’s sad, to me, that there’s no secular equivalent aside from the rape crisis center. But a rape crisis center won’t invite you for dinner.
I think the hook up culture works for some people and other people not so much. I guess that is stating the obvious but when you are in a relationship it is hard to tell what the person wants or expects and we live in such a passive aggressive culture some people probably don’t even know what they want. One thing I have learned is that people who withhold sex because they want something seem to spend a lot of will usually find other ways to manipulate once they finally decide you are worthy of having sex with them.
And the fact that porn for women is not on my radar to a huge extent says something about more than just me—blockquote>
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean that what it says is that women biologically need intimacy in a way than men don’t. It says that we live in a patriarchy where male is the default. Women’s experiences are silenced and vanished - to the point where, among other things, romance novels are deliberately skewed against in bestseller rankings. BTW, your insistence that “what I see is what is - even for people that aren’t me” isn’t really helping with that.
<blockquote>If women want sex to the same degree (and meaning the same thing by “sex") as men, it just seems like the world’s profiteers would be all over that.
Why the fuck would they? It’s not like they aren’t human and therefore don’t have human biases or actually make all their decisions based on scientific profit studies - even though they like to claim they do. For example, you claim romance novels aren’t porn - what about letters to penthouse then? Would you classify the latter and not the former as porn? Why, except because we are conditioned to call one porn and not the other? And do you think people that are out to make money on porn would magically not do the same?
(Also, you need to hie yourself to the romance section of your local bookstore if you think “romance novels” still = “Heyer ripoffs”.)
If you really are simply being clueless and want to learn, I suggest reading Jennifer Kessler’s discussion of films and marketing and sexism over at The Hathor Legacy. She’s got some really good stuff about this very issue. (The idea that all decisions are made only to maximize profits.)
Matthew—Perhaps this’ll answer some of your original question.
Feedback loop. Mainstream porn as we often think about it—and as you used it originally—is made for a male audience. So, the porn makers make something that one group wants (het males generally, but gay porn for gay males) and leverages all the icky socialization bits that make their audience want to comsume the stuff they make, be it high heels, giant breasts, the money shot, whatever. And it is not made to order for the socialized sensibilities (the fact that lots of women don’t like seeing the women in in porn being treated poorly, as those women are to represent themselves) of women. Note that I said socialized, not biological. Anyway, then the women don’t consume the porn, because there’s basically a big sign across it saying NOT FOR TEH WIMMENZ!! DUDES ONLY!!. So women don’t buy it. So the porn makers say, oh, I guess the ladies aren’t interested in porn, they must just not like sex at all. So they don’t make any porn for women. So then women aren’t interested in their product. So they don’t buy any porn. So the porn makers say that women aren’t interested in porn. So they don’t make any that women might be interested in. And then women aren’t interested in the non-interesting offerings, so the don’t but any…
And then the writers and publishers of romance novels or publishing smutty stories on the web or having sex toy parties fill a void, just in different media. They market to women on purpose, and women buy, buy buy. And lend, and trade, and take out from the library.
You can see this in other markets, the pretending a market isn’t there when it’s really being purposefully ignored, especially where other oppressed or marginalized groups are involved. Fashion for fat people, for instance. Or stores that wouldn’t sell to people of color back in the day. It’s not just some crazy lady thing.
sex stores and sites have huge straight and gay male presences...
huh?
mainstream high street sex stores here are dominated by toys for women. I’ve even seen MRA type internet whiners describe this as evidence of sexism against men, or something.
Seedy backstreet stores are male dominated, for the very obvious reason (or maybe not obvious to you) that most women wouldn’t feel safe in them.
Also consider that “needing to feel safe” factors into a lot of the other things you’re picking up on. It genuinely isn’t safe for a lot of women to be openly sexual, especially when there are men around. So we learn to repress our desires. I’m pretty sure the evo-psych stuff of blah blah women don’t want to get laid because blah blah sex is expensive for females blah blah hardwired is total crap… if female desire was so rare and weak then patriarchy wouldn’t work so damn hard at repressing and stigmatising it.
But sex is socially costly and risky for women in ways that it just isn’t for men. Doesn’t have to be that way, but it is right now.
And honestly, if you’ve ever seen any straight porn, you might have an inkling of why the porn industry isn’t making many products that appeal to women. The current porn industry is based on creating fantasises where female desire is irrelevant. (and why sex with strangers, many of whom might have sexualities shaped by said porn industry, really isn’t appealing to a lot of women.)
rowmyboat got there first. Also, I know how to spell fantasies, honestly.
Everybody has already weighed in on all sides, I’m not sure where I can go with this discussion beyond the fact I just don’t do the hook-up culture. I was already in a committed relationship when I jumped into college. Now I’m widowed, but I still don’t see a reason to just randomly attract women for sex. Sex is something that should be a personal and deeply psychological thing that isn’t flung around like a cheap bag.
If people want to treat sex like a tool to self-validate, then by all means let it be that way. But when people begin to question why sex doesn’t lead to deeper feelings then you have to take a step back and wonder what is gong on. Sex and relationships don’t correlate inn this hook up culture and when people wonder why it doesn’t they just complain instead of stepping back. Hook up culture isn’t rewarding feminism more than it is rewarding men. It’s a way for everybody who wants to get off, get off. I can’t find a reason to use it outside of being cheaper than a prostitute.
One has to question if hook up culture is so freeing, then why are people unhappy with it? Is it like moderate alcohol use and just seeing the bad cases or is it the reality that people aren’t necessarily pleased with the utter lack of emotional depth in these quasi-relationships?
To find a point in this moderately annoyed rant, everybody should be fulfilled outside of a relationship in some respect but if one is seeking additional fulfillment from a relationship then the hook up culture is bound to disappoint.
But how to fix it? I was kind of curious what your solution was. What would you say to a friend who you diagnose as needy? How would you want them to stop being needy?
I personally don’t mind needy people. I find that people who show vulnerability and imperfection are often kinder and more giving.
1. Wow, I have the exact opposite experience. “Needy” people are generally so obsessed--sometimes justifiably--with their own needs that they cannot be kind or giving.
I think your definition of “needy” may be idiosyncratic compared to the others on this thread, Lurker. Needy people aren’t those who “show vulnerability and imperfection.” Those are emotionally expressive people, not needy people. There’s a difference. People often think of those who express their needs as needier than those who don’t, but that’s a misconception. Amanda is referring to people’s management of their needs, not to their expressions of feeling. In fact emotionally expressive people are probably less needy, because they are able to articulate their feelings to themselves and others. That is a very useful tool in managing one’s needs.
As for a needy person, my definition of that (in this context) is someone who is being ruled by a desire for a generic “boyfriend” or “girlfriend.” Having a desire isn’t the same as letting it dominate your life.
2. At times in my own life, I’ve been “needy”, and I’ve had friends who I would consider needy. The short answer to your question about how to advise them: (1) get busy with as many things that interest you as possible, and (2) seek counseling. Being busy works wonders, unless there’s a severe brain chemistry problem, in which case there are drugs and therapists that can help. This short answer makes it sound simple. And it is simple. It’s not easy. It takes a lot of effort. But it’s not intellectually complicated. Amanda has already given her own lists of suggestions, which go into further detail about what specifically you can do.
As for society’s responsibility, which Lurker asked about, that is also fairly simple: make sure people have access to any kind of counseling that others are willing to offer, and any kind of effective medications available. Again, achieving this is not easy, especially not in a country with no universal healthcare. But defining the goal is simple.
Here’s what society shouldn’t do: encourage people in their attempts to drag unwilling others into their orbit, encourage people in their view of others as mere emotional resources, encourage people to place their fantasies (sexual, romantic, or otherwise) about others before the actual wants and needs of those others, encourage people to think of themselves as weak and therefore free of responsibility. All of that is highly anti-feminist in principle because it violates enthusiastic consent, and in practice because the burden of fulfilling the expectations of the “needy” will fall the heaviest on women.
And finally, Lurker (not to pick on you but you’ve raised some issues that I think deserve answering), you seem to think that there’s a correlation between the neediness Amanda describes and a lack of privilege. I see no reason for this belief. I’ve met a lot of hugely privileged needy people. I think this type of neediness is at least as likely to be found in spoiled, entitled brats as it is in multiple sexual assault victims from impoverished backgrounds. Sure, some people may be “needy” because of lack of privilege...but others have no such excuse.
“Sex is something that should be a personal and deeply psychological thing that isn’t flung around like a cheap bag.”
Sez YOU. Look around, not everybody feels that way. For some, sex is on the same level as a satisfying tango or waltz.
While on the one hand I can see the hookup culture as being positive for women who want to assert themselves sexually and seek sex when that’s their goal, I think it’s also led to attitudes in men that women will be sexual with them if she so much as speaks to you in a friendly fashion. What ended up happening to me was that almost all my friendships with men went the way of the Titanic because every time I had a close male friend he thought that our friendship meant he could definitely paw at me. NSA, of course, because hey? What are friends for? And then got offended when I told him no.
It got pretty tiring after the 4th or 5th time. I don’t think I would mind the hookup culture at all if I could definitely remove myself from it, but it has opened up this door of expectations. Of course a girl will make out with you for no reason! Didn’t you hear? Women are slutty now!
All this happened around a time when I still would have considered myself as looking for a boyfriend. For those who say things like “asexuals shouldn’t put themselves in situations where blah blah blah,” you need to realize that most asexuals don’t know they’re asexual. I just thought that my lack of interest was normal. Now that I know what’s up, I’m routinely told I don’t exist, I’m a late-bloomer (dude, I’m almost 27), I’m repressed, I was abused (news to me), it’s a side effect of medicine (that I started taking well after I should have developed a sexuality), and so on. I can’t even imagine how many asexuals probably get into situations where they feel they must have sex to be normal or that if they just engage in that behavior then they’ll eventually enjoy it.
And it isn’t just asexuals. People with a low sex drive or people who just plain aren’t ready to have sex will feel pressured to engage in sex a lot faster than they otherwise would have. This doesn’t seem helpful to me. It would seem to be a lot more safe to assume someone WON’T put out than that they WILL. But now the assumption is the latter instead of the former. And while neither is good, I think I would rather have a guy nagging me than just assuming he can do what he likes because I’m such a slutty slut for being friends with him.
(I should qualify that no, these guys weren’t shitty guys from the outset. And they were pretty genuinely confused because I’m gothy, I have tattoos, I like rock music ... wait, why am I not having sex with them? Gothy girls with tattoos who like rock music have sex with everyone!)
Sex is something that should be a personal and deeply psychological thing that isn’t flung around like a cheap bag.
If people want to treat sex like a tool to self-validate, then by all means let it be that way.
Here’s the thing—it’s not necessarily deep and personal. Which is what a lot of above comments have been on about; different people want different things, and love, sex, relationships, and hooking up make some people happy and some people not happy, and that all of the above should be options and each person should work out for themselves which ones they like and the be able to follow those desires without anyone else’s approbation.
Which means that sex is very meaningful for some people. And not very meaningful for others. And for the asexuals in the room, it’s something rather to be avoided. And for some people, it varies—meaningful sex today with one partner, goof-off casual sex next year with someone else, and a period of not wanting sex at all in between. Casual sex =/= self-validating with sex (or at least no more than any other sex is either). For some, it is a fun thing to do with people one enjoys spending time with, like playing board games, going camping, or having a dinner party. And because I like bonking my friends, doesn’t make it bad that you need a deep connection in order to want to have sex with a person, and that you must have that deep connection doesn’t make me a slutty mcneedy that I bonk my friends from time to time. We’ve each found the kind of sex, intimacy, and love that works for us.
Eric_RoM, you beat me to it. Brevity is the soul of wit, I guess.
But, BonAppetit, you can’t lay that at the feet of women who enjoy hooking up. That many men can’t won’t form a friendship without ulterior motives is their own great big Nice Guy [TM] problem, they caused it, and only they can fix it. Women who want to hook up didn’t cause it, and they can’t fix it either. It sucks that asexual people, or just people who don’t want sex in any given situation, are pressured into bad spots, but as Amanda started this off with, the problem is sexism, and the solution is feminism.
rowmyboat wrote:
Which means that sex is very meaningful for some people. And not very meaningful for others. And for the asexuals in the room, it’s something rather to be avoided.
But that’s just it: as BonAppetit said, she’s just not all that interested (at least right now), but the change in culture means that people assume that she is, or should be. If the previous culture Amanda was decrying, that women who had sex outside of marriage were sluts had an impact on all women, because it set the expectation norm, then the hook up culture does the same thing, just setting the expectation differently. Forty years ago (when I was in high school), there was something just plain wrong with girls who “did it.” Today, why now there’s something just plain wrong with girls who don’t.
What ended up happening to me was that almost all my friendships with men went the way of the Titanic because every time I had a close male friend he thought that our friendship meant he could definitely paw at me.
People that pretend to be your friend expecting that sooner or later you will drop your panties for them are NiceGuys (TM). They are delusional because they think you want to have sex with them even though you haven’t exhibited any signs of being attracted to them.
But when people begin to question why sex doesn’t lead to deeper feelings then you have to take a step back and wonder what is gong on. ... One has to question if hook up culture is so freeing, then why are people unhappy with it?
Sex is about the deepest feeling one can have. If the question is why doesn’t sex lead to love and marriage—it just doesn’t have to. People are unhappy with hookup culture because sex is not the be-all and end-all.
Asexuals are going to have to seek out other asexuals if they want to be in sexless relationships.
row wrote:
It sucks that asexual people, or just people who don’t want sex in any given situation, are pressured into bad spots, but as Amanda started this off with, the problem is sexism, and the solution is feminism.
Actually, the only solution is telepathy! Since we don’t always know what another person wants, we piece together clues from what he says and from the culture in which we live. If a person isn’t precise and explicit—and few people seem to be—then we get less in direct information and take more from our cultural assumptions. As long as we rely on the wider culture for part of our information, then that culture is going to affect our perceptions. BonAppetit put it pretty specifically: her appearance falls right into the cultural assumption that she is more into hooking up and casual sex than she is. Unless she comes right out and tells people, nope, sorry, not interested—which, really, she shouldn’t have to do—some people are going to assume that she’s ready to go.
BonAppetit: Your post sounds like my entire life through all of high school and my first two years of college until I stopped leaving my haus ever, and now I kind of want to go smash things.
Hector B wrote:
Asexuals are going to have to seek out other asexuals if they want to be in sexless relationships.
You do realize that you have just said that men and women can’t just be friends unless they are asexual, don’t you?
Dana: I think part of the problem is also that WHEN people like BonAppetit and I DO come right out and tell people nope, sorry, not interested, they act like we’ve just told them we’re moving to the moon. It’s not just people assuming that we’re likely to have different preferences than we do because of our “look,” its the assumption that we are supposed to have certain preferences (ie, the person hitting on us) and if we don’t, or we “think” we don’t (after all, us women don’t actually know our own opinions on shit until our unshowered, classless dude friends mansplain them to us!) That’s what we mean by expectations.
So the solution is for people to fucking STOP thinking they have motherfucking telepathy, because THEY FUCKING DON’T.
I was kind of curious what your solution was. What would you say to a friend who you diagnose as needy? How would you want them to stop being needy?
That is obvious.
Stop letting men define you. No, stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. No, “But this is how I feel!” or “But it’s not fair!” Okay. Life is unfair. Do you want that to be your self-definition?
Follow the steps given. Write down what men give you. Be brutally honest---if you’re needy enough that you have to write this down, then you need right now to put “social validation” on the list, because that’s why you’re hungry.
And start finding other ways to get it. Because being needy is the worst possible way to find true love, full stop. Healthy lovers recoil from neediness like vampires from sunlight.
but unfortunately we still live in a society, and most people need SOME validation from others
Encouraging people with self-destructive habits to continue them is not help. It’s just not. No one is helped by being encouraged to maintain or increase neediness. Like it or not, neediness is destructive. Self-esteem and self-motivation need to be cultivated for your own good.
Dating advice that maintains or cultivates the fundamental problem is not good advice. The PUA community does that---they target men who fail to see that women are human beings, and instead of saying, “If you want to be dateable, grow up!”, they give them strategies to avoid addressing the fundamental problem.
Amanda,
I’d like to pick up on your last three questions, focusing our attention on boys and boy culture.
How can we discourage young men from validating each other by displays of misogyny? I think back to my days in junior high school locker rooms and there was this constant jockeying for position and status combined with a need to be a part of the tribe. Guys would ‘rank each other out’ with teasing, boasting, put-downs and physical displays/threats. If guys that age and later treat girls/women like shit, it often starts with the fact that they treat each other this way as well. And heaven help you if you were low-man on the totem pole, because then you became a target for all sorts of nastiness. It was almost a predator/prey kind of dynamic, where any sort of sign of weakness brought out the worst in other others. The ‘Lord of the Flies’ gets played out everyday in middle schools and high schools, and if new learning in brain phsyiology teaches us anything, the brain likes to repeat patterns it habituates, even in other circumstance. So, to push your question one step further back, we also need to ask, how can we support boys to not be so defensive and anxious around other guys? I wish I knew the answer to that.
How can we get guys to appreciate girls as human beings? That’s a complex question. My answer will be somewhat incoherent, because it contains several pieces.
I think it goes back in part to preadolescence. I recall coming home one day when my daughter was about 8 and she and her best friend were out in the yard swooning into each other arms. It turns out they were imagining themselves being kissed by Superman/Christopher Reeves. It struck me how often girls rehearse relationships and how little (if at all) boys do. So, when adolescense hits, boys are often unmanned by their newly blossoming manhood. It comes as a total shock and is more than a little scary, especially when you know MOM will find out what you’ve been jerking off when she does the laundry. Boys often cope with their fierce desires by denigrating them.
What happens is that boys paradoxically tend to overvalue/undervalue the feminine and the anxiety that attaches to that. Again, I think back to those locker rooms of yore, and while I have never, in all my years, ever heard another guy brag about his sexual conquest of a girl/woman, I’ve heard them talk about girls/women as she has nice tits/ass/face and wouldn’t it be great to have sex with her. This is, of course, a reductionist strategy in dealing with one’s desires and anxieties, allowing the boy to hint at an attraction, while denying before the critical Greek chorus that is the locker room that he actually wants to get to know that girl as a person. The underlying dynamic is that boys deal with the fact that they have no clue whatsoever by treating it all as a game/war.
At a time in their lives when they are fiercely trying to separate themselves from Mom, be a man (with all the internal and external pressures that entails), stand on their own two feet and sever their dependency ties, boys/guys face a universe of girls and women with all the possibilities of new dependency ties writ large. And I can tell you, that for the adolescent boy dependency is a kind of psychic death and admitting to dependency is hell. In order to deny their dependency needs (to themselves) many boys/guys resort to the tactic of lording it over girls/women in any way they can.
What we need to do, I suppose, is help boys face their dependency needs as an okay part of their human experience.
Does this make any sense?
men and women can’t just be friends unless they are asexual, don’t you?
I’m going to have to work on saying what I mean. What I meant was that asexuality was a sexual orientation like any other, and if they want to be happy in their relationships, asexuals will have to seek out other asexuals.
Friendship is not a relationship, and relationships are not friendship + sex.
Which raises the question: can two people love romantically without desiring sex? I assume so.
However, the fact that you want a boyfriend/girlfriend and are going to make efforts to have one isn’t “creepy"-- it’s actually part of life and the desire of lots and lots of people to be “coupled.”
Sorry, gotta disagree. As someone who’s done a lot of dating, there’s a general agreement---whether faked or felt---to treat each date like it’s a joyful social occasion unto itself, and certainly not a commitment of any sort. That the possibility of further commitment is on the table is interesting, but everyone involved treats it like you do that salt shaker at a restaurant that salts its food a-plenty. Let’s just ignore it. The time will come, but for now, let’s experiment with finding out if now is pleasurable.
Anyone who breaks this code is a creep, in my experience. Guys who are like interested in measuring you to fit the wife-shaped hole in their life are dismissed as “wife shoppers”.
I think, if passion and love aren’t important to you, then go for it. Find someone who agrees and marry them for society’s sake. But make sure you aren’t lying. Practice saying, “I don’t love you; let’s get married.” Or else they’ll be Jenny Sanford, and that’s sad.
Experimenting and being open to love without trying to force it---because love recoils from force---is hard for people who are used to setting goals and achieving them. But the alternatives aren’t so pleasant.
there’s a general agreement---whether faked or felt---to treat each date like it’s a joyful social occasion unto itself, and certainly not a commitment of any sort.
To me dating answers the question, “Do I want to spend any more time with this person?” It’s an iteritive process that may lead to becoming bf/gf, or not.
iterative
Both spellings look wrong now.
Bon, that’s an interesting point. I haven’t dealt with it much, because guys who are my friends mostly stay that way. But I do think the real overwhelming issue is that men aren’t given paths to emotional intimacy outside of sex, but are also wary of relationships that shut down their options. So they have a few and get randy; telling them to get a girlfriend has often been a sobering thing for them in my experience.
Exactly, Hector. My attitude towards dating has always been, the second it feels like a job interview, I bail. Because job interviews are based on a premise dating is opposed to. A job interview is about, okay, I have a job with X requirements, do you meet them, got the job! Love, however, is more like, I’m a human being with idiosyncratic traits and desires, and boom! You knocked me off my feet with your hot burning passion. You can fall in love without meaning to. You rarely hire someone under those conditions.
Exactly, Hector. My attitude towards dating has always been, the second it feels like a job interview, I bail. Because job interviews are based on a premise dating is opposed to. A job interview is about, okay, I have a job with X requirements, do you meet them, got the job! Love, however, is more like, I’m a human being with idiosyncratic traits and desires, and boom! You knocked me off my feet with your hot burning passion. You can fall in love without meaning to. You rarely hire someone under those conditions.
Replace job interview with financial interrogation reminiscent of an IRS audit and that described some of the most horrid dates I’ve been on right out of college. Stayed to the end of the date out of a mix of hoping it was just a slip-up/fluke and politeness and when it continued to the end....never bothered with a second date...or even maintaining contact thereafter.
Thinking about this over dinner, while people were describing how relationships fell apart and sometimes came back together, I realized just what motivated the advice columnist and too many people: they don’t want anyone to get hurt. So they propose all sorts of things to “ensure” that no one in a relationship ever experiences any emotional tolls while trying to live forever with someone else. It’s an impossible task, and there’s just no way even healthy people who get along will ever be guaranteed continual happiness or even a lifetime of reasonable compromises to make the relationship work.
There just aren’t any rules, edicts, codes, or ways of being to ensure that the other person will continue or start to love you. None. Love conquers reason, but love can’t always conquer buyer’s remorse, fickleness, change, time, opportunity, job stress, family turmoil, financial security, distrust, infidelity, cruelty, selflessness, selfishness, mental illness, religious differences, politics, diets, exercise habits, hairstyles, medical issues, sexual incompatibility, children, pets, or a lack of children. Or even an allergy to cat hair.
So be yourself, compromise whatever you are willing to compromise, and stand up for whatever you aren’t willing to compromise, and chances are that maybe one in ten or twenty people you date might be worth consideration for a long-term committed relationship. Your pickiness or willingness to shop around may vary, but that’s pretty much my success ratio. Most relationships are failures in the end, but it’s only the middle part that matters when gauging long-term happiness.
Real romance has its flaws as a model---the built-in potential for broke-heartedness being a big one---but honestly, I think there’s a reason people cling to it. Risks are sometimes what we run in order for bigger rewards. Thinking about dating in terms of risk management is flawed, for that reason. It’s another reason I think really separating sex and love is important. You can take risks with your heart for love, but that doesn’t mean you should have to take risks with your body. There’s no good reason not to wear condoms while figuring all this out.
Obviously, the asexuals needs some sort of cultural signaling to indicate their status. Perhaps an affected robotic voice? Specially coded bandanna-wear? Lapel pin? Hair style and/or color? Let’s brain-storm this, people!
Once we get that codified: comical hijinks ensue.
Hector B., I hate to break it to you, but you are way behind on the ball on Advice And Deep Thoughts about asexuality, and you are starting to sound kind of like those dudes who come onto the threads about feminism and the beauty-industrial complex and offer the earth-shattering revelation that some women seem to take other women’s opinions on their clothing more seriously than they do the comments of random menfolk.
Pretty much every asexual that both uses the word “asexual” to define themselves and is posting on the intertubes has been over to the AVEN forums at some point, where many different types of asexuals have been discussing many different ways of navigating the dating thing and the not-dating thing, for years.
Amanda @ 118: “Real romance has its flaws as a model---the built-in potential for broke-heartedness being a big one”
Yeah, that was my feeling on reading Simmons’ piece: the letter-writers’ fundamental problem was unrequited affection. Not being able to talk about it (because of teh patriarchy) made the problem fester and drag on unpleasantly, but there’s no way around the intrinsic suck of liking someone who doesn’t like you back.
Cynical, I think that’s probably true, but there are still amazing numbers of asexuals who call or write Dan Savage to complain that their partner wants SEX, and want advice on how to get out of that particular demand. And the advice is, duh, DTMFA. Aimed at the person who is being unilaterally deprived of sex.
This, of course, has no bearing on our no-doubt ethical asexuals on this thread. But getting romantically involved with someone sexual is 100% wrong, and I fail to see the ifs, ands, or buts about this. The enthusiastic consent rule is so important here. A sexual person can totally be guilted into an asexual relationship, for the same reason straight women get guilted into being beards and men who are still in “bros before hos” mode are guilted into pretending to be a boyfriend to some needy woman they then cheat on and mistreat. Which is why asexuals do take on the responsibility not to start those relationships, as women should avoid closet cases and ambivalent misogynists.
RMB, about porn, the equation of porn with sex among porn producers[and some consumers] annoys me. “Women don’t like sex because they aren’t interested in a woman getting semen in her face from an unattractive male” is ridiculous when you and I say it explicitly, but implicitly, people think ‘women aren’t sexual’ if they aren’t buying into that ‘porn model’. Even though many men don’t think it’s that hot either.
Interestingly, people may not consider some shoujo manga pornographic, even if it’s basically light BDSM with some bishies thrown in, Black Bird, I’m looking at you, because it’s not in your face about it.
Tyro @83
Pretty much. I love the notion of enthusiastic consent, definitely have applied it to my own life and in all the advice I give and have really tried to evangelize the concept in the asexual community. Enthusiastic consent is one of those great duh ideas that make you despair that it isn’t the norm. Fully informed, enthusiastic consent should be the norm in all relationships and sexual encounters and it’s the biggest problem above all that it isn’t.
Unfortunately a lot of people just follow expectations because they haven’t really thought about it or how those expectations may be really against their interests.
Hector B @110 and @102
Yes. Two people can love romantically without desiring sex because lust and love are two separate concepts. I, as an asexual physically cannot feel lust, but I have fallen in love twice now including with my current partner. It’s quite possible for two people to fall in love without lust or sex (two asexuals can fall in love, mixed orientation pairs can fall in love, and two people can fall in love and just push none of their sexual buttons).
On seeking other asexuals...not quite. I mean, yes, if they want monogamous long-term romantic relationships then more often than not they need to seek out another asexual, but as most romantic asexuals (asexuals who fall in love or are otherwise interested in seeking out romantic relationships) have found out, a simpler method and one that can work with the loves you have over the ones that would be the most convenient is simply polyamory.
Allowing one’s romantic partner to get their sexual releases with other partners so it doesn’t swamp the sexless romantic partnership with resentment can solve the problem quite nicely and as a result, polyamory is fast becoming a big thing in the romantic asexual community as it is a great solution for mixed orientation couples in general. For those of course too besieged by jealousy issues or who are too naturally monogamous to handle polyamory, this doesn’t work and relationships with other asexuals is pretty much the necessary solution (or deciding how important relationships are as a vague concept and whether it’s worth it to relentlessly pursue rather than stepping aside and seeing if anything happens and becoming functionally aromantic), but for the rest, that can be rather limiting when only 1% of the population is asexual and love is very non-logical.
On Dana’s moment of stupid @105
I’m not sure either what the hell he was thinking there either. Love, lust, friendship are all separate emotions and concepts. We all have friends we’d never fuck, people we sexually desire who we wouldn’t actually want to spend long-term relationships with or even hang out with for extended amounts of time, and people we love and nothing else.
I think he was trying to be cute with the old Freudian standards that romantic and “platonic” (i.e. frienships) relationships are both referred to as relationships, but pretty much in this day and age most people know that when someone is talking about relationships, they are 9 times out of ten referring narrowly to romantic relationships.
Or he was hoping to twist your words into some gender essentialist reiteration of the craptacular scene from When Harry Met Sally. Either way, it’s pretty stupid, off-topic, and having nothing to do with reality as is which is pretty much par for the course for him. Even bisexuals have non-sexual friendships, because friendship is something different from lust, love, and romantic relationships. And romantic relationships aren’t just dolloping sex or lust on top of friendship (and the only people who ever maintain that delusion are those who have by virtue of the fickle nature of chance never fallen in love yet).
Dana @103
Or, bear with me here, they could use this magical modern invention that allows a couple to talk before initiating sexual activity or relationships where they can openly and honestly get across their desires, needs, and etc… figure out if they are compatible, learn boundaries, better get in touch with a partner they are planning to be intimate with. They can even use this magical device after or during these activities or romantic entanglements in order to assure things like enthusiastic consent, what worked or didn’t, what they thought they were ready for but weren’t and what they’re looking for or what cultural baggage they’re trying to work through.
It’s a bit of a novel device so you may not have heard of it. It’s called comm-un-i-ca-tion.
I think they sell it on the iPhone store as one of the big apps.
but there’s no way around the intrinsic suck of liking someone who doesn’t like you back.
Hear that. The only thing to do is distract yourself until you get over it.
I think part of the problem is our culture sometimes veers a little too much into the emotional validation zone---especially if you can pull a victim card (as someone with a few of those, I call the right to say this)---and some cases where “suck it up” is the best advice for the sufferer, we fear employing it. But when your desires conflict with another person’s basic human rights, there is no option outside of “suck it up”. This is true if you want sex from a person who has no interest in it with you, and true of wanting a relationship.
Sucking it up is healthy! People deny this, but it’s true. Not in all cases, but in cases when the result can never be what you want, fucking suck it up.
I think people think that those of us who say this haven’t suffered, but mostly we have a lot, and we are trying really hard to discourage others from making our mistakes. I’ve hung in with bad guys and cried and cried, and I got fucking tired of it. Sucking it up was way better. I’ve fallen for a guy who started to send mixed signals, and OMG, sucking it up and moving on was so much more pleasant. I was over it in like 5 days flat, probably less. In the past, mixed signals from guys were greeted by me with phone calls and attempts at contact and they would keep me on a string, and I suffered months. 5 days vs. months? No contest. Suck it up!
The day I decided to react to a phone not ringing by not caring was the day my life got better. I didn’t just not wait by it. I turned the ringer off. I left the house. I made sure that if “he” called, I didn’t answer. I told men I was dating who experimented by showing up late that they got one chance, and after that, I would not be around when they showed up late. Simply deciding to not be available to a man who “comes around” is such a relief. It has nothing to do with sex. You can’t turn a guy who doesn’t love you into one who does. But you can buy your life back.
Allowing one’s romantic partner to get their sexual releases with other partners so it doesn’t swamp the sexless romantic partnership with resentment can solve the problem quite nicely and as a result, polyamory is fast becoming a big thing in the romantic asexual community as it is a great solution for mixed orientation couples in general.
That’s an interesting concept, but don’t most polyamorous people want a sexual relationship with their primary? I still feel that asexuals are stuck with other asexuals or the very rare person who thinks sex is only worth it outside of the house. Most people aren’t happy without sex at home from a beloved partner. I can’t imagine it.
Not judging, just wondering if it’s full consent if someone feels guilty choosing a partner who gives them 100% over someone who can’t provide sexual contact.
“I can’t imagine it” meaning “I personally would hate such a thing”? You can’t imagine it (at least not for yourself), but there’s an actual self-identified asexual person telling you that this setup is popular with an awful lot of people, and you’re arguing that it can’t be.
Not everyone in polyamory goes with the ‘primary/secondary’ thing anyway. And for some people polyamory is a good way to equalize different sex drives or interests or whatever. Presumably an asexual partner would be interested in physical intimacy that isn’t sexual. So is it any different than someone who says “my primary is totally not interested in BDSM, so I only do that with one of my other partners, and everybody’s cool with that”?
Eric @120
Ok, high five, that was awesome. I am Asexual 5000 beep beep.
cynical @121
True, but to be fair, asexuality as a community is in the education and visibility phase so most people are going to need some education to figure it out and what it’s like and how it navigates things like relationships. Yeah, of course romantic asexuals being the ones who kind of have to figure out things like this because we fall in love but don’t want sex have indeed not-surprisingly done so and communicated as such with other romantic asexuals.
But I can understand why for the culture at large where they still regularly mix up lust and love as well as sex and relationships (and that’s really the problem a la Lurker’s worries up thread that one is expected in a relationship to put out, comfort level or readiness or differing libido levels aside) they might need some education to figure out that we’ve already figured out some solutions. Besides, he didn’t seem malicious or antagonistic to learning more so I’m currently in a mood to be more educational (YMMV and that’s perfectly valid as well).
Amanda @123
Wow...um, I’m going to not leap to my immediate response of being offended that I’m being compared to “closet cases and ambivalent misogynists” or that my relationship with my partner for nigh on 4 and a half years is “wrong” no-exceptions and simply state the real response.
Ok, ready. Or you know, they could open their relationship up to consensual polyamory so they aren’t choking off their partner’s sexual release and thus slowly making the person they love resent them. Not a solution for the overly jealous or naturally monogamous, but for a not-insignificant portion of the asexual community(given the trends on AVEN) this works better with the loves we have than your rather um, blanket assertion.
I wasn’t trying to suggest that, Cerebus. I hope my next comment clarified. A closeted or closeted-ish asexual could ruin a sexual person with guilt. There’s so much sexual guilt in our culture, an asexual or closeted gay person could make a partner feel really, really bad about their desires. But I imagine/hope that this is hashed out. But it strikes me as a burden of enthusiastic consent that some folks who call up Dan Savage don’t really consider as much as you do.
I get the idea that not choking off a partner’s need to have sex can be a benefit of polyamory, but it does---and I speak from ignorance, so correct me if I’m wrong---choke off the need sexual people usually to have to make their primary relationships sexually fulfilling. Just a point of curiosity.
Asexuals who need monogamy seem to have an absolute obligation to completely avoid sexual people. In general, I’m confused as to why you’d want to get tangled up with someone whose orientation is towards having a relationship that has both emotional and sexual fulfillment.
Brilliant post as always, Amanda - I found particularly interesting your argument that women’s romantic power actually increases with age. Funny that the opposite is usually argued by mainstream relationships columnists - that women’s power peaks in our mid-late 20s, and goes downhill from there.
LOL, Rachel. Yeah, you hear that from people who are scared to death of young women realizing they don’t have to sell short.
Amanda @128
To your first question. Possibly...but that would be more because most polyamorous people like most people in general are well, sexual and tend to date people they love and lust after as their “primary”, not really because of anything specific to the setup or the needs of people in general.
As mythago states, there are a lot of styles of poly. Triads and quads living in the same house, non-hierarchal open relationships where no partner is “ranked above” any other partner, traditional primary/secondary setups, and like with life a hell of a lot of mish-mash based on what works best for the people involved.
Also as mythago states, it wouldn’t work for you, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t meet other people’s needs. Some people need their main romantic partner or closest romantic partner to be sexually interested in them, others don’t care as long as the sexual needs are getting met and well on a side-note, NRE can be a hell of a thing regardless of whether it’s at home or not.
Indeed there are a lot of people for whom this works, long-term couples who have lost lust over the years, but still have love, mixed-orientation couples (including those who date asexuals), etc… because love and lust are two separate things.
Additionally as mythago again noted, some good number of romantic asexuals still enjoy non-sexual physical intimacy for its own nature rather than sexual nature (things like cuddling, hugs, spooning in bed) as sexuals may enjoy getting some of these things from friends or romantic interests where there is no sexual chemistry.
Also with a supportive asexual partner, they don’t really have to “avoid doing it in the home” as they can bring home their sexual partners, invite their sexual partners for long sleepovers, or even live altogether in arrangements like triads or quads.
The wonderful thing about poly is you can tailor it to your own comfort level (unless of course as stated above, one has too many jealousy issues or is naturally monogamous).
On your general assertion, that hasn’t been my experience. It might not work for you, but it seems to meet the needs of a good number of asexuals and their romantic partners as well as those in mixed-orientation relationships or long-term relationships where the lust has dried up with time.
It apparently wouldn’t work for you, but it works for enough people that it hasn’t run into the problems you are expecting.
Amanda @131
I know, that’s why I stopped myself from the original response, because I know you didn’t intend to insult me or cast judgment upon me and you are genuinely interested in learning.
On sexual guilt, yeah sure...if they are also closeted. With my current partner, when she wanted to initiate a relationship with me, I was upfront and direct about recently figuring out that I was an asexual and telling her what that would mean if she wanted to initiate a romantic relationship with me (I was also ignorant about polyamory, but luckily I figured it out before she began resenting me). For those who are open and honest about their partners, it really shouldn’t be enforcing sexual guilt because it’s telling them ahead of time that the problem really isn’t them.
With honesty, it seems to work the same way as when someone hits on a person who is an incompatible sexuality. They feel stupid for a moment, but they get over it much quicker than the slow despair you are describing where one is basing part of their self-esteem on sexually arousing their partner and nothing seems to work making them feel unsexy and “bad at sex”.
And from my experience, the bigger problem with asexuals dating sexuals has never been making sexuals feel bad, but the frigging huge number of asexuals who engineer their own rapes because their sexual partners were pressuring them into sex to “prove their love” or because cultural expectations state that romantic relationships require sex regardless of individual comfort zones. And it’s a bad enough trend that “even the men are affected” (said with full knowledge of the surrounding culture and as a partial satire of the cultural trend of not caring about a problem until it starts affecting the only “real people”, males).
Amanda @132
Well, cause love is illogical and random. Sure, if we could control who we fell in love with, that would be much better in general and would solve all sorts of problems including those who stay with abusive partners, but in the world we live in, we fall in love with who we fall in love with and mutual love can be a great and wonderful thing a lot of the time.
So while it would be more logical for asexuals to fall in love with only other asexuals so that they can have “proper” monogamous relationships, asexuals as people are still going to more often than not by statistical happenstance fall in love with sexuals even though it introduces an incompatability.
Some ignore this and seek monogamous relationships with other asexuals, some ignore it and treat themselves as “functionally aromantic”, and a good number of others simply ignore the monogamy part, drop the ball on the sexual fulfillment and let a scab fulfill that role instead.
I googles this topic, the first option was a survey and after taking the survey I was transferred to a web site called busted halo. I guess my answers on the survey mean I have a one way ticket hell. With stuff like that out there it is not surprising that reliable data about hooking up and it’s affects is pretty rare.
Pretty much every asexual that both uses the word “asexual” to define themselves and is posting on the intertubes has been over to the AVEN forums at some point,
Yeah, I’m just typing on a Sunday night. I realise there’s always someone who will be more intimately familiar than I am with any human situation.
My only defense is that I don’t recall the topic being broached on pandagon in the recent past.
Ok, I’m French, so I have different experiences etc, but I have no idea what this woman is talking about; if she’s an advice, columnist, of course she’s going to get letters from miserable people, that’s kind of the point.
One slight quibble though : do college age girls really read Teen Vogue?
I’m twenty-one, I’ve graduated, and none of my experience fits with this.I’ve had my share of one-night stands, which either were meant to be that, one night stands, or could’ve evolved into something, but either way, I didn’t care, and I’ve had a few shortish relationships, because I never was very good at them. This is actually the first time in my life I’ve really wanted a stable
relationship, and I suspect it’s because I live in Taiwan and haven’t seen my family/closest friends in over six months.
I’ve never used sex to validate myself; I have sex because I really, really love it, and I don’t see why I should deprive myself for fear of being called a slut.
As to the guy who was saying women have a lower sex drive than men : anecdotal again, but I wish I did. I’ve yet to find someone who can keep up, and they tend to freak out when they realise that if I could have sex three or four times a day, I would. But unfortunately you tend to need a partner for that!
Also don’t watch porn. Mainly I find it boring, and I don’t need it. The stories in my head tend to be more exciting.
Plus, as a teen, female porn was exactly easily accessible; I’ve never seen a magazine full of hot men aimed at women, and our computer was in the living room, so not exactly discreet. Experimented a lot when I got my laptop, watched some with ex boyfriends, but meh. Bit of a vicious circle; there’s less porn aimed at women because we supposedly don’t like it, but a lot of women don’t like it because it’s mostly aimed at men and doesn’t do anything for them. And feminist
porn isn’t as widely distributed. The DIY stuff is often quite fun. (and everyone has said this already, methinks)
Amanda @ 123: I think it’s the responsibility of the asexual person to communicate that they are asexual, and that if the sexual person in question says they want a romantic relationship with them, they will actually be getting just a romantic relationship, so nobody winds up in that awful place where both parties feel tricked because one person said “romantic” when they meant “romantic and sexual” and the other person took the term at face value. However, I don’t think it’s the asexual’s job to not let that relationship get started, if the other person figures they still want to give it a shot.
Then again, I took the easy way out, and became aromantic as soon as I started getting old enough for sex to become an expected feature of relationships anyway, so I’d never have to have that conversation. >.>
As I mentioned further up on this thread, my anti depressants leave me without much of a sex drive. Or at least that’s what I assume. I’ve been on different meds since I was in 10th grade. Before that I can vaguely remember feeling sexual but I’m not sure. I’m actually very afraid that it’s not the meds and that I’m asexual. I want to want to have sex with my boyfriend but it’s just not there. He’s a virgin and he was abused as a child so he has intimacy issues. I think he wants to have sex soon (we’ve been going out a year) but it really bums me out because I just can’t do it.
Before my current boyfriend, I had a lot of difficulty finding a dude that wanted to be with me. Guys want sex sooner or later. At least that’s what I assume; I’ve never met a guy that wanted a sex-less relationship.
I feel a lot of frustration with the whole hooking up thing. I think I’m jealous. A lot of threads about this topic on feminist blogs operate under the assumption that everybody wants sex, be it from hooking up or a romantic relationship or whatever.
I don’t really know what my point is, just letting out some steam. 
Hector @138
It’s all cool. If we don’t ask questions how ever do we learn about things we don’t understand yet?
You seem intellectually curious and open to other people describing their experiences and you don’t believe the points you are ignorant (currently, but not for long) on should trump other’s experiences.
In short, you are open to learning and that’s all you really need to be. Thank you for listening to us.
leedevious, that is indeed a common side effect. The important thing is to talk with your partner about how you feel, and why. I’m a 3-4 times a day kind of person, but my girlfriend has borderline personality disorder, and her new meds kill her sex drive. There’s lots of ways you can have a satisfying relationship without PIV intercourse. The important thing is for both of you to be able to talk about how you feel.
So while it would be more logical for asexuals to fall in love with only other asexuals so that they can have “proper” monogamous relationships, asexuals as people are still going to more often than not by statistical happenstance fall in love with sexuals even though it introduces an incompatability.
That makes sense. I guess straight people---since there’s so many of us---don’t think about it much, but gay people have to be really picky and seem overwhelmingly to avoid entanglements with straight people. But clearly the experience of asexuality is fundamentally different in some way.
I think it’s the responsibility of the asexual person to communicate that they are asexual, and that if the sexual person in question says they want a romantic relationship with them, they will actually be getting just a romantic relationship, so nobody winds up in that awful place where both parties feel tricked because one person said “romantic” when they meant “romantic and sexual” and the other person took the term at face value.
That’s an effective, ethical strategy---it seems to me---in an environment where sexuality isn’t shamed, and sexual people feel completely free to say, “No, I absolutely need sex,” without cringing at themselves for being shallow. I’m sure this has been hashed to death, but there really are a lot of people who feel like bad people for expecting sex openly, and tend to date hoping they never have to talk about and it just happens. I’ve definitely seen people date virgins who are “waiting”, when they don’t share that values system, and it seemed unfair to me for the virgin to make them feel like they’re morally suspect for wanting sex.
Which I’m sure is way different than the ethical asexuality you all are discussing, just wondering how you determine where the line is, and whether a partner is enthusiastically consenting or consenting out of guilt.
oddly enough, people have suffered for millenia. if the world were perfect, there would still be some people in angst. for ms. simmons to assert, based on her minute sample, that something is wrong with an entire culture, clues me in to the fact that she has no idea what she’s talking about. i’ve no doubt the “hook-up culture” doesn’t work for some people, just as the “dating culture” didn’t, etc., etc., etc. there is no method which will work for everyone.
for myself, i’ve always enjoyed being around strong women, who have a healthy sense of self, and weren’t/aren’t relying on me to validate them socially. and let’s be serious, if the only reason for a male to commit to a female is sex, that’s hardly much of a committment. this holds true today just as much as it has always held true.
gay people have to be really picky and seem overwhelmingly to avoid entanglements with straight people. But clearly the experience of asexuality is fundamentally different in some way.
Presumably, yes, the experience does have to be fundamentally different for Cerberus’s ideas to make sense. We don’t normally expect gays and straights to become romantically involved with each other and expect partners to make arrangements in which their sexual needs can be fulfilled. I suppose that we do have to at least accept on some level that relationships are not “only about sex” and some people might be able to separate their romantic needs for their sexual ones. Are asexual people more likely to be non-monogamous, or something?
I’m a little late to this party, and I didn’t have time to read all the comments, but I just want to chime in and say: “hook-up” culture is NOT NEW. I went to college in the 80’s--we’re coming up on 30 years now since I started as a freshman. We called it “flinging” instead of “hooking up” and the big difference, it seems, is that no one was expecting anything romantic to come of it. Wanting a boyfriend was not part of the culture at all. Meeting up with friends at Sunday brunch in the cafeteria and laughing about the previous night was what we expected to come out of it.
I’m not sure what accounts for the difference, maybe that we were coming to college on the heels of wave 2 of feminism, or that we were at a selective liberal arts college and the girls were supposed to be preparing for careers, not MRS degrees, and also the economy sucked in the 80’s, which usually leads to less formal coupling (marriage).
Of all of my college friends, only a few ever had a serious boyfriend during college, only ONE couple married shortly out of college, and then divorced 10 years later when she came out as a lesbian. None of my college friends met their husbands in college, only one got married in her 20’s, and we all got graduate degrees and met our mates in the workplace or graduate school. I can’t remember ever thinking that I would find a husband, or a boyfriend, in college. Flinging/hooking up was fun and liberating, and a way to work through sexual tension without having to be tied down in a relationship that might compromise your post-college options. I hope young women and men today can treat it that way and just be young. You have at least a decade before you “need” to settle down, and then only if you want to have multiple children. Just remember the condoms.
Since when do women need social validation in the context of dating and relationships? That notion I find very troubling because it implies that women are not strong and independent.
I am the filmmaker of Spitting Game: The College Hook Up Culture. It is a student-driven documentary, three years in the making, that covers the risks, reasons, and realities students face within the college hook up culture. I have read both Rachel Simmons and Kate Harding’s blogs on this subject matter. It is great that there is so much conversation about it! I have my opinions about both of their blogs, but I really liked what you had to say in yours. I also reject the “sex-obsessed interpretation of how this all came to be” and 1000% support your astute observations on the fact that the hook up culture is influenced by a social/sexual mileau STILL controlled by patriarchy and entitlement based on privileged (mostly white) male dominance. Where YES, “Boys have power over girls in a male-dominated society.”
While my message is one of raising awareness and creating safe space for pro-active dialogues to start; the root of my motivation did start with compassion for the young women coming into therapist’s offices and health clinics with a multitude of complaints about engaging in the hook up culture. The emotional, mental, and often physical aftermath they were enduring inspired a sense of activisim and justice in me. I agree that the focus needs to shift to “How can we discourage young men from validating each other based on displays of misogyny? How can we get boys to appreciate girls more as human beings? How can we dismantle a system where social status in youth cultures is controlled strictly by young men? These are the questions we need to be asking.”
On a final note (for now) the one very important factor, missing from ALL of the conversations and blogs about the college hook up culture is how the role of alcohol factors into all this. The very foundation of the college hook up culture is based on using alcohol as a social/sexual lubricant. It is my opinion that is not “the sex” or even “the casual sex” that is the issue here. Alcohol is a game-changer and making irresponsible choices while drunk can mess up a persons life at any age. Beyond misogyny and the patriarchal imbalance of power, I truly believe that “The Hook Up Culture” should be renamed “The Alcohol Culture.”
I’m sure this has been hashed to death, but there really are a lot of people who feel like bad people for expecting sex openly, and tend to date hoping they never have to talk about and it just happens. I’ve definitely seen people date virgins who are “waiting”, when they don’t share that values system, and it seemed unfair to me for the virgin to make them feel like they’re morally suspect for wanting sex.
If someone’s that broken by the culture that they can’t admit to wanting what they want, I’m not sure how that translates to their partner “making” them do anything. It is not the fault of asexuals, people with low sex drives, people who are late bloomers, or even people with religious convictions if some people are so god damn insecure that they can’t handle people being different than them sexually. It’s unfortunate that some sexuals have so many hangups about their sexuality that they need the validation of being able to assume everyone else is just like them, but that still doesn’t make it our job to tiptoe around them trying to be nonthreatening. A sexual is just as capable as an asexual of deciding to terminate a relationship that isn’t working for them, and, despite what other hangups they may have developed, at least has the cultural acknowledgment that their relationship desires can exist on their side.
It’s equally the responsibility of both parties to grow the fuck up and learn to communicate, because both parties have a lot of bizarre cultural shaming to deal with, so I don’t see why one side should get to use that as an excuse and not the other.
How can we discourage young men from validating each other based on displays of misogyny? How can we get boys to appreciate girls more as human beings? How can we dismantle a system where social status in youth cultures is controlled strictly by young men?
Excellent questions. As with working class Republican voters, an additional, perhaps over-arching question, is: how do we get young men to stop working against their own self interests? Whether a guy is looking for NSA sex or a long-term relationship, looking at women first and foremost as fellow human beings with agency and desires, and engaging them as such, is going to get a woman into the sack a lot more quickly (with higher-quality sex) than acting like a preening macho arsehole trying to con members of some hostile alien race.
As you often say, the patriarchy hurts both sexes. You’d think there’d be a way of appealing to enlightened self-interest if nothing else.
There is no porn for women? OMG. There are a thousand “amateur porn” user submitted sites that have delightful, women-friendly porn. I don’t know about anyone else, but just seeing people (women) enjoying (really enjoying, not just fake-moaning while two guys screw them in both holes) is a real turn-on.
And Amanda is right: Before the advent of the intertubes, we had Judith Krantz to rock our socks. The sex scenes in Princess Daisy were the shizznit.
Just a note on porn for women:
No one who has spent *any* time in the fanfic community could possibly believe “there is no porn for women.” However, there is enormous social and cultural pressure that prevents anyone from making any money on movies about Kirk and Spock making out.
The main difference between women’s porn and men’s porn is that men’s porn appears to be pretty much entirely about hot bodies, and personalities are irrelevant. Women’s porn demands personalities, although if the personality doesn’t fit the story the woman wants to tell she often feels perfectly free to recast the character with the personality she wants. Also, men’s porn, being a well-established multi-million dollar industry, has no trouble paying models. Women’s porn is mostly written or drawn because the number of smoking hot guys who’d be willing to act in a gay movie where they behave like stereotypical romance novel characters and not like stereotypical gay men is extremely small, and the number of women who wouldn’t feel utterly humiliated and ashamed trying to recruit said guys to star in her porn movie is probably even smaller, so women have to go with forms of porn that don’t actually require any participation whatsoever by actual men to produce.
The reason porn producers have not figured out that there’s money they are leaving on the table is that for the most part they are straight men, and if they are gay men, they are still men with male privilege, and being viewed as an “other” whose desires are entirely the subject of someone else’s masturbatory fantasy, with no relationship to what they themselves would want, is disturbing to them. (Men are okay with othering lesbians and making lesbian relationships in porn be all about the desires of the men watching the lesbians, but they are not okay with women othering gay men and making gay male relationships in porn be all about the desires of the women watching the gay men. if they’re straight men they’re probably bothered by the gay, period, and if they’re gay or bi they are disturbed by being othered.) The lack of powerful female producers in the porn industry and the cultural shame attached to sex that prevents what few powerful female producers of *any* media from feeling safe in producing porn is strongly inhibiting. Also, the fact that women want personalities in their porn means that women’s porn can be hidden in plain sight; see Twilight, True Blood, any other movie/TV series about implausibly hot guys attracted to supposedly ordinary women (or ordinary except they have a superpower), made from the perspective of the woman.
Once computer animation reaches the point where it’s possible for a woman to cheaply make high-quality animated porn on her home computer, and voice synthesis reaches the point where it’s possible to synthesize human voices that sound completely natural, women will start making high-quality animated porn and posting it on YouTube. But any form of porn that needs a real human man involved, women won’t make until the culture changes.
Cerberus got there way ahead of me, but in response to Dana responding to me about 50 comments ago:
Telepathy? Really? We don’t need mind-reading communication, quite simply because we have mouths and hands and keyboards and pens and paper and words to communicate with. I don’t have to mind read my partners to know what they want, and my partners don’t have read my mind either. Because if I want or don’t want something, I tell them, and vice versa. That you think telepathy is necessary, Dana, that’s a little icky and doesn’t paint you and your relationships in a very healthy light.
For instance, I had a (permitted, as I’m non-monogamous) affair last summer. It came around entirely because the fellow and I spoke up and told each other we were interested in each other. And then! Before we had sex, we talked about what kind of sex we were each into, and what we weren’t into, and whether or not it would go beyond the existing friendship-relationship to a romantic-relationship or not. And then I told my primary partner what was going on, asked him if he was ok with all that, and he told my his thoughts on the matter. And, completely unsurprisingly, it worked out quite well. Because we used that fancy new communication ap that Cerberus was talking about up there, with the words and all.
Really, I think disentangling the “right” of sexual access to any given person from other interrelationships with that person is wise. Just because you’re in vast romantic love with someone doesn’t mean you want to have frantic monkey sex, any more than liking to go to the movies together or co-owning a lawn care business does. It also doesn’t mean you don’t want to have frantic monkey sex with them - heck, sometimes lawn care just gets you going - but the key thing is that you need to talk to them about it and they might not feel the same way and maybe you can’t presume that just because you co-own a lawn care business or enjoy the same movies you’re going to have the same pants-related needs. (Nor can you presume, without conversation or other evidence, that compatibility in your pants will lead to compatibility in the areas of cinema and lawn care.)
So to me the asexuality conversation here plugs in quite nicely with Amanda’s original point about how power differentials and poor communication skills - combined with a culture that believes clear communication between the sexes is basically impossible or an undue burden, depending on if you’re a lady or manly man - warps what should be a basically simple transaction. In my observation, a lot of hookup-related broken hearts, especially in youth, happen when the cultural baggage of unequal power ("if I say I don’t want an open relationship/don’t like it like that/etc. he’ll break up with me entirely") or expectations that men lie and women manipulate ("Sure, he says it’s just sex, but all men say it’s just sex! I can change his mind!"*) completely fubar many good-faith efforts to not be jerks to each other. In reality, we need to talk about these things just the same was we need to discuss plans to take a trip together or contribute ingredients for pasta or exchange algebra notes. When we communicate badly and assume other people are just going to meet our needs without discussion, it goes badly. But as Amanda points out, discussing what you need from sex is so loaded with power differentials in our culture that it’s much more difficult than it should be.
* (This happened a lot in school: people would try to be honest, and end up being taken as only meeting a cultural expectation of initial prudishness when they really didn’t care for naked times at all, or being taken as being silly boys who lie about feelings when they were trying to be clear that they didn’t have time to date. And honestly, I know of dudes who would hook up and then pine, but they were often really effing ashamed of not being detached about sex and would stew about it for years instead of telling anyone. Of course, there were people who were plain jerks - and some of these poor communicators were also jerks - but it’s hard not to be jerk when the deck is stacked so that no one listens to your words.)
OK - I am puzzled - why is the burden of disclosure and managing expectations on asexuals/people who want to wait till marriage/whatever when it comes to these things? For one thing, I find it morally wrong. By shifting the burden on them you are making them seem illegitimate/otherising them. Secondly, I think it’s not a healthy/workable norm. Yes, people should disclose that they are asexual early on, but as part of a general discussion of sexual expectations.
Secondly, how the hell can you have a genuine discussion on sexual expectations early on without having a discussion on relationship expecations (since we established that for many people the two are linkded)? But Amanda rules out saying “I am looking for a relationship” as needy, and some people seem to agree. How do you do it?
The mention of “porn for women” reminds me that a quarter-century ago, books by the “Kensington Ladies’ Erotica Society” were immensely popular.
Actually, contemporary sexual norms don’t sound that much different from how my parents described dating and sexual relationships in the suburban sixties, well away from the sexual revolution (which likely wasn’t as revolutionary.) Both my mother and father had a large number of friends of the opposite sex, who they sometimes did fun things with, which sometimes led to “making out” without much in the way of a commitment.
Which I’m sure is way different than the ethical asexuality you all are discussing, just wondering how you determine where the line is, and whether a partner is enthusiastically consenting or consenting out of guilt.
I don’t know. The kind of blanket statements you make in this thread such as “getting romantically involved with someone sexual is 100% wrong” doesn’t do much to promote ethical discussion on this issue. Isn’t that for those of us who are much more sexual in our relationships to decide? And we ignore the fact that some people might not understand their sexuality, and that sexuality can change over the course of a person’s lifespan.
Part of it comes from the fact that having done my own neediness analysis, I found that there is little I can get sexually from other people that I can’t do for myself, and because I’m probably unreasonably picky in I expect from sexual partners, I’m not convinced I’d be having more sex or more satisfying sex by ending my current relationship.
why is the burden of disclosure and managing expectations on asexuals/people who want to wait till marriage/whatever when it comes to these things?
For the same reason we don’t assume everyone is a vegan—the default expectation is that people are interested in having sex with people they are attracted to, because the vast majority of people are, so that “no sex” indicates “no attraction.”
how the hell can you have a genuine discussion on sexual expectations early on without having a discussion on relationship expecations
How do lesbians do it? “Hi Sue, I have two tickets to the boat show. Wanna go?” “Sure, Chuck, but remember: No S-E-X.”
Wait, so anyone who feels a need for interpersonal relationships that doesn’t get met by solo activities is “needy” and just wants “social validation”?
On a societal level, we need to get over our collective discomfort of talking about abuse and its consequences. This would have an effect on an individual level; people would act needy a lot less if instead they could simply say ‘I’m lonely’ without being penalized.
THIS, ever so much.
The message out there now is that “I’m lonely” is the *last* thing you should ever admit to, because it means there’s something wrong with you and who wants to be with a broken person? After all, they can’t be “kind or giving” and still want people in their lives. Or perhaps just means that you want “social validation,” because obviously that’s the only possible need one couldn’t meet by yourself (except that it really can be, so feeling lonely is still your own damn fault and you should stop being so demanding).
If you’re getting your interpersonal needs met, or even mostly met, it can be very easy to look down on others who aren’t (hell, it can be easy to fail to recognize the need for interpersonal relationships as a need at all, as opposed to something that just happens), and decide that their fault is in wanting something that they can’t completely provide for themselves.
Hector B.: If only “no sex” was interpreted as “no attraction.” It wouldn’t be an ideal state of affairs but it certainly would be more humane than the current assumption that not engaging in sex was some sort of power trip.
JFPBookWorm 161 - THANK YOU.
“If you’re getting your interpersonal needs met, or even mostly met, it can be very easy to look down on others who aren’t (hell, it can be easy to fail to recognize the need for interpersonal relationships as a need at all, as opposed to something that just happens)”
I think that’s the trap Amanda’s falling into. That’s why I’m insisting on calling it a privilege.
The message out there now is that “I’m lonely” is the *last* thing you should ever admit to, because it means there’s something wrong with you and who wants to be with a broken person?
People are looking for an equal exchange. Someone who leads off with “I’m lonely” indicates he has nothing to offer besides his need. How appealing is a beggar shaking his take out cup? Instead of saying “I’m lonely,” putting the burden on the other person, be funny, insightful, interesting.
Instead of saying “I’m lonely,” putting the burden on the other person, be funny, insightful, interesting.
There are disadvantages to making it all about you, too, though. If you demonstrate how great you are, but never admit to needing the other person, they may feel as if they don’t stand a chance against your self-sufficiency, or that they have nothing to offer *you*.
I’m personally in favor of honesty, but then, honestly admitting that I wanted to get into a guy’s pants is why I’ve been in a monogamous relationship for ten years and married for six of them.
I’m not that convinced that, “I’m lonely” is all that different from, “I’m horny.” Especially when there are many reasons why a person may experience either or both that doesn’t imply an impoverishment of character.
honestly admitting that I wanted to get into a guy’s pants
That touches on the other point I wanted to mention. I assume there was something about that particular guy that made Alara want to get into his pants. Saying “I’m lonely” implies that any one would do, that the person you’re with is just a stop gap.
I should have also acknowledged that it can be easy to fail to recognize the need for interpersonal relationships as a need at all if more fundamental needs aren’t being met.
Hector B: Who the hell is talking about “leading off with ‘I’m lonely’”? I’m talking about the idea that one is never to admit to loneliness, ever, in any context, and that if you do the response you get is “stop talking about it, because people get turned off by that shit"--as if admitting it in, say, a pseudonymous blog comment is tantamount to begging for attention from every single person one meets, and as if suppressing acknowledgment of loneliness were totally harmless.
The message out there now is that “I’m lonely” is the *last* thing you should ever admit to
Ah, I misunderstood—I thought “the last thing” was a rhetorical flourish. if you’re not looking to me, personally, to relieve you of your loneliness, please feel free to say it as much as you like.
Ah, I misunderstood—I thought “the last thing” was a rhetorical flourish. if you’re not looking to me, personally, to relieve you of your loneliness, please feel free to say it as much as you like.
Why not? Granted, the point is that you are not a “missing piece” in the Shel Silverstein sense. But the best solution to loneliness is the development of wide and diverse social networks, so I’m baffled as to why that’s a problem.
Hector B. - There are two separate issues.
Specifically, the saying “I am lonely” statement refered to Amanda’s question of what I think people need to do to make it easier for people who aren’t as relationship-privileged as others. I think our society in general would benefit from less of a macho-patriarchical approach and more of an emotionally honest, “feminine” approach.
But as for dating, yes, I absolutely object to this idea that you need to fake “I’m a perfect person” around a new date all the time because NO ONE IS perfect. That doesn’t mean you need to frontload all the crap first, but it’s ok to mention crap where it’s relevant. For example, it should be ok to be able to answer questions like when’s the last time you saw your family with the truth (not for years, they aren’t great people) without being ‘penalized’ or being told TMI. Or to be able to say “I want someone in my life”. I have no problem being myself among non-dates all the time (warts and all) and manage to make new, strong friendships, why should dating be different?
Though maybe this prevelant idea that people must only represent the good in themselves upfront is why so many relationships end up in failure? False advertizing leads to incompatibility?
Hector -
Saying “I am lonely” is NOT saying “I am lonely and therefore will cling desparately to anyone who crosses my path, regardless of their wishes”.
The fact that you interpreted it as such is an expression of our societal bias AGAINST talking about emotional needs that I and others were talking about.
However, the fact that you want a boyfriend/girlfriend and are going to make efforts to have one isn’t “creepy"-- it’s actually part of life and the desire of lots and lots of people to be “coupled.”
Sorry, gotta disagree. As someone who’s done a lot of dating, there’s a general agreement---whether faked or felt---to treat each date like it’s a joyful social occasion unto itself, and certainly not a commitment of any sort. That the possibility of further commitment is on the table is interesting, but everyone involved treats it like you do that salt shaker at a restaurant that salts its food a-plenty. Let’s just ignore it. The time will come, but for now, let’s experiment with finding out if now is pleasurable.
Anyone who breaks this code is a creep, in my experience. Guys who are like interested in measuring you to fit the wife-shaped hole in their life are dismissed as “wife shoppers”.
I think, if passion and love aren’t important to you, then go for it. Find someone who agrees and marry them for society’s sake. But make sure you aren’t lying. Practice saying, “I don’t love you; let’s get married.” Or else they’ll be Jenny Sanford, and that’s sad.
Experimenting and being open to love without trying to force it---because love recoils from force---is hard for people who are used to setting goals and achieving them. But the alternatives aren’t so pleasant.
Comment #111: Amanda Marcotte on 02/28 at 09:44 PM
Maybe you’re reading something different than I am reading here into “want a boyfriend/girlfriend and are going to make efforts to have one.”
Wanting to be in a relationship isn’t the same as having a list to check off, or a schedule to meet.
Wanting to be in a relationship isn’t by definition passionless.
Wanting to be in a relationship isn’t the same as telling someone on a first date how many kids you want to have.
Wanting to be in a relationship also isn’t the same as forcing the current person into a relationship they don’t want.
Searching far and wide, intensely and passionately, is just as valid as the Zen “when the relationship is ready the partner will appear.” And I think as others have said you are somewhat blinded by your white, able, young, conventionally-attractive-not-fat self into thinking that effort put into finding a partner is silly because one will arrive.
Unless you believe there’s a God out there matching us all up with our one true loves, the numbers game indicates that there will be some people left out that want to be included in, and chance favors those who know what they’re looking for and (rationally) go look for it. Your strategy actually supports this, since you didn’t leave to chance who you got involved with, but limited it to people who actually liked you enough to show it unambiguously. Those people didn’t just lay back and say, meh, whatever, right?
And yes, there’s a big difference between “I want a relationship” and “I want a relationship with you.” But the second requires the first. Just because some people get stuck on the first doesn’t make it wrong.
The fact that you and your dates aren’t interchangeable is why there are many different dates with different people. People aren’t shoes, but the process of trying on shoes doesn’t mean that any shoe is as good as any other. You try it on precisely because just defining something as a black platform frankenstein boot doesn’t guarantee it will fit. And you try on those gray or brown ones, or the mary janes, just in case you’re wrong about what you like.
Someone who desires pair-bonding may be able to pair-bond with any of a number of interesting people, all different, all the potential pair bonds different. Maybe even at the same time. They like being pair-bonded with someone who’s interesting. They like getting to know someone really deeply and caring a lot about that person and the person caring a lot about them. None of that is pathological, none of it implies force, unrealistic expectations, or rushing things.
Being in a relationship is a reasonable goal. It’s certainly possible that, after you’ve gotten in a relationship, you decide it’s not for you, or a different kind would be better. Goals change as we grow.
Rather than being all “whatever” about it, being more mindful of what you are trying to get and how (or if) it meets your actual needs can help you actually meet your needs. The important thing is that you evaluate and reevaluate your goals based on your experience. Not doing this is a key to failure.
this idea that you need to fake “I’m a perfect person”
?
“I am a person worth knowing” is not the same as being perfect. “I see you have something to offer as I do, too” does not pretend to be anything more than it is.
Saying “I am lonely” is NOT saying “I am lonely and therefore will cling desparately to anyone who crosses my path, regardless of their wishes”.
To be lonely is to be isolated, friendless, forlorn. There are not degrees of loneliness. “I’d like some company” is not the same as being lonely.
I’m a person worth knowing. I often feel lonely. How are those incompatible?
“I am a person worth knowing” is not the same as being perfect. “I see you have something to offer as I do, too” does not pretend to be anything more than it is.
What the heck does this have to do with being lonely? It seems that you are conflating two entirely separate issues here.
Well, Hector, I’m here to disprove you. I have 5 very very good friends who function as family. Never the less, I am lonely. Why? Because they aren’t around 24/7, and even 4/7 for logistics reasons, and I want more intimate relationships. There are lots of days when I need to talk to someone and no one is around, and I indeed feel isolated, friendless, forlorn. A classic example is on any kind of common holiday - Xmas, Thanksgiving. I often don’t have anywhere to go - and you know what? Sometimes it feels like the world is rejecting you.
That does not mean I am clingy. In fact, I feel way more lonely around people I have no emotional connection to than on my own. I like my own company. So please drop your campaign to stigmatize those of us who aren’t so lucky to have family, a partner, or lots and lots of friends.
I’m lonely because I moved 1,000 miles away from tight social networks that I spent a few decades building. I have friends in my new location, but not nearly to the same degree.
Searching far and wide, intensely and passionately, is just as valid as the Zen “when the relationship is ready the partner will appear.” And I think as others have said you are somewhat blinded by your white, able, young, conventionally-attractive-not-fat self into thinking that effort put into finding a partner is silly because one will arrive.
My reading of Amanda is that she’s been fairly consistent in saying that her position is not that the effort is silly, but that making the effort in a rigged game is silly. That women shouldn’t tie themselves into knots trying to catch a man by society’s rules. Whether the game is actually rigged, I can’t really say. I never got the rulebook.
Instead of saying “I’m lonely,” putting the burden on the other person, be funny, insightful, interesting.
What about people who aren’t funny, insightful, or interesting? They get selected out? Depressing.
I get a bit annoyed when the onus of responsibility is placed on a class of people to be more ethical, more self-aware, and more diplomatic in entering a relationship than others.
What about people who aren’t funny, insightful, or interesting?
I guess they can always join the Tea Party Movement if they need company.
I think Hector is right with the vegan analogy: unless you’re going to deny there ARE defaults. Asexuality is NOT the default in our culture, and should be revealed promptly in anything heading towards a romantic relationship.
To be lonely is to be isolated, friendless, forlorn. There are not degrees of loneliness. “I’d like some company” is not the same as being lonely.
Not according to my dictionary.
What about people who aren’t funny, insightful, or interesting? They get selected out? Depressing.
Not to be reciting “there’s a lid for every pot” type platitudes - but I was just at a family reunion (the first one since, essentially, everyone older than me got a divorce) and there are apparently a far wider ranges of lids and pots than previously suspected. The polyamorous fascist (I know, wtf?) and the relative who can talk for hours about different types of tape have both found partners they’re passionately in love with recently. It’s really cute.
Also, the idea that asexuals have a burden that no one else does is ridiculous. What about: people who are checking that you’re planning to use a condom? People with rarer sexual tastes? People who have indigestion but would love to do it tomorrow? People who just aren’t that into you? People who are really into you? Where are we getting this impression that it’s a huge bonerkiller to clarify what’s going on before you have sex? C’mon, people, this is directly counter to three generations of good sex ed and weird from the standpoint of enthusiastic consent practices.
Whether the game is actually rigged, I can’t really say. I never got the rulebook.
It’s like the old poker adage: if you look around the table and can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.
Lots and lots of desperate suckers out there. And the false spectre of life-long loneliness draws a lot of them into destructive, negative relationships.
I think Hector is right with the vegan analogy: unless you’re going to deny there ARE defaults. Asexuality is NOT the default in our culture, and should be revealed promptly in anything heading towards a romantic relationship.
Which just shows how far the whole “sex-positive” thing as devolved away from its roots, and ignores one of the big issues in this discussion. The basic fact of the matter is that you don’t know, and can’t know whether a person wants a hook-up, a weekend fling, a frequent casual, or a long-term relationship without engaging in quite a bit of negotiation and communication.
And again, I get really annoyed when the onus of responsibility to be self-aware, honest, and diplomatic in this way. If we take it for granted in this thread that heterosexual women (and men) might not really know what they want when they engage in the long process of becoming sexual adults, then expecting enlightenment from asexual people who are constantly told they just need to find the right kink with the right person is absurd.
It’s not as if the delusion that you can change the other person is unique to one sexuality, and I find it just as likely that the asexual person is not the one in denial in the relationship.
And really, why are we taking a cranky queen with a word processor and an email address as an authority here? Savage is an entertainer, and when it comes to dealing with anyone who does not ID as strictly heterosexual or homosexual, his prejudices are often painfully obvious.
Very interesting, this subject of asexuality. I remember Kinsey saying something about a breakdown of asexuals that there were the “not interested in sex at all period” asexuals and also the “autoerotic - interested but not with a partner at all” asexuals.
I know this is none of my business, but I wonder how many actually are the autoerotic and how many are the not-interested-at-all type.
I am not judging. I don’t think asexuality is weird or strange at all. But I am endlessly fascinated with the sexuality of humans. If I were bright and more intellectually curious, I would have become some kind of social psychologist and studied it. But I am lazy and prefer to wait until the occasional interesting story about it on NPR.
At best estimate, about 2/3 of asexuals are autoerotic and 1/3 are nonlibidoists, if that’s what you’re asking.
The much more relevant-to-dealing-with-the-rest-of-society distinctions are between romantic and aromantic asexuals, and between indifferent and repulsed asexuals. Many indifferent asexuals wind up in sexual relationships because they couldn’t give a shit either way, so if it makes their partner happy, they’ll do it for their partner. But for some, that’s not a good option.
Aromantics, of course, have it easiest. 
BonAppetit and CynicalRomantic, it sounds like you hung out with jerks if they behaved that way with you. Real friends don’t do that shit, Nice Guys (tm) do.
CBrachyrhynchos: I don’t think it’s anymore unreasonable for asexuals to come right out and announce what they want, any more than it is for my polyamorous/kinky self to. I’ve had to have the hard conversations where I tell the exceptionally hot person (of either gender), “Look, I’m married, and this can only ever be a fling because I love my husband, and he knows but permanent attachments are not in cards.”
I was sweating bullets the night I told my then boyfriend/now husband that I was kinky, because it meant enough to me that I wasn’t willing to give it up, and I was in love with him, but I couldn’t see myself giving up the kink. Not even for him.
It pretty much (rightly or wrongly) falls on the person with the non-normative sexual habits to be the one to broach the subject.
BTW Cbrachyrhynchos, I’m with you on Dan Savage. Not a fan.
GeekGirlsRule: The problem with living in a heterocentric and heteronormative culture is that you can’t really expect someone to have a magical self-revelation, and come out to the world in the same day like the movie Brain Candy. I couldn’t tell anyone I was bisexual at 18 because I didn’t know I was one. And when people go into mixed-sexuality relationships, I think its out of an honest conviction that with enough love and compassion, they can make it work.
I mean, ideally we should all be in a place where we can openly negotiate our desires without fear. But we don’t live in that world. We’re not in the same galaxy. And it’s for that reason that we should give people who are not heterosexual substantial benefit of doubt in these discussions, because the personal and social costs of coming out can sometimes be quite severe.
No where did I say they had to.
What I’m saying is that once you KNOW who you are, it falls onto your shoulders (again, rightly or wrongly) to bring this up.
I also did not say mixed sexuality relationships can’t work, but they require sacrifices on the part of both people, sacrifices, that quite frankly, most people are neither willing nor capable of making graciously. I knew I wasn’t one of them, thus telling my boyfriend I wanted him to beat on me with a whip so I could see his reaction. If he had been appalled, we would have broken up and I would have looked for someone more compatible. Honestly, I was just as likely to dump someone for not loving cats as I was for not being kinky.*
Coming out as bisexual for me was a long drawn out process. I knew at five that I liked boys and girls, I didn’t hear the term bisexual until I was in my teens, and it never occurred to me to apply the label to myself until several years after that. Coming out as kinky was an equally long process, and even more confusing.
*Waiting for someone to scold me for equating something as frivolous as cat ownership with my sexuality.
I agree that “hook up culture” is not new. When I was in college in the ‘80s I was very sexually active and I enjoyed it. Not all women were negatively impacted by being sexually active. The key for me was acknowledging that I was a sexual being with needs that I wanted met on my terms. I turned down plenty of guys who didn’t meet my standards, so the ones I did have sex with were guys I chose quite freely. And I have no regrets.
I can also vouch for romance novels being porn for women. I write erotic romance and I’ve made quite a tidy sum by women who devour those books like you wouldn’t believe. While book sales have stagnated in this worldwide recession, sales of romance novels - especially erotic romances - have been steady and even rose over the past few years. The kinkier the sex, the better. Right now the hottest trends in erotic romances are menages and m/m. I’ve had publishers send my manuscripts back to me to tell me to include more sex scenes before they’d publish them. So yes, women have their porn, too.
Bah, it’s just plain COURTESY to let someone who might be interested in one romantically to let them know the score and pretty frackin’ early.
Searching far and wide, intensely and passionately, is just as valid as the Zen “when the relationship is ready the partner will appear.” And I think as others have said you are somewhat blinded by your white, able, young, conventionally-attractive-not-fat self into thinking that effort put into finding a partner is silly because one will arrive.
But Amanda’s not talking about not searching. Neither is anyone. She’s talking about not being needy, which is a different matter. You can search and still not be needy, so long as you’re not putting the rest of your life on hold because of the grand search for a problem. I don’t see anyone here saying that you should simply sit and wait for a partner. That’s a straw man.
And all that white, able, young, not fat, etc. stuff is a big red herring in this discussion of neediness. Again, there are lots of rich and gorgeous and able-bodied people who are highly needy. Talking about this as “privilege” is a misconception, unless there’s some actual hard evidence that oppressed people are more prone to this type of attitude than others. From the anecdata I’ve personally collected, the opposite would seem to be true. This “neediness” attitude is a common symptom of privilege.
GeekGirlsRule is right in saying that once you know you’re asexual, the burden is on you to say so. Same for any uncommon preference. Yes, some people might not know, but I don’t see anyone here blaming them for that.
GeekGirlsRule - how do you define ‘normative’ sexuality? And Eric_Rom, Hector_B - why are you all assuming that there’s this binary - sexuals & asexuals?
One sexual may be fine with sex once a month or so. Another asexual may be happy to oblige and have sex with their partner simply because it makes them happy. The same once-a-month sexual may well have a much harder time finding a happy medium with a twice a day person . We have a commentator who is an asexual who tells us she has a great relationship with her polyamorous sexual partner. Two very sexual people maybe cannot find a happy medium b/c they have completely different kinds. Etc.
I see people making those compromises work in longtime marriages where one partner finally comes to grips with sexual abuse. Often, for healing to happen they need to stop having sex for a really long time. Or they discover that they prefer really never want to do X and only Y. And you know what? They work it out - like they would work out any other aspect of their relationship.
Then there are those with sexual problems, like me. I have a very strong automatic physical response to sexual arousal where my body pretty much shuts down. I need to work on it with a partner (slowly) but I don’t have one right now. And you know what? I really don’t feel the need to disclose to someone on the first or second or even third date “yeah, my dad sexually abused me so I have this automatic response that would make it hard for us to have sex for a very long time.” I would feel comfortable saying, at the third date or whatever, something along the lines of “I’m really attracted to you but I need to take it slow”. I don’t think asexuals are obligated to put ALL their cards on the table at once either.
This is where what Amanda emphasizes about making sure that you are dating someone you like spending time with is so important. If at some point you discover there are some major irreconcilable differences - you didn’t waste time because at least you gained a buddy.
GeekGirlsRule, LR, and Eric_ROM: The problem is that I don’t buy the claim that self-aware and out asexual people are generally out to entrap or guilt people into long-term relationships, in spite of the efforts of agony aunts to suggest otherwise. It’s advice that self-aware and out asexual people generally don’t need.
Lurker, I think a better approach would be more along the lines of “I’m interested in developing a sexual relationship but I need to take it very slowly, for reasons I don’t want to go into right now.”
The problem is that I don’t buy the claim that self-aware and out asexual people are generally out to entrap or guilt people into long-term relationships, in spite of the efforts of agony aunts to suggest otherwise. It’s advice that self-aware and out asexual people generally don’t need.
But you don’t have to be “out to entrap” someone in order to avoid telling them something important, that might cost you the prospect of a relationship. That’s not always how deception works. Even if you’re self-aware and out, you might keep putting off breaking the news without any conscious malice, simply because it’s easier not to speak. Being honest takes effort. It’s an active thing. That’s why people do need advice, so that they’ll make an active effort to inform their partners of important stuff (whether that stuff is little interest in sex, or any other unusual issue).
And yes, what Dark Avenger said about the “I need to take it slowly” explanation. You don’t have to bare your soul to someone you’re not comfortable with. You can just give a very general sort of heads-up.
LR - I’d appreciate if you read my comment carefully. There are studies upon studies that demonstrate that 60%, 70%, 80% of addicts of various kinds have a history of child abuse. And neediness & addiction have a very high correlation.
I know the privileged person neediness you described. I grew up in a low class environment, and every single one of my friends had been abused in some way. Kids in my class routinely got into trouble (drugs, violence, etc). Economic hardship alone can accelerate abuse. I then went to Harvard/Yale/Princeton (one of these, just trying to protect my privacy). Not a single one of my freshman year 8 roommates was abused. Not a single one of my sorority sisters was abused. I did know the kind of needy people you describe- it was there, but it tended to dissipate after a few years. I can’t tell you how many ‘late bloomers’ I know. People, like me, who have experienced sever abuse, unless they get a lot of help early on (which is rare) need many years, sometimes even decades, to pull themselves out of it. So the two kinds of neediness are quite different in my experience. I am not talking about overcoming insecurities that pretty much anyone has. I am talking about the emotional equivalent of trying to breathe without lungs.
And the reason I insist on talking about neediness and privilege is because while in my (liberal, mostly white, mostly privileged circles) it’s understood that the sick deserve health care, that there’s institutional racism, there is generally a refusal to try and understand and correct the systemic implications of child abuse.
If you are interested, I would suggest you google ‘consequences of child abuse’ and ‘borderline personality disorder’ to understand what I’m trying to say.
p.s. - just to make it 10000% clear - I am not advocating that any one individual go on even one date with someone they don’t want to to correct this. Ever. I’m suggesting that we create an interpersonal culture that’s more honest, more tolerant of mental illness, less competitive. A culture where it would be a no brainer to say “I am looking for someone with strong, healthy, intimate relations” instead of “I am looking for someone with a strong relationship with their family”.
Searching far and wide, intensely and passionately, is just as valid as the Zen “when the relationship is ready the partner will appear.”
I’m going to argue that the couple makes the relationship. You meet a person and spend more and more time with them until you realize that you want to spend the rest of your life with them. If your goal is just to have a relationship, then I assume you have some idea of the kind of relationship you want: But is it Bonnie and Clyde or Ozzie and Harriet? Does the relationship you have in mind involve the raising of children, or are you reluctant to ever live under the same roof as your partner? And in that case how can you a priori rule out all the other fascinating types of relationship you could be in?
There’s no extra onus on asexuals. Sexuals wooing potential partners devote a lot of energy to signaling: I like sex in general and I would like to have sex with you in particular. For sexuals, that’s courtship in a nutshell. Whether it’s a mixtape, or an invitation to come up and see your etchings or a box of chocolate. The average sexual, no doubt operating on some combination of objective stats and unexamined privilege, would never imagine that a romantic gesture would be perceived as anything other than an indication of sexual interest. In fact, some of the most sexually repressed cultures are the most hung up on romance. That’s your whole ab-only curriculum right there.
We’re socialized to interpret romance as a prelude to sex. The same goes whether you grow up in abstinence-only-til-hetero-marriage or hookup culture or whatever. The generalization holds whether your relationship guide is Dan Savage, or Shakespeare, or the Old Testament. Sex and romance go together unless someone explicitly takes that option off the table.
There’s nothing wrong with taking that option off the table. However, asexuals are being jerks if they refuse to acknowledge how radically their expectations differ from those of the dominant culture. If they really care about their sexually-oriented partners, they would be explicit. That alternative would be to allow the sexually-oriented person to persist under an illusion that would make them the next thing to an attempted date rapist. I’d feel terrible about trying to proposition a potential partner who found sex abhorrent.
I think that one of the things you are missing on is that on many occasions, admitting that “I am asexual” or “I have a history of sexual abuse” can make someone vulnerable in a way that saying “I
I’m not just talking about emotional vulnerability. I once, in my young naive days, when I thought I just didn’t like sex, told a guy who I thought was a nice guy - friend of good friend, reasonably public space, etc that I did not like sex. His response? To stick his tongue in my mouth and his hand in my pants.
I am going to be careful what I disclose, when, simply for self preservation.
And, dark avenger, “I’m interested in developing a sexual relationship but I need to take it very slowly, for reasons I don’t want to go into right now.” - is something that to a lot of people signals sexual abuse (or STDs). And I won’t put that signal out there until I’m reasonably sure this person is not a monster.
And I am sorry, I don’t think I am under any obligation to disclose any sexual abnormalities before I am comfortable, any more than I feel I need to disclose that I am infertile before I am ready. If the other person is mature, then after a period of time they will say something along the lines of ‘I want to move ahead sexually’ and I will either say, sure, lets try this, but I need you to know that OR I’ll say, I’m nowhere near ready and can’t give you a date so either you are comfortable with that or leave. What I WON’T do is take the responsibility for someone else’s lack of maturity/and or lack of communications skills.
I am under an obligation not to intentionally manipulate, but I am under NO obligation to accidentally manipulate if I am moving at my own pace and saying so.
p.s. this is not just theory. I’ve started online dating recently, after years and years and years on not dating. I’ve dated 4 people adhering to those rules - lasted 1-2 months each. No sex whatsoever except kissing. I’m facebook friends with all of them. One of them is an actual buddy now. He even knows my background, understand what I was doing, and doesn’t feel cheated. Because, you know, I was being totally honest, just biding my time. I don’t see why the same shouldn’t apply to asexuals.
Lurker, it sounds like you’re in a tough situation. I don’t mean to suggest that asexuals are under any obligation to bear their souls on a first date. Nobody is. You’re wise to be careful when revealing details that might give some asshole a pretext to assault you, like your “friend” did after you confided in him. That’s awful and I’m so sorry. Trust your instincts and do what makes you feel safe.
I’m just saying that, if and when you trust someone enough to imagine a relationship with them, I hope you’ll feel safe enough to tell them what you want and need. If someone cares about you (or about being a decent person in general), they’d be horrified to imagine that they were re-traumatizing you every time they expressed a sexual interest.
I’ve started online dating recently, after years and years and years on not dating. I’ve dated 4 people adhering to those rules - lasted 1-2 months each. No sex whatsoever except kissing.
I’m going to say, more or less, that there’s nothing necessarily wrong with this, as they were relatively brief relationships, and there’s no need to reveal intimate information about yourself to someone you really weren’t serious about. Having a number of dates with someone over the course of a couple months isn’t really that big of a deal, only because you didn’t let them continue. Heck, I’ve had a few dates and/or been briefly involved with people in the same way. Did it matter whether they were interested in having sex, were asexual, didn’t want to have sex until they were married? No, not really, because it never got to that point. However, if you really saw a relationship as “going somewhere,” someone should really know that, and you should be seeking out people who have the same ideas about sex that you do.
I’m not really sure why asexuals seem to believe that they are not best served being romantically involved with those who share their same sexual orientation. Asexuals don’t want to have sex with their partners. Heterosexuals don’t want to have sex with same-sex partners. Gays don’t want to have sex with opposite-sex partners, and with gays and heterosexuals, we consider it perfectly normal that they be up front about their orientation when forming a romantic relationship. It seems that the asexuals see themselves as akin to people with a foot fetish or other mild kink, where they believe that they can slowly reveal their preference to their partners and hope/expect that their partner will be accommodating and indulging of their preferences because it makes them happy. But I think, “I want to kiss your feet sometimes, because it turns me on,” is much different than, “I don’t want to have sex at all.”
Lindsay Beyerstein,
There are ways of arguing that asexuals owe special disclosure without betraying a basic lack of understanding of boundaries. See Hector B, LR. I almost gagged when I read your comment - “However, asexuals are being jerks if they refuse to acknowledge how radically their expectations differ from those of the dominant culture… That alternative would be to allow the sexually-oriented person to persist under an illusion that would make them the next thing to an attempted date rapist.”
The next thing to attempting date rape is so so NOT asking someone to have sex with you. The next thing to attempting date rape is violating someone’s boundaries by, say, using private information against them. Then next thing to attempting date rape is dropping your pants and demanding that someone blow you without establishing consent first.
And - you know what? I thought that I remembered your name. I remember reading your insensitive and clueless comments in feministing in this thread:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/015908.html
There’s no nice way to say this. You have an issue with boundaries. As someone who used to have major issues with boundaries, I beg you - go work on it. Learn about the dynamics of rape and sexual abuse, learn about consent.
There are studies upon studies that demonstrate that 60%, 70%, 80% of addicts of various kinds have a history of child abuse. And neediness & addiction have a very high correlation.
This doesn’t convince me, because what about the large numbers of abused children who don’t become “needy” in this sense (i.e., being desperate for a significant other)? And all the people who are needy in this sense but have never been abused? I think you’re conflating “having serious emotional problems” with being “needy” in th way Amanda describes in this post. They are not the same thing. I don’t see evidence that this type of neediness has anything to do with privilege. And yes, I’ve looked at the studies, thank you.
Also, while child abuse is a serious issue, it’s not really about “privilege” either (except possibly male privilege). “Privilege” isn’t about not having bad things happen to you. It’s about systematic advantaging/disadvantaging of a class of people. Child abuse spans classes and can happen to those born into powerful, privileged milieus.
Child abuse is a serious and oft-unrecognized problem, yes. But I don’t see how it’s at the root of the “I NEED a boyfriend/girlfriend!” phenomenon. And I have a real problem with attributing generally shitty behavior to child abuse.
However, if you really saw a relationship as “going somewhere,” someone should really know that, and you should be seeking out people who have the same ideas about sex that you do.
Seconded. Yes, saying anything at all about your sexual preferences can make you vulnerable, but if you’re going to be in a relationship with someone, you have an obligation to tell them important information about where that relationship can go. Your vulnerability doesn’t give you a free pass from that.
Although I’ve been disagreeing with you a lot, Lurker, I’m in 100% agreement with this:
I’m suggesting that we create an interpersonal culture that’s more honest, more tolerant of mental illness, less competitive. A culture where it would be a no brainer to say “I am looking for someone with strong, healthy, intimate relations” instead of “I am looking for someone with a strong relationship with their family”.
That’s really the only humane solution.
is something that to a lot of people signals sexual abuse (or STDs). And I won’t put that signal out there until I’m reasonably sure this person is not a monster.
If someone can’t handle this request(and one should clarify one’s disease status early on, it’s polite biological manners), then they should be dropped like the proverbial hot potato.
BTW, the history you outline is about what my dating history was from the age of 17 to 24 roughly speaking. I wasn’t asexual but I wasn’t ready for the intimacy of contact beyond kissing past an age when most males in our culture have had their first sexual experience, but when I found someone who I could be intimate with, you could say that she helped me make up for lost time. 
I’ll give you a all-purpose phrase from literature that a cousin of my mother’s once recommended to me:
“I would prefer not to.”
From Herman Melvilles’ short story, Bartleby the Scriviner
LR - I suspect then that if you met me you wouldn’t consider me needy. But I was going by Amanda and others’ definition of needy = the way I understand it, is the are saying that anyone who says “I am unhappy now and I need more people in my life to be happy” is needy by definition. Amanda and others advocate looking into yourself and finding strength and happiness internally and only then going out into the world and then, somehow, by virtue of being so strong and amazing, finding romantic partners.
I am saying that sometimes you did all the work you can on yourself internally and you need some outside support. I am pushing the child abuse angle (a) because it’s my experience and (b) because it’s the best researched example I know of of how a major, terrible lack of human support can lead to emotional disfunction.
And I really disagree that child abuse is not a systemic problem, sorry. It’s a result of the patriarchy, yes, but also a result of not viewing children as having rights, it’s a result of our attitudes towards the mentally unhealthy, it’s a result of our attitude to poverty and child education. Those are all systems.
And money does play a role in child abuse - not because richer people are better than poorer people, but because having money can make the difference between starting to drink and then beating your kids and not starting to drink and never loosing all inhibitions. See, for example, every article on how experts are worried about the effect of the recession on child abuse.
Lurker, spell it out for me. What issue do you think I have with boundaries? You pointed to a thread where I suggested that someone who wrote to an advice columnist to ask how she could be sure that she was asexual might benefit from a medical checkup--not because there’s anything wrong with being asexual, but because “a sexual orientation+ libido-killing medical issue(s)” is a pretty damned common combination, arguably more common than asexuality. And if you’re not sure which category you’re in, wouldn’t you want to know? If only because missing some of the diagnoses that masquerade as asexuality can kill you. If you remember correctly, the letter-writer chimed in later in that thread to say that she had already gone to the doctor, which should have established that it wasn’t a crazy asexual-hating idea in the first place. To add to the irony, she cited evidence from that checkup to help establish that she really is asexual. (Which she didn’t have to prove to anyone. She was just doubtful enough to write for advice about how to be sure.) So, that should have proved my point right there: Medical checkups can help you decide whether you’re asexual!
I think you may have problems with logic: If you’re not sure that you’re X, and you’d like to be more sure, logic dictates that you rule out as many outwardly X-like non-Xes as you can. The more X-like non-Xes you rule out, the more confident you can be that you’re X. I.e., if you think you might be asexual, and you want to be more confident in your assessment, try to rule out the possibility that you’re sexual but suffering from an undiagnosed medical condition or medication side effect, or psychiatric complication that is sapping your sex drive.
I find it odd that you were scandalized by that feministing thread, since you yourself attribute at least some of your asexuality to childhood abuse. I don’t know whether you believe in the possibility of repressed memory, but assuming you do, wouldn’t you want someone who was alienated from sex and struggling over those feelings to at least get a psychological checkup to make sure they weren’t reacting to an unremembered trauma?
Getting back on topic, Cerberus said, above, that asexual people sometimes “engineer their own rape” in order to please their sexually-oriented partners. That would make the sexual person who unknowingly seduced the asexual a kind of accidental date-rapist, wouldn’t it?
Dark Avenger - I would definitely drop anyone who doesn’t react well to saying what you suggested then and there. But I managed to come across LITERALLY nothing but abusive men, starting with my father, than my first boyfriend, then my best friend’s grandfather, then a guy I agreed to kiss etc etc for almost 8 years. Seriously, not a single guy who respected my NO, even though at the beginning they were nice and gentle and kind and understanding.
I know now, looking back at my past, that there are men there who purposefully look for abuse survivors since they are better victims, so I just want to make sure I am not tipping those types of people off. I’d like to think that I know better, but some people are just that manipulative.
And as a side note, if I were dating women, I’d probably be less guarded - they are just less likely to sexually abuse. Not to be flippant, but sometimes I wish I were gay - dating would be so much easier for me.
But I was going by Amanda and others’ definition of needy = the way I understand it, is the are saying that anyone who says “I am unhappy now and I need more people in my life to be happy” is needy by definition.
I didn’t understand Amanda to be criticizing those who said “I need more people in my life” or “I need outside support.”
Rather, I understood her to be criticizing those who feel they absolutely MUST have a boyfriend, or a girlfriend, and who allow this desire to dominate their lives.
And I really disagree that child abuse is not a systemic problem, sorry. It’s a result of the patriarchy, yes, but also a result of not viewing children as having rights, it’s a result of our attitudes towards the mentally unhealthy, it’s a result of our attitude to poverty and child education. Those are all systems.
Systems, yes, but they’re not fundamentally about being born into a powerful or rich setting. Money certainly influences it, but it’s still quite common in privileged settings. And in any case I don’t think it really creates the “I must get a significant other” mentality. My basic point is that the type of neediness Amanda is describing is just as likely to occur among privileged people as it is among the less-privileged.
Lindsay - I don’t have a problem with the idea that that many people who think they are asexual would do well to consider medical problems. But some people don’t feel the need to - they know themselves well enough, or are in perfect health and always felt asexual, whatever.
At the time it made me pause that you had to repeat something that clearly made people really upset again and again and again and again. It didn’t seem mean, exactly, but at the very least very clueless about how uncomfortable you were making others. And feministing is pretty dialogue based so it stuck in my mind.
And while yes, I believe in recovered memories, as you put it, and want survivors to get as much help as they need, I would NEVER NEVER NEVER tell someone who manifests behavior that could be sexual abuse - hey, you should check whether you were abused or not. I would be there for them, talk to them about their feelings, etc, but I would let them reach their own conclusions in their own time. Again, boundaries, boundaries , boundaries. Let the other person determine their own experiences at their own pace.
And THEN I saw your current comment, accusing non-disclosing asexuals of causing someone to be an almost-date-rapist, and, well, it just sounds awful. Since I vaguely remembered your name I checked feministing and VOILA.
And while good catch on what Cerberus said, I disagree. I would never compare having sex when I really really didn’t want to and only consented because it made someone else happy to being raped. I’ve done a lot of both. There’s a difference.
LR - I based my understanding of what Amanda said on what she said here AND on previous threads, where she said, again and again and again (I think) that the path to relationships is by reaching contentment and happiness via your own internal resources - only then, when you are in a really good place, should you date and can you have good relationships. I’ve heard others say the same so it’s not just Amanda.
However, if you have a more nuanced view, then I don’t really think we disagree much...
As for child abuse being privileged - well, like I said, I went from a lower class town with lots of friends with tough tough families to Harvard/Yale/Princeton. It became very apparent to me that people from richer and better connected families were privileged compared to me. It also became clear to me that people who weren’t molested by their dads were privileged compared to me. In both cases, I had a harder time because of privileges I lacked. But I don’t really care if you use the word privilege or some other word.
Good night!
I think that’s the trap Amanda’s falling into. That’s why I’m insisting on calling it a privilege.
Honestly, that’s what I’m getting from her too. “I’ve dated so many men you wouldn’t believe! And now I’m in a happy, long-term relationship with a guy I adore and we never have to work at it! All you people who are lonely/shy/unattractive/looking for a relationship/not as fuck-happy as I am need to STFU cry moar ‘cause I got mine. Also, asexuals are probably emotionally manipulative; if you expect someone to put up with you you’d better put out or you’re obviously trying to guilt them into stuff.*”
Being lonely or wanting a relationship don’t mean you’re going to sink your needy little claws into the next thing with a pulse that walks by. I want someone to talk with frankly, and fool around with, and come home to, and I want to have a reason to cook meals for 2 instead of 1. I’ve moved to a new city this year and I’m very, very busy so I’ve been lonely and not getting a chance to meet people. But shockingly I haven’t run any poor bastard down and broken his ankles and dragged him back to my cave. 9.9 It just means that I would like, in a perfect world, to have someone around I can lean on from time to time and share silly stories from work with, and someone to watch movies with and maybe even sleep with.
Wanting to make a romantic connection with someone doesn’t make you a freak or a terrible person (or a bad feminist); I’m very self-sufficient, or else I wouldn’t have come here by myself in the first place nor would I have turned down the 1 or 2 people who have hit on me (they were pretty clearly no-go’s so I said “no,” which theoretically shouldn’t fit into the needy-people-just-want-anyone-model, right?) I have emotional needs like everyone else they just aren’t getting met like Amanda’s seem to be, right now. I’m still picky, just wistful. Being lonely doesn’t make you desperate or a horrible romantic prospect, it just makes you a little sad sometimes.
And I would like to think, if I meet someone and we click, that the first words out of my mouth shouldn’t have to be “I might not want to fuck you immediately, sorry! And I haven’t tried the poly thing so if the fucking doesn’t work out but we end up in a relationship (NOT that I want a relationship! No pressure!) I don’t know if you could get it on the side or not! Sorry for maybe being an asexual waste of your precious time and preventing you from sticking to your regular fucking schedule!”
*The last bit, I’m pretty sure, she’s trying not to say but it’s definitely what I’m hearing.
Oh, and one last clarification, LR - I didn’t mean that abuse creates an ““I must get a significant other” mentality. I meant that it creates circumstances where a survivor may need more affirmation from other people than someone who wasn’t abused, because the non-survivor got that affirmation at the appropriate time - childhood from their family.
Fascinating discussion, and now I MUST close my web-browser. I finally understand how one becomes a regular commentator.
Comment #200: CBrachyrhynchos
“The problem is that I don’t buy the claim that self-aware and out asexual people are generally out to entrap or guilt people into long-term relationships, in spite of the efforts of agony aunts to suggest otherwise. It’s advice that self-aware and out asexual people generally don’t need.”
Wow, you’re reading a lot that isn’t there.
No one said anything about them trying to “entrap” anyone. Sometimes shit happens and you develop feelings for sexually incompatible people. It happens. It sucks. No one’s accused you or any other asexuals, bisexuals, kinky folks of entrapment or doing that on purpose.
But it does happen. Mono folks fall for Poly folks. Kinky folks fall for Vanilla folks. Gay folks fall for Straight folks. And perhaps I should have been more clear in that it behooves ALL players in a relationship/potential relationship to be more clear in their stated wants and expectations, but heterosexual, monogamous folks have a privilege that means they don’t often feel the need to do that (however wrong that may actually be), and the burden DOES (realistically) fall on the non-hetero, non-Vanilla, non-Monogamous person to be the one who says, “Hey, look, this is what I’m looking for, and if you aren’t cool with that we need to hash it out now.”
Whether or not that’s how it SHOULD be is completely immaterial at this point. We’re stuck in the reality that exists right now.
And Lurker, when I say “Non-Normative” I’m referring to non-monogamous, kinky, non-hetero, blah blah blah… You know, pretty much everything I am, thanks. I’m not the norm. I know that, it doesn’t bug me. If it bugs you, and I hurt you by using that phrase, I apologize.
Hoo wow, the thread got a little dark while I was sick yesterday.
Some responses:
Back to Amanda all the way back @ 144
Well yes, it’s a little harder than gay couples and it’s because of statistics. Most gay people (these days) have an out population of 10% which is something easier to just run into on a daily basis. Especially since that out population tends to congregate in gay districts and the like so there’s a known place to go and an ease of contact. Gay people also have a measure of lust that needs meeting as well so there’s more impetus to drop a romantic love attraction because it leaves one sexually unfulfilled (or if they’ve been brain-washed by religion, cling to the feelings of love and suffer through the constant lust desires in shame).
Still though there are mixed-orientation pairs where two people fell in love but one or more person isn’t the right sexuality and who deal with that ethically by opening up the relationship on both ends so that sexual needs are met elsewhere.
For asexuals, we are 1% of the world population, have no street level organized presence (just a couple of online resources) and have zero interests in lust so we can’t allow mutual lust and non-verbal communication draw us into “family”. Who we love will be fairly random and more often than not we’ll fall in love with someone non-asexual just because that’ll be the vast majority of people we’re bumping into on a daily basis.
On the asexual’s burden:
Well yes, everyone, in a perfect world, everyone communicates their needs and desires. It is better for all for an asexual to be upfront about themselves with romantic partners. Just as it’s good for a transperson to be upfront with their partner. Just as it’s good for a “normal” “moderately-libidoed” heterosexual male to be upfront with their partner. Talking things out with any prospective partner either romantic or sexual is just good common sense and really should be the law of the land as it’s crucial for ensuring enthusiastic consent.
As I said above, the cultural idea of “supposed tos” is pretty sick and part and parcel of the rape culture. By following expectations and using expectations like “people who are in love and in relationships owe each other sex” bypasses actual communication about sexual needs and sexual frequencies and instead can end up manipulating partners who are less into it into sex they didn’t want. As I’ve seen, a lot (I can not stress how often. Every day there is a new post in AVEN from someone feeling pressure from their romantic partner and debating whether to engineer their own rape because “otherwise they don’t love them, right"), is asexuals end up engineering their own rapes with manipulated consent and as Lindsey notes, their partners end up being unwitting rapists because we don’t consider manipulation by cultural expectation a “non-consent”.
In short, we don’t practice enthusiastic consent in this country or communication and that’s something that needs to change for the needs of the guilt-laden highly sexual and the needs of the rape-prone barely or non-sexual. By giving young low or non-libidoed people the right to say no and resist pressure and communicate their needs with their partner and giving highly sexed people the right to take pride in their sexuality as is and the value of their sexual needs (but at the same time how they don’t have a right to use anyone against their will to fulfill it), we do great things for society in general.
The relationship Amanda balks at and many of you balk as well, is problematic not because asexuals are fulfilling some “deceptive transsexual” archetype (note I hate this cultural archetype too), but because people aren’t encouraged to be honest and open about their sexuality with their partner and part of doing that is not only teasing out the desires of sexuals and what they want but also the boundaries.
Searching far and wide, intensely and passionately, is just as valid as the Zen “when the relationship is ready the partner will appear.”
I’m going to argue that the couple makes the relationship. You meet a person and spend more and more time with them until you realize that you want to spend the rest of your life with them. If your goal is just to have a relationship, then I assume you have some idea of the kind of relationship you want: But is it Bonnie and Clyde or Ozzie and Harriet? Does the relationship you have in mind involve the raising of children, or are you reluctant to ever live under the same roof as your partner? And in that case how can you a priori rule out all the other fascinating types of relationship you could be in?
Comment #204: Hector B. on 03/01 at 10:26 PM
Another apologist for “if you’re amazing and wonderful enough he’ll want to marry you even if he’s not the marrying kind.”
Your objection would make sense if I claimed that someone who wants to be in a relationship is required to define it in complete and utter detail and should reject anything that doesn’t meet that definition.
The relationship I’m in now is the kind of relationship I was looking for when I was 25, in the general sense of “someone who is interesting and who is interested in me.” The rest is details. But wanting a strong primary relationship is still part of the equation, has been for a long time. Go on, shame me for that.
But Amanda’s not talking about not searching. Neither is anyone. She’s talking about not being needy, which is a different matter.</blockq You can search and still not be needy, so long as you’re not putting the rest of your life on hold because of the grand search for a problem. I don’t see anyone here saying that you should simply sit and wait for a partner. That’s a straw man.
And all that white, able, young, not fat, etc. stuff is a big red herring in this discussion of neediness. Again, there are lots of rich and gorgeous and able-bodied people who are highly needy. Talking about this as “privilege” is a misconception, unless there’s some actual hard evidence that oppressed people are more prone to this type of attitude than others. From the anecdata I’ve personally collected, the opposite would seem to be true. This “neediness” attitude is a common symptom of privilege.
Comment #198: LR on 03/01 at 09:07 PM
Again with the neediness phobia.
If someone really wants a relationship and admits it, that’s cast b some here (and seemingly Amanda) as being needy and therefore ugly. As Bagelsan says, there is wanting a relationship and there is being so desirous of one that you do stupid things like force people into relationships or pretend they’re something they’re not. Or assume that you’re owed a relationship. How you get the latter out of the former, I really don’t know. They are two different things.
And it definitely is a privilege to not be discarded as a relationship prospect because of your race, weight, looks, age or currently-able status. Why pretend otherwise?
Does the relationship you have in mind involve the raising of children, or are you reluctant to ever live under the same roof as your partner? And in that case how can you a priori rule out all the other fascinating types of relationship you could be in?
Comment #204: Hector B. on 03/01 at 10:26 PM
Posted before I was done—why would you assume that I’m ruling out having children, or not, or living together, or not living together?
I don’t understand where this “you want a relationship therefore you’ve defined all the parameters in advance” mentality comes from.
And from personal experience to Amanda’s worries in particular:
My partner is one of those you describe. Fairly well sexual, deeply closeted about her sexuality when we first met, completely damaged from childhood abuse and catholic baggage from admitting to it and facing it.
Little old asexual me was the one who helped her climb out of that hole, gave her permission to be sexual, gave her ownership of her orgasms and her fantasies and have for the last four and a half years been there to help her be more of her true self in so many ways. We have no shared lusts, we had some fairly limited one-way sexual activity (as I’m an indifferent romantic non-libidinist), but as far as meeting anything close to actual needs, no way. But through communication tangental support like finding the type of porn that turned her on, talking her through fantasies, open communication about sexuality and desire so she always had a non-judgmental space to explore.
Further, I’ve actually helped a surprising number of my friends be more honest with their sexualities, because my very presence as a non-traditional sexuality makes them actually think about it for the first time rather than just following cultural expectations. My best friend of many years when I came out to him started thinking about his sexuality and realized he was a Kinsey 1 asexuality. Early conversations with my partner about my asexuality was the jumping off point for her unlocking her Kinsey 5 bisexuality and eventually kink desires.
To GeekGirl @222 and others:
Well GeekGirl has the most fleshed out version and the one I’m most sympathetic to. Yes, it really shouldn’t be the burden of one or the other to have to be the one to bring it up, because in my fantasy super-feminist world, communication and sexual honesty would be the norm and people could both feel comfortable coming out as kinky, gay, etc… and saying, hey, not interested, but thanks.
And I appreciate the effort to note that. I see how it can be asexual’s duty by default as they’ll be the token freak, but it’s not really a problem unique solely to asexuals. Yes, asexuals do the engineering their own rape thing the most and at such levels that “even the men are affected”. But it’s a problem held often by women who were less sexual, less into “traditional PIV sex” or just not ready at that point in their lives.
There’s a cultural pressure that says sex is owed to a non-entity called Relationship that demands the manipulation of the consent of the only two real people inside of it.
And That. Is Wrong. And part and parcel of the rape culture that is more interested in finding ways to get enough gray area consent not to get arrested rather than enjoying the awesome sexual and romantic relationships that can arise from enthusiastic consent.
I don’t think it should be the asexual’s burden to single-handedly defeat that ugly streak of cultural expectation single-handedly by literally fulfilling the ancient “female role in sex” that of the hand-braker who successfully defends herself by beating off the non-consensual advance. For the person not as interested, if sexual, that will just make them less interested and for the asexual it may be the thing that makes them give up on being a romantic asexual or from indifferent to repulsed. Because it’s well rape culture garbage.
Now, I agree with the third wave feminists though that there needs to be encouragement of sexuality, honesty about sexuality and support for it, but the solution will not be through creating a mindless cultural demand for more sex or you don’t love them or demanding that asexuals or the less-sexually interested single-handedly take the blame for culture being fucked up especially when that culture is raping them.
The solution will be empowering partners the right to say no to sex they don’t want and yes to sex they do without manipulation either by people or society and reminding people they have a right to their desires but they need to communicate them openly, honestly, and non-coercively with their partner and then figure out how they want to handle any incongruities.
In short, honesty, individuality, communication.
Cause if we’re talking about sheer survival mechanisms, I feel for the sexual desires and the cultural pressures to feel bad about having them, but on a survival level, my focus is going to be more on getting people out of engineering their own rapes first.
Luckily I just go full utopian and pimp enthusiastic consent, full communication, and exploring non-traditional relationship options all at the same time.
One final note on the asexuality and why don’t they always speak up, the bastards, debate:
Asexuals are just as prey to the culture they are raised in as sexuals. Sexuals can often get tons of messages about how their sexuality is dirty and wrong (and should be saved for someone they love) and they should closet it away and never talk about it with anyone cause no one will understand. And asexuals get awashed in the other simultaneous messages about how checking out of the romantic or sexual world is unfair or unnatural, lacking desire makes you less of a person or unable to love, and that people who are in love have sex with their romantic partners, period, as well as the aforementioned, don’t talk about this stuff with anyone least of all your romantic partner.
The shared problem is culture that doesn’t value open and honest communication and encourages both partners to stay close-lipped and follow the herd to disastrous results (sexual inadvertently committing rape, feeling like a freak for wanting more sex than the partner, less sexual inadvertently getting raped, feeling like a loveless freak for not enjoying it, doing right by their partner). And it’s also worth noting as a feminist that the problems I describe are most pronounced for women as men are trained to displace any problems as their partner’s fault (they want less sex than me, they must be frigid; they want more sex than me, they must be a whore) whereas women are trained to internalize (I want more sex, I must be a whore; I want less sex, I must be frigid or loveless; I want different sex, I must be a one-of-a-kind freak).
Damnitt, I hate being made out to be a liar this quickly, but I just have to respond to one thing from Lindsey @215:
That advice you give is problematical, simply because well, there are medications and psychological conditions that lower sexual desire sometimes, even drastically, but there’s none that turn it off.
Being asexual is something sexuals have a hard time imagining and so often well, don’t. You just don’t have sexual attraction. No one pushes your sexual buttons, and I don’t mean this in a well actually yes, but they just can’t get horny enough, I mean zero button pushing. It’s not really related, but everyone assumes it is.
Every asexual gets “helpful” advice about how they should see a doctor and check their medication (or if they state they receive no medication, to check to see if they have depression or autism). Now the people saying this are well-meaning enough, but the subtext of the statement is: “There is something horribly wrong with you.” Whereby a lack of sexual desire is a problem to be fixed. It isn’t. Asexuality is an orientation and those who are sexual but momentarily knocked out of the loop or hiding from their desires don’t last long around other asexuals, because we talk about things like sexual orientation and the nature of desire a lot.
Yeah sure, being sure is great, but someone with a low-libido sapped by something quickly finds the asexual community eerie and not fully akin (though some may call themselves gray-asexuals or low-libidoed sexuals), because what we are describing isn’t a lowered level, a mild buzz, it’s a total absence.
And to sexuals this sounds like someone saying they have no hunger ever and don’t need to eat food. No, surely you are anorexic or have a disorder or sometimes like or need food but only occasionally. No, not really.
And worse, the assumption that we’re lying or “need to be sure” is also getting a lot of asexuals raped, because they are pressuring themselves into trying sex they don’t want and which they haven’t communicated fully and thinking they need to grit and bear through with it to see if it magically gets better or magically triggers all the lust and excitement that’s supposed to come. It also has an ignoble history in regards to how homosexuality was treated as a disease or the result of some other external factor that could be fixed and should be looked into before admitting to or exploring one’s sexuality openly and honestly.
I can see who you were not intending any of that and were just trying to be supportive. I am merely pointing out the problematic nature of that particular form of support.
GeekGirlsRule: No one said anything about them trying to “entrap” anyone. Sometimes shit happens and you develop feelings for sexually incompatible people. It happens. It sucks. No one’s accused you or any other asexuals, bisexuals, kinky folks of entrapment or doing that on purpose.
It’s in the quote from Amanda, in the discourse which which frames this in terms of obligations and being jerks. Which ignores the basic problem that non-normative sexual people are stuck in a double-bind of obligations. We are expected to sacrifice our own sexualities to varying degrees for the good of our partners and integration into the larger culture, while at the same time solely responsible should our efforts fall short, even though our partners may be just as much participants in denying the truth as we are.
Those of us who argue for sexual relationships based on open communication are socially, politically, and legally insignificant. We can’t even get discussion of masturbation into sexuality education programs. When we get rid of the patriarchal value that we should sacrifice our own sexual needs for the sake of maintaining ostensibly acceptable relationships, then perhaps we can talk about how asexual people are such meanies.
As it is, these conversations remind me a bit too much of the prurient assumptions made about my relationship: I must be on the down low, I must be deceptive with my partner, I must be polyamorous. I’m not offended so much by these options, as I am by the reflexive assumption that my relationships must be tragically miss-matched.
“And as a side note, if I were dating women, I’d probably be less guarded - they are just less likely to sexually abuse. Not to be flippant, but sometimes I wish I were gay - dating would be so much easier for me.” --#216: Lurker
Hate to break it to ya, but women are probably as likely as men to break boundaries for an asexual person. Women can get away with “frisky” behavior that someone like you would probably shy away from. And unless you make everything very clear all along, I can see scenarios where a woman is just as likely as a man to forced a hand into your pants.
As far as worst-case scenarios go, I’m with you in regards to men. But as far as violations of personal space go, you are going to have problems in any dating world outside of religious folk who don’t touch each other and have the parents arrange all. Maybe you should look into Shaker dating services: aren’t they the celibate religion?
Every asexual gets “helpful” advice about how they should see a doctor and check their medication (or if they state they receive no medication, to check to see if they have depression or autism). Now the people saying this are well-meaning enough, but the subtext of the statement is: “There is something horribly wrong with you.
Except this was someone who wasn’t sure that they were asexual, so it would be helpful to see if there were some sort of physiological as opposed to psychological issues involved, so that’s not saying “You’re not normal”, but, “check it out if you’re not sure what’s going on inside of you.
And I’m sorry, but we sexuals would consider going from a sexual to asexual state with understandable horror, the human tendency to project when others are involved is understandable, but that’s not what Lindsey was trying to do with her comments in the thread you reference.
I know now, looking back at my past, that there are men there who purposefully look for abuse survivors since they are better victims, so I just want to make sure I am not tipping those types of people off. I’d like to think that I know better, but some people are just that manipulative.
Then you don’t tell them you’re an abuse survivor until you’re sure that they can handle it and not use it against you to satisfy their own agenda over yours.
If they can’t accept the statement I cited earlier without having to know more than you’re comfortable with, then they obviously don’t accept your autonomy and therefore aren’t suitable for a relationship of any sort with you.
And it’s helpful to remember Professor Avengers’ 1st law of human behavior, “People tell you want you want to hear.”
women are probably as likely as men to break boundaries for an asexual person.
Replace asexual with underage, and you have the increased reports of women teachers molesting their underage charges in recent years to point to.
You don’t need to break it to me, 3letterjon, because I already know women can do that. But it’s a question of how high the risk is. I engage in dialogue all the time - but in my experience, women are likely to actually LISTEN.
Also - I’m not sure where you got this idea that I am averse to all touch ever. And why would I have to date shakers if I have no values in common with them (all 3 of them, according to Wikipedia)? I’m struggling with something real and difficult and while you have a right to be a jerk, it still makes you a pretty crappy person. Do you also push disabled people down the stairs to help them get downstairs faster? I suggest you reread this discussion - perhaps you’ll learn that the world is not divided into shakers and tiger woods.
Another apologist for “if you’re amazing and wonderful enough he’ll want to marry you even if he’s not the marrying kind
Interesting that oldfeminist reads “marriage” into my “relationship.”
I am cheered that she has no expectations for what constitutes a relationship other than mutual interest.
I loved the hookup culture because it allowed me couple with women “out of my league.”
I’m a 7 with great social skills, so I could always land a 10 who preferred “boyfriend” over the walk of shame. It is untrue that female humans want sex as much as male humans. While I do think that culture has pushed us further apart and into the women and men category. There are sex differences in desire and if there is ever a place you will find ones that are biologically based rather than socially constructed it will be around copulation.
I just don’t ever see the day that females will want one night stands, and anonymous sex as much as males.
Lurker, are you being sexplained to? Sure sounds like it! If only you had, oh I dunno, already made it very clear on this thread that you know what you’re doing, you’ve thought a lot about your sexuality before, you are familiar with what abuse and manipulation look like, etc… 9.9 If only you weren’t so ignorant these lovely sexual people would not have to keep explaining how weird you are!
Oh wait, Lurker, apparently people find it necessary not only to explain how sex and women work (did you know that women sometimes do bad things? just like men??) but you clearly need to be told simple things about “human nature” like that people lie! So helpful!
Thanks, Bagelsan. You put your finger on what irks me so much… totally feels like mansplaining.
you are familiar with what abuse and manipulation look like,
But I managed to come across LITERALLY nothing but abusive men, starting with my father, than my first boyfriend, then my best friend’s grandfather, then a guy I agreed to kiss etc etc for almost 8 years. Seriously, not a single guy who respected my NO, even though at the beginning they were nice and gentle and kind and understanding.
I know now, looking back at my past, that there are men there who purposefully look for abuse survivors since they are better victims, so I just want to make sure I am not tipping those types of people off. I’d like to think that I know better, but some people are just that manipulative.
Yes, and we human beings are strange creatures at times. My mother had a friend who got married 5 times to men who were alcoholics before she decided that marrying wasn’t something she had to do in her life.
I think you have a much better chance of finding someone else, but you don’t owe anyone any explanations of who you are and how you are until you’re ready, and I don’t see that as making you look like a victim.
“It is a sin to think evil of others. It is seldom a mistake.”
H. L. Mencken
I just don’t ever see the day that females will want one night stands, and anonymous sex as much as males.
So what? There is enough overlap between the two distributions (male degree of wanting ONS vs. female degree of wanting ONS) to satisfy most people.
In fact, in graduate school in the Midwest, an Algerian guy actually complained to me that he couldn’t go to a bar and order a cognac in his French accent without some young woman hitting on him. I told him these girls were likely seeking new experiences for their mental memory books, especially with French guys who are thought to be skilled lovemakers.
Women have always had, and will always have more power than men in relationships. Women decide when they will grant a man a date, when they will grant the first kiss, when they will have sexual relations, when they will become engaged, when they will marry and when they will have children. This is because women inherently understand that they have a much easier time getting involved with men, than men have getting involved with women. Women may decry the idea that they are constantly hit on by men who they don’t find attractive either physically or emotionally, but you will never hear even the most attractive man say that he is constantly being hit on by women, because he is still the one approaching women more often than they approach him.
Perhaps it’s time to simply recognize that young men and women have different attitudes towards relationships, and that they should both seek out partners who share those attitudes, and not settle for those who don’t.
“As it is, these conversations remind me a bit too much of the prurient assumptions made about my relationship: I must be on the down low, I must be deceptive with my partner, I must be polyamorous. I’m not offended so much by these options, as I am by the reflexive assumption that my relationships must be tragically miss-matched.
Comment #229: CBrachyrhynchos”
Um, no… No one’s making those assumptions. At least not in any way apart from the “everyone’s had a mismatched” relationship way. At least not that I’ve read here. There was that comment about asexuals not telling sexual partners being jerks (which wasn’t Amanda btw), and while that did make me cringe, I understood it that the asexual in that case would be no more a jerk than a kinky/poly/gay person who didn’t come clean in a similar situation.
No one here has assumed you’re any of those things, by the way. We’ve merely offered them up as examples of other “unusual” sexualities that require more communication than your run of the mill hetero, non-kinky, non-poly relationship.
As far as sacrificing your sexuality, if you’re open with the person and state to them that this is how it is and if they can’t cope, there’s the door, that’s not sacrificing. That’s making an informed decision about what is and is not acceptable to you in a relationship, and allowing your partner to make an equally informed decision.
I was not willing to sacrifice kink for any relationship, and I made damn sure we had that conversation early on in the relationship.
But asking someone to make a decision about something as important as a partner without giving them all the info is a shit move, regardless of who makes it. It’s just as shit if a vanilla person doesn’t tell their kinky partner that kink disgusts them and turns their stomach. It’s just as shit if a straight person decides to milk their gay suitor’s interest in them for all they can, and doesn’t come out and tell them they’re straight and it ain’t gonna happen. It’s just as shit if a monogamous partner doesn’t tell their poly partner that the idea of them with someone else eats them up inside and is destroying their soul.
Why? Because most, if not all, of those relationships are going to fester in resentment and implode one day. Because not everyone involved had all the information they needed.
As for those of us who believe in open and honest communication being a minority, the only way we’re going to quit being a minority is leading by example.
No one here is arguing that we need to keep the partriarchy in power. We’re arguing that we need to broaden the acceptable means for sexual expression for women and everyone, as part and parcel of dismantling it. And that means the freedom to not have sex, as well as the freedom to have sex. No one is calling asexuals “meanies.” We’re saying that if you aren’t honest with your partners, that sucks, regardless of the nature of your sexuality.
Women have always had, and will always have more power than men in relationships.
Oh, bullshit. You’re doing the opposite of what Amanda did in the original post: where she posits that guys have all the power by ignoring the guys from whom women don’t seek validation, you’re going all Kanezawa and complaining that women have all the power by focusing on the ones you’re sexually interested in to the exclusion of all others.
I’m using “power” here in a way that’s distinct from privilege, BTW. Power to find a partner of one’s choosing, I think, balances out over the population (though there may be inequity within the population) given that the numbers are pretty much even; privilege doesn’t.
Also… men don’t decide when they will date, kiss, have sex, etc.? Since when?
GeekGirlsRule - 241
But at what point in time are people with oddities forced to ? I think that one of the things CBrachyrhynchos and I were arguing is that the obligation to disclose this on date #1, instead of when we’re comforatble, is unfair. I’m not sure where’s the official transition between ‘dating’ and ‘relationship’ but I think that’s highly individual. One person may feel comfortable disclosing after 3 dates, another after 3 months. I think that should be respected. Needless to say, leading people on or manipulating them is wrong, wrong, wrong. But that’s not what we’re saying.
p.s. - I am also infertile. Am I supposed to disclose immediately? Perhaps I should carry a card, listing all the ways I don’t fit into people’s idea of normal, and submit it on every first date? How do you think that will be seen?
<blockquote>but you will never hear even the most attractive man say that he is constantly being hit on by women, because he is still the one approaching women more often than they approach him. </i>
Man, I’m even more ace than I thought! Apparently, that one dude that I was horribly in love with my sophomore year DOESN’T EVEN EXIST. Poor boy… first he has to deal with creepy girls following him home from parties and shit, then me and my general lack of having any idea WTF is going on, and now he’s been reduced to a delusion.
Hee, the “gatekeeper model= WOMEN HAVE TOTALLY LIEK ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL THE POWER EVARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR” bogus “empowerfulness” rhetoric is my favorite. If the gatekeeper model meant women had all the power, it wouldn’t have been allowed to develop. You’d think this would be obvious, but apparently it’s not, which means I get to quote Jane Austen at people ("Man has the power of choice, woman only of refusal” - Northanger Abbey) and call them historically illiterate. Fun! Also, just because you can frame a subject in a way that lets you squeeze the word “grant” in there somewhere, doesn’t mean women are actually all empresses sitting on clouds dispensing favors to our poor little horny henchdudes. I wish it were.
Wah, I fail at HTML today. Sorry.
Lurker, everyone’s time table is different. Where I might disclose prior to a first date, you might want to get to know someone more before you tell them. Another kinky/poly/bi person might wait until after a first exploratory date. Another asexual person might be totally up front right off the bat.
It is entirely up to the individual. Which is another facet of broadening acceptable sexual expression, being able to set your own pace. During my own slutting around phase, if I felt that I wanted to sleep with someone, I would tell them right away that I was a sexual abuse survivor since I’d had a couple of panic attacks during sex. I usually didn’t reveal the kinky part until I was sure I trusted them enough to handle that information, or that I wanted a long term enough relationship with them that I would feel the lack of it.
These are just how I did it. You are in charge of figuring that out for yourself.
GeekGirlsRule: I think the problems I have are still two-fold. First, I think that calling these failures to communicate a “shit move” implies a malicious intent. And quite obviously I tend to see those failures as one among many deals that people end up striking in a patriarchal culture.
The second is the notion that there is a default sexuality that doesn’t need to be disclosed. And one of the big revelations of the sexual revolution and the sex-positive movement is that most of the assumptions made about vanilla heterosexuality were bad generalizations that especially left women unfulfilled.
CBrachyrhynchos: As I said before, the idea that hetero, vanilla, mono folk don’t need to disclose is part and parcel of the privilege of being part of the dominant paradigm, and as such many of them won’t even think about it. Does that make it right? No. Does that make it what it is? Yes. Does that make it unchangeable? No.
But the way to change it is not to say, “Well, if they aren’t going to communicate about THEIR sexuality, then I’m not going to either.”
Yes, it’s unfair that the burden of initiating communication falls on those who are not of the dominant sexual narrative, but right now, that’s how it is.
And I’m sorry, “Shit move” was a poor choice of words. More accurately, I should have said that it is “ill-advised” not to disclose when you know or suspect that your sexuality is not going to be compatible with the person you are partnering with. Because that whole “if they get to know me and love me enough they’ll accept me as I am” concept is naive at best, and seriously damaging or outright dangerous at worst.
(Warning: the following is a novel. If you are not ready for that kind of commitment, maybe you should try out some of the shorter comments and see if you guys click. :D)
More accurately, I should have said that it is “ill-advised” not to disclose when you know or suspect that your sexuality is not going to be compatible with the person you are partnering with.
As it seems like people have been discussing dating and disclosure, I assume by “partnering” you mean going on a date or two with*? In which case:
Why? Because if they don’t get pussy at the end then it was a total waste of time? Because they might miss their actual true love during the couple of dates it takes for them to figure out you’re not going to put out right away (if ever)? Because it is fatal to have a month or 2 dry spell when getting to know someone?
At worst, if you wait a few dates before “coming clean” about X then that means the other person (or you) have to put up with a few dates that don’t end exactly how you or they want. That’s not rape, that’s not manipulation, that’s not abuse, that’s a “bad date” or two (or even a “good date” that ends as friends not lovers.) At best, putting it all on the table immediately will allow them to dump you a teeny bit sooner. Which saves them a bit of time, I guess, but I thought the idea was to hang out and see if you click, not to map out an entire monogamous relationship instantly? In which case, why the need for asexuals (who can have a perfectly lovely time with you) to come with a warning label? Having dinner with someone doesn’t require that you know all their kinks either.
It also puts the disclosing person at some risk. What if you don’t know your date well (or at all?) Wouldn’t it be better to try them out a date or two and make sure they aren’t awful? If you have nothing in common the two of you can part ways at that point without having to go into anyone’s very personal business/sexual history/various psychological or physical hangups/etc.
It just doesn’t seem that vital to me that people who are “deviant” disclose quickly. If person A wants sex immediately, they can ask and person B can say it’s not happening. Or that if it’s happening it needs to involve whips. Or whatever. And if person A wants sex eventually then they can go on a few dates, see how things go, and then ask for sex—at which point person B can respond appropriately. If person A needs insta-fuck they can ask for it like a grownup, and not depend on person B giving them a menu or a timeline or reading their mind.
If you personally are not getting sexed up sufficiently by another person, bring it up: “is sex on the table for tonight? Or should I go buy that other person a drink instead?” Or if the other person is trying to sex you up more than you want you can say so then: “it’s been fun having dinner with you these few times, but I don’t do the sex-on-the-3rd-date rule, and probably any further dating will remain platonic. Go or stay as you like.” Or you can choose to bring it up immediately: “Hi, I’m Bob and just fyi there will be no sex tonight. How do you feel about Thai food?” But it just isn’t that dire, I think, to immediately be an open book, and it’s more-than-a-bit dangerous as well.
Not to mention, perfect honesty is just not always advisable (in general.) If having dinner with someone required full disclosure of anything that could hinder their ability to get it on with you, my last “date” would have started with me saying something like this: “You’re pretty ugly (like, seriously, I don’t like looking at you) but I don’t want to be a shallow jerk and maybe you’re a nice guy or have a good personality so I’m giving it a chance. It’s a really small chance, though—like I said, not at all physically attracted to you. That may be ‘cause of the possible asexuality or ‘cause you just look bad. I dunno. But seriously, you need to stop stuttering and acting like a dork. That’s pretty obnoxious. So...basically this is kinda my-good-deed-for-the-year pity date ‘cause I sympathize with the non-neurotypical nerdy thing but I’m not into you at all. But then again, weirder things have happened. Maybe you’ll surprise me and I’ll like you somehow. Also, I shouldn’t be throwing stones about the brain stuff. Anyways, you wanted a date, impress me or GTFO.”
(Shockingly, he survived not getting told all this, and instead getting a very passionless date that ended in a “friends” talk. I think he is not the worse for wear.)
*It’s not like one person will lure the other into unbreakable old-school Catholic matrimony and only then reveal their terrible secret. If you find out the person you want to sex up isn’t interested then you can move on with absolutely no loss to yourself. “Partnering” is not an irreversible process. You can catch a cab, yanno. Or move out. Or jerk off.
I don’t think it’s so much that the misogyny stops (or even decreases) as men get older. I think it’s that (some) men transition to different types of misogyny—ones that focus on women as mothers and housewives rather than as sex objects, and men as lawyers and managers rather than as brawlers and pimps.
But it’s worth remembering that not all men make this transition—in part because it relies heavily on class privilege. And I think this piece exudes implicit race and class privilege when it talks about the transition from college to career as though that’s a transition all men make.
More here: http://somesectionsofthemiddleclass.blogspot.com/2010/03/in-which-homosocial-masculinity.html .
Geek @248:
“But the way to change it is not to say, ‘Well, if they aren’t going to communicate about THEIR sexuality, then I’m not going to either.’”
Well no shit. I don’t think anyone this thread short of the patriarchy, yay trolls thinks less communication is a good thing or that the ideal state of communication is non or less. What those of us on the more asexual side of the aisle have been saying is making communication the sole responsibility of the “non-traditional” pair is kinda dumb not least because of the tacit agreement with the notion that if both pairs were somehow very equal in their desire levels, it would be at all a good idea for them to bypass communication.
Communication about sex and sexuality should be base one of how we approach sex. The assumptive nature and the sheer amount of patriarchal baggage that entails usually just ends with every heterosexual sexual encounter no matter the personality of the woman with the woman feeling like she failed something. Why? Because women can’t win in patriarchal notions of sex and sexuality.
We should be pushing for more communication. Not just for asexuals looking to avoid getting raped on the altar of “it’s expected”, but for everyone, because even the most vanilla, moderately-amorous pure heterosexual dating someone with the same kinks and libido level is better served by open honest communication with their partner. Sex is better this way, it’s easier to communicate when both parties are horny, it’s easier to find erogenous zones, it’s easier to master techniques that drive a partner wild and it’s easy to dismantle patriarchal baggage that neither partner really wants.
Communication should be the “no shit” of the sexual world and the fact that it isn’t says a lot of unflattering things about our culture.
And that needs to be something universal in focus rather than assuming the “default” settings work for anyone.
Cause they really don’t, because of the patriarchy.
“So what? There is enough overlap between the two distributions (male degree of wanting ONS vs. female degree of wanting ONS) to satisfy most people. ”
Well if there was enough overlap for most to be soooo satisfied what’s up with all the female laments about the “hookup” culture ?
or as Amanda put it “Of course, that doesn’t do much for young women in the here and now who are suffering from their extreme need for male validation that young men are exploiting”
Wow, I didn’t realize they had blogs back in the 50s. Some of this discussion is awfully retro. Of course the 50s were a step backwards from the hook up culture of the 30s and 40s. Maybe it was the Depression and the War. Sex was cheap, and not knowing if one would ever meet again made it easier to justify. If my parents were to be believed people had plenty of sex way back then, even before I was born. (Of course, the condoms were crap. My sister and I were planned, but my father said it was always a good idea to double up. Latex is much more reliable these days.)
Also, I’m not sure there isn’t pornography for women. I read an interview with an internet pornographer who noted that about 1/3 of his customers were female as based on unambiguously feminine names on credit cards. I suppose this could be teenaged boys stealing their mom’s credit cards, but .... I’ve also read my share of modern romance novels, and there are an awful lot more bodily fluids being exchanged than are strictly required to advance the story line.
I’ve also read my share of modern romance novels, and there are an awful lot more bodily fluids being exchanged than are strictly required to advance the story line.
Pish, meet the fandom! If I don’t see acronyms like “PWP*” “BDSM” “Yaoi” or “H/C” in the warnings for a story I don’t even read it half the time. :D
*To give you a hint, PWP means either “plot what plot?” or “porn without plot” depending on who you ask. And, as you might guess, the bodily fluids waaay overpower the romance and storyline. Unless you find random dude A shoving random dude B wordlessly against a wall “romantic"…
Again with the neediness phobia.
If someone really wants a relationship and admits it, that’s cast b some here (and seemingly Amanda) as being needy and therefore ugly. As Bagelsan says, there is wanting a relationship and there is being so desirous of one that you do stupid things like force people into relationships or pretend they’re something they’re not. Or assume that you’re owed a relationship. How you get the latter out of the former, I really don’t know. They are two different things.
Oh, please. “Needy and therefore ugly”? Nobody said or implied that. “Neediness phobia” is a good thing because it’s bad to be dominated by a need for Having A Boyfriend.
And it definitely is a privilege to not be discarded as a relationship prospect because of your race, weight, looks, age or currently-able status. Why pretend otherwise?
I’m not talking about not being discarded; I’m talking about neediness. I’m a woman of color, who hangs out mostly with other women of color; I see no more “I want a BOYFRIEND!” desperation among my sisters than I do in white women.
And no, I wouldn’t call it a “privilege” not to be discarded because of race, or looks, or weight. That implies to me that people should never take these things into account while picking their partners, and I don’t buy that.
Bagelsan, Cerberus, Lurker: I think you’re all assuming that we’re advocating informing people of your asexuality on the first date or something. Really, I only see people saying that you should tell people when it looks like the relationship is “going somewhere.” When exactly is that point? Well, that is a highly subjective and individualized judgment to make, and I certainly wouldn’t presume to tell anyone how to make it. But I think people need to be reminded that they need to make that decision. Otherwise, people have a habit of leaving important but uncomfortable topics alone until it’s too late for them to avoid doing damage.
LR-
Hell, first date works. That’s what I did with my current partner.
I don’t get why a lot of the people on this thread think the asexual crowd are arguing for more secrecy. Most of us have been fairly upfront that more honesty is the ideal, the point to which everything should move for. The earlier, the more honest, and the more thorough and sustained the conversation two people have either in a romantic relationship or a sexual relationship, the better. And it should be the norm before any sexual relationship, because well, everyone is sexually different and even if they weren’t, communication before hand just makes things smoother. It gets people honest, open, and willing to point out when something isn’t working for them, when it is, what they want to try, what’s off limits, rather than people finding out, by well, violating boundaries and second guessing bit-lip non-verbal communication.
The “normal” way doesn’t work for anyone. We all need to be open and honest with partners even for one-night stands, because how else are they gonna know to nibble that area right behind the earlobe or that you were really looking forward to getting whipped tonight?
What I and others objected to was how it was a one-sided thing. That asexuals have to come clean, on their own, because the dumbass rape-prone non-communication method of sexual relationships was doing so well before they inserted their non-conforming ass into it.
Yeah, asexuals should be open, but so should super-horny people, or even the vanilliest of the vanilla, because sex shouldn’t be something we continually fuck up because communication is for fags.
It should be standard for everyone. Full stop. Not some special burden for the non-conforming.
Now, we also do need to deal with the world as is, but that comes with encouraging communication for all and trying to lessen the cultural burdens that make people so willing to fuck themselves over on the altar of “isn’t this what you do?”
That’s a universal need, not a “damnitt freaks, fess up” need.
Especially since this lack of education and communication often ends up with a lot of asexuals taking the risk, the sole responsibility of being the one to communicate where they are and their partners have no way to compare it to anything or accept it on any level because they haven’t practiced communication with other partners or trained in any vocabulary other than the standard for relationships and sex.
It needs to happen everywhere is basically the thing.
Cerberus, I was responding to the suggestion that sexuality is so private and vulnerable a topic that you just can’t mention it early in a relationship--which may be true in many cases, but communication is still an important thing.
You make a fair point when you say this about communication:
It should be standard for everyone. Full stop. Not some special burden for the non-conforming.
I don’t think anyone is truly disagreeing with this. I think what we are saying (or at least, what I am saying) is that for those who have a preference that is well outside the norm, the consequences of non-communication become even more drastic. If I had a partner who wasn’t upfront with me about what he liked in bed, I’d be bothered and he would probably suffer through his silence and my ignorance, but I think we could adjust better than if I found out that he didn’t like anything in bed. The consequences of keeping your mouth shut about the earlobe-nibbling thing are quite different from the consequences of keeping your mouth shut about not liking sex at all, you know?
But you’re right that it ought not to be conceptualized as a one-sided burden. And of course, assuming the patriarchal standard as the norm doesn’t help with communication or enjoyable relationships either.
To clarify: I’m 100% in agreement that The Message should be “PEOPLE need to communicate in relationships, ALWAYS.” Not “asexuals are in this weird and unique situation where communication is necessary, but the rest of the time it’s not.”
I read threads at Pandagon every day, generally with great enjoyment, and have done so for years. Today, however, I have actually registered to comment (I’m not a non-commenter from snobbery, rather from doubt that my brain is sufficiently giant to warrant commenting here! It’s a high bar.), because I owe Cerberus, Lurker, cynicalromantic, bagelsan, and some others deep gratitude. You have helped me, in my late ‘50’s, to come to some radical realizations about myself and my place in the world. I have previously mis-identified myself, and now I am both amazed and frightened by the prospect of taking my life back up so late in the game. Thank you. I am positive that you are absolutely wonderful persons to be in relationship with IRL, because by mere printed words in cyberspace you have managed to communicate and enlighten.
LR- I think we’re pretty well in agreement on all counts.
Level Best- Awww. Now that just made my day. Good luck with your life Level Best. And it’s never too late for anything. There’s all this cultural weight that oh, it’s all downhill after the 20s, but back in those 20s life was chaotic, constantly changing, and one could reinvent one’s life on a dime (within monetary constraints of course). Thing is, is that never actually changed. We have all that chaos, both for good and bad at every moment of our life in reality. It may seem scary, but truth trumps fear and the joy of living honestly to one’s self is a reward unto itself.
Good luck.
LR - “Otherwise, people have a habit of leaving important but uncomfortable topics alone until it’s too late for them to avoid doing damage.” See, I don’t have that issue. If it didn’t have potentially negative practical implications (which can put me in danger), I would be happy to discuss my issues, what I went through, and what my sexuality is with pretty much anyone. I tend to be very direct and honest. And while I used to carry a lot of shame, I’m really not particularly ashamed now (except sometimes).
I’ve also learned that some people cannot handle my issues. And while it doesn’t hurt me, it can be very unpleasant. So I don’t want to disclose too much too soon.
Level Best - you just made my day too. I second Cerberus - the joy of living honestly to one’s self is indeed a reward unto itself. Have a wonderful rest of your life…
One last post wrapping things back to the post. As LR hinted, there is a bit of extra consequence for asexuals, which is the high amount of times they engineer their own rapes because they have to “prove their love” or “that’s what you do”. A lot of this is because the dating culture and people who date still today often see romantic relationships as a sort of absolution for desiring and engaging in sex.
Oh sex on its own is “selfish”, “dirty”, and “decadent”, but if it’s with a primary romantic partner it’s now about “love” and “romance” and “intimacy” (note, it can be about all those things, but it can also be about scratching an itch, a need to get laid, or all the “selfish” reasons from one-night stands and it certainly doesn’t one to one overlap with every sexual encounter in romantic relationships). As such there’s an expectation of sex, of pressure towards sex infesting what is at it’s root something about love.
Now, it’s wholly true that for monogamous people dating someone who one is both in love with and who is sexually compatible is important as sexual needs do need to be met, but the expectation of sex as a proof devalues both sex and love and turns it coercive in many directions in ways it doesn’t need to be. And this is a direct result of shame about sex “needing” this excuse of “it’s about love” or “it’s really deeper” to give them permission to get off (which is anti-sex).
This is why I rather like the hook-up culture. Because it’s a step in the right direction of separating love from sex and giving people more explicit cultural permission to engage in sexuality for its own sake without relying on excuses. This will hopefully with time and other further pushes relieve the pressure to “fuck for love” in romantic relationships as well as give more people a better vocabulary for discussing sex and desire and the confidence to do so.
I’m also very heartened to see the polyamory and kink communities doing well in its visibility movements because those also give vocabulary, alternate relationship structures, and a better understanding of how love and lust don’t always overlap and how that doesn’t have to be a deal-breaker or some “violation of love”.
In an ideal state, we’d all communicate openly and a romantic relationship and a sexual relationship would be two separate things often combined rather than lazily assumed to be one and the same (as under the dating culture). Also informed enthusiastic consent would be the law of the land and Iron Maiden would totally come to my birthday party. What?
LR: The problem I see is that people are and do say that it is a one-sided burden. And that’s something that shouldn’t be brushed away.
The other issue is that I think that if sexual relationships have to work, they need to have room to grow. I can’t tell partners up-front what our sexuality is going to be like because I don’t know. The things that turn me on with one person might turn me off with another. In the context of my long-term relationship, we’ve both experienced medical and psychological dry spells that needed to be respected. I’ve had lovers that pushed all of my on buttons, but unfortunately had that one particular thing that made it unworkable. How could I express something that was unknown to me when I first went down on him?
Open communication shouldn’t be contractual disclosure like a house closing. It should be about empathy and compassion. It’s about being open to surprises, both welcome and disappointing.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
The thing that bothers me is that Rachel Simmons doesn’t seem to acknowledge that, as an advice columnist, she’s necessarily only hearing from the young women who are unhappy. No one writes an advice columnist to say, “I had a one night stand last night and it was awesome and I feel no guilt!” I agree that she addresses the “problem” with a little more feminism than others, but I still feel like she’s helping to make up the problem.