Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Barack’s Breasts Are Too Close To Joe Biden Previous entry: Photoshop or real?

The “sex addiction” model isn’t harmless

Sex

One of the less fun controversies I’ve stepped into at Double X was when I questioned whether or not there was such a thing as “sex addiction”, pointing out that its biggest proponents are prudes who are looking for a cover story so they can continue to promote themselves as experts without having to get dinged for being sex negative.  The most famous, of course, is Dr. Drew, who seems to think female sexual desire that isn’t properly contained by his own exacting standards is always the result of sexual abuse.  (This little party trick he pulled on “Love Line” always annoyed me, because it’s so dishonest.  The hit rate when you ask random women if some man has every molested them is extremely high, and so the fact that you “guessed” that someone has been abused is proof not that you have a read on them, but that sexual abuse is that common.)  Of course, people invested in the idea of “sex addiction” are going to erect straw man arguments, accusing you of saying there’s no such thing as people who act out sexually, people who use compulsive sexual behaviors to self-soothe, etc.  No one is saying that, of course.  The skeptics merely point out that the addiction model is all screwed up, in no small part because they lean on prudery to convince people that sex itself is the problem—-that it’s an addictive substance—-and that the only way to be healthy is to strictly control your sexual behavior.  And that the way to contain it is—-surprise surprise—-to suggest that sexual behavior outside the Christian Right® approved romantic, monogamous behavior is unhealthy. 

Anyway, I bring this up because, even as defenders of “sex addiction” scoff at the idea that their framing promotes sex negativity under a pseudo-scientific veneer, the ugly reality is that “sex addiction” as an idea is creating substantial harm in the real world, to people’s happiness and mental health.  Check out this letter Heather Corinna got from some teenage girl in her first sexual relationship:

My boyfriend and I have been together for almost 7 months. We had sex after the 1st month because we felt that special connection with each other. Ever since the first time with him, I keep wanting more. I think I’m addicted to sex with him. That is all I think about constantly. He is the same way but for my sake (he doesn’t want to be a father yet, if you get what I mean) he tries to control himself as much as possible. He can’t always though. To be safe I’ve asked him to buy condoms but since we both realized we are doing it too much, he says we aren’t going to do it anyway so why have them. Well then he comes over and we wind up doing it without a condom. It was a close call one time where he almost ejaculated inside of me, but pulled it out just in time. Do you have any suggestions on how we can overcome out sex addiction and try and be safer? I’m not allowed to go on the pill and my boyfriend and I have a lot of time to be alone together. We are just teenagers. Thank you for the advice.

Here’s the thing: I’ll bet a lot of folks like Dr. Drew and other “sex addiction” proponents would not see a problem with this letter, because they’d say that she’s too young and anyway, she’s acting irresponsibly.  Which proves the point, of course.  Not that abstaining is wrong, but if you’re planning to do so because you’re tricked into thinking that having a lot of sexual desire as a teenager is unhealthy, then what you get is this kind of crap, where a pregnancy is almost sure to happen.

This is why the addiction model is so dangerous, and a mask for prudery.  After all, if sex is “addictive”, then surely you’re an addict if you want to do it all the time with your new amour, right?  What’s moderate levels of “sexing”?  Is there “binge sexing”?  This poor kid thinks so.  Worse, she thinks the incredible desire to have sex is comparable to an overwhelming desire to get smashed every night, as if she were an alcoholic or something.  Reading this, I get the strong impression she probably thinks once a month is probably the moderate amount of sex.  She’d probably be blown away to find out that it’s perfectly normal and healthy to go at it four times a night when you’re young and in your first sexual relationship. 

Using the wrong framework to describe a problem has consequences.  I would argue that for Dr. Drew, the consequences that we see here—-where young people, especially young women are afraid and ashamed of being sexually voracious—-are not a drawback, but the whole point.  But all that’s going to happen here is that people who may not have had sexual dysfunction before are going to be facing unintended pregnancy, faulty relationships torn up by sexual guilt, and possibly health problems from not responding to your body’s signals for healthy amounts of sexual release.  Nor are people who act out sexually going to be helped by this.  Framing sex as some problem to be conquered instead of looking at your problems in a more holistic way strikes me as a really bad idea. 

 

------

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 12:53 PM • (108) Comments

What’s moderate levels of “sexing”?  Is there “binge sexing”?

I have problems with this sort of rhetoric even when it’s linked to legitimately addictive substances, because the definitions seem so arbitrary and, well, the standards are set really low. I remember when I saw the definition of binge drinking and saying to myself, “that’s an afternoon after work at the brewery” (when I worked at one). So what would “binge sexing” look like? I shudder to think. The average person’s masturbatory habits would probably get them thrown into some sort of “at risk” pool.

Comment #1: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  01/03  at  01:20 PM

Oh yeah, sex advice columnists get upset emails from people who think they are “addicts” because they masturbate every day. Not all day or anything.  Just, they spend 5 minutes a day masturbating.  I swear to god, we’re going to hear about how people are “shit addicts” because they have daily bowel movements.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  01:22 PM

To be safe I’ve asked him to buy condoms but since we both realized we are doing it too much, he says we aren’t going to do it anyway so why have them. Well then he comes over and we wind up doing it without a condom.

There’s quite a bit of bad boyfrined locked in that little chunk too - he announced that they’re not going to have sex, so he doesn’t buy condoms, even when asked (and probably repeatedly) and then blames sex addiction for having to do it anyway.  Ugly stuff - and I wonder what’s disguised in that “we wind up doing it without a condom” line.

Comment #3: Billingham  on  01/03  at  01:29 PM

But all that’s going to happen here is that people who may not have had sexual dysfunction before are going to be facing unintended pregnancy, faulty relationships torn up by sexual guilt, and possibly health problems from not responding to your body’s signals for healthy amounts of sexual release.

Of course, as far as right-wing and other sick-fuck woman-hating skeezbag prudes are concerned, this outcome is TOTAL WIN.

Comment #4: PhysioProf  on  01/03  at  01:34 PM

Part of the problem is that good ol’ American Puritanism (actually, Victorianism) that says that if you enjoy something, you must be enjoying it too much.  Which leads to people feeling guilty about doing something they enjoy, which leads to them trying to restrict it, which leads to binging behavior, which leads them to feeling guilty about it .... and around and around we go.

The other part of the problem is that, on a societal level, I don’t think we really believe that addictions exist.  Sure, we pay a lot of lip service to it and make lots of TV movies about it, but like all mental illnesses, unless it’s something that people have experienced for themselves, most people think it’s just weakness or whining or excuse-making.  To use an extreme mental-health example, look at how many people refused to believe that Andrea Yates was mentally ill even after she killed her children.  She “must have” known what she was doing because shut up, that’s why.

Comment #5: Mnemosyne  on  01/03  at  01:37 PM

The whole “sex addiction” concept has always miffed me a bit.  It seems like a whinging exercise for people who like to deny this whole idea that people have a natural urge to have sex and, *gasp*, like it.

To me it like trying to say someone has a food addiction. “Three meals a day and a snack! Your addicted!”

Sure you can overindulge (thanksgiving/ all day sex sessions that leave you walking bowlegged*) and you can make bad decisions (living off bacon double cheeseburgers/ cheating in a monogamous relationship) but that doesn’t make you an addict.  More importantly a few moments of weakness does not make you a bad person, which is what I think this is really about.  Weak people are bad people, so a “sex addict” is someone they can feel free to judge for their sexual behaviour.  It just so happens that “addicts” are those engaged in any behaviours that they don’t agree with.

* Which personally I don’t mind.

Comment #6: hypatia  on  01/03  at  01:42 PM

The term “addiction” is not even used in the DSM-IV.  There are diagnoses for substance abuse (continued use in spite of adverse consequences) and substance dependence (characterized by increased tolerance over time and withdrawal symptoms if the substance use is stopped abruptly).  In both cases, the criteria at least try to be objective, observable, and consistent.  Also, please note that these terms are only applied to substance (including alcohol) use.  Problematic behaviors are usually framed as problems of impulse control (such as pathological gambling or kleptomania) compulsive behavior (OCD, etc.), or sexual paraphilias (pedophilia, frottuerism, etc.).  There are limitations to these diagnoses, but they all contain the proviso that the behaviors must cause significant social or occupational dysfunction.  “Some guy told me that I have an addiction” is not considered a valid clinical criterion.

Just the perspective of a professional therapist.

Comment #7: Captain Bathrobe  on  01/03  at  01:46 PM

I think comparing it to “food addiction” is really the best way to see how ridiculous “sed addiction” is.  People are addicted to sex the same way we’re addicted to food - we’re hardwired to enjoy it, and lots of it at that, because like eating, sex is necessary for the propagation of our species.

And unlike, say, being addicted to cocaine, having too much sex with a clean partner has only one risk (pregnancy), a risk that can be avoided pretty easily at that.  Beyond that, you might get kinda sore after a while.

Dr. Drew’s a prick, for this and so many other reasons.

Comment #8: Ferox  on  01/03  at  01:47 PM

The real frame should be “who does or can this hurt and why”, and deal with that.  For the young teen, pregnancy is the issue to be dealt with, not her having sex and enjoying it. 

Which is why I make condoms available for my teen son.  Sex is a natural part of life - enjoy it responsibly!

Comment #9: Ms Kate  on  01/03  at  01:52 PM

Ferox:

Exactly.  There are eating disorders listed in the DSM-IV, but only because they can cause social or occupational dysfunction—or, in the case of anorexia or bulimia, significant health problems or death.  Although, as Amanda said, there are compulsive and problematic sexual behaviors, it seems that the main criterion for having a so-called sex addiction is that the behavior makes someone like Dr. Drew uncomfortable.

Comment #10: Captain Bathrobe  on  01/03  at  01:56 PM

“Addiction” is probably the most abused medical concept in America today.  You cannot be “addicted to sex (or gambling, or video games, etc.), which is a biological dependence on a chemical substance like alcohol or cocaine.  You can, however, have a very high sex drive, which is not necessarily a bad, though it can get you in trouble if you do not exercise a bit of discretion (I know from experience).  As you say, this application of the model is a cover for prudery and is only applied to things people disapprove of.  You never hear anyone talk about an “addiction” to work or cleanliness or religion, though there are huge numbers of people who are equally obsessive about those things.

Comment #11: DrDick  on  01/03  at  01:58 PM

it seems that the main criterion for having a so-called sex addiction is that the behavior makes someone like Dr. Drew uncomfortable.

And really, isn’t that the way God intended it?

Comment #12: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  01/03  at  02:00 PM

I’ll eat my left sock if that letter wasn’t a plant by someone far, far older than any number starting with a one.  The level of sophistication on the right-wing rhetoric of “sex addiction” contained in that letter screams out fake - it sounds like someone very adult who wants teenagers to think that all sex is addiction writing to make their point.  Either that, or a parody of that.  Really, what teenager ends a letter like that with “we are just teenagers”??

Comment #13: skylanda  on  01/03  at  02:01 PM

Oh my god, that letter is heartbreaking. She’s young and infatuated - if ever there’s a time to fuck like bunnies, that’s it, but instead she’s apologizing, locked in a passive-aggressive Sex Responsibility War with her boyfriend, and at a completely unnecessary risk for an unwanted pregnancy, among other things.

I know we don’t necessarily use this terminology if we can help it (given that it’s been so thoroughly co-opted by Purity Ball types) but thinking about someone all the time is often a symptom of being in love. Sometimes stupid love, sometimes temporary love, sometimes love that is not the best plan in life. But characterizing being in stupid teenage love as a disease is really pretty sick.

Comment #14: purpleshoes  on  01/03  at  02:01 PM

You never hear anyone talk about an “addiction” to work or cleanliness or religion, though there are huge numbers of people who are equally obsessive about those things.

Huh?  You’ve never heard the term “workaholic”?  That one’s been in common parlance since at least the 1970s.

I admit that I have a different perspective on this than most people right now because we have a mentally ill nephew (16 years old, severely ADHD and probably bipolar) who is addicted to video games.  Not just “oh, he likes video games too much.”  More like, “Plays them until he collapses from exhaustion, refuses to go to school or even shower, and explodes in rage if they’re taken away.”  But because it’s not a “real” addiction, even his psychiatrist didn’t take it seriously and thought that if they were just taken away from him for a short while, my father-in-law could give them back and everything would be fine.  Nope—the kid is worse than ever and is about to be kicked out of the special school for mentally ill kids that he was lucky to get into in the first place.  But, hey, it’s not a real addiction so the fact that he refuses to eat or sleep if he has a game he can play isn’t a real problem, right?

Comment #15: Mnemosyne  on  01/03  at  02:09 PM

“Addiction” is an easy excuse for those who behave badly, and an easy thing to blame for those who wish to judge them in an indirect way.  That’s why it’s so common: it’s self-perpetuating because we (in the general sense) demand it.

It’s rude to call someone a scummy drunk, a junkie, or a slut.  But using the right words, the addict gets this sort of “not responsible” tag that makes him feel better in many instances.  Moral scolds are still using the same methods, but their terminology has changed.  I don’t know if anything is better, but I do know that the way to achieve independence from addiction starts with not reading any book that tells you you’re an addict.  And not listening to moral scolds on the television, radio, or in person.  And not falling for your own bullshit either.  The way to be a better person is to be a better person.  Unless you can stand by your actions, you probably shouldn’t be doing them so much.

A teenager who can’t say no to sex without condoms has a problem and it’s not sex addiction.  Her problem is an inability to stand up for herself.  Sex isn’t the biggest problem.  Being an immature doormat is.

Comment #16: 3letterjon  on  01/03  at  02:25 PM

I’m not sure there’s such a clear bright line between medicine and moralizing. To say that Dr. Drew’s public statements as a medical authority “mask prudery” suggests that there is, and therefore that Dr. D is either stupid or mendacious. But I think it’s more likely that he sincerely believes that he’s practicing impeccable science (and so oddly shares with Amanda the assumption that there is such a thing). Which is much more problematic; i.e., that the the choadery is systemic and epistemic, and will not be undone by calling shame and bullshit on one high-profile practitioner.

Comment #17: wapsie  on  01/03  at  02:27 PM

Poor kid.  I swear, if I ever have kids, especially girls, they are getting many, many talks about sex and as much of whatever kind of birth control they want.  “Not allowed” to be on the pill?! FFS! I bet her parents will be kicking themselves when she tells them she’s pregnant…

Comment #18: Rumblelizard  on  01/03  at  02:27 PM

Let me rephrase that last paragraph:

A teenager who can’t say no to condomless sex has a problem and it’s not sex addiction.  Her problem is an inability to stand up for herself.  Sex isn’t the biggest problem.  Being an immature doormat is.

(Clarity: it’s kinda important sometimes usually.)

Comment #19: 3letterjon  on  01/03  at  02:28 PM

I completely agree that enjoying sex is a healthy activity. But I would like to throw the case of asexual people in the debate. Sometimes it seems to me that all this talk of “sex is a natural drive”, “we are sexual beings”, etc, while true, sometimes also serves, when overly emphasized, to stigmatize people who do not feel sexual attraction toward other people. There are people with no sex drive, and they live perfectly healthy lives. Just as there is nothing (medically, psychologically) wrong with a person who has lots of sex, there is nothing wrong with people who feel no sexual attraction whatsoever / have no sex at all. This is not to say that Amanda’s post or any of the comments are offensive to asexuals, not at all, but I just thought I’d bring up the topic just so we are all more aware of it.

Comment #20: Barefoot  on  01/03  at  02:30 PM

I don’t agree, 3letterjon. There’s a pretty big difference between an alcoholic and someone who loves beer. It’s possible to drink a lot without needing to drink, and pretending that people who need to drink are just refusing to take responsibility is doing them (and society) a huge disservice. There are people who need help to stop doing something, and while the word addict is thrown around too much, it’s equally bad to suggest there are no addicts. Personal responsibility doesn’t solve everything.

That said, this poor girl certainly isn’t an addict, and I hope the columnist told her so. I can’t judge whether the boy is an asshole or just as tied up in knots by his school, parents, or church as she is. But I suspect they both have problems with believing what the adults around them have said.

Comment #21: Av0gadro  on  01/03  at  02:31 PM

But, hey, it’s not a real addiction so the fact that he refuses to eat or sleep if he has a game he can play isn’t a real problem, right?

It’s not an addiction, but it’s a real problem.  He needs better meds and quickly.  He’s obsessive and his brain chemistry is out of whack—and those are real problems.

You’ve already seen that taking the games away “cold turkey” doesn’t fix the situation, and that’s b/c it’s not the games that’s the problem.  If his parents threw away the system, he’d find something else to obsess over b/c his brain chemistry is not normal and not being properly addressed.

I’d fire the pshrink who didn’t think it was a real problem and look for a more competent one who will try meds till they find the right combination that works.  Once his brain is in a better place, he’ll be able to respond to therapy; until then, he’s probably not physically capable of controlling his behavior or even thinking rationally about it at all.

It’s real.  But calling it an “addiction” doesn’t address the real issue or start to fix it.  I wish your nephew all the luck in the world.  With the right meds, bipolar kids can function.  Without them, it’s a nightmare.

—————-
As for this poor girl, the proper advice is to tell her jerkwad boyfriend that if he loves her, he’ll buy the fucking condoms and wear them.  If he’s unwilling to prevent a pregnancy that will ruin her life, then he’s not worth fucking at all.

Her current method of withdrawal and denial will not work for long.

Of course, it’s just much more fun to call her a slut and shame her for a natural sex drive.

Comment #22: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  01/03  at  02:41 PM

I admit that I have a different perspective on this than most people right now because we have a mentally ill nephew (16 years old, severely ADHD and probably bipolar) who is addicted to video games.

No, I suspect you have a mentally ill nephew who is mentally ill, not “addicted to video games.”

But, that’s fine. I’m sure that it’s perfectly reasonable to construe video games as being addictive whereas sex is not. Why, I’m sure absolutely none of the arguments against sex addiction would apply to video games, at all.

Comment #23: Chet  on  01/03  at  02:53 PM

The thing to remember is that much of what appears to be addiction is self-medication of a sort—I’ve heard upwards of 90% of schizophrenics are heavy smokers, for example. And “sex addiction”, to me, just means “compulsively nonmonogamous”—if you’re going to sleep around while in a committed relationship, make sure your partner is okay with it, and having a lot of sex with just one partner is perfectly normal. I will say this: someone should be telling this girl to buy her own condoms if her boyfriend won’t.

Comment #24: BrianX  on  01/03  at  03:18 PM

his brain chemistry is out of whack

Haven’t there been studies proving that addiction is related to brain chemistry being out of whack?

The most famous, of course, is Dr. Drew, who seems to think female sexual desire that isn’t properly contained by his own exacting standards is always the result of sexual abuse.

It’s certainly scummy if Dr. Drew pulls this all the time, but you can’t deny that many women who were sexually abused act out sexually, and not for their own pleasure.  What are the stats on the number of prostitutes and women in porn who were sexually abused as children?  Sexual abuse seems to have the unparalleled ability to make victims have extremely fucked up attitudes toward sex, leading them to thinking that having painful sex all day in front of a camera with ten different people is no big deal.

Comment #25: keshmeshi  on  01/03  at  03:30 PM

The other part of the problem is that, on a societal level, I don’t think we really believe that addictions exist. 

Honestly, that’s part of the reason the word is applied to everything, because people use the term “addiction” as a cross between a moral judgment and a “get out of jail free” card.  Not all, of course—-there are absolutely drug addicts in this world.  But real addicts are not helped by this rapidly expanding definition of what an addict is, because, like you said, it defuses the term and makes it about moral judgments and hostility to pleasure and less about looking at someone’s actual mental illness.

Comment #26: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  03:34 PM

kesh, there’s a real problem with uncomplicatedly linking sexual abuse and acting out.  A lot of women who are sexually abused actually recover quite nicely, thank you very much.  But Dr. Drew is reinforcing the notion that sexual abuse means that, from the day it happens forward, every sexual decision you make is unhealthy.  A lot of so-called “acting out” isn’t actually that unhealthy, you know.  Many rape victims do change their sexual decision-making, and maybe even become “promiscuous”, because they’re reclaiming their body.  And that may actually be a healthy choice, even if it flies in the face of expectations for women, which is that they see sex strictly as a means to romance, etc.

Comment #27: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  03:37 PM

Thanks, Captain Bathrobe!  Your points are really helpful for clarifying my own aversion to this whole thing.

Comment #28: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  03:39 PM

Mnemosyne: what Caren said. I’ve gone through periods of similar behavior - if I’m not taking ADHD meds or if I’m mildly depressed, and there’s a videogame around, I’ll quickly descend into compulsive playing all night, way way past the point where I’m enjoying the game at all. It just happens to be a very good fit for a certain kind of hyperfocus that’s common in ADHD; the limited movement, sensory focus, and constant feedback of the game makes it a thing I can do at times when I feel like I want to do something but also feel unable to face any tasks of regular life. So, basically, my solution is to stick with my meds and therapy and generally be aware of my state of mind, and meanwhile don’t keep videogames around. If they’re not around, then it may be compulsive reading of blogs or just plain reading, but those don’t happen to be quite as good a fit. In any case, the real problem is an unrelieved mental irritation in search of release.

Of course the same is true of a lot of drug addiction, too - the physical dependency and the nature of the drug itself are sometimes not as big a factor as whatever it is in the person’s life that feels unbearable and leads them to self-medicate - which is why I wouldn’t trust any shrink who thought a compulsive behavior of any kind could be treated by taking one particular thing away “for a little while”.

Comment #29: Hob  on  01/03  at  03:42 PM

Skylanda: I also got a hinky feeling from that letter, but you never know - I wrote some weird-sounding stuff too when I was a teenager on the Internet trying to sound/be mature. The columnist did the right thing by answering it seriously.

Comment #30: Hob  on  01/03  at  03:44 PM

I completely agree that enjoying sex is a healthy activity. But I would like to throw the case of asexual people in the debate.

That’s the easiest question today, Barefoot.  Sex drive is normal, but it’s a continuum, not a line.  There’s people who don’t want it ever, there’s people who want it every chance they get, and there’s people who are between them on that continuum; to be on the continuum is “normal”.  Asexuals aren’t any more in need of therapy than the people derided as “addicts”.

And count me in on the BS-callout on the fact that things that involve crushing people or bending them to your social, religious or economic will don’t seem to get called “addictions”: people who pray or go to church frequently, people who buy companies, break them up and lay off the workers and route out the profits; people who want every bit of grass at exactly the same length as per HOA regs; people who run for office and revel in the power of it; people who can think of nothing but gutting public safety laws ... none of these freaks are ever called “addicts”, even though the term applies to them every bit as much as somebody who just wants to get laid as often as they can.

Comment #31: seeker6079  on  01/03  at  03:48 PM

I’m fairly certain that Heather is quite aware of conservatives phishing.  I can’t imagine someone who gets it more than Scarleteen.  But it doesn’t really do much to change the answer, I’m guessing.  The truth is the truth—-being a really horny teenager isn’t the problem, but not using condoms or rushing into sex is.

Comment #32: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  03:49 PM

Av0gadro,

It doesn’t matter if we call alcoholism an addiction or a chemical dependency or a moral failure or a curse from the wee folk, what matters is that the alcoholic change problematic behavior toward something less harmful.  Whether there are addicts or not doesn’t take away from the fact that the person with a real problem needs to do some work to make problem behavior less of a problem.  If the framework of addiction works, then that’s great.  But it still comes down to someone needing to make responsible actions.

I’m not denying that chemical dependency is a very real problem, but the solution still comes down to someone having the willpower to not continue destructive behavior.  Without that, all the best programs and treatments and pharmaceutical products in the world will always fail.

Comment #33: 3letterjon  on  01/03  at  03:51 PM

keshmeshi:
To argue by analogy, look at crime and race.  Were we talking that Dr Drew would be in the “all black people are criminals, so it’s okay to harass and arrest them” category. 

There’s a difference between acknowledging that a reality exists (i.e. some sexually abused people are often so cruelly damaged that they gravitate towards sex-intensive behaviour) and blanket assumptions (viz Dr Drew, that all people who engage in sexually intensive behaviour can be labelled as damaged).

Comment #34: seeker6079  on  01/03  at  03:51 PM

Mnem, your nephew’s behavior sounds really frustrating.  I think I have to agree that the first thing to do is change therapists and find one who takes this shit seriously.  I’ve known people with OCD or ADHD that have gone undiagnosed for all sorts of weird reasons.  If that’s what’s wrong with your nephew, then there’s a lot of hope—-I’ve definitely seen same people get it under control when they found the right therapy.

Comment #35: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  03:55 PM

Brian she can buy them, but if her bf is resisting buying them, what’s his reaction going to be if she goes and buys them?  It’s really heartbreaking but what this young woman might need is a stronger sense of self so that she can feel that there is nothing wrong with HER buying condoms, and that it’s a smart decision to end a sexual relationship with a man who won’t wear them.  I get so freaked out by all of the messages out there for young girls.  I have scarlett teen bookmarked for my niece, but I’m not sure if she’s too young yet?  She’s 11.  When I found out that her mom had bought her all the twilight books (her mom reads them and loves them) I put the video of buffy throwing edward out of the window that I got off of Jezebel on her fb page.  She loved it!  And that was encouraging. 

But it’s really scary the messages they are getting everywhere.

Comment #36: JennyLI  on  01/03  at  04:00 PM

Hmm…I actually know someone who has been seeing a psychiatrist for, among other things, what the psychiatrist calls “hypersexuality.”  Basically this person has completely destroyed his own life more than once by pursuing sexual behavior at the expense of his job, his family, his finances, etc.  I can’t say anything about “sex addiction,” that isn’t a phrase his psychiatrist uses, but I think it’s kind of strange to pooh-pooh the idea that a person can have a psychological problem with self- and other-destructive behavior that is real and genuine, just because in that person’s case, the behavior is sexual.  My understanding is that the “hypersexuality” that my friend displays isn’t a mental illness in of itself; it is a symptom of one, in his case most likely bipolar I disorder (according to his psychiatrist).  I would watch it with the armchair diagnoses that seem to be vigorously being dispensed here, though.

Comment #37: Lisa KS  on  01/03  at  04:13 PM

Mnemosyne -

Your nephew has obsessive/compulsive issues as a consequence of his neurological disorders, but he is not “addicted.”  I also have OCD issues owing to having tourette’s syndrome.  It is important not to confuse these with addiction or with other, less pathological, obsessive behaviors.  My point is that we tend to define obsessions that we do not approve of as “addictions,” which has clear pejorative connotations in our culture, rather than using more neutral terms.  There are people who are obsessive collectors of almost anything imaginable or who are obsessive followers of particular musical groups (The Grateful Dead and Phish come to mind) and, while we may shake our heads and think them strange, we do not pathologize them or use such prejudicial terms to describe their behavior.  Most sexually obsessive people are really more like these last two examples.

Comment #38: DrDick  on  01/03  at  04:49 PM

having too much sex with a clean partner has only one risk (pregnancy), a risk that can be avoided pretty easily at that

And pregnancy is only a possibility if 1) the couple is heterosexual, 2) neither is infertile, and 3) the have PIV intercourse.


You never hear anyone talk about an “addiction” to work or cleanliness or religion

Well, there is the term “workaholic”, I think that would classify. But, aside from depictions of “germaphobes” and other stereotpical depictions of people with OCD, I can’t recall ever seeing/hearing about an “addiction to cleanliness”. And in both those cases it’s made clear that it’s only a problem because the behavior is disruptive to affected people’s lives.

The closest I’ve ever seen to a mention of a “religion addiction” is an offhand comment made by Brass in an episode of CSI, about former drug addict turned devout christian.  (It’s the 5th season episode “Big Middle” if anyone was wondering. )

Comment #39: Ruby  on  01/03  at  04:56 PM

OT - did anyone read Katie Rophie’s cover piece in the NY Times book review this morning?  Just finished it and that’s ten minutes I’ll never get back.  On the plus side it reminded me that it’s been far too long (college) since I’ve read Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics, and how bowled over I was by it then.  I just ordered a copy of it and am looking forward to a reread.

Comment #40: JennyLI  on  01/03  at  04:59 PM

AngieScarlett, I looked at the diagram/illustration accompanying that article, and thought, “WTF?”  As I was saying out loud, “The NYT Book Review is comparing sex in—” and my wife interjected, “It’s by Katie Roiphe.”  Suddenly, it all made sense.  And I didn’t need to read even a word of it.

Comment #41: Pesto  on  01/03  at  05:14 PM

Lisa KS, Amanda specifically did not “pooh-pooh the idea that a person can have a psychological problem with self- and other-destructive behavior that is real and genuine, just because in that person’s case, the behavior is sexual.”

From the post:

Of course, people invested in the idea of “sex addiction” are going to erect straw man arguments, accusing you of saying there’s no such thing as people who act out sexually, people who use compulsive sexual behaviors to self-soothe, etc.  No one is saying that, of course.

Amanda is saying that some people certainly do engage in destructive, compulsive, etc. sexual behavior.  But “sex addict” isn’t a good way of talking about it.  There’s a reason your friend’s psychiatrist doesn’t use that phrase.  See Captain Bathrobe’s comment #7:

The term “addiction” is not even used in the DSM-IV.  There are diagnoses for substance abuse (continued use in spite of adverse consequences) and substance dependence (characterized by increased tolerance over time and withdrawal symptoms if the substance use is stopped abruptly).  In both cases, the criteria at least try to be objective, observable, and consistent.  Also, please note that these terms are only applied to substance (including alcohol) use.  Problematic behaviors are usually framed as problems of impulse control (such as pathological gambling or kleptomania) compulsive behavior (OCD, etc.), or sexual paraphilias (pedophilia, frottuerism, etc.).  There are limitations to these diagnoses, but they all contain the proviso that the behaviors must cause significant social or occupational dysfunction.

Amanda’s point is that talking about “sex addiction” implies that having or desiring frequent sex, in and of itself, is disordered, even if it is not causing distress to you or others.  “Sex addiction,” in the usage she’s discussing, likens any desire for sex, in and of itself, to the desire for a drug that happens when you are going through withdrawal.  Healthy people would never want sex at all.

This, of course, is silly.  It is healthy and normal to have a sex drive, to want sex, even to want sex frequently.  That does not constitute “addiction.”

People who think sex is inherently bad want to push the meme that sexual desire is inherently unhealthy.  That’s why this teenage girl thinks that wanting to have sex with her boyfriend is dangerous, addictive behavior.

Comment #42: snowmentality  on  01/03  at  05:15 PM

Pesto - if only I had been so clever as you!  smile

Comment #43: JennyLI  on  01/03  at  05:20 PM

I think this needs to get sliced differently, because the original advice column letter is a really poor one for a sweeping condemnation of the idea of sexual addiction.

I agree that a horny teenager is absolutely not an addict, and certainly, there is nothing but normal hormones apparent from the letter.

I agree that the claim of addiction, especially with sex, and especially regarding women, is often, if not damn near always, a thinly disguised moralizing and shaming situation, and that as it usually comes up, is dangerous for all the reasons people listed.

And okay, maybe “addiction” isn’t the best literal term for it, but I suspect that has a lot to do with the fact that there are people with genuine issues who successfully use the 12 step program to deal with them, raising at least a parallel to addiction that is easy to misuse.

But reading through the answers, next to nobody has even acknowledged that there are, in fact, people who have serious problems, life-damaging problems, with compulsively acting out sexually. And it does those people a huge disservice to make the kinds of irresponsible sweeping claims that people are making here.

The absolute statements here about “sex addiction is BS” and “this is just nonmonogamy” or such like are, because they are absolutes, wrong.

Just like the fact that the large majority of people who enjoy a drink, even frequently, are not alcoholics, it’s true that most people don’t have an sort of dysfunctional sexuality, beyond the fact that is is more vibrant or adventurous or frequent than they think they are supposed to want.

But other people really do have clinically life-damaging relationships with sex, and actually do need medical, chemical, or psychological assistance to live lives that work for them. Let’s not claim otherwise.

Comment #44: Lymis  on  01/03  at  05:26 PM

Hob: yeah, I agree she did a very good job at answering - whether or not the letter was real.  And certainly, there are plenty of girls in the position of trying to get their dudes to use condoms who could use some good advice from Scarlateen, so good for her for tackling it.  The letter still sounds, to agree with your word choice, totally hinky to me.

Re: sex addiction.  I do believe, with some too many billions of people on the planet, that someone out there has managed to get themselves addicted to sex.  In the same dopamine-driven, dysfunctional way that someone else has gotten themselves addicted to gambling.  This rare reality does NOT preclude the religious right from trotting out the inane idea that everyone from Bill Clinton to Tiger Woods to this teenage girl are sex addicts.  Many people are dysfunctional in the way they deal with sex; many just freakin’ like it - it’s the business of many therapists (nevermind the likes of Dan Savage) to sort the former from the latter.  Everyone can come up with an exception that is probably real; that exception does not make every randy teenager, prostitute-visiting professional, and garden-variety horndog an addict to anything.  And for damn sure, the cure for a “sex addiction” is not to be found with the likes of Dr. Drew.

Comment #45: skylanda  on  01/03  at  05:31 PM

Lymis, people did acknowledge that, and they pointed out, especially Captain Bathrobe, that these people aren’t particularly helped by the moralizing rhetoric of “sex addiction”.

Comment #46: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  05:45 PM

Also, that sex can be performed in ways that destroy is exactly the sort of hazy thing that “sex addiction” proponents use to smuggle in anti-sex attitudes.  A man who abandons the marital bed to spend all his time masturbating is usually called a “sex addict”, but obviously, he’s got a very specific problem and probably an unhappy marriage he’s avoiding.  But making it about sex and the evils of pornography is a way to *avoid* talking about the real problems.

Comment #47: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  05:48 PM

Let’s not forget the macro: “sex addiction” BS approaches are just one component of the unguided but pervasive attempt to pathologize each and every single facet of human behaviour and shove everything into Therapy Land.

Comment #48: seeker6079  on  01/03  at  06:02 PM

The response to the kid’s letter at RH Reality Check struck me as WAY too long to be useful. I doubt a teenager would get through it all.

Comment #49: perlstein  on  01/03  at  06:02 PM

he’s practicing impeccable science (and so oddly shares with Amanda the assumption that there is such a thing).

What a profoundly misguided statement, born out of the incorrect belief that science is a dogma, like religion, one that states desires as if they were truth, and gets pissy as a defense when challenged.  Sure, scientists can be human beings who make mistakes or defend indefensible viewpoints.  But “science” isn’t “impeccable”, or any other adjective born from mistaking science for religion.  Science is a method.  A method.  It relies on empirical evidence, and in complete contrast to your beliefs about it, science is about setting out to disprove ideas, to seek holes in theories, and to learn more.  It is the opposite of religion, which is based on creating truth claims out of desire, and defending them with rationalizations that purposefully set out to obscure the evidence against them.

So, you have it backwards.  And therefore misunderstand the disagreement between Dr. Drew and myself/other skeptics of “sex addiction”.  He is making a truth claim.  We are pointing out the holes.  If he refuses to see the evidence against his claims, this proves nothing more than Dr. Drew is dogmatic, not that my “impeccable” science beat his.  Seriously, in the real world, there is a great deal of difference over scientific claims, usually because all the evidence isn’t in yet.

Comment #50: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  06:22 PM

I really just don’t understand the profound hostility to science out there.  I get why religious people freak out—-science presents a legitimate threat to religious authority, full stop.  Some religions are adjusting, by learning to get away from truth claims, but it’s still rough, because without the ability to make truth claims, they don’t have much.  But outside of that, why so much hostility?  Science enhances understanding; it doesn’t reduce it.  The hope that those of us who are interested in empirical evidence live unhappy, empty lives doesn’t pan out.  We realize you can’t empirically demonstrate what makes a good book, a beautiful day, etc. 

But we can use learning to make our lives better.  For instance, research on various therapy methods can and does demonstrate which ones work better, and thus which ones you’re likelier to see results with personally.  Sure, that takes away the guessing and the opportunity for people to make empty claims about “willpower” away, but it replaces it with results.  I’ll take the latter, thank you. 

The hope that people who have embraced scientific explanations of how our minds and bodies work will lose some of the pleasure of those minds and bodies has been demonstrated to be an empty hope.  Because I accept that pleasure means dopamine is rushing through my brain in no way deprives me of that pleasure, any more than accepting that music has counted out rhythm deprives me of the pleasure of listening to it.  Believe me; I just spent a couple days with some scientist buds of mine, and one has a tendency to make jokes about how, if you express a feeling, it’s working in your brain (what hormones are on the move, what specific neurons are firing), and no one—-no one—-felt he was dismissing their feelings as inauthentic. 

I suspect a lot of hostility is due to the fear that you may not know as much as you think you know.  But for those of us with a genuine interest in science, this fear amounts to nothing.  As in all things, learning more is a good unto itself, and if it highlights some ignorance you have, then it inspires you to do nothing more than learn more. 

Can “science” make mistakes?  Scientists can and do, all the time, sure.  Which is why claims about “impeccable” science are so silly!  I can’t think of anyone who denies that scientists are human and error prone, or that measurements are inexact and so different scientists have different ideas about what is true, even if both are relatively free of having a dog in whatever fight it is.  It’s why scientists use terms like “theory” and avoid saying “prove” in order to say “demonstrate”—-unless they are maintaining that further evidence could disprove their theory, they aren’t practicing science.

Comment #51: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/03  at  06:39 PM

Obsessive/compulsive behavior is a better label than “addiction” for things like this. It can center around germs/cleanliness, symmetry, sex, to mention a few. It IS a pathology if the person wants to stop certain behaviors, knows the behaviors are harmful to self or relationships, may want to stop but is compelled to continue anyway, or if the person can’t stop thinking about something (such as sex or germs) to the detriment of work or other responsibilities, relationships, or having fun.

Just because some people have problems like this doesn’t mean that the vast majority of people who like a lot of sex (or clean countertops, or symmetrical arrangements) should stop. The vast majority of people who don’t have a problem with sex (or cleanliness, or symmetry) don’t negate the fact that a few people have problems.

Almost every facet of human behavior can be pushed to a place where it is problematical and in need of treatment. If too many of the following are answered, “no” consistently over a period of time, I think most people would believe there is a need for treatment.  Is the person happy? Is the person keeping self and others out of dangerous situations? Does the person have good relationships? Is the person able to fulfill his/her responsibilities? Is the person able to enjoy the things that have previously been enjoyable?

Comment #52: Alix  on  01/03  at  07:17 PM

What about the ‘sexual addiction’ of husbands who’s porn stash has been discovered by their wifes?
- My husband’s been ‘fapping’, WAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Always good for a laugh. Pity the guy though…

Comment #53: sirkowski  on  01/03  at  08:16 PM

There are people who are addicted to sex. Claiming that it isn’t so is harmful to the people who are addicted and their families. While I agree that prudes, fundies, and others change the definition of sex addiction to practically anyone who has sex outside of marriage and try to use that concept to control other people’s sexuality, please don’t disappear the people who are actually dealing with the real thing.

If you’ve got questions, there are bloggers who are living with this problem. Try checking out:

http://aroomofmamasown.com/

Comment #54: wondering  on  01/03  at  09:00 PM

I really just don’t understand the profound hostility to science out there.  I get why religious people freak out—-science presents a legitimate threat to religious authority, full stop.

The difference between a paradigm designed to evaluate whether something is true or not, and a paradigm where “truth” is an unquestionable declaration or questionable only within certain limits.

Comment #55: Ms Kate  on  01/03  at  09:18 PM

I feel like bitching about what Love Line does and does not provide as a sex education program is like bitching about what The Daily Show does and does not provide as a news program. While neither show is intended to be a public service, or an education, both serve this role in our society - primarily because of weaknesses in the news programs and sex ed programs that are supposed to provide “serious” education and fail to.

Love Line is generally sex-positive, offers reasonable information about safe sex (not just PIV, either), masturbation, relationships, blameless homosexuality, and also about different types of drug and alcohol use and abuse. Adam and Drew aren’t progressives, and I have heard plenty of anti-feminist and otherwise stupid things said on the program, but we ARE talking about a show that has a nightly musical guest and regularly entertains questions about such stimulating topics as masturbating 5 times a day (because you are 14) and the verb “to felch.”

Would I prefer that ever kid get a link to Scarleteen on their 11th birthday? Yes! A hundred times, yes! But growing up in a poor Catholic neighborhood in Los Angeles with no sex-positive sources of information on my body and the way it was changing, Adam and Drew were a light in the impenetrable twilight of silent parents and bitter priests and nuns. Dismissing Love Line out of hand because it’s not sex-positive ENOUGH is a serious baby/bathwater situation.

My solution: Amanda or Pam guest-stars on Love Line. Everyone wins.

Comment #56: Seize  on  01/03  at  09:31 PM

Try checking out:

That blog is almost exactly what Amanda is talking about, though - someone co-opting the language of “sex addiction” to de-legitimize someone else’s sexual behavior.

Comment #57: Chet  on  01/03  at  09:42 PM

So you think 11 is a good age to start a girl on Scarleteen?

Comment #58: JennyLI  on  01/03  at  10:19 PM

Sure, you can get addicted to nearly anything, our brains are adaptive that way.

However… That letter doesn’t describe addiction.  It describes stupidity.  ARGH.  It’s like the Repubs who think that because someone doesn’t have money they won’t get sick, or somesuch nonsense logic.

Pack some damn condoms.  Get the pill.  You like the guy, you like sex with him, be prepared.  What’s the problem?  Are you having sex instead of meeting your parents or driving your child to the doctor?  No?  Then you aren’t acting like an addict.  Calling it addiction is stupid.  It’s not.  You’re into the guy and like sex.  It’s perfectly what your body was designed for.

Some of us have to get off on far more elaborate and cerebral feats.  Count yourself lucky!

Comment #59: Crissa  on  01/03  at  10:23 PM

The people on Sex Rehab seemed to have legitimate problems (and they all has histories of horrid abuse). I never felt Dr. Drew was telling them sex was wrong.

Comment #60: Laureli  on  01/03  at  10:31 PM

PS, condoms are too damn expensive.  This wouldn’t be such a big argument if they didn’t cost so damn much.

Comment #61: Crissa  on  01/03  at  10:32 PM

One friend of mine had a purely instrumental definition of “addiction”—you may quibble with the label, but I think the concept he was describing is an important one: “You’re not getting the results you want, but you keep doing it anyway.” (He was describing his own younger tendency to shoot whatever crap someone handed him into his veins.) Ignoring false consciousness for the moment, I think this is a pretty good description of “a <whatever> problem.” Drugs, drinking, sex, housecleaning, hours at work, doesn’t really matter.

And lost in the discussion, I think, is Amanda’s point that the people the prudes are labeling as addicts are often getting exactly the results they want.

Comment #62: paul  on  01/03  at  11:00 PM

I’d just like to point out to 3letterjon that most teenaged girls are doormats at times, especially when it comes to boyfriends, because society tells girls they are supposed to please others, not kick up a fuss, etc.

That’s one reason guys who like really young women are so creepy. A 28 year old is as beautiful as an 18 year old, even by ageist standards, BUT a 28 year old woman knows her own mind and won’t be pushed around as easily.

By blaming a teenaged girl for being a doormat, you are victim blaming. The Patriarchy makes girls doormats. Experience makes women learn better.

Comment #63: Samantha Vimes  on  01/03  at  11:22 PM

I think Dr. Drew is completely immoral, and that the media’s obsession with labeling everything as sexual addiction does have a lot to do with puritanism, as Amanda says.  I also agree that the term ‘addiction’ is unfortunate as it suggests a substance basis to the behavior that doesn’t seem quite right.

However, I am the survivor of pretty horrific sexual abuse (my dad) and have now spent years listening to stories of other abuse survivors.  I should say that the people I work with are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, who usually had no support or help until they contacted the org I’m involved in.  This is a different group from say, a young woman who is raped in college (though there can be overlap of course…)

Reacting by being either sexually compulsive or aversive (or alternating between the two) is a classical symptom of a child sexual abuse survivor who never had the space to heal.  Of course, some (lots) of people are asexual or have strong sex drives - but this is not what these terms refer to.

And there is about 0 literature/research on how to deal with that.  There are gazillions of books on sexual abuse, and there are gazillions of books on sex, but there are exactly TWO books on healing sexually from sexual abuse.  TWO!!!  And that’s pretty much reflected in the world of therapists.  Sexual abuse therapists who are otherwise really good aren’t terribly good at empowering people to explore their sexualities, while sex therapists aren’t really good at dealing with

The fact is, there’s eagerness out there for help for sexual dysfunction.  And you can’t find that help in the sex-positive community, because they generally can’t handle issues like that; and you can’t find it among therapists, because they often have the same baggage about sex everyone else has (I’m generalizing, OF COURSE).  The writers of those two books I mentioned make the same point, BTW.

I actually went to a support group for sexual addiction.  Those groups often support both ‘sexual addicts’, and people like me, to whom any idea of touch is horrific.  I’m the opposite.  I guess in the olden days I would have been called frigid, or a prude (I did get called that more than once, still).  This group was the first forum IN MY LIFE where I could discuss my issues with sex openly.  There were a couple of guys there who seemed to be using the group to excuse their infidelity, but most people there were genuinely trying to find a forum to talk about their darkest issues related to sex, and really, there’s no forum to do that.  So if this idea is doing harm, it’s also doing good.

I also want to add, since Amanda is so passionate about how women who want ‘too much’ sex are stigmatized - women who don’t want sex are ALSO made to feel marginalized.  ESPECIALLY among liberals.  There’s a lot of pressure to have sex early (for me) in a relationship, before I, personally, am ready.  And you won’t believe the number of liberal friends who suggested that I look for someone a little more politically conservatives/religious because of that.  Or suggest that I first get over my issues through therapy before I date because I can’t expect to date and not have sex.  I also once made the mistake of answering the question of ‘when did you have your first orgasm’ by saying ‘never’.  I got a lot of advice that I didn’t at all ask for (I was answering a question, not complaining).  I have to say, I see a little bit of that ‘prude-shaming’ in the discussion here.

Anyway, it’s complicated.  Sorry for the long rant.

Comment #64: Lurker  on  01/03  at  11:28 PM

How science doesn’t work.

Comment #65: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  01/03  at  11:43 PM

Thank you for the kind words, Amanda.  I think the take-away point is that the term “addiction” is a rather imprecise one, which, I believe, is why the DSM-IV avoids its use.  When applied to any behavior other than substance abuse, the addiction model should properly be viewed as a metaphor, not a strict definition.  It’s a metaphor that has it’s uses, to be sure, but its overuse in pop psychology doesn’t do anyone any favors.

Comment #66: Captain Bathrobe  on  01/04  at  12:01 AM

I have to say, I see a little bit of that ‘prude-shaming’ in the discussion here.

where?

Comment #67: jadehawk  on  01/04  at  12:03 AM

Jadehawk:

I was being a little facetious with the ‘prude-shaming’ – just trying to explain how it makes me feel.  I guess the sin of ‘prude-shaming’ is a sin of omission – assuming that everyone likes sex and constructing a society around it.  It’s not as bad as slut-shaming because nobody makes me feel like I’m going to burn in hell for being a prude.  However, I am made to feel abnormal (in a bad way, not in ‘diversity’ way), I am made to feel that I can’t date until I’m able to fuck within the first week or max. month like any other normal person, I’m constantly reminded that I’m missing out on one of the greatest pleasures of life (as if I didn’t miss out on enough just by growing up w. a sexually abusive father) without ever being offered or showed how to stop missing out on it.

I’m not trying to say anyone is INTENTIONALLY trying to make people like me feel shitty, but that’s the end result – hence ‘prude-shaming’. 

First of all, lots of people are using the word Prude right and left, instead of the words like Puritan or Victorian.  Prude is a word people used – and still use – against women who don’t want to have sex with them, while Puritan actually describes some sort of world view.  Like I said, I’ve heard it enough.  Do the mental exercise- imagine this was a Christianist site and you switched prude with slut.  You’d be offended, right?

Another example - “we’re hardwired to enjoy it, and lots of it at that, because like eating, sex is necessary for the propagation of our species” (Ferox).  Why is that any better than some evolutionary psychologist’s claim that men are hardwired for infidelity and women to monogamy?  Ferox could have just said that a lot of people like sex.

This is slightly tangential to your question but I also really resent the idea that sex is inherently good, any more than sex is inherently bad.  It invalidates the fact that sex is so often used with terrible consequences, or at least it tells those people to shut up about it and keep it between themselves and their therapist.

And if your retort to this is that I’m being too sensitive and not having sex is protected and a given, I would remind you that for a very long time women were not allowed to determine with who and when they would have sex. 

Look, I’m not advocating for a world without sex, but just for a world where we can talk honestly about sex.  Most people say that, but they usually mean talking honestly about sexual pleasure.  What I mean is talking honestly about sexual pleasure, sexual lack of pleasure, sexual abuse – All of these things.  And I’m advocating it for very selfish reasons - I want to heal, and find that there is very little room for that in the world we exist in, even now that I’m surrounded by friends who share my progressive values and respect for human dignity.

Comment #68: Lurker  on  01/04  at  01:18 AM

we’re hardwired to enjoy it, and lots of it at that, because like eating, sex is necessary for the propagation of our species” (Ferox).  Why is that any better than some evolutionary psychologist’s claim that men are hardwired for infidelity and women to monogamy?  Ferox could have just said that a lot of people like sex.

We’re hard-wired to like it, but like the Panda and perhaps some of our ape relatives, we have to learn how to do it, and obviously you’ve had lots of counterprograming in your life,  but I see nothing to despair about your present condition if you are working on it.

Comment #69: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  01/04  at  03:39 AM

I’m not a fan of the common “sex addiction” model, which I think is largely institutional prudery by another name, but how would you characterize compulsive sexual behavior that leads to adverse consequences in other areas of one’s life?

For instance, I’d hardly jump to calling it “sex addiction” if someone masturbates daily, or even more than once a day.  But what if someone feels compelled to masturbate so frequently that they have literally lost jobs due to excessive tardiness (because they felt like they just had to rub one more off before getting out of bed), or missed other appoitnments because they felt compelled to masturbate at inapprorpriate times, or being regularly fired from jobs for regularly surfing net porn at work?  Or the person who drives themselves into financial bankruptcy because of excessive porn site charges?

I think we may want to call them idiots, but what if they really have a compulsion that they do not know how to control… totally aware of the potential consequences having experienced them in the past, but they still do these things anyway, knowing that they will likely be harming themselves?

Do we call those people idiots?  Weak willed?  Poor deciders?

Comment #70: DTG in STL  on  01/04  at  04:15 AM

You never hear anyone talk about an “addiction” to work or cleanliness or religion, though there are huge numbers of people who are equally obsessive about those things.

For the most part I agree, but surely you’ve heard the word “workaholic” before?

Comment #71: DTG in STL  on  01/04  at  04:20 AM

I think to some extent this discussion is the victim of pop psycho-babble. No, a compulsion or obsession is not the same as “addiction” in the technical sense, but in the public mind they are. Even if we accept the popular definition for the sake of argument, Amanda’s original point—that meddlesome moralists are applying the term to sexual activity merely because they don’t like it—is a strong one. Hijacking a concern for mental and public health for this kind of panty-sniffing prudery dilutes concern for genuine issues.

It’s of a piece with abstinence “education”—make people scared of sex instead of smart about sex—and just as counter-productive.

Comment #72: weirdnoise  on  01/04  at  07:19 AM

SamanthaVimes,

Pointing out that someone is acting like a doormat isn’t blaming the victim, it’s pointing out the victimhood of the victim.  But the question is, will the victim not be a victim any more or will society change (your victimizer of record in this instance is society) and make the victim no longer a victim?

Blaming society is almost as unproductive and pointless as blaming her addiction to sex with her boyfriend.  The girl needs to grow the fuck up whether or not our culture, the patriarchy, you, I, Doctor Drew, the Girls Gone Wild dork, Amanda Marcotte, or even Dick Freaking Cheney do things differently.  She’s got an immediate problem with her immaturity and doormat behavior, whether or not there’s some underlying or overarching social issues involved.  If a victim chooses to be a victim, yeah I’ll throw some blame her way.  Blaming people for stupid actions can be a good thing, even if someone’s feelings get hurt.  I’m glad for being called out for the many stupid things I’ve done that caused me to be less of an idiot in life.  If only society could offer constructive criticism…, but that’s only the whole point of this posting, right?

Comment #73: 3letterjon  on  01/04  at  12:13 PM

So you think 11 is a good age to start a girl on Scarleteen?

Yes.  If she needs or is interested in the information, she’ll read it.  If it bores her, or it doesn’t yet have anything to do with her life, she won’t read it.  But it’ll be there when she does need it, and she won’t have to go searching the internet or library for it.  Some girls are well into menstruation, masturbation, sex drives, make-outs, and all that by 11.  I was 5’7” and a B-cup by then.  It certainly won’t do her any harm.  Counter to what the right wing may think, learning about sec does not make one immediately drop one’s drawers.

Comment #74: rowmyboat  on  01/04  at  12:19 PM

Learning about sex from reliable sources is good at any age, even eleven.  And I think I’ll encourage my eleven-year-old SON to read scarleteen.  It seems like a good idea, whether he’s ready for it or not.  I will be so proud of him if he becomes the one who points out the stupidity about sex that’s everywhere among the childhood set.

Comment #75: 3letterjon  on  01/04  at  01:32 PM

Lurker, I wasn’t being aggressive, I merely really didn’t see anything that would constitute prude-shaming.

You’re right though to say that “talking about sex” and “being confident about sex” has to include both the right to fuck like rabbits without stigmatization AND being able to take it slow and even live without sex altogether.

This has been mentioned on other threads: it seems that female sexual liberation is being subverted to once again advantage the men, i.e. provide them with an excuse to never have to compromise and keep it in their pants a little bit longer. This is right up there with “stripping and posing for Playboy is empowering!”.

So yeah: real sexual liberation is the right to want* as much/little sex as you want, how you want it, and when, and not be punished for it.


*want, not get. women aren’t entitled to pressure men into sex either, after all

Comment #76: jadehawk  on  01/04  at  02:16 PM

So yeah: real sexual liberation is the right to want* as much/little sex as you want, how you want it, and when, and not be punished for it.

Sure, but is it “punishment” when people you might like to date say “gosh, you know, the disparity in our sex drives is too steep for us to function in the kind of relationship I’m looking for. Sorry, but it’s not going to work with us”? That really seems like the extent of the “punishment” Lurker has experienced as a result of her abuse - the fact that the people she wants to date have completely different ideas about the frequency and availability of sex in the relationship.

So yeah: real sexual liberation is the right to want* as much/little sex as you want, how you want it, and when, and not be punished for it.
*want, not get.

I wonder if it’s even possible for you to see the deep, deep absurdity you’ve created here.

Comment #77: Chet  on  01/04  at  04:31 PM

“While neither show is intended to be a public service, or an education, both serve this role in our society - primarily because of weaknesses in the news programs and sex ed programs that are supposed to provide “serious” education and fail to.”

That is complete bullshit.  While Love Lines is supposed to be also entertaining, Dr. Drew especially makes the claim that it is educational and a public service.  KROQ may not consider it to be a public service, but Dr. Drew - unlike Jon Stewart - certainly acts like it is.

And as another former SoCal kid who grew up listening to Love Lines on the radio long before it made it to TV, etc. I have to say that Amanda’s take downs of Dr. Drew and the like are one of the things I love best about this site.  Yes, listening to Love Lines was eye-opening back in jr. high, but it didn’t take long for even sheltered little me to wonder why in the hell he always asked about the girl’s fathers and never their mothers and why his advice to girls/women always amounted to telling them to go to therapy and keep their knees together.

And long before that I wondered why nobody on the show never saw the inherent contradiction in constantly saying/joking you could never expect guys to exhibit basic human decency when women were involved - while at the same time telling all the female callers they shouldn’t become involved in any way with guys that did not treat them with basic human decency.

Comment #78: jennygadget  on  01/04  at  07:52 PM

Sure, but is it “punishment” when people you might like to date say “gosh, you know, the disparity in our sex drives is too steep for us to function in the kind of relationship I’m looking for. Sorry, but it’s not going to work with us”? That really seems like the extent of the “punishment” Lurker has experienced as a result of her abuse - the fact that the people she wants to date have completely different ideas about the frequency and availability of sex in the relationship.

except that this often doesn’t have anything to do with the other person’s sex-drive, and more with the absurd notion that one HAS to put out by the third date to be at all datable.

But then, my personal opinion is that dating is a horrible invention anyway.

I wonder if it’s even possible for you to see the deep, deep absurdity you’ve created here.

aside from the fact that this was maybe awkwardly worded, what precisely is absurd about the freedom to be a “slut”, a “prude”, or something somewhere in between without being judged and stigmatized for it (as long as you don’t force your sexual desires on others)?

Comment #79: jadehawk  on  01/04  at  08:55 PM

except that this often doesn’t have anything to do with the other person’s sex-drive, and more with the absurd notion that one HAS to put out by the third date to be at all datable.

I’d break it off with a woman who seemed unreceptive to physicality after the third date - not because she doesn’t meet some arbitrary “datable” standard, but because that’s not what I would need from a relationship. I mean if we’re not getting along sexually, what’s the point? That’s hardly a “punishment” for someone’s “prudery”.

what precisely is absurd about the freedom to be a “slut”, a “prude”, or something somewhere in between without being judged and stigmatized for it (as long as you don’t force your sexual desires on others)?

LOL! Is that what you think you said?

Comment #80: Chet  on  01/05  at  12:53 AM

Ideally you would be able to talk about it. Not having sex? Talk about it. Having too much sex? Talk about it. You’d have to be a real grade A asshole to cold shoulder somebody because they’re not rompous enough for you by date number X.  Plenty of people don’t get right down to fucking in the first weeks or months of a relationship, if they’re both not ready. Or you might have sex on the first date. But even if you fuck all the time, sex is still only a small part of being in a romantic relationship.

Comment #81: banisteriopsis  on  01/05  at  01:56 AM

I mean if we’re not getting along sexually, what’s the point?

precisely because the current social standard is that you’re worthless as a date if you don’t put out almost immediately. that was the whole fucking point.

LOL! Is that what you think you said?

dude, I understand that from up on your privileged horse it might not look like a big deal to be allowed to want what you want without repercussions, even if you still sometimes won’t be able to actually get it (because sometimes the other is not in the mood, but still worth it; also apparently a concept foreign to you). Still, that’s precisely what I said, even if admittedly awkwardly: that a woman shouldn’t be penalized and stigmatized for her sex-drive, regardless where on a spectrum she falls. The asterisk was there because taken as it was, it could have been interpreted as me saying women are entitled to take sex whenever they feel like it. which would be rape or date rape, which obviously is out of the question.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to misunderstand me…

Comment #82: jadehawk  on  01/05  at  02:56 AM

You never hear anyone talk about an “addiction” to work or cleanliness or religion

It’s not at all uncommon to hear people who’ve been through 12-step programs talk about meeting people who’ve replaced drugs and alcohol with prayer and work and exercise and dieting and so on.

Comment #83: oldfeminist  on  01/05  at  05:29 AM

precisely because the current social standard is that you’re worthless as a date if you don’t put out almost immediately. that was the whole fucking point.

Considered by who? Where does this sense of entitlement come from, where you believe that everybody you want to date has to consider you a special unique snowflake and never consider your specific sexual hangups a potential obstacle to a fulfilling relationship? People want to have sex in their romantic relationships, typically. I don’t think they’re wrong to feel that way. That’s going to put a “prude” at a significant disadvantage on the dating “field”; that’s going to make their potential dates want to consider other people, instead. That’s unfortunate for the “prude” but I have a hard time seeing what’s unfair about it.

dude, I understand that from up on your privileged horse it might not look like a big deal to be allowed to want what you want without repercussions

I don’t think it’s a stance of “privilege” to see that it’s pretty fucking stupid to formulate “liberation” as a situation where you’re “free to desire” but not obtain. A prisoner in jail certainly wants freedom; we would not consider them “liberated” until they had actually achieved it.

Look, I accept that it was an incredibly clumsy formulation on your part. I think I get what you meant.

Still, that’s precisely what I said, even if admittedly awkwardly: that a woman shouldn’t be penalized and stigmatized for her sex-drive, regardless where on a spectrum she falls.

But, again, what you formulate as the “penalty” is simply people not wanting to date you, which strikes me as nothing more than an arrogant sense of entitlement and self-pity on your part. People date other people because a need or desire is mutually met in doing so. If you’re not able to be a partner who can meet an important desire, then people are not going to want to be your partner. Unless you think you have a right to date people who don’t want to date you, I fail to see how that constitutes an unfair penalty. You don’t have a right to demand that other people see you as a great date.

Comment #84: Chet  on  01/05  at  03:03 PM

Where does this sense of entitlement come from, where you believe that everybody you want to date has to consider you a special unique snowflake and never consider your specific sexual hangups a potential obstacle to a fulfilling relationship?

But isn’t it true that any relationship should be based on the unique needs and desires of the people involved rather than some statistical and stochastic gaming with probabilities, whether your desires from the relationship involve getting pegged on the first date, wearing wool, and saying “baaa” or an extended courtship before sex?

Certainly, you have the right to walk away from a relationship where your sexual desires are not being met. They have the right to walk away from you as well, and refusing to respect the particular constellations of kinks, desires, and preferences that make up a person by calling them a prude or slut is what the whole sex-positive movement initially was reacting to.

All that’s being asked here is a bit of mutual respect.

Comment #85: CBrachyrhynchos  on  01/05  at  04:43 PM

adorable, how you think that conversation is about me. FYI, I don’t date EVER, and I’m very promiscious when not in a relationship. idiot.

and if you’re stupid enough to think that there’s no such thing as social pressure to basically “put out or remain single forever”, if you’re too privileged to think that women aren’t penalized for their desires, and you’re too ignorant to understand that it really isn’t a question of “some men don’t want to date a prude”, but of “our society trains men and women to believe that instant sex is essential and therefore lack of instant sex is a grave offense”, then I can’t help you. you’re too willfully dense to continue this conversation.

Comment #86: jadehawk  on  01/05  at  04:47 PM

Of course, it also must be said that the sex positive movement was also strongly supportive of sexual self-autonomy and the recognition that sexual needs might not be filled by one person. The cultivation of a healthy solo sex life makes it possible to have intimate relationships with people based on those things you find mutually pleasurable.

Instead, it’s devolved from mutuality, discussion, and negotiation to “good, giving, and game.”

Comment #87: CBrachyrhynchos  on  01/05  at  05:01 PM

But isn’t it true that any relationship should be based on the unique needs and desires of the people involved rather than some statistical and stochastic gaming with probabilities, whether your desires from the relationship involve getting pegged on the first date, wearing wool, and saying “baaa” or an extended courtship before sex?

Doubtless. I don’t know where you’re getting “stochastic gaming with probabilities” from, certainly not from anything I’ve said.

But sex is important to people. Most people; just about everybody maybe. It doesn’t strike me as unusual or unfair that someone who, for whatever reason, simply isn’t available or responsive in that way finds themselves shut out of the dating “world.” People for whom a partner’s “prudishness” (for lack of a better word) is not an obstacle are going to be quite rare compared to people for whom that is an obstacle.

People in general don’t like to date prudes, just like they generally don’t like to date bores, douchebags, or insufferable know-it-alls, and all for the same reason - they’re no fun. That doesn’t strike me as unfair.

adorable, how you think that conversation is about me

I apologize, I know it’s not about you; that was just a convenient, if ambiguous, mode of address.

“our society trains men and women to believe that instant sex is essential and therefore lack of instant sex is a grave offense”

A grave offense punished how? I’m looking in the thread - again - and there doesn’t seem to be any “punishment” besides people not wanting to date that person. Prudes do date less, same with choads and assholes, and all for the same reason - they’re just not any fun to date. That’s not prudes being “prude-shamed”, that’s other people reacting negatively to a prude’s inability to offer what they want in a dating relationship.

Comment #88: Chet  on  01/06  at  04:03 AM

Instead, it’s devolved from mutuality, discussion, and negotiation to “good, giving, and game.”

I’m curious why you see that as a devolution.

Comment #89: Chet  on  01/06  at  04:04 AM

Chet, it seems to me that jadehawk just doesn’t want women to have to give it up right away to be counted as dateable.  Some women don’t want to have sex (PIV or otherwise) on the third date.  Or maybe even the thirtieth.  This might mean they don’t want sex ever, or it might mean they want sex only after a long relationship.

“Good, giving and game” is quite different from mutuality, discussion and negotiation.  The former presupposes that there will be sex, you will try new things when prompted, and won’t “withhold” sex under “normal” circumstances.  The latter could result in limited or no sex.

The point is that this is shaped by social expectations.  50 years ago, women were supposed to hold out.  Now, they are supposed to give in.  Neither expectation, when automatic, values women’s sexual autonomy.

Comment #90: oldfeminist  on  01/06  at  06:16 AM

they’re just not any fun to date.

because the only thing that’s fun about a date is the fucking. you’re pathetic.

Comment #91: jadehawk  on  01/06  at  07:08 AM

Well, you have a right to break off a relationship to find your sexual fulfillment. Generally though, we call people choads and assholes when they are engaged in harmful and unethical behavior. Comparing a person to a choad or asshole because their sexual desires don’t align with yours is an unreasonable need.

And a big problem is that “prude” and “slut” both seem to be subjective and relative. A prude is someone who has less sex than you want, and a slut appears to be someone who has more sex than you want. I don’t find criticism of either to be reasonable or particularly feminist.

Some of my best lovers were ones that didn’t have penetrative sex. We talked about it, agreed to it, and had a ton of fun doing lots of other things.

I’m curious why you see that as a devolution.

Because under sex-positive negotiation it was quite possible and reasonable to negotiate ala carte sexual relationships. You could have wonderful relationships build around the occasional sport-fuck, the single kink, or exclusively practicing safer sex.

Comment #92: CBrachyrhynchos  on  01/06  at  12:34 PM

Chet, it seems to me that jadehawk just doesn’t want women to have to give it up right away to be counted as dateable.

I don’t know what “datable” means, or why she thinks there’s some kind of regulatory body that licenses daters. What I’m gathering is that she thinks that there are people who, because they’re prudes about sex and won’t even consider having it into well into a relationship that’s supposedly romantic, people don’t want to date.

And I don’t understand what’s unfair about that. Prudes aren’t any fun to date, just like choads and assholes. Ergo, known choads, prudes, and assholes have this problem where they can’t find a lot of people who want to date them. That’s a feature, not a bug, because it puts a pressure on people not to be prudes, choads, or assholes.

This might mean they don’t want sex ever, or it might mean they want sex only after a long relationship.

Ok, but when they face the fact that a lot of the people they may want to date find that objectionable to the point where they’d rather date someone else, I don’t see who they have to blame but themselves. And if they’re not finding that the people they want to date object to that, they must be going on dates, so in what sense are they “undatable”?

Comment #93: Chet  on  01/06  at  04:06 PM

because the only thing that’s fun about a date is the fucking.

I never said that was the only fun thing about dating. What’s pathetic is your inability to defend your argument on its own merits, causing you to need to resort to these misrepresentations.

Comment #94: Chet  on  01/06  at  04:07 PM

I never said that was the only fun thing about dating. What’s pathetic is your inability to defend your argument on its own merits, causing you to need to resort to these misrepresentations.

O RLY?

so do tell me, if “prudes are no fun to date” in the same way utter assholes are (your words), then how is that NOT an admission that lack of instant access to sex trumps all other personality traits? Because other wise it would be nonsensical to say that prudes are no fun to date, since they only have exactly one characteristic in common: they don’t put out immediately. sure, some of them might be bores, some might be religious freaks, some might be assholes. but none of that is inherent in being a prude. they could be the most fascinating, engaging and otherwise awesome person in the world… but no, they’re still no fun to date according to you.

and you even fucking ADMIT that you want to PRESSURE people to stop being prudes… and you don’t realize that that’s immoral? you’re unbelievable.

I don’t know what “datable” means, or why she thinks there’s some kind of regulatory body that licenses daters.

congratulations, you don’t understand how societies work. the word “normative” doesn’t mean anything to you, does it.

Comment #95: jadehawk  on  01/06  at  04:20 PM

Lets lay it out one more time:

The problem is not breaking off a relationship because you are not sexually incompatible.

The problem is equating a person with being a choad or asshole because their sexualities are incompatible with yours.

Comment #96: CBrachyrhynchos  on  01/06  at  05:06 PM

“they could be the most fascinating, engaging and otherwise awesome person in the world… but no, they’re still no fun to date according to you.”

Disinterested as I am in defending Chet’s prude-shaming party, people generally date in the pursuit of eventual sexual contact/partnerships.*  If someone’s the most fascinating, engaging, and otherwise awesome person in the world, but I’m radically sexually incompatible with them, it’d be rocking to be their friend but probably not so much to date them.

*The exception being asexuals’ clubs, but generally members of those groups don’t want sex, full-stop.

Comment #97: preying mantis  on  01/06  at  05:35 PM

Disinterested as I am in defending Chet’s prude-shaming party, people generally date in the pursuit of eventual sexual contact/partnerships.

right. prudes aren’t asexuals. Eventual sexual contact/partnership isn’t the problem since it will happen sooner or later (obviously later in this instance).

Comment #98: jadehawk  on  01/06  at  05:45 PM

preying mantis:  Well yeah. Sexual incompatibility is a significant problem for relationships. That doesn’t mean everyone who is not sexually compatible is equivalent to a choad or asshole.

Comment #99: CBrachyrhynchos  on  01/06  at  06:13 PM

so do tell me, if “prudes are no fun to date” in the same way utter assholes are (your words), then how is that NOT an admission that lack of instant access to sex trumps all other personality traits?

Because people who are prudish about sex generally aren’t just prudish about sex. Gosh, don’t you think a deep and unhealthy aversion to sex might, just might, be related to or associated with other negative personality traits? Or do you think it’s common that healthy, fun, daring, well-adjusted people just happen to be extremely repulsed by sexual behavior of all kinds?

congratulations, you don’t understand how societies work

This statement is incomprehensible to me. I didn’t need anyone’s approval when I started dating - except those I wanted to date. That’s how dating works. Society doesn’t work where you need a license to date, so I don’t know what “undatable” is supposed to mean except the obvious definition: people don’t want to date you. Which you still can’t explain how that’s supposed to be unfair.

Because other wise it would be nonsensical to say that prudes are no fun to date, since they only have exactly one characteristic in common: they don’t put out immediately.

That’s not what the word “prude” means, obviously.

The problem is equating a person with being a choad or asshole because their sexualities are incompatible with yours.

I’m not equating them, just giving examples of people people don’t like to date. We’re not just talking about people who have certain sexual tastes. We’re talking about prudes - people who see fit to pass judgement, and loudly, on all sexual behavior they don’t like - which is, of course, all sexual behavior. Being a prude is a bad thing. I don’t see why so many feminists are lining up to defend priggishness and pearl-clutching.

Comment #100: Chet  on  01/06  at  06:33 PM

I rest my case.

Comment #101: jadehawk  on  01/06  at  06:45 PM

That’s not what the word “prude” means, obviously.

Except that is how it was set out earlier:

I’d break it off with a woman who seemed unreceptive to physicality after the third date

So what exactly do you mean? People who pass judgement, loudly, on sexual behavior they don’t like, or people are not receptive after the third date? Because there is a huge amount of ground between the two.

Comment #102: CBrachyrhynchos  on  01/06  at  06:56 PM

So what exactly do you mean?

What do I mean? I’m not the one who introduced the word “prude” into the debate. I’ve been equating prudes with assholes and choads. I’ve not been doing that to the unreceptive; I just personally wouldn’t date either for very long. Why should anyone be expected to, if those things are important?

Because there is a huge amount of ground between the two.

Agreed. Maybe you should tell that to the people who conflated them in the first place.

Comment #103: Chet  on  01/06  at  07:01 PM

I rest my case.

Too bad you couldn’t make one, instead.

Comment #104: Chet  on  01/06  at  07:02 PM

Thanks Jadehawk, CBrachyrhynchos & Oldfeminist for better articulating what I was trying to say.

Since I am one of those who raised the prude issue, and even admitted to being called a prude, I’ll allow myself to call bullshit on Chet’s definition of a prude, which was obviously created, after the fact, to ‘win’ the argument.

In my experience, I was called a prude by men I didn’t want to sleep with.  I was definitely NEVER called a prude for passing judgement on other people’s sex (and other) habits - because I never do.  In fact I can think of lots of people who have way more sex than me who judge other people - sexually (for being kinky, most notably), about how much they eat, etc.  The idea that not liking sex is associated with not liking life is no less ridiculous than associating not liking chocolate with not liking life.

As for not wanting to date someone you’re not sexually compatible, Chet, that’s obviously perfectly understandable.  But like OldFeminist said, “Good, giving and game” is quite different from mutuality, discussion and negotiation”.  If after mutuality, discussion and negotiation you arrived at the conclusion that your needs aren’t met, move on.  But if you expect that your standards are the right standards and that everyone should comply with them, you’re an asshole.  Which, of course, you are.

You also contradict yourself, Chet, by claiming, on the one hand, that prudes are not being punished by modern society by not being allowed to date, and then saying that that non existing pressure is a good thing, because it puts pressure on them to have sex even when they don’t want to.

Because we all know that people having sex when they don’t want to is a GOOD thing.

Comment #105: Lurker  on  01/06  at  09:13 PM

Since I am one of those who raised the prude issue, and even admitted to being called a prude, I’ll allow myself to call bullshit on Chet’s definition of a prude, which was obviously created, after the fact, to ‘win’ the argument.

No, look, I’m calling bullshit on you. “Prude” is a word, in English, that had a definition before you decided to grace us with your radiant presence. According to Miriam-Webster, that definition is

a person who is excessively or priggishly attentive to propriety or decorum; especially : a woman who shows or affects extreme modesty

So, no, I didn’t create anything after the fact. You used a word that you didn’t know the definition of, and it came with a bunch of connotations you didn’t intend. Fess up and move on; only by correcting our mistakes do we become more effective communicators.

In my experience, I was called a prude by men I didn’t want to sleep with.

Well, they’re probably full of shit. Why did you internalize their language? If they’d called you a bitch would you be complaining about bitch-shaming?

But if you expect that your standards are the right standards and that everyone should comply with them, you’re an asshole.

I don’t expect that. My standards are right for me, not for anybody else. I observe, however, that sex is important to most people, especially in relationships. Someone who, for whatever reason, refuses to have a sex life is going to fail to meet a great many people’s standards as a desirable date. I don’t have a problem with that. If that individual has a problem being considered a less desirable date, it’s not anyone’s responsibility but their own to solve that problem. You can’t just expect people to find you desirable or attractive if they don’t. You can’t demand it. And to complain that people don’t, to pretend that it’s a punishment to be found undesirable by people you’d like to date - that’s the height of arrogant, condescending self-entitlement. Which, you know, is super attractive to people.

You also contradict yourself, Chet, by claiming, on the one hand, that prudes are not being punished by modern society by not being allowed to date, and then saying that that non existing pressure is a good thing, because it puts pressure on them to have sex even when they don’t want to.

I didn’t claim that. We do benefit, as a society, when assholes, choads, and prudes - real prudes, not your made-up overextension of the term - experience social pressure to improve themselves. People who just don’t want to have sex, or whatever, people who can’t or won’t respond physically or intimately with their dating parters, shouldn’t experience unfair pressure to conform.

But neither should they complain when that stance alienates them from the people they want to date. Who but the most arrogant, entitled jackass could possibly believe that they should never, ever be expected to be the one to compromise in a relationship?

I’m really making a very simple point, here. And I’m still asking the question that neither you nor your defensive peanut gallery have been able to answer - what, exactly, are you talking about when you say “punishment”?

Comment #106: Chet  on  01/07  at  01:03 AM

Chet:  “Someone who, for whatever reason, refuses to have a sex life is going to fail to meet a great many people’s standards as a desirable date. I don’t have a problem with that.”

Except you also say, “Because people who are prudish about sex generally aren’t just prudish about sex. Gosh, don’t you think a deep and unhealthy aversion to sex might, just might, be related to or associated with other negative personality traits? Or do you think it’s common that healthy, fun, daring, well-adjusted people just happen to be extremely repulsed by sexual behavior of all kinds? “

You’re equating not wanting a sex life with being deeply unhealthy.

And then you conflate asexuality with not wanting sex by the third date.

Bye, Chet.

Comment #107: oldfeminist  on  01/07  at  03:34 AM

And Chet, if it’ s not clear to you, the “punishment” is that women who don’t have sex on the third date are branded as having a deep and unhealthy aversion to sex, therefore get discarded as “undatable” by anyone who has any interest in sex.

Comment #108: oldfeminist  on  01/07  at  07:27 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.