Neely Steinberg and Hugo Schwyzer discuss how their personal histories have shaped their individual world views.
I first got in touch with Hugo via Twitter. He was responding to my recent article published on the Good Men Project, in which I chronicled my debate with Amanda Marcotte regarding the word “slut.” Hugo was on Marcotte’s side, but that didn’t stop us from sharing respectful tweets about the article and other topics, such as dating, sex, and the effect of feminism on men and women. We enjoyed our 140-character conversations so much we decided to collaborate on an article.
After throwing around some ideas, I mentioned to Hugo that I was intrigued by our contrasting positions—his steadfast defense of feminism and critiquing of men versus my critiquing of feminism and steadfast defense of men—not because we disagree in the ideological sense, but because of our tendency to stray from defending our own gender.
I wanted to know what has shaped Hugo’s thinking when it comes to dating, sex, relationships and feminism, since these are topics he’s covered extensively. Likewise, I wanted to share with him how I’ve come to certain conclusions about these important subjects as well, because I’ve been thinking, writing, and speaking about them for several years now. We could then present our contrasting viewpoints to Good Men Project readers. Far too often, we’re dismissive of those with whom we disagree, chalking their opinions up to nothing more than sound bites, propaganda shoved down our throats by evil news networks or talking heads. But that’s taking the easy way out. How often do we take the time to see where a person is really coming from and why they may think the way they do? Listening to other people’s stories may not change our own convictions, but it can make us more thinking, feeling human beings, more evolved. It can give us a fuller appreciation for and awareness of others.
Below is Part 1 of our discussion in which we highlight how our experiences have informed our perspectives.
♦◊♦
How does your background and experiences inform your worldview about dating, sex, relationships, and feminism, and the advice you give?
Hugo: What a huge question, Neely! Of course, it informs everything in ways seen and unseen. Though I’m leery of saying that we’re all just products of our environment and our experiences, I know my views about pleasure-centered sex education are very much rooted in what I’ve lived through and what I’ve seen.
If there’s one truth I’ve learned (and seen so many others learn), it’s the idea that contrary to folk wisdom, one mistake—or even a series of mistakes—will not ruin your life. In her wonderful Full Frontal Feminism, Jessica Valenti writes that Sometimes doing silly, disempowering, sexually vapid things when you’re young is just part of getting to the good stuff. That doesn’t seem all that profound until you realize that it’s pushing back against the toxic idea that experiences invariably leave life-long scars.
I’ve been married to four women, been “in love” with twice that many, and for a brief but intense period in my 20s and early 30s, I was very promiscuous. I now live very happily in a monogamous marriage. I’m not haunted by what I did, nor did the tremendous variety of experiences I had when I was younger spoil any opportunity for fulfillment with just one partner in an enduring relationship. Without compromising her privacy, I can say that my current (and last) wife’s life prior to our marriage was not dissimilar to my own. The intimacy we have today is at least partly a consequence of our experiences with other people, not in spite of them.
Experience really is the best teacher, even if not every student learns the lesson the first (or 101st) time. Women in particular need reassurance that their worth is not linked to their number of sexual partners. They need to hear that pursuing pleasure for its own sake when they’re young will not make it more difficult to form enduring monogamous relationships (if they want them) when they’re older. These are lessons I’ve learned, lessons I’ve seen the men and women in my life learn and embrace.
I do regret the pain I caused other people. Rightly so. But what my life has taught me is that insight and compassion are rooted in experience; you can’t advise about what you don’t understand. My own ability to be a patient father, a faithful husband, a decent teacher and mentor isn’t in spite of my wild sexual choices when I was younger—it’s in large part because of them, and the lessons I learned. I’m lucky, but not that unusual.
I don’t advocate self-destructive choices, and for different people, both promiscuity and abstinence can be self-destructive. I want to equip young people to discover their own sexuality and to make informed, pleasure-centered, empathy-centered decisions based on what they discover. I want them to know that they have the inner resilience to recover from the “silly” and “vapid” decisions they may make.
Neely: I agree with a lot of what Hugo has to say, but I think we may have different perspectives on the effects of casual, no-strings attached sex. I also happen to think most women aren’t all that interested in having a lot of it for purely sexual reasons, with multiple partners no less. And I’ve come to believe that feminism’s inability, and at times refusal, to acknowledge differences between the sexes has been disingenuous and has gravely backfired on women, leaving them ill-equipped to discover what really feels good and right to them.
The Samantha Jones (of Sex and the City fame) lifestyle was, in my opinion, a false bill of goods, sold to impressionable young women as glamorous, exciting, and liberating, while ignoring any sort of biological mechanisms that induce women to emotionally attach with their mates. I was told, by the 10% of women who are capable of effectively and consistently compartmentalizing their emotions when it comes to no-strings attached sex, that emotions were overrated, anathema even, and could easily be separated from sexual acts with another human being, to unapologetically unleash my inner slut (there’s that word again). It was our right (rite?) as women, our responsibility as sexual creatures, to show the world we can fuck like men do, have instantaneous orgasms, and feel faaaabulous while doing it in our 4-inch Manolo Blahniks. Countless women bought into this lie, only to realize years later that it doesn’t, in fact, feel so great most of the time, and that actually, there’s nothing all that empowering and liberating about spreading your legs with wild abandon.
Instead of embracing the emotional and biological differences between men and women, or at least considering them, sex-positive feminists buried their heads in the sand, unintentionally creating, in the meantime, a veritable sexual playground for men, often times at the expense of women, many of whom just wanted relationships that were both sexually and emotionally satisfying. Women were told they could have their cake and eat it too, but the dessert in many ways has been a better payoff for men.
I spent the latter half of high school, college (if dating was scarce when I was in college, it’s nonexistent today), and many years post-college, mired in the hook-up scene, which was, mind you, always fueled by alcohol. It’s as if I needed the crutch of Vodka to tell me what I was doing was an awesome idea, because without it I’d know better. I wasn’t alone. It was happening all around me. My friends, female acquaintances, countless women I’d met briefly over the years—we were all in the same boat. Post-college, we could pursue our careers and hobbies and passions full-force but were unable to form lasting attachments, to believe that a man wanted us for anything more than a quick hook-up, to understand what real intimacy was about. We tamped down our emotions and hid our dissatisfaction—how else could we have had our witty Sunday brunches at which we joked about our encounters? In reality, I spent countless nights crying over my dating life. I know my friends (smart, beautiful, accomplished women) felt just as dejected and lonely. And all of a sudden we were in our early-30s. Whereas I once blamed men for my dating troubles, I now began to turn a critical eye on myself and an ideology that didn’t seem to be serving me all that well.
I won’t deny those wild days are tinged with a bit of sweet nostalgia, but I also know that pain has a short memory. Overall, these sorts of trysts usually left me feeling empty and the hollowness I felt had nothing to do with the evil patriarchy shaming or guilt-tripping me. It just felt lacking in so many ways. I remember one night in particular when I was 29 quite vividly. After being totally ignored at a party by a guy who I had hooked up with the night before, I cried hysterically while my friend drove me home. When we pulled up to my apartment, I remember feeling devastated and deflated, yelling, “I’m sick of this! I don’t get it, what am I doing wrong?” as I smashed my hand against the passenger seat window, shattering my bracelet in the process, pearls spewing everywhere. I was tired of making mistakes and not learning from them but felt stuck, like I had just lost myself. If feminism’s goal was to eradicate the falsehood that a woman’s worth is tied to her sexuality, it has failed on many accounts. All I learned from drunken, fleeting hook-ups over the course of a decade was how much I was being viewed as a sexual object by men, as a vagina who happens to think and feel, rather than a thinking, feeling human being who also happens to have a vagina. As Laura Kipnis writes in her book The Female Thing: “Welcome to the new femininity—at least under the old femininity you got taken to dinner.”
I agree with Hugo and Valenti’s point, to an extent, about the importance of making mistakes in your love life and learning from them. If it weren’t for some of the wrong turns (and their attendant lessons) in my life, I wouldn’t have found the wonderful man who I am dating today and be able to appreciate him. But I think I owe that more to the few actual relationships I’ve had with the wrong men and less to vacuous sexual encounters that taught me nothing about intimacy or pleasure. Thankfully, I did the hard work to understand how both my familial dynamics and the cultural winds of the day influenced my decisions. I consider myself lucky to have found the right guy at 34 but worry about other women, no matter what age, who are wedged between a culture that tells them one thing and the voice inside them that tells them another.
Again, while I think women need to make mistakes in order to know what they want, at what point does that end? I understand everyone’s journey is unique, but I think young women today are looking for different, more tempered voices other than the I-am-woman-hear-me-roar variety, for tangible, strategic dating advice (such as, if you want a relationship try developing emotional, spiritual, and mental bonds with a man you like or just started dating by delaying sexual gratification—yours and his). My advice is based on the distilled wisdom that I have gained with age. If only one woman can be spared a night of crying against her pillow and get closer to what she really wants because of something I’ve written or said, then I feel like I’ve made a positive difference.
I understand what the feminist credo and Hugo have to say about pleasure-centered sex education and helping women to understand that it’s okay to enjoy sex outside of relationships (it is!) and to make silly, vapid mistakes, but we should also consider the notion that casual sex and hook-ups may not be for many women and can indeed have long-term deleterious effects (emotional and physical). Moreover, I think this sort of feminist-speak can often seem like highfalutin mumbo jumbo to a woman who, say, has hit her early to mid-30s, already spent years exploring her sexuality, made mistakes ad nauseam, and is now ready to settle down but has unfortunately found the dating pool has shrunk considerably. Lori Gotlieb wrote about this dilemma in her controversial article (and subsequent book) for the Atlantic entitled Marry Him!
And, of course, there’s the ever-present tick-tock of the biological clock. It’s the one factor that feminism and college professors can’t manipulate. This is one such example as to why real-world practitioners are often at odds with academics: A professor sits behind the thick veil of tenure, spouting off theories and philosophies about how the world should be; a real-world practitioner has to deal with the world as it is, to make difficult decisions based on the realities of life.
Based on my experiences and what I’ve seen countless other women deal with over the years, you can see why my approach to dating, sex, and relationships comes from a more strategic, realistic place (another example of this approach: if you want marriage and biological children, you should start taking your love life seriously by the time you reach your late-20s/early-30s), and why I now feel compelled to offer a critique of feminism. I want women to be happy, and to be honest with themselves, without feeling the need to buy into a politically-correct ideology, about what makes them happy. If it truly is lots of casual sex and fleeting hook-ups, more power to you! If not, that’s okay too! For so long I was dishonest with myself, getting swept up in a powerful cultural force that wasn’t there for me when I really needed it. Regarding the feminist movement, we have much to be thankful for, but we must also recognize it has created an unintended set of less-than-desirable circumstances for women that are very real and difficult to confront. We now have to deal with those consequences, honestly and openly and without fear of reproach.
—Photo Trishhhh/Flickr
About Neely Steinberg
“I also happen to think most women aren’t all that interested in having a lot of [ casual, no-strings attached sex] for purely sexual reasons, with multiple partners no less.
Hi, I’m Morgaine, and I have enjoyed and hope to continue to enjoy quite a bit of casual, no-strings attached sex in my life.
So have and do many of my female friends. And a fair number (majority) of my students at the variety of universities at which I’ve taught.
Here’s what might mean a HUGE difference in our perspectives: I lived in Europe for nearly a decade, where ” casual, no-strings attached sex” is not a big deal. It’s like ” casual, no-strings attached” dinner out, full of passionate, political conversations that are as much foreplay as anything physical. It’s like going and hanging out at the nude beaches with people of all ages and body shapes and sizes, because they’re not so bloody uptight about the human body and human sexuality.
I lived in a culture where monogamy was a choice, not an obligation. Where as many people who make a commitment to each other to live together and perhaps raise children together DON’T marry as do– and monogamy may or may not be part of that contract.
Where people recognise that sex is a bodily function and pleasurable for BOTH genders– not seen as something one gender does TO the other. Or where persons of the same gender aren’t thought to be “unnatural” nor are they persecuted.
I (and millions around the world) don’t have any problem with “hook-up culture” as long as it’s between consenting adults who take responsibility for their actions. There’s no need to “blame” anyone for it because it’s nothing to be ashamed of.
Some people are happy to choose monogamous pair-bonded relationships. JUST AS MANY prefer another dynamic– neither is morally, ethically or socially superior to the other. And it’s no one else’s business.
Here here!
There are alot of women out there with very liberated attitudes to sex, the quote you mentioned doesn’t deny it. What it suggested is that *most* women still feel pressured (either by biology or society) into chastity.
As for your european experiences, glad you had a good time
. But keep in mind that you’re talking about an entire continent consisting of over 50 countries, even more cultures, and hugely varying attitudes to sex and nudity.
“Some people are happy to choose monogamous pair-bonded relationships. JUST AS MANY prefer another dynamic”
I don’t look down on polygamists, but I don’t think they represent anything near 50% of most human populations. Maybe that wasn’t meant to be taken literally though.
“I (and millions around the world) don’t have any problem with “hook-up culture” as long as it’s between consenting adults who take responsibility for their actions. There’s no need to “blame” anyone for it because it’s nothing to be ashamed of.”
Wel said
I think there are disturbingly misogenistic and misandric elements to PUAs and followers of “The Rules” though. Like most disciplines they have the potential to be used in positive or negative manners.
“*most* women still feel pressured (either by biology or society) into chastity.”
Do you have numbers on that? The US makes up less than 5% of the world. So US women make up less than 2.5%. I’m curious as to where you get this assertion.
“Some people are happy to choose monogamous pair-bonded relationships. JUST AS MANY prefer another dynamic”
“I don’t look down on polygamists, but I don’t think they represent anything near 50% of most human populations. Maybe that wasn’t meant to be taken literally though.”
There are OTHER options as well, between monogamy and polygamy (or polygyny
as I pointed out: simply, non-monogamous marriage/commitment.
And The Rules is as misogynistic as the PUA attitudes/culture. I don’t know how learning to control men through behaviour modification (like a DOG) can be seen to have positive potential. It’s a bunch of rubbish. I wouldn’t want a partner that I had to go through all that crap with; nor could I respect him once I “had” him if he was SO stupid as to be manipulated that way.
Do you fear the day when men will no longer find you sexually desirable? I also lived in europe for a few years, and I find my experience to be completely at odds with your own. Sure, people are more comfortable with their bodies, but not with casual sex. You make it sound so chic and cool. Did it ever occur to you that them men were very open minded because that’s what men do to get laid? If a guy wants to screw you I doubt he is going to give you a lecture about being easy. Look, imnot complaining. I think feminism created an awesome new world for single bachelors. Every time I get laid I thank the gloria stienems of the world for all the easy sex they have blessed men with.
My major gripe with Hugo’s stance is that “You can learn from your mistakes” so quickly becomes “you have to make mistakes in order to learn”. While the difference seems subtle, it’s not actually. I know that there are a lot of people out there that think that acting like a fool will actually make them better people down the road. There are plenty of things that you can learn from – mistakes are probably the worst of them. Having a ton of one night stands will not automatically make you a better partner or parent. I agree with the second author that a person learns a lot more (and in a wider range of areas) from a real relationship.
For me, it’s all about priorities. The things that a person values in a casual encounter (attractiveness, willingness) are not the same things as what is valued in a actual relationship (communication skills, empathy, compassion, kindness, responsibility, selflessness, etc.) It’s up to a person what they value and what they seek out in other people.
Do I think that having casual encounters means that you’re runined and that you’ll never be a good partner? Of course not. But, I do think that it means that you might have some catching up to do. I do think that someone with a couple of long term relationships under their belt is better equipped for a long term relationship than someone with only one night stands.
I take issue with this article on a number of levels, but I think my main problem is that Neely seems to suggesting the sex-positive feminism INSISTS that all women MUST “unleash their inner slut” and have as much casual sex as possible in order to be liberated and empowered. From all my reading, that’s not what sex-positivity condones at all.
“our responsibility as sexual creatures, to show the world we can fuck like men do, have instantaneous orgasms, and feel faaaabulous while doing it in our 4-inch Manolo Blahniks.”
For example, this is sentence sounds like a formula for an episode of Sex and the City. Last time I checked, Sex and the City and sex-positive feminism have little-or-nothing to do with each other. Conflating the “Samantha Jones Lifestyle” (i.e the behaviour of one character from a TV show which is widely known for its shallow and problematic portrayals of women) with sex-positive feminism is over-simplifying the issue and weakens the argument considerably.
Sex-positive feminism, as far as I understand it, promotes the idea that what a woman does or doesn’t do with her body is her own damn business. She might choose to remain celibate her whole life, she might want to wait until marriage, she might have a few serious relationships and some sporadic drunken hook-ups or she might have kinky sex with strangers every other night. Whatever. As long as it’s all between consenting adults, she can do whatever she wants and no one has the right to judge her for her choices.
I understand that sex-positive feminism can be skewed towards promoting a woman’s right to sleep around and explore her sexuality. This is probably because, for many many centuries, this wasn’t an option for women at all. And I still think female promiscuity is far from being a “politically correct ideology,” there are still plenty of aspects of our culture that shame promiscuous women for their actions. I encounter that kind of language every day.
“10% of women.. are capable of effectively and consistently compartmentalizing their emotions when it comes to no-strings attached sex” – is this a real statistic? There doesn’t seem to be a citation. In any case, I’m one of those women and I feel like much of the language in this article shames me for the way I choose to live my life and undermines my experiences. For example, sentences such as “there’s nothing all that empowering and liberating about spreading your legs with wild abandon” read as a grossly generalised judgement call and successfully shame the many women out there who DO feel satisfied and liberated by casual sex.
Ultimately, each individual (regardless of gender) has the responsibility to define their own boundaries and set their own standards when it comes to sex, and also to be aware of the societal pressures that could potentially prevent them from making a good call. As Hugo emphasises, the exploratory periods are important and can ultimately be beneficial. As Neely says, every journey is unique. If you discover that you are incapable of having a one-night stand without feeling like shit the next morning, then stop having one-night stands! If you discover you are incapable of committing to any one person at this time in your life, be responsible and make this clear to your sexual partners!
In conclusion, I agree with Copyleft in that I don’t think hook-up culture is something that we need to “blame” on anything, and even it was, sex-positive feminism is still miles away from being the most prevalent cultural force that influences women’s choices.
Well said.
Shame free existence is not a reality for anyone. Their will be people with different opinions about certain behavior so the fact some level of shaming may exists doesn’t mean society is faulty. In fact we could all turn out to be wrong promiscuity in both genders as was done in the past. Sexuality needs to fit into a family friendly frame work. The whole reproductive component of our life cycle is not suppose to be a after thought. We have seen the consequences of that and it’s really looking like a failed social experiment. Unstable families or people simply avoiding children all together on mass is not a productive outcome. No amount of self centered orgasm chasing will make up for generations of broken families and a future we fail to raise well or give birth too.
How come no one ever brings up other unintended consequences of copious casual sex such as overly enlarged vaginal orifice. This is an impediment to long term relationships later on in life too. Men think about these things.
Oh please. Copious casual sex does not damage a woman’s vagina, other than the risk of pregnancy and STD’s. The vagina has extremely powerful muscles. Childbirth can make a woman’s vagina less “tight” (although I’ve heard it sometimes has the opposite effect). So can aging, because of muscle atrophy (same reason your stomach gets flabby over time).
Are you suggesting that a married woman who has had only 1 lifetime sex partner is damaging her vagina because she has frequent sex with her husband? Or is it just casual sex that is damaging?
Please stop repeating urban legends.
Misogynistic misinformation, more like it. LOL
The levels of ignorance are appalling.
I’m not repeating urban legends. I’m talking about real life. I have been with over 200 women of all types. A lot of sex with varying penis sizes and childbirth does wear down the vagina. Don’t get mad at me, I didn’t make it that way.
Also, not all are the same, some withstand the wear and tear better than others. #dontshootthemessenger
200 women? Out of, oh let’s say roughly 2 billion of an age to be sexually (consensually) active during your lifetime.
A good random sample: NOT!
LMFAO, what an ignorant, misogynistic prejudice, not backed up by ANY medical facts. You obviously know nothing about female anatomy– or actually, anatomy or biology of ANY kind.
ONLY in US America, where ignorance is proudly proclaimed!
Go examine some vaginas that have been through the type of wear and tear I am referring to (repeated insertions of various above-average sized penises and childbirth(s)) and then get back to me.
It can have an impact, but your bits are your own to use and decide what to do with. I you go through life “saving them” for a special occasion that never comes around, what good is it?
Even if there are a few men who are put off by sexual experience theres just as many that are attracted to it.
Thank you for at least acknowledging the truth. I didn’t say people with worn vaginas were bad people or anything.
It’s just something that makes a man think.
I can’t really identify with the terms under which this debate is being waged. There are a few dichotomies everyone seems to accept:
1. High sex drive people want casual sex
2. Low sex drive people want relationships
3. Men are high sex drive and therefore prefer casual sex
4. Pro Sex == Pro Casual Sex
5. Non causal sex implies a relationship
I don’t really like casual sex but maybe I define casual sex differently than others. I have a high sex drive. I am a man. I don’t necessarily need to be in a relationship to have sex but I like it more when I trust and like my partner. I am very Pro Sex but I am not so pro casual sex which I regard as a different thing altogether. This is a bit difficult to explain because the assumptions I make are way different than the assumptions being made here.
I think only one person who adequately captures what I am trying to say and that is Susie Bright:
“Well, first of all, I detest the term “casual sex” — since when is it actually casual, this so-called casual sex? Every time I was with someone it was intimate. It was intense. I got to know them and they got to know me on levels we certainly wouldn’t have known if we hadn’t gotten together — and I don’t just mean what their bottom looked like, I mean their personality, their feelings. You’re vulnerable with someone. I mean, some people say, “No, I’m made of steel. I just go in there and fuck.” Have I ever experienced that, at all? I just don’t find sex to be this jaded, cynical, stoic exercise. How do you manage to do that and have an orgasm? I don’t.”
As far as I know, there is statistical research that suggests many mammals break along gender lines in terms of desiring casual sex vs. committed relationships.
That said, the situation is complicated by the fact that humans have language and higher culture, so biology is probably less destiny for us than other animals.
Hear hear, Assman. Your comments are often some of the most pithy and insightful on GMP. I wish there were more of them but then if there were, you wouldn’t be so pithy, now would you?
Doesn’t Susie Bright make so much sense? Don’t you just want to send all these budding and full-fledged misogynists, so terrified of women’s sexual power, over to her? It’s hard to believe she’s in the US– but then, she wouldn’t be such an anomaly in [most of] Europe.
Really, in cultures that are casual about sex, there just isn’t the level of terror, hang-ups, judgementalism, hostility, confusion … someone either on this thread or another mentioned that in BDSM communities (where they MUST TALK about sex, they MUST BE OPEN and HONEST and CLEAR about what they want) even in the US have so much less misunderstanding and more respect for each other, regardless of gender.
What patriarchy (and rape culture) do is allow the fears, uncertainties, ignorance and apprehension about sex to be turned into woman-blaming and woman hating. Europe is also patriarchal– but in the area of sex, because communication is more honest and open, it’s much less oppressive.
As Robin Williams once said, though, what can you expect from a culture founded by The Puritans, the people who were TOO UPTIGHT for the British?
“Countless women bought into this lie, only to realize years later that it doesn’t, in fact, feel so great most of the time, and that actually, there’s nothing all that empowering and liberating about spreading your legs with wild abandon.”
I found this an extremely interesting sentence because in a sense that describes my experience (except for the woman part). After having been “good” and not being rewarded for it (I know this is charged language but it’s the most concise way of presenting it I can think of), I decided to throw forming a connection out the way and just go for no-strings-attached sex…and it left me hollow and unsatisfied. I’ve a friend who’s male as well and for whom it seems to work just great. I, on the other hand, appreciate monogamous, trusting relationships even more *after* this experience. So I’m tempted to agree with Hugo that those experiences are valuable in making us understand what we really value, while “embracing the emotional and biological differences between men and women” just rings hollow, seeming to bulldoze intra-gender differences that might in many ways be more important than inter-gender differences, something where the (newly discovered) feministe.us and pandagon.net seem to support me.
“The Samantha Jones (of Sex and the City fame) lifestyle was, in my opinion, a false bill of goods, sold to impressionable young women as glamorous, exciting, and liberating, while ignoring any sort of biological mechanisms that induce women to emotionally attach with their mates. ”
I don’t get all this Samantha-bashing. I am a full-fledged, “card-carrying” feminist borne of the Second Wave and completely enthusiastic about the Third. I LOVE Samantha Jones. I WISH there had been a Samantha Jones in the zeitgeist when I was a teenager or in my 20s. The best I had was Isadora Wing, who turned out to be disappointing because she just kept on looking for “the perfect man”.
I also LOVE SATC, although the values– consumerist, shoes, ridiculously extravagant lifestyles (and as with Friends, there’s no way Carrie could’ve afforded all that on a single column. Samantha and Miranda maybe– and Charlotte is independently wealthy? but yeah, it was unrealistic) are not my aspirations. WHAT a relief to see a TV show, a story, first in my whole life, FOR women, mostly BY women, ABOUT women AND their sexuality!?! What a revelation! It was very flawed. It was very white, hetero, yuppie-classed, etc. But I was SO grateful– and the writing is hysterical. I still go to a SATC website for quotes when I need to laugh!
But there are FOUR women in that show, not one. Each has her own approach to sexuality, to what she wants from sex and what she expects from a partner– not that the two have to be the same thing. I thought it was hysterical that the ONE TIME Samantha “waited” the guy she fell in love with had a dick “the size of a tampon”. It happens. I STRONGLY recommend “try before you buy”. This whole virginity thing is a bunch of patriarchal misogynist BS– it’s not biology at all. In PLENTY of cultures, brides who who already are or have been pregnant are PREFERRED, because it shows they are fertile.
So as I said before, I believe “Hook-up culture” can be a great thing, depending on how you participate in it. It’s about being honest with yourself and with potential partners, NOT being ashamed of your sexuality and your desires, NOT feeling the need to blame anyone or anything for doing what YOU want to do (whether that’s fuck 1000 men or only 2 or 3).
PS “ignoring any sort of biological mechanisms that induce women to emotionally attach with their mates. ”
WTF? WHAT biological mechanism? It doesn’t exist.
Neely, your post is so full of fail I am not sure where to begin.
First… Samantha from SATC is not the same as sex positive feminists and vice versa. I am a sex positive feminist and every time I see SATC on the telly I want to stab the screen. I hate the whitewashing of NYC and the rampant shallow, consumerist culture it promotes and I’ve never met a real woman who acts like any of those neurotic *fictional* characters.
10%? Ok, that is just sloppy writing. You just pull a random low stat out of your butt and proffer it as evidence. Loses major credibility points there.
You mentioned being lonely and crying… it wasn’t that sex that made you that way. At the moment you were having sex you were feeling pretty damn good… maybe not second later, but lets be honest about the intrinsic value of orgasms, shall we? Later, when you were not having sex and not feeling good you felt lonely and unloved. You are reaching for a reason to pin it on and say… AHA, it was because I had sex BACK then that I feel LONELY now. No. At the time, the sex felt good enough that you kept doing it. If it didn’t, you wouldn’t. And the reason you were lonely was because you hadn’t met your partner yet. Pretty straightforward.
Also, what would have abstaining earlier have accomplished? You met your partner by dumb luck… just like everyone else on the planet lucky enough to have someone they care about. Keeping your legs closed wouldn’t have temporally changed a damn thing and made you meet him 10 years earlier. You would just have been frustrated by the amount of first dates you had with the guy not calling you back because YOU didn’t put out. Either way, those guys were not destined to be your partner.
Also, hook up culture is not solely a product of feminism. It is also a product of Playboy and Hugh Hefner… which started in the 50′s. It was as much or more about men and their ideas of what makes them good and decent humans. They were liberated of the need to feel like they had to marry in their 20s… well before women and the height of second wave feminism in the 60s and 70s.
Merely choosing to be celibate in your 20s as a woman doesn’t increase or magically create men who are interested in monogamous committed relationships in your same age bracket. Those horny guys have always been hooking up with SOMEONE… and that is horny young women… since time immemorial. So if ain’t you they are hooking up with… it’s someone else.
Fact.
Also, you advise women to ‘take serious’ commitment and kids in their late 20s and early 30s. But if they are with someone who is not ready for those things or if they haven’t found someone yet… that is pretty empty advice. Love and commitment are not something you can FORCE. You can’t just command them to find the next guy and work ‘The Rules’ on them until he falls into place. Commitment requires a choice by BOTH parties.
Just saw the trailer for This Means War, starring Reese Witherspoon.
The premise: Two gorgeous men who are top CIA operatives are dating the same woman – Reese.
Reese says she’s never dated two men at once, to which her friend, Chelsea Handler, angrily replies:
“You think Gloria Steinem got arrested and sat in a jail cell, so you could be a little bitch? Get out there, you get flexible.”
Discuss.
“They need to hear that pursuing pleasure for its own sake when they’re young will not make it more difficult to form enduring monogamous relationships”
That is absolutely not true. If you speak with most women who are currently in their late 30′s or 40′s who were heavily into the hook-up culture you will find out that they DO have trouble finding a monogamous relationship. If someone is happy living a hook-up life and that is what you plan to do for the rest of your life, great but you can’t sell them the idea that they can live that kind of life and then will be able to form a stable monogamous relationship. Of course, like everything there are exceptions and there are people who have been able to enter into a stable relationship after a promiscous life but the reality is that this is a big minority. The vast majority will not be able so I think is terrible that Hugo is selling that idea to young women.
“That is absolutely not true. If you speak with most women who are currently in their late 30′s or 40′s who were heavily into the hook-up culture you will find out that they DO have trouble finding a monogamous relationship.”
Rubbish. Where DO you get your information?
I and many, MANY of my female (and quite a few of my male) friends greatly enjoyed what I believe to be (from this post) “hook-up culture” in our 20s and 30s, yet at the same time have since had and/or are currently in long-term (monogamous and nonmonogamous) relationships.
And I have hundreds more acquaintances who have done the same.
What a dated, judgemental, based-in-patriarchal morality statement that is that you’ve made. Join the 21st century, please.
Morgaine, let’s talk straight here. I’m sure there are plenty of promiscuous women that are in monogomous relationships now in their 30′s and 40′s. But let’s be honest with eachother here. As a older brother to 5 younger sisters, and privy to their plights with men, and from my perspectiive living in nyc for 20 years, I just think you are arguing the excpetions. Sure, we can always argue the excpetions, but where does that get us?
Do women with a long sexual history end up with a attractive man they truly love? Sure, but what are the odds. In my experience, (and I think facebook is a great example) the loose women I know growing up ended up with men that were half as attractrive as anyone they slept with In the past. Look, women have a lot of power in their sexuality. Some women use their most attractive years to sleep with good looking, interesting, sexually attractive men. Others use those years to attract the most high quality life long companion they can. Its a women’s choicem but make no mistake, life is about choices and trade offs. As a man who met his future wife in college, I’m fully aware of these trade offs. On the one hand, I share a bond with my wife that simply is unattianable for someone who did not have the opportunity to grow up with their life partner. She was in love with me before I was evem me! She put all her trust in a promising young man, and no matter how much money I make, no matter how many degrees I earn, no matter how sick or disfigured I ever become, she will still love the same 21 year old kid she met in college. How can you replace that?
Of course the trade off is that I’m an attractive 35 year old man with a doctorate degree a six figure salary and a healthy social-family life living in a world where I am all the sudden an alpha male with access to all the “liberated” women like yourself that provide easy nsa sex to men like me. And its tough, but its a trade off. I’m honest enough to admit I can’t have it both ways. Why can’t you? Sure, I want to have my cake and eat it, but uts one or the other-either I get to screw all the cute 20-somethings in the city or my relationship with my wife. Feminsims seems incapbable of being honest and telling young women life is about choices and trade offs, and every single decision we make has consequences, especially when it comes to the most intimate act any two human beings can engage in. And YES, in my experience, a womens sexual history absolutely has an impact, ESPECIALLY for women who have begun to age and realize that they will soon no longer be desirable sexually and at the same time must come to the realization they will never have a child of their own or a partner that they can trust will grow old with them. Through the good and the bad.
Reading some of the commentary here reminds me of attitudes / outlooks from the 1960′s. We visited the “free love’” concept once, and found it pretty shallow. Good thing that was the only drawback… then.
Today we have AIDS, and another half-dozen or so Permanent, Incurable diseases. Sleep with enough bums… and it’s only a matter of time.
Enjoy it while it lasts…
“Are you suggesting that a married woman who has had only 1 lifetime sex partner is damaging her vagina because she has frequent sex with her husband? Or is it just casual sex that is damaging?”
I always thought about this. Someone who has sex with 7 partners in a year but only a couple of encounters with each is going to have a lot less sex than someone who is married and having sex with her husband daily or even weekly. What about a woman with no partners who uses dildos? The myth of multiple partners doing something to your vagina (childbirth can occur with only one partner) makes no logical sense.
It does do something to your vagina if you have sex with males who have abnormally large member and if you don’t practice kegels and have multiple childbirths and no corrective procedures. Of course there are exceptions. Take the blinders off and step into the real world, like the author is saying. Take it from someone who has examined many vaginas and interviewed women regarding their sex habits/attitudes.
Hell, even ask a gynecologist!
“[a woman's] body is rarely, if ever, permanently changed by sexual activity. Previous or current sexual activity does not make a woman’s vagina “loose.”
“During intercourse, the vagina may not feel “tight” to a partner or a woman for a few reasons. When a woman is not scared and is sexually excited, the muscles around and of the vagina will temporarily become more flexible and open. Vaginal lubrication that also often happens at those times adds to the vagina not feeling tight.
**”Contrary as it may sound, when women feel very sexually aroused (excited) and are active sexual partners, the vagina may also feel tighter because of the muscles being more active and because of certain areas of the vulva being more erect and because of more blood circulating to the pelvic area.”*
Maybe, as the last point indicated, those 200 women you’ve been with just weren’t “very sexually aroused (excited)” and their vaginas didn’t “feel tighter because of the muscles being more active”.
http://www.scarleteen.com/article/politics/unpacking_cultural_myths_and_biases_about_womens_bodies_sex
I stand corrected. The vagina is infallible. Erectile dysfunction is a myth too people.