Sex Feels Good, And That's Why It Is Good
One of the ongoing problems in discussing remaking society so it has healthier, less misogynist attitudes about sex is that the conservative frame that claims that sex is dirty still dominates the conversation. Most debates I see about the very existence of sex (or to be more specific, unmarried women having sex without being punished by ill health, unintended pregnancy, legal consequences, or social admonishment with words like "slut") tend to fall on a continuum where conservatives support the idea of controlling sex through punishment, and liberals tend to argue in the language of human weakness, as if we need to avoid punishing sex because it's just an unavoidable part of human existence. It's the "might as well give them birth control, because they're going to do it anyway" argument. That's using the language of failure to describe sexuality, and I'm as guilty as anyone. Recent example: A column denouncing Ross Douthat where I wrote, "it's the commitment to being realistic about how people really are so you can help real people where they're at, instead of setting impossible standards and then just letting the majority of people who can't meet them suffer."
I'm pretty happy with that column, but I sort of wish I hadn't said that, because it implies that I think about sex as a problem that must be dealt with, instead of as a tool that can and should be used to make people's time here more pleasurable and meaningful. By using the language of failure and inevitability, we give our critics ammunition to, as some commenters here did, argue that we're wasting a lot of effort for nothing. Commenter Dan K is a perfect example:
Compared to that political demand, the demand for the mere right to get laid, and the right to pursue shallower sexual pleasures seems, while not entirely insignificant, just not very important.
Of course, what Jessica is doing in her book isn't really arguing for a "right to get laid" so much as a right to be judged by the content of your character and not by the penises of your past.
But I want to deal with the way that we're not helping ourselves when we talk about sex in terms of health consequences and inevitability, and avoid the harder discussion about why pleasure is far from shallow, but an important part of human life. Many people reject the purity myth, but still tend to view pleasure as an illegitimate way to spend time compared to working or engaging in some self-improvement project. In doing so, we reinforce to believers of the purity myth that everyone agrees that you can tell that pleasure is bad, because it feels good. (Obviously, sex isn't the only pleasure that can mark you as sinful or at least indolent---any group of fun-loving people is asking for a backlash of public anger. Look at how "hipster" has turned into a dirty word.)
Sex isn't just inevitable. If you're doing it right, it's an excellent use of one's time. Not just because it's a bonding activity, or because it can teach you about yourself, or because it relieves stress, though these are all benefits. It's because it's fun. And life without fun is hardly life at all. Feeling good is a public good, so long as you're not hurting yourself or anyone else. Most of the dangers attendant to sex can finally be dealt with through medical science, and the rest are the result of social disapproval, which can be gotten rid of.
Oh, but sex is emotionally damaging for women, conservatives promoting the purity myth will say. Heartache! Loneliness! Read: no one loves a slut. You will pay for pleasure, because pleasure is inherently wrong, and you can tell, because nothing that feels good can be good.
It's not sex that creates heartache---it's life. Purity myth proponents claim that their model for behavior will shield you from heartache, on the theory that avoiding casual sex will mean that no casual partner will break your heart by not calling you. What they don't tell you is that someone you've committed to can break your heart a million times harder. If the phone doesn't ring and it's a casual hook-up you were hoping would show interest, that sucks. If the phone doesn't ring and it's a guy you've given years of your life to, it can put you in bed listening to country western music and mourning the loss of years of your life that you gave to this loser.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't ever give your heart to someone, does it? You'd be missing out on the chance at the great pleasure that is love if you did that. All I ask is we have the same appreciation for the pleasures of sex. They're great enough that it's silly to condemn people who pursue them, especially since they can minimize the risk of disease and unintended pregnancy. What medical science can't give us is the monogamous partner who is guaranteed never to break your heart.
I agree with you about what sex ought to be, but it is simply an unavoidable fact that sex is a problem among certain populations, particularly the young. I don't think we can lose sight of that. It is not a simple dilemma at all.
I think we are likely in agreement that the problems we have stem, in large part, from how poorly and absurdly our society handles all sexually related matters. Nonetheless, it is extremely difficult to get young people to be responsible in any area simply because they are young, not just in the sexual realm. You/we also have to take into account that the standard society sets is almost certainly going to be coming from a middle class persepctive (which proceeds from certain assumptions that don't necessarily apply universally) but that is not where the greatest danger and harm from irresponsible sexual practices occurs. The greatest harm occurs among those below the middle class, where pregnancy and subsequent parenthood equals poverty, where social mores are even more difficult and sometimes more sexist than in the middle class realm that dominates all discussions such as this one.
Working toward the ideal is a good thing, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that as much fun as it is, as much gratification as one can get and as much as it ought to be a marvelously positive experience in the lives of every human being, sex remains fraught with all kinds of pitfalls. Those pitfalls are too much even for some adults. For the young, even more so.
April 10, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, sex causes problems. But the source of the problem is not sex itself. Sex is a tool, like language, and it can be used for good or ill.
I never denied that there's problems. I just think we can locate the source without reinforcing anti-sex hysteria. The main problem is that hysteria itself. And that's the source of a lot of health issues. Look at the guys freaking out in other threads about "sluts". These men are probably the ones not using condoms, certain that you can tell if a partner is diseased by how "slutty" she seems, as if sluttiness and not germs are the cause of disease. And that condom skipping is, of course, how disease is spread.
April 10, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
We agree on the hysteria and failure to use condoms is a giant problem, but there is much more in addition to that as well. It's a very difficult problem to address effectively. I'm sure we agree that all of it's only made worse by the incredibly dysfunctional, foolish, immature and sexist way our culture has historically approached all things dealing with sex and sexuality.
April 10, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
More later, just had to say I love this:
Hahaha. Brilliantly said!
April 10, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But not true. The original premise wasn't about whether one is a virgin, it was about whether promiscuity was a lifestyle beyond reproach.
This had been a drama around semantics, until Ms. Amanda decided to resurrect the 60's mantra of "If it feels good do it".
April 10, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that's exactly what it's about - "the content of your character" is what matters, not whether you've slept with 0 people or 20.
Promiscuity is way too subjective a term to be judged right or wrong by anybody.
April 10, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Define "promiscuous". I don't really enjoy arguing about the morality of something that's deliberately vaguely defined.
April 10, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rather than use a number like the person with 100 partners you described as worth captivating, why don't we use the "Girls Gone Wild" idea.
I've written elsewhere I think there is a distinction between serial monogamy, and serial hookups. I doubt anyone cares about whether the person they have a relationship with, is a virgin. I didn't. But I definitely didn't want to marry someone that valued their own pleasure more than a relationship. I'd say that's a good definition of "slut".
But as I write above, virginity is not a bad idea, especially in minors. Once you get on the slippery slope of sex for 17 year olds there is no logical stopping place until you hit pre-pubescence. I doubt even you wants that to happen.
Logically, every argument you can give for keeping minors virginal, can be extended to other women and society in general. Conservatives are not the Taliban, and the idea of virginity isn't outmoded. Like everything in life, it's all a matter of degree.
April 10, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I firmly disagree with your post, and I am the father of a 15 year old daughter, whom I love.
There is no slippery slope that does not already exist. There is no adolescent sex or sexuality that has not already existed since Anthropithacus Africanus.
There is a tolerance veil that obscures sexuality because it is a control mechanism. That simple. When someone decides to explore sexuality, there is nothing any authority figure in the world can do that will stop it... they can only traumatize their development. The best thing that authority can do is offer knowledge, awareness, and protection. My daughter knows that her eventual sexual partner will meet me, and we will discuss protection, disease, pregnancy, and responsibility. My daughter will continue to learn and grow to understand her sexuality and take ownership over her pleasure... my hope is that she will learn to handle her own pleasure until she is ready for a partner. If not, then I will take care of her and love her no matter what happens. it is that simple.
Black and white morality is for chumps.
April 10, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter, it's hard to believe you don't get this.
What they're talking about is quite simple. If a guy runs around having sex with anyone he can do it with he's "a ladies man." No big deal. If a woman does the very same thing she's nothing but a "whore", "slut", "skank", etc... A man who screws lots of women is not known or judged as a person primarily based upon that behavior. A man might even be admired for it by other men in some instances. A woman who does the very same thing is often primarily judged and defined as a human being and as a worker by that behavior first and foremost. Nobody can really dispute the truth of that double standard. It's a ridiculous double standard, always has been. It's a relic of days gone by that ought to be put to an end and needs to be put to an end for many reasons which should be obvious to all.
April 10, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeebus, you mean I've been wasting my time thinking this was a serious discussion about how and when to have sex for the first time? My bad. I'd have thought the "cougar" phenomenon would have put the double standard issue to rest.
Just out of curiosity, what do women say about serial hookup types of guys? Do they they think about guys like that, in roughly the same terms men think about serial hookup women? If so it would seem parity has been achieved after all.
OTOH One of my favorite TV shows is Bones, where a brilliant forensic scientist keeps different guys for sex, or going out to events. Obviously the issues around this have already hit the mainstream and you all are woefully behind.
If you ladies are worried about being called sluts then I'd say you need lessons in discretion. Guys have long known that the ones who talk about sex most, are the ones who get it least.
April 10, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks you're just oppositional for the sake of it.
April 10, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter (what a pseudo - he probably would wet himself in the presence of a firearm) does not want to "get it - he merely wants to posture and bloviate.
April 11, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What they're talking about is quite simple. If a guy runs around having sex with anyone he can do it with he's "a ladies man." No big deal. If a woman does the very same thing she's nothing but a "whore", "slut", "skank", etc... A man who screws lots of women is not known or judged as a person primarily based upon that behavior.
Well, if it makes any difference, while I have argued that there are obvious evo-psych reasons for this phenomenon, that does not mean that I approve of it.
Men who run around having sex with every woman they meet do not tend to strike me as very admirable, and they usually strike me as jerks. And I do not generally judge competent female characters because of their sex lives (I very much like Grace Hanadarko of "Saving Grace" and Jordan Cavanaugh from "Crossing jordan" for example).
And personally, I am a 30-year-old male virgin. (And I have chosen to remain that way, it wasn't forced upon me). So you may ridicule my beliefs about "purity," but you cannot accuse me of a double standard.
April 12, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your personal viewpoint is not the subject. The subject is societal judgment and standards.
April 14, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, let's talk about sex for minors. At what age should one allow one's children to indulge? 16, 14, how about 12?
I doubt you think a twelve year old should be doing it, which make virginity a good idea for some after all. If it's good for a 12 year old, perhaps it's a good idea for a 14 year old, or even a 16 year old.
If it's the case that virginity is good for minors, the next questions begged are... why is it good? And why are you simultaneously attacking it?
April 10, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's some interesting reading for you, shooter.
April 10, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. If you are going to bash virginity, you're going to have to make an exception for minors, or defend sex for, and with, minors.
April 10, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right - no one should have sex until they're 45. Of course I know 45 year olds who don't have the maturity to make wise decisions about their diet, but if you insist on a certain age that meets most of your requirements, there you are.
April 10, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I do not see how red herring applies in this case at all. So on some level your charge of red herring is itself ad hominem.
People object to the moralization of sex, but then are befuddled when confronted with the pedophile-seducing-young-boys syndrome.
OK, have it your way, sex is a powerful natural impulse that besets different people in different ways. That does not mean that whenever one has that impulse they should act on it. That, as a matter of prudence and in many cases (refer back to the aforementioned syndrome) as a matter of ethics. Shooter is right, but I suppose not politically correct in this libertine/liberal crowd. TPM denizens here go to great lengths not to appear “prudish”. Which brings up another powerful natural psychological phenomenon: that of synchronization of crowd behavior/ belief. But that's another matter.
April 12, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As if parents have any control over it...we forbade our sons from drinking and smoking, but I have one who gets a news letter from the U.S. Beer Drinking Team and another who is on the mailing list of the local smokes shop so I'm guessing that knowledge was acquired somewhere along the line.
April 10, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously they knew you didn't mean what you said enough to abide by it. Getting mail around bad behavior is about as "in your face" as it gets.
April 10, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
At 24 and 25?
April 10, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no age of demarcation. There is never an age of demarcation for safe drinking. You can't be 70 years old, drink a twelve pack, and expect to somehow be more responsible than an underage drinker who similiarly overindulges.
You are making a general issue out of an individual issue. Sexuality has no particular age. A boy child may begin masturbating at a very young age, and same with a girl child. Menstruation can vary, as can the "rites of passage" in culture. What does "Sweet 16" mean to you?
Parents and the family should have the responsibility to know and understand their children and not be so arrogant as to inflict line in the sand moral codes where none really exist.
April 10, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with you in general, I have to disagree with you on your 70 year old beer drinker example.
I would certainly expect a 70 year old beer drinker to be much more responsible than a 16 year old... For starters, the 70 year old is likely to go out of his way to make sure he's gonna be at home and not driving anywhere... Unless, of course, it's the first time he's ever had a drink...
For certain I am a much more responsible drinker than I was when I was 16... and I'm not even 70 yet!!! Why? Because I've been fortunate enough to live long enough (and experience enough) to learn what not to do.
I suppose the same could be said about the subject at hand. I would expect older, more experienced people to be more responsible wrt their sexual behaviour for the same reasons.
April 13, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this post. I'd rather hope that when we have discussions like this that both men and women would keep in mind that sex can be a fun, transcendent, awesome experience and that, gasp, it can be all of those things even when it's not party of ideal love, or a long-term relationship or marriage...
I don't want to reduce a complicated argument down to "the right to (try to) get laid," but, you know, I think that it's a rather important right.
Again, I'm glossing over complexities but as you say, using the "sex is inevitable" line glosses over a pretty glaring fact: sex is something people are likely to choose to do because it can be a fantastic way to spend one's time.
In Love & Death Diane Keaton says to Woody Allen: "Sex without love is an empty experience."
His retort: "But as empty experiences go, it's one of the best."
April 10, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, sometimes I feel like the dour way we discuss this issue is like saying, "People are going to enjoy music, art, and warm summer days. We can't stop it, so we might as well learn to live with it." It's a little silly. It's good that people enjoy music, art, and warm summer days. Sure, they need to avoid blowing out their ears or getting sunburned (which can kill you!---skin cancer is deadly), but usually our discourse is about being safe and making the most out of these pleasures, and even entertaining the notion that these pleasures should be stopped is a little silly.
April 10, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have a great weekend, wish you and Jessica were around TPM more. Oh and Katha Pollitt too!
April 10, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for discussing a great topic - one of the best topics of all. I cannot disagree with anything you have said.
Indeed I am puzzled how people insist on being disagreeable about this topic ... the whole idea is to reach an agreement, is it not ?
April 10, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 10, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
AIDS hasn't and won't be cured. However, it can be prevented, thank god. Skin cancer is also pretty hard to survive, but that doesn't mean we sit inside all day. Science went ahead and invented sunscreen. Of course, people don't actively fight the distribution of sunscreen and education efforts of sunscreen under the guise that it's immoral to go outside, and cancer is a good way to scare people indoors. If they did, we'd think they were nuts.
April 10, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amanda- I promise to give you credit when I eventually release my memoir, "The Penises of my Past."
Seriously, though, I am of the belief (and I suspect I'm going to catch a lot of flack for this) that the physical act of sex is no more inherently moral/immoral than, say, shaking hands. Of course, the stakes are much higher for sexing than for hand shaking, which leads to a whole bunch of dishonesty and manipulation, which ARE moral issues. The most fulfilling sexual relationships (or penises of my past) I've ever had run the gamut from intensely intimate to purely transactional, but the one thing they all have in common is that they were based in honesty regarding both parties' intentions.
I wrote a post a few weeks back on the male/female dynamic and the moral/immoral/amoral nature of sex, and was overwhelmed by the intensity of the comments--both the expected "OMG why are you such a whore?" but also some really thoughtful responses on women, sex, race, virginity and expectations.
April 10, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahaha...reminds me of the quote from "The Graduate," when Ben tells Mr. Robinson that his (Ben's) affair with Mrs. Robinson didn't mean anything, and that it might as well have been "shaking hands," and Mr. Robinson tells him, as he's leaving: "You'll forgive me if I don't shake your hand!"
April 10, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're doing [sex] right, it's an excellent use of one's time. Amanda Marcotte
And -- not to get overly personal -- in your experience just how many teenage boys did you meet who were "doing it right"? Hmm.
April 10, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many teenagers are great at guitar the first time they pick it up?
April 10, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
None, if the strings are already broken.
April 10, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So are you suggesting they leave it in the case?
April 10, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most teenage girls who lend out their guitars don't have the sense to keep them from the Hendrix / Townsends of this world who destroy 'em after they use 'em.
Problem is, a great player isn't worth the destruction.
April 11, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are creating a false scarecrow villain here, then shooting at it with a nuclear warhead in your own plastic bubble where you think sex is a tool. It's evident that for you, it is a political tool.
You simply mislead when you state that conservatives think sex is dirty. Instead, it is advertised and portrayed in popular media as "dirty," and that's supposed to be good. You are into false accusation against large swaths of fellow Americans in the Republic, and that is supposed to rate you an "author." I disagree.
What you are saying simply doesn't reflect reality for most religious families, and even religious conservative families. You aver that because many don't talk about the subject in public, but talk to their children privately about it, that they consider it dirty. Were it so, you wouldn't be tying your integrity into knots trying to get at them because there wouldn't be any.
April 10, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was raised in a Catholic family, and I am part of an extended family and have partaken in discussions with families of various religious and moral persuasions... and I can tell you that nearly all of them think sex is dirty unless it is for love and children, and there are a myriad of behavior controls inflicted on children that shame and confuse them.
I don't know what conservative families you've been around, but the one's I have witnessed are all inveterately dysfunctional about sexuality.
April 10, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you are being honest unless you can get these people you lump together in your anectdotes to execute affidavits verifying that they are saying that sexuality is dirty. I doubt seriously they would say that. Instead, I suspect you interpret their emphases against abusing the power of sexuality as equivalent to saying sex is dirty. What that boils down to is that if they don't share support for the proclivities you support, they are repressed or "dysfunctional." And that simply means that you do not tolerate others' freedom of belief and ethics if it disagrees with yours. They should shut up, and you should be empowered. Not exactly civil libertarian in effect.
April 12, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course religious conservatives think sex is dirty until it's cleaned up by the church giving it a stamp of approval in a marriage.
April 12, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that simply means that you do not tolerate others' freedom of belief and ethics if it disagrees with yours.
Not at all. We just want you wingnut bible-thumpers to mind your own damn business.
April 12, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mike:
Since you are not privy to these "private" conversations you claim conservative christians are having with their children, what makes you think those conversations even exist - other than in your mind?
.
April 13, 2009 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wha?
On the one hand you claim to speak for Christian Conservatives by saying they have honest conversations about sex... and don't see sex as 'Dirty'.
Then you criticize another for claiming to have had discussions with various religious people... and says that they pretty much DO see sex as 'Dirty'.
THEN, you ask for affidavits, when you offered none in the first place.
FOUL!
If we are to read your thoughts and take them seriously... then you have to grant the same courtesy in kind. Trouble is: If you do that, then you can't continue. So be it.
April 13, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wine is good, but too much wine is bad. Chocolate is good, but too much chocolate makes you fat. Driving is fun, but driving recklessly can kill.
Many men claim that sex without protection feels even better than sex with condoms. Many people have sex when they are drunk or on drugs, and hey it feels amazing. Many people have sex not because of the pleasure of sex but because they want intimacy or escape.
If you admit (as you did, several times) that sex has its attendant issues - presumably the ones that the science is working to fix - then you also have to admit that it's not enough to simply say - do it because it feels good and avoid "unhelpful" discussions about consequences of any act, including sex.
Anything that can create a potential problem requires a level of awareness, maturity and personal responsibility to make the best decision for the person.
So I disagree entirely that dismissing the talk of personal responsibility is "not helping ourselves". It's just not helping you, Amanda, with the "sex is just fun, and science will fix the problems" argument, because it exposes it as immature and irresponsible.
At the very least, it's misleading to deliberately minimize the risk and amplify the rewards.
And if you have an honestly balanced discussion, you will have too many caveats to the sunny and care-free statement that "sex is good, because it feels good".
April 10, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are dangers that are attendant to many behaviors, and moral/legal codes have not eliminated them. Can you think of a bad behavior or dangerous attitude that has ever been eliminated?
I can't see what your criticisms actually accomplish... what alternatives do you propose? It appears to me that you are making sex a thing that can be regulated where dangers can be minimized. If so, how? I am more about awareness... the moment that a man or a woman makes love, then the degrading images of promiscuity lose some of their persuasive hold because sex ceases to be a social function akin to a bartered commodity. So in my opinion you teach your children love through example, love for themselves and others, and allow them to fly whenever they grow wings and be there to help them if they falter. None of that can be legislated or moralized.
April 10, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's only when you put everything on the table, both the joy and the risk, that you can make an informed decision. But advocating that would prevent Amanda from happily irresponsible political slogans like the 70s dustup she used today.
April 10, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
True... the idea that science can solve risk is a faith-based magic feather.
April 10, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was lovely.
April 13, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I want to deal with the way that we're not helping ourselves when we talk about sex in terms of health consequences and inevitability, and avoid the harder discussion about why pleasure is far from shallow, but an important part of human life.
Since one of my comments in an earlier thread is cited here, I just wanted to note that I had another comment in the same thread. It was misplaced all the way at the bottom of the thread, when it should have been placed under Amanada's comment as a response.
I didn't argue or imply that pleasure in itself was shallow, but only that there are shallow pleasures, and that sexual pleasures are frequently among them. Amanda mentioned circumstances in which sexual pleasure sometimes rises to an emotionally intense and profound plane. And I recognize the existence of such pleasures. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that the majority of sexual pleasures sought and received in our world are rather shallow and insignificant ones. That doesn't make them "dirty" or awful - just not a very big deal. And if they are not a very big deal, it is hard to turn them into some great progressive cause.
Obviously pleasure is an important and vital part of life. But there are all sorts of different pleasures, and some are much more worth pursuing than others. There is one form of liberalism that seems to suggest that so long as people refrain from harming others, we must refrain from forming any judgments whatsoever about their actions and way of life. It's all good. Its all equal.
I don't accept that form of liberalism. While I accept that the demands of liberty require that we generally shouldn't make laws against behaviors that don't harm others, and should preserve the free individual space in which people work these issues out for themselves, I don't accept that it is either necessary or desirable that we should refrain from value judgments about what people do with their liberty, and with the very finite time that has been allotted to them by nature, or that we should refrain from expressing those judgments from time to time. We can no more refrain from such judgments about others than we can refrain from similar judgments about ourselves.
This discussion arose in the context of what we should think of people who have many sexual partners. I don't think there is one uniform answer that applies to all. I can accept that there are some people who are sexual artists or geniuses, whose wide-ranging sexual explorations generate an abundance of high-value experiences. But I think that patterns of many-partner sexuality typically indicate less exalted pursuits of less significant pleasures, and are generally driven by boredom, indolence and detachment.
I also think we have to take account of the different seasons of life, and the different ways our bodies feel at different times of our lives. Most of us probably have a different attitude toward the 24-year old man exploring a variety of sexual experiences at the peak of his sexual responsiveness, and a 40-year old Lothario still hanging on to a life of hook-ups. People like the latter often strike us as aimless or stuck, and for good reason. Many of us would be inclined to ask him, "Aren't you over that stage yet?"
April 10, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
...I remain convinced that the majority of sexual pleasures sought and received in our world are rather shallow and insignificant ones.
Then I pity you.
April 10, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you wouldn't.
April 10, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you mind telling us what makes one pleasure shallower than another?
April 12, 2009 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would say the distinction among qualities of pleasure has something to to with how much of your mind is engaged by the pleasure, and it what capacities; which emotional and interpersonal potentialities are actualized; whether the pleasure elevates your thinking or degrades it; whether the pleasure contributes to awakening your consciousness of reality, or to narcotizing it and putting it further to sleep; whether it has an enduring positive effect or was a transient and ephemeral high.
Sexual pleasure, it is known, can rise to very great heights indeed. But in a large number of occasions it is a fairly cheap and forgettable thrill. You stimulate your body, either alone or with another person, and it feels good. You have an orgasm. That feels very good. Then it subsides and is gone.
I think we can all get a fix on the shallowness or depth of these pleasures by asking ourselves a few questions. Consider the totality of sexual experiences you have had. Which ones do you remember? Which ones don't you remember? I would submit that if you don't remember some event, then it probably wasn't that important. There is nothing awful about that; a little jolt of relatively unimportant and forgettable pleasure is a good little thing in itself. But it is not the stuff that important social causes are made of.
April 12, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't followed this discussion because it seems to compulsively define "sex" as just intercourse.
Sigh.
Sorry to say this, but not only is that an extremely narrow viewpoint, you guys are missing out.
April 10, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes we are, we have been talking an awful lot about the significance of virginity in the context of evil old right-wing men controlling poor helpless defenseless women.
April 10, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
Then it's in danger of turning into a Monty Python script.
April 10, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Maybe it already has. Missed you here and have a wonderful Easter.
April 10, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You too. ;-)
April 10, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sex Feels Good, And thats Why It Is Good?
That's exactly the line she used to trap me. Sure, it felt good, real good, but now I've got a mortgage I'm drowning in, orthodontist bills which could choke a horse, except horses have good teeth usually, and the oldest one wants a car. At 15! She says, "Daddy, if I'm old enough to be sexually active, I'm old enough to drive!"
Kids these days! You can't drive till your 16 in this state, that's the law!
And every time I come upa little short, some guy sitting cross-legged on my kitchen counter starts spouting phone listings for divorce lawyers.
Feels good my foot!
April 10, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know a good gay abortionist, if you ever need one.
April 10, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I didn't argue or imply that pleasure in itself was shallow, but only that there are shallow pleasures, and that sexual pleasures are frequently among them"
Not the ones I heard last night! These condo walls are so thin they're more like speaker grilles.
Maybe I will buy her that car, how much could it cost? Anything to get her away from here. She needs to find a boyfriend her own age. The guy sounds like something you call 9-11 over and yell "Hurry, hurry!" about.
April 10, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What medical science can't give us is the monogamous partner who is guaranteed never to break your heart"
My wife got around that. She shot her first husband. Break her heart? Not on your tin-type, Margerie! I'm doing my best to see I don't even bruise it a little. I don't want to die unshriven, unannealed, and thoroughly perforated.
She didn't kill him, just took a chunk out of his inner thigh. Her aim is always lousy when she's sober.
April 10, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now for something completely different....
April 11, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
To shooter:
Here are two true stories for you to contemplate in terms of relative morality:
1) I had a great neighbor in Manhattan in the early 80's who happened to be tall, willowy and blonde; she also happened to be putting herself through Columbia graduate school. This young woman, of mighty intelligence, was someone you would probably refer to with disparagement, in retro terms, as a nymphomaniac. She had a lot of partners; furthermore, in a quirky rendition of academic protocol, she developed a log, with footnotes, cross referencing her partners in demographic terms -- which she later incorporated into an entirely credible doctoral dissertation in Sociology. My neighbor harmed no one, achieved much, gave generously in every aspect of her life, including volunteer work with young women in impoverished neighborhoods, making sure that they knew how to say "no," as well as how to insist on the use of condoms in an instance in which they wanted to say "yes."
You, Shooter, would probably refer to this young woman as a "slut" in every pejorative sense. I observed her as a remarkably independent, confident, thinking, feeling, sensate, freewheeling, caring, somewhat odd person worthy of my respect.
2) A friend of my parents was right up there in the hierarchy of the CIA. He was James Bond handsome, Ivy-educated, smooth and sophisticated. And, yet, many years after my parents' deaths, he confided to my second husband, in my hearing, that "the best sex he ever had was with a thirteen year old virgin in what was then Burma." This was a man I had respected my whole life. His thirteen year-old daughter was my closest friend in the earlier time period I reference. His wife was my alter-mother. His son was my first date. But discount my personal shock, which is, for the purposes of this discussion, irrelevant.
My question to you, Shooter, is who was the slut? My neighbor, or my parents' friend, who "deflowered" an impoverished refugee and, forty years later, saw it as a manly achievement and thrill?
BTW. It is a dead giveaway of misogyny to refer to women as "ladies" in the way that you do. And a dead giveaway of double standards to refer to "cougars" in any context.
My recommendation? Grow up.
April 10, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slut-shaming is a terrible game... witch hunting by another name.
April 10, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't hold your breath waiting for a response from Shooter. He is mainly of the "drive-by" type.
April 11, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course, what Jessica is doing in her book isn't really arguing for a "right to get laid" so much as a right to be judged by the content of your character and not by the penises of your past."
That's perfectly sensible and noble, but asking people not to judge you unfairly is like asking people to return a lost wallet. Good people will, bad people won't.
This is shown by some of the comments here(I forget who said this but) "Anyone who is 20 isn't a virgin has psychological hangups". We're merely trading one type of judgmentalism for another.
Won't some large portion of society just continue to stigmatize?
April 10, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Anyone who is 20 isn't a virgin has psychological hangups."
That has it all wrong. It should read: ""Anyone who 20 is still a virgin has psychological hangups".
The reasoning is that any human female who lives from puberty at the age of 12 or 13 until they are 20 has suppressed her natural sexual drives for so long that she will find it hard to change into a sexually mature person in one day based on the pronouncements a rabbi, a priest, a minister, or a Justice of the Peace.
April 13, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry - that second paragraph above should read:
"Anyone who is 20 and is still a virgin has psychological hangups."
.
April 13, 2009 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
An interesting discussion this week. My way of looking at human sexuality is some of the first things drawn on cave walls, at the dawn of humanity, were depictions of naked women. As a species we are hardwired for sex. And I don't think that human instinct will be changing soon.
We should enjoy sex and hopefully enjoy it responsibly and respectfully. The problems with teen sex, the educating (or lack thereof) of teens about sex, and some out and out lies told to teens about sex are serious. The problems encourage risky behavior and can do psychological damage to young people, especially girls since they are supposed to be 'the responsible ones', that can linger throughout life. We need to drive a stake through the heart of the modern Scarlet Letter of 'S' (for 'slut') that society wants to place on women who enjoy sex. Sex shouldn't be stigmatized as it is...we all do it, and hopefully enjoy it, lol. We need a more open and honest discussion about sex with teens who are about to enter adulthood...but it really isn't a subject most feel comfortable having a frank discussion about. We are the by-product of the culture we would like to see changed. But we are trying to change a behavior that, we as a species, has culturally passed on for literally thousands of years...it isn't gonna be easy. But what in life is?
April 10, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You will pay for pleasure, because pleasure is inherently wrong, and you can tell, because nothing that feels good can be good."
Christianity has been big on the "if it feels good, cut it out!" theme I guess ever since the Sermon on the Mount ("If thine eye offendeth, pluck it out")
But that aside, pleasure is not that easy, and not just because Christianity piles on and tries to make us feel guilty about it. The body seems hardwired for some measure of unhappiness, boredom, disappointment, etc. If people could be easily satsified by physical pleasure, we'd probably not get much done, like work and survival. For whatever reason, the pursuit of pleasure doesn't usually lead straight to happiness.
Young people dive right into sex, alcohol and drugs, but often get burned and learn painful lessons. (That vodka feels good right now, but won't in the morning!) That's part of life and growing up. As we age, we learn the "art of happiness" -- that things are more pleasurable when we feel we've earned it, for instance, and that anticipation can be as good as the reward, etc. Hard work can be pleasurable when it's done, and so can giving and charity and volunteering. Exercise like running brings its famous "runner's high". I guess we learn to enjoy life in a wiser and more fulfilling way as we make our way along.
April 11, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my point is that pleasure is great, it's just not so easy. There is an art to pleasure.
April 11, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post but you started it off with a straw man that you never really backed up with examples.
"One of the ongoing problems in discussing remaking society so it has healthier, less misogynist attitudes about sex is that the conservative frame that claims that sex is dirty still dominates the conversation"
Which conservatives? I only hear them claim that sex out of wedlock and/or promiscuity is wrong, especially for those who are underage. I've never heard them argue that sex itself is dirty. Do you have examples of this or is it just your interpretation?
April 11, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You answered you are question...why is sex out of wedlock wrong and is it equated with promiscuity? How do you define 'promiscuity'? Any sex out of wedlock? So only married people can/should be able to have sex?
April 11, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one posting the parent post has the burden of definitions. Why are you not asking her to define her terms?
Promiscuous is indiscriminate.
Considering that reproduction is in most cases a natural and naturally inseparable aspect of sexuality, the person with discrimination chooses a partner who would make a good parent and spouse. The honorable partner owns up to their parenthood. The dishonorable destroys life he/she is responsible for.
The person who does not discriminate does not care, either because they use abortion as their birth control or backup plan, or because they are reckless.
If, as these posters keep saying, sex is natural, naturally feels good (duh) and so on, then why is reproduction not also natural, and abortion an unnatural intervention in the natural process?
Religious behavior, restraint, social checks and balances are natural behaviors among the great plurality of human beings. How is that not also natural?
April 11, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you defining sex only in terms of it being done for procreation?
I don't argue the facts as you put forward that in the case of procreation there are responsibilities which should be met. But not all sex acts are necessarily to create a life...nor do I think that is all they should be. I am all for responsibility...and if an act of sex is being done for reasons other than procreation the people involved should do it in a responsible way where procreation won't be the end result. But I don't agree that discussions of sex and what is promiscuity begins and ends on the premise that it is only an act to bring forth a life.
April 12, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If, as these posters keep saying, sex is natural, naturally feels good (duh) and so on, then why is reproduction not also natural, and abortion an unnatural intervention in the natural process?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with this: when someone forces you to have sex against your will, it's supposed to be a crime. So why isn't it a crime when wingnut retards force you to bear a child against your will?
April 12, 2009 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike:
Your statement: "The honorable partner owns up to their parenthood. The dishonorable destroys life he/she is responsible for." shows that you are a die-hard anti choice male chauvinist.
Are you really into forcing pregnant raped teenage girls to have a child?
What is "honorable" about bringing a child into this world when that action will only bring grief to everyone involved?
Your statements reveal that you think that sex apart from procreation is somehow wrong, probably even "Evil", and therefore must be punished by a lifetime of pain and suffering.
April 13, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Johann, here you are with the infinitesimal dot on the board scenario compared with abortion at large, and pretending it's mainstream. I've spoken to the rape scenario before, and you can look it up using Google if you want to. You will probably find it doesn't fit into your three or four inflammatory argument routine.
My statements did not "reveal" anything of the sort that you've averred they do.
Sexuality isn't dirty unless it is made dirty by abusing its power, i.e. engaging in it in a way that all but guarantees that if a child comes about, it will be murdered before it sees the light of day is dirty. Using for sex, hurting and then leaving a woman or a man is dirty. Spreading diseases is dirty. Reducing sex to a latex sport is simply ugly.
You folks act as if it was easy to get pregnant, and that most folks who have sexual relations get pregnant every time. You think religious people who are socially conservative do not enjoy those times together in which a pregnancy does not result? Of course they do. And on those occasions where pregnancy does occur, it is all the more joy.
However, by delimiting sexuality as a pleasure-only recreational event, Marcotte and others steer far and wide from the reality that sexuality is at the core about procreation and life, and that pleasure is wrapped up with that without hierarchical legalism. The pleasure is there to encourage more procreation, and for those who love life and people, procreation is not an occasion for grief, but hope, inspiration, someone to work for and love. No sane person I know clinically parses sexuality the way Marcotte and others do.
April 14, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is this post about? The author seems to believe it is a given that sex feels good.
Sex feels good? Really? How about when it DOESN'T feel good? Is it still good then?
How about when it feels good in the moment but doesn't feel good the next day or in ten year retrospect?
How about when the body part feels good, but the mind or the heart isn't so sure how it feels?
What if the part of the person that doesn't feel good is hidden from the person while the damage is occurring, but only discovered later... can preserved cultural wisdom enable people to understand that they may not be experiencing all the feelings associated with sex in the moment of sex?
I dispute the premise from top to bottom. Sex does NOT "feel good." Sex is what it is, and if the only part of sex that you call sex is the part that feels good, then you've missed the iceberg beneath the waves, which includes many other hidden goods and hidden bads, not all of which are easily or quickly felt, but are all, everyone, part of sexual feeling.
April 12, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way too simplistic. I think of the 18 year old kid with mental illness who just aged out of foster care and got pregnant by another 18 year old with mental illness who just aged out of foster care. And the drug addicted relatives who though not there for their own kids promised to be there for the prospective child. And the people at planned parenthood who offered a better solution. I think of the roommate I had one time who brought home a different guy every single night and showered 8 times a day. I think of the married professor seeking sex from his student on the office floor. I think of the medical student who had sex with her boyfriend even though it did not feel good. She had a urinary tract infection when she was 16 and didn't seek medical attention--permanently damaging herself--because she was afraid her mother would know she was having sex. The same mother who took her out to lunch everytime she was home to ask when she would finally be getting married. No doubt heroine feels good too.
If you just want the part that feels good, masturbate. But be careful. Carpal tunnel is not a picnic.
April 12, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Drive the last nail in Amanda Marcotte's coffin.
She's like my youngest sister rambling on about shit the rest of us laugh about. Ridiculous, meaningless, who gives a fuck shit. And it's embarrassing. Strange. And pointless.
April 12, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I add that you're comment is far more embarrassing and pointless than this thoughtful post.
Seriously, brother, read your comment, and ask yourself if that's the person you really want to be.
April 13, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, Dorn, I went way off the chart/over the line. My Mavericks lost, Tiger hit a tree & I had to go to the store to cook our meal when all I wanted to do was cover up with a blanket & I took it out on Amanda. My bad. My very very very bad.
brother
April 13, 2009 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink