Jaclyn Friedman
Last week, Jaclyn Friedman wrote a post for Feministe which immediately went up on Jezebel as well. Thanks to the readers who sent me the link. Entitled My Sluthood, Myself, it generated quite a bit of buzz and many very interesting comments on various blogs. Ms. Friedman cites numerous personal motivations for writing the piece, many of which reflect a truly tortured history with sex and relationships. However, she also wants something from the reader:
I’m telling you this because sluthood requires support….A slut needs a posse who finds her exploits almost as delicious as she finds them herself, who cares about her safety and her stories and her happiness but not one whit about her virtue…even if you don’t ever want sluthood for yourself, you’re going to be called upon to support a slut. I’m telling you this because when that happens, I want you to say yes.
That’s asking a lot from other women.
Why? Because the current sexual marketplace prioritizes casual sex over relationship sex. Women predisposed to hold out for relationship sex wage a steep uphill battle. Fellow blogger Ferdinand Bardamu explains this quite succinctly:
Now, if most guys who can get laid with regularity are prone to reject girls who won’t give it up within a reasonable time and cost, wouldn’t this mean that good girls…would be much less likely to be the targets or victims of these men? In a world in which sluttiness is not stigmatized and sex is much easier to obtain, looser women would suck up most of the attentions of men with good game, thus leaving the monogamous girls alone.
Women who understand the power of sex, the incredible chemistry of it, women who know that sex is not casual physiologically speaking, women who do not embrace a life of sluthood, are indeed left alone by many men. That’s a good thing in some ways, but terribly disappointing in others. Very few women embrace the notion of receiving zero male attention once word gets out that they are not slutty. They cannot compete with determined sluts in the marketplace among these men. Sexually discriminating women have every reason to withhold support from sluts. Sluts are wreaking havoc on the supply side.
Ms. Friedman touts the healing powers of sluthood, a way of burying past traumas and protecting oneself from undue emotional distress. I will now proceed to deconstruct her argument, and demonstrate that it is not only fallacious, but dangerous for women. I’ve tried to present a fair representation that honors Ms. Friedman’s intentions.
“I’m telling you this because of something else that’s also true about me: I’d really like to be in a long-term, probably monogamous relationship. That’s right, folks, I’m a slut who craves a stable, loving, committed relationship. File me under “Lookin’ fer luv: ur doin it wrong.”“
The only remotely self-aware statement in the piece. On her own website, she describes herself as “a queer Jewish writer, performer, and activist.” She is widely known and respected in the feminist community, having co-written Yes Means Yes! Visions of Female Sexual Power & a World Without Rape with Jessica Valenti.
That’s the story we get sold, right? That women who sleep around are destroying their chances at True Love. Something to do with bonding hormones getting all used up? Or is it that we have so little self-esteem that no one could love us? Or maybe it’s that we’re all used candy wrappers or dirty masking tape. I can never remember. Thing is: I’ve done it the other way. Until my mid-30s, I was largely a serial monogamist.
She is around 40, and confesses several ill advised relationships that resulted in a torrent of emotional distress. Taking refuge in snark is a favorite maneuver among feminists. “Something to do with?” “Getting all used up?” Snark, snark. Sneer, roll eyes. Ms. Friedman’s piece was hailed for its bravery, but this is a cowardly move.
Thing is: Relationship science is hard science. Oxytocin is not some disinformation cooked up by the evil patriarchy. It’s a chemical that floods your body after sex, during breastfeeding, and through the early months of motherhood. Men also experience it, though its effect is tamped down somewhat by testosterone. The effects of sex hormones are bound to reside on a spectrum. Some women may produce less, which leads to less emotional attachment. Some men are suckers for oxytocin, and love spooning after sex. Anyone who regularly dismisses a large body of peer-reviewed academic studies in this area is as ridiculous as a member of the Flat Earth Society.
As for self-esteem, the answer to her question is yes. One may love, and pity, a person with low self-esteem. But a healthy, robust, falling in love experience with such a person is surely impossible. How can we fall in love with someone who is wearing a big virtual sandwich board that says “I’m a lemon! Damaged goods! Everything in this bin is 50 cents!”
After [a] year and a half of nothing [no sex], I went to bed with a woman I barely knew on our first date. Nothing wrong with that, we had a great time, and seriously, did I mention a year and a half? The problem came the next morning, when it became obvious that she was much more into me emotionally than I was at that point. Did I tell her that? And potentially get exiled back to my affectionless desert? I bet you know the answer. What followed was a two-year relationship in which we were unhappy for about the last year and a half.
Ms. Friedman made a calculated decision to spend two years in a relationship that she did not feel emotionally invested in. She believed, as so many women do, that any relationship has got to be better than no relationship. Two years is a long time. It’s a longer time in your 30s than it was in your 20s. While you’re halfwaying it, emotionally stable people are lookin’ fer luv and finding it.
Fast forward through a few more relationships to last fall. As I crawled out of the acute grief stage of my breakup and into the Land of Reboundia, I launched myself somewhat full-throttle into dating. It was comforting to me to find that there were other people I found appealing who felt similarly about me. But each person I’d meet, if there was any kind of a click at all, I’d throw myself at them whole-hog, wanting so badly for them to be The One that proved I wouldn’t have to do die alone with a shriveled-up vagina and no cats. (I’m allergic.) And then (sing this with me if you know the tune), when something would inevitably go wrong, however silly or minor, however nascent the connection was, it would feel overwhelming. Like I was dying. Like I was broken all over again.
Red flags? Let me count them for you:
- Fast forward through a few more relationships. Rapid fire serial monogamy is a clear indication that something is wrong. Ur doing it wrong. You might be choosing the wrong partners, or behaving the wrong way, or conveying that you loathe yourself.
- I launched myself somewhat full-throttle. Again, the prevailing drive is impulse, perhaps even compulsion.
- It was comforting to me to find that there were other people I found appealing who felt similarly. Seeking relationships as a form of sexual validation works in the very short-term. It’s a house of cards, though, as Ms. Friedman learned.
- If there was any kind of a click at all, I’d throw myself at them whole-hog. Ouch. Not a good strategy. Leads to shouts of “Psycho! Leave me alone!”
- When something would inevitably go wrong… it would feel overwhelming. Like I was dying. Like I was broken all over again. This is painful to witness. I do understand the profound need that Ms. Friedman must feel to be healed, and loved.
And then a miracle occurred. Via the unlikeliest source of miracles ever: Craigslist Casual Encounters.
OMG! As a parent who still worries about what time my now adult kids come home, my heart was pounding as I read this. In the 70s, when one-night stands were still novel in mainstream America, women met men in bars and went home with them. Bad stuff happened. The 1977 film Looking for Mr. Goodbar was based on the true story of the murder of a NYC schoolteacher who picked up a handsome guy in a bar.
…one Friday night last fall, after having been blown apart yet again by some minor rejection that felt so huge it sent me to my bed. I hadn’t showered or shaved or left the house in days. And so, glass of wine in hand, wearing a robe and dirty sweatpants, I posted an ad just so I could watch the replies come in and feel like I had some kind of choice in the world. That somebody wanted me, even if they were gross and I’d never want them back.
And then B. responded. He was smart and charming. His picture looked cute. He seemed like a grown-up, and not like a psycho. He knew how to banter. He made a funny joke about punctuation. And, after a few emails were exchanged, he wanted to know if I’d like to meet him for a drink. That night. Then. And, to my great shock and terror and excitement, I found that I did.
The next hour was a blur of furious grooming, during which I kept up the following internal monologue: I’m going to get axe murdered. I’m going to get axe murdered. You don’t have to do this, you can call it off. No, I want to. I can handle myself, I have good instincts and great training. Oh, god, I’m going to get axe murdered.
She knew. She made a decision to risk not just another profound emotionally devastating experience, but her life. Her need for validation, the need to “have some choice in the world” was so enormous that she eagerly ventured out to meet a man about whom she knew only one thing: his explicit desire to keep sex casual. No emotions, no history, no mess.
As an aside, note the switch to men. Though Ms. Friedman identifies as queer as of today, she went trolling for heterosexual sex. She says that her trauma history means she “still has triggers to manage,” and she states on her site that she was sexually assaulted in college. I’m in no position to untangle this skein, but it certainly raises questions about her motivation in seeking men on Craigslist.
I left my roommate a note telling her what I’d done and where I was going and to call me at 11 and if I didn’t answer to call the police.we spent a lovely hour chatting over a couple of glasses of wine, he used the phrase “male hegemony” critically in a sentence (entirely unprompted by me), and then he asked me if I wanted to go back to his place, which was nearby. And once again, to my shock and terror and excitement, I found that I did.
When, oh when, will feminists learn that men are usually spouting complete BS when they throw around phrases like male hegemony, patriarchy and heteronormative?
Driving home late that night, I was overcome with an uneasy feeling. What had I just done? What did it mean? What would my friends think? Was this who I wanted to be? I sat in my parked car, paralyzed, for ten minutes that felt like an hour. And then I climbed upstairs, slid into bed, and fell into a troubled sleep.
I woke up the next morning feeling unmoored. Like something inside me had been knocked loose, but I didn’t yet know if it was a part I needed, or something that had been in the way. At brunch with friends that day, I nervously let slip about my little adventure, and exhaled as they cheered and pumped me for details. Emboldened by their lack of judgment, I told a few more friends, found more wicked delight.
I’m telling you this because sluthood requires support.
She drove home with an uneasy feeling (after three rounds of good sex). She slept uneasily, and woke feeling unmoored. It was not until her friends let out their war whoops and clamored for details that she felt validated once again. Why wouldn’t they cheer her on? Even if they would never even consider the same behavior, we all enjoy a good train wreck, especially if the victim seems unhurt. We may marvel at their ability to come out unscathed, with no idea of the slow internal bleed that’s begun.
In other ways, too, sluthood isn’t always pretty, and I’m not always good at it. Whether from years of habit or something more intrinsic to my personality, my heart seems to want to attach, and after a couple months of playing together casually, and having long, rangey talks naked in bed together between rolls in the hay, it started to with B. Neither of us handled it particularly well. There were tears; there were accusations.
Of course there were. She bonded with B after a “couple months of playing together casually.” Woman, know thyself! That’s your oxytocin speaking! I think we all know who shed tears and made accusations.
Sluthood saved me. Sluthood gave me the time and space to nurse a shattered heart. It gave me a place where I could exist in pieces, some of me craving touch, some of me still too tender to even expose to the light.
I’m telling you this because, as scary and dangerous as my sluthood is, it’s built on privilege. I’m cisgender and able-bodied and relatively mentally healthy for now, which makes these assignations a lot easier to manage on multiple levels, I would imagine.
I’ve also had some obstacles to overcome. Fat girls don’t have the same pick of partners that smaller women seem to, though I’ve been pleasantly surprised and moved that there are more people out there who are attracted to me than I’d thought. Being a woman who’s “pushing 40″ doesn’t exactly expand the pool either.
FYI: I had to look up the word “cisgender.” It means being comfortable in the gender you were assigned at birth. Apparently we now need a way to express that we are not transgendered. In this way, we can reassure ourselves and those around us that we are not heteronormative.
I don’t have the heart to flag the other troubling expressions in this excerpt, but her desperate need for something real sounds like a scream.
Meanwhile, via CL and other sources, I’ve had emails and dates and crushes and flings, and one thing that looked like it might get serious and then quite abruptly disappeared.
And yes, I still want love. Make that Love. The brass ring. The whole enchilada. A partner in crime, a permanent teammate. A mutual admiration society of two. Someone who feels like home, and who feels the same about me. Someone to catalogue my wrinkles as they form. Whatever you want to call it. When I think about it, it involves monogamy, but who knows. Maybe I’ll find it with someone. Maybe I won’t. I can’t pretend I don’t care. But most days, sluthood helps me be patient. It keeps desperation at bay. It reminds me to enjoy the life I have now, instead of waiting for someone to come start it. It helps me know my heart better, and my libido. It makes me better at communicating about both of them, and much less likely to confuse the two. To my mind, far from ruining me for real love, sluthood is preparing me for it.
It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling. I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me, in a small but life-altering way, and I want it to be available to you if you ever think it could save you, too.
Most of the comments online have been from women who said they cried, they were so moved. Many offered humble and profound thanks.
Leah, from Not a Dirty Word writes:
Jaclyn’s honesty was so raw and pure…My Sluthood, Myself left me holding back tears and whispering “thank you.” …an act of bravery both fierce and shocking…
I am censored. I am voiceless. My Sluthood, Myself gave me, and women like me, a voice. We do not have the freedom to explain how sluthood can be healing, uplifting, empowering – or to explain how women that ultimately are looking for love and monogamy can still find periods of sluthood fulfilling.
And here is where I have to stop. I can no longer continue to write how I feel. I cannot type the words that explain why her words resonate so deeply with me, and elicit such an emotional response from me. As I am typing this right now, I am starting to cry.
Jaclyn Friedman has clearly struck a chord among women with this piece. I imagine that many women cried with relief. Someone with a media platform has gone on record describing her pain, her littany of hopeful but poor decisions that make love always elusive. They cannot see that as she proclaims her detachment from sex, she gets emotionally wounded every single time. They take heart from her proclamation that sluthood is a healing thing.
{ 778 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 6 »
Susan, we are on the exact same page today. I’d feel bad for her except that she is playing the Pied Piper for women and the destination is relationship doom.
I stand by what I have written, and I stand by Jaclyn. I read through your entire post, as repetitive and irritating as it was, and I pity you. Let’s call a spade a spade. You hate casual sex, and you hate women who are brave enough to say they like it.
Let’s “deconstruct” what you said here:
“Women who understand the power of sex, the incredible chemistry of it, women who know that sex is not casual physiologically speaking, women who do not embrace a life of sluthood, are indeed left alone by many men. That’s a good thing in some ways, but terribly disappointing in others. Very few women embrace the notion of receiving zero male attention once word gets out that they are not slutty. They cannot compete with determined sluts in the marketplace among these men. Sexually discriminating women have every reason to withhold support from sluts. Sluts are wreaking havoc on the supply side.”
In your first sentence you present the idea that “sex is not casual physiologically speaking” as if it were fact, with no evidence, proof, links. All of my education in sexuality and gender studies has taught me exactly the opposite, so at best, this statement is your OPINION and presenting it as if it were some commonly understood fact is erroneous and irresponsible.
In that same sentence, you write: “women who do not embrace a life of sluthood, are indeed left alone by many men.” I am confused by this point. Again, you present some sort of opinion as fact, which is a bad idea for reasons I have already explained. But I’m not sure I understand your point. That women who aren’t sluts are ignored by men? I would guess that many women, slut-approving or not, would disagree with you there.
Then you argue that “they [women who are not sluts] cannot compete with determined sluts in the marketplace among these men.” So, again you are making a blanket statement and presenting it as fact, this time that men only like sluts. Again, I think you will find that many men and women – sluts or no – disagree with you there.
And finally, you write: “Sexually discriminating women have every reason to withhold support from sluts. Sluts are wreaking havoc on the supply side.”
So… you’re making the “sluts are stealing our men” argument? How creative. I don’t even know how to get into that one, suffice to say, there’s enough men and women out there looking for both sluthood and monogamy, serious relationships and casual, that it’s hardly fair to blame one faction for your own failures in love.
It’s obvious from this final statement that as a woman who dates men, you feel threatened by Jaclyn’s piece because you seem to think she is “stealing men” away from you. So don’t worry yourself about her mental well-being. Maybe you should take a look at your own, and ask why you’re blaming others for your own unhappiness.
Wow, this is just shocking. That she has to go to the internet to get cheered on more makes me think that perhaps her friends really aren’t cheering her on all that much.
I will admit that after four years in New York I caved this summer. I thought that I could. I only tried it once and realized it is not for me. I am not this girl and I really don’t think the girls that say they are are either. It sucks waking up and feeling that what did I just do and then telling your friends and they say “good for you.” Really good for me? I want a relationship and you think jumping in bed with that guy was a good idea? It is just so hard to find people who believe it isn’t or will say it isn’t in their 20s.
The good guys in NYC aren’t even that good because they know that they can play you. They know that they can just find someone else that will play the casual role and not try and make it more. I learned that I’m not the casual girl never have been never will be and sadly I feel almost more ashamed because of this. I can’t go out to bars because bars seem a place that I just get rejected because I have the I’m not going to go home with you vibe. I’m not going to cave anymore because this just gets me to a bad place. Hopefully someday I will find a guy that appreciates the fact that I did not spend my teens and 20s throwing myself at every guy that looked my way.
I just wish that girls would understand that no one really respects you when you share these stories. Your friends judge you, the guys judge you, and you judge yourself. You can see it in that picture (I’m assuming it is her). She is not a happy person. She has armor up and she thinks that is going to protect her. It doesn’t. She reminds me of my freshmen year roommate who would do the same things. She finally realized that what she was doing was wrong and is now in a happy relationship, but the self loathing she projected through out college was painful and just made me realize I was making the right choice. Sex does not make you a better person then me. Casual sex is just not worth the few minutes of connection. Hopefully there is a change and women and men both realize that relationship sex is worth way more.
susan this post makes me want to cry. ive been having sex with lots of guys (not gonna say the number) and I don’t want to do that anymore. but what i’m finding is none of the guys want a serious long term relationship with a former slut. i’m dirty forever. if a guy knows i’ve had a one night stand with another guys he’ll be made if i make him wait a month because that’s not fair. and of course girls like you don’t want to support me because your mad at me. no relationship, no friends to support me. i guess i’ll be a lonely slut forever
I’m sorry that I’m not sorry Susan but I have to jump into these guppy infested waters and let the little fish know that imitation piranhas hold no bite.
“It’s obvious from this final statement that as a woman who dates men, you feel threatened by Jaclyn’s piece because you seem to think she is “stealing men” away from you. So don’t worry yourself about her mental well-being. Maybe you should take a look at your own, and ask why you’re blaming others for your own unhappiness.”
Witht his line alone you have already showed what little you know of Susan and Hooking up Smart. Troll, get ready for your slaying. On some Legolas stab you with an arrow then shoot you with it stylie.
1) Susan does not date. Cause you know she’s married. Papa walsh wifed that up awhile ago. Continuing, She is happy in her marriage and no dirty slut has a chance of stealing her man from her. My words, not hers.
2)”In your first sentence you present the idea that “sex is not casual physiologically speaking” as if it were fact, with no evidence, proof, links. All of my education in sexuality and gender studies has taught me exactly the opposite, so at best, this statement is your OPINION and presenting it as if it were some commonly understood fact is erroneous and irresponsible.”
Sex is not casual for the female body unless it has already bonded to so many men that the part of the brain which releases the oxy simply says “Another one?” and shoots out squirts instead of the big gusheroo. If your gender and equality classes say otherwise I’d love to see the scientific evidence back that up. Because what you’re telling me is that the basic component, which has bonded tribes, and now families of humans for millions of years, has been as casual as a makeout is today is preposterous. And if you think humans have evolved that much since the pill and other factors which has created today’s sexual market you are a fool of a took(let’s see how many tolkien references I can put in here. BTW, adding to the fact you don’t read this blog, Susan always has posted the scientific evidence to back up her claims, sorry she didn’t put up the myriad posts that she has made on telling women to be careful around casual sex so you could craft a proper argument. Shit happens when you’re married with kids. Which leads to…
3)”Let’s call a spade a spade. You hate casual sex, and you hate women who are brave enough to say they like it. ”
I have never seen a post that Susan says she hates casual sex. She just warns women against trying it without taking into account the consequences it has on body and mind. In fact, if you’re woman enough to handle it, Susan would tell you to one-night stand if you want to, but if you start copping feelings in the morning Susan would tell you to stop frontin and fucking around. Motherfuckers should not carry the ring and not expect to fall prey to Sarmon.
4)” I don’t even know how to get into that one, suffice to say, there’s enough men and women out there looking for both sluthood and monogamy, serious relationships and casual, that it’s hardly fair to blame one faction for your own failures in love.”
There you go again assuming Susans failures in love. I’m going to kill this one by showing you its inherent flaw. Women cannt look for sluthood and monagamy. Your body is designed to attach to a man. Let’s take the case of frodo being a girl(anyone else get the gay vibe between him and sam?) and saruman being a guy. Everytime frodo sticks his finger in that ring that freaky-eyed hobbit gains more of a mental connection with Saruman. He can’t shake him. Frodo can’t just from ring to ring and feel the same. He can put on Mithril and get a sweet shiny sword but nothing will take the place of that ring. (Don’t know if this one works completely but I like it). Saruman can fuck anyone he wants to put on his ring cause he doesn’t care, as long as you serve his purpose (Yo I just realized he was the alpha to all of middle earth). And even though he cared little about him golem still wants that ring years afterwards. Shit fighting over it with the new ring bearer. Medieval fantasy catfights! And all the while dudes sittign as an eye in the tower like, “which one of you bitches gon get me a sammich”. Ok, gone over the cliff like aragorn on an orc raider(HAHA last one in). But I hope you get the point. It’s just not the same. We are different for a reason and no social construct can change that until evolution does.
So I’m done with you. You can try to retaliate, but I believe more might come on here to show you the error of your ways. So relax toothless and you’ll fall into Mordors lava of truth. It’s cool though, clutch onto your precious as long you can before being swallowed whole.
“All of my education in sexuality and gender studies . . .”
LOL
No need for the lolling Passer_by. I have already let use a +5 fire blast against the river troll known as Leah. See below. I see major exp points and perhaps a level up for defeating this under-boss. I’m hoping for some major loot against to use against the uber-feminists I feel might come from every cravice of forest treet they are crying in for miss jaclyn. Perhaps even a jaclyn battle herself.
Helmet of shaming deflection. Check.
Sword of Bullshit slice, upgrade +3 truth sting. Check.
Now for Boots of empathizing SMP ignorance. Sorry cannot eqiup.
I stopped reading at about this point:
How can we fall in love with someone who is wearing a big virtual sandwich board that says “I’m a lemon! Damaged goods! Everything in this bin is 50 cents!”
Having casual sex = damaged goods? What is this, Sunday School in the 1950s? I seem to recall receiving similar lessons as a teenager growing up in Utah.
I’ve had times in my life where I was all about casual sex, but now, I’m a monogamous woman who is happily married. Just because I like my current state of affairs does not somehow invalidate my previous experiences, and my previous experiences did not render me unfit and damaged for everything that went on afterward.
Honestly,this whole thing is a little creepy. I am aware that Jaclyn put herself out there like this, and that the price of doing so is that you’ll have people dissecting your words and actions and that you’ll be subject to all kinds of psychoanalysis. I get that. But nearly 3,000 words, all dedicated to basically saying that she is a hot mess? You may want to turn your psychoanalysis raygun back on yourself.
I wonder what it will take for women to stop behaving in ways that cause them great pain. I’m with you, though. This kind of confession needs to be exposed for what it is: the desperate plea of an emotionally unstable woman who wants to be validated as a lovable human being. If a single woman fails to see this for what it is, JF’s “permission” to embrace one’s inner slut spells doom for sure. She makes it very clear for anyone with their eyes open that Sluthood is not a happy place.
I love sluts! I just hate sluts that expect men to take them seriously for LTRs.
I’m a womanizer. Word gets around and it’s kind of obvious to people who I’ve never even discussed my personal life with. I don’t get all butt-hurt if a girl looking for a committed relationship decides that I’m not the man for her. Sluts (the female equivalent of a womanizer) should do the same.
1. Regular readers know that I regularly present links on the science of sex. As you are understandably new to HUS, I’ll throw out the best place for you to start:
http://www.helenfisher.com/about.html
Helen Fisher is the most respected name in Relationship Sexuality in the world. She has conducted much research, been published widely, and is a regular on mainstream news and talk shows.
Leah: the earth is not flat. Your body releases a torrent of chemicals when you have sex, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Check out what she has to say about oxytocin, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine and vasopressin. If you honestly seek scientific information, you’ll find it. And you’ll never look at sex the same way again.
.
2. College women who are not sluts get little attention from college men. Can you really be surprised by this statement? If you’re not pretending that gender differences don’t exist, then you know that men seek sexual frequency and variety, prioritizing it over emotional investment with one woman. Sluts offer sexual frequency and variety. Needs met, prudes need not apply. Even you hard core feminists know all about the recent conversations about hooking up, and how emotionally devastating it is to many young women. Jaclyn Friedman is actually an example of this.
.
3. Sluts are not stealing men for relationships. Very few men would even consider getting into a LTR with a slut. But they’re providing sex with no strings. A woman who prefers to share her body with someone who knows, respects, and dare I say it? even LOVES her will find few men holding out for sex with strings. Eventually, most of those men will seek a woman without extensive sexual experience. Hardened players may settle for promiscuous women. You may be interested in this study, btw, which shows that similar sociosexuality (number of past sexual partners) results in higher marital satisfaction:
With regard to hypothesis 3, the zero-order correlations revealed that for
women, greater partner similarity on social absorption, avoidant attachment, and
sociosexuality was associated with higher satisfaction. For men, greater partner
similarity on sensation seeking, psychological femininity, anxious attachment, and
sociosexuality was associated with higher satisfaction.
.
http://dspace.uta.edu/bitstream/handle/10106/529/umi-uta-1430.pdf;jsessionid=EC350BE8122A9DBBB3C15789CF90AEC7?sequence=1
.
Further:
The third strong and consistent predictor of marital satisfaction in the current
study was sociosexuality. Specifically, a significant actor effect emerged for
sociosexuality, such that increased sociosexuality was associated with decreased marital
satisfaction. For both the men and the women in this study, we can conclude that those who have an unrestricted sociosexual orientation – those who typically have had multiple sexual partners in the past and are relatively comfortable engaging in sexual relations in the absence of commitment or closeness – report low satisfaction with their marriage.
.
If you have any links to refute the academic literature, I’m all ears.
.
A quick look at my About page will disabuse you of this notion. I’ve been happily married for a very long time. I did have casual sex in my 20s, so I know exactly what I’m talking about. My primary concern is for young women (and men) today who are getting into their late 20s with little to no relationship experience. As I said above, many women are disappointed to learn that they’ve priced themselves out of the market by being unwilling to have sex with randoms.
.
I’m curious – can you really say, in all earnestness, that looking for sex on Craigslist leads to healing? Because it didn’t work out too well for JF. She may have tons of support from fellow sluts, but she has no Love.
Meg, I’m sorry you feel regret for the choice you made this summer, but you learned something very important about yourself, and it sounds as if you are prepared to honor your true nature in future. That is worth a great deal.
I think what bothers me the most about this view of sex is that it does say that if you don’t agree you’re some sort of lame, disempowered, patriarchy-loving loser. Everyone should feel free to do whatever they want. But when it comes to proselytizing, that’s where I need to step in.
This strikes me as a fair and reasonable point of view.
Caitlin, thanks for leaving a comment. I’m glad that you had a good experience with casual sex, and are now happily married. However, that’s entirely beside the point. Would you disagree with any of these statements:
JF feels unhappy and unloved.
JF describes a history of traumatic emotional devastation.
JF risked her life to get laid by a stranger.
After her casual hookup, JF’s gut told her that something felt very, very wrong. Only when her friends clapped her on the back demanding details did she feel OK. The validation came from an external source, not her own comfort.
.
If you stopped reading early on, you won’t be able to discuss her mental state. If her choices were working for her, she wouldn’t be offering up this very tortured diary. I suspect that she put herself out there for more external validation, and I imagine that she’s been feeling pretty good the last few days as fellow sluts have rallied round.
.
Don’t do her the disservice though, of ignoring what she really said. When the novelty of this approbation wears off, she’ll be a 40 year-old woman of uncertain sexual orientation, with considerable baggage. She’s already exhausted Craigslist, and she confesses a habit of throwing herself “whole hog” at anyone who shows interest. I hope I’m wrong, but the odds of her winding up happily monogamous like you are seem very slim.
Sluttygirl, welcome and thank you for sharing that. I’m a straight shooter so I’m going to tell it to you straight here. You’ve already decided not to have casual sex anymore. That’s proof that it wasn’t making you happy. Women cannot be happy getting pumped and dumped all the time. You don’t need to say the number. The number is really no one’s business but your own, and you are not obligated to share that information with anyone.
It sounds like you have learned that the sexual double standard still prevails – you haven’t done anything that guys haven’t done, but your reputation suffered and theirs improved. It’s true that guys won’t tolerate waiting for sex if they know a woman has been having casual sex with other men.
My advice is to stop doing anything that makes you feel like crap. Regardless of what other people say, the first thing you need to do is behave in a way that makes you feel good about your choices, whatever they might be.
I’m certainly not mad at you, and I don’t mean to shame you. I don’t judge anyone on this blog. Women of your generation have been taught by society, educators and sometimes even their own mothers that having sex whenever you want it is an empowering and rewarding experience. That may be true for some women, I don’t know. It’s clear that is not the case for you. So change it.
That’s the first step. Over time, you find that people regard and treat you differently, and that you like yourself more. Then you can begin to think in terms of a relationship, having sex in a way that doesn’t leave you feeling used.
How is that beside the point? You’re whole point is to deny such a life experience is possible.
I disagree. She describes having these feelings at times, as we all do, but also describes ways she has taken responsibility for her happiness and has found ways to feel genuinely loved.
I disagree. I find “devastation” to be far too loaded of a word to be useful here. She describers her experiences with emotional trauma of varying kinds, certainly, but she does not come off as someone who has been devastated or defeated by this, but rather someone who has taken ownership of life and has taken control of her emotional well-being.
I disagree. She describes cautious behavior that dramatically limited risk. Certainly, she trusted her intuition to some degree, but by your standard there is little in life that couldn’t be termed “risking” our life.
Ms. Friedman’s essay is certainly personal and confessional, but you are only serving your existing bias by representing it as tortured. To say that her intention is to solicit validation is only true in the sense that YOUR post is intended to solicit validation of your choices. Or my comment is intended to seek validation for my views. Its truer intention is to offer support and validation to others and the response to the article bears this out as many have found it encouraging and supportive that Ms. Friedman shared her story. It’d be silly to claim Ms. Friedman might not appreciate this supportive environment she has helped foster, but also petty to suggest anything nefarious about this. You are doing no different. I don’t besmirch you for feeling satisfied with your attempt to take Ms. Friedman down a peg, but it doesn’t mean I concur with your position.
What about her sexual orientation is uncertain? The “baggage” described doesn’t strike me as anything particularly unusual. And why exactly are her odds necessarily so slim? You and others are quick to assert this to foster a culture of fear, but what proof do you really have? Don’t quote me statistics about women of her age, either. She’s be the same age if she wasn’t reclaiming her sexuality in the manner of her choosing. You want to believe that this disadvantages her, but that is all it really is. A belief. There is no basis for it outside your intuition. Well, her intuition is clearly leading her down a different path. Many people have found that honestly and openness are very valuable tools in developing fulfilling relationships in their lives. You can believe whatever you life, but your belief does not dictate anyone else’s reality.
There are two problems with what you have to say. The minor problem is tactical, and the major problem is about worldview.
The reaction of sex negative commentators to Jaclyn’s post has largely tactically depended on the idea that sluts can’t find real love. The problem is that this isn’t true. For all the pseudoscientific theorizing that antisex people muster, I’ve known too many women who toggle between serious relationships and periods of gleeful adventure, and finally find a one-and-only. My own marriage of over ten years came about because some woman I didn’t know started flirting with me to make someone else jealous. We fucked on the first date and we haven’t been apart since. Some folks seem to think that somehow I’m supposed to hold her in low esteem for being easy, or something, but in fact I don’t. I knew right away that my wife and I had a lot in common in the sexual arena, and we’ve spent more than ten years exploring just how much, and now that we have children and a house in the suburbs, the sex life both driven by our libidos and informed by our past experiences is still a major engine of our intimacy. In this, we are not alone. The comment threads on the three blogs where Jaclyn’s post ran are full of women saying that they were having their own “slut phases” and met someone and stayed, and that they are not the worse for their earlier unchastity. The idea that men are repelled by unchastity is a lot of things — heteronormative, for one, and erases the experiences of polyamorous people, et cetera. But besically, even within the narrow framework of cis het women looking for cis het men, it’s not true.
The bigger problem is that you are looking at sexuality all wrong.
I’m not surprised that someone educated at Wharton would attempt to shoehorn sexuality into a supply and demand curve — I debunk all of this fallacious thinking, which I call the Commodity Model of Sex, in my essay Toward A Performance Model of Sex. You can find it in the book Jaclyn edited, Yes Means Yes — the one that won her a starred review in Publishers’ Weekly, and made the Top 100 list the year it was published, because it is a visionary collection full of visionary thinking. (How PW Top 100s do you have?) Our whole culture encourages this thinking, which posits sex as — pardon a legal Latin; as a lawyer, I’m prone to them — a res to be bought, sold, given or stolen. It follows from this thinking that a woman who gives it away has less, and is poorer for it. That’s not actually a natural consequence, however. It’s only a consequence of a social structure, and one that you are actively enforcing. If we think of sex more like the performing arts, we can see that people can perform together and make something beautiful without anyone losing anything. No milk, no cow, no supply and demand curve, just people creating joy with their shared contribution. In such a model, which I call the Performance Model of Sex, there is no need for guilt or shame, no concern for how many past partners each has had.
Everything you have to say is too small. All you’ve written about is how to operate in a world that is hopelessly limited. Your reaction to the sexual revolution is simply reactionary. The difference in vision is like pre- and post-reformation, or rather like the counterreformation. You can win the battles, but the war aim is to put the genie back in the bottle; the toothpaste back in the tube. It can’t be done. You have no new thinking, only a burning desire to go back. I don’t expect you to see it that way. How could you?
Yeah, and unto he who would reject the Word of God, I say to thee;
And so walked upon the Earth a Woman named Jaclyn;
And her Favors were dispensed widely and deeply, and the menfolk sayeth, “This is good.”;
Whomsoever wrought this bounty upon the Earth is blessed in the name of the Lord;
Feminists have provided this Manna to the men of the West;
And the menfolk were thankful for this Feminist Bounty, and craved more;
And their prayers were answered with more favors, from a multitude of Women;
And all was good.
Amen
Because men (assuming she’s looking for a man) are, generally speaking, less likely to opt for committed monogamous relationships with women who have promiscuous sexual histories. Which is to say, that all things being equal, men generally prefer women who have had fewer sexual partners. You cannot be seriously disputing this bit of common knowledge which has both animated a lot of feminist thought and attracted so much ire from them.
You may think that the male predisposition for more “chaste” women is wrong, or patriarchal, or dated, or oppressive or whatever. But it remains the world we—and JF—live in. You can no more change that about men than men can change the general female preference for taller men. JF is something of a public figure and her sexual history is widely known. It is fair to say that she will generally have fewer men interested in LTRs with her now than if her sexual history wasn’t so promiscuous—or was unknown. Sure, she probably wouldn’t want to be with such a man anyhow. But most men have this hard-wired instinct & preference (to varying degrees obviously) so she is still shrinking her potential selection pool as compared with other women of her age.
Glory be!
http://goodgirlturnedslut.blogspot.com/?zx=24b436f2376aad56
I’m confused. Why is it ok to be a boy slut but bad to be a girl slut? Vincent has a blog glorifying being a boy slut and how to be a better boy slut, but somehow this article by a girl slut pushes everyone’s buttons. Maybe a more fair and reasonable point of view would be to say that they’re both skanky and to avoid ALL sluts at all costs – or at least at the cost of your health.
The relevant point is that Jaclyn Friedman is recommending a lifestyle that has made her clearly miserable. I honestly can’t believe you could interpret this essay as anything other than painful. She is to be commended to searching for ways to make herself happy, but it is ludicrous in my opinion, to believe that such an approach:
Sluthood = Healing
can be good for many women, if any. It’s a destructive message. She acknowledges feeling profound misgivings about her own behavior, only to dismiss them when her story was well received at brunch. Do you not find that troubling?
JF has the right to do anything she wants with her body and her life. But when she goes online to proselytize sluthood, she should expect considerable pushback. She sought to shock, and she succeeded, but her strategy for finding love is a very poor one, and women should not for a moment adopt it.
I reply this way. It’s actually something I’ve been thinking about for awhile now about that particular issue exactly. And my answer is….Women say it is. Think about it. While there is a slight issue some women have against man-whorism(I think mostly when it is flaunted) almost all women absolutely are attracted to a man that has had a lot of partners. Also women dislike sluts. A. because sluts don’t value their prize(the nookie), and B. because I think women are wired from tribal times that if the alpha can have a regular mating partner that gives it up on the regular, why should he hunt and kill for your ass? Women control the aspect of which actions bring appropriate value rankings for each gender. So when women complain at the double standard, look no further than yourselves. Oh, and when people say what about men shaming women, I’ll tell you from experience my mother taught me to watch out for certain kinds of girls…you think I’m the only son with that experience? You are shamed for being a slut because every mother puts it in their kids head not to be or deal with sluts.
Atleast that’s my diagnosis.
Generally speaking, I agree with this—especially the part about STDs.
But we have to remember the history/reasons behind why female promiscuity is so frowned upon: children & resources. Male promiscuity does not in any way cast doubt on the maternity of children, but female promiscuity definitely causes some doubt as to paternity. Social shaming (and worse) of female promiscuity evolved as a way to ensure that men had a genetic connection to the child they were slaving away to provide for. As long as men have an interest in passing on their genes and providing for those who share their genetic heritage, they will instinctively selection for less promiscuous women, to varying degrees.
Here’s the comparison that rang through my head on reading this. The first time I did hard drugs I woke up feeling the same way, “What the f*&^ did I do?”. However, when recounting and being congratulated by my friends how cool it was and how great the night was, I was encouraged to do it again. Just because self-destructive behavior isn’t encouraged doesn’t make it right. She should ditch those friends like I did mine. No friend encourages self-destruction, the only person who does that is a conspirator.
Well, I’ve never been a slut, and am happily married for 15 years to a man whom I adore having sex with. He seems pretty happy too. But I also have a 13 year old son whom I don’t want to be a boy slut nor associate with girl sluts. I have raised him (and my younger daughter) to respect themselves and their bodies. I don’t care about the biology is destiny argument, because that has gone the way of the birth control pill. Being a boy slut is Just As Bad as being a girl slut and should not be winked at or glorified. Because guess what? If the boy slut pool dried up, so would the girl slut stream feeding it.
Hot mess? Yep, Steaming hot mess, actually! There’s so much of it here that there’s got to be that ‘Magic Pony’ in here somewhere, right?
“And yes, I still want love. Make that Love. The brass ring. The whole enchilada. A partner in crime, a permanent teammate. A mutual admiration society of two. Someone who feels like home, and who feels the same about me. Someone to catalogue my wrinkles as they form. Whatever you want to call it. When I think about it, it involves monogamy, but who knows. Maybe I’ll find it with someone. Maybe I won’t. I can’t pretend I don’t care. But most days, sluthood helps me be patient…”
Yeah, with some other loving Cisgendered denizen. Which is Fine. Nothing wrong with that. But she Does continue to poach from the population of ‘average’ guys, right? Hence removing from possibly interacting & meeting the more amenable members of the opposite sex? That’s called competition, sister. Now that may or may not be worthy of performance art, but it is what it is, and remains what it is too. Fun mostly, until time’s called on the ‘games’. And everyone else gets to go home to something. Besides the dogs/cats/pets. Cheers, ‘VJ’
Good point, Liza. FWIW, I don’t think it’s OK to be a boy slut. I have written several times about male promiscuity, and women’s increasing rejection of “manwhores.” I think promiscuity is more damaging to women for several reasons. One, the sexual double standard is alive and well. They get a bad reputation, and are no longer considered LTR material. We also are more prone to attach as a result of sex than men are. So we catch feelings, which is often problematic when the sex is casual.
Agree 100%. The problem is, the boy slut pool will never dry up. Boys will never turn down the opportunity for no-strings sex. Women are the gatekeepers. It has been this way since the dawn of time.
VJ, I really needed this laugh. It’s been a real sh*tstorm on Twitter today, with the sex pos feminists accusing me of terrible things. Nice to come “home” and visit with “family.”
Jaclyn Friedman, in her post, is clearly asking for support. If you are not up for offering that, a simple “no thanks” would have sufficed. Instead, you devoted quite a lot of time to tearing apart a post that was clearly not directed at you and clearly has nothing whatever to do with you. Jaclyn was offering her own opinion on her own sex life and the choices she has made. Why this warrants such venom, I am not sure.
I also find it alarming that you refer to sex as a “marketplace” and women as the “suppliers”. With a depersonalizing, mechanical view such as this, how can you claim to be advocating in favour of love, commitment and respect?
We all want different things at different times in our lives, and if someone feels that casual sex is the kind of sex they want to be having at a given time in their life, who are you to tell them that they’re wrong? Who are you to judge them based on this choice?
Given the way you introduced your article, the only reasonable explanation for that is that you are afraid us sluts are going to steal all teh mens. That, or you just plain hate women who aren’t afraid to admit that they like having sex.
Personally, as a young woman who doesn’t mind calling herself a slut, I’ve yet to feel like I am in some kind of competition with “monogamous” women. No one has yet accused me of screwing with the “marketplace”. I’ve also yet to feel like my choices are emotionally damaging to me in some way.
In fact, the only damaging thing I can see here is your hateful article and the view of sex and young women you perpetuate.
Thomas, welcome. I have seen your comments around on various blogs. You seem to be a sort of personal cheerleader for Jaclyn, thanking bloggers who write positive things about her. Perhaps you handle PR for her.
First of all, let me say that I am not antisex. Nor do I engage in pseudoscientific debate. As evolutionary psychology has eclipsed other forms of understanding mating and sexuality, much work has been done to explain sexual behavior. As I said above, there is a plethora of peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals. You can easily avail yourself of this information, though I suspect you are not interested.
The fact that Jaclyn has written a book about rape does not make her right about sluthood. In fact, she references her own traumatic history, and we can assume this has played a part in her choices.
This is not the way I think. I think that in a positive sexual experience, both parties give and gain, ideally in equal measure. The relevant question is what each gender wants from sex. There are no absolutes here, but in general, women are far more prone to experience attachment, especially if the sex is repeated. JF admitted as much herself, as she got attached to B, her pickup.
JF is forty. Her story is really a cautionary tale. Women in college must understand that in the vast majority of instances, hooking up with a stranger is really an act of masturbation, with two pulses in the room. That second pulse can be quite problematic for women. It is generally not problematic for men.
I do not expect the genie to go back in the bottle. The Sexual Revolution unleashed female sexuality for good. What I offer here at HUS is a way of thinking about relationships, and how to find one amidst all the drunken hooking up, crappy sex, and averted eyes on campus (and after). There is no war. The war has been fought to completion. There is only survival of the fittest.
It’s really a question of strategy. It’s a game of musical chairs with very few chairs for a great many people. Jaclyn Friedman did not find a chair. Anyone who embraces sluthood for healing will not find a chair.
“Yeah, with some other loving Cisgendered denizen. Which is Fine. Nothing wrong with that. But she Does continue to poach from the population of ‘average’ guys, right?”
I think perhaps you need to look up “cisgendered”. The funny thing is, it basically means “the average guys”. Or, more specifically, any guy (even a gay guy) that doesn’t want to remove his penis (and any woman who doesn’t want to have one sewn on). Apparently, “transgendered” people felt singled out because there was a special word for them, which made them feel “odd”. So they invented a clinical sounding name (cisgendered) for every person who thinks of themselves as being the gender that they actually are. Now, a lot of the uber feminists and academic left throw the word around constantly to try to prove their bona fides – showing that they are hip to the latest lingo, I guess.
I, PASSER_BY, am a proud cisgendered male! I was born with this cisgender condition, but I’m here! I’m proud! And I’m not going away! I look at my penis every day and think “Gosh, I hope nobody cuts that thing off today! That would suck!”
“Jaclyn Friedman, in her post, is clearly asking for support . . .”
It strikes me that most of the time what she is really seeking is attention – she craves it and thrives on it. that’s why I find it kind of funny that some of these other commenters talk about how brave she was to write that. Right, almost as brave a junkie is when he shoots up.
Joey from Scarleteen, welcome. Jaclyn’s post has nothing to do with me? She wrote it for the whole world to see! How can you say it’s none of my business? She sought as many viewers as possible, but she can’t tolerate an opposing point of view? What about the marketplace of ideas? Why the censorship?
Sex is a marketplace. In fact are you familiar with the field of behavioral economics? Freakonomics, Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, etc? All human behavior can be understood as transactions. Incentives drive behavior, and we all evaluate our choices in terms of cost and benefit. Sex is no different. Nor is the decision to marry, have children, or indeed, troll for sex on Craigslist. JF clearly weighed the potential cost (her life) and benefit (sexual validation) and made her choice.
There is no question that casual sex has significantly lowered the number of relationships among people 18-28. There is very clear proof of that. How this will affect marriage and divorce in the long term remains to be seen. Here’s what we can see right now:
Many young women, and some men too, btw, are traumatized by a culture where sex is nothing but a market transaction. Don’t you see that’s the crime here? Supply, demand, costs, benefits, and nowhere mention of love, emotional intimacy, real caring.
Wild idea, maybe love isn’t all about “strategy” for some people. Maybe some people don’t regard love as a game of being the first to plant your behind down on someone. Ms. Friedman will surely find mating with some men more difficult because of her choices, but if those weren’t people she wanted to mate with, its not really a sacrifice, is it? You make the mistake of assuming anyone this would disadvantage her with is anyone she cared to date. If that isn’t the case, then the supposed damage she is enduring is nonexistent. I hardly think such a cravenly cynical approach to relationship is a path to happiness. Dull resignation, perhaps, but not happiness.
Let’s be honest. By those standards? ANYONE who’s involved in blogging is “looking for attention”. But I’d much rather think of it as a way to reach out and connect with people who think like you do, and/or have fruitful conversation with those who may disagree.
But even if she was seeking attention – how is that an invitation for such a hate-fest?
Agreed. A more succint retelling of my post above about the source of sexual shaming and glorification.
Levitt is not a behavioral economist. He’s a traditional economist. Dubner is not an economist at all, and neither is Gladwell, whose degree is in history. Behavioral economics is not what you think it is. Behavioral economists include Colin Camerer and George Lowenstein.
Honestly, I have to say I agree with Joey’s comments here. She wrote the article as an ask for support. I’d also like to simply ask,when you’ve so obviously torn after what she’s posted as part of her lifestyle, and a decision she’s made for herself… how you’re setting such an example for us as younger people? Because I would hope someone setting a good example for me wouldn’t do so in a manner of tearing on someone else. Also, if you could point me to some sources, I really would love to read about the research you know of that details younger generations such as my own and our feeling and reactions about other people’s choices on casual sex.
I’d also like to say, it’s taken me a long time to come to where I am today… but I can say as a survivor of rape, that I did turn to others to try to identify that sex is different when it’s something that I say I want. Healing has been a long road, and I did choose partners over relationships because it was something that helped me to heal in a lot of ways. I learned the difference between sex and rape, I once again was able to feel empowered by a decision for sex as well. It’s a long road with many pathways in being able to claim your body and sexuality as your own after something like this, and I sincerely hope that you wouldn’t downplay how someone chooses is the best way to make it down that road and over those bumps in the way I’m seeing in your reply post.
This sounds a lot like the rationale used years ago in the Mary Kay Letourneau case. Boys aren’t harmed as much by statutory rape, their feelings are not as devastated. Hogwash. How about teaching boys to turn down no strings sex as well as teaching girls not to offer it? Gatekeepers are sometimes overwhelmed by the Huns. Can’t fault just the gatekeepers. The Huns should share the blame, if not own it. Feminists can be blamed for many ills, but not all. And it seems to me that women are getting the blame for every little thing some women do, while the attitude toward men is, well, boys will be boys. This may be the way things have been since the dawn of time. But it doesn’t make it right.
Jaclyn explicitly addressed her post to people who were willing to support her, which clearly excludes you. Thus, there was no reason for you to respond in any way. Even so, if you felt compelled to reply anyway, you could have done so in a much more respectful way.
According to your description of this blog, your aim is to help young adults. I’m not sure how tearing into a woman who is talking about a personal choice that worked out great is in any way helpful to young adults, or anyone at all.
Casual sex is not harmful in itself. What’s harmful is the virgin/whore dichotomy and the gender-based double standards that surround casual sex. If you were truly invested in helping young adults, you might start by dismantling that terrible system, rather than reinforcing it.
As for the second part of your comment, I’m a little confused by what you’re trying to say. First you state that sex is indeed a marketplace, and then you state that viewing sex as a deal without “love, emotional intimacy and real caring” is a crime. Why do you use that language, and even defend the usage, if you yourself view it as a crime?
[I submitted this comment previously but it did not show, apologies if I end up double-posting.]
Excellent response to this.
All I can say is I just think these girls sound really angry. Who are you angry at? I don’t think this post says anything that is new to anyone who understands hook up culture or feminist culture for that mater.
You know I’m not sure if I regret my choice this summer. That was probably a bad choice of words. I just wish that more woman in their 20s would admit that they are having the same experience as me. I don’t think I’m in the minority but since there are all these people out there talking about casual sex and hooking up and pretty much no one talking about not doing this it is frustrating.
Pretty much what you said in reply to me. It is like not having sex makes me less of a active member of the female sex in NYC.
I have a good friend who has a similar story as you and she is happily in a committed relationship with someone who knows about her past. You have taken the first step to and stopped being a sluttty girl. It is possible to have a past and then change your ways and meet a wonderful guy.
I have to say, your generalizations about men are pretty offensive. We just pretend to like someone so that we can get them into bed, trading feigned affection for unenthusiastic sex? Any apparent understanding of gender dynamics and sociology is just facade put up to get someone into bed? The existence of a woman immediately willing to have sex will preclude the pursuit of one who is not?
Sounds like you’re talking about assholes, not men.
I have to take issue with the idea that casual sex, or sex-as market-transaction, is inherently traumatizing to anyone. Our physical bodies, after all, can’t tell the difference between sex in a long-term monogamous relationship and sex with someone we’ve just met. Far more likely, in my view, is that our culture frowns so strongly on anything that seems to threaten the norms we have created and therefore we are teaching young people that they should be traumatized by the idea of sex as a transaction. (If, indeed, they are traumatized at all, a claim I have yet to find any solid evidence of.)
I also wonder why you think it’s a problem that relationships are not as common among the 18-28 age group. Honestly, so what? Monogamous relationships are no guarantee of happiness, or safety, or love, or security, or even monogamy for that matter, just as “hooking up” is not a guarantee of hurt feelings and “trauma”.
Sounds like a great screening system to weed out men who think that a woman’s worth is inversely proportional to the number of sexual partners she has had. The rest of us (men seeking women) will keep looking for someone who is fun to be around, and with whom we are emotionally and sexually compatible.
Seriously, where does this notion come from, that women should worry about alienating men who would be repulsed by them if they did the things they wanted to do? Lots of men want to date/fuck virgins. They probably won’t be looking for them among 40-year-old bisexual women, but go ahead and live your life for these dickheads instead of yourself.
I think the generalizations about men were incredibly unfair, totally agree with you there Evan. Feminism is supposed to empower women, not demoralize men.
Evan: “I have to say, your generalizations about men are pretty offensive. We just pretend to like someone so that we can get them into bed, trading feigned affection for unenthusiastic sex? Any apparent understanding of gender dynamics and sociology is just facade put up to get someone into bed? The existence of a woman immediately willing to have sex will preclude the pursuit of one who is not?”
Athlone McGinnis: I find this line of argument common among the sex-positive opposition here, and I think it is inherently flawed. It seems to be based on a purely emotional repulsion to the claims made, rather than anything substantive.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter that you find this behavior “offensive” or not. Making that claim does absolutely nothing to undermine the validity of the argument.
The FACT is that in the majority of environments frequented by 18-28 year old young people, those “offensive” trends are real. Men feign affection to get laid all the time. This is the NORM. Maybe you find this offensive, but it is what MOST young men do. They’ll pretend to care about things they don’t care about, pretend to share the same interests, pretend to actually be in love with the girl want a commitment (or just be intentionally vague about it) all in order to get a girl to bed.
The amount of effort most young men put in to get a girl depends purely on availability of easy sex. College is a great example of this. I go to a small ivy where there are more men than women and the number of “Girls Gone Wild” type personalities is extremely small as compared to the average college campus. Guys here put a lot of effort in to get girls because they know that their chances of getting one night stands and quick easy sex are very low. Girls here don’t go for that, so they adjust their game accordingly. Guys here will wait weeks just to get to 3rd base with one girl because they don’t have a choice.
Compare this to an average state school, where the average ratio(60/40, the 60 being women) greatly favors men and wilder more typical “college” behavior is more common, and you’ll find very different behavior. Frat guys at my school, even senior athletes at the most popular ones, never have girls throwing themselves at them. They’ll take the time to wait for a girl here because they have to. Guys of similar status at most other schools(I have personally witnessed this) don’t do this because at any given time, there is a cute girl willing to put out with minimal effort. Girls who fail to put out easily in this environment are at a distinct disadvantage.
Young guys like quick easy sex. When they can get it, they tend to take it.
These dynamics are real, whether you like them or not.
The amount of gender stereotyping you’re doing is mind-boggling. Do you have any sort of evidence to back up your “facts”? Because I have to say, working with teens and young adults on a daily basis, what you’re saying doesn’t mesh with what I hear at all.
This post has sure brought out a lot of the “gender is merely a social construct” types.
Gender IS a social construct. Sex is biological, gender is sociocultural and the two are very different.
“Sex does not make you a better person than me.”
.
I agree. I agree so much. Just because I choose to keep it in my pants does not make me any less of a person than anyone else. I could never be someone who could be up for casual/no-string attached. I’ve had to comfort too many friends who have felt like a wreck after going through stuff like that.
“Gender IS a social construct”
Surely, if you repeat it enough times it will be true, right?
What?
Okay, there’s one way in which your statement might make sense, and that’s if your definition of ‘slut’ is ‘someone who isn’t interested in an LTR’. But if you think a ‘slut’ is any woman who has ever had casual sex, and enjoyed the experience, then saying that such women shouldn’t expect anyone to take them seriously as a long term relationship prospect is just plain silly. There are plenty of men and women who have had both successful long term relationships and also casual sex (though not usually at the same time, of course).
So if all guys want is to get laid, why should women hold back in order to get into a relationship with one of these assholes? I don’t really understand. It sounds like you think guys are only interested in sex, and women are interested in an emotional connection. So, assuming that’s true, a woman strings a man along until he expresses some kind of commitment over time, which he probably doesn’t mean. Then he gets what he wants, and she gets… dirty.
Or are you saying that women should hold out for guys who aren’t like this? In which case, the whole argument is built on the assumption that actually good men exist.
I don’t get it. Either you’re trying to get some asshole to lie to you, or you think that there is a non-trivial fraction of the male population that is worth being around.
Also, life is not a college campus. Maybe you should read something written from a sex-positive queer thirtysomething woman’s perspective.
Let’s be honest, going on a “This is what I’ve seen” mantra really isn’t an effective argument, as you likely haven’t seen as much as would ever be needed to make the argument you just did here. It’s why scientists don’t go with “What I’ve seen” without then researching to back up those ideas.
This person goes to an Ivy League school and is obviously way smarter than we are. Be careful.
If only Ivy League really meant smart. And it never means worldly. Nor will it ever equate to someone having a firm understanding of society outside of stereotypes.
If you go to an Ivy and become a really good armchair sociologist, you can be the next David Brooks.
As surely as repeating “casual sex causes people to be unhappy and heartbroken and die alone.”
Here’s something to think about – compare the number of teachers from Ivy League schools, to those from private and especially state schools. Then consider they teach all the younger generations. If schools have faith in state schools and curriculum … must be doing something right
I don’t need to repeat it at all for it to be true; that statement is backed up by years of sound research in sociology, psychology and anthropology. If you want some examples, just look at the presence of two-spirited aboriginal North American people, or transgendered or genderqueer people in Western cultures, or the incredibly varied definitions of “masculine” and “feminine” worldwide.
And repeating your point again and again makes you right? What Karyn is saying i true. You are born make or female, that is biological. And sometimes, yes, BIOLOGICALLY babies are sometimes born with both sex organs. However… and here’s the point she’s making, a person can CHOOSE the gender that FITS them. Transgender. Make sense?
Here’s the thing – when people feel the need to gain support from the masses for their decisions, that is a red flag for me. Particularly when it’s for something like this. And asking for support from those of us who are not sluts? I’ll be there to help my friends pick up the pieces when they make decisions, but then can’t handle the consequences, but I will not condone the behaviour. I will not be your enabler. Why? Not because of a competition thing, but because I have seen it lead to bad news bears for my friends. I will be nice when you come to be in tears and I won’t say “I told you so” because I think everyone needs to make their own decisions. But I’m not going to agree with them.
If it works for you, then that’s great! I’ve met two girls that casual sex/hooking-up works for. But they are also smart about it. As soon as they start to get attached they peace out.
I’m not going to lie and say that I haven’t had my moments where I’ve cursed the fact that there are a bevy of girls willing to go all the way who seem to steal the attention of the men in my life. However – I try to look at it this way – if those men are enticed by that, then I likely want nothing to do with them because they’d likely end up hurting me. In the sober light of day – yes, I might still be single and yeah maybe I don’t get the same amount of attention from the opposite sex as some other girls – but am I happy with the decisions I’ve made? Yes. What I’m not happy about is when those who choose a different path decide that it’s open season to rip on me for wanting to wait until I find a guy I’m comfortable with and that I can trust.
And I will agree there is the double standard where girls who sleep around get ripped on more than guys who sleep around – but I think that many quality girls are starting to wise up and choose guys who don’t sleep around. Slowly that double standard is changing. Whether it means slut-hood on either side is equally accepted, I don’t know. it doesn’t matter to me because I’m more concerned about my own decisions and my own life – and I don’t need a cheering section to egg me on so that I can feel confident about it.
Jesus Christ, all it takes is one feminist topic to turn this place into a freak show.
Did you read the post? Susan’s commentary is about someone pursuing a particular course of action that, in the subjects own words, has a caused her a great deal of pain and frustration. And that for a fair number of women, following that course of action may also lead them to similar pain and frustration.
.
When you’re in a ditch, stop digging.
.
And if that advice doesn’t work for, you don’t have to take it. One can continue doing the same thing that brings one pain and frustration.
We’re talking about humanity here, Stephanie. Power is usually zero-sum. People like power, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. To many, empowering women effectively means demoralizing men.
The larger and more widespread an ideological movement is, the more it’s co-opted by those seeking to hijack it and use it for their own gain. I’ve never studied feminism and I’m even aware of the divide within the community and the inability of many to even define what it means anymore.
No kidding. Vicious.
Evan. Are you a chick? How old are you?
Did you? Susan’s commentary doesn’t seem to be about Jaclyn’s post. Jaclyn’s post “is about someone pursuing a particular course of action that, in the subjects own words, has a caused her a great deal of pain and frustration,” THEN realizing that casual sex could, for her, ameliorate a lot of the negative aspects of that model of sexual interaction. Susan’s commentary purports to say that Jaclyn’s wrong and fucked up, but what it really says is that she’s judgmental and can’t read.
That is, Susan is judgmental and can’t read.
I am a 26-year-old man.
thanks susan and megs for being supportive. i was just so depressed when i wrote that but i guess anything’s possible with time. even love.
But if nobody ever calls people out when they act in a way that does demoralize men – then calls themselves feminists, they may never even associate that with what they’ve said. That’s part of being a feminist too, being able to take a step back and say, “Wait a minute… that’s wrong.” When people use feminism as a way of demoralizing men, then we’re no different, no better.
Ok, you’ve all convinced me. If the two-spirit aboriginal north americans and the transgendered outliers of the west aren’t enough to contradict a mountain of real world experiences from 99% of the population, I don’t know what is.
I’m going to go back now into my regressive cisgendered hole and reflect on how the patriarchy has its massive jack boot planted on the necks of all women, even still.
Note to Evan: I’m not suggesting that casual sex leads to those things – i’m personally all for it, though I think a lot of women should approach it with extreme caution because they don’t seem to react as well to it emotionally (I know, I know, I’m sure it’s just the socialization of the patriarchy – it couldn’t possibly be that women like Friedman are psychological outliers). I would concede, however, that this was not one of Susan’s more coherent pieces. She also seems to be becoming more and more negative regarding casual or even very early relationship sex, which sort of goes against the original premise of the blog. I assume that’s from hearing about the experiences of young women since she started this.
Please stop calling yourself sluttygirl. You clearly don’t want to be that anymore. Create an avatar name akin to how you would like to be perceived.
Evan: “So if all guys want is to get laid, why should women hold back in order to get into a relationship with one of these assholes?”
Athlone: Woman have a greater tendency to seek commitment from their partners than men do. That is why day after day, week after week, year after year, these guys continue to get women. Girls may have every reason to believe that this guy is not going to stick around after they have a night of casual sex, but quite often they do maintain the hope anyway. Combine that with the fact that these guys tend to trigger most female attraction switches(they’re confident, sociable, witty, assertive, etc) and you get a vicious cycle. These guys never run out of girls.
Evan: “It sounds like you think guys are only interested in sex, and women are interested in an emotional connection.”
Athlone: it is not black and white. There are guys who are only interested in sex, and some who want more. Other are right in between. What I can tell you about the average college male in my generation is that they tend to skew towards the former category. This is why traditional relationships aren’t as common in college today as they used to be.
Evan: “Or are you saying that women should hold out for guys who aren’t like this? In which case, the whole argument is built on the assumption that actually good men exist.”
Athlone: The point of my post was to simply paint a picture of what the actual scene is like, not to try and tell women what they should seek. I’ll save my opinion on that for another argument.
And yes, good men in this age group DO exist. The trend tens to skew the other way, but those guys are still around. I know a few.
Evan: “Also, life is not a college campus. Maybe you should read something written from a sex-positive queer thirtysomething woman’s perspective.”
Athlone: Try reading my post again. In fact, let me quote it for you:
“The FACT is that in the majority of environments frequented by 18-28 year old young people, those “offensive” trends are real.”
As you can clearly see, I did not claim that life was as I described in its entirety. I only aimed to speak of what I know, and that is my generation. For the average college student(and many young adults after college and into their late 20′s), this is reality.
Don’t quote me out of context, because I’m trying to be very clear here: this is reality for my generation(young people, teens to late 20′s). I can’t speak to thirty year olds and middle aged folk, but I can speak to that younger demographic.
You should also keep in mind that this blog is geared towards these younger people. They’re all smart enough to know that life as a whole is not a college campus, but you must also realize that for them at this stage in their lives that is the stage that carries the most relevance.
Evan: “This person goes to an Ivy League school and is obviously way smarter than we are. Be careful.”
Athlone: Yeah, because that’s exactly what I tried to say, isn’t it?
I think it best that we leave the red herrings out of this. You and stephanie can keep trying to put down the credibility of the school I go to, but it really has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
Karyn: “The amount of gender stereotyping you’re doing is mind-boggling. Do you have any sort of evidence to back up your “facts”? Because I have to say, working with teens and young adults on a daily basis, what you’re saying doesn’t mesh with what I hear at all.”
Athlone: You work with teens and young adults? Great.
I actually am a teen/young adult(19 as of may). You can take that for what it is worth.
You don’t have to believe me. Go to your nearby state school campus. Mesh with the student body. Go to the parties, the pre-game sessions, the beer pong tournaments. Watch the social scene and focus on the relations between the sexes. Talk to the students.
It will all become painfully obvious to you then. It already is painfully obvious to most in my demographic(this really is not difficult to see on any campus or average teen forum/blog/etc), so make of that what you will.
Karyn: “Gender IS a social construct.”
Athlone: Gender roles may have significant rooting in social construction(hence the significant differences across cultures worldwide), but there is plenty of credence to claim that biology plays a strong role in the making of some gender roles as well. I would think it a mistake to completely ignore the role that biology plays in the creation/maintenance of many gender roles, a role that some tend to minimize far too greatly.
The simple claim “gender is a social construct” is far too vague to establish an accurate conclusion.
Karyn: “Our physical bodies, after all, can’t tell the difference between sex in a long-term monogamous relationship and sex with someone we’ve just met.”
Athlone: I don’t think this is true. Your body does have a chemical reaction during/after sex, and the intensity/composition of this reaction can differ depending on the context of the relationship. The animal attraction you can feel to someone new that you have just met can differ from the relationship you have with someone you have bonded with for months at a time.
Keep in mind that you mind also plays a role to, and it does help to create an association which in turn will have some relation to your bodies reaction to your partner.
Karyn: “I also wonder why you think it’s a problem that relationships are not as common among the 18-28 age group. Honestly, so what? Monogamous relationships are no guarantee of happiness, or safety, or love, or security, or even monogamy for that matter, just as “hooking up” is not a guarantee of hurt feelings and “trauma”.”
Athlone: You might want to consider reading further back into Susan’s blog archive for some more substantive information on this.
From my own view, it is a problem because individuals who do truly want a monogamous relationship have a much harder time dealing with the peer pressure to the contrary. Society(contrary to what you may believe) seems to strongly encourage casual relationships, and if you’re someone who wants more you end up having a harder time getting it.
My definition and rationale are here. Don’t bother spamming with any more shaming language or chicksplaining.
http://vincentignatius.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/girl-notches-and-rationalizations/
There is not one correct way to find love and happiness and build a fulfilling life. There are going to be as many ways as there are people, and if JF’s path includes casual sex, then good for JF. If your way does not, then good for you. People, women and men, are rational actors, we are capable of making the decisions we feel are in our best interest, even about matters complicated by love and emotions and by acts which release oxytocin. Many people might make decisions that I do not personally agree with, but that doesn’t necessarily mean those decisions are wrong or that those people are hurting themselves, or that the decisions that I am so sure about now won’t lead to as much pain and heartache down the road.
OK, let me back up. My point is that the author and you were speaking in generalities and generalizations about men that skew negative, while simultaneously relying on your anecdotal experience as indicative of the situation for young people as a whole. Sound better?
Now, Susan basically said that Jaclyn is unhappy and empty in her slutastrophic ways because being a slut is bad and makes people unhappy. (She said this because she totally misread Jaclyn’s piece.) Now being a slut wouldn’t be so bad, except that men are pigs. Also, women with extensive sexual pasts are “damaged goods.”
Basically, she writes this entire column from the combined perspective of a woman who thinks that sluts ruin it for the good girls because they steal up all the good men, and one of the asshole men who make things horrible and unhappy and blue for the sluts.
This is bullshit. Jaclyn was unhappy because she was mixing up the desire for sex with the desire for love and getting into relationships because she wanted sex. Then she tried slutting it up; she became much happier as a result, because she was able to find decent men and women who were honest about wanting to hook up with her, whose company she enjoyed. That is, she found some men who were not assholes and chose to spend some of her time having sex with them.
Susan said this is impossible because men are assholes. I think that’s bullshit, because I’m a man, and I’m not an asshole, and I don’t know any man who would lie to a woman about liking her just to have sex with her, and I don’t know any woman who would deny her own desire for sex. I know they exist, but they tend to be no fun to be around.
And therefore, since I am between the ages of 18 and 28, it’s not a FACT that men are pigs and women want to be in relationships with them. The Ivy League crack I made because I think it’s funny, and also revealing. The Ivy League is full of boring squares, and thus a pretty poor representation of what people in their 20s are like. (or is that just a generalization?)
People are different. If people can find like-minded people to enjoy screwing around with, more power to them. Yes, there are a lot of assholes in the world, but you shouldn’t let them ruin it for you. I got hurt plenty of times in relationship-land, and I bet a lot of young women have as well. There is no fool-proof way to avoid heartache. Jaclyn found one that works pretty well for her. I think that’s wonderful.
Oh God, just when I thought it was safe to get back on the interwebs again, it’s the trainwreck that is Jaclyn Friedman and the frenzied reponses she inspires.
This poor woman is obviously having mental health issues, no doubt revolving around her college sexual assualt . She appears to me to be acting out a neurotic pattern typical of rape and incest victims in which the victim attempts repeatedly and unsucessfully to re-live the original trauma but with herself now in control of the situation and with a happier outcome. The difference between Ms. Friedman and the average victim is that, due to her obvious intelligence, she has been able to construct an elaborate political rationalization for actions and for her inability to deal with the tragedy. She would be so much better off without an outlet for her opinions and without an audience that reacted to her. Then she would have to face the original trauma in therapy rather than acting out in a public forum.
It’s so sad that the best years of her life have been wasted in dealing with this.
. . . gina
Is there a way to flag comments as juvenile?
Susan, I disagree that the non-sluts receive “zero male attention.” Maybe they aren’t getting attention from the players or manwhores who just want sex, but the guys who actually want a relationship will appreciate them more if they don’t act like whores.
Stephanie: “Let’s be honest, going on a “This is what I’ve seen” mantra really isn’t an effective argument, as you likely haven’t seen as much as would ever be needed to make the argument you just did here.”
Athlone: You’re right, don’t take it from me. Go and take it from the millions of other people in my age group who see precisely what I see every day at their respective schools. Go to a teen forum or blog and see what they say about the dating scene. Better yet, go to an average state college campus and immerse yourself in it. Go to the parties, go to the beer pong tournaments, the pre-gaming sessions, the frat get togethers. Talk to the kids themselves and ask them what they think about casual sex vs. dating. Watch how many hookups there are at these schools vs. relationships. Go see it for yourself.
I have already seen and lived it and in about 2 weeks I’ll be doing it all over again, as will most of my friends. Everything that I and others here have said will be confirmed after that.
This argument is not just obvious to me, it is obvious to many, many others in my demographic and most of the folks who observe them. Dating is on the backburner in college, guys tend to seek short term relationships, and many guys are disingenuous in how they present themselves to girls as they do so. That is what the scene is like for most 18-28 year olds.
I can’t believe I actually have to argue about this.
Jaclyn Friedman apparently posed for a calendar with other fat women back in 2008. I saw this photo linked on another blog. I think that Friedman is the third obese woman from the left: http://www.bigmoves.org/images/rc_poster_med.jpg
I think her time would have been better spent at the gym instead of having sex with random weirdos whom she met on Craig’s List.
That may be true, but too many of these idiots think they’re special snowflakes and the exception to the rule…
.
Conventional wisdom is in place because through the years it has proven to work for a very large percentage of the population.
.
If you want to go against it, fine, but don’t whine, complain, and act shocked when things don’t turn out the way you expect them to.
I agree 100%.
.
Aside from the top percentage of guys who have poon on tap whenever they want it, I think most guys would be happy to stop banging sluts and settle down if a quality girl enters the picture.
RT, I am so glad you know this about yourself. Ultimately, my point in writing this post was to underscore the need for self knowledge and evaluation. If a woman came to me and shared that she was emotionally battered and bruised from years of failed relationships, I would tell her to stop. Just stop and take a breather. I would encourage her to have sex when and if she felt a true emotional connection. I would do everything in my power to prevent her from setting up a sexual encounter on Craigslist.
Esca, thanks for this impassioned defense, it’s a masterpiece!
Exactly. If it isn’t working, why keep doing it? You need to take some time to just be by yourself and take care of yourself. You need to respect yourself and decide what is best for you.
Please point out where casual sex ameliorated JF’s pain and frustration. The Craigslist experience was frustrating from start to finish, according to the article. From whence the healing power of sluthood?
For the record, I don’t really care if Jaclyn is fucked up. I suspect she is, but hey, it’s her life. What I object to is her strategy for finding love, which is seriously fucked up. I would hate to see one woman emulate her, signing on for one or two decades of sluthood.
If you’re into 40 year old bisexual women, you must feel like the Cheshire cat. Talk about supply! It would take you some time just to work through the mastheads of Jezebel, Feministing, etc.
A woman who wants Love, the brass ring, the whole enchilada, would do well to approach her quest strategically, especially if she is 40. Some of the strategies you find so abhorrent: online dating, blind dates, meeting friends of friends, asking an attractive coworker to coffee, etc. How is this cynical? Is there anything more cynical in this world than looking for sex on Casual Encounters?
It takes a slut to defend a slut.
Listen, pumpkin: If it was really working so well for you, there would be no need for your histrionics on this blog.
Sluttiness is like borrowing against the equity in your home. You can live well for a while, but you must pay it back. With interest.
The slut cashes in short-term, but will be left with little sexual equity left for the long term.
Unless a girl remains smoking hot into her 50s, being a slut is just like being a lottery winner who is bankrupt a few years later.
They say that living well is the best revenge. If you were living well, you would not need to make such an angry try-hard post to convince us otherwise.
You will go the way of all sluts; the laws of human sexuality will not ignore your violation of eons of human development.
The only thing that is unknown at this point is whether you will admit it when you have failed. My guess is that you won’t, since being adorably defiant to the bitter end will be the last shred of dignity that you have.
Good luck! We’re all watching.
I hear you. I often take cads to task for their insensitive treatment of women. I don’t give men a free pass by any means. However, there’s no getting around the fact that men display for women – they petition for sex. Women decide. The final decision rests with women except in cases of rape.
Wrt statutory rape, this is a tricky area. In truth, many of the boys that priests sexually abused participated willingly, in some cases for years. It doesn’t matter. When the law specifies that a person is a minor, sexual activity is a criminal act. This should apply equally to both genders.
I will agree that young men who reject no-strings sex and hold out for something emotionally meaningful have my utmost respect. I have known several young guys like this. Sometimes they experiment a bit, but in general come back to preferring a relationship. This depends on a man’s nature, as well as the way he was raised. I admire your teaching those values.
Yes, another clear case of political correctness run amok. Honestly, being heterosexual and monogamous is just so lame these days. What is the world coming to?
Evan: “Jaclyn was unhappy because she was mixing up the desire for sex with the desire for love and getting into relationships because she wanted sex.”
…isn’t that kind of slutty?
Perhaps that’s where my confusion is coming from here, but hear me out for a second. As I understand it, she was entering relationships for the sex, and as a result ended up going through a large number of them(hence the term “rapid fire serial monogamy”) because her focus was on the sex. She called it diving in “full hog”, iirc.
So she had sex with new partners quickly and often in quick succession with one another because the sex was what she was focused on. She says she did it out of some sort of fear, to prove that she didn’t have to be alone. Things often went wrong in these relationships and they hurt her a lot, even though the connections were often in her words, “nascent”.
Wouldn’t that commonly be termed “slutty” behavior? I say this taking into account the rapid fire switching of partners, the quick move to go to bed with these partners, and the focus on sex with each one even when the connection was nascent. How is it that we conclude that she only started to slut it up later?
Evan: “The Ivy League is full of boring squares, and thus a pretty poor representation of what people in their 20s are like. (or is that just a generalization?)”
Athlone: You’re partially correct. Compared to the wild atmosphere you see in most average college environments(both private and public), the Ivy League is far more restrained.
Keep in mind, though, that I only know this because the Ivy League is not the only college environment I have been regularly and clearly exposed to. That and, despite its more restrained nature, Ivy League social environments still exhibit most of the trends I outlined earlier(read: relationships are rare, guys tell pretty lies, girls fall for them, etc, etc).
Evan: “Basically, she writes this entire column from the combined perspective of a woman who thinks that sluts ruin it for the good girls because they steal up all the good men,”
Athlone: Where are you getting this impression?
Susan doesn’t think that sluts steal all of the good men. That isn’t why she criticizes pieces like this. She does that because she believes(not entirely without basis) that “sluthood” is not a fulfilling experience for most women, just as she believes(again, not without substantiation) that womanizing is not a fulfilling path for most men(If you are familiar with the bloggers Roissy and Roosh, then you’re familiar with two of her most criticized players).
If you actually make an attempt to read the blog more, you’ll see that Susan EXPLICITLY encourages girls to go for men who could be considered “beta males”. These are the guys who don’t sleep around much and tend to be more reliable, stable, commitment oriented guys. These are the “good men” to her.
You keep claiming that she thinks ALL MEN are pigs and that these nicer guys don’t exist, but that just tells me you don’t read the blog often. Encouraging girls to pursue the less exciting but more stable/reliable “beta male”(read: nice guy) rather than the super cool, womanizing, frat partying “alpha male”(read: asshole) is one of the biggest themes on this blog.
Sluts taking the “good men” is not a concern for her at all, although nearly all of the sex positive critics seem to be making this claim. The guys she is encouraging girls to go for aren’t the ones regularly entering casual relationships with sluts. In fact, they’re not all that visible to most sluts because most of them only rarely(if ever) have casual sex. Thus, there is no way sluts can ruin it for the “good girls” susan is trying to reach.
“Gatekeepers are sometimes overwhelmed by the Huns.”
Not sure I agree with your overall point, but I love that line.
“nd it seems to me that women are getting the blame for every little thing some women do, while the attitude toward men is, well, boys will be boys. ”
Actually, my sense is that is more the opposite. It’s a relatively small subset of men reaping a bounty of women, while the rest get blamed for it.
But, as to why the women are being asked to adjust their behavior, it’s because they are being hurt by it. the men getting tons of no-strings attached sex are not sitting around crying about it and writing endless painful chronologies of it. They mostly look back and think “oh, yeah, that one was pretty awesome. And that one too. Oh, and that chick, she was freakin’ terrific.” So, asking them to adjust their behavior is pretty futile. Why in the world would they? I wish I could go back and be 20 again with what I know now.
Stephanie, thanks for commenting. For a start on links, check my Sources page. From there, move to Best Posts. I’ve written well over 300 of them.
Jaclyn wrote the article requesting that women support sluthood. And I find that troubling. It is not in the best interests of women to support sluthood, in my opinion. In my experience and observation, sluthood makes women feel shitty. I can’t even count the number of times women have shared that they hooked up knowing it was hit and quit, but still hoped for a text the next day. Is it possible that you are unaware how miserable hooking up makes many young women?
I admit I know nothing about recovery from rape, but I am very surprised to hear that you could heal from rape by having sex without trust or affection. I would have expected that a rape victim would need the safety of being loved to enjoy sex again.
“Please point out where casual sex ameliorated JF’s pain and frustration.”
OK.
“[...] sluthood saved me. Sluthood gave me the time and space to nurse a shattered heart. It gave me a place where I could exist in pieces, some of me craving touch, some of me still too tender to even expose to the light. Sluthood healed the part of me that felt my body and my desires were grotesque after two years in a libido-mismatched partnership. Now I felt hot, wanted, powerful. My desire and enthusiasm was an asset, not an unintended weapon. Even now, with more time passed, now, when I am actually ready for and wanting a more emotional connection, sluthood keeps me centered. It keeps me from confusing desire and affection with something deeper. It means I have another choice besides celibacy and settling. It means I won’t enter another committed relationship just to satisfy my basic need for sex and affection. It gives me more choices, it makes room for relationships to evolve organically, to take the shape they will before anyone defines them.”
Why object to her strategy? She seems to find it satisfying. Because she isn’t forcing herself into a celibacy/relationship dichotomy, she can satisfy her wants and needs without worrying so much about the pressure to find a man. Her story could enable similarly-situated young women to avoid the serial monogamy trap.
I’m not going to comment on whatever it is you’re implying about sex-positive feminist women other than to ask you to reread it and think about how shitty and judgmental it makes you sound.
But the larger issue, I think, is your inability to engage Jaclyn’s argument on its own terms. She says she was unhappy as a serial monogamist and became happy as a slut; you simply deny that she could be happy and point to her as some cautionary tale.
Snort! Seriously, JF pissed away her opportunities for what she seems to be looking for by spending her twenties and early thirties exploring love with lesbians and the transgendered. Unless she really is looking for a woman/transgendered partner in which case she pissed it away by spending her twenties and early thirties with the wrong lesbians and transgendered people.
Now she is older, her assets for inspiring sexual attraction have been mostly squandered, and instead of looking that all straight on and seeing the cause and effect, she’s decided to try and rationalize/celebrate her mistakes by getting society to admit it’s all wrong about women, dating, and promiscuity.
Evan, you can put me down for judging that that is a big FAIL.
Susan, my favorite line in this piece is:
“Apparently we now need a way to express that we are not transgendered.”
Clearly, we needed to get people on that urgent vocab lack, and thank God someone was up for the task. Cisgendered – pffft.
I think it would be useful to make a distinction between Jaclyn’s term “sluthood” and the generally applied notion of sluttiness. You’re referring to her previous behavior as slutty, but I would say she knew she wanted sexual encounters but found herself unable to set a good, constructive context in which those encounters could occur. By embracing sluthood, which she describes as an attitude, she created that context herself. But the entire essay is premised on the idea that a woman wanting and seeking out sex is not inherently shameful; in that context, sluttiness has little meaning.
I admit to never having read this blog before today; my impression of Susan’s voice is one of resignation to traditional, stereotypical gender roles and warning young women of the pitfalls therein, guiding them through a shitty paradigm rather than pointing to a new one.
A starred review in Publisher’s Weekly means that one [1] PW reviewer really liked the book and wrote up a good blurb for it. Big deal. The Top 100 list is agenda driven. As someone who has written hundreds of reviews and read thousands of them, I remain unimpressed.
If you only have a word for difference from the usual, and not for the usual itself, you imply that the difference is negative, shameful.
No, Jaclyn addressed her post to the reading public, encouraging women to support sluts. Such ridiculousness does require a response. Any woman who chooses, indeed makes a career of, sharing her sexual history with the reading public can not afford to take criticism personally. It is not personal. Jaclyn Friedman’s request harms women by imposing on them to sanction what is clearly self-destructive behavior.
The system of double standards cannot be dismantled. Men have a vested biological interest in choosing mates who have been selective in their sexual history. Women have a vested interest in selecting men with the best genes. Success in having attracted other women, i.e. social proof, is a proxy for good genes.
As for the sexual marketplace, the terms of sex are determined by supply and demand. Women generally prefer sex with a favored male – within a relationship (all you Girls Gone Wild notwithstanding). Men generally have fewer strings. Today, men hold all the power. Most sex is no-strings (at least 80%) and most women don’t have ready access to relationships. It’s not rocket science determining who the losers are in this “bear market” for relationships.
A person’s worth is based on her appearance.
Engaging in casual sex means that a girl is not quality.
Overweight people should be ashamed of themselves. They should concentrate their energy into making themselves thinner and therefore more attractive, because a person’s worth is based on her appearance.
Wow Susan.
Looks like you unleashed a battalion of Jezebelites, Feministites, and Manginas to descend upon you on what an awful, shameful person you are for daring to question Jaclyn’s call for a mandate to embrace the sisterhood of slutiness.
Seriously though, great post and keep your chin up. You are fighting the good fight.
Reading through most of your critics’ comments, I think they all can be summarized with the idea of “Methinks the lady doth protest too much”. You clearly pushed a button here judging from the reaction. The fervor with which the opposition is attacking is because on some subconscious level they know you speak the truth, and therefore you must be shouted down, drowned out, and personally attacked. I called this one in my earlier comment in a different thread where I said women will break into two camps on this subject and judging from this it is going to be vicious.
Keep in mind that if you keep even 1-2 twenty-somethings from ending up like Jaclyn at 40, then you’ve done a very good deed. Let the haters hate, and the ideologues spew their nonsense completely divorced from scientific and empirical reality.
You’ve never been in love, I gather. If you’ve never experienced the mind-blowing sex that comes when you’re head over heels, you’re in for something amazing. Unless of course, you spend your 20s and 30s hooking up with randoms or halfwaying it with men who don’t want to commit.
As for guarantees, there are none. Still there are odds, and Jaclyn Friedman’s post is proof that she didn’t beat them. She’s 40, having sex with strangers, and hoping for real love. She is the one who states that she wants a relationship. No one is telling her she should want one.
A slogan for this blog might be, “How’s that workin’ for ya?” If it works, that’s great. If it doesn’t, stop, reflect and alter your approach. Jaclyn Friedman’s strategy is not working for her. Sluthood is a failed strategy.
So what? Do you not agree that incentives drive behavior?
I read through your entire post, as repetitive and irritating as it was, and I pity you.
No you don’t, but nice…not really…attempt at shaming language.
n your first sentence you present the idea that “sex is not casual physiologically speaking” as if it were fact, with no evidence, proof, links. All of my education in sexuality and gender studies has taught me exactly the opposite, so at best, this statement is your OPINION and presenting it as if it were some commonly understood fact is erroneous and irresponsible.
You should ask for a refund, and then check out the Helen Fisher link Susan provided. But you won’t because your emotional stake in your ideology trumps any notion of science or truth.
Current thinking in the fields of sociology, psychology and anthropology all reject the notion of gender as a social construct. Only Women’s Studies, and to a lesser extent, Men’s Studies, still harbor that view.
Passer By, I’m interested in your feedback re the direction of the blog. In my earliest posts, I actually counseled against sex outside of committed relationships, and I feel that I’ve become more flexible on that point over time.
I do find the sex-pos feminists particularly maddening, as they seem very caught up in gender politics, while ignoring the experience of the vast majority of young women.
Um, I thought JF was a sex-positive 30 something queer woman.
As I explained to a friend earlier, sometimes when we change the name or term we call something by, it changes the views. Perhaps “slut” is a strong word, because often it comes with so many bad connotations. In all honesty though? A person choosing that casual sexual encounters is right for them isn’t a bad thing. Everyone’s different, and what works for everyone varies as well. Not to mention that while you’re only pointing to women, there’s so many men that can and do have thoughts about not getting a call back, or seeing the person again. But that’s something that a person also has to go in knowing and being okay with. But that’s also a person that may find quickly enough casual sex just doesn’t feel right before-during-or after to them. And that’s okay.
Truthfully though, a person with many partners that is being safe about their decisions in guarding against pregnancy and STIs isn’t wrong no matter what their age. But sex so often is still seen as such a taboo in our society that a woman who does this is seen in a bad light.
As per healing from sexual assault/ rape, I can tell you plenty of women do try to find some balance with sex. And rape in and of itself really isn’t sex (or about sex), it’s about power… and it’s certainly not sex to the person it happens to. It’s something that the person it happens to doesn’t have a say in. I, like many other women I know from support groups, self-defense classes, friends, etc. that have been raped, often do turn to sex in one way or another. For me, it was a lot in question how it was different (as it occurred prior to my ever choosing a partner) and I found that was struggling to be comfortable with my sexuality. Being able to make the distinction between that and *wanting* to be with a partner was a big deal.
I did have a lot of trouble in relationships for a while because I could see the way my partners were hurt if I triggered because of something they did or said, and thus being outside of relationships I was able to again find that respect for myself, understand and be positive about sex and my own sexuality, and most importantly coming to understand that it wasn’t something I had said or done that lead to the rape. Too? Not being in a relationship doesn’t mean that a partner I choose won’t respect me or my decisions, because they did. There were often times I would have to push a partner away because another memory surfaced, and they didn’t push back. A lot of people that have been in that same situation go through similar explorations, it’s actually pretty common – though I can understand if it doesn’t always make sense to those that didn’t have the same experiences to work through.
That would certainly be more constructive than having sex with random strangers she met on the Internet.
If a woman wants to attract quality men then yes, most men would agree that she absolutely should make an effort to improve her physical appearance. Men are shallow about this, but then again many women can be far more shallow about seemingly trivial things.
Then she tried slutting it up; she became much happier as a result, because she was able to find decent men and women who were honest about wanting to hook up with her, whose company she enjoyed. That is, she found some men who were not assholes and chose to spend some of her time having sex with them.
.
Which men were those? I didn’t read about a single positive experience in her piece. Her sexual relationship with B ended badly when she wanted more from him.
.
I never said men are assholes. What a value judgment! Are you referring to my statement that men prefer sexual variety? Men and women are different. Biological differences are enormous. Testosterone vs. estrogen anyone? There’s nothing to be gained by playing a blame game. There is a great deal to be gained by understanding both male and female psychology. If men don’t want to marry sluts, that’s their right. If they don’t want to date prudes in college, that’s also their prerogative. These are the market conditions.
Speaking of research, can you cite any to bolster your argument? (The bogus study from the University of Minnesota claiming casual sex is not harmful doesn’t count.)
Please specify what generalizations about men you find troubling. Not sure what you and Evan are referring to here.
Who said online dating is abhorrent? I met my wife through online dating. That’s not cynical. Its being open to new experiences. Before I met my wife, I did look for sex on Casual Encounters. That wasn’t cynical, either. It just was. If its not for you, that’s fine. Its not for me right now, either. It was for me 6-7 years ago when I did need to divorce myself from the notion that I had to be in a relationship. I ended up deciding that I was fine without a relationship or sex for a while and it lead me on path where I found someone I want to share the rest of my life with.
Treating love like its some sort of game of musical chairs is cynical. Thinking that capital L Love means one thing to all people is cynical. That finding love means one thing to all people. THAT is cynical. Ms. Friedman is taking the steps she needs to take to find the Love she seeks. Its clear to me that you and Ms. Friedman have very different understandings of what this all means, so why can’t you see that? Why can’t you perceive outside of yourself? Love is something that you can best find if you know and understand what it means to you. What YOU are searching for. Ms. Friedman’s counsel is not that everyone take the path that she did, but that they find the path that is true to themselves and their needs and commit to it and seek support for their journey. I don’t find that to be cynical in the least. Your judgmental reaction, on the other hand, seems to find the word quite well.
Everyone should feel free to do whatever they want. But when it comes to proselytizing, that’s where I need to step in.
Excuse the language, but AB-SO-FUCKING-LUTELY. Look, each person, male or female is free to pursue whatever sex life they want. If you want 5 guys to gangbang you/run a train, then more power to you (yes I am exaggerating). But her blog post was definitely a call to action, and had a proselytizing tone so you were well within your rights to push back hard on the message she is trying to spread.
Bellacoker, I couldn’t agree more. What I object to is the proselytizing of sluthood. The notion that a good woman can and should support women in their quest to be sluts. Why should any woman be expected to cheer on her friends as they describe dangerous sexual exploits? If they’re on the same page anyway, great. Jaclyn F made a request in this piece. She also held up her “sluthood solution” as something to be emulated. She introduced this concept into the marketplace of ideas. And I for one am calling it as I see it. FAIL. The evidence for this conclusion comes from her own description of her emotional turmoil and instability around sex.
but what i’m finding is none of the guys want a serious long term relationship with a former slut.
Not trying to pick on you or make an example, but I did want to highlight this excerpt because this directly refutes the BS that more then a few commenters tried to spew “that it just doesn’t matter at all”. Look, I think “none” is not accurate. I have no doubt whatsoever there are guys for whom a highly promiscuous past would be a total non-factor in terms of a committed LTR/marriage. If I had to guess, I’d say maybe 5 to 20%.
If you allow yourself to be pressured into using the made-up lexicon of others, you allow them to dictate the terms of the conversation.
Alright, hear me out again on this theory.
Evan: “You’re referring to her previous behavior as slutty, but I would say she knew she wanted sexual encounters but found herself unable to set a good, constructive context in which those encounters could occur.”
Ah, but that behavior still fits within the general boundaries of the traditionally implied notions of sluttiness(indiscriminate sexual promiscuity with no real rhyme or good reason; focus on sex over all other factors, resulting in quick engagement in rapid succession with many partners).
So basically she had been engaging in slutty behavior before, but she had not actually “embraced sluthood” (which as you say is an attitude, not just behavior) until later on.
I think the term “sluthood” is causing the confusion. Susan is claiming that sluthood made JF unhappy. Could it be that she was referring to the period in which she engaged in behavior that could be considered slutty but had not yet actually embraced her own definition of sluthood? If this is the case then Susan had a point-Jaclyn was not happy at all simply engaging in slutty behavior. The sex was not fulfilling and she definitely seemed to suffer from low self esteem(hence her needy, outcome dependent decision to throw herself into relationships so quickly in order to prove a point to herself). It was, by her admission, entirely unhealthy.
If I may venture a guess, I would think it incorrect to claim that sluthood “saved” her. The term is a misrepresentation. It was her accepting who she was, gaining some self esteem and consequently becoming less outcome dependent that did the trick. She calls that embracing sluthood, but I think it was a different phenomenon caused by something else entirely.
It isn’t the promiscuity in and of itself that is making her happy. Her darkest moments came when she was the most promiscuous and needy. In fact, it could be claimed that she left her emotional slump and hit her peak(the “turning point”, per se) when she got to a point at which she was at her least “slutty”(that very nearly serious but still somewhat casual multi month relationship with “B”, with whom she seemed to bond a bit). It was when she got to a point where she could find and be with someone who actually valued her that she hit the turning point and started valuing and understanding herself, which in turn led to her becoming less needy and outcome dependent. This is the phenomenon I think she’s really describing when she talks about embracing sluthood.
The term “sluthood” is what is throwing things off and creating disagreement. We may interpret it as an attitude, but others read it and picture traditional notions of sluttiness and rampant, indiscriminate promiscuity. What she actually embraced was something entirely different. You say that Jaclyn knew she wanted sexual encounters, but I think she clearly needed to find more than that, and for a while when she was with “B”, she did. To this day, by her own admission, she still wants to find more(the brass ring and all that).
In a way, you could even say that her improvement came from embracing(or coming very close to embracing) monogamy.
Her essay is not a list of positive sexual experiences, it is about a positive life experience. You’re misreading her words. She is in a happier place in her life because she is satisfying her sexual needs and not forcing herself into unhappy relationships to do it. It’s not about the men, it’s about the woman.
I admit extrapolating about you thinking that all men were assholes. I read you saying that girls who don’t put out will receive zero male attention, and saying that any man talking about gender politics is spouting BS and trying to get ass, and assumed that you thought men were sex-obsessed dickheads.
It’s possible that I misunderstood your earlier positions. I would have to go back and spend some time without a bottle of wine in me to assess it.
As to the products of gender studies departments (which currently happen to be the so-called “sex pos feminists”), their psychology is difficult to diagnose. But, like the terminator, they can’t be reasoned with. They seem to have a deep seated emotional attachment to the “truths” that they learned in school and have spent a lot of time defending and repeating in their echo chambers. It seems to make them feel part of a club that makes them feel special – like they know something about the predispositions of the genders that the rest of us don’t, despite almost everyone who has ever attempted to parent very small children telling them that they are absolutely full of crap. In many cases, these parents include women (personally known to me) who used to spout the gender studies dogma. But, of course, they have a “study”, and it’s PEER REVIEWED, so that pretty much settles it.
As I said elsewhere, the most vocal seem to be outliers on the continuous spectrum of female psychology, and then they presume to speak for all women (most of whom don’t seem to share their emotional outlook or desires).
Jaclyn Friedman’s piece was critiqued in a number of other venues, but the only critique mocked and lampooned by the lovely Amanda Marcotte is Susan’s. It’s funny how feminists will always go after dissenting women as the weak links, attempting to shame them for being traitors to their sex when really they only offering a different point of view on what it means to be a woman and to do so successfully. Dissenters will be punished!
In other words, what I’m trying to say is that Susan was right when she said sluttiness was a failed strategy for JF. She was just needy and outcome dependent and she never found what she wanted. She focused on sex, egaged in it quicly and indiscriminately, and it failed.
When she “embraced sluthood” as she calls it, what she actually found was a improvement in her self esteem and a lower level of outcome dependence that was actually brought on by a state of monogamy(her relationship with “B”).
It wasn’t “slutting it up” that saved her. Slutting it up was what got her in trouble. Finding someone who cared about her is what facilitated her recovery in the end.
“If you only have a word for difference from the usual, and not for the usual itself . . . ”
We do have a such a word – “usual”.
I just want to say I am a proud cisgendered, heteronormative, male lesbian.
And it’s not that unusual.
.
Recently, the blog Feministe had a some guest bloggers who happened to voice some opinions in support of “motherhood” (being a mama) and of not wanting to be a labeled a “feminist” (because as a woman of color, mainstream feminism had brushed aside her concerns).
.
The vitriol was amazing. And this was against women who probably agreed on nearly 99% with them. As someone once said, some animals are more equal than others…
The idea that men are repelled by unchastity is a lot of things — heteronormative, for one, and erases the experiences of polyamorous people, et cetera. But besically, even within the narrow framework of cis het women looking for cis het men, it’s not true.
Can you really type this gobbedly-gook nonsense and take yourself seriously?
The bigger problem is that you are looking at sexuality all wrong.
I’m not surprised that someone educated at Wharton would attempt to shoehorn sexuality into a supply and demand curve — I debunk all of this fallacious thinking, which I call the Commodity Model of Sex, in my essay Toward A Performance Model of Sex. You can find it in the book Jaclyn edited, Yes Means Yes — the one that won her a starred review in Publishers’ Weekly, and made the Top 100 list the year it was published, because it is a visionary collection full of visionary thinking. (How PW Top 100s do you have?)
Oooooohhhh….Ahhhhhhhhhhh…holy God damn shit…starred review in PW and top 100. Fuck it. Susan, thats it. You aint got one of those so you don’t know shit.
Look, I know this type. Very articulate, very verbose, probably a high IQ but basically an educated idiot. I’m guessing some type of social studies, etc. No hard science, hard analysis, or critical thinking background which would be necessary in something like business or engineering. So instead of actually forming theories to reality, you simply invent a theoretical framework that you then twist reality to fit. This is the legacy of the cultural Marxist view on higher education. “The Performance Model of Sex”. You’ve got to be f’n kidding me.
I can totally identify with this, Megs. Same here — but at least know there’s one other person dealing with this in NYC. Actually, two — another woman who posts here who I know also lives here.
JF’s own words:
“And yes, I still want love. Make that Love. The brass ring. The whole enchilada. A partner in crime, a permanent teammate. A mutual admiration society of two. Someone who feels like home, and who feels the same about me. Someone to catalogue my wrinkles as they form. Whatever you want to call it. When I think about it, it involves monogamy, but who knows. Maybe I’ll find it with someone. Maybe I won’t. I can’t pretend I don’t care. But most days, sluthood helps me be patient. It keeps desperation at bay.”
.
So, basically, she’s a mass of contradictions, a woman fighting against desperation.
.
And Susan’s advice? Again, in her own words:
“I hope she does find Love, the whole enchilada. To do that successfully she’ll need to look hard at the one place she avoids seeing at all costs: Jaclyn.”
.
How very judgmental of Susan, indicating that JF is responsible for her own behavior.
.
You, sir, need to read Susan’s blog more carefully before being so “judgmental”. And you’ve already admitted to not having read her blog before today.
And I think the varied definitions are causing a ton of difficulty here. Susan thinks Jaclyn is unhappy *now* and that her column is a desperate cry for validation. She conflates the serially monogamous behaviour (“slutty”) with the newly accepted “sluthood.” Jaclyn tried to play by the usual rules (while admitting she wanted to have sex) and it made her miserable; she figured out how to change her own rules, and she is happy now.
And it was not brought on by the MAN she slept with, but through the process of no-strings-attached sex of which that man was a part. The change was not of the MEN she was bedding but within the WOMAN she is.
“In your first sentence you present the idea that “sex is not casual physiologically speaking” as if it were fact, with no evidence, proof, links. All of my education in sexuality and gender studies has taught me exactly the opposite, so at best, this statement is your OPINION and presenting it as if it were some commonly understood fact is erroneous and irresponsible.”
Have you ever had an orgasm? If so, you’d know that sex is not casual physiologically speaking. It is – or can be – a rather intense experience. Part of that is caused by oxytocin, also known as the bonding hormone. I’ll presume your education in sexuality and gender studies enables you to take that to the conclusion that the casualness of sex is less than you think.
Susan,
Somehow at Amanda Marcotte’s site, they’ve converted you into a social conservative who wants a “Casanova to settle down with her proving she can beat out all the other women.” (actual quote in the comments)
“Damn does she hate men.” (another comment verbatim) I’m sure your husband and son must be amused about how much you hate them…
Boy, that site is an echo chamber…while we don’t always agree here, at least it feels like we can argue in good faith, like a family over dinner. While we may argue and rant, we at least want the other family members to be happy…
As I wrote earlier, I read you saying that girls who don’t put out will receive zero male attention, and saying that any man talking about gender politics is spouting BS and trying to get ass, and assumed that you thought men were sex-obsessed dickheads.
In anycase, dude, I would still argue that her semi-monogamous relationship with B and the connection she built with him was a turning point. Yes, she changed as a woman, but meeting him and interacting with him played some significant role in her transition.
It can at least be said that he was different enough from her previous partners(with whom she had no connection) to illicit some change.
I’d like to address the rest of your argument regarding Susan now, but I’m currently in Jamaica and I need to get ready to head back to the US in a couple of hours. I’ll respond more then.
“it doesn’t matter to me because I’m more concerned about my own decisions and my own life – and I don’t need a cheering section to egg me on so that I can feel confident about it.”
.
I totally agree with this. When you’re comfortable with your decision, you totally don’t give a shit what other people think & you don’t need external validation. People can call me a freak all they want, all day every day, but I do what’s right for me. They’re not living my life & don’t have to deal with my consequences.
.
Jaclyn should try having a viewpoint that’s radically different from 99.9% of the population. I’d like to read her rallying cry then.
Hey look over there: some data! I know…nothing much to see here, move along…irrelevant.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7918699/Women-view-modesty-as-sign-of-weakness.html
Cheers, ‘VJ’
Oh Noes, looking at her pics, it finally hit me why she seems so vaguely familiar somehow. She’s bulking up to become the new Andrea Dworkin, right down to the brown/black clothing too! Eeek! RUN FORREST, Run!!!! Cheers, ‘VJ’
An import part of gender may be a cultural construct, but biology still determines much of it. If you pay a little bit attention to biology, you’ll observe that the average human male is physically stronger than the average human female. Thus men are more apt to protect against physical violence and to do heavy labor (although aptitude is not necessary followed – if I remember well, many African groups assign field work to women and not so much to men). Women are more nurturing, apt to bonding (necessary to get them to rear those little critters we call babies).
Most people will tend to go in the direction that biology dictates them. This may be good or it may be bad (in-group/out-group dynamics can get pretty messy from all the blood), but you can’t use outliers and statistical abnormalities to argue against the norm, only to argue that the norm is not all-encompassing. And if you deviate too far from the norm that your nature imposes on you – for example, if you easily bond to your sexual partners but are pressured to have loads of casual sex – you won’t be very happy.
We have recently had a grand experiment about changes in human consciousness and all that. It was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). You may want to research that before beginning again about gender as a purely social construct.
1 2 3 … 6 »
{ 19 trackbacks }