Just when I thought it was safe to go back to my regular gig writing this cozy little blog, documentary filmmaker Denice Ann Evans tipped me off to more Slutty Shenanigans by Amanda Marcotte and Jaclyn Friedman. I’m disappointed, because today I had a fun post about everyone’s favorite topic – grooming “down there.” That will have to wait, though, because I’ve been described as holding views that are downright terrifying! Call the feminist police! Wayward XX on the loose! Stop her!
In a recent interview on Reality Check, an online forum “committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights,” Marcotte interviewed Friedman and I was the primary topic of conversation (blush). Not surprisingly, there was considerable discussion about my recent post Deconstructing the Sluthood of Jaclyn Friedman, but what was new, and far more noteworthy, was a very straightforward defining of the Sex Positive Feminist agenda. More on that in a minute.
What I find most compelling about the interview is the marked shift in strategy. Until now, sex pos fems have portrayed dissenters primarily as women who are afraid that the “sluts are stealing all the menz.” A favorite theme in their attacks on me was that I fear losing my husband to a woman like Friedman. (Ahem, let’s just say this isn’t what keeps me up at night.) Indeed, this meme – that women who feel that hookup culture serves women poorly are in fact, terrified of losing their own men, is a common one among women like Marcotte. For example, here’s a tweet by Marcotte from last April slamming Tina Fey for daring to question the sex positive agenda:
When I hear a married woman rant about the evils of sluts out there, I tend to wonder who her husband’s been dicking.
Nice talk.
Here though, we see a carefully crafted new marketing strategy, a move away from shaming women who don’t buy into the feminist agenda, to portraying them as frightening, a stand-in for Evil Patriarchy. Ironically, Friedman accused me of being a man-hater, which I confess I found hilarious.
Here are the interesting bits:
Marcotte: Things got ugly when a woman I think none of us had ever heard of before? named Susan Walsh? thought she’d make an example out of you. She has a blog called, what? “Hooking Up Smart?” Where she basically, sort of, promotes the same reactionary theories that the so-called hook-up culture is bad for women and something men imposed on women… What the hell is up with her?
Friedman: Well, I think it’s incredibly – well, I think there’s a lot of reasons she did that. One is for attention, because, as you said, I’d never heard of her! And now she has a post up sort of bragging about all the responses to her and how she’s so tickled by them, and so mission accomplished by her. Congrats, I guess… I didn’t want to say, for a woman that going out and pursuing casual sex is simple, because it’s not. Because the culture makes it very difficult. And sometimes very scary.
…You know, she just sort of totally misconstrued the whole thing, I think quite deliberately, because otherwise it’s a real threat to her thesis for me to be out there saying, “Look. This is complicated. It’s difficult because the culture makes it difficult. It’s not without risk. But it actually has a lot of power and what I’m advocating for is a culture that makes it less difficult, and for a culture that allows there to be less risk associated with it.”
But the other reason I think she wrote the post is to scare off other women from talking about it the way I did.
Marcotte: Let’s talk about gender. Because Walsh is promoting a theory that is incredibly tired and it’s surprising that anyone can make money off of it anymore. [Forced Derisive Feminist Laughter] It’s just this notion that men are all perverted dogs and women are all vanilla monogamists and dating is warfare where only one side can win.
It’s funny, though, I think people like her still have their hooks in us because they give us this nagging feeling that casual sex is still a sham that men push on women. And I think there’s enough of a feeling now out there that women are getting the shorter shrift; that these theories still hold…
**(Note: Here Marcotte reveals her soft underbelly of doubt. She knows that the voices against anonymous, casual sex are growing, reaching new audiences. She’s terrified of being silenced by her own fellow feminists, something that has already begun.)
Friedman: I think you’re right. I think it’s a really cynical, horrible, insulting way to look at people in general. I think it’s very insulting to men, right? That men aren’t capable of love, that we have to trick them into loving us by withholding sex, and of course it’s insulting to women as well, but I think in ways that we’ve elaborated. But I think that – I think that the world is still scary. And I think that the world of sexuality and dating is still scary for a lot of reasons that we probably don’t have time to get into in this format, and I think she plays on that fear.
So, it’s a question of whether or not you can see that you’re living in a framework. So, she’s living in a framework. She’s very explicitly living in a commodity framework of sex. And she says phrases like “the sexual marketplace” all the time… She likes to think of this as an economic exchange with incentives and things like that… She has this economic model, but she doesn’t understand that another model is possible.
Get ready, here it comes! The sexual model promoted by sex positive feminists throughout the blogosphere has finally been defined! It looks like this:
Friedman:
So, there is an entirely other way to look at sex that I think more and more people are turning on to and understanding, which is that it really is just a collaborative performance between two or more people.
And it doesn’t matter what your gender is.
It doesn’t matter how many people are there.
It doesn’t matter if it’s anonymous.
What matters is: are you both having a good time? Are you both getting something positive out of it?
And is there good, healthy communication?
Is everybody being safe? All those basic things.
But outside of it: is everyone having a great time? Then there’s nothing wrong with it. As long as everybody’s on the same page; nobody’s lying, everybody’s playing safe about disease and pregnancy, that we can consider it more, like, you know, a collaborative jam session…
But she – that’s a terrifying frameshift for someone who’s built their whole self-worth on being able to play the economic model game, I think.
OK, let’s discuss. Some questions to think about:
- Is there a place in our society for two people who wish to express love through sex?
- What are the implications of defining sex as a performance?
- Is sex between two people materially different than sex among n partners? How so?
- Is it possible to know during anonymous sex if your partner is having a good time? How?
- Is it possible to judge during anonymous sex if either or both parties will experience negative feelings after the fact?
- Between strangers, what does good, healthy communication look like? Can it occur without trust? Is trust possible between strangers?
- Is it possible to know in group or anonymous sex if everyone is being safe? How does one “play safe” about disease and pregnancy? Are medical reports produced? Or does one trust one’s life to a stranger in good faith?
- Is this model an evolution away from sex as an expression of love, and the means of procreating, toward an orgiastic pleasure principle?
- Does this model reflect a stunted maturation process? According to Freud, “an individual’s id follows the pleasure principle and rules in early life, but, as one matures, one learns the need to endure pain and defer gratification.”
- Is this model viable? What percentage of women would embrace it? Men?
**My next post will lay out the rapidly widening fissures within the Sex Positive camp, which is the real source of terror. I’m the enemy, but the real threat to Marcotte & Friedman comes from growing numbers of doubters from within their own camp.
Update: No voting by dudes! We know perfectly well how guys feel about this issue, ha!
Update #2: At Jaclyn Friedman’s request, I have added five ellipses to her remarks above. In no way does this alter my argument or the meaning of any content. I encourage everyone to go to the linked interview and read it in its entirety. (Link here, again.)
Related posts:
{ 270 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 »
I voted for the first option. When I lost my virginity I thought it was going to be a big deal but it really wasn’t. Yes it’s better with someone you really care about it but… it’s not the end of the world if you don’t.
It’s like playing ping pong. It’s most fun with someone you love, but it can still be alright with someone you don’t.
We’re not afraid of you. You’re just a particularly aggressive and useful form of know-nothing prudery, and we’re making an example out of you. If you upset anyone, well, we are human beings. We get upset when confronted with vicious assholery. Try being a human being some time. It’s scary (see what I did there?), but it’s worth it.
Also, you don’t have option #3:
Sex can be option #1, #2, or even all sorts of wonderful things beyond the small-minded imagination of Susan Walsh.
It’s kind of sad how they misconstrue your arguments to make you into a unidimensional villain instead of engaging in more honest discourse. Honestly, I think sex can be either. It can be just fun play and it can be a really intense emotional connection. And everything in between. It also can be an intensely bad situation. This is what you get when you involve the huge complexities of human dynamics. It IS complicated.
The thing is, I’m totally open to the idea that casual sex could potentially be empowering. But the evidence presented by Friedman herself is NOT convincing. I imagine, for some women, and really, most especially, at certain POINTS in our lives, that could be an important part of self-discovery and growth. And that’s fine and beautiful and great. But Friedman just sounds lost and desperately seeking validation.
Jade @ Tasting Grace´s last [type] ..Orient
That interview was typical Marcotte… let me pretend I’m a journalist (cause most people don’t know I’m not) so I can passive aggressively slam my “enemies”! However when people she doesn’t like use the same exact tactic, she calls it “JAQing” off and gets her panties in a bunch. Susan give that bitch the what for!!!!
@GudEnuf
Haha! You’re screwing up the results! Of course we know men are down with the sex pos agenda! Why wouldn’t you be? That’s why I said “women only” duh.
Um..here’s the problem Susan:
If I have to vote between sex pozzie feminism and sex neggie feminism, I’m afraid out of self-protection I have to vote sex pozzie.
See despite the fact that many of the sex pozzies still hold the same scary attitudes about normal het male sexuality that the neggies do, they at least find a place for it. The sex negative feminist movement in terms of policies and bloggers are basically a bunch of man-haters, half of whom seem to want women to separate from men or become lesbians.
Plus, I have respect for people like Clarisse Thorne and Renegade Evolution, even as I have no respect for Amanda Marcotte.
Lastly, some of the more batsh** insane feminist legislation has been defeated/watered down due to fights between sex pos and sex negative factions.
It’s one thing to get your message out there to young women Susan, and have them make their own choices. It’s another if the most loveable Totalitarian Movements of Our Time (mainstream feminism) loses Eurasia, leaving only Eastasia. I’m not sure we come out ahead on that one.
@Susan,
I bet that a lot of pandagon sycophants are gonna come over here and rig the voting. Hopefully you have accounted for that.
@Amanda Marcotte
Pish posh. You’ve backed yourself into a corner. As for aggressive, whoa there! You’re the poster child for aggressive + abrasive. *Shudder*
I was hurt that you told me you were bored with me the other day. So glad to see you back on the scene!
Oh crap
I’m sorry Susan. Feel free to delete my comment. I didn’t catch the woman only thing.
@Jade
One thing AM keeps saying is that I know nothing, am incoherent, etc. That’s fine – she’s entitled to her opinion, but it’s obvious that the ideas I’m discussing are of interest to a great many people, and they cannot be so easily dismissed. Her own posts on me garnered just a few comments, while here we hit 600. There was some nastiness, but by and large, the discourse was very civil, and many sex pos feminists came on and argued their views with force. If AM isn’t afraid to engage, then I encourage her to specifically take me on point by point. I’ve invited her to debate several times, but she’s unwilling, i.e. scared.
Also, you don’t have option #3:
Sex can be option #1, #2, or even all sorts of wonderful things beyond the small-minded imagination of Susan Walsh.
What like a thing to make someone jealous, or pay the bills?
@Average Joe
I couldn’t mess with the votes even if I wanted to, which I don’t. If people vote that way, fine – it’s good fodder for discussion, which is really the whole point. It should be pretty obvious in that case – the snark alarm will be ringing in the comments.
@Clarence
Oh boy, please don’t confuse me with Andrea Dworkin. If she and Marcotte are the only two options, we’re doomed. No, I think that the vast majority of people would consider sex something very different than either de facto rape or performance art.
First: Your poll is providing a false dichotomy! I believe in neither of those options! The point of sex positive feminism is that sex is what you make of it. It can just be fun hedonistic pleasure, and for some women it is. Even if those women are in a minority (which they may or may not be) they still exist. Sex can also be a wonderful, fabulous, loving, emotional connection. Sex is many things. It is different for different people.
The point of sex positive feminism is that as long as you are safe and honest and fulfilled, you are doing it right, whether you’re a virgin or have had 100 one night stands.
Sex is “performance art” when you are hooking up, yes.
When you are in a relationship it’s performance art PLUS all that other good stuff.
So yes, it’s better in a relationship, even a FB relationship than when it’s just two strangers in the night.
My take on things, anyway.
Now, I’m removing my man- butt from this thread.
@Clarence,
I think Susan is more sex objective than sex positive or sex negative. Marcotte is sex negative, but fashions herself as a sex possie. However, her anti porn/sex work stance are revelatory. And she even once said a cum shot is the equivalent of spitting on a woman.
@Sarah
The point of sex positive feminism is that as long as you are safe and honest and fulfilled, you are doing it right, whether you’re a virgin or have had 100 one night stands.
Yeah that’s the line but the practice is more political and manhating than open minded. What’s safe… condoms, but no dental dams?? Come on. What’s honest?? 3am drunken flirtations… that supposedly don’t mean anything… What’s fulfilled??? 100 one night stands as empowering for women, but “objectifying” for men.
Second:
* Is there a place in our society for two people who wish to express love through sex?
Of course. I don’t think anyone said otherwise.
* What are the implications of defining sex as a performance?
I’m not sure that was really the intent of describing sex as a jam session. I think the point was more that sex is something collaborative and fun. Jam sessions usually aren’t performance either, their just people playing music together for the ,ove if music.
* Is sex between two people materially different than sex among n partners? How so?
Of course there are going to be basic physical differences when you add more people. Just maneuvering all of the legs and genitals and such. Adding more people increase the chances of disease. And also some emotional health differences, too, even in a casual relationship. You would have to be extremely careful of things like jealousy and equitably. But as long as everyone keeps in mind the basic tenets of honest, safety and fufillidness IIs that a word?)then it should all be good.
* Is it possible to know during anonymous sex if your partner is having a good time? How?
Well, not 100% I don’t think. And in anonymous sex responsibilities do shift, I think. I think each person has to be responsible for their own pleasure, and, again, honest. In anonymous sex the best you can do is assume your partner will tell you if you’re doing it wrong, and if they don’t, well, it’s really their fault.
* Is it possible to judge during anonymous sex if either or both parties will experience negative feelings after the fact?
No. Of course not. But you can’t tell that in committed relationships either. Love and sex is about risk. If you don’t risk your heart you’ll never fall in love/have mind blowing orgasms/whatever it is you want to achieve.
* Between strangers, what does good, healthy communication look like? Can it occur without trust? Is trust possible between strangers?
This is a big complex question. I would start by saying that the first step is making it clear that you only want causal sex. This is achieved by saying “Let’s keep this casual,” or “I’d like to make this something more.” More then that is very situation oriented. You could probably write a whole book on good communication between strangers. And you know what? You probably can’t trust a stranger. Make the best judgment you can, use latex barriers and keep in mind the inherent risk of love and sex.
* Is it possible to know in group or anonymous sex if everyone is being safe? How does one “play safe” about disease and pregnancy? Are medical reports produced? Or does one trust one’s life to a stranger in good faith?
Condoms, dental damns and accepting that all sex has some inherent risk.
* Is this model an evolution away from sex as an expression of love, and the means of procreating, toward an orgiastic pleasure principle?
No. It is a corollary. Everyone expresses love and sex in different ways. All we are saying is it’s ok to do that.
* Does this model reflect a stunted maturation process? According to Freud, “an individual’s id follows the pleasure principle and rules in early life, but, as one matures, one learns the need to endure pain and defer gratification.”
This is a biased question. And many of Freud’s theories have been prove defunct.
I don’t believe it is a stunted way to view sex and love, but rather a mature and positive way. It means being honest with yourself and asking yourself what makes you most happy, and the perusing that safely and honestly, weather it’s sex, love, both or neither.
Of course I can’t prove that no more then you can prove the reverse.
* Is this model viable? What percentage of women would embrace it? Men?
This model is viable. It is all about finding out what is best for yourself and then doing that. I know many, many people, women and men, who do that. I have no idea what percentage, but it dosen’t really matter, because sex positive feminism is about what is right for the individual, not the aggregate.
@Sarah
Did you read the post? Friedman offers a specific model, one taken from her book Yes Means Yes. It’s the culmination of the whole interview. It’s the message she and Marcotte sought to communicate. You may disagree with them, and I encourage you to do so. But they are speaking for sex pos feminists. They’re the ones sponsoring the debate in the public square.
If this were true, then feminists would not deride virginity, nor would they create an atmosphere of peer pressure suggesting that abstinence is uncool. I wrote a post about a real case of this:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/06/23/hookinguprealities/why-do-feminists-find-abstinence-intolerable/
The sex columnist in question wrote to thank me, btw.
And I also recall an online report of Jessica Valenti shaming a virgin into tears at one of her speeches.
Furthermore, I asked specific questions about whether safety and honesty are possible in sex among strangers? Are they? If so, how can they be ensured?
Haha! That would require JV’s having the ladyballs to brook dissent and truly engage. Not gonna happen.
I liked this quote of Amanda’s.
“It’s funny, though, I think people like her still have their hooks in us because they give us this nagging feeling that casual sex is still a sham that men push on women.”
I think a lot of us have nagging feelings about sex that we don’t fully understand. I think what makes them dangerous is often we don’t know we have them and that leads to a lot of contradictory behaviors. It also can cause us a lot of problems.
I don’t know if “People Like ANYONE” GIVE us these nagging feelings, so much as we pick them up from various heres and theres. Some stuff sticks; other stuff doesn’t.
I think sometimes one of the hallmarks of wisdom is being able to admit that even in our own hearts, we don’t always know what the hell is going on.
dan_brodribb´s last [type] ..Don’t Wait For The Right Person
@ Average Joe
Yeah that’s the line but the practice is more political and manhating than open minded. What’s safe… condoms, but no dental dams?? Come on. What’s honest?? 3am drunken flirtations… that supposedly don’t mean anything… What’s fulfilled??? 100 one night stands as empowering for women, but “objectifying” for men.
Fulfilled is what you make of it. I am not one to judge. 100 one night stands are not inherently empowering, but they can be if the person partaking of them finds them to be so. And safe is, again, what you make of it. All sex has inherent risk. Do you feel comfortable risking exposure to infections by not using a dental damn?
3AM drunken flirtations do reduce your ability to make wise, safe, honest decisions. I recommend that you don’t mix alcohol and sex too much, but, well, we all make mistakes.
And as to the practice being more political and man hunting? You need to remember that not all feminist speak with one voice. And many of the quotes on this blog are taken out of place. I am, personally, concerned with the individual person. Man or women, slut or virgin, they need to seek their path to fulfillment.
@Susan Walsh
Did you read the post?
I did read the post. And I do agree with them. They are not describing how all sex should be for everyone. They are describing one alternative model that is useful and fulfilling for some people.
And remember! Not all feminists, sex positive or other-wise, speak with one voice. Some feminists make statements that I vehemently disagree with. But, also, I do not see this virgin shaming culture in the feminist community that you speak of. Certainly some so called feminists are zealots, but they do not represent us all.
I do see a virgin shaming attitude in the general culture, alongside a slut shaming one. I think these conflicted messages and impossible goals are one of the things that lead to such poor body image in the general female population.
I answered your specific questions about safety and honesty. To reiterate: We must always make calculated risks. Is a condom/dental dam enough? Does this person seem trust worthy? Is, in my opinion, what I could gain from this encounter the risks I am running?
In the end, you can’t really trust a stranger. You have to have your own judgment and take risks. That’s what life is about.
I actually agree with all their bullet points. Why not make sex a complete jam session where everyone is happy? Bravo!
The problem is, that doesn’t take into account the basic human nature of both MOST men and women (noticed I said not all — there are always outliers). Nor does it take into account the fact that what you do now will affect you five or ten years down the road. You have to live with yourself. Nor does it acknowledge that women often have “buyer remorse” after casual sex and there are scads of “women’s advocates” on campus that will prompt them to file false rape charges. Or need therapy.
Thier attitudes towards sex, in fact, remind me of the attitudes towards drugs that my parents’ generation had. Sure, have a good time now, but don’t be surprised when you see people with problems start to mount (no pun intended).
@Sarah
OK, thanks for digging in.
JF presented a model for sex that makes no mention of love. It is not unreasonable to question whether she values it as part of the sexual experience. She is also careful to specify “two or more people.” Why is that necessary? Why not just talk about sex in terms of its personal meaning and relevance? It’s clearly a reflection of her desire to deviate from the “heteronormative” agenda, which she derides a couple of times in the full transcript.
Again, I’m taking JF’s words here at face value. She defined it as a performance. Why are you attempting to rewrite what she said?
ROFL!
We are in agreement.
This is why hookups generally report that the sex sucks. (see About and Sources pages)
I would argue that the primary reason to wait until sex is a meaningful emotional exchange between both people is to reduce the risk of heartbreak. The odds of a woman feeling badly about herself are naturally going to be higher if she is unsure of whether her partner’s feelings match her own. And the research clearly shows that women are often disappointed after hooking up. Men can be as well, but not nearly in the same numbers.
It’s very clear in the research, and also a matter of common sense, that most women are hesitant to ask for something more up front, b/c they are afraid of coming across as needy. Men know this and use it to their advantage – ask me no questions, and I’ll tell you no lies.
Contrary to what AM would have you believe, I don’t believe that a certain kind of sex is good for all women. That’s why I say “hook up smart”. It’s about behaving in a way that is congruent with your values and your goals. Far too many women are not doing that today. They are behaving in a way that feminism has told them they should behave, succumbing to peer pressure to act casual. When in fact, for the vast majority of women, sex is not casual. It’s incredibly complex and powerful.
I have no interest in where JF has sex, with how many people, or anything else. What I am interested in is her idea, that this model can work. If more than a few outliers were to actually adopt such a model, the economy, then society, would collapse. For this reason, it will always be the talk of the fringe. It’s important, in my view, that these ideas be exposed for what they really mean for the well-being of women, and society as a whole.
I agree with this, and I think it speaks to female intrasexual competition. Women are fiercely competitive over men (speaking hetero here), and many use their sexuality to attract a man. Because women have varying mating strategies in the contemporary culture, some preferring short-term, others long-term, they are often at odds. I believe this is true in the general culture, but the script is largely written by women. Note: many women would prefer a long-term mating strategy, but settle for short-term hookups as being better than nothing.
@Sarah.
You need to remember that not all feminist speak with one voice
Actually you need to remember that the chant of a crowd is discernible as one voice regardless of whether a few people shout out of turn or say nothing at all. And by the way if Amanda and JF get to lump Susan into the “reactionary” group, then feminists sure as hell oughta stop whining about being “lumped”.
Kk. Gone for a minute, now I’m back with the jump off.
@Amanda
You call Susan aggresive, yet what is your first comment:
“We’re not afraid of you. You’re just a particularly aggressive and useful form of know-nothing prudery, and we’re making an example out of you. If you upset anyone, well, we are human beings. We get upset when confronted with vicious assholery. Try being a human being some time. It’s scary (see what I did there?), but it’s worth it.”
Hostile=Amanda M
Chillax. As opposed to most feminist sites, actual point based discussion is allowed here. So chill with the ad hominen arguments, make a point, and stay awhile.
(BTW still waiting for Jessica Valenti to take my dissenting comments out of moderation. If you could help with that, I’d be so happy. Thank you in advance!)
Also, Amanda, who cares about you and JF? Get ahold of your egos. SW never made that post to irk you and your girl up so the feminist brigade would bring in the hits. Ratchet down your entitlement complex and leave the fictional world alone count chocula.
@Friedman
You said something very telling:
“It’s funny, though, I think people like her still have their hooks in us because they give us this nagging feeling that casual sex is still a sham that men push on women. And I think there’s enough of a feeling now out there that women are getting the shorter shrift; that these theories still hold.”
One of the first things that you learn in sales is that you can never convince someone of something they don’t know or feel. JF feels those hooks because deep down she agrees with them. Now you could argue that it is because of cultural learning, but if she has bucked societies sexual culture the way she purports to this is something telling indeed. Perhaps deep down her mind is rejecting her lifestyle because it is harming to her? I understand if you want to continue pushing your sex-pos idea, but you can’t reject the fact that our bodies say many lessons to us on what is good and bad for each of us, whether we listen to it or not. I would love to know your thoughts on the matter. I hope you come back and discuss.
“So, there is an entirely other way to look at sex that I think more and more people are turning on to and understanding, which is that it really is just a collaborative performance between two or more people.
And it doesn’t matter what your gender is.
It doesn’t matter how many people are there.
It doesn’t matter if it’s anonymous.
“What matters is: are you both having a good time? Are you both getting something positive out of it?
And is there good, healthy communication?
Is everybody being safe? All those basic things.
But outside of it: is everyone having a great time? Then there’s nothing wrong with it. As long as everybody’s on the same page; nobody’s lying, everybody’s playing safe about disease and pregnancy, that we can consider it more, like, you know, a collaborative jam session”
………………………..
………………………..
To be fair, I do think there are some people who can have sex this way. They are a slim minority and my guess is – they are old. I’ve noticed that many old people have relaxed their previous views and hang-ups wrt sex and my theory is that this is because they have already exhausted their emotional needs to the point where they don’t really have that many.
They have already been married, widowed, divorced, had children, grand-children, etc. They are not in it for any of that – just the fun.
Young people who attempt to have this kind of “free love” are fooling themselves because human factors like FEELINGS and emotions that have never been reciprocated rear their ugly (pretty?) heads.
Both Friedman and Marcotte are middle-aged so I imagine that aging, along with drinking the sex-positive kool aid for so many years, frees them to be detached. But it’s not a prescription for your average 20 something who still wants to experience “true love” and “bonding” – which comes with a bit of possessiveness as it’s territory.
I’ve known young swingers and polyamorous couples and jealousy always rears it’s head.
Heartbreak and drama all around.
I think there is something to be said for divorcing feelings of possessiveness from sex and relationships – I just haven’t managed to do that yet.
I am determined to get to the point though before I hit 75!
@Hooking Up
Welcome, thanks for leaving a comment! It’s interesting that you raise the question of age. I’m finding that nearly all of the women I’m in opposition to on this issue are in their late 30s or 40s. I suspect they don’t want to know what is really going on for women on campus, or women in their 20s looking for “true love.” The truth is that when Marcotte and Friedman graduated from college, hookup culture was just taking hold. They’re a generation to old to be promoting no-strings sex to students.
I’m older still – but I don’t speak for myself, I speak for the women who come to me for support in a culture that is fairly hostile to relationships. We need to be objective and familiarize ourselves with the research, whether or not it fits with our political objectives. Failure to acknowledge failed policy continually puts a new generation of women at risk.
from what i can gather its quite a large section of girls that enjoy casual sex.
i wouldnt call it a ‘fringe community’
when i was at college 2 of my friends had steady boyfriends (as did i) but the other 20 or so had a string of affairs. all they cared about was the quality of the sex.
i kind of symapthise with all the arguments really- i get Marcottes stance- i really do.
i feel Sarah has explained it more lucidy however! (awesome post)
at the same time i also get where Susan is coming from. i have had a few friends endure broken hearts- the guys do have the upper hand (if they are deemed desirable etc etc).
my final point is that general culture is far more ‘shaming’ than feminist culture. if a woman wants to be a virgin i would respect that (whilst privately feeling it was a waste and a pity i get that people are different).
Both Friedman and Marcotte are middle-aged so I imagine that aging, along with drinking the sex-positive kool aid for so many years ? hahaha!
They’re not advocating no-strings sex for women in their 20′s or anyone for that matter, it works for JF – that’s all they’re saying. there’s no recruiting here and no one’s going to win a washer and dryer for convincing women to have casual sex.
Why people go on and on about them is beyond me, what’s the fascination ?
This is priceless – isn’t the desire to give up doing laundry what started this whole thing, haha?
I beg to differ. JF has proposed a model for sexual relations, and called mine “terrifying.” You don’t think that amounts to advocacy? You really think she withholds an opinion of a traditional heteronormative model of sex?
It’s quite funny that people are commenting here that JF is not advocating anything. It was the same on the last thread. WELL OF COURSE SHE IS!!! It’s suspect that most women, even those sympathetic to her, don’t want to be associated with her views. So you backpedal and call it misinterpretation. That is utter nonsense. She’s on the record as saying this. You can’t just claim she doesn’t mean it.
As I said to another commenter, this post is a response to an interview where I was trashed. Forgive me if I do indeed find that somewhat fascinating!
It’s probably proof of great mental instability, but this sentence alone–”Marcotte interviewed Friedman and I was the primary topic of conversation”– made me laught till my eyes teared up.
@Jess
I wasn’t saying that women who enjoy casual sex are on the fringe. I was saying that women who embrace Jaclyn Friedman’s model of sexual relations as stated here are on the fringe. Were your 20 college friends into group sex with strangers? Did they view sex as an opportunity to perform? Was connection with another human being entirely beside the point? You get my drift.
When I hear a married woman rant about the evils of sluts out there, I tend to wonder who her husband’s been dicking.
Sisterhood is beautiful. And I’ll kick the shit out of any bitch who doesn’t believe it.
Dear God, what happened to the feminism I remember from my college years? The feminism that made sense. The feminism that benefitted women. I’m getting old.
How is it a sign of mental instability?
Because it’s cracking me up and I don’t know why. It’s just so funny how this goes on and on. I feel like I’ve entered bizarro world or something.
@ Esca
Still waiting for an answer. Please get back to the convo
I answered. Now I’ve got to run. Be back later.
i kinda do but i would say that threesomes very not uncommon in my set.
it wasnt my thing at all mind you , and from the ones i heard about they always involved drugs/alcohol and were one-offs. curioulsy they were invariably 2 girls and a guy- not sure why.
a threesome does count as group sex and i have a feeling that a pretty big minority have had that experience. i seem to recall reading a UK survey and it was quite a big %.
however group sex with 4 or above i think is very rare. i have never heard of it via personal circles. thus that qualifies as fringe status no question BUT apparntley cyber sex and ‘dogging’ are now all the rage but I’m too old and too technophobic to be up on all that.
‘opportunity to perform’? i myslef didnt indulge in hook ups at college so i cant speak personally about young guys but yeah guys LOVE to perform- surely – they want good press! -male ego.
i have had more experience in later life and even more mature guy like to know they are up to standard. the male ego endures im afraid- more biological hard wiring maybe?
JF?- i think quite a few woman would support her stance, and if they didnt it would be about personal safety as opposed to ethical/emotinal implications. a friend of mine, after her divorce party, had a hook up with a guy 15 years her junior at a nightclub. she maintains it was the best night of her life! so, you know, its not that unusual- been done many times before…
I’m part of Susan’s BU focus group—a bunch of us get together frequently to discuss all of our ridiculous college stories and get advice on men, school, life, etc. Susan has never told any of us that it is not okay to hook up with guys randomly, have a one night stand, or have uncommitted sex. She has just told us to do what we want as long as we’re happy and being safe. You have CLEARLY only read the posts that pertain to you or your other sex positive feminists friends. If you could actually get off of your high horse and take the time to do some research, you’d realize that your arguments against Susan are completely false. I’m “not afraid of you” either so you can take your aggressive attitude and hit the road—obviously you aren’t posting on Susan’s website to add anything to the informative ongoing debates and conversations. Go take your “vicious assholery” elsewhere. As far as role models go, I’ll stick with Susan.
@Escardondito
Just wanted to say you are the best white knight a woman could hope for
“curioulsy they were invariably 2 girls and a guy- not sure why.”
I can tell you why. Men are not as willing to engage in “fluid sexual orientation” to please women as much as women are willing to “go with the flow” to please men.
My guess is that the college campus sex scene is still “all about the man”.
You’ve come a long way, baby.
Susan! I really miss your posts about relationship advice, tips, and stories. What happened to the articles about being true to yourself while finding a decent guy at the same time?
It’s not that I don’t find these debates about feminism and sexuality interesting, but I feel that it is taking over your blog! there is always going to be a difference of opinion. Can’t we just accept that so you can write about how to groom our nether regions?
I agree with other commentators, Susan. You are giving these sex positive whoevers way too much attention. I’d never heard of Amanda or Jacklyn before this blog, and I don’t think 99% of people in my age group have. Who are they anyway? Who cares what they say? Why is Sarah’s definition of sex not as important as Jacklyn’s? It’s not like now that I’ve heard good ol Jackie say the word, I’m gonna go out and have performance art sex with the next guy I see.
.
If your argument is that these people are important because they directly influence young women to have tons of sex against their better judgement, I would have to say I disagree. Fact is, casual sex and sex positive feminism are here to stay. And I agree with Sarah, they will always be balanced out by the much older sex-negative feminism. No matter which way you tip the scale, someone gets hurt–whether it’s the virgins or “sluts.” But most women aren’t virgins or sluts. And most women have never heard of Amanda Morcotte. And most women don’t give a rats ass about “how to properly define sex”. Most women just want a boyfriend to go home to at night.
.
Chili has a dream that one day feminism will be sex-neutral.
@J
How is it a sign of mental instability? 75% – 80% of the post was about Susan Walsh and her views. DId you read the transcript?
I’ll wait for responses.
Hi escarondito,
Sorry am i being slow? Am i the troll?
I dont hold it against guys for wanting good ‘sex reputations’.
I mean its a bit silly and it can be a bit tiresome but its no big deal.
Hell, if i was a guy i suppose i would feel the same way.
I dotn know why most girls dont have quite the same motives but I know a few that do pride themselves on their skill set so to speak.
As for girls that ‘kiss and tell’ at college. i have always thought that was mean. never done it myself but seen it done 100s of times. i guess we like to gossip- cant really defend it – sorry.
@ J
Still waiting for an answer.
Please get back to the convo.
lol- fair enough…
as it happens im the type that likes to walk without discomfort in the morning!
I agree that both partners should take responsilbility in bed.
Its just some girls like guys to take control and absolve themselves of the responsibility and when a guy doesnt do that as well as the last they might bad mouth him.
Personally whenever a friend has made snide remarks about a guy i always thought it reflected worse on her than on him.
@ J
got it, you are the mentally unstable one. Just making sure.
@ jess
Hold on. I don’t want to side track the convo, but I don’t know why guys get the shit about wanting to be known for good performance in bed. Is that an admission that girls don’t care about being good in bed and are just fine being “lay and take” women? Because to be honest, most women when they are young are terrible in bed, men just don’t go telling everyone, or men don’t take it as a big deal to sleep with you on hearing it because we’re used to “lay and take” girls.
@Susan
False. And I thought you might say that. This isn’t actually about you. I just abhor stupid comments brought out by willful ignorance. I enjoy intelligent debate and as I read down the comments, that particular one stuck like a thorn in my paw.
From my last post against whatsherface, full of epic rpg gamer-ness, I have decided to slay one troll at a time, whenever and wherever they may come. It will be a hard battle but I believe and individual can make a difference, evne on the internet! lolz
Hmm. Interestingly enough, I found this blog via AM’s Twitter feed. I’m a fan of Marcotte’s work (abundant snark and sarcasm aside, but that’s a personal pet peeve), but still find the ideas discussed here to also be interesting and important. Apparently that’s not terribly common…
Either way, I voted for option 2. There isn’t really anything to argue when given those two distinct options. People would hardly agree that sex is only a performance, but I’m also not sure that Marcotte or Friedman were trying to say that they believed that that’s all it could be, either, even if it was implied.
Personally, I think it’s quite possible to have casual sexual encounters with however many people one wishes, but only successfully if one is not using casual sex as a method in which to form a romantic relationship. That’s not to say that it can’t happen, but it generally doesn’t. I went through a year-and-a-half period where I was single and had, well, tons of casual sex, with multiple partners, and enjoyed it immensely. I’m happily married now, a few years later, and the thing about that period where I was more promiscuous is that I wasn’t looking for a fulfilling romantic relationship; I was feeling sexually adventurous. Some of those “adventures” involved deeper feelings than simply physical attraction (and that was usually a requirement of mine), which is why I also believe that the experiences fit nicely into answer number 2 on your poll, but that didn’t interrupt or confuse my lack of desire for a romantic or committed relationship at the time that they were happening. It only enhanced the experience.
My experience is obviously anecdotal, but it’s why I can’t get behind the idea that casual sex is always doomed to end in heartbreak or emotional conflict. If the person engaging in casual sex is aware of their desires and their needs, and clearly and honestly communicates that with their partner(s), and everything is obviously consensual, then emotional turmoil is unlikely to occur. And if you’re not planning to date or marry a misogynist, judgmental douchebag, you don’t have to worry about laughably insane things like your future partners being offended by a sexual history equal to or larger than his.
Basically, what I’m saying is that, if the participants in sexual activities are emotionally and mentally mature and aware of their needs and those of their partners’, the decision to have a sexual relationship with a person does not need to be problematic. The real problem, in my opinion, is that as a society, we are not yet to the point where everyone is comfortable enough discussing sexuality that we are able to proactively encourage people to be mature, ready, and honest when it comes to sex. I’d venture to guess that random hook-ups may even decrease if we (in general) were more comfortable frankly discussing sex and reforming sex ed in schools, if only because the majority of the people who have bad experiences with them are having bad experiences because they aren’t prepared for the relationship that they’re in, or they’re unsure of what they actually want.
April´s last [type] ..A Serious Problem
Meaning, appreciating both you and Marcotte’s work, simultaneously.
April´s last [type] ..A Serious Problem
@ jess
Wasn’t getting at you, was getting at J spouting nonsense.
Gotcha on your points. The reason I asked is that I’ve always found girls ability to rationalize things amazing. For example, when they say that a guy was wack in bed don’t they realize that, besides inexperience, if a guy thought you were hot he would make sure you wouldn’t walk in the morning. So, it always make me wonder how girls don’t realize that if you turned him on he would turn you out.
Holy crap. Look, if you hate men this much why is our acquisition the be all/end all of a woman’s life? You’re demeaning men and women alike by insisting on such a narrow view of humanity. You reduce us to something less than animals. Stop belittling us all to try to sell yourself and your insufferably shallow interpretation of love and sexuality. Your knee-jerk disrespect and hatreds are far more illuminating than any of the points you think you are making.
Susan,
one of the reasons I keep coming back is for what I consider a non-polarizing view. It seems like common sense applied to a subject that inspires extremes.
More extremists have been involved recently, though, so I’ve been keeping quiet.
In this one instance, I agree the poll invites criticism — since there are just too many degrees between the two options. I don’t think there’s a good “sex IS” definition in that sense. It’s only “sex CAN BE.”
I’ll also say I appreciate the trail blazed by hard core, self-proclaimed feminists… but I find the contemporary version more rancorous than productive. When I first found your blog, it struck me as a sensible evolution of the sexual revolution. Who knew that would be so offensive?
BStu, if I may interject, it’s disingenuous to suggest that Walsh actually hates men. She employed an arguably tired and overused stereotype, but did not express a hatred for men. And while the implication that men are only sex-robots can be extrapolated into man-hating, you appear to have only said it in the way you did to get a rise out of her or other commenters. That’s a rhetorical technique that immediately halts dialogue and is the opposite of progressive or beneficial to anyone.
April´s last [type] ..A Serious Problem
Most girl on girl action in coed college settings is done solely for the purpose of entertaining and arousing males. I’m talking about women who identify as straight, but will make out with another girl at a party to garner attention from guys. It’s extremely common.
Also, straight men only want a 3 way that includes two women.
I listened to Reality Check last week. What I love is how they have what is the equivalent of a high school corridor gossip slam session about you, broadcast it on the internet, and then attempt to hold the moral high ground.
Nice try.
grerp´s last [type] ..Piece of Advice 65- Aim higher than prostitution
@April, you mean the way Susan Walsh does the same thing when she confuses JF saying there’s nothing wrong with having sex that doesn’t involve love and commitment with her saying that JF thinks sex “is just a collaborative performance between two or more people. Nothing more, nothing less”? That kind of inflammatory rhetorical device?
@Just Reading
I hear you. I am hopeful that regular programming will resume shortly. It’s a conundrum for me – having caught the eye (and wrath) of the online feminist community, I hate to just ignore it, and get “swiftboated.” My integrity and authority is on the line. Also, I do have strong feelings about the politics – and I welcome the debate.
However, I too miss the fun stuff – I promise to have that grooming article up next.
That’s a wonderful dream, Chili. I hope it will be realized. You raise an interesting point. 99.9% of people have never heard of Amanda Marcotte, or me. (Actually, some will remember Amanda Marcotte’s disastrous stint as a blogger for John Edwards.) The truth is, debate online may have little to do with the lives of real women. And then again, it might. Some of these women speak on college campuses. Jaclyn Friedman will be speaking at Williams College soon, hosted, I’m sure, by extremist feminist profs. Hopefully, she won’t share her personal model of sexual relations, because there will be some impressionable freshmen in the audience, no doubt.
Finally, for the third time, I will state that this post is a RESPONSE to an interview where I was discussed at length. I seek no audience with these women. I look forward to a return to my cozy little blog and writing about 10 ways to make sure you’re on his mind, etc.
@BStu
Oh, I don’t hate men. Not at all. Quite a few male readers feel quite at home here. The reason that poll is only for the women is because I claim that hookup culture is harmful to women. I view men, at least some men, as the beneficiaries of the Sexual Revolution, which started us on this path 40+ years ago. Also, it’s been clearly demonstrated in the research that men and women experience sex differently – hate to break it to you. For men, having sex without emotional bonding is no big deal. I could put up a separate poll for men if you wish, but I think we already know that information.
@Smitten
Hey, it’s really good to hear from you. I respect your opinion, thanks for sharing it. The truth is, the poll is not meant to be a scientific study – I don’t plan to follow up with another post using that data or anything. I just wanted to make a point – the models that JF and I propose could not be more different. I don’t believe hers reflects what women really want. At least the vast majority of women, which is the group I’m writing for. I’m not sure how I could have offered more options – I really can’t conceive of a model other than the one I proposed. She offered an alternative model, and I put it up for review.
Hate to break it to you, Susan, but humans are way more emotionally complex than you give them credit for. Both genders.
@Anna
That’s a direct quote. How can a direct quote be inflammatory or rhetorical? Is Jaclyn Friedman prepared to defend her ideas or isn’t she? She’s waging a Twitter war, but can’t bring herself to speak in more than 140 characters. Same with Amanda Marcotte. How about a real, intellectually honest debate about these ideas?
The truth is that both of these women prefer to chortle sarcastically in their own bubble. They don’t want to debate, because they know the research is extremely unfavorable to their views. That’s why, unlike here, comments are moderated, i.e. censored, at all of the major feminist sites.
JF: “She doesn’t understand that another model is possible.”
Susan Walsh: “I really can’t conceive of a model other than the one I proposed.”
Aw. You agree about something.
Susan, the words “Nothing more, nothing less” are not a direct quote. Nowhere does JF say that that’s THE ONLY thing sex can be about. She’s just saying there’s nothing wrong with sex that meets that basic standard. It’s inflammatory and rhetorical to suggest otherwise.
I’d love to see a debate between the three of you, but you can’t really expect that to happen on your blog. Have you left comments on their posts that weren’t approved? Otherwise, I don’t see how you’re different than they are, making your arguments where you feel most supported. A real debate would have to occur on neutral territory.
No. Another model is not possible, as it counters biological reality. If it were, JF’s model would eradicate monogamy, which is the underpinning of our society. That would dramatically drive down the birth rate, which would destroy the economy. In addition, STDs would skyrocket, driving up health care costs dramatically and rendering a large percentage of women infertile further depressing the birth rate. This doesn’t even take into account the mental health costs – as love was removed from the activity of sex, many would become severely depressed. That’s just for starters.
@Susan,
In defense of feminist blogs often moderating comments, I’m not sure you realize how many utterly ridiculous comments they get. In the interest of furthering progressive dialogue, some moderation is necessary for a heavy-traffic site. That said, I’ve seen countless instances of blog moderators banning people for eloquently and respectfully disagreeing with the point of the OP. I don’t heavily moderate comments on my own blog, but that’s because i don’t have the traffic to require it. Also, most feminist blogs stop moderating you after one or two comments, if you prove yourself to not be disingenuous. Wordpress-hosted blogs often adopt the “first time commenter is moderated until initially approved” strategy. I used that one for a while, until I stopped caring.
I would personally really like to see an honest debate between you and Marcotte. I find you to be a more open and intellectually open person when arguing a point than I’ve found Marcotte to be, but my views on sexuality tend to align more closely with Marcotte’s. (while I own “Yes Means Yes,” I don’t know much about Friedman at all, so I can’t speak to her style or writing much.) Hopefully you and Marcotte can actually have a debate, like Anna said, on neutral territory.
April´s last [type] ..A Serious Problem
“JF’s model would eradicate monogamy”
Really? Because she says she wants monogamy. She just doesn’t want to be celibate while she’s waiting for someone worth being monogamous with.
I really don’t think you understand JF’s model at all. Either that, or you’re deliberately misrepresenting it?
@Anna
Of course I wouldn’t expect a debate on my own blog. I’ve invited AM to debate somewhere other than Twitter, and I’ve asked both her and many of her followers on Twitter, to specify their objections, but honestly, all I’ve gotten is vitriol that is free of substance. AM just says things like she did in this thread – surely you can see that she is not willing to engage intellectually?
Anna, I invite you to address the questions I included at the end of the post. They are questions designed to help me understand how JF’s model might actually function, and what benefits it might offer. I find it hard to believe that you are defending a model that describes sex as ” justa peformance between two or more people. (That just is where the nothing more, nothing less comes from.)
I have to go to sleep now, but will take a stab at those questions tomorrow. In the meantime, I’ll say, I don’t read that “just” how you do at all, especially in context of everything else JF says. I think it’s a quirk of speech that came out in a radio interview, the way you say “um” or “er.” I haven’t seen JF say ANYTHING anywhere else in any context that would support your reading, and I’ve seen her say lots of things that go against it.
Also, why have you not invited JF to debate? Especially since it’s her post that started this whole conversation?
@April
First, let me say that I really enjoy your commentary. You have a smart and reasoned view and I respect it.
Second – wrt ridiculous comments, tell me about it! I get some crazy ones here, but I moderate nothing unless it is offensive. For example, I deleted all comments about JF on the prior post that were gratuitous about her views or appearance. I have only ever banned three commenters here. I never hold a comment for a dissenting view.
Third – the number of comments on the typical post at Pandagon, Feministing, Feministe, etc. is far, far lower than I get here. So I really don’t buy the argument that they’re overwhelmed with crazies. They are clearly engaging in censorship. I know this firsthand because on some posts I have indeed left comments questioning whether women are not feeling sad and unloved with a steady diet of casual sex, and not one of those comments has ever shown up.
@Anna
JF refused to speak with me. She tweeted about me but would not converse with me. Amanda Marcotte, on the other hand, did engage a bit more, though she also was extremely dismissive, as you see above. I would actually be willing to take on the whole sex positive feminist army – at the venue of their choosing. If you have a way of booking them, let’s do it!
@Addy
You are the best. I love my BU crew with all my heart! Now that you’ve all graduated, you’re dispersing, but you will always be welcome in my home. Thank you for this very kind and generous defense.
@ Esca
got it, you are the mentally unstable one. Just making sure
LOL. Thanks for confirming my worst suspicions about myself.
Just to clarify, the fact that AM and JF feel the need to come back for seconds tickles me beyond all rationality. I just can’t take those two seriously.
When I have arguments with my own teenage kids over what it is they think people have the right to do, this is what I call a “right to eat shit” question. Yeah, it’s your life, you DO have the right to flunk algebra, get your tongue pierced, screw around promiscuously, or eat a hot steamy bowl of shit if you really want to. I just don’t see why you’d want to.
AM and JF are arguing for the right to hurt themslves. Ultimately what can you say but “Knock yourself out”? If JF is dumb enough to say this about sex with strangers–“It’s not without risk. But it actually has a lot of power and what I’m advocating for is a culture that makes it less difficult, and for a culture that allows there to be less risk associated with it,” then what can you say if she ends up killed by a Craigslist pickup? She had the right? The culture failed her? No, she just exercised her right to eat shit. Hope it was tasty!
The whole conversation is surreal and absurd.
@Clarence
Now, I’m removing my man- butt from this thread.
I think you can post; you’ve merely been temporarily disenfranchised.
@April
Part of the problem with Amanda M. is that her snark is oftentimes gratuitous and mean-spirited. She doesn’t seem to have much room in her views to have “good-faith” disagreements. Even on her own blog, she’s been taken to task, such as her “defense” of the cover of one of her books. Or due to her disdain of people who are looking for life relationships (which she denigrates with her snarky term “true wuv”). She strikes me as someone who has already made up her mind and to hell with any evidence. Which is why a debate with Susan would be pointless…Susan might listen and weigh any evidence, but the other side knows we’ve always been at war with Eastasia…
.
@Susan
The problem with JF’s list is that it seems to suggest we just should be robots, where anything goes, anything is worthwhile, and nothing can ever be judged by our ”
human emotions”. By her criteria, replace “sex” with drug use or alcoholism, and you can see the absurdity of the claim. Why shouldn’t a 14 year try heroin? If it’s safe and clean, there should be no problem with that…plenty of people have tried it and gone on to lead productive lives.
.
At this point, their views have been mainstreamed. Any objections are treated as “intolerant”. The long term implications of this are not hard to fathom, but in the long run, we’re all dead.
@Susan
Most girl on girl action in coed college settings is done solely for the purpose of entertaining and arousing males… It’s extremely common.
So common there’s a name for girls who do it–barsexuals!
Why does Amanda Marcotte continue to have an audience?
How come her disastrous John Edwards stint hasn’t torpedoed her career?
Or does the internet audience just have a short memory.
Remember the freakshow she initiated after Edwards picked her – nuts.
Everyone who remembers that period wishes she would just go away…
Sometimes I miss all the fun. ‘Collaborative performance’? That’s it? The what, top 5 topics of all literature, most Net searches, the very thing that Built this here Interwebs? And I stopped searching for this because of??? A ‘collaborative performance’? Every damn artist worthy of the name would be ashamed of this colorless, pale imitation of passion, this denuded version of ‘romance’, AND Performance! Exotic dancers in the lowest darkest clubs in the dingiest Stygian depths might do better. They do more than just ‘perform’, collaboratively. They ADD Artistic sentiment. And obviously that’s even a bit more than AM or JF are willing to consider for their version of humanity, sexuality, or ‘femininity’. More’s the shame on them & their cramped, warped, delimiting & ultimately very silly views on sexuality here. Wow. It’s like they dug up Wittgenstein, drugged him up and asked him about the ‘shortest implausible definition’ possible of same. FAIL on too many levels to count! Cheers, ‘VJ’
@April
And if you’re not planning to date or marry a misogynist, judgmental douchebag, you don’t have to worry about laughably insane things like your future partners being offended by a sexual history equal to or larger than his.
I smell a slut… a feminist slut! A man absolutely has every right to determine what behaviors, sexual or otherwise, he finds attractive in a potential long term mate. And don’t fool yourself… the more guys you screw, the fewer men become interested in you for anything other than sex. Ask any stripper.
Smart guys don’t wed sluts because we know they have way too many issues. At the very least no husband in his right mind wants a woman, such as yourself, that equates non-monogamy with strangers to “sexual adventure”… cause we all know where that leaves “married sex”. Any sexually healthy woman views commitment as the beginning of the “wildest” time of her life, not the end of it. And that’s something a slut never grasps.
@Anna
Really? Because she says she wants monogamy. She just doesn’t want to be celibate while she’s waiting for someone worth being monogamous with.
Yeah, Right!
A 40 year old woman looking for monogamy will use e-harmony, not craigslist casual encounters…9 times in as many months. Practically every other middle aged woman in Jaclyn’s predicament has the decency and half the brain to get herself a friend with benefits rather than spread for internet strangers. Slutty is not the opposite of celibate!
@Average Joe – did you read her original post? She went to casual sex after she discovered she wasn’t healed enough from her last relationship to look for a new one yet – she wasn’t using CL instead of e-harmony (or even OK Cupid, for that matter). And the guy she met on CL did become a FWB, that she’s still seeing now.
Also, if you read the original post, it’s not like she was sleeping with any rando that would have her. It sounds like she was pretty picky, actually. I don’t really understand what your point is.
@J
I agree with the eat shit argument. And I prefer try-sexuals. Willing to try ANYTHING!!!
Good question. In fact, I think she has very limited credibility, due to past episodes of hate speech and racism, both of which she had to publicly apologize for. Of course, for feminists, women’s rights trump either of those things, so her female colleagues in the femosphere pretend those things never happened. There was also her extreme and immoral treatment of the Duke lacrosse scandal. Add to this record of extremism a very unpleasant personality, and the only explanation is that she’s at the head of a very tiny army. Jessica Valenti is the Queen Bee, and AM is one of her Ladies in Waiting.
In her piece of just a couple of weeks ago, she said that relationship(?) had ended when she got emotionally invested, that there were tears and accusations. She then said there was another casual fling that followed and looked promising, then abruptly disappeared. She concluded by saying she is starting a new fling and uncertain where it might lead. Two weeks later, she’s back to seeing Internet Stranger #1 and that’s going quite nicely? Doubt it, but in any case, it suggests that she is having sex with numerous strange men within a period of a few weeks or months. She describes herself as emotionally stable at the moment, which could really only be true if she does view sex as a collaborative performance, and not an emotional exchange.
At most, this proves is that JF’s model works for her. Fine. It’s her suggestion that it’s applicable to a larger population of women that’s unacceptable. I mean, come on, you’ve got to see that she is waaayyyyyy out there statistically. At least two standard deviations from the mean.
@esca
Try-sexuals! Good one!
This is what she says about that initial CL guy in her original post:
“But even that was an education: somehow, the conflict that erupted demonstrated so clearly the ways we wouldn’t work together in a more serious arrangement, leaving us free to pick up where we’d left off as lovers.”
How do you read that as the relationship ending?
Also, neither the guy who disappeared or the other guy she’s seeing now are described as “casual” or “fling.” Not sure why you make that assumption. In fact, she says about the guy who disappeared, that it “looked like it might get serious.” She talks a lot about wanting emotional connection, now that she’s more ready for it, I’m not sure why you’re so determined not to hear that part.
And I don’t think she’s particularly far “out there.” She’s describing the experiences and desires of probably most of the women I know, most of whom are pretty happy, successful women.
@Average Joe
Any sexually healthy woman views commitment as the beginning of the “wildest” time of her life, not the end of it.
As a women who has been married for 20+ years, I’ll co-sign that comment. The trust involved in a committed relationship is actually very liberating for a woman.
@J.
It’s sooo obvious too. And you don’t even need to list the kinky stuff. Just sex without a condom is worth it.
@Anna
Um, I assume her relationships are casual, or flings (feel free to substitute your own word for no-strings here) because the whole point of her post is her embracing sluthood. I question the notion that having a bunch of no-strings sex while waiting for one’s soulmate is sound strategy for most women, because sex does require enormous emotional and physical energy. Not to mention using up a lot of time! If she views sex as a collaborative performance, then I’m not sure how she would even be able to sustain a monogamous relationship, should she want one. Either way, I find her logic tortured, to say the least.
.
As for JF not being particularly out there? The CDC says that 9% of all women have had 15 or more sexual partners in their lifetimes. 11% have had two or more in the last year.
Estimates are that 5% of the female population is lesbian. There are no readily available estimates of the percentage of women identifying as genderqueer. So – a genderqueer woman with a history of lesbianism having 9 presumably male partners in the last year? What percentage of the U.S. female population do you think resides in that cohort?
@Average Joe
I deleted your comment that trashed JF’s appearance. I’m on record as saying I won’t allow gratuitous insults to stand. Your comment had some valid points, so if you want to resubmit without the name calling, go ahead.
You know what, I give up. You only pick the parts of what she says that you can make work in your pet theories and then ignore the rest. No wonder she doesn’t want to debate you.
Though I should point out that she’s answered all your above questions, much better than I could have, here:
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/the-most-dangerous-woman-in-america/
In case your readers don’t want to click the link, here are all her answers. I’m sure you’ll have fun taking them out of context, too:
* Is there a place in our society for two people who wish to express love through sex?
There are lots of places – in fact, I think that the vast majority of people at some points in our lives use sex as a way to express and explore the love we have for another person or people. That’s awesome. For many people, including myself, sex as an expression of love is one of the most intimate and emotionally moving experiences we can have. All I’m saying is that it’s far from the only healthy way to experience sexual interaction.
* What are the implications of defining sex as a performance?
When I talk about sex as a performance as opposed to as an economic transaction, it’s not a perfect analogy, because it’s not at all about an audience. What I’m getting at is more the dynamic that happens when actors are improvising with each other in private, or musicians are jamming by themselves in someone’s living room. They’re creating something pleasurable and exciting and creative together, and it doesn’t have to mean more than that everyone is enjoying the experience to be a worthwhile thing to do.
The implications of this model are many: instead of imagining that one person is giving it up to the other, and that person is getting some, we assume that everyone voluntarily involved is enriched by the experience. It’s no longer a zero-sum game. It also removes shame from anyone who likes to jam or improv a lot – you wouldn’t say someone is a music slut, would you? It also removes the fetish our current model has for virginity – why would it be highly valued to improv with someone who’s never done it before? That person would be best served by improvising with either another beginner, or with someone who likes to teach. But it wouldn’t be considered some great accomplishment to improv with someone for whom it’s their first time. No one would be selling their virginity at auction anymore.
Some of the other implications are ones I discussed in the interview: this model doesn’t have assigned gender roles, so it doesn’t assume anything about the gender of the participants. It includes people of all genders, sexual orientations, etc.
* Is sex between two people materially different than sex among n partners? How so?
Well, more communication is required for more people, that’s for sure! Other than that? I’m no expert on group sex, but I don’t think so. It still depends on what kinds of sex the participants are seeking. Two people can have a one-night-stand that’s just about physical pleasure just the same as four people can be in a long-term committed, closed relationship with each other and have very emotionally connected and expressive sex.
* Is it possible to know during anonymous sex if your partner is having a good time? How?
Absolutely! The same way you can tell during sex with someone you already know: through healthy direct communication and the practice of enthusiastic consent. Enthusiastic consent means that it’s your responsibility to make sure anyone you’re having a sexual interaction with is not just not-objecting, not just allowing you to do whatever you’re doing, but actively psyched about whatever’s going on. Sometimes you can tell this non-verbally, through body language, noises, etc., but that’s harder to do with someone you don’t know or don’t know well (or, honestly, any partner you’re being sexual with for the first time), and that’s why if you can’t tell, you have to ask. You can literally ask, “Are you having a good time?,” or “Is this good for you?” or you can be creative in any number of ways, but you must stay in communication with your partner throughout the sexual interaction to ensure enthusiastic consent. It’s as simple as that. And it’s your partner’s responsibility to do the same with you.
Could one or both people be lying? Sure, but that’s true with partners you know, as well. Unless you’re threatening or otherwise putting pressure on your partner, that’s ultimately not your fault. It does suck to find out that happened, and it’s important, if you want to sleep with the person again, to find out why and if you feel comfortable that it can be prevented from happening again.
* Is it possible to judge during anonymous sex if either or both parties will experience negative feelings after the fact?
There’s no way to know for sure, but if you practice healthy communication and enthusiastic consent it greatly reduces the risk that there will be. And there’s no way to know for sure that either or both parties will experience negative feelings after the fact if they already know each other either. Sometimes negative feelings come up after sex. It’s not the end of the world. If you end up feeling bad after a sexual experience to which you enthusiastically consented, that can be hard, but it’s also good information for you – listen to those feelings. Try to figure out what they’re telling you about what felt bad about the experience, and then do what you can to not put yourself in a situation again that will make you feel that way. Sometimes we have to learn about ourselves through trial and error.
* Between strangers, what does good, healthy communication look like? Can it occur without trust? Is trust possible between strangers?
Good, healthy sexual communication between strangers, beyond enthusiastic consent which I discussed above, involves being up front with your potential partners about what you are and aren’t looking for, what you like and don’t like, what safety precautions you want to take, etc., and expecting the same directness from them. Can they lie? Sure. Casual sex does have risks, and not having any experience “reading” your partner is one of them. That’s why you should always listen to your gut instincts if you have any inkling at all that this person might not be safe. But my experience is that most people who are out to scam you want an easy victim. If you require a whole bunch of frank, adult communication up front before you even meet, most of the liars are going to give up on you. Another test is to set a boundary early on and see if it’s respected. If s/he moves in for a kiss, smile and say, “I don’t know if I’m ready to kiss you just yet.” Or something like that. And then see – do they listen? Do they push? That will tell you a good deal about whether or not this is someone you can trust. You can always plant one on them 30 seconds later if you want to.
Of course, the most important person to trust is yourself. Do you trust that you know what you want, sexually? Do you trust your own instincts? Do you trust your ability to set boundaries, and to walk if they’re not respected? if not, maybe having sex with strangers isn’t for you.
* Is it possible to know in group or anonymous sex if everyone is being safe? How does one “play safe” about disease and pregnancy? Are medical reports produced? Or does one trust one’s life to a stranger in good faith?
Medical reports are most welcome! I love it when there are medical reports, and am always happy to produce mine. Regardless, I rely on two things:
1) Direct, explicit questioning. Not just, do you have any STDs? I ask the following set of questions: When were you last tested? How were you tested? (I ask this b/c some people think that giving blood means they got tested for all STDs, which it most certainly does not.) What were you tested for? What were the results? How many partners have you had since you were tested, and what do you know about their STD statuses, and what protection did you use with them? Did you use it every time?
People who can’t adequately answer these questions are out. And like I said above, most people who are trying to pull one over on you will bail on or get squirrely about this level of questioning. It’s not foolproof, but neither is monogamy – many, many people have caught STDs from partners they thought were being faithful to them, and therefore were using no protection. Which brings me to #2:
2) Use protection always always always! Condoms, gloves, dams, plus an additional method of birth control if both semen and a pre-menopausal vagina are involved (I swear by my IUD). No matter how disease-free you think your partners is, you don’t know them. Use barriers + birth control always.
* Is this model an evolution away from sex as an expression of love, and the means of procreating, toward an orgiastic pleasure principle?
This model says that pleasure is a legitimate motivation for sexual encounters. It in no way precludes love or procreation as motivations for sex. And I don’t think, in this sense, that’s an evolution – people have been having sex for pleasure since there have been people. I’m just trying to make it so that women aren’t punished for it if that’s what they want.
* Does this model reflect a stunted maturation process? According to Freud, “an individual’s id follows the pleasure principle and rules in early life, but, as one matures, one learns the need to endure pain and defer gratification.”
Well, I have a degree in Psychology, and I think Freud was full of shit and had truly laughable -and unethical- research methods. So I reject the basis for this question. But if I had to answer it straight up, I’d also say: no. Practicing this model requires a person to know what they want from sex, communicate that directly with a partner, and ensure their partner is enthusiastic about what’s happening. That’s hardly a sign of stunted maturation.
* Is this model viable? What percentage of women would embrace it? Men?
There’s no way for me to throw out a number that would mean anything, because no research has been done on this. But if I judge anecdotally from the response to the Yes Means Yes anthology, from the thousands of young people I’ve spoken to in the last few years about these issues, on campuses and on my book tour, from the incredibly moving and overwhelming response to My Sluthood, Myself, then yes. Untold numbers of women and men are already embracing it. But to make this model truly viable, we need to stop punishing women for pursing sexual pleasure. We need to stop suggesting that if women are sexual and then are raped or murdered they’re “asking for it” – a charge numerous Walsh commentors have lobbed at me. We need to stop suggesting that women who pursue sex as pleasure have low self-esteem. We need to stop saying it’s better for girls to get cancer than be sexual, which is exactly the argument that was made against providing the HPV vaccine under all insurance plans. We need to stop arguing that, for poor women who have sex, pregnancy is mandatory but anesthesia during delivery is a luxury, which is what the Utah legislature is currently considering. I could go on and on with the ways our culture punishes any woman we think is a slut. For us to see how viable this model truly is, we have to stop punishing women for being sexual. That’s what my work is all about.
I’m flattered that I already came up in this thread as a sex-positive example that Clarence particularly respects and considers reasonable. (Though it’s Clarisse Thorn, not Clarisse Thorne.)
I’m amazed that the quotations from JF are being so widely viewed as unreasonable, but perhaps it makes more sense if I force myself to see them in opposition to the questions you (Susan, the original poster) are asking. But I don’t think they are fundamentally in opposition, or unanswerable within her framework, and it’s a shame that such a schism has developed in the debate. It’s also a shame that you seem to feel the need to stereotype all sex-positive feminism and then attack it from your stereotyped perspective.
I’m interested to know what you would think about my old post Liberal, Sex-Positive Sex Education: What’s Missing, which tries to incorporate a lot of the elements that you seem to think are absent from JF’s perspective.
Clarisse Thorn´s last [type] ..A few changes ’round these parts- part 2 in a 3-part series
I didn’t vote, but here are a couple of thoughts from my own life as they relate to women’s views of sex:
* Make no mistake: Whether a woman believes she ought to have casual sex or not, men can get casual sex. You’d be surprised how little it matters to a guy who knows how to work his shit. (In fact, I’ve found Baptist girls to be the easiest, and Baptists are perhaps the most strident denomination where pre-marital sex is concerned.) So what we’re really talking about here is not whether women will have casual sex, but how they will feel about it beforehand.
* Notice I said beforehand. The question of how women feel after casual sex is a large part of the sex-pos claim. They assert (without a lot of good evidence) that if women only have the “correct” attitude beforehand, they will feel good about casual sex afterward. Anecdotally, all the sex-pos women I’ve known had some fairly serious issues, and seemed to use sex as a weapon. I’m just sayin’.
* I’ve had friends in the poly/swinger community, and I’ve had multiple “dating partners” (similar to Neil Strauss, but not nearly so many at once). I can tell you that if anything, a lot of “poly’s” are at least as committed to safe sex as your average frat boy and sorority girl couple. I’ve never been involved in one, but I know a girl who has done “gangbangs” and yes, each participant had to bring current STD test results and wear a condom. I have no idea how common that sort of precautionary behavior is, but it does happen.
* What I think a lot of these sex-pos ladies (I use that word generously) are missing is that pretty much every first sexual encounter is casual sex. That is, until a couple has sex, it’s not really proper to talk about them having a committed sexual relationship. Sometimes, the first sex is the last. Sometimes, it’s the beginning of something more serious. A lot of the difference comes from the expectations. I don’t believe (and I don’t think you’ve ever said you do either) that there’s anything wrong with a girl rolling the dice on someone she doesn’t know very well — if she’s going in with the right attitude. And as far as I can tell, women are just not biologically programmed to use pump-and-dump as a stable long term sexual strategy.
* I also freely admit, as I think you do, that casual sex can serve a healthy and useful purpose for women in some circumstances. For instance, many women receive a sense of closure, transition, and catharsis from having a casual encounter after a breakup or divorce. Sometimes, girls are in situations where a LTR is not an option, and damn it, they just want some release. Good time for a casual encounter. On vacation in Italy for a month? Good time. Once a week for six years within four blocks of your home? Maybe not such a good idea.
Anyway, kudos to you for standing up and defending yourself. Keep a level head, and remember that the more personal attacks they’re using, the less likely that they have any solid arguments.
Hambydammit´s last [type] ..Death and Transition
@Chili:
“I agree with other commentators, Susan. You are giving these sex positive whoevers way too much attention. I’d never heard of Amanda or Jacklyn before this blog, and I don’t think 99% of people in my age group have. Who are they anyway? Who cares what they say? … If your argument is that these people are important because they directly influence young women to have tons of sex against their better judgement, I would have to say I disagree.”
Most people don’t know where the ideas that influence them come from; that’s the whole point of meme theory. That’s why there’s such a thing as “think tanks.”
.
For example, Most people in this country have never heard of The Partnership for a New American Century, or the White Paper they released in Sep of 2000 titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, but the ideas in it have been acted on by the Bush Admin, are accepted by most Americans, and are still being acted on by the (allegedly) “liberal” Obama Admin.
.
So, yes it is important for Susan to talk about these things. It’s like the “Broken Window Theory” applied to the sexual realm.
Jeffrey of Troy´s last [type] ..We Still Need Higher Quality Outrage
@J:
” AM and JF are arguing for the right to hurt themslves. Ultimately what can you say but “Knock yourself out”? If JF is dumb enough to say this about sex with strangers–“It’s not without risk. But it actually has a lot of power and what I’m advocating for is a culture that makes it less difficult, and for a culture that allows there to be less risk associated with it,” then what can you say if she ends up killed by a Craigslist pickup? She had the right? The culture failed her? No, she just exercised her right to eat shit. Hope it was tasty!
.
The whole conversation is surreal and absurd.”
.
No, America is not “magically delicious”. Reality does exist here, so everything that everyone does affects everyone else in some way to some degree. So, you are not free to do whatever you want (including hurting yourself).
Jeffrey of Troy´s last [type] ..We Still Need Higher Quality Outrage
@susan,
Exactly what do yo mean by name calling? Can you be specific?
@JF via @Anna:
” We need to stop saying it’s better for girls to get cancer than be sexual, which is exactly the argument that was made against providing the HPV vaccine under all insurance plans. We need to stop arguing that, for poor women who have sex, pregnancy is mandatory but anesthesia during delivery is a luxury, which is what the Utah legislature is currently considering. I could go on and on with the ways our culture punishes any woman we think is a slut. For us to see how viable this model truly is, we have to stop punishing women for being sexual. That’s what my work is all about.”
.
1.) HPV vaccine is dangerous and unnecessary ; a little bit of digging is all that’s required to unearth the evidence of this (when I just typed it into Yahoo, before I even hit “enter” the first three suggestions are “side effects”, “controversy”, and “death”). Is JF receiving funding from the Med Biz?
2.) Yeah, the Utah legislature is representative of mainstream America. BWWWAAAHAAHAAHA!
3.) “the ways our culture punishes any woman we think is a slut.” What “culture” doesn’t do that? Maybe it’s based on biology?
4.) “we have to stop punishing women for being sexual.” Yes, there are those who do that, but they are the extreme right end, and very much in the minority. Referring to ANYONE who dares disagree with them about ANYTHING as “punishing women for being sexual” is a technique of psychological warfare.
Jeffrey of Troy´s last [type] ..We Still Need Higher Quality Outrage
@Anna,
Lots of people read the post…myself included, but unlike her delusional “allies” we aren’t prone to justifications, rationalizations, or putting good words in her mouth.
And most of us stable folks pick up on her “issues” right away.
Here are some of the most obvious….
1. “When I went to bed on a 1st day I’d often wake up the next day in a relationship… not the best recipe for partnership bliss”
2.”a year and a half in which I barely got to kiss anyone… Made me feel, in a word, desperate”
3.”I went to bed with a woman I barely knew on our first date. What followed was a two-year relationship in which we were unhappy for about the last year and a half.”
4.”But each person I’d meet, if there was any kind of a click at all, I’d throw myself at them whole-hog”
5.”in lonely desperate moments, posted an ad, not with the intention of actually meeting anyone, but because sometimes knowing you have a bunch of bad options that you’re rejecting feels better than feeling like you have no options at all.”
6.”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”
Anyway, this woman is not stable… and those who are supporting her article are being irresponsible!!!Any non-idiot knows the four typical destructive behaviors that females in need of help exhibit. They are..Binge Fucking…Binge Drinking…Binge Eating…Binge Shopping. A 40 year old, love sick, size 16, rape “survivor” should be looking for a therapist, not random dick. “Fuck the pain away” is a great dance tune, but not great advice for women.. especially young ones.
Now go read JF’s original post against, but this time with your eyes open.
Just damn amazing that this ‘stuff has garnered this much commentary. We know less now than we did at the start, right? Very productive use of time here folks! ‘VJ’
@Anna
You give up? I guess you had no argument for those stats. As for picking and choosing, I think I got JF’s points across accurately and thoroughly. I actually didn’t bother with the bits about her initial essay – we’ve beat that horse to death, and there’s really nothing new to say about it. I’ve never cared who she has sex with, or how dangerous it is. I object to the portrayal of risky, promiscuous behavior as something that might be even remotely healthy for young women. Period.
If your quibble is that I put “nothing more, nothing less” in the poll, sorry not sorry. I feel that it is perfectly synonymous with the word “just” that she used.
.
Wow! I’m the most dangerous woman in America! Sarah Palin, move over! That is just too funny. You needn’t have cut and pasted that – I’m capable of clicking thru to the link, where I found 5 comments ridiculing me personally. Honestly, how enjoyable can it possibly be to hang out in an echo chamber?
As for my debating skills, we do a lot of that here, and I think you’d find that my readers consider me open-minded, objective and fair. Surely you don’t think I should be responding to name calling and accusations that don’t even address the issues, e.g. vicious assholery?
@Susan:
“It’s interesting that you raise the question of age. I’m finding that nearly all of the women I’m in opposition to on this issue are in their late 30s or 40s. I suspect they don’t want to know what is really going on for women on campus, or women in their 20s looking for “true love.””
Why am I not surprised to see that you are STILL maintaining that you know better what’s going on on college campuses than women who have actually set foot on a college campus in the past 20 or so years? In the discussion on JF’s blog piece, I counted at least FIVE young women (myself included) who were speaking from their own experiences in saying that hooking up had not harmed them, and that they supported sex positive feminism. So why do you continue to claim that sex positive feminism is mainly a project of women in their late 30s and 40s, when that is quite clearly not the case?
Susan, you just demonstrated that you didn’t actually read Jaclyn’s article. The “most dangerous woman” isn’t you. Its Jaclyn. The title is ironic and she makes that point very clearly when she said: “I’m Jaclyn Friedman, the most dangerous woman in America.” It was right at the start of the article so you couldn’t really miss it. Her point was to lampoon your hyperbolic statements that JF’s position will destroy society. You cannot have read that article and concluded that she meant you were the most dangerous woman in American. Its simply not possible. Ms. Friedman responded to the points YOU raised with a seriousness you clearly do not justify. You demanded she respond on your terms and she did. That you have no interest in even hearing what she has to say is, well, perhaps vicious assholery since you bring it up.
People shouldn’t be judging women for their sexual choices unless it affects them directly (cheating w/ their partners). Why should someone be judged and shamed because they had casual sex—and even enjoyed it? There is plenty of room for people on the other end of the spectrum, those who have only been with people they had relationships with, people are holding out until marriage… but you are still enforcing this virgin/whore dichotomy that makes a judgment on women who like to have casual sex. My question is: why do you care what other women are doing? Jaclyn is not asking everyone to become a slut – she is saying that it is something that worked for her, and she appreciated her friends’ support and non-judgment, and is asking us to do the same for our friends, to support a woman’s right to be a slut if she so chooses. Regardless of your condescending critique on her emotional disclosures.
It’s about choice. Choice to have sex and to not have sex–both without a stigma attached to it. It seems everyone cares a whole helluva lot about girls’/women’s sex lives when the same scrutiny is not on men. Why do YOU decide what is “healthy” or not for young women? How are they not capable of figuring out what works best for them themselves? Obviously you do not think highly of women because you think you need to tell them what they should be doing with their sex-lives. Girls aren’t some mindless monolithic group eager to jump on anyone’s train. Girls are capable of figuring out their own way towards their own sexual freedom/expression and should be free to do so without shaming from you. Jaclyn wasn’t telling anyone what to do in her essay.
And the reason why she is considered brave is because she exposed a very vulnerable side that many women wish they could, knowing she would have to read the public shaming of her from people like you.
@BStu
Confession: I did not read JF’s article. I read Anna’s pasted content from it and deemed it not worth reading, to be honest. I did scroll down to the comments – I thought they might be more interesting and have some good insights – but alas, no.
Let’s get this timeline straight:
1. JF writes an essay and puts it online discussing the healing properties of sluthood. She appears to believe that her vulnerability, for which she appears known, will garner her a wide hug from the femosphere. In this she is correct.
2. I write a rebuttal claiming that dangerous, promiscuous sex cannot possibly be healthy or safe for women. JF is shocked, shocked, that a mainstream woman with a different view would dare to trespass on SPF soil.
3. JF and AM act like vicious assholes, dedicating most of a podcast to That Woman, uh, what’s her name again, snark, snark? Most of the interview is rehashed and tedious, but JF does offer a new idea – a model for sexual relations to compete with my “terrifying” one.
4. Irespond to the interview with a dispassionate observation of a notable strategic shift in the sex pozzie camp. Which is clearly demonstrated in this post. In addition, I quote verbatim JF’s model. I offer no commentary, but rather, pose earnest questions about how it might work.
5. JF could have left a comment here, or even engaged me on Twitter, since she loves the 140 format, but instead posts a tweet saying, Oh no, she’s at it again and she still can’t read. Do you honestly see how petty and juvenile the tone is? And how devoid of intellectual merit?
.
I don’t want to talk about JF as a person, or her sex life. I’m very uncomfortable about her. Reading the bits that Anna shared make me feel depressed. I hope she finds what she’s looking for.
I remain convinced that her ideas are dangerous to young women, and I’ve said so. As of now, I have no interest in any further response.
@Hamby
Just for the record, and to confirm what my girl Addy said upthread, I do not have a negative view of sex without commitment – which is how I’ll define casual sex. In truth, I think it’s very, very difficult for women to get commitment first, and I don’t want to encourage women to embrace a strategy that will work 10% of the time. Although my discussing the sexual marketplace drives these women crazy, the truth is that there just aren’t many guys around who will commit without knowing that the hooking up is good. I also have sat around my kitchen table with girls who had positive, and sometimes hilarious, casual experiences. The ones that work best, IMO, are those where the woman has ZERO expectations for further contact, either because she doesn’t even know the guy, the geography is impossible, or she has no desire to interact with him on any other level.
That is the kind of casual sex I had in my own youth, and I never once felt badly about myself afterwards. However, I will also state that in those encounters (5 or so) the sex was NEVER good. It just wasn’t. Strange penis, strange face, too much alcohol, doesn’t know what I like, etc. And I believe this is true for many, many women. So, sure, if a woman wants to have casual sex, she can. I won’t judge her. This blog is a response to women who have concerns about that. Women who have had bad experiences, and suffered feeling very badly about themselves.
However, hooking up smart means having sex with someone who is respectful, not someone who booty calls 5 women simultaneously. It also means behaving in ways that are congruent with your goals – I might give different advice to a college freshman than I would a senior, a woman looking for love vs. a woman who is overwhelmed with her pre-med studies. I feel that it is very important that as women we protect ourselves. We are emotionally vulnerable, and we invest a lot in sex.
Finally, I believe that women need to understand the reality of the sexual double standard. SPFs would have us train it out of men. Not gonna happen. There’s a spectrum of views on this, but it’s disingenuous to let women proceed without understanding the potential long-term consequences of their choices. Feminists can say all they want that a man who is wary of past “sluthood” is not worth wasting time on, but that may explain why so few of them appear to be in heterosexual LTRs. The ones that are, e.g. Tracy Clark-Flory, have actually confessed to having a low number. They reserve the right for women to be promiscuous, but they never really went that route themselves.
@Average Joe
JF’s appearance is irrelevant to the discussion.
@Joey
I am aware that there are college students who embrace SPF, though I believe you are in a small minority. If you are indeed a college student, then how could you possibly be unaware of the pain that so many of your female classmates are enduring as a direct result of hooking up? From my own research, I know that counseling centers on college campuses are overflowing with female students wanting to talk through their casual sexual experiences. Research has also shown that hookup behavior relies heavily on alcohol consumption – and not just moderate drinking – binge drinking. Both men and women get to blackout or near blackout in order to be able to hook up. I hear from about 20 people per day offline sharing painful hooking up stories. So, yeah, it’s true that I haven’t gone out observing and recruiting college students. They come to me. And btw, if you read my About page, you’ll see that I started this blog after getting close to a group of a dozen or so high school students who struggled with this culture, and found no answer in sex ed. You’ll also see upthread a post from Addy, a young woman who is part of a dozen or so Boston University students that I have met with regularly for the past four years.
I think the most upsetting thing about your SPF stance is your absolute denial and refusal to acknowledge the very real pain that women in college are experiencing as a direct result of having sex for reasons like pressure from both men and feminist culture.
Please read the newest post here – the one with dissenting quotes from many known feminists – and tell me you don’t know what they’re talking about.
@Clarisse Thorn
Thanks so much for commenting! I actually really, really liked your blog post. Thanks for the link. Here’s why I appreciate and respect what you had to say: you acknowledge the pain that so many women feel as they try to figure out how to have sex, and how badly it can feel when it’s the wrong kind of experience for you. Though you and I have different preferences, it doesn’t matter. I appreciate your interest and willingness to share your personal identity. I haven’t read more than that post, but I would not feel the same way if I thought that you were invested in communicating that BDSM is a superior model of sexual expression to another model.
The truth is that many of the sex pos fems I’ve bumped up against take a “my way or the highway” stance. You’re either in the club, or you’re the enemy. This is unfortunate, and it’s one of the reasons that feminism is so fractured today.
On this blog, I’m open to pretty much anything, and I’ve never said “shame on you” to anyone for the sex they want. However, as a sort of “mother hen” I will vehemently defend young women from the pressure to engage in sex they really don’t want, and regret afterwards. And there’s far, far too much of that going on. Calling out women who seek validation by celebrating their sluthood in what I consider a self-reverential and proselytizing manner is something I will always do. I firmly believe that there are no women who should be trolling online for sex with strangers. It’s unsafe physically and emotionally. And it’s important that someone call foul when someone who steps so clearly out of bounds seeks approbation for her destructive behavior.
We get upset when confronted with vicious assholery.
LOL. Those are the words of a serious intellectual there.
I went through a year-and-a-half period where I was single and had, well, tons of casual sex, with multiple partners, and enjoyed it immensely. I’m happily married now, a few years later, and the thing about that period where I was more promiscuous is that I wasn’t looking for a fulfilling romantic relationship; I was feeling sexually adventurous. Some of those “adventures” involved deeper feelings than simply physical attraction (and that was usually a requirement of mine), which is why I also believe that the experiences fit nicely into answer number 2 on your poll, but that didn’t interrupt or confuse my lack of desire for a romantic or committed relationship at the time that they were happening. It only enhanced the experience.
My experience is obviously anecdotal, but it’s why I can’t get behind the idea that casual sex is always doomed to end in heartbreak or emotional conflict. If the person engaging in casual sex is aware of their desires and their needs, and clearly and honestly communicates that with their partner(s), and everything is obviously consensual, then emotional turmoil is unlikely to occur. And if you’re not planning to date or marry a misogynist, judgmental douchebag, you don’t have to worry about laughably insane things like your future partners being offended by a sexual history equal to or larger than his.
Basically, what I’m saying is that, if the participants in sexual activities are emotionally and mentally mature and aware of their needs and those of their partners’, the decision to have a sexual relationship with a person does not need to be problematic.
@April,
Overall you seem pretty intelligent and reasonable except for this laughable insane comment which I think you just won’t deal with reality on this point. I can absolutely, unequivocally, wthout any doubt whatsoever tell you, and every single women reading this blog that it is NOT just “misogynists” and “judgemental douchebags” who are going to have issues having LTRs or marriages with women with high amounts of casual sex.
Maybe your husband doesn’t have a problem with it, maybe he does and has just bitten his tongue. Maybe you never told him. I don’t know. I’d also be interested to know how he looks relative to how you look. If a guy is “marrying up” he’ll be more inclined to take a pass on the casual sex issue.
You don’t say how long you’ve been married, and you specifically mention you are sexually adventurous. Frankly, you might be a very bad risk for future infidelity/adultery. I’ve read a SHIT TON on female infidelity, the drivers of it, the behavior patterns, etc. Here is Michelle Langley’s site:
http://www.womensinfidelity.com/
The problem IMO is that engaging in a very large amount of casual sex essentially shows you don’t think sex is a “big deal”. Let’s say you get 5-7 years into your marriage and now you are “bored” and your sexually adventurous side kicks back in. It might be very easy for you to rationalize why cheating is OK. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior and it gives a glimpse into one’s proclivities.
Again, you might be a great wife. I have no idea. But in the current environment, getting married for a guy is taking a great risk to begin with. Additionally, I think men are much more biologically impacted by sexual disloyalty. My guess is on a mental anguish meter of 1-10 that the pain of cheating to a guy is like a 9 where maybe it might only be a 4-5 for a woman. From what I gather, women are more impacted by “emotional cheating” then if it was just pure sex.
In a nutshell, my point is from a GUY’S perspective you want to do every single thing in your power to avoid women who are more likely to cheat in marriage, and I would argue that women who hold the sex-positive framework/model are probably 10x likely more to cheat in LTRs/marriage then women who tend to only be oriented towards relationship sex. I’ll admit I’ve go not studies to back me up on this, but my guts tells me this is true, and I would bet a huge sum of money on it.
@Jeffery of Troy
No, America is not “magically delicious”. Reality does exist here, so everything that everyone does affects everyone else in some way to some degree. So, you are not free to do whatever you want (including hurting yourself).
Agreed.
Maybe I was unclear. I meant that AM and JF are absurd in asserting their right to eat shit. It’s a stupid thing to advocate for.
It has occurred to me that many of Susan’s detractors like to throw out the accusation that since she is no longer in college or even in the dating scene, her advice to women about sex and dating has no relevance. But have girls changed so much or has the scene and changed, necessitating that girls react differently?
First of all, apropos of Jaclyn Friedman’s original piece, “My Sluthood, Myself,” what kind of girls become “sluts,” that is, tend to have sex promiscuously?
1. Girls who hate themselves. Usually these are survivors of childhood abuse, molestation or rape who express their self-loathing through a variety of self-destructive behaviors, one of which is binge sex.
2. Girls who hate authority. These are usually angry, dissatisfied girls who won’t be told what to do about anything. Sex to them is the easiest and most obvious way to give the finger to society. Telling them they can’t have sex or they can’t have a certain kind of sex – any kind of sex – is telling them what to do and must be shut down.
3. Girls with very high sex drives.
4. Girls who are pleasers. They just want everyone to be happy. Sex makes people happy. Except when it doesn’t.
5. Girls who feel pressured. Whether the one pressuring them is a friend, a boyfriend, the sex-saturated media or society, they go along to get along. They just want to fit in. Under normal circumstances, these girls won’t tend toward real promiscuity; their notch count all depends on who their friends or influences are and how much pressure is being exerted.
6. Girls who have low self-esteem. They will do anything to try and get people to like them.
Note: I’m not addressing the question of what kind of girl is having sex or wants to have sex – inside or outside of a committed relationship. I would say most young women would like to experience sex. I would say most of them would like to have sex, especially if they like and are attracted to their partner. The question here is who is the receptive audience of “My Sluthood, Myself.”
Of the 6 categories, how many are experiencing sex to experience sex? Meaning, the bottom line is the orgasm. Only category 3. For all the rest sex is not the main goal. The sex may still be enjoyable if the conditions and partner are right, but these young women aren’t really in it for the sex. But – and here’s the thing – they are still participating in an intimate and reproductive act that has at least the possibility of transmitting disease and involves another person whom they cannot fully control.
The feminist movement appears to have been made up of women from categories 2 and 3. For their own purposes and to meet their own goals they have tirelessly worked to break down traditional sexual mores, and maybe for them it was valuable. But by changing the sexual marketplace they have pushed millions of girls from categories 1, 4, 5, and 6 into sluthood which actually worked against their best interests because they got pregnant and had to get married or had to place their children for adoption, or had to have an abortion, or had to go it alone. Lots of them got STD’s they didn’t bargain for. Lots of them got their hearts broken because they didn’t realize that the men they were sleeping with didn’t have the same goals and agendas they did. Some of them were raped. Many of them weren’t as smart or self-disciplined as the category 2 and 3 feminists who advocated for sexual freedom and controlled some of the consequences with condoms, birth control, and an on-hand paperback copy of The Ethical Slut. So they became casualties in the battle between the traditional way of doing things and the feminist agenda.
And the women in categories 2 and 3, nodded their heads smugly at the progress they were making, and said, “See how far we’ve come.” And the girls in categories 4, 5, and 6 said, “But we just wanted to have a boyfriend.”
In 1965 you could get a husband without sleeping with someone
In 1975 you could get a fiance without sleeping with someone
In 1985 you could get a boyfriend without sleeping with someone
In 1995 you could get a date without sleeping with someone
In 2010 you’re lucky to get a phone number if you don’t have sex first.
Ah, progress. And here’s the deal. All the girls who wanted to sleep with their fiances and boyfriends circa 1985 and before – could. They just didn’t have to.
The fact is that category 2 women (Amanda Marcotte) and category 3 women (Jaclyn Friedman) aren’t going to be satisfied until we throw a parade for women who want to have sex in any way women (and just women – not men; oh no, not men) want to. They weren’t satisfied with separating sex from reproduction, and they weren’t satisfied with being able to have sex outside of marriage. They weren’t happy when everyone allowed that they could
go boy or go girl, or with strangers, or in groups, or with whips and chains. Nothing less than full societal celebration of any sexual choice women (and just women – not men) can make. We are not talking about shaming women for their behavior. There is no shame in our society anymore [See: Paris Hilton]. They want to be queens, and if and when they get their crowns, they will just move on to something else.
Or Amanda will, at least. Because angry, dissatisfied people can always find some new thing to bitch about. Meanwhile, millions of young women sit home alone or find themselves being pumped and dumped by men they know not at all.
grerp´s last [type] ..Piece of Advice 65- Aim higher than prostitution
Hey Susan,
I’ve been lurking for quite a while, and what can I say, you’ve had so many great posts that it’s been hard deciding which one to jump in on — so here I am!
It’s about time someone gave these smug so-called sex-positive feminists a swift kick in the ass, literarily speaking. What I hate about them is how they talk as if they actually invented sex and we are all so “oppressed” and in need of their enlightened ideas, like Madonna — their pop-culture cohort — at her most preachy worst.
Marcotte has indeed made numerous career-destroying gaffes, like the Edwards blog and her commentary on the Duke case. And her book sales have tanked, for reasons mentioned elsewhere on this thread. Interesting the sparse number of comments on blogs like Feministing and Feministe. Confessional posts the likes of Friedman and Chen are just plain embarrassing, not for their candor but for their belief that what they are doing is sooooooo grrrrroundbreaking!!!! In reality, they are just good girls clinging tightly to the outmoded notions of their old women’s studies profs and “mentors” out of loyalty, like liferings from a sinking ship.
Funny how quickly they flip into victim mode when anyone questions whether their exploits are advisable or their theories are tenable. And when they get hurt in the former or if things don’t fit in the latter, it’s always the “culture” that’s the problem, with “communication” as the solution — as if we can end rape if only we can “communicate”, or nag men into “being different” so that they don’t “use” the women they hook up with and be amenable to the idea of an ongoing relationship if that’s what the woman wants. Ha! And we should be able to catch rainbow trout by reaching into the stream and plucking them out with our bare hands.
Wasn’t it Camille Paglia, one of the earlier voices for sex-positive feminism, that advocated a no-cry-babies-allowed stance on sluthood? You know, put your sexuality out there if you must, but take some responsibilty for the risks and don’t go blaming the “patriarchy” when you lose out, otherwise stay home and do your nails. In reality, many women may try, but few can truly stomach the realities of casual sex.
Anyways Susan, be assured by those who truly “get” what you are doing: that it’s not individuals and their casual sex practices that you are challenging (hell, people have always discreetly done “what thou wilt”), so much as the rationalizations and the denial of consequences — and, worse still — the wholesale dismissal and judgement of those who would dare, as you do, discuss them.
So keep up the good work — don’t let the “assholery” (is that a word?) grind you down!
@Susan
“I am aware that there are college students who embrace SPF, though I believe you are in a small minority.”
I’d agree with you on that those college students actively claiming the label of sex-positive feminist is a minority. But I know plenty of people who understand that it’s okay for them to have whatever kind of sex they feel comfortable with at any given time, be that a hook-up, an FWB arrangement or an LTR, without explicitly identifying as sex-positive feminists.
“If you are indeed a college student…”
I’m a second-year MA student.
“… then how could you possibly be unaware of the pain that so many of your female classmates are enduring as a direct result of hooking up?”
For this, I can only provide anecdotal evidence from my own circle of friends and acquaintances (and let’s add this right now, before you assume that all of my friends are Women’s Studies hippies who proudly wear the sex-pos banner: my college has neither a department for Women’s Studies, nor one for Gender Studies. Of those of my friends who are English students, like me, only one focuses on women’s writing. Most of my other friends are law students.)
Most of the people I know have, at some point, engaged in casual sex. Of those people, most of them have also had LTRs at some point in time, and been happily single and not seeing anyone at some point in time. Those people have also all been unhappy at some point or another about something that happened in their romantic life. There’s a (female) friend of mine who was terribly depressed for a while because her LT-boyfriend at the time had to move away after graduation and wasn’t ready to engaged in an LDR. There’s a (male) friend of mine who was really upset for a while because he hooked up with a mutual friend, hoping for more, and was heart-broken when she wasn’t interested in that.
The point is, I could tell you all sorts of anecdotes about love sickness, but what I CANNOT tell you is that with those people I know who are or have been in pain, it has universally been because they were women and had been hurt due to hook-ups. All sorts of people get hurt for all sorts of reasons. There isn’t one type of sex that universally causes pain, every time. Misunderstandings, misscommunications, disappointed expectations, unrequited love … all of that can cause pain, and all of that can happen in ANY kind of sexual/romantic relationship. And it can happen to anyONE, not just to women.
“I think the most upsetting thing about your SPF stance is your absolute denial and refusal to acknowledge the very real pain that women in college are experiencing as a direct result of having sex for reasons like pressure from both men and feminist culture.”
I think the most upsetting thing about you is your continual denial and refusal to acknowledge that neither sex-positive feminists, nor feminism in general, are out to pressure anyone into anything. As you’ve been told, repeatedly, by several feminists in your various comments threads, feminism is NOT prescriptive. The express aim of sex-positive feminism, specifically, is to ensure that EVERYONE (women and men) can have the kind of sex they’re most comfortable with, without having to fear negative reactions from society. From my own work, both on Scarleteen and at the counseling center where I have volunteered, a lot of the women who come to us who have engaged in casual sex are not upset because of the casual sex they’ve had, but because of the way other people have judged them because of it. So if you are truly interested in helping out young women, you might start by not being so judgmental.
“Please read the newest post here – the one with dissenting quotes from many known feminists – and tell me you don’t know what they’re talking about.”
I’ve glanced at it earlier. To be able to give you a real response to it, I’ll need to go back and look up the context of each of the quotes, to see what these people are talking about.
@grerp
This comment is so valuable I don’t know where to begin. It’s the best concise analysis of the SMP from a female point of view that I’ve seen, and I think you’ve nailed the feminist agenda. FWIW, I think most of my female readers are 5s. I really started writing to support 5s. However, we’ve definitely got some 3s here, and a smattering of 4s and 6s. I actually think that the most troubled women are the ones who are 6s in combination with something else. For example, I’d say that JF is clearly a 3 + 6 combo. This will piss off her fans, as they keep claiming how happy she is, but that’s not what I hear when she speaks.
@Lurky Lu
Ah, the blog gods smiled on me today. That’s a wonderfully supportive comment – thank you so much! You’ve really nailed it, too. I hope this will be the first of many comments from you!
BTW I adore Camille Paglia – I don’t agree with every single thing she says, but she is smart and she’s intellectually honest. Unfortunately, that’s rare in these circles. Naomi Wolf is another example – she’s been 100% honest about casual sex and its effect on women.
Grerp:
Mostly spot on but a few thoughts:
In 1965 you could get a husband without…
Yes, but marital rape laws and no-fault divorce laws didn’t exist. So if you were going to marry someone you better be lucky enough to be sexually compatible because you’d be pretty much forced to take care of his needs, and marriages were alot harder to get out of for both partners.
In 1985 you could get a boyfriend without…
actually I think this “compromise” is what works best for most males and females. Partly because marriage is a big risk with not so much rewards for men anymore. And partly because if we were so stupid as to totally make marriage like it was in the past..well, what man wants to be married to a frigid or sexually unadventerous wife?
By 2010 you can’t get a number unless you ..
LOL! Slight exaggeration there. But not far from the truth.
Problem is, it’s partly WHO these y oung women are picking. There are plenty of guys who don’t expect sex before a “hello!” and there are even religious boys. But such men aren’t all that exciting at first glance, and so the beat goes on..
@Joey
This is either naive or completely disingenuous. SPF relies heavily on ALL kinds of sex being OK for EVERYONE. That’s the only way to eliminate potential negative reactions and judgments. So, no matter what sexual practice one engages in, Scarleteen really has little choice but to withhold judgment. For example, if a woman writes in to you and says, “Hey I’m blowing the hockey team before every one of their games, and they think I’ve caused their winning streak! Is that OK?” I assume that Heather would not say “STOP! THAT IS NOT OK!” Negative reactions from society are important sometimes – we cannot maintain a civilization without a social contract, which includes consensus on which behaviors are actually dangerous to society.
Happily, I’ve provided the links, so knock yourself out! I’ll put one quote here that quite clearly describes the effect of sex positive feminism on college students, written by a Sex Pos Fem at UC Berkeley last year who had ended an LTR and felt extreme pressure from her SP peers to engage in casual sex. The link is in the post, if you’d like to read her whole letter.
@Grerp
That is one of the funniest (was it intentional?) posts I have read this year!!! Awesome, awesome list. I have a possible 7th. Girls who are materialistic. Sex gets people to buy things for you/ gets you out of speeding tickets etc.
Your thoughts would also go over well on the sex possie is crumbling thread. I think one of the biggest reason I don’t like sex possies is that they support some really unethical/unhealhty motives to have sex.
@Michelle
Welcome, you’re new to the discussion. I encourage you to read the original post, and the ensuing discussion, which is considerable, I know. I am not judging women for having casual sex. I am her to support and respond to women who are unhappy in the hookup culture. They do exist, and they are the regular readers of this blog. Interestingly, unlike the feminist sites, where only the occasional dude weighs in, there is a lively community here of women and men, all of whom find the casual sex culture detrimental to those who would choose another way. Isn’t if fascinating that men, who would be expected to rejoice over the easy access, are concerned? That’s because hookup culture benefits a small minority of men – douchebags and cads get 80% of the sex.
Here’s the biggest problem with SP feminists: they refuse to acknowledge the real pain and strong pressure that women feel when participating in casual sex. Check out my newest post, where hookup culture is “so-called hookup culture.” Jessica Valenti goes so far as to say it doesn’t exist! The denial of the very real pain of the majority of women who hook up is anti-woman. The research is very, very clear on this. The vast majority of women feel regret after a hookup.
If you’re not one of those women, hey, good for you. But please understand that the price of your sexual freedom is a culture where men on campus view women as slampieces, and relationships, when they exist, are often devoid of emotional intimacy.
Hey Susan,
I read through JF’s answers to your questions in Anna’s comment, and I actually think she gave very good reasonable advice. She basically just encouraged honesty with oneself and one’s own partners, something you encourage all the time. I especially like the part when she said that women need to have the courage to express what their boundaries are and walk away when they feel their boundaries aren’t being, or will not be, respected–I apply this to my own dating life all the time. It’s not easy and it requires a strong sense of self, but it’s a good thing to strive towards. She’s telling women to follow their emotional instincts. What’s wrong with that? I don’t know much about her or her sex life personally, but what she wrote here is really good stuff. Telling a woman to be honest with herself about whether she should be hooking up is infinitely more useful than wagging a finger and saying “no hook ups for you.” I think you get this and from what I just read I don’t think you and JF are too far in disagreement as either of you may think.
@Chili
It’s interesting, you’re not the first commenter to say that. Hmmm. I suppose this might be true if you could peel away all the hating, the knee-jerk name calling, the wholesale dismissal of another point of view. I’m not claiming to be entirely innocent of this, btw, but in my experience, reasoned, dispassionate discourse with these women is impossible. That’s mostly because they practice censorship on their own sites, and now that I’ve dissented on my own blog, they don’t appear too keen to engage.
I guess to be fair, you never claimed to read the article when you taunted Anna. You merely said you were capable of doing so. That you chose not (nor read the comments, evidently, most made no reference to you personally) and yet mock Jaclyn for not engaging is rank intellectual dishonesty. You responded to Jaclyn on your blog, she responded in kind. She engaged you entirely on the terms you dictated and offered an extraordinarily comprehensive retort. You claim she engaged in name-calling, but show one instance of it. You pretend you have some moral high-ground in what you allow your supporters to get away with, but I recall the last time this came up you permitted some very vicious mocking of Ms. Friedman’s personal appearance. That is far worse than one commentator at her site bemoaning the “idiocy” of your argument. You insist on some distinction which, if it exists, YOU are the one on the wrong side of it. You have permitted personally hostile discussion towards Jaclyn. YOU have refused to engage with what she had to say. YOU have refused to read what she has to say. That you keep ascribing all of these faults to Jaclyn is a massive form of projection and frankly quite telling.
BStu, are you Thomas? I knew Jaclyn had one white knight, and I believe you’re back under a new identity in this thread. Certainly you were MIA from the last thread, and now Thomas in missing from this thread.
I have avoided mocking JF’s appearance, as I don’t see it as relevant to the discussion, and I’ve deleted at least half a dozen comments that did so. Her going on and on about the personal attacks, the fat-shaming, is a total red herring. I have yet to hear any of you defend the safety of the practice of finding sex partners on Craigslist Casual Encounters, which is a far bigger problem for JF than her appearance, IMO.
In any case, IT’S NOT ABOUT HER. It’s about her view of what sex IS. Her view that my heteronormative model of sex is “terrifying.” Do you not find it interesting how she repeatedly refers to how scary sex and dating is? Even as she has a getting ready mantra, of “I’m going to be axe murdered, I’m going to be axe murdered.”
.
And for the record ThomStu, an intellectual debate with either of these women is impossible, as their argument is 100% emotional. They deride the use of an economic model to look at sex, calling that cynical, yet proclaim that sex is no more meaningful than a jam session. Neither JF or AM has offered one shred of research to back up claims that hookup culture doesn’t exist, and even if it did, would not be harmful to women. It’s all just political warfare, the kind of snarky hate speech that Amanda Marcotte is known for.
@Escarondito
Neither grerp nor I called her a 1, a woman who hates herself. grerp said she exhibits a high sex drive, and I added in the low self-esteem. I’ll stand by that armchair analysis.
@Susan,
“But please understand that the price of your sexual freedom is a culture where men on campus view women as slampieces, and relationships, when they exist, are often devoid of emotional intimacy.”
Ok. So perhaps the issue here is that the men (and women) who view women as slampieces are the problem, not the hooking up. What you are saying is that because of sexual freedom, men think we slampieces? So. Wouldn’t you say the issue is that men equate womenwhohavealottasexwithalottapartners = not worthy of respect. Isn’t that perpetuating the same thought and idea of women who are “asking for it”? If those women are not worthy of respect, that they are just seen as slampieces, then it’s their own fault if they get raped, right? So in order to prevent that, we should make sure women stop having so much sex with so many problems, so men won’t view women as slampieces, so we won’t get raped..? You see where this line of thought goes?
Another way of putting it: “these silly slutty women are creating a culture where men think we should get pumped/dumped” (pumped/dumped = not my words, yours and one of your supporters) so we should make sure we straddle the virgin/whore culture in order to make sure men respect us? Seriously? Aren’t human beings worthy of respect regardless their sexual exploits (as long as it is done: consensually etc)? Shouldn’t we be trying to teach that women are worth more than their sexual choices?
I don’t see why the number of partners = respect/disrespect. The actual problem isn’t that there are women out there who want to have sex/hookup, the problem is people who choose to disrespect women simply because they are doing it. Shouldn’t we be educating “the men” (but obviously it is men and women as seen by the comments on your site) that we all deserve respect regardless of how much sex we are having with x# of partners?
If you are so concerned with girls who are in “pain” from hooking up, who wish they weren’t hooking up and falling under peer pressure to do so, we should be worried that parents are not raising their girls to have stronger backbones and learning how to deal with pressure to have sex (which is an age-old issue I’ve heard about even when I was in sex ed). We should tell them that it does NOT and SHOULD NOT change their self-worth just because they slept around, hooked up, had sex too soon, lost their virginity etc. and that if they don’t want to do that, teach them the skills to say no. Why are these girls in pain from hooking up? Because they think their self-worth is tied up in the number of partners they have. It’s not. Let’s untie the two. And teach girls to work on their own self-awareness to know the best way for their own sexual expression, and teach boys to be respectful of women, regardless of their sexual expressions.
Creating fake reasons to discredit someone is also not a means of debate, Susan. I believe if you actually checked, you’ll find I also participated in the last discussion. And I gather you’ve deleted some comments mocking Jaclyn’s personal appearance, but certainly not all which undermines your sense of righteous superiority when commentators at her blog simply disagree with you without engaging in such mean-spirited attacks.
If this wasn’t about Jaclyn, why do continue to insist on making it about her? Her response to you is entirely a discussion of ideas. Yet you won’t read it, preferring to instead taut your armchair analysis of Jaclyn’s feelings about herself. You can’t claim this about ideas and then immediately after defend your taunting denunciations of Ms. Friedman’s self-esteem. This is just more projection on you part. You have done nothing but make this about her as an individual. Her responses have consistently been to pull the discussion back to the ideas. You repeatedly ignore what she says to claim she hasn’t responded to you rather than actually take on what she has to say.
I’m no “White Knight”, though I’m amused that you can encourage such a construction for your gain while still using it to belittle people who agree with a person you oppose. If “Thomas” has declined to attempt to engage you further, I can only say he likely has the right idea.
@Susan,
“But please understand that the price of your sexual freedom is a culture where men on campus view women as slampieces, and relationships, when they exist, are often devoid of emotional intimacy.”
Ok. So perhaps the issue here is that the men (and women) who view women as slampieces are the problem, not the hooking up. What you are saying is that because of sexual freedom, men think we slampieces? So. Wouldn’t you say the issue is that men equate womenwhohavealottasexwithalottapartners = not worthy of respect. Isn’t that perpetuating the same thought and idea of women who are “asking for it”? If those women are not worthy of respect, that they are just seen as slampieces, then it’s their own fault if they get raped, right? So in order to prevent that, we should make sure women stop having so much sex with so many problems, so men won’t view women as slampieces, so we won’t get raped..? You see where this line of thought goes?
I don’t see why the number of partners = respect/disrespect. The actual problem isn’t that there are women out there who want to have sex/hookup, the problem is people who choose to disrespect women simply because they are doing it.
Why are these girls in pain from hooking up? Because they think their self-worth is tied up in the number of partners they have. It’s not. Let’s untie the two. And teach girls to work on their own self-awareness to know the best way for their own sexual expression, and teach boys to be respectful of women, regardless of their sexual expressions.
andddd:
Shouldn’t we be educating “the men” (but obviously it is men and women as seen by the comments on your site) that we all deserve respect regardless of how much sex we are having with x# of partners?
BStu:
Speaking only for myself, you can let the door hit you on the way out.
JF put a blog post up asking for support and help with her decisions concerning where and how to find sexual partners. Given that it was a blog post, meant for a general and not specific audience, people are free to write back to her “hell yeah!” or “go to hell!”. Susan has chosen to do the later and she has her reasons for it.
JF’s personal appearance and all that is really besides the point.
I am Thomas MacAulay Millar. I wrote Toward A Performance Model of Sex, an essay first published in Yes Means Yes (Jaclyn’s book) and later reprinted in Best Sex Writing 2010, based on writing I did in comments at Feministing (which is how I met Jaclyn and Jessica Valenti, the editors of Yes Means Yes). I’ve guestblogged several times at Feministe, I am the most active blogger at the Yes Means Yes blog, where Jaclyn also posts. I maintain a presence, under the same name, across a lot of feminist spaces, and I stand behind what I have to say. Perhaps you are unaware of this, but sockpuppeting is considered an ethical breach in the more civilized corners of the internet. I do not sock puppet.
BStu and I have crossed paths for maybe five years ago now, going back to the period when Alas, A Blog was the most widely read feminist blog, which is some years ago. I’ve read some things he’s written, he seems a bright fellow, but I don’t know him at all, really. BStu is not me. I am not him. You have no basis for thinking that we are the same person, except your incorrect inference that if two people with male names agree with Jaclyn and are persistent about it, we must be the same person. What you’ve stumbled across is that Jaclyn has a lot of support — not just personal support from her friends, but intellectual support from people who agree with what she has to say. The comments to her original post are testimony enough to how many people agree with her.
I had dropped out of this discussion because I have a practice to run and kids to raise when I’m not arguing with people who are wrong on the internet. I wouldn’t have returned, but then I heard you accused me of sockpuppeting. I could not let that stand.
Michelle:
The girls are mostly in pain because they wanted a relationship, not a mere one night hook up. That this pain is mostly self-inflicted, makes the pain no less real. Hookup culture is mostly bad for girls, though I suspect those who are a bit older and wiser and do not wish a ltr, can be ok with it. The young women are also to blame for setting their sights totally on the most dominant and socially aware young men on campuses that usually have a majority female population anyway. Such men have tremendous power (unlike the vast majority who get occasional sex or none at all) and have no need and often no desire to settle for one girl, at least one who is not among the prettiest ten or twenty percent. The young ladies need to know they’d be better served avoiding keg parties and trying to talk to a nice young man in chemistry class.
Also, your entire conversation is heterosexist, but of course, I suppose this “hook up culture” is only important/relevant in regards to the straight people, not teh gayz, since queer sex doesn’t count..right?
@susan @grerp
I wouldn’t go so far as say Hate herself, because I don’t know her like that. But remember she said she was a victim of abuse. So there is the 1 aspect of her story as well.
@grerp
that timeline. WOW. That and the “you can eat a bowl of shit if you choose to, but should you?” Is a great illustration of the way feminism has always looked in my eyes.
Jaclyn didn’t put a post asking for support. She put up a post advocating a position. Reframing advocacy as a plea for help is disingenuous and dishonest. Susan Walsh is doing no different yet she and others have repeatedly insisted on this manner of construction to belittle and misrepresent Jaclyn intent.
Of course Susan is free to tell Jaclyn to “go to hell”. And Jaclyn is free to reply back with “No thank you, I’d rather not”. Which Jaclyn did. The issue being raised is Susan pretending Jaclyn didn’t reply or engage at all when she plainly did. Susan can disagree all she pleases, but when she suggests Jaclyn isn’t engaging her, she’s simply being dishonest.
@susan
You’re too busy dodging the attackers. I never said you or grerp called her a one, nd noticed I said that I wouldn’t go so far as say she hated herself. But, unless I am wrong and I’ll read my sluthood, myself again, she states that she had been a victim of sexual abuse, thus I said she has some 1 aspect as well.
@ Susan
Ahhh. FOund it. Middle of post
“As a survivor of sexual violence, I’ve been privileged to have access to good long-term therapy and other resources that helped me heal at a deep level. I’m also white, which means that no one expects my behavior to represent my entire race.”
That last line annoys me because it is true. But yeah, 1 aspect.
@Clarence
So. This is assuming that you are specifically talking about straight people here, first of all.
Ok, but that is making it sound like because there are some girls who hook up, that girls looking for LTR are losing out? Because it makes men “have no need and often no desire to settle for one girl, at least one who is not among the prettiest ten or twenty percent.” So in order for these girls who want a LTR to find one, everyone should stop creating this “hook up culture” in order for “the men” to start settling down…? If girls stopped putting out so much then men would be more likely to settle down?
That’s saying that women have a whole lot of control over men’s behavior which I think is dangerous to imply.
If a girl is looking for a LTR, having one-night stands may not serve them well (and sometimes they do find one, depending on the situation). But that is not the fault of the girls or guys who DO want one-night stands. Girls looking for a LTR should be looking for dudes who want the same. Girls who want one night stands should be looking for dudes who want the same. That’s just common sense, and not anything to do with a supposed “hook up culture”. That is called open and honest communication between two people. THAT is what we should all be advocating for, not arguing about how girls shouldn’t be sleeping around because they are ruining men’s desire to settle down.
@Clarence
“JF put a blog post up asking for support and help with her decisions concerning where and how to find sexual partners.”
She did not ask for support and help with her decisions on where and how to find sexual partners. She is asking that we not judge others for their sluthood. She literally says: ”
Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. 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. Or if you want it for any other reason at all. And because 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.”
MIchelle:
Let’s unravel a few things here.
I basically told you two things about the male population on most campuses:
A. Most campuses women outnumber men
B. The most desirable in terms of social status men on campus tend to get most of the female attention.
I suggested part of the problem was women focusing so much attention on this one relatively small proportion of the men on campus (basically between ten and twenty percent). Thus there is intense competition among women for these particular men, who , as I say, have nothing to gain from settling for average college coed. I suggested that the young ladies would be better served by widening their field of potential partners.
You ignored this totally. Trying to shame MOST men on campus into “respecting women” won’t work because not only have most of them heard this overbearing message most of their lives, but also because they perceive it as most women on campus DO NOT respect them, certainly not enough to share a “hook up ” with, let alone a relationship. It also won’t work on the top 10-20 percent of the males who are getting most of the female attention because these men will almost certainly continue to get some female attention no matter what, PLUS the fact is many of them are uber confident assholes who could give a crap less about women’s feelings. At least most women’s feelings.
I mean, yes, women SHOULD avoid hook up culture if they are interested in something long -term and that is what this blog is mostly about.
Also, this blog does NOT deal with the problems of gay or transgendered people. That is not its intended audience. It specifically is for heterosexual women, and probably will be of the most use to young heterosexual women on colleges and in big cities where this hook up culture predominates.
And lastly: I hope you are not denying that women’s sexuality hasn’t been one of the most powerful if not THE most powerful force in the world over recorded history. Kingdoms have fallen because of it.
“I’ll stand by that armchair analysis.”
Susan, you mean SIT by that armchair analysis surely?
Michelle:
I was saying the same thing you are saying in your second post there. I probably didn’t write it well, or you didn’t understand me well, but JF was seeking support and validation. We both agree on that.
And Susan refused to give her that validation. And while I might be kind and decide to GIVE her my validation..assuming she wanted it in the first place..she is not entitled to it.
As has been stated on here before, sluthood isn’t so much a number as a cluster of behaviors which tend to lead to high numbers. Also , as has been discussed on here before, there are a minority of men who really do not care whatever the number is. However, it seems the majority do, and this is, as far as we can tell for two reasons:
A. Ensuring paternity and lack of disease. In the past, there were not genetic tests to tell if a kid was yours or not. And even today, sexual diseases are rampant, arguably more rampant than they were in the late 60′s at the beginning of the “sexual revolution”.
B. Many men feel a woman with a high partner count won’t be able to properly bond with them as a sexual partner in a marriage. It’s mostly fears of either being cheated on or that he won’t “measure up” to some of her other lovers.
Bstu:
I don’t know what strange world you live in where JF didn’t put up a post asking for support and validation, but I’ve read it, and she did.
I’ll be sure to visit you on Earth-3, sometime.
1 2 »
{ 2 trackbacks }