Oh, my. The fallacies abound.

(1) Sex may be a biological drive, but so is aggression. It's NOT a biological need like eating, sleep, etc. Throughout human existence, people have chosen not to feed the "drive" for various reasons, and they were not all crazy or stupid.
(2) If you claim to have a healthy sex drive, the question arises, what constitutes an unhealthy one? You're already in trouble. "Healthy" and "normal" are moral distinctions here, not biological ones.
(3) The ability to divorce sex from love is not particularly special, or worthy of bragging about. The ability to pair sexual connection with emotional commitment and responsibility in a way that either endures or ends without betrayal is far more rare. And would be a lot more interesting to read about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Alternet is turning into a women's magazine?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Listen, as a man I need hardly anything beyond physical factors to get aroused, however, I believe there is not only a biological reason for women considering other factors simply than physical when considering mating but there is also considerable social benefit. I think the world would go mad if women just had sex with whomever, everyone acted like the male libido unhinged. There must be a counterbalance.

I am tired of love being some sort of four-letter word as if the only legitimate sexuality is that of a misogynistic, homophobic, sex-starved, terribly insecure 14 year-old boy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sex is to have babies - That's it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's like eating and drinking: Listen to your body, and do it in moderation. You will know when you're satiated, and then you will stop. You won't go after anything that's blatantly bad for you. You will use your best judgment.

Haha! Yes, I'm laughing my head off right through my 300 lb body!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

well what a relief to know I am not alone! I've always thought this way and have chosen to follow this path for several years now. Of course, there are the usual attacks or judgements by others, mostly men!
I found it quite freeing (and very satisfying!) to not be ruled by the search for 'true love'. Currently, I am with a committed partner and feel that he IS the right one, a soulmate, not the boyfriend-of-the-moment and I better-hang-onto-him-so-I-can-have-sex-thing. Thanks you for writing about this!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some women are so repressed by religous tradition (brainwashing) that they say things like, "Sex is to have babies - That's it."

Your article was intresting and the comments, so far, prove that a lot of us (yes, even men) are screwed up.

Ed Graham

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

there are a lot of bruised feelings in the comment section. Interesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You lead a stressful life, I know, but still I'm real worried about you.

"How are we going to quell that desperate look in our eyes when we meet a [gin & tonic]? And how are we going to stop ourselves from being blinded by [wine] or a six pack?"

Sounds like things are getting a little -- how to put it? -- out of control for you, but hey, this is good: at least you've got an inkling that this isn't a good situation. You do know, don't you, that if you're blinded by booze, it's not the booze's fault?

"Girls, there's only one answer: We have to break the ironclad love-sex bond. It's simply the only way to survive all this without going mad."

Honey, this is how I know you're not entirely in your right mind. Since you're having a hard time coming up with alternatives, here are a few: Try a 12-step program. Get out of New York. Find a new circle of friends.

Good luck, honey. You know we'll be here for you when you get out of detox.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While from a feminist and social perspective it would be awesome if everyone adopted your attitude, I have no reason to believe they will. Instead, men and women will judge you until a reach a point of self-questioning where you'll wonder if you ever meant what you wrote up above. And, even assuming you use safer sex practices, you may also end up with a permanent, painful, or cancer-causing sexually transmitted virus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's good to see a post like yours. Consensual, "casual" sex can be shared between two individuals without plans for a long-term emotional commitment. It doesn't necessarily mean that before, during, or after the sexual encounter there exists objectification or disregard of the partner's emotions or value as a whole person.

And it is silly to come on here and condemn casual sex and blame men and masculinity when many women have taken control of their bodies and rights to choose and enjoyed an encounter of this sort. I see it as being much healthier than so-called female empowerment by dressing more provocatively than ever. There is such a flaunting of sexuality in this society, and I respect a casual sexual encounter between two responsible adults rather than a naive flaunting of sexuality that leads to nothing but a false sense of self-esteem and no pleasure for a woman aside from male attention and esthetic approval.

As for sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, you can never be too careful, but performed with caution and respect, sex without a relationship doesn't have to leave people emotionally or physically damaged. If you can't handle it, don't do it, but it's unfair to negate the choices that some men and women make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of rich white women whining about stupid shit on Alternet when I come here to read about demoralizing atrocities and deceptions while drinking my goddamn coffee

That said, I feel obligated to give in my 2 cents: hollow, depressing promiscuity is just the flipside of hollow, depressing monogamy, our pathological culture has driven a wedge in human sexuality in the typically dualistic fashion of religious puritans the world over. For some women sexual "liberation" has given them a chance to break out of that worldview, but I suppose most end up confused as hell like the whatsherfaces from Sex and the City.

My main disagreement with some feminists on this subject is the assertion that there is no need for an analogous sexual liberation of men because of the bastardized Marxist idea that men constitute a class with shared interests that entail the persecution of women. I think this couldn't be more wrong as in our current society I think anyone who says that male gender roles are less restrictive than female ones must be blind or something. The womens movement has given the chance for women to experiment with "male" gender roles, which as a result are gradually becoming, I don't know, "neuterized", but the same hasn't happened to nearly a satisfactory extent with socially unsanctioned roles (homosexuality, fully conscious nonmonogamy, etc.) or for men who are not interested in the traditional roles that society ascribes to them (And I'm talking more about a set of behavioral controls, aped behaviors and attitudes hammered into one in childhood and puberty than necessarily concrete things like child-rearing duties or whatever).

I guess all of this is slowly changing, cultural institutions don't collapse overnight, but its still frustrating to see so much confusion and misery in ones society just because of some sick ideas propagated for centuries at the expense of an entire civilization.

Wow I'm so far from where I started, if you read this comment from the beginning you can probably trace the whole goddamn process of me waking up, good morning everyone! :P

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You ever wonder about the wonders of the clitoris? There are more nerve endings in that tiny space than any other warm fleshy place on the planet. And for what? Female orgasm is not required for reproduction.

Perhaps in the evolution of our species, the clitoris played a key factor in selection.... a female would look more favorably upon a male that took care to honor the clitoris, that male would clearly make a better protector/provider and so win breeding status.

Studies abound on the penis, but the clitoris remains a mystery. Perhaps Freud would have done better to suggest that the penis is akin to a bloated clitoris.

Unfortunately, western culture is so screwed up by Augustine's infliction and the sexualization of "original sin" that it may never recover a wholesome natural sexuality. The greater the repression, the greater the deviant varieties of sexual behavior.

There's an interesting essay on the subject, Historical Roots of Sexual Oppression by a Professor Erwin J. Haeberle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is another one of those articles where Sexually Non-Repressed (and really horny) people get to treat the rest of us like cretins for not having enough sex, in exactly the same way the abstinence-till-marriage fundamentalists do for having too much at the wrong times, but since they're Non-Repressed we're not supposed to call them on it. Too bad, I'm not playing the game.

Sexual release is a physical need, but sex with partners is not-- if you prefer to get release by having sex with a bunch of random guys, I'm not going to stop you (I hope you use condoms and an additional form of birth control), but those of us who don't do that are not "mad," we have discovered Joycelyn Elders' magic formula for genuine self-reliance in the area of sexual release. Not to mention, not all of us need it as much as you seem to. (Even men, pressured by the culture to see ourselves as hypersexual beings, have a wide range of libidos-- someday, "all guys are horny" will be placed on the shelf of stupid gender stereotypes next to "women aren't smart enough to be doctors" and "now that we have a woman speaker of the house she will end the war.")

Consider your statement "I have a healthy sex drive." Compare and contrast with: "I have a healthy sexual orientation." Liberals, anyway, _know_ that the latter statement is biased-- not everyone has to have the same orientation as you. Why does everyone have to have the same level of sexual interest?

As for separating sex and love, I do think that is a good idea but if you do it, you'll find that not only can you imagine having fun casual sex (which you may or may not choose to actually do-- I choose not to), but you can also take more seriously the emotional bonds that don't involve sex at all. The time you seem to spend hunting up random dudes to sleep with, I seem to be spending living with my close friends, going on vacation with them, driving along the seacoast, whatever. I enjoy this, and although it's like pulling teeth to get a certified M.D. to say that friendship is a "biological need," I still recommend it. (Maybe you do these things too, but all you mention doing with your best girlfriends in the article is criticizing them for not having enough sex-- not very much fun for them to sit through, I imagine. Perhaps you would have more love in your life-- admittedly of the (gasp) nonsexual variety-- if you were less critical of them, as well as of your readers.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reproduction is a biological drive. Sex is a head game that every body plays, as this author clearly displays. The funny thing in my life the sex game seemed to be controlled by the female. In my generation the game started out in the fifties as, tell me you love me and I will pull down my pants. Then the sexual revolution happened in the sixties. The game became, I am cool I had sex with you and I do not even know you. After 14 months in Nam and a lot of five-dollar girls, in 1969 I created my own game. I learned that I really like the naked female body. I did not care what head game the females were into as long as they played by my rule. One hour off and a half an hour on and I do not kiss any hairy things. I was amazed in the early seventies how many girls would call me up just so I could talk them into shaving. So I guess they liked my rule. The moral of the story is the drive is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How many millions of people stay in lousy relationships because of good sex?!?!?

How many millions of people stay in good relationships even though the sex is lousy?!?!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jennifer Armstrong asks, "Can Women Separate Love and Sex?" The answer is YES! My friend Chris Hull in Portland, points out that women have just as much of a prurient interest in sex as men, but that we live in a society in which they are not as able to express it as freely as men do. (Though this is starting to change...my friend Leigh Stern in San Diego frequents a male strip club called Girls Night Out.)

As for the comment by Abushite, "Sex is to have babies--That's it." You must be joking, right? I'm sick of religious hypocrisy.

The apostle Paul taught his followers to bless their persecutors and not curse them (Romans 12:14), to care for their enemies by providing them with food and drink (12:20), and to pay their taxes and obey all earthly governments (13:1-7). He mentioned giving all his belongings to feed the hungry (I Corinthians 13:3), and taught giving to the person in need (Ephesians 4:23). He told his followers it was wrong to take their conflicts before non-Christian courts rather than before the saints. (I Corinthians 6:1)

Paul taught that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman," i.e., it is best to be celibate, but because of prevailing immoralities, marriage is acceptable. Divorce, however, is not permissible, except in the case of an unbeliever demanding separation. (I Corinthians 7) Paul repeatedly attacked sexual immorality. "This is God's will--your sanctification, that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality, that each of you learn how to take his own wife in purity and honor, not in lustful passion like the gentiles who have no knowledge of God." (I Thessalonians 4:3-5)

Paul told his followers not to associate with sexually immoral people (I Corinthians 5:9-12, 6:15,18). He condemned homosexuality (Romans 1:24-27) and incest (I Corinthians 5:1). He taught that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

Paul condemned wickedness, immorality, depravity, greed, envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, malignity, gossip, slander, insolence, pride (Romans 1:29-30), drunkenness, carousing, debauchery, jealousy (Romans 13:13), sensuality, magic arts, animosities, bad temper, selfishness, dissensions, envy (Galatians 5:19-21; greediness (Ephesians 4:19; Colossians 3:5), foul speech, anger, clamor, abusive language, malice (Ephesians 4:29-32), dishonesty (Colossians 3:13), materialism (I Timothy 6:6-11), conceit, avarice, boasting and treachery. (II Timothy 3:2-4)

Paul told the gentiles to train themselves for godliness, to practice self-control and lead upright, godly lives (Galatians 5:23; I Timothy 4:7; II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:11-12). He instructed them to ALWAYS pray constantly. (I Thessalonians 5:17)

Paul praised love, joy, peace, kindness, generosity, fidelity and gentleness (Galatians 5:22-23). He told his followers to conduct themselves with humility and gentleness (Ephesians 4:2), to speak to one another in psalms and hymns; to sing heartily and make music to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)

Paul wrote further that women should cover their heads while worshipping, and that long hair on males is dishonorable. (I Corinthians 11:5-14) Christian women are to dress modestly and prudently, and are not to be adorned with braided hair, gold or pearls or expensive clothes. (I Timothy 2:9)

My problem really isn't with Christians not being able to follow Jesus or Paul, but with the hypocrisy of reverently saying "I believe," and then ignoring what their religion dictates when it suits them. Why not just be secular, like everyone else? (It would certainly make things easier for those of us in the animal rights movement.)

We really live in a secular society; one in which people just pay lip service to religious ideals. Ms. Armstrong's article is on target.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is one of the most pointless articles I've seen on AlterNet. Who cares about the ramblings of some promiscuous woman?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oxytocin is a hormone released during childbirth and orgasms by both male and females. It is widely believed to be responsible for emotional bonding in forming monogamus relationships. Perhaps our author and many other people who separate sex and love have a dimished ability to secrete or process this chemical.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you using us to validate yourself?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I personally never have separated sex from love. Whenever I have/had sex, I make LOVE. But "love" does not HAVE to be always conceived of as an pure, eternal, soul-mating, romantic love. It an be simply opening up and showering LOVE on one person for a very short time. Even a "one night stand" can be a night of LOVE, and not simply physical sex, fantasy sex etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It seems the author and everyone who writes for Sirens is under the impression that sex was invented in about 1980.

Whatever happened to Erica Jong, anyway?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I am not totally comfortable with casual sex, in fact I don't really enjoy it, I do think it is unhealthy to repress your sexual drive. Look what happens to all those priests in the Catholic church. So many of them turn into pedophiles. Unnatural repression has consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a fallacy. Masturbation is good for releasing some annoying pressure but sex with another person stirs up all sorts of chemical interactions that put it in a whole 'nother place.

I have to think this is obvious to all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dee-dee-dee...people are one of only a handful of species (among certain other primates and dolphins) that have sex for recreational purposes. Of course a woman can separate love and sex. So can men. And sometimes they can't. Depends on the person, their body chemistry, their brain chemistry, theuir morals and, many times, who they happen to be with. We endure loveless marriages, we stay with people out of loyalty and/or "for the kids" even when the relationship is far past it's expiration date. We have sex with random people sometimes. Sometimes it is just a friends with benefits situation (are the kids seriously still using that term?). Of course it is possible. The mistake here is confusing whether or not it is possible with a defense of promiscuity. I was never promiscuous because, well, because I just wasn't. I liked having boyfriends. I'll admit it. And the vast majority of my past boyfriends liked having girlfriends. And, I'll say this too, I like being married. People say it sucks, but that are wrong, with the right person, being married is awesome, at least for me. I know that the author claims that that is what she strives for, being coupled, but still...just thought I would share.

However, there are lots of people in the world who don't like the idea of being part of a couple or can't find someone they want to be in a couple with and they feel they shouldn't have to give up sex. Good for them. Use a rubber. Go boldly forward.

Know this, however; when you write articles like this one or spend hours agonizing over your "Number" you are making far too big a deal over nothing. I mean, this article is as tired as Sex and the City (a show that I used to enjoy but now find incredibly trite, not because of any change in my single/coupled status, but because it is old news). Go be. That's all you have to worry about. And keeping a supply of condoms and spermicide in your purse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Before you answer-think how many couples you know who have been married over 20 years. How many women have been dumped for younger 'trophy wives'.

Loose your mind without sex? What about all the ten year old girls who are starting to have periods nowdays.
How many years can they go until they 'lose their minds'-from not having sex?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

According to you.

Though for the average young-to-middle-aged person, you may be right. They might go a little off.

But there are those who would NOT go crazy -- they might even find something like enlightenment.

When you get older and have been through more, you get a bit more like a yogi than the average person, maybe.

Millions of women over 50, widows and so on, are celibate for years and years and I don't think that drives them crazy.

Years ago, it used to drive me crazy and I thought about things like you are writing about here. I remember that. Now, it doesn't anymore. I don't think about these issues much these days, for some reason.

People are different. People change. Some people get addicted to one substance after another and others don't.

I just did a three-day fast. I wasn't that hungry.

I have these fasting books by people who go without food for months. Only water. Others are dying for lunch at 11 am.

It's all in your head.

People are more various than you are taking into account.

However, I do think it would be a big advance if society had the same attitudes toward women's sexual behaviors as toward men's; if the double standard and "slut-bashing" were history.

For that reason, I applaud what you are doing and support you.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And sometimes you don't find it until your 51 years old. Then what? So what are you supposed to do in the meantime? Don't have relationships because it's not really LOVE? Don't have children because you did not run across "Mr Right" in time?
Don't give in to God given biological need because it's not LOVE? Deny yourself otherwise healthy recipricol relationships because its not real LOVE? Trick yourself and everyone else involved that what is good enough for now because it's all there is available must be real LOVE because you have to justify your every GD move? MISS THE RICH ARRAY OF HUMAN CONNECTION AND RELATIONSHIP FOR 50 YEARS OR SO BECAUSE IT WAS NOT REALLY LOVE?

Women are just starting to get wise to this BS. Thanks for a timely and well written article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... No.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you should send that in to a parent's magazine. Really. We all need to laugh more these days, man. (And don't think it will be any different for your wife if you guys ever have a boy!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I always found myself irritated by the "free love" movement of the sixties. In my mind the very definition of love makes it free. The reality is that it was the "free sex" movement. I have never felt that love and sex are tied together. Otherwise we would negate all love outside of sexual relationships. And I know for sure that some men I have had sex with did not love me and I did not love them. Sexual intimacy can be a way to express love, but I don't think that it is love.

While I don't feel that I want a casual sex relationship and have broken off with the men I've dated who do want one, if it works for you then I say go for it. My only concern is that it seems to me that there are some people out there who abuse the situation by telling a potential sexual partner that they are into open relationships, but they haven't run this by their current sexual partner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is it that a man who sleeps around is a "stud" "pimp" or perhaps "player", and women who sleep around are just "sluts" or "whores"? Men are often congratulated for there sexual exploits while similar behavior in women is shunned.

Let bygones be bygones... if a woman wants to get in on the action and avoid (assumingly) the emotional baggage of a steady relationship, let her do her thing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As if seeing Sarah Jesica Parker and her three brainless mannequins every time we turn on the tv wasn't enough to get men to let women fend for their freaking selves, the same drivel is discussed on AlterNet.

Forgive us if not everyone don't share your definition of a "healthy sex drive". How presumptuous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about all of the Hindu/Buddhist holy men that tame their sex drive in the interests of higher and loftier ideals? And what of Catholic priests, monks and other ascetics? Are they "losing their minds" too? Is there something wrong with them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nobody argues about what color they like, I dont see why there should be an argument over sex or anything else that is subjective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

first it assumes that the author's rather obsessive focus on sexual entitlement is "healthy and normal" -- what does that make everyone else who isn't pursuing the Urban Swinger Thang? unhealthy and perverted?

then it assumes that all women readers are straight --

and it seems to assume that all straight women readers are dickwhipped size queens -- chasin' that sixpack, you go girls! --

I mean yaaaawn. this is like some ghost-written essay from a Sixties' mens' skin mag, soft porno for male readers, what (some) men really want to believe women are really like. men who -- regardless of physical age -- are still that 14 y.o. misogynist boy mentioned upthread (good call that poster). it's like the funhouse mirror image of the religious wingnuts; now we're stupid or undersexed or unhealthy if we aren't going out and hunting for cute (strictly male) ass on a regular basis? I mean, if that's your hobby, fine whatever -- I prefer something a bit more constructive meself, like winemaking -- but unless it's gonna stop climate change, reduce the poverty gap, stop rape or make the Dems grow a spine, a bit less preaching seems in order.

what most women I personally know miss the most -- if there is anything they feel desperate for, if there's a sad hunger in their hearts when they meet potentially nice men --- it's being loved and valued and respected, experiencing reciprocal love and affection. sex w/o love is common as dirt, inside or outside marriage, inside and outside a brothel. easy come, easy go. it's sex with love, tenderness and respect that's darned hard to find in a world where a majority of men think (a) women's bodies are disgusting [cf the appalling control freak up-thread who thinks he gets to write "the rules" for any sexual encounter, and female partners have to obey], (b) women are inferior, and (c) f*cking=dominance literally and figuratively.

as to the notion that we all go nuts if we don't get any -- [any *what*?], that's the ignorant 14 year-old boy again, trying to coerce his even more ignorant (he hopes) girlfriend into putting out by telling her his balls will turn blue and explode. pleeeze. why are a-net's articles on sex and love so often so stupid? could it be because the reality of the minefield of sex and marriage under patriarchy ("date rape," prostitution, incest, workplace harassment, female poverty, abusive husbands, abandoned 1st wives, unavailable abortion services, STDs, unfaithful men, double standards, insane beauty standards, etc) is just too painful to confront head-on?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I sometimes think feminists are the yardstick by which cognitive dissonance should be judged.
They want boys and girls to be equal, and above all, girls to have the same opportunities as boys; but the moment those girls excercise those rights, the feminsts descend on them with the same vengance as all the other vultures.
The comments here run on two parallel tracks:
1) Bad girl--all that sex is immoral!
2) Bad girl--all that sex damages your self respect and betrays the movement.
These are white bread, vanilla, middle class American, Good Housekeeping comments, the first from 1958, the other circa 1970.
Can anyone give me a good reason, a nice, logical, rational reason she shouldn't bang like a bunny if she wants to? Is this really anyone else's business but hers?
My only thought is atta girl, Jenny.
I lost interest in the whole subject some time ago, and that's the proverbial mixed blessing. On the one hand, a certain verve disappears from life once you are no longer affected by that adorable little thing in the short skirt; but, conversely, especially considering the power women have over men in this society, it's nice to know they have one less way to manipulate you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this really anyone else's business but hers?

Apparently she wants it to be, since she wrote an article about it and posted it on AlterNet--none of us would have had any idea she was "banging like a bunny" if she hadn't felt compelled to annouce it here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hmmmm give me my vibrator and a big fat paycheck anyday over "love" a superficial "feeling" or sex with a "man". And I use the term man loosely, since you never really know untill after its over anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree that sex is a biological need, just like eating. Sex with love is great -- and sex without love can be pretty damned, good, too. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with getting that need met in a straightforward, matter-of-fact way, either.

As my user name indicates, I am a libertine. I specialize in "f***buddy" and "friends with benefits" type of relationships. I'm happy with being single and don't want to be married or be in a marriage-clone relationship. I like variety in sex and I'm not at all monogamous.

So why shouldn't women have the same choice to live this way, too, if the traditional script doesn't fit them at different times in their lives? Go for it honestly, without apology, and don't let the anti-sex moralists tell you any different.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It would be best to eliminate STDs and find a foolproof, convenient means of birth control that still leaves the door open to having children if desired before promoting this in society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SEX SANS SOULMATE is all there is, as Elizabeth Smart and so few other female writers attest
FEMALE SEXUALITY IS THE DIVINE TANTRIC PARADISE OF INTERCELLULAR CONSUMMATED TRUE LOVE
The media, hollywood and porn industries condition women into denial,withdrawal,wildchild v goodgirl guilt thereby negatiing and internalizing massive positive energy.
By externally and sometimes internally denying the very essence of their sexual soul women thus open themselves to life-threatening immune attack via cancer, heart disease, stress etc
Vibrators and one night stands and internet porno are a sick joke compared to the real thing, akin to comparing stale beer with vintage champagne
Those of us privileged to meld with a a true sexual soulmate are energized to a higher level than all others on this earth.
But following the soul is a rough journey not for the meek, so easy it is to fall off the high road and take the low road to soul death and oblivion as a brain dead zombie wallowing in an animal sex wasteland sponsored by the numerous sex industries
Try reading these books:
HEART CODES
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
MOLECULES OF EMOTION
POWER OF NOW

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

" So I experimented -- made out with a lot of guys in bars right after meeting them, made out some more in taxis and on street corners. I purposely went after guys I wouldn't have considered before: everything from stuffy lawyers to flashy businessmen to too-young actor/bartenders..."

Darling, based on the above quote, I advise you to seek professional help. What you describe is not a liberated attitude towards sex but risky and lewd behavior.

Besides, what 30-yr-old, self-respecting, professional woman would ever, in her right mind, WANT to behave like a co-ed. Let me remind you, that IS NOT a good thing. Separating sex from love is fine for some, but not a goal that young women should aim for. Women and men should be aiming for more sex WITH love.

As another poster advised, please get some hobbies and friends to direct some of your energy in positive directions. You'll be much happier, trust me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

on 2nd thoughts I think there is something even weirder and more disturbing about this article. it seems like a candy-coated C21 remake of Freud's bizarre attitude to sex and women, and women's sexuality. like the author, Freud believed that "healthy" sexuality for women was focused on the penis, i.e. on submitting to penetration and learning to enjoy it. it was Freud who, in complete lala denial of physiology and neurology, invented the 'vaginal orgasm' and instructed women that they were immature or maladjusted or "frigid" if they could not experience orgasm solely from being f*cked by a man.

in short, Freud redefined women's sexuality as fulfilled only in service to male orgasm: any woman who sought clitoral stimulation was dissed (or worse, diagnosed) as somehow "unnatural" or "unhealthy" and in need of treatment. treatment, lest we forget, sometimes included surgical removal of the clitoris to force the woman into a "mature and appropriate" secuality. yes, they cut women's clits off. it's documented. and they even found quisling women -- female docs and shrinks -- to endorse and recommend this sadistic mutilation.

and now we have a new flavour of successful women -- affluent bourgeois urban playgirls -- advising women to divorce love from sex, to pursue the "zipless f*ck" and focus on male genitalia as the centre of erotic fantasy and activity.

cui bono?

in both cases, women are being advised -- thank goodness no longer forced, but socially pressured -- to consider themselves somehow repressed or unhealthy if they do not experience sex in the way most convenient for men and in the way most satisfactory for men, i.e. the no-investment, no-attachment, no-responsibility one or two night stand, the famous ZF, the holy grail of patriarchal male sexuality, the disposable hooker that you don't even have to pay for her service. and women are supposed to just naturally love providing this service -- right. and the Iraqis will greet us with rice and flowers.

this ain't equality. this is instructing the darkies in the fields to sing happyface songs as they load Massa's cotton. I know a H.N. when I read one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I like sex as much as the next guy, maybe more (and maybe too much), and in my younger years lived out most of my fantasies (still haven't Xed out the twin Japanese schoolgirls, though, damn it) but this writer is handing out dangerous advice.

Any idea how many people in their 20s-30s are walking around with STD's? Just millions, that's all. This writer is thrilled to have an entire city full of dicks she can stuff in her various orifaces without knowing anything about the sexual history of the people they're attached to. This was cool in the 60's and 70's, when a little burning sensation sent you to the clinic for a dose of antibiotics, or worse, you got the gift that keeps on giving, herpes. But today, you can fucking die. Smart, girl, real smart.

Sure, the writer preaches condoms, and I know this from going to her other articles and reading some of them. But is she advising dental dams and condoms during oral sex? And how many people actually do this? Right, almost none. Think you can't get a nice dose of something through oral sex? Wake up, sweetie, you can.

Real life is not Sex in the City. There are consequences. This sort of behavior is like playing sexual Russian roulette. Eventually you're gonna find the full chamber.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

some women can separate the two and some cant. some men can separate the two and some can't. what's with this one size fits all mentality. sex is just as important as food, shelter and water. the body doesn't devote years and years of energy into producing the secondary sex characteristics for nothing.

we are the same as other living animals even though we like to place ourselves as being more evolved. every animal seeks water, food, shelter and reproduction. as women deal less with social stigma you can see that women and men are just alike as some teachers are demostrating.

those priest weren't getting "regular" sex and look what they ended up doing. the body has needs and if they aren't met one way a person will likely go down an even crazier path.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Call in your vote TODAY for impeaching Bush and Cheney at this number: 202-225-0100

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office is taking calls voting for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney at 202-225-0100. PLEASE CALL TODAY. At the toll free capitol switchboard #s below, you can also call your particular district’s congressional representative to insist that they support impeachment for Cheney. E.g., for Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s H Res 333 for Cheney; please say:

“In addition to supporting Kucinich’s bill H Res 333, I would also support a similar Impeachment Resolution against Bush, especially after the disgraceful Scooter Libby sentence “commuting” and the following issues: wiretapping, torture, numerous 9/11 intelligence misrepresentations, the continued occupation of Iraq, gross negligence during Hurrican Katrina, the Valerie Plame CIA leak, […list your other grounds…] ..”[see resolutions on tab #2 for other grounds for impeachment]).

LANIC requests that Americans call today…Not tomorrow or next week. Every call adds to the extraordinary grasswoots and nationwide movement’s pressures on House Speaker Pelosi to act now .before further innocent lives are lost in Iraq and elsewhere. Last week 28 Americans lost their lives. Over the July 4, 2007 weekend over 400 Iraqis lost their lives…

SEND MAIL TO HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Attn: Nancy Pelosi, House Representative/Speaker of the House, 235 Cannon H.O.B., Washington, DC 20515 ; Pelosi’s Fax # 202 225-8259

Pelosi’s e-mail address :

Americanvoices@mail.house.gov

CC her at: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

Please send her a pro-impeachment email and a specific call to endorse H Res 333. Note: On Saturdays/Sundays, Pelosi’s office has a comment line at which you can leave a voicemail. Your message will be transcribed and relayed to her. Please do encourage your family/friends to contact the same number. Refer them to www.bcimpeach.com for the actual telephone #s & contact info.

Find out who your Congressional representative is and call that person. For toll free numbers to your Congress rep: (800) 828 – 0498; (800) 459 – 1887; or (866) 340 – 9281. You will be connected once you name your congress person. The staff aid should take detailed notes and provided to the Congressional representative.

Final Note: Please say “I support Impeachment based on ____. I’d like to know where “[representative name]” stands on this issue.” Let’s strike while the Libby fury keeps the iron hot! Please call and Act Now!

PLEASE ALSO CONTACT THESE KEY CONGRESSIONAL REPS RE IMPEACHMENT:
Representative Capitol Phone Capitol Fax
Howard Berman 202-225-4695 202-225-3196
& 818-944-7200 818-994-1050

MAILING ADDRESS FOR BERMAN
Congressman Howard L. Berman
14546 Hamlin Street, Suite 202
Van Nuys, CA 91411

Henry Waxman 202-225-3976 202-225-4099
Loreta Sanchez 202 225-2965 202-225-5859
D. Watson 202 225-7084 202-225-2422
LindaSanchez 202 225-6676 202-226-1012
L. Solis 202 225-5464 202-225-5467
A. G. Eshoo 202 225-8104 202-225-8890
L. Roybal/Allard 202 225-1766 202-225-0350

http://www.bcimpeach.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not a psychologist but I think the topics of sexuality and even drug use should include modern psychology's take.

For too long sexual promiscuity has been discussed as either a moral sin or an expression of freedom instead of as a symptom of a possible psychological problem.

For example, in the triad of personality disorders known as Borderline, Narcissistic and Schizoid (which is not schizophrenia, btw), Borderline Personality Disorder includes the following criterion among the 9 in psych's diagnostics manual (DSM II); 5 or more criteria earn a Borderline diagnosis:

- (1) A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of overidealization and devaluation.

- (2) Impulsiveness in at least two areas that are potentially damaging, e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, shoplifting, reckless driving, binge eating (suicidal behavior doesn't count here; it's a criterion by itself).

Sexual promiscuity is very common among people struggling with Borderline Personality Disorder. It's considered "acting out." But a psychologist probably knows of other disorders that have sexual promiscuity as one the symptoms.

Though 5 or more criteria among the 9 earns a Borderline diagnosis, James F. Masteron, M.D., the pioneer in *successfully* treating people struggling with Borderline disorder (and also Narcissistic and Schizoid), writes that the 9 criteria don't detect many milder forms of Borderline Personality Disorder. His approach, a.k.a., the Masteron Approach, is much more finely tuned than the DSM II (the big book of mind malady criteria).

I highly recommend reading his books. They're considered the best by psychologists and greatly surpass the self-help books on this subject, though it was through those that I discovered Masteron's books.

books by James. F. Masteron, M.D.:

-- "Search for the Real Self" (a classic; I wish I read it in high school) by Masteron; I think this was the first non-clinical book written about Borderline.

-- "The Personality Disorders Through the Lens of Attachment Theory and the Neurobiologic Development of the Self" by Masteron. Don't let the title scare you. It's succinct.

-- "A Therapist's Guide to the Personality Disorders: The Masteron Approach" Edited by Masteron and Anne R. Lieberman, L.C.S.W. Again, don't let the title scare you. This brief book is so succinct, it's valuable for laypersons, too, in my opinion.

-- "Get Me Out of Here: My Recovery from Borderline Personality Disorder" by Rachel Reiland (pseudonym since it is biographical). The first book written by a former Borderline, who as a writer kept notes and a diary during her treatment over several years. A tear jerker but incredibly beautiful.
This is the second book I've read that lifted my negative opinion of psychiatry as cold and myopically Freudian to warmly scientific and greatly concerned with love.
Freud never understood Borderline, by the way, because the disorder forms during the PRE-oedipal phase (ages .5 - 3) instead of Freud's beloved oedipal (4 or 5...) phase.

The idea of viewing sexuality from the ever expanding and increasing scientific psychology research can be applied to the issue of drug use, too.

In "Why is it Always About You?" by Sandy Hotchkiss, LCSW, Forward by Masteron, Hotchkiss describes how types of drugs correspond induce states closely resembling toddlers' mental states at different stages. (pp. 110-115)

IT WOULD BE GREAT IF JAMES MASTERSON, M.D. WOULD WRITE A COLUMN FOR ALTERNET.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]