Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sex and Relationships

Sexual Math: A Small Number of Partners Does Not Add Up to Happiness

By Rachel Kramer Bussel, Huffington Post. Posted August 11, 2008.


Yet another reason feminism still has work to do: women who surpass an entirely arbitrary number of sex partners are labeled 'sluts.'
Advertisement

I'm not going to tell you exactly how many people I've slept with, partly because I don't know, partly because I stopped caring long ago, and partly because it's none of your business. But I will tell you it's more than French First Lady Carla Bruni's reported number: 15. Way more. I share that information to make the point that how and why we choose our sexual partners differs for everyone; there's no single perfect number that will make you: a) happy and b) not a slut.

But to read Virginia Ironside's recent tirade against Bruni's perceived promiscuity is to think you've landed back a few centuries. Any hint that we might have come a long way, baby, that there was ever such a thing as feminism, let alone the misguidedly labeled "do-me" feminism, is forgotten as Ironside leaves us with such gems as more than fifteen lovers means you're "starting to demean sex itself" and "it's no longer something special that you do only with the chosen few."

Ironside has a lot to learn about sex. I believe that sexual decision-making should be left up to the individual, based on their own desires and values, not some random standard based on what other people think. If your goal is to not be labeled a slut, and you're a woman, well, good luck. Have even one partner, wear a skirt too short, make out on a street corner and be ogled by a particularly nosy, nasty neighbor, and you're a slut, plain and simple. Reputation has little to do with actual sex acts and everything to do with perception.

Further, Ironside assumes that the only reason a woman would sleep with many lovers is for "experience," presumably meaning some kind of sex acts she hasn't done before. "It's unlikely Carla will ever be thinking: 'What might have been.' She's been there, done that and got the nightdress. But what would be the point of Carla -- or anyone else -- accumulating more lovers?" This viewpoint is what truly dehumanizes sex, turning it simply into a robotic, mechanical movement of bodies rather than a complex set of impulses, attractions and acts driven by all sorts of motives.

Your number of partners and how "special" the sex is are not necessarily related. To me, sex is special when it takes me somewhere I can't go alone (and I don't just mean orgasm). When I'm with my boyfriend, I'm certainly not thinking about my past bedmates, and I highly doubt he is either. If you're doing it right, you're fully in the moment, swept away, as it were. Sex is as special as we want to make it, and for some people, that means exclusivity, for others, casual sex, and for many, some amalgam of the two.

Ironside, like many casual sex detractors, needs to place sex within marriage or committed relationships above more temporary affairs in order to bolster her sense of her own morality. I might go that far -- 12, 13, 14 or, well, okay, 15 lovers -- but 16, and no man will ever want to touch you again!

During the fifteen years I've been sexually active (with some pretty long dry spells in between), I've been in monogamous relationships, been single, had one-night stands, threesomes, and hookups. I've slept with people I loved, and people who I'd just met. Some trysts were amazing, some were forgettable. But isn't that the same with everything we do?

I can tell you that one of the best lovers I've ever had was during a one-night stand. I was hopelessly besotted with someone else, so much so that I thought about him all the time, thrilled when he said hello to me, and was so locked inside my fantasy life I couldn't see my way beyond it. This other man sweetly propositioned me, and I turned him down, explaining my crush. "Maybe I can help you get over him," he suggested. And that's exactly what he did. We had a torrid night in his apartment, and he drove me home the next morning and shared some of his own heartbroken moments. It was hot, but also sweet.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gender, sexuality, casual sex

Rachel Kramer Bussel is an author and editor of over a dozen erotic anthologies, most recently Hide and Seek and Crossdressing. She hosts In The Flesh Erotic Reading Series and is a former sex columnist for The Village Voice.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
hmm
Posted by: leta on Aug 11, 2008 6:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women shouldn't be labeled sluts. Men who can't get laid shouldn't be labeled losers. Both sides of the same coin.

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

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: hmm Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: hmm Posted by: rickiey
» Good one Posted by: pomes
How long?
Posted by: progdem on Aug 12, 2008 1:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many times is the exact same story going to be written about the sexual escapade double standard? How long until the people who continually write this realize its been done, its been said, and that nothing is to be gained by repeating it again?

The people who call men studs and women sluts for the exact same behavior are also not going to listen to you. They are not going to read, sometimes because they aren't very good at it.

This story gets rewritten so much you would think the authors needed X number of articles for tenure review or something.

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

» I agree . . . Posted by: Scientz
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: How long? Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» RE: How long? Posted by: dkendrafran
» RE: How long? Posted by: Shey
» RE: How long? Posted by: meeneecat
Math
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 12, 2008 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's none of our business, yet you see the need to write a whole article about it.

I think the best kept secret regarding the double-standard is that women like to brag about the number they've bagged as much as guys do.

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

» RE: Math Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: other frame of reference... Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: Math Posted by: wwittman
Yay you
Posted by: kenhymes on Aug 12, 2008 3:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yay you, you have had one night stands that were positive experiences. The whole piece is so very ethnocentric and middle-class. The experience of sex for so many women in much of the world is one which would cause them to wish they had LESS sex, not more. And there are so many right here in our culture who are shunned because they don't fit the limited ideas of attractiveness we have honed to a fine point, so many of your potential readers will find your words pointless and shaming.

I just don't get how any of this has to do with reproductive rights, labor rights, contract rights, which ought to be the focus of feminist advocacy by both women and men. It's like the writer was trying to give flesh to the stereotype of identity politics.

Blech.

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

» RE: Yay you Posted by: maestra
» RE: @RHad Posted by: meeneecat
the different women who write this standard Alternet article seem to be
Posted by: Suzon on Aug 12, 2008 3:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
protesting a bit too much.

For what it's worth, I think that the author of the Kama Sutra got it right: the men and women who've had large numbers of sexual partners are devalued.

Maybe this is "just" because of some atavistic fear of disease.

I agree with the poster who said that many women in the world would be grateful to have less sex. Choice is often a luxury and a privilege.

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

Re: Sexual Math: A Small Number of Partners Does Not Add Up to Happiness
Posted by: Hummie on Aug 12, 2008 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well I guess I am in the "slut" catagory. cause man i enjoy sex. I was old when i lost my virginity 19 and a half yrs. But I have more than made up for it since. I just dont understand why it is different for men and women, why should men have all the fun. Anyway I agree Ironside is one strange woman, its like my mummy told me and if i dont follow these guildlines i will go to hell, come on lady. so if ironside breaks up with number 15 she is going to turn back into a virgin??? me thinks not, i think she will turn into a slut, and i really dont think anyone will care. There are lots of women out there who also have only had one lover and have a fine outstanding even, sex life, goss shock horror.
your sex life is what you make it. And god knows i make mine, and i make sure that when it comes to sex i enjoy every minute of it. oh and my partner/s might enjoy it too :o). have a good one everyone or two

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

» And the answer is... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Wrong answer. Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
» RE: And the answer is... Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: And the answer is... Posted by: mclame01
» RE: And the answer is... Posted by: 3rdI
HPV. Herpes. HIV. Those are just the ones that begin with H.
Posted by: Jasonix on Aug 12, 2008 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the risk of an avalanche of "1" ratings and possible removal from this post by the moderator, can I just put one question out there for those who so vigorously protest traditional sexual morals: what is your take on disease?

The woman who wrote this article certainly has HPV (it'd be a statistical miracle if she didn't), which puts her at risk for cervical cancer, and her partners at risk for oral and throat cancer, depending on their favorite activities between the sheets. The odds are that she has herpes, too - more than a quarter of Americans do. The odds for HIV are somewhat less for normal hetero, but with herpes in the mix, the odds of HIV go up. I'm not being judgmental about anyone's "moral character," but simply from a epidemiological stand-point, the behavior described in this article seems risky.

There are, of course, many AlterNet posters who think that their freedom to seek self-fulfillment and self-expression outweighs any such dangers. My question is how do you folks rationalize disease when it happens to you? Unless you're the luckiest folks on earth, most of you have had run-ins with at least a few diseases (hopefully ones that a shot will cure). When you wake up in the morning and things are tingling in a really bad way, how do you feel about it? That it's just a fact of life, that it's part of the human condition, or that so-and-so was worth it? I'm just curious how people think about these things.

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

» Seriously?? Posted by: BreeMass
» RE: Seriously?? Posted by: Annarisse
» Safer Sex has worked for me. Posted by: citizengreen
» Me Too Posted by: Libertine
It depends on the quality of whatever relationship you are in
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 12, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But every relationship has its problems

A friend of mine seemed extremely happy with his wife and two kids when I took them all to the airport to go on holiday.

But the holiday turned into an emotional disaster, and as soon as he got home he fell into the arms of someone who just appeared.

Result pretty stable marriage completely destroyed.

Family torn apart

Daughter can never forgive him.

New girlfriend turns out to be a psycho.

He ends up being homeless and sleeping at friends or a lot of the time in his car.

Not a happy result though I'm sure the sex was fantastic.

Personally I don't see the point in wrecking my own family just cos a pretty girl comes on to me when I may be feeling vulnerable

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

oh please...
Posted by: montims on Aug 12, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is Virginia Ironside, for goodness sake. This is the Daily Mail. It's a joke...

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

this is why we talk about sex in the public
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Aug 12, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If thats really the case then keep it a pvt matter. This is typical downstate New York City behavior. Its the greatest city in the world for a reason until its activities start seeping past the Holland Tunnel. Yea I'm taking the moral high ground however I know I'm also not alone.

p.s. were a rubber

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

» p.s. were a rubber... Posted by: mandiwrite
» You were a rubber? Posted by: janvdb
» RE: You were a rubber? Posted by: Blue Heron
"Looking for Mr. Goodbar"--a 1979 film
Posted by: zooeyhall on Aug 12, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was a pretty good movie in the late '70s called "Looking for Mr. Goodbar". It starred Diane Keaton and was about a teacher who is independent and not afraid of her sexuality and does lots of cruising.

While the movie was a critical success, I was watching it awhile back and was thinking that it was very much a 70's morality tale. The heroine has lots of hot sex, but the guys she hooks up with end up being loose cannons. The one "good boy" she meets she rejects. She ends up getting killed by a whacked-out closeted gay guy.

In retrospect, the movie script could almost have been written by a right-wing Christian.

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

To each his own. There is no sexual calculus
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Aug 12, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a man. I like sex and I like it alot. I've had sex with a lot of women for a number of reasons. I've had one-night stand with strangers, one-night stands with close friends, flings that last a few months and are centered on sex, and long relationships like I am in now where I've had the same partner for over two years. The common denominator that makes me look back fondly on all (well ok, MOST) of those relationships and encounters is a healthy attitude about sex, communication with your partner (even if only for one night) and being honest with each other about the nature of the relationship.

I don't have any regrets or guilt about my history as a man-slut. I wouldn't have done it any different if I could go back and change it.

As long as the attitude (and actual act of sex) is healthy and positive having sex with a large number of partners is an individual decision that I can respect, whether it is a man or a woman.

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

Wow! what a bunch of cheesy commentators!
Posted by: premarachel on Aug 12, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doesn't sound like any of you are having too much fun (and I'm not talking about sex) Surely if your lives where truly enjoyable, your views would reflect that and we would all be reading more positive comments to Rachel Kramer Bussel's post. I'm a sixty seven year old grandmother and have had more casual sex in the last three years than Rachel confessed to, in her (I'm sure) considerably fewer years. I love sex. And why shouldn't I, having been given a piece of equipment, very specifically designed to enjoy sex. Why waste such a blessing? But then I have never been called a slut. I'm very appreciated for my knowledge, abilities, happiness, humor, fun and compassion, courtesy of sharing with a wide variety of generally very nice and appreciative people. Get with it people! It's not about labeling or judging. It's about enjoying our lives, sillies!

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

» Wow!! Hurray for you!! Posted by: janvdb
» GILFs! Posted by: pomes
Good article
Posted by: odie-wan on Aug 12, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the author got it spot on. The number of lovers a woman has is in no way linked to her "slut status". And who defines a slut any way? It's a completely arbitrary designation and I thumb my nose at the label.

The reason this is still discussed is precisely because too many people still don't get it. Are we supposed to shut up and go away quietly because some people won't listen? Nuts to that!

And as for some women who want less sex - so what? I know men who want less sex too. Everyone's sex drive is different.

And no...I'm not a spoilt middle-class White living in the West. I'm a South African living in South Africa, with all its conflicting views on sex. Ultimately we all need to find our own paths and stop wasting so much time and energy snooping in other people's business.

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

» RE: Good article Posted by: rickiey
We're all sluts........period
Posted by: nfamous on Aug 12, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women aren't angry because promiscuous women are called sluts. They're angry because there is a double standard and no accepted word exists to make men feel just as bad about having a lot of partners. When it comes down to it you control how you feel about yourself, not society or men. You have to be yourself and not worry about what others think. Yes double standards are wrong but there are plenty of them against men as well like the domestic violence one. Women commit nearly the same amount of it but you could never tell from what you hear on tv.

I've evolved past these petty arguments between the genders. You are what you are. Get some self-esteem and live your life they way you please. No one can stop you except yourself.

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

» RE: We're all sluts........period Posted by: antonius116
let's say i am 50 years old
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Aug 12, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let's say i am 50 years old and i have had 3 lovers per year for 30 years...(since i was 20), that adds up to 90 guys.

i think 3 lovers per year would be rather average for your average single city girl....

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

» RE: let's say i am 50 years old Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Any chance that you may be free this Saturday?
Posted by: Gonnuts on Aug 12, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been so long since I've had sex I forgot which one of us gets tied-up?

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

A tirade against Bruni.
Posted by: kilgor on Aug 12, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Geez Louise, this quote "Carla Bruni isn't a spring chicken. By 40, you should know what's what. Fifteen lovers seems to me reasonable without being shameful" from the original article by Virginia Ironsides which Rachel Kramer Bussel refers to in her post hardly seems like a tirade against Bruni. Makes you wonder if Rachel Kramer Bussel even read the article or even understood the contents and context of Ironside"s article.

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

» RE: A tirade against Bruni. Posted by: davmills
Personally..
Posted by: littlemanintheboat on Aug 12, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(being a man) I enjoy a woman who knows what she enjoys and lets it be known. No embarrassment, no guessing. If that means she has slept with lots of guys, so what? I appreciate a woman who enjoys sex and men. Just my 1/2 cent...

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

» RE: Personally.. Posted by: whitechocolate
» RE: Personally.. Posted by: littlemanintheboat
» RE: Personally.. Posted by: Shey
Let's not confuse sex with sexual assault
Posted by: kit_4155 on Aug 12, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The posters who note that choice is a luxury and many women in the world would like to be having less sex seem to blurring sex and sexual assault in a way that is not helpful to this discussion. I think it is clear that the writer of the article is talking about consensual sexual encounters; sexual assault is a whole different discussion.

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

how freaking old are you people?
Posted by: mnlefty on Aug 12, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are in your 80s I understand the concern over being judged on the number of people you have slept with. Younger people today don't really care. Why waste your energy pretending it's an intellectual argument? Some people have a lot of hang ups, some people want sex to be special, some people want to indulge their curiosity...as long as everyone is doing what they want to do, who cares?

And the word slut was last taken seriously in about 1982. Today they use the word 'whore'.
Put away the Aqua Net and the blue eye shadow. Welcome to the 21st Century.

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

erotophobia and moral imposition
Posted by: tomkara on Aug 12, 2008 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the point of this article is freedom of choice. To those who say free sex is a luxury that nobody should indulge in because others are being exploited, I say, "do you eat porridge three times a day because there's starvation in the world?" Of course not. We should all of us, including third world women and men, have freedom to choose which sexual path we follow (including homosexuality and bisexuality and whatever else that's not forced on somebody). Yes, your chances of contracting sexually transmitted diseases obviously increases with the number of sex partners, but I got HIV while I was in a long term monogamous relationship - point being, it's not the number of partners at the moment, it's whether they carry a particular disease or not. Sex is not the cause of disease - viruses and other pathogens are. This issue would hardly exist with universal public health initiatives that provided both free testing, demanded that nobody who was infected be discriminated against (discrimination and fear drive epidemics and slow testing rates), and would allow people to be honest and protect themselves and their partners with condoms. I have long been worried by trends among certain "feminists" which seem to broadly overlap with a certain moral agenda I see on the religious right - that only certain kinds of sexual expression should be allowed, and that they have the right to tell others how to live their lives. Kudos to this author for challenging this!

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

It is the limiting of sex influence by religion that paints women
Posted by: nightgaunt on Aug 12, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That paints women as sluts and men as studs. If you don't have the 'god rod' then you are inferior is the subtext. Sex is in general considered bad if it isn't strictly for reproduction under specific circumstances---marriage. As most animals do it. Otherwise we are not to engage in it. Wasting seed on the ground and other such nonsense.

We need to remove the figurative scales from all our eyes on sexuality as the wise people of Sweden and the Nederlands have for safe fun sexual adventures. Instead of the lopsided way things are here.

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

My sympathy on the sordid past.
Posted by: EJLima on Aug 12, 2008 12:29 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am grateful I was not involved.

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

Concise and nice
Posted by: kerrywessell on Aug 12, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though this does seem to be a repeat as some have noted, it's good and stays pretty much on the level. When I first read the title heading, I almost flipped out and readied myself to tear each sentence, no, each word, apart. i thought to myself when I read this title, "Oh great, here we have the anti-church who is going to tell me that in order to be happy I have to sleep with at least 25 partners before I die, as opposed to sleeping with only one partner before I die as suggested by the church... M()t43R F#C

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

Can't Turn a Ho into a . . .
Posted by: no1kstate on Aug 12, 2008 1:39 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
housewife or a husband.

Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I think sin/guilt of pre- and extramarital sex should apply equally to men and women. I've waited and I hope to marry someone who's waited as well.

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

» You'll probably both be bad in bed Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» Uh, like, er.... Posted by: morticia
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: Can't Turn a what? . . . Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: Can't Turn a what? . . . Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Can't Turn a what? . . . Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: Can't Turn a what? . . . Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Can't Turn a what? . . . Posted by: no1kstate