COMMENTS: 160
Sexual Math: A Small Number of Partners Does Not Add Up to Happiness
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email.
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.
The notion that there is one right number for everyone (and by "everyone," we're usually just talking about women; men seem to be granted immunity from the numbers discussion) crops up every few months, as if to remind women not to take our perceived sexual freedom for granted. I wrote about this topic in June 2006 for The Village Voice, and praised an excellent novel (and fun summer read), Twenty Times a Lady, by Karyn Bosnak. In the book, the heroine backtracks to find her former lovers so that her number doesn't get too high for her comfort. I quoted Bosnak as saying, "When I'm 70, I don't care if I've fucked 70 people. I want to look back and say I took every chance I could."
I agree wholeheartedly. I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish my number were lower, but not because I have some artificial limit on how many lovers I think is acceptable. Rather, there are plenty of people I've bedded where, looking back with the power of hindsight, I see how wrong they were for me. But even those experiences have taught me things about myself, and my sexuality, and have informed my future choices.
To Ironside, women are reduced to nothing more than our number of partners; not our sexual comfort level, sexual satisfaction, or any other indicator of sexual health and happiness. It's the number, not the people informing that number, that matters. That tally becomes the sum total of our sex life, regardless of what we got out of it. It's possible to try everything under the sun with one person and be completely content, or sleep with 100 people and still feel unfulfilled.
Further, her notion that men are so fragile that they'll be tortured by the idea of a woman's prior experience is hopelessly outdated. Sure, some men long for the chaste virgin, but others want a woman who knows what she likes, and doesn't like, in bed. My fellow Huffington Post blogger Jenny Block explores this conundrum in her book, Open, suggesting that men who hold onto the ideal of the virginal women aren't always that thrilled once they get her into bed.
Basically, Ironside is saying that if you've screwed more than 15 people, you're a big slut who should hardly dare show her face, let alone expect to date or marry. Bruni is not only showing her face, but proudly claiming her past paramours. So am I, and if you want to call me a slut, go right ahead. That urge says more about you than it does about me. Some, like Ironside, are happy to cast aspersions, make ridiculous proclamations, and pretend they know best for everyone. If that sounds like you, have at it. I'll be busy doing you know what.
Stay up to date with the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leta on Aug 11, 2008 6:56 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: hmm
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: hmm
Posted by: rickiey
» Good one
Posted by: pomes
» You do realise this is the Daily Mail?
Posted by: Cruella
» Men who sleep around are called sluts too
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: progdem on Aug 12, 2008 1:42 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Erica Jong was writing this stuff in 1973
Posted by: war_on_tara
» I agree . . .
Posted by: Scientz
» RE: How long?
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» RE: How long?
Posted by: dkendrafran
» RE: How long?
Posted by: Shey
» RE: How long?
Posted by: meeneecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 12, 2008 2:52 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenhymes on Aug 12, 2008 3:19 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» Ethnocentric and Middle Class? Whatever.
Posted by: terradea42
» RE: thnocentric and Middle Class? Whatever.
Posted by: RHad
» RE: thnocentric and Middle Class? Whatever.
Posted by: Libsrule
» RE: @RHad
Posted by: meeneecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Aug 12, 2008 3:33 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: Suzon
» RE: please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: maestra
» RE: please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: wwittman
» RE: please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: Suzon
» RE: please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: wwittman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hummie on Aug 12, 2008 4:51 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: e: Sexual Math: A Small Number of Partners Does Not Add Up to Happiness
Posted by: antonius116
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jasonix on Aug 12, 2008 5:04 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: OK, one opinion heard from
Posted by: Jasonix
» Safer Sex has worked for me.
Posted by: citizengreen
» Me Too
Posted by: Libertine
» Viruses and bacilli are beautiful and natural!
Posted by: morticia
» WRONG - Ever hear of safe sex?
Posted by: sju
» RE: WRONG - Ever hear of safe sex?
Posted by: meeneecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 12, 2008 5:13 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: It depends on the quality of whatever relationship you are in
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: It depends on the quality of whatever relationship you are in
Posted by: Jnutter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: montims on Aug 12, 2008 5:36 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Aug 12, 2008 5:43 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Aug 12, 2008 6:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Aug 12, 2008 6:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: To each his own. There is no sexual calculus
Posted by: whitechocolate
» RE: To each his own. There is no sexual calculus
Posted by: Shey
» RE: To each his own. There is no sexual calculus
Posted by: antonius116
» Antonius, it's because you are an...
Posted by: meeneecat
» RE: Antonius, it's because you are an...
Posted by: antonius116
Comments are closed-
Posted by: premarachel on Aug 12, 2008 6:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wow! what a bunch of cheesy commentators!
Posted by: odie-wan
» RE: Wow! what a bunch of cheesy commentators!
Posted by: whitechocolate
» Wow!! Hurray for you!!
Posted by: janvdb
» GILFs!
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: odie-wan on Aug 12, 2008 7:12 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nfamous on Aug 12, 2008 7:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: mnlefty
» RE: We're all sluts........period
Posted by: antonius116
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Aug 12, 2008 8:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: rickiey
» RE: let's say i am 50 years old
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: let's say i am 50 years old
Posted by: rickiey
» let's say you are 50 years old
Posted by: donl51
» RE: let's say i am 50 years old
Posted by: mclame01
» Now imagine if a man did that...
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gonnuts on Aug 12, 2008 8:02 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kilgor on Aug 12, 2008 8:32 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A tirade against Bruni.
Posted by: davmills
Comments are closed-
Posted by: littlemanintheboat on Aug 12, 2008 9:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kit_4155 on Aug 12, 2008 10:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Let's not confuse sex with sexual assault
Posted by: jennymac
» RE: Let's not confuse sex with sexual assault
Posted by: Shey
» RE: Let's not confuse sex with sexual assault
Posted by: antonius116
» RE: Let's not confuse sex with sexual assault
Posted by: meeneecat
» RE: Let's not confuse sex with sexual assault
Posted by: antonius116
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mnlefty on Aug 12, 2008 10:24 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: how freaking old are you people?
Posted by: Hovey
» RE: how freaking old are you people?
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tomkara on Aug 12, 2008 10:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jnutter on Aug 12, 2008 12:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EJLima on Aug 12, 2008 12:29 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kerrywessell on Aug 12, 2008 12:22 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: no1kstate on Aug 12, 2008 1:39 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: morticia
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: morticia
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: morticia
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: no1kstate
» Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: no1kstate
» Uh, like, er....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
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: Pirate1
» RE: Can't Turn a what? . . .
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Can't Turn a what? . . .
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Can't Turn a what? . . .
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Can't Turn a Ho into a . . .
Posted by: wwittman
» RE: Can't Turn a Ho into a . . .
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Can't Turn a Ho into a . . .
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Can't Turn a Ho into a . . .
Posted by: meeneecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Aug 12, 2008 2:56 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we were more natural and open and free about sex, a lot of the fears of disease posted here would be minimalized or eliminated entirely because they would be part of our normal hygiene discourse, like oral hygiene or hair or skin care. It is because we feel we have to hush aspects of our sex lives, keep them hidden out of shame of people "finding out" that we don't learn about symptoms and risks until often the damage is already done.
I doubt if humanity will ever get out from under this shroud, as long as there is a bible and someone compelled enough to find passages condemning sex and a bleating mass that believes such old books are the word of god, there will be someone to believe and condemn, thinking he or she is doing god's work. It would seem to me that if a god created humans with penises and vaginas and the capability for enormous ecstasy through stimulating these gifts to orgasm, why go to all that trouble only to punish and condemn those who use these gifts to the fullest? Guess you need to be a believer to understand hyperbole like that.
I am in what they call my middle years and I meet so many women who did the waiting and being with one person thing only to be left or widowed who then upon opening to love making with me achieve peaks of ecstasy they never dreamed possible... (I'm not taking credit for being some kind of great lover, I'm pretty much over that hill...) these women were just never encouraged before, never shown tenderness... gentleness, patience... makes me wonder how many go through an entire lifetime and never know such joys. Experiences that are our birthright.
I for one say find a compatible partner and get down and enjoy yourselves. We'll all be dead before you know it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RHad on Aug 12, 2008 4:35 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: SLEEPING AROUND IS NOT FEMINISM.
Posted by: wwittman
» RE: SLEEPING AROUND IS NOT FEMINISM.
Posted by: pomes
» RE: SLEEPING AROUND IS NOT FEMINISM.
Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: SLEEPING AROUND IS NOT FEMINISM.
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rclord on Aug 12, 2008 9:42 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And how does this relate to feminism?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: why am I supposed to find this interesting?
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urgelt on Aug 12, 2008 10:29 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the record, I do not assert all feminists are clueless. But the track record of so-called feminists on Alternet is terrible.
Points:
1. Lack of originality. There's nothing new here that hasn't been said a zillion times since the 70's.
2. Lack of depth. How can you talk about promiscuity wihout talking about STDs?
3. Lack of context. Every culture attempts to place controls on sexual expression, and every culture has disincentives for those who do not conform to cultural expectations. Why? In a word, kids. Sex is important because kids, parenting, and associated resource expenditures are important. You can argue that birth control decouples sex and childbirth, and you'd be only partly right. Cultures take a long time to adjust their thinking; ours hasn't made that leap. In fact, ours is, at this very moment, staging a vicious cultural war about birth control and reproductive rights. A serious article about promiscuity might take that into account.
4. Absurdity. The author offers a view of feminism as no-penalty promiscuity. Extending her argument, feminism will have "arrived" when those women who choose to be promiscuous can indulge in their promiscuity without experiencing any cultural sanctions whatsoever. Nobody will object when they treat men as sex objects (yeah, that's a big improvement). They'll never be called "sluts." They can still get the men of their dreams. They can still be taken seriously on those rare occasions when they aren't cuddling between rubber sheets with a stranger. I really hate to break it to the author, but there are literally dozens of more urgent issues affecting empowerment of women: economic justice, education, jobs, safety, health care, child care... Her argument trivializes those issues, and presents feminism as a licentious joke.
Come on, Alternet. Don't waste column space on fluff. Feminism is too important to treat this way.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Feminism is duckspeak from the junior anti-sex league
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Here We Go Again.
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: williameon on Aug 13, 2008 6:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What ever you make it or somewhere in
Between!
That's a little ambiguous.
I left my trill on Blueberry Hill.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Daniel35 on Aug 14, 2008 9:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, as Bussel says, this is a woman's issue, and I'm male, but I identify as simply a person more than as a man. As far as I'm concerned, "slut" is a compliment, though I use it cautiously (and "The Ethical Slut" is an excellent book). There may have been plenty of lovers who were wrong for her, but many more who would have been right. To me, "love and marriage" don't at all go together.
I feel love is close to the highest human goal, with only happiness maybe being higher. To me, love mainly means enjoying the pleasure of giving pleasure or making another person happy. Thus making love, in whatever mode, is creating 'our' happiness. Intimacy means good communications, in whatever mode. Sex without these meanings of love and intimacy is like talking without saying anything, to hear yourself. I favor creating love and intimacy at every opportunity, with anyone and everyone who's willing, in whatever mode.
"Make love, not babies, and doublely reduce the causes of war."
During sex I'm not necessarily "in the moment", but partly thinking about the greater meaning of it all. Orgasm does get more of my attention.
It's the inhibition on talking about anything sexual that's the main cause of spread of STDs. DNA research show that humans have had various strains of HIV many times in the past and evolved around it (and probably also true with the others). Eventually we'll have to do the same, or continue to spend many billions of dollars to fight it.
If you don't know the difference between having sex and sleeping together, you'd better avoid both.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 14, 2008 12:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was young I liked the virgin just fine but it was the whore who taught me that women are more than either the virgin or the whore. Gimme the whore anyday. Good sex takes two and I'd rather be in bed with a fellow whore with all her experience, bad, good, ugly, nirvana.
The rest of the moron-patrol and sex police can just go stuff locks or stones or whatever they seem to crave in their own groins and mind their own bidness. Humanity is better off without that kinda 'Merkaaner anglo stoopid.
Now if we can just force sterilize the fundie whackos...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blogbooks on Aug 14, 2008 4:06 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: steveced121 on Aug 14, 2008 5:50 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
love. The trouble is, most women don't realize this until their best years have passed them by. Whatever, carry on women, whether you are
17 or 70, don't let the prudes out there brand
you because they don't know how to have fun and
don't want anyone else to have any.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: steve
Posted by: hamburglar
Comments are closed-
Posted by: syvani on Aug 16, 2008 10:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel, KEEP WRITING. WRITE THE STORY EVERY DAY IN EVERY PAPER!!!
V
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How many time should this type of article be written?
Posted by: antonius116
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EMB on Aug 17, 2008 3:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if I'm alone in this experience or if everyone else is lying. By the way, I have never been described as a "slut" and most people actually see me as a prudish sort. Little do they know. I love to make love and feel that it is one of the best ways to get to emotion.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lorenbliss on Aug 19, 2008 5:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Intellectually inclined, objectively analytical leftists (if indeed any survive after six decades of Moron Nation moronation) should not be debating the statistical definition of "slut" -- another absurd variant of the counting of pinhead angels that typifies brains policed to uselessness -- but should instead be questioning what ruling class purpose is served by the attack on sexuality.
The answer, of course, is to be found (like much else under capitalism) in the annals of managerial psychology: the greater the sexual frustration of the working class, the more the working class diverts its obstructed energies into productivity (which includes unquestioned obedience) and acquisitiveness (the addictive element that ensures the working class remains in eternal bondage).
Here of course I have a personal advantage: though a New Yorker by origin, I lived many years in the Bible-thump South -- which was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be a theocracy -- and I long ago recognized the cancer that has fatally metastasized throughout the entire population. (Its first symptom was the hand-in-glove relationship of union-busting and religious revival -- renewed oppression dulled by the back-to-god opiate as has been traditional in the South since slavery -- its sickness now disseminated throughout the U.S.)
McBama or O’Cain, by now it makes no difference: in a realm where 63 percent of the people believe the Bible is literally the word of god, where 85 percent reject evolution (which means Moron Nation is a nation of fundamentalist fanatics whether self-identified or not), liberty is already dead.
Now all the ruling class need do is finalize its victory: the attack against sexuality is a key part of that process. Hence too the specific targeting of female sexuality: womanpower -- especially multiorgasmic womanpower -- is definitively subversive to all the Abrahamic doctrines upon which present-day society is built.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MB56 on Aug 20, 2008 10:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davescott on Aug 21, 2008 5:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: antonius116 on Aug 21, 2008 1:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Case in point: I've never heard a man say "No means no". LOL Also, when was the last time a man was date raped. HA HA!!! (that's probably impossible) Men want sex much more than women do. In fact that's been scientifically proven (but course will be argued ad nauseum) Women are the ones who decide if anybody is getting laid. Period. However, this author seems jaded, almost angry, at the fact that because she can get laid anytime she wants, that because of that she would be considered a slut. That's simply the nature of men and women. For men, it's conquests, and even though the author is empowered because she can sleep with anyone she wants anytime she wants, she doesn't realize that all she is is another knotch in the headboard. Anyway, the last two sentences sum it up:
Some, like Ironside, are happy to cast aspersions, make ridiculous proclamations, and pretend they know best for everyone. If that sounds like you, have at it. I'll be busy doing you know what.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is because SHE CAN. Men don't have the same luxury women possess, and that's simply how it is. Promiscuous women will forever be sluts and promiscuous men will forever be studs. Get over it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: antonius116 on Aug 21, 2008 2:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What about Porn??
Posted by: Black_Maria_2000
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Black_Maria_2000 on Sep 7, 2008 11:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We only indulge maybe once or twice a month, but it keeps things interesting and we've marvelled at how "safe" it can be.
It's not cheating if you both know!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leta on Aug 11, 2008 6:56 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: hmm
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: hmm
Posted by: rickiey
» Good one
Posted by: pomes
» You do realise this is the Daily Mail?
Posted by: Cruella
» Men who sleep around are called sluts too
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: progdem on Aug 12, 2008 1:42 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» Erica Jong was writing this stuff in 1973
Posted by: war_on_tara
» I agree . . .
Posted by: Scientz
» RE: How long?
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» RE: How long?
Posted by: dkendrafran
» RE: How long?
Posted by: Shey
» RE: How long?
Posted by: meeneecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 12, 2008 2:52 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenhymes on Aug 12, 2008 3:19 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» Ethnocentric and Middle Class? Whatever.
Posted by: terradea42
» RE: thnocentric and Middle Class? Whatever.
Posted by: RHad
» RE: thnocentric and Middle Class? Whatever.
Posted by: Libsrule
» RE: @RHad
Posted by: meeneecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Aug 12, 2008 3:33 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: Suzon
» RE: please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: maestra
» RE: please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: wwittman
» RE: please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: Suzon
» RE: please don't mistake an observation/theory for condemnation
Posted by: wwittman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hummie on Aug 12, 2008 4:51 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: e: Sexual Math: A Small Number of Partners Does Not Add Up to Happiness
Posted by: antonius116
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jasonix on Aug 12, 2008 5:04 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: OK, one opinion heard from
Posted by: Jasonix
» Safer Sex has worked for me.
Posted by: citizengreen
» Me Too
Posted by: Libertine
» Viruses and bacilli are beautiful and natural!
Posted by: morticia
» WRONG - Ever hear of safe sex?
Posted by: sju
» RE: WRONG - Ever hear of safe sex?
Posted by: meeneecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 12, 2008 5:13 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: It depends on the quality of whatever relationship you are in
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: It depends on the quality of whatever relationship you are in
Posted by: Jnutter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: montims on Aug 12, 2008 5:36 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Aug 12, 2008 5:43 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Aug 12, 2008 6:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Aug 12, 2008 6:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: To each his own. There is no sexual calculus
Posted by: whitechocolate
» RE: To each his own. There is no sexual calculus
Posted by: Shey
» RE: To each his own. There is no sexual calculus
Posted by: antonius116
» Antonius, it's because you are an...
Posted by: meeneecat
» RE: Antonius, it's because you are an...
Posted by: antonius116
Comments are closed-
Posted by: premarachel on Aug 12, 2008 6:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wow! what a bunch of cheesy commentators!
Posted by: odie-wan
» RE: Wow! what a bunch of cheesy commentators!
Posted by: whitechocolate
» Wow!! Hurray for you!!
Posted by: janvdb
» GILFs!
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: odie-wan on Aug 12, 2008 7:12 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nfamous on Aug 12, 2008 7:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: mnlefty
» RE: We're all sluts........period
Posted by: antonius116
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Aug 12, 2008 8:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: rickiey
» RE: let's say i am 50 years old
Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: let's say i am 50 years old
Posted by: rickiey
» let's say you are 50 years old
Posted by: donl51
» RE: let's say i am 50 years old
Posted by: mclame01
» Now imagine if a man did that...
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gonnuts on Aug 12, 2008 8:02 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kilgor on Aug 12, 2008 8:32 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A tirade against Bruni.
Posted by: davmills
Comments are closed-
Posted by: littlemanintheboat on Aug 12, 2008 9:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kit_4155 on Aug 12, 2008 10:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Let's not confuse sex with sexual assault
Posted by: jennymac
» RE: Let's not confuse sex with sexual assault
Posted by: Shey
» RE: Let's not confuse sex with sexual assault
Posted by: antonius116
» RE: Let's not confuse sex with sexual assault
Posted by: meeneecat
» RE: Let's not confuse sex with sexual assault
Posted by: antonius116
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mnlefty on Aug 12, 2008 10:24 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: how freaking old are you people?
Posted by: Hovey
» RE: how freaking old are you people?
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tomkara on Aug 12, 2008 10:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jnutter on Aug 12, 2008 12:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EJLima on Aug 12, 2008 12:29 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kerrywessell on Aug 12, 2008 12:22 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: no1kstate on Aug 12, 2008 1:39 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: morticia
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: morticia
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: morticia
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: no1kstate
» Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Parting advice from an experienced Ho:
Posted by: no1kstate
» Uh, like, er....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: You'll probably both be bad in bed
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: Pirate1
» RE: Can't Turn a what? . . .
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Can't Turn a what? . . .
Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: Can't Turn a what? . . .
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Can't Turn a Ho into a . . .
Posted by: wwittman
» RE: Can't Turn a Ho into a . . .
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Can't Turn a Ho into a . . .
Posted by: no1kstate
» RE: Can't Turn a Ho into a . . .
Posted by: meeneecat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Aug 12, 2008 2:56 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we were more natural and open and free about sex, a lot of the fears of disease posted here would be minimalized or eliminated entirely because they would be part of our normal hygiene discourse, like oral hygiene or hair or skin care. It is because we feel we have to hush aspects of our sex lives, keep them hidden out of shame of people "finding out" that we don't learn about symptoms and risks until often the damage is already done.
I doubt if humanity will ever get out from under this shroud, as long as there is a bible and someone compelled enough to find passages condemning sex and a bleating mass that believes such old books are the word of god, there will be someone to believe and condemn, thinking he or she is doing god's work. It would seem to me that if a god created humans with penises and vaginas and the capability for enormous ecstasy through stimulating these gifts to orgasm, why go to all that trouble only to punish and condemn those who use these gifts to the fullest? Guess you need to be a believer to understand hyperbole like that.
I am in what they call my middle years and I meet so many women who did the waiting and being with one person thing only to be left or widowed who then upon opening to love making with me achieve peaks of ecstasy they never dreamed possible... (I'm not taking credit for being some kind of great lover, I'm pretty much over that hill...) these women were just never encouraged before, never shown tenderness... gentleness, patience... makes me wonder how many go through an entire lifetime and never know such joys. Experiences that are our birthright.
I for one say find a compatible partner and get down and enjoy yourselves. We'll all be dead before you know it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RHad on Aug 12, 2008 4:35 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: SLEEPING AROUND IS NOT FEMINISM.
Posted by: wwittman
» RE: SLEEPING AROUND IS NOT FEMINISM.
Posted by: pomes
» RE: SLEEPING AROUND IS NOT FEMINISM.
Posted by: Pirate1
» RE: SLEEPING AROUND IS NOT FEMINISM.
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rclord on Aug 12, 2008 9:42 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And how does this relate to feminism?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: why am I supposed to find this interesting?
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urgelt on Aug 12, 2008 10:29 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the record, I do not assert all feminists are clueless. But the track record of so-called feminists on Alternet is terrible.
Points:
1. Lack of originality. There's nothing new here that hasn't been said a zillion times since the 70's.
2. Lack of depth. How can you talk about promiscuity wihout talking about STDs?
3. Lack of context. Every culture attempts to place controls on sexual expression, and every culture has disincentives for those who do not conform to cultural expectations. Why? In a word, kids. Sex is important because kids, parenting, and associated resource expenditures are important. You can argue that birth control decouples sex and childbirth, and you'd be only partly right. Cultures take a long time to adjust their thinking; ours hasn't made that leap. In fact, ours is, at this very moment, staging a vicious cultural war about birth control and reproductive rights. A serious article about promiscuity might take that into account.
4. Absurdity. The author offers a view of feminism as no-penalty promiscuity. Extending her argument, feminism will have "arrived" when those women who choose to be promiscuous can indulge in their promiscuity without experiencing any cultural sanctions whatsoever. Nobody will object when they treat men as sex objects (yeah, that's a big improvement). They'll never be called "sluts." They can still get the men of their dreams. They can still be taken seriously on those rare occasions when they aren't cuddling between rubber sheets with a stranger. I really hate to break it to the author, but there are literally dozens of more urgent issues affecting empowerment of women: economic justice, education, jobs, safety, health care, child care... Her argument trivializes those issues, and presents feminism as a licentious joke.
Come on, Alternet. Don't waste column space on fluff. Feminism is too important to treat this way.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Feminism is duckspeak from the junior anti-sex league
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Here We Go Again.
Posted by: Shey
Comments are closed-
Posted by: williameon on Aug 13, 2008 6:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What ever you make it or somewhere in
Between!
That's a little ambiguous.
I left my trill on Blueberry Hill.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Daniel35 on Aug 14, 2008 9:59 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, as Bussel says, this is a woman's issue, and I'm male, but I identify as simply a person more than as a man. As far as I'm concerned, "slut" is a compliment, though I use it cautiously (and "The Ethical Slut" is an excellent book). There may have been plenty of lovers who were wrong for her, but many more who would have been right. To me, "love and marriage" don't at all go together.
I feel love is close to the highest human goal, with only happiness maybe being higher. To me, love mainly means enjoying the pleasure of giving pleasure or making another person happy. Thus making love, in whatever mode, is creating 'our' happiness. Intimacy means good communications, in whatever mode. Sex without these meanings of love and intimacy is like talking without saying anything, to hear yourself. I favor creating love and intimacy at every opportunity, with anyone and everyone who's willing, in whatever mode.
"Make love, not babies, and doublely reduce the causes of war."
During sex I'm not necessarily "in the moment", but partly thinking about the greater meaning of it all. Orgasm does get more of my attention.
It's the inhibition on talking about anything sexual that's the main cause of spread of STDs. DNA research show that humans have had various strains of HIV many times in the past and evolved around it (and probably also true with the others). Eventually we'll have to do the same, or continue to spend many billions of dollars to fight it.
If you don't know the difference between having sex and sleeping together, you'd better avoid both.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 14, 2008 12:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was young I liked the virgin just fine but it was the whore who taught me that women are more than either the virgin or the whore. Gimme the whore anyday. Good sex takes two and I'd rather be in bed with a fellow whore with all her experience, bad, good, ugly, nirvana.
The rest of the moron-patrol and sex police can just go stuff locks or stones or whatever they seem to crave in their own groins and mind their own bidness. Humanity is better off without that kinda 'Merkaaner anglo stoopid.
Now if we can just force sterilize the fundie whackos...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blogbooks on Aug 14, 2008 4:06 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: steveced121 on Aug 14, 2008 5:50 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
love. The trouble is, most women don't realize this until their best years have passed them by. Whatever, carry on women, whether you are
17 or 70, don't let the prudes out there brand
you because they don't know how to have fun and
don't want anyone else to have any.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: steve
Posted by: hamburglar
Comments are closed-
Posted by: syvani on Aug 16, 2008 10:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel, KEEP WRITING. WRITE THE STORY EVERY DAY IN EVERY PAPER!!!
V
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How many time should this type of article be written?
Posted by: antonius116
Comments are closed-
Posted by: EMB on Aug 17, 2008 3:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if I'm alone in this experience or if everyone else is lying. By the way, I have never been described as a "slut" and most people actually see me as a prudish sort. Little do they know. I love to make love and feel that it is one of the best ways to get to emotion.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lorenbliss on Aug 19, 2008 5:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Intellectually inclined, objectively analytical leftists (if indeed any survive after six decades of Moron Nation moronation) should not be debating the statistical definition of "slut" -- another absurd variant of the counting of pinhead angels that typifies brains policed to uselessness -- but should instead be questioning what ruling class purpose is served by the attack on sexuality.
The answer, of course, is to be found (like much else under capitalism) in the annals of managerial psychology: the greater the sexual frustration of the working class, the more the working class diverts its obstructed energies into productivity (which includes unquestioned obedience) and acquisitiveness (the addictive element that ensures the working class remains in eternal bondage).
Here of course I have a personal advantage: though a New Yorker by origin, I lived many years in the Bible-thump South -- which was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be a theocracy -- and I long ago recognized the cancer that has fatally metastasized throughout the entire population. (Its first symptom was the hand-in-glove relationship of union-busting and religious revival -- renewed oppression dulled by the back-to-god opiate as has been traditional in the South since slavery -- its sickness now disseminated throughout the U.S.)
McBama or O’Cain, by now it makes no difference: in a realm where 63 percent of the people believe the Bible is literally the word of god, where 85 percent reject evolution (which means Moron Nation is a nation of fundamentalist fanatics whether self-identified or not), liberty is already dead.
Now all the ruling class need do is finalize its victory: the attack against sexuality is a key part of that process. Hence too the specific targeting of female sexuality: womanpower -- especially multiorgasmic womanpower -- is definitively subversive to all the Abrahamic doctrines upon which present-day society is built.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MB56 on Aug 20, 2008 10:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davescott on Aug 21, 2008 5:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: antonius116 on Aug 21, 2008 1:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Case in point: I've never heard a man say "No means no". LOL Also, when was the last time a man was date raped. HA HA!!! (that's probably impossible) Men want sex much more than women do. In fact that's been scientifically proven (but course will be argued ad nauseum) Women are the ones who decide if anybody is getting laid. Period. However, this author seems jaded, almost angry, at the fact that because she can get laid anytime she wants, that because of that she would be considered a slut. That's simply the nature of men and women. For men, it's conquests, and even though the author is empowered because she can sleep with anyone she wants anytime she wants, she doesn't realize that all she is is another knotch in the headboard. Anyway, the last two sentences sum it up:
Some, like Ironside, are happy to cast aspersions, make ridiculous proclamations, and pretend they know best for everyone. If that sounds like you, have at it. I'll be busy doing you know what.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is because SHE CAN. Men don't have the same luxury women possess, and that's simply how it is. Promiscuous women will forever be sluts and promiscuous men will forever be studs. Get over it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: antonius116 on Aug 21, 2008 2:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What about Porn??
Posted by: Black_Maria_2000
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Black_Maria_2000 on Sep 7, 2008 11:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We only indulge maybe once or twice a month, but it keeps things interesting and we've marvelled at how "safe" it can be.
It's not cheating if you both know!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
'Reality' Show Lets You Decide If Women Get Abortions?
Sex Addiction: A B.S. Excuse for Not Thinking
Why Do People Want to Have Sex with the 9-Foot Tall Natives in 'Avatar'?




