Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

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.'

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Rachel Kramer Bussel

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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.

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.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

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 AlterNet! 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: 4    [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: 4    [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: 5    [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]

RE: It is the limiting of sex influence by religion that paints women
Posted by: Jnutter on Aug 12, 2008 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the casting of sex as sin by religion and the lopsided way that guilt is applied primarily to females is flat out wrong. However, I also believe very strongly that the "push back" against this "wrong" is creating an environment where a whole other host of "wrongs" are being lauded as "expressions of freedom". Promiscuity should not be encouraged by society as (if not handled very very carefully) it has a tendency to destroy families, spread disease, and ruin lives. These are real issues, potentially more real and more important than how an individual deals with having a particular label applied to their behaviour... we are all going to have to deal with that at some point, but we should not all have to deal with having our lives smashed to pieces by some ridiculous fantasy "score" number that we somehow feel entitled to. If men and women are taught that they are somehow "missing out" in life if they haven't had at least X number of sexual partners then you can pretty much kiss the family unit and all the benefits it has historically brought to society goodbye... and if you think little boys and girls don't fare better with two parents then you haven't taken a look outside lately.

[« 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
This is all so sad...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Aug 12, 2008 2:56 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We still live under the shadow of those old Puritan forebears who saw sex as a necessary evil we sinners had to undergo in order to procreate... To then spend the rest of our lives atoning and repenting for being such miserable creatures that have to resort to such evil.

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]

SLEEPING AROUND IS NOT FEMINISM.
Posted by: RHad on Aug 12, 2008 4:35 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never has been, never will be.

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

why am I supposed to find this interesting?
Posted by: rclord on Aug 12, 2008 9:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must be really out of it. I don't sit around wondering what number of times a woman sleeps with men is too many, or too little.

And how does this relate to feminism?

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

Here We Go Again.
Posted by: Urgelt on Aug 12, 2008 10:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another Alternet fluff piece by a clueless feminist.

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]

» RE: Here We Go Again. Posted by: Shey
A Large number of Partners also doesn't necessarily add up to Happiness!
Posted by: williameon on Aug 13, 2008 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the answer?
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]

"Love is somethin' if you give it away,...
Posted by: Daniel35 on Aug 14, 2008 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you end up having more."

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]

Merkaans worry entirely too much about sex
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 14, 2008 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the commentors eschewing Rachel's piece are of about the same logic and emotional maturity as Ironside. Anglos are too friggin' worried about sex. It's idiotic.

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]

"if you want to call me a slut, go right ahead"
Posted by: blogbooks on Aug 14, 2008 4:06 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Slut.

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

steve
Posted by: steveced121 on Aug 14, 2008 5:50 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. It's amazing how sexually repressed America is. Women should have all the fun they want to without worrying about what people think. Sex is not always about
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
How many time should this type of article be written?
Posted by: syvani on Aug 16, 2008 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As many as it takes to change the status quo. We as women have a right to not just have sex but ENJOY IT TOO! If it takes 20 partners, 100, men and women, threesomes etc. We should be afforded the same exact cultural liberty that men have.

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]

woman who loves sex
Posted by: EMB on Aug 17, 2008 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many times. So much I lost count after 30. Never contracted a disease or pregnancy and now am faithfull to one man who is rather conservative in bed (missionary and the occasional "turn around" vaginally). I haven't shared my years of experience or my delight at the occasionaly HUGE dicks in my past. Men, size does physically make a difference. It is absolutely incredible when a giant penis totally takes up all the space. However, Love really does change everything. Because of my experience I am able to have great sex (and orgasms all the time!!) with my less than adventurous partner. I love him and for some reason adhere to society's standard of only admitting to maybe 5 or 7 partners, when the truth could be multiplied by ten...
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]

Theocracy in Moron Nation
Posted by: lorenbliss on Aug 19, 2008 5:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, even here on AlterNet, we see the extent to which the United States has regressed to theocracy, leading the civilized world in its hatred -- both official and unofficial -- of human sexuality. Thus the effort to suppress sexuality by shoving it as far under the covers as possible, not deeper into bed but back into re-imprisonment between the covers of the Bible.

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]

I could not agree more
Posted by: MB56 on Aug 20, 2008 10:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always felt as you do. So much of the focus of sexual conservatives is what actually demeans sex and it's human complexity. We live in a terribly confused and conflicted society when it comes to sexual behaviour and relationships--which run the gamit from the mundane to the sublime--from the exploitative to the sacred--and everything in between. Glad there are folks out there like you who are eloquently and honestly expressing the richly diverse dimensions of human sexuality.

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

Straw man?
Posted by: davescott on Aug 21, 2008 5:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there's really a major social obstacle out there to a woman having multiple sex partners in her life, it's sure news to me. You're having an argument with my grandmother. And she's been dead for 18 years. This is an article I'd expect to see in a college or high school newspaper, where me-against-the-world still seems like a provocative subject. You are attacking a straw man.

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

What the author doesn't understand: The Nature of Men and Women
Posted by: antonius116 on Aug 21, 2008 1:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll never understand women who think being promiscuous is NOT grounds for being called a slut, particularly when they call the shots.

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]

What about Porn??
Posted by: antonius116 on Aug 21, 2008 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do female porn stars get paid 100 times more than their male counterparts?? Talk about a double standard. This article sucks.

[« 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
Bedpost notches
Posted by: Black_Maria_2000 on Sep 7, 2008 11:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wife and I used to downplay "notches" before we married (I had over a hundred, she had several dozen) but we stayed faithful for 18 years before we mutually decided on "The Lifestyle" as we approached 50. We now tell each other of our exploits or even watch, on occasion. Then we go home and have GREAT SEX!

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]

  • 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